(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the firing of a practice shell by H.M.S. "Tiger" into Devonport Dockyard, and whether he will give an assurance that immediate action is being taken to make repetition of this incident impossible.

A dummy 6-inch projectile was accidentally fired during material tests of the equipment in H.M.S. "Tiger" on 10th August. One member of the ship's company was slightly grazed, but there were no other casualties.

A full investigation is under way and I assure the hon. Lady that, in the light of the findings, we shall take every possible step to prevent any recurrence of a similar accident.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I am glad to know that there were no severe casualties. May I ask him whether it is possible to ensure that there are better safeguards for this push-button mechanism in future, and whether the findings of the board of inquiry will be made public?

I think that the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question depends on the findings of the inquiry. If there is any step which we can take to add to safety, we shall certainly take it.

On the second part of her supplementary question, we shall publish the main conclusions.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any indicator in these guns to make it clear that they are ready for such a live firing?

Normally there is, if it is working.

I wish to make a brief statement.

This has been an exacting year for Parliament, and I know that the House would wish me to express its thanks to all who have served it so devotedly—the catering staff, the Library, HANSARD, the Parliamentary Press Gallery, the Post Office, the telephone service, the Vote Office, the police, the attendants, the Table, the Officers, the Serjeant at Arms, and the Clerk of the House.

I would especially thank those who, through the day and night, prepare, on the one hand, and print, on the other, the vast documentation without which we could not carry out our work efficiently and who do so with such splendid accuracy. Parliament is truly well served, and I am certain that in saying this I speak for every hon. and right hon. Member.

Hear, hear.

Before I call the first speaker, may I urge hon. Gentlemen to keep to the timetable which I have posted in the Lobbies? We have protected, by yesterday's Order, the full time for the Adjournments today. If, as I understand, there will be an interruption later in the day, I will announce the new times. No Adjournment time will be lost, so I hope that hon. Members who have Adjournments will be fair to each other, and keep to the timetable.

In raising the subject of the work of the Council of Europe, we should start with the realisation that our admission to the Common Market is most unlikely in the near future. But we must not confuse the Common Market with Europe and we must remember that we have an important stake in Europe as a founder member of the Council of Europe. Mr. Toncic, the Austrian Foreign Minister, who is the present Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, described the Council of Europe a month or so ago as

"… the only truly political European organisation."

This is so.

The Council was set up in 1949, at a time when there was acute reaction in Western Europe against the nationalism responsible for two world wars. There was a general, if imprecise, feeling for European unity. Ernest Bevin signed for us on 5th May, 1949.

Its greatest early achievement was to enable Germany to be received as an equal partner into the European family of democratic nations. This paved the way for the more advanced experiments in integration, leading, first to the E.C.S.C. and then to the Common Market. The initiatives for all of these steps were born in the Assembly of the Council of Europe. It was also in Strasbourg that the machinery of the European Convention on Human Rights was elaborated.

It is with some pride that Her Majesty's Government can point to the acceptance, less than a year ago, of the full implication of that Convention, including the right of individual application to the International Commission and the recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. I have referred to 1949; the situation in Europe has changed enormously since then and there are different conditions today. We must take stock of the fact that the Council of Europe is operating in conditions which open up entirely new perspectives.

First, on the Parliamentary side we have the Common Market, on the one hand, and E.F.TA., on the other. At present, there is a complete stagnation in any movement towards integration. This has left the Assembly with a particularly important rôle, because it is the only forum in which Parliamentarians from all democratic countries in Europe meet and debate together. The Assembly includes Parliamentarians not only from the E.F.T.A. and Common Market countries, but also from countries belonging to neither group.

Although most of the member countries are members of N.A.T.O., there are quite a number which are not and there are important neutral countries, such as Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. In the conditions of today their political contribution is very great.

Is Spain a member?

No, Spain is not a member and would not be eligible under the terms of the original Treaty, because of the nature of its Parliamentary system.

In addition to our debates on economic, social, cultural, legal and other matters, the Assembly is the only body to receive regular reports from a whole range of European and world organisations such as the Common Market, E.F.T.A., O.E.C.D. and various United Nations agencies.

The reports are first studied in Committee and then debated in the Assembly. In the case of the Common Market, we hold joint sessions once a year with the European Parliament, which is the Parliament of the Common Market. In that way we debate common problems. Sessions are presided over on alternate days by the President of the European Parliament and the President of the Assembly. The next session will be next month. The Assembly also receives yearly visits from a delegation from the United States. This gives us a full-scale confrontation with European Parliamentary opinion, including neutral opinion, and enables us to have valuable debates on relations between Europe and the United States of America.

I hope very much that Canadians will come in future, because not only will they contribute to our discussions and broaden it to North America, but because the very nature of their delegation would help to disprove the idea, so common on the Continent, that Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, are one solid Auglo-Saxon Protestant bloc. Our Assembly also receives visitors from other countries and Continents. In May, we had U Thant, the Foreign Minister of Chile, and the Foreign Minister of Senegal. Next month we shall have Mr. Tom Mboya, the distinguished African Minister, to see how our European problems look from an African point of view.

These visitors come to Strasbourg because they can explain their point of view to a widely representative European Parliamentary audience and meet a broad section of European parliamentary opinion, I have dealt with the Assembly side of the Council of Europe, but there is the inter-governmental side.

There are about 70 expert committees and sub-committees which meet periodically to harmonise the legislation and practice of the 18 member States in fields such as public health, social, labour, educational, cultural and legal matters. The method they work to chiefly is the drafting of international conventions. There are about 60 of those. The idea of these conventions in most cases originated in the Assembly, as Members of this House who helped to draft them will recall. I was particularly concerned in the early 1950s with the extradition convention which I helped to draft, and which is now the law in many Continental countries.

Over the years these expert activities have evolved in rather a haphazard fashion and it is no longer really certain how directly relevant some of the studies are to closer European unity, which is the ultimate aim. Therefore, last May, the Committee of Ministers took a major step by which it instructed the Secretariat to submit, annually, a draft programme of work. This programming procedure, with which the Assembly is closely associated, should enable the Governments to direct the experts along the lines which it desires and into areas of co-operation where the need is most urgent.

This new machinery offers immense possibilities for identifying the many subjects upon which agreement is possible and arriving at such agreements in due course. It offers an effective area of co-operation, notably with the Six and, in particular, with France. Governments can make far greater use of this instrument, particularly at a time when progress towards, European unity elsewhere is slow. Without being spectacular, it could prepare the way for a time when the enlargement of the Common Market becomes practicable.

There is another point. The non-political nature of many of these activities often renders them suitable for the association of experts from non-member countries, including, in certain instances, the States of Eastern Europe or Spain or Portugal. I wish that the Committee of Ministers would do more on these lines. So far as the Assembly is concerned, I hope that we shall have at our debates from time to time Ministers from these countries of Europe which are not in the Council of Europe and are ineligible for membership.

I have referred to the new horizons which the Assembly has and which are offered to the governmental side and I wish to refer, thirdly, to the Council of Europe in the world context. I have mentioned that U Thant visited the Assembly at Strasbourg in May. He spoke to the Assembly and he had a private meeting with the Committee of Ministers. It was an unprecedented event of undoubted political significance. By coming and speaking to us, the Secretary-General of the United Nations showed that he considered that the Council of Europe was no longer associated, as it had been in 1949 when it was born, with the cold war. On the contrary, U Thant welcomed the increasing contracts with countries of Eastern Europe and recognised that the Council of Europe was now firmly established as a regional organisation whose action was complementary to the world organisation.

U Thant went so far as to hope that in future regional organisations would more and more become the pillars on which the larger structure of world order could be firmly established. He particularly noticed the potential political importance of our Assembly and he appealed to us for help in concerting the action of both organisations, not only in the technical field, but also in the great political problems affecting peace and security.

The Assembly, next month, will be debating U Thant's speech. After the debate, we shall be making recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, who will decide in December what follow-up should be given to the Secretary-General's visit. There are unlikely to be any dramatic decisions—in fact, they are not necessary. The relationship between the Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the Secretariat of the United Nations has become very close under Mr. Peter Smithers' Secretary-Generalship. However, the activities of the Council of Europe will now be able to take on a new dimension. If they help to make the contribution of Europe to the United Nations and world affairs more coherent and responsible, they will have done a real service.

What do I want the Government to do? I want them, first, to work with the other member Governments and use the programme during the transitional phase of the next few years as an instrument for directing intergovernmental co-operation to those areas in which agreement is possible in present circumstances and where it will be most useful in furthering broader European unity. Secondly, I want the Government to support a more effective European presence in the United Nations and to recognise that Europe as such should contribute more consciously to U Thant's efforts to reduce the four main sources of tension in the world, which he analysed as rival political ideologies, the residual problems of colonialism, racial discrimination and, above all, the growing economic disparity between the rich and the poor nations.

Thirdly, I want the Government to work for more technical activities in the work programme of the Council of Europe and to invite the non-member countries of Europe to work with us. We must recognise that these States are part of the European family. Poles, like Spaniards, do not cease to be Europeans merely because their political systems are abhorrent to most of us. In every way, I want the Government to use the Council of Europe as the link with our fellow Europeans. The Common Market is not Europe, E.F.T.A. is not Europe, but the Council of Europe could become Europe, Europe not only of North and South, but Europe of East and West.

My earliest memory is of a German bomb falling on London during the First World War. I see the last two wars in Europe as civil wars and they have convinced me of the stupidity of the nation-state. Before the First World War we were Europeans culturally, but I do not think that anyone here in Britain thought of Britain as part of Europe even geographically, certainly not politically. The First World War changed a lot of that and the Second World War continued the change. Culturally and geographically we are part of Europe, but not yet politically.

When I returned from Africa in 1964, I found Europe divided and I found that one great nation of Europe—France—had become reinfected with nationalism. What a dreadful example we set to the new nations in Africa if we allow ourselves to sink back into this form of tribalism. We are very fortunate in Europe. We have a long and rich civilisation. We have good land, good food, good people, good literature, good music and good laws. We have great advantages, and in return we have duties. One of these duties is to set an example in international co-operation and in learning to live together in peace. In the Council of Europe we have the instrument to achieve all this, and it is up to us to work that instrument.

The House, however thin, will be grateful to the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for introducing this subject today, not least because it is a very long time since we have had a debate on the work of the Council of Europe. I have never been a member of it, although I have had three opportunities of joining in on the Koenigswinter conferences arranged under the auspices of the Englische-Deutsche Gesellschaft, two in Germany and one at Christ Church, Oxford. There is immense value in European politicians of all countries mingling with those who are not politicians, getting together and talking over common problems.

Sometimes, however, we ought to ask ourselves exactly what is the status of those who go out from this House representing the United Kingdom at Strasbourg. I have never been quite clear as to the procedure whereby these hon.

Members are selected, or whom they represent when they go. I hope that they represent themselves and nobody else and I hope that in selecting them a fair crack is given to all those who wish to go and that the selection is not made solely because the "usual channels" happen to regard them as "safe". The more provocative the speaking at these international gatherings can be, the better.

The hon. Member for Kettering referred to his first memory of a German bomb dropping on London. One of my very earliest memories was on 11th November, 1918, when I happened to be walking with my young sister, who was being pushed in a pram, outside Hyde Park Barracks, in which I was due to serve many years later. As I was walking along, a maroon went across the sky and was followed by a deafening explosion. People started to run because we thought that there would be an air raid. By the time we got down to Woolland's, we found that London had gone mad with joy that the First World War was over.

We all know what happened between the two wars. Those of us who were Regular Service men at that time know the appalling neglect of our defences and we all know what ghastly horrors followed as a result of that attempt to get peace on the cheap. I cannot help feeling, however, that had there been a Council of Europe between the two wars, had there been Koenigswinter conferences regularly taking place, we might have avoided some of the awful things that followed from thinking that we could get by too easily and cheaply between the wars.

I am reminded very much of a quotation from an essay by E. M. Forster, in 1935, under the title, "The Menace to Freedom". These are some of the words he used in that essay:

"Politics are based on human nature—even a tyrant is a man, and our freedom is really menaced today because a million years ago Man was born in chains".

He went on to say:

"He has been a coward for centuries, afraid of the universe outside him and of the herd wherein he took refuge. So he cannot, even if he wishes it, be free today."

Forster then refers to the Grecian attempt at individualism, which he dismisses as abortive morally because of the primaeval chains, and says:

"More recently still, Man has dallied with the idea of social conscience, and has disguised the fear of the herd as loyalty towards the group. Only Heaven knows what Man might accomplish alone. That service is perfect freedom, perhaps."

I sometimes think that those words have an application to Britain's approach to international co-operation. I have long believed that politics, above all other things, is about sovereignty, be it individual sovereignty, national sovereignty, or the sovereignty which can be achieved by international co-operation.

I have yet to believe that it has been totally disproved that Britain, as a separate sovereignty, cannot prevail and do great things. That does not mean that we must not co-operate. The existence of the Council of Europe promotes better understanding between nations and I wish it well, but I have always been opposed to any federal concept, even since the days, soon after I first came to the House and when the Labour Party was in power, of the Schuman Plan issue. I have always felt that Lord Attlee, who was then Prime Minister, was perfectly right to set his face against giving carte blanche to a political supranationality; and on a three-line whip on that issue I abstained, and there are still four other Members in the House who did so.

In the endeavour to get into Europe since then I have noticed that there is something of a dichotomy. I have noticed it at Koenigswinter and coming out of the proceedings of the Council of Europe. Some seem more in favour of federation and some more in favour of a looser association, on the de Gaulle design or some other. I have had to take note of the pressures brought by the United States over the years to promote the Federation of Europe immediately after the war. I have never thought that it was wrong for the United States to assume that federation was an excellent plan, because, after all, federation has worked reasonably successfully in the United States, and I suppose that it is understandable that the Americans will automatically think that what goes for the United States would go for other countries. Although I have never accepted that proposition, I have understood why the Americans have made it.

But, moving as we are into very intricate trade agreements with the Kennedy Round—and there is a very discouraging article on this subject in the Financial Times today—the prospects do not seem very happy. They indicate that while we have to keep a close association with our European and our American friends, we must make it clear both in the Council of Europe and in the House that there are still considerable differences about exactly how we should go about making a closer association with Europe.

I hope that the new Foreign Secretary, to whom I wish all possible good fortune in his high office, will give Europe the opportunity of fully digesting, if I may so describe it, the "Brown Windsor soup" which is the first dish of his term of office before he makes too many overtures to Europe. The Foreign Secretary should play himself in before taking any major initiative to take association with Europe a step further. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will bear in mind that the original Treaty of Rome had built into it——

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not widen the debate too far.

I have assumed, I hope not wrongly, that the Council of Europe is yet another means of bringing about the European co-operation which some would like to see ending in or developing into Britain's joining the Common Market, and it is only to that extent that I wish to refer to it and I hope that I shall be in order in doing so.

I hope that it will always be borne in mind that the Treaty of Rome contains an article which makes it quite clear that if any other country joins, not only would it be by the unanimous decision of those already members, but it would also mean that amendments to the Treaty would automatically be assumed to be necessary. Article 237 is the article in question. There has been a good deal of misrepresentation in the past about what the Conservative Party wanted to do on this matter and there is a considerable division of opinion even in the Labour Party, and much of that division of opinion could be avoided if Article 237 were better understood.

I hope that there will be a bigger changeover of the members attending the meetings of the Council of Europe. It tends to become rather too much a closed club. Not only in international dealings of this kind, but in our own country there is a disease which all too easily overtakes those who indulge in these practices. I call the disease "delegationitis". I have always felt that when men and women are delegated to serve on a body, they should always remember that priority must always be given to those who sent them.

The tendency all too often is, be it the National Farmers' Union or a European organisation, for what the delegation has been sent to to become more important than the people who sent the delegates. I have noticed this among European enthusiasts. I hope that we shall get a lot of new blood into these delegations and always keep the closest contact with the people at home whom the delegates are supposed to represent.

I thank the hon. Member for Kettering very much for introducing this subject. I believe him to be quite right to say that the prospects of our joining the Common Market are still comparatively remote and I believe that many changes will have to be made in Europe before it will be safe for us to join.

I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for raising this subject. There is nobody in the House better able to initiate such a debate. As the House knows, he has recently been elected President of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, to which he will bring great distinction, and his speech was fully up to the great office which he now fills.

I was also very interested by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). As I have been a Whip on the Council of Europe delegation for some time, I assure my hon. Friend that all delegates represent themselves. I would also like to say, and I am sure that I shall get an echo of sympathy from the other side of the House, that a Whip on the Council of Europe has even less authority over the delegates than a Whip has over hon. Members in the House of Commons. In view of what has happened over the last week or two, I am sure that any Whips who are present on the other side of the House will have sympathy with that statement.

And abstentions are recorded at the Council of Europe, according to the procedure there.

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, of course.

Today, one hears many suggestions, much advice and many recommendations coming from us and our European friends, but perhaps more from us, to say that many parts of the world would be more stable and better off if they could get together and co-operate more. Many hon. Members constantly suggest that there should be federation, confederation or union of some sort in one or other part of the world and that that would be beneficial for that area.

That seems to be slightly hypocritical on our part since federation, confederation, or some other form of union in Europe seems, from our point of view, as far away as ever, and this is tragic. I cannot help feeling that unless Europe can co-operate much more closely than it is the peace of the world will not be safe,. Only when Europe really buries her ancient feuds and pulls together will we see a more stable, peaceful, happier and more prosperous world. I am, therefore, unashamedly pro-European. Britain is part of Europe and it is absurd to talk about Britain in any other way. As part of Europe, we must help Europe and Europe must help us to forge much closer ties as quickly as possible.

I very much welcome the new Foreign Secretary, because I believe him to be a good European. I trust that, in his new, onerous and responsible office, he will continue to speak loud and clear of the necessity for the closer co-operation of Europe and for Europe to get together through the Common Market. I hope that in his new office he will not become just a rather pale reflection of his master's double-talk voice on the subject of Europe and that——

Order. I hope that the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the subject of the debate, which is the Council of Europe.

With respect, I suggest that Britain's rôle in the Council of Europe will be greatly assisted and that we will find much greater co-operation coming from our friends in that organisation if Her Majesty's Government speak clearly about the desire of Britain to get closer to Europe. That is what I hope the new Foreign Secretary will do and will persuade his boss to do.

I come to a bread and butter point of considerable importance. It is right and proper that Parliamentary delegations to the Assembly should, from time to time, want to entertain each other, and this does happen. The British delegation was recently entertained by the French and German delegations. It would be right and proper for a great country like Britain to return that hospitality in a proper way. However, I have seen signs of a niggling meanness in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

I am not making a party point because this has applied to Governments of both complexions in this country. It is partly due to bureaucracy and to the fact that this House, in certain directions, does not control as much as it should of its own representations. For example, it is not satisfactory that Parliamentarians, should have to turn to Government Departments for a vote for entertainment. It would be more appropriate for there to be a Parliamentary vote, under the control of this sovereign House, for what we, as a body of Parliamentarians, do in entertaining our Parliamentary friends abroad.

I am glad to say that I see signs of Parliament having its own secretariat. It is starting in a very small way and I would like to see it go further, with a Parliamentary vote which would be entirely within the control of Parliament for the use of entertaining and returning the hospitality of our friends abroad. We should not have time-wasting, niggling arguments going on between the leader of our delegation and a Whitehall Department about whether or not we can afford to entertain. This would greatly help both our prestige and our work, not only in the Council of Europe but in Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Parliamentarians' Conference.

My qualification for speaking in this de-Abate is that until two months ago I was vice-chairman of the Council of European National Youth Committees, a body which is composed of 17 national youth committees from Europe and which has very close and successful relations with the Council of Europe. Without wishing to involve Mr. Speaker in the debate, I hope that he will permit me to mention that he was very active in this sphere. This co-operation was brought about by the magnificent work which the Council of Europe has been doing in the Experimental Youth Centre and its out-of-school work and activities. Mr. Speaker knows something of this work.

This side of the work of the Council of Europe is little appreciated or understood in the United Kingdom. I therefore welcome this debate so that attention may be drawn to this aspect. This approach by the Council of Europe, in conjunction with the Senate, is encouraging and is incalcating the right attitudes among young people. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give every support to the Experimental Youth Centre in Strasbourg. I have been there on two occasions and can vouch for its good work.

An aspect which has aroused considerable concern in the Council of European National Youth Committees is the fact that whatever happens on the other side of European co-operation—in relation to the Common Market, and so on—there will always be a need for a body like the Council of Europe. It is wrong to look upon it as a white elephant, because the Council of Europe can, and, I hope, in time will, speak for the whole of Europe.

One of the most interesting things we have been trying to do through the Central Youth Centre and the Council of Europe is to make contact with Eastern and Central Europe on the youth, juridical and trade levels. Already, the Council of Europe has built up impressive contacts and I pay tribute to its General Secretary, a former Member of this House, Mr. Peter Smithers, and to the hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas). We certainly have a British presence in the Council of Europe and we should take advantage of this unique position.

In many other spheres the Council of Europe has made a firm impression, but no more firm than in its activities for youth. I pay tribute to the organisation for the lead it has taken in this sphere and urge Her Majesty's Government to give every support to this side of the Council's work, which is most positive work for the future.

It is significant that the first public statement made by my right hon. Friend the new Foreign Secretary was his declaration before the British public on television last night that he was a good European, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) said.

We are particularly fortunate that this brief debate was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Fretias,) because we wish to extend our hearty congratulations to him on his election as President—I understand that this office carries a three-year term—of the Consultative Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) is now to lead the United Kingdom Delegation.

The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked about the status of those who go to the Council of Europe, and was perfectly correctly informed by his hon. Friend that those going there speak for themselves. They do not speak for the Government of their country nor, directly, for the Parliament of their country, but as members of the Parliament of their country. It is true that they are chosen through the usual channels, but I have just been looking at the list of our present representation and find that we have 18 full representatives and 17 substitute representatives. They are a fairly broadly-based selection. When I say that from our side we have the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that it is a wide and representative group. I would not care to say anything about the representation on the other side, but I have every reason to suppose that it is equally broadly based. I should also like to pay my tribute to our hon. Friends on both sides who work very hard on the Council of Europe—some of whom are present now. They are represented on 11 committees and 21 sub-committees or working parties. We have a number of rapporteurs from the United Kingdom from time to time; in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) is especially active as rapporteur of the very important Political Committee.

Those who go to the Council of Europe speak for themselves, but they give advice to the Council of Ministers—the inter-governmental body—which, in turn makes recommendations to Governments, mostly in the form of international conventions to which Governments are asked to subscribe. The Council also sponsors special meetings of European Ministers concerned with special spheres of activity. For example, Ministers of Justice, or their equivalent, have just been meeting, and we hope that they will come to London in 1968. Ministers of Education and Ministers of Transport all meet together in the general committees of the Council, and I am sure that their deliberations are helpful. I believe that we are also to act as hosts in the very near future to a meeting of local authorities of Europe in October. The representatives meet in a room in this Palace of Westminster.

The main instruments for putting into effect the results of the deliberations of the Council are the conventions. Since the Council's inauguration, some 50 conventions have been adopted, and the United Kingdom has quite a good record in adhering to them and endeavouring to put them into effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has mentioned one that is especially valuable—the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom was the first signatory, in 1951. Very recently we have accepted the optional clauses which, among other things, give petitioners the right of individual direct access. This is rather interesting, perhaps, in relation to our own concern here with a Parliamentary Commissioner or ombudsman for the United Kingdom. When we think of his functions we might look at the other possibilities open to petitioners to the European organisation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security has recently decided that we should ratify the European Act of Social Security. We have one slight minor reservation but, otherwise, we can be in full compliance with that measure.

Others we find a little more difficult. There is, for instance, the European agreement for the abolition of visas for refugees. We cannot go all the way there, but we have decided to waive visa charges for refugees resident in European countries. Another topical matter is that in January, 1965 we signed the European agreement for the prevention of broadcasts from stations outside national territories. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has now brought forward his Marine &c. Broadcasting (Offences) Bill which, when it is passed into law will mean that we shall be able to ratify yet another conventional agreement. All this goes to show that the lengthy deliverations in the Council of Europe—sometimes those who attend feel that they are a little too lengthy—can emerge into conventions which are of real use in drawing the attention of Governments to things that need to be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has drawn attention to the new arrangements that have been made for drawing up a specific work programme to try to bring greater order into the labours of the Council of Europe. I am sure that we would all like to acknowledge the hard work done by a former Member of the House, Mr. Peter Smithers, in trying to make certain that the work of the Council of Europe is effective. We welcome this move to a work programme as a real effort to set up priorities, to define areas where agreement is likely, and to prune activities that are less essential or are being undertaken by other bodies.

If we have any complaint at all it is, perhaps, that the work programme does not go quite far enough. There is always a danger in these organisations of proliferation of committees and diffusion of energy. It means that one must constantly be on guard, and Members themselves should exercise self-discipline, otherwise there can be very grave waste of time and effort—and of expense, I might add, because a very large staff is employed by these bodies, and paid for, of course, by the taxpayers of the various countries concerned.

One has also to guard against the danger of overlapping. There are many international organisations now and, especially in the economic field, there is some slight possibility, to put it no higher, that the Council of Europe may be trying to do things that other bodies are there to do, and can more effectively. Similarly, in the cultural field, one must be on one's guard to keep in mind that admirable as are many of the cultural activities of the Council of Europe, there are other bodies in this sector, such as U.N.E.S.C.O. We must make sure that there is no duplication of activity. The Government therefore warmly welcome the effort to look at this work rationally and constructively by means of a work programme, which is to be debated annually, I understand, at the same time as the Budget.

My hon. Friend spoke of a more effective European presence in the United Nations. I am not quite clear what he meant by that. The United Nations is a very much larger world family, and although the United Kingdom is co-chairman with the French of a group of West Europeans, and others, one should be careful about being too exclusively European in the society of the United Nations——

I was referring to that fact in the context in which we tend to be the rich countries——

reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Prices and Incomes Act 1966.

2. Industrial Development Act 1966.

3. Pier and Harbour Orders (Black-pool Pier and Great Yarmouth New Britannia Pier) Confirmation Act 1966.

4. Whitley Bay Pier Act 1966.

I think at this stage I might announce the times as modified by the interruption. This debate will end at latest at 12.36 p.m. The next one should end at 1.21 p.m., the third at 2.6 p.m., the fourth at six minutes past Three, the fifth at 3.51 p.m. and the sixth at 4.51 p.m. I hope that hon. Members will keep as closely as possible to their times.

I believe the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Frietas) was in the midst of asking a question.

Before the House went to the other place, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out to my hon. Friend that in Europe are concentrated most of the rich countries and, as such, they have a particular duty to the rest of the countries of the world.

I am sure that we would all accept that. It was just that I had some apprehension that my hon. Friend was suggesting some rather more narrow co-ordination of European effort in the United Nations. I am glad to know that I was mistaken.

On another very important aspect of the work which concerns East-West cooperation, we need to exercise a good deal of care and a little caution. I was interested to see that as rapporteur for the appropriate committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North recorded the conclusion of the committee that the Council of Europe should not attempt to open a political dialogue with Eastern Europe, but should provide a channel through which Eastern European countries which so wish can co-operate with member Governments of the Council of Europe in technical, non-political fields. We would entirely agree with that view We are very much in favour of technical and cultural co-operation, wherever this is possible.

On the political plane, although it is quite true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, indicated that things happily are not as difficult as they were when the Council of Europe was inaugurated, nevertheless one should proceed by slow stages. I know that there are discussions, for example, in the Inter-Parliamentary Union on this matter of co-operation between Parliamentarians of Eastern and Western Europe. This is all to the good. There have been discussions also in other quarters.

One should be clear that, in its present form, the Assembly of the Council of Europe is a constructive, deliberative forum. The last thing any of us would want would be to turn it into a battlefield where one would feel obliged to concentrate one's energies on firing propaganda shots. We do not want that to happen. On the other hand, we recognise that, happily, there is some easing of tension between East and West Europe, and we would certainly be very much interested to see what results from any considerations that are given to this problem.

I repeat that on the cultural side and on the technical side there are a number of ways in which very fruitful co-operation between Eastern and Western Europe may very well be encouraged.

There was one small point which was made with great force by the hon. Member for Leicester, South East on, as he called it, the bread-and-butter issue. Perhaps he was thinking of rather more elaborate food and drink. We will have another look at this, but the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that the present time is not perhaps the most auspicious for suggesting greater expenditure on entertainment or on other things. However, I take his point and we will have a look at it.

It is also the mechanics of the thing, not just sums of money.

We have taken the hon. Gentleman's point. We will have a look at it, but as I am sure he will appreciate, without any sort of commitment.

As you, Mr. Speaker, rightly reminded us, this debate is primarily about the Council of Europe rather than about the Common Market. We should welcome it because it is about the Council of Europe. Other opportunities for discussing the Common Market arise in the course of our deliberations, but it is seldom that we have a chance to discuss the Council of Europe.

Nevertheless, we cannot discuss the Council of Europe without having in our minds the wider considerations. Valuable as the work of the Council of Europe is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs pointed out in his speech to the Socialist International Conference in Stockholm last May, we must recognise that the various co-operative activities carried out by different organisations, of which the Council of Europe is a very important one, are not a substitute for the wider European community for which we are working; because for Europe, I think, whether we are supranationalists, or whether we take a different view of the best association for Europe, most of us feel that an association is our ultimate aim. We are all Europeans in that sense.

Meanwhile, while the very real difficulties which have to be overcome before that ultimate aim can be realised are being worked on, there is no doubt that the opportunities provided by the Council of Europe for Members of Parliament to work together and to obtain closer understanding of the forms of government and patterns of thought in their countries should not be neglected. They should be encouraged. They should be nurtured.

We are grateful to those of our colleagues in the House who do this and we wish them well. We are very grateful to have had this chance of expressing the very warm interest of the Government in their labours.

Some time ago at one of my constituency nights, which you, Sir, as a Member of Parliament know Members call their "surgeries", a man came in and told me that he did not think I could help him but that he wanted to unburden himself: he said that he felt like shooting someone because of the frustrations and the gross inefficiency of the General Post Office. I sympathised with him and told him that he was preaching to the converted. I have no desire to bring a gun into the Chamber, and the last person I should want to shoot is the Assistant Postmaster-General, who is respected by all and held in affectionate terms; but it is a serious problem.

I should also like, Mr. Speaker, if I were not out of order, to express my gratitude to you. A short while ago, Sir, you expressed the gratitude of the House for the hard work of its servants. There was one notable omission which you yourself could not include. That, Sir, was your own hard work, unfailing courtesy, friendship and help to all Members. I am sure that all Members of the House will agree with that. To that you have added the foresight and understanding of allowing me a few minutes to bring before the House a very important subject.

I want to raise the question of the postal delivery service, of which there is evidence of real deterioration. I am worried that it is now to be put on the same footing as the nationalised industries, and I tremble for its future. That is the only party political reference that I shall make on this subject, because hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned to see that we should have a good postal delivery service.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, from time to time I receive complaints from my constituents. I send them to the Postmaster-General. I usually, in common with my colleagues, get a long explanatory letter and the usual pro forma of apology. I am satisfied that there are many inefficiencies in the postal delivery service today. In the few minutes accorded to me, I want to enumerate some of them from my own experience.

I get them from my constituents and I follow them up, but if I use the factual case of my own personal complaints I feel that that would be a better example.

I suppose that I can be called the Department's best customer for complaints over the years. I have here a dossier of a few of my complaints and the courteous letters from the Postmasters-General or Assistant Postmasters-General over various years with apologies for inefficiencies. If I, a Member of Parliament, cannot get these mistakes rectified, what hope has the man in the street and my constituents of getting their mistakes rectified? I am genuinely concerned for the future of the service, for I believe that it is living on its reputation of former years, when it was a fine and responsible Crown service, a proud service.

Before the war, I could go down to the General Post Office in my own town in the North of England up until 10.30 in the morning and post a communication, even a newspaper, with the knowledge that it would be delivered in the suburbs that same afternoon at about 4 o'clock. Nothing like that can happen now so many years after the war. My home is about 23 miles from the centre of London. I have much important correspondence at the weekend when, as a journalist, I send copy to Fleet Street. There is a letterbox outside my gate, and I am perhaps fortunate in that, but like all boxes in all areas it has only one collection on a Sunday—mine is at a quarter to three o'clock. I have to phone Fleet Street every Monday morning to see if my copy has covered the 23 miles, and every other week it has not arrived.

I have discovered that the Eastern sorting area is about the worst in the country, but it is not always the sorters who are at fault. Twice in the past three months, to my knowledge, the box has not been opened and cleared. This is a heinous fault. It is a Post Office crime when a pillarbox is not opened, particularly on a Sunday. I invariably phone the Postmaster-General's private office, and then my copy sometimes arrives in Fleet Street on the Monday afternoon. But on the 9th May, when the copy did not arrive but reached Fleet Street on the Tuesday, I took the matter up again with the private office and—I am not criticising the private office, because the Postmaster-General must accept responsibility—I received a letter telling me:

"Despite intensive inquiries, we have not been able to discover any posting box in your area which was not collected according to schedule on Sunday afternoon."

I was told:

"It seems, therefore, that your letter missed collection."

The inference was that I had missed the post. I had certainly missed the boat.

When the same thing happened a fortnight ago and my copy was delivered in Fleet Street on Tuesday—and this time important mail to my constituency and to the Church Assembly was also delayed—I went into action and found that on this occasion and on the previous occasion the box had not been cleared. On the first occasion, of which the private office of the Postmaster-General had no knowledge, the door of the box had stuck and the engineers had not gone there until the Monday morning. On the second occasion I was told in a letter from the local head postmaster:

"I am extremely sorry to inform you that the delay occurred at the Rickmansworth office and was due to the collector failing to clear the box in which the letters were posted. Very serious notice has been taken of this omission, and disciplinary action has been taken against the officer concerned. Special steps have also been taken to try to obviate such a failure in the future. Please accept my sincere apologies for the annoyance which you have suffered and for your time which was unnecessarily taken up as a result of the failure on our part to fulfil our obligations."

That is a handsome apology, and if it were an isolated incident honour would be satisfied, but I cannot believe that these are isolated incidents. These are my own personal experiences and I am satisfied that they are the experiences of others who perhaps do not complain or do not have the opportunity to complain.

I had to spend the best part of that Monday trying to find where my letters were and had to pay for fourteen telephone calls. That came to only about 3s., but why should I spend my time and money on Post Office inefficiencies? Until a couple of years ago, because I did not trust the service, I brought my journalistic copy here to the House and for 2s. I could have a special messenger who went the distance of less than a mile to Fleet Street. But now the charge for that small service has gone up to 6s. and I do not feel disposed to pay that to have a letter delivered less than three-quarters of a mile. The charge should be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board.

If these incidents were isolated, one could accept the excuses—but never on a Sunday. If a mistake is made on a week day, and one collection is inadvertently missed when there are four collections, at 8 o'clock, midday, 3 o'clock, and half-past 5 o'clock, there are the other collections, but not on Sunday. When there is only one collection there is an added responsibility to see that it is made, because it is the only one of a monopoly service.

I was told that a check is made the following day on the little time tabs in the box to see that there has been no mistake and that the postman would report if there were a mistake. But dog does not bite dog and I tried it out on the dog, metaphorically speaking, when I asked the postman on the round if he had looked at the pillarbox to see if the time had been changed and he replied, "Sir, I have not the slightest idea."

The position in regard to incoming mail is just as bad. Mine varies considerably, taking from one to four days for communications that sometimes come from only a few miles away. Regularly my letters posted on Friday in the north of England—Leeds, Bradford, Harrogate and other parts—and often from lesser distances, are not delivered until Monday. I shall be told that there is is no second delivery on Saturday, and I am well aware of that. But why? I have often sought the answer in the past and when I have raised that question in the House I have always been told that it is to suit the convenience of the postmen and their service. The convenience of the customer, the user, is ignored. I have raised the question on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I am a vice-president, but I have received no satisfaction. Most businesses have a five-day week, but there are others. What about them, and what about private residents?

I maintain that there are extra responsibilities to see that all Friday collections are cleared and delivered on the Saturday, even the newspapers, printed matter and larger envelopes which are so often pushed aside until a later post. A year ago, following a series of my complaints to the Postmaster-General, my mail was surveyed for a month at his request and almost every day I had to return to the local postmaster a series of envelopes on which small stick-on labels had been placed because of postal delay.

One would have thought that this would produce some improvement, but only this week I received a letter from North London, only 23 miles away, which took three days to reach me. It was correctly stamped and correctly addressed, but it had obviously been mis-sorted, according to a frank on the reverse side of the envelope, but that date was two days later than the original postmark. When a sorting mistake has obviously been made there is an added responsibility on the service, for its own good name, to try to rectify the mistake of one of its public servants, by speeding up the redelivery. Consciousness of extra responsibilities seems to have gone today, and not only in the postal services. It is part of the malaise of our times.

At the last General Election some of my election literature from the Central Office took up to lour days to reach my house, and some of the thousands of my election addresses handed in to the Post Office ten days before the General Election had not been delivered in some parts of my constituency by election day. I put a question to the Postmaster-General at that time, and he replied that his information was that they had been delivered on the day before the election. To my knowledge, there were some not delivered until after election day. This is another case in which there was added responsibility on the Department to see that delivery was made in reasonable time.

So I could go on, but I have asked for this debate so that the Minister may give the House an idea of what is being done to streamline the service in this half of the twentieth century. I want to be helpful. I am well aware of the labour shortage and of the unfilled posts. I am aware also that some of the recruits, unhappily, do not measure up to standard. But I do not want the Minister to quote figures to show that, perhaps, only one letter in 30 million goes astray. I do not believe it. I do not want him to tell me that 0·001 per cent. of complaints are justified. I do not believe it.

I am certain mat there are thousands who accept this situation of mis-sorting, late deliveries and so on and who do not report complaints. Figures, therefore, cannot show the true position.

What of the remedies? Turning to practical constructive thought, I suggest mat there is scope for an organisation and methods team in the Post Office. I understand that something like it has been tried. There is opportunity for much greater mechanisation in the Department. Nowadays, we could call in aid greater mechanisation to improve the efficiency of the service, or even to bring it back to the standard it showed in pre-war years. What progress has mechanisation made in the Department?

Above all, we need a system of priorities. I suggest that letters with a special stamp—perhaps 6d., though I should prefer it to remain at the existing 4d.—and/or a special size envelope should qualify for priority with as near possible a guarantee that such mail would be delivered the next day. Perhaps the urgent alarm colour of red could be used if it does not conflict with the international agreement on colours which we use. All other mail should be charged at 3d.—or, if the 6d. stamp were used for the one, 4d. would be the second charge—and this mail would normally be delivered the next day, though not guaranteed.

I once asked whether we could have a system of that kind at Christmas time when so many millions of letters and communications go through the post and are concentrated in a period of a few days. I have found from my experience that some of the more important and fully stamped mail was being delivered within two or three days and cards were often delivered with fantastic speed, Christmas greeting cards being delivered literally within a few hours of posting. I have felt that there was something wrong in a system of priorities which allowed important letters to be pushed aside while the cards were got out of the way, no doubt by the temporary postmen.

I understand that the authorities are to consider such a scheme. I hope that they will treat it as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, the existing charge for postal delivery will remain nothing more than a fraud. Only a short time ago, I put a Question to the Postmaster-General to ask whether, in view of the deterioration in the service, he would reduce the cost of postage. He gave the simple, short answer "No, Sir", and put the letter charge up to 4d.

I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will not tell me that the answer is the express delivery service. It is not. Very often, express letters arrive after ordinary mail. I am glad that, every Friday, I receive my Whip from the Opposition Whips' Office and it always comes at the first post. But when we were in Government and there was occasion to send it by express post and the blue cross was put on the envelope, it did not arrive at the first post but arrived by special messenger at mid-morning. The express delivery service is not the answer.

I could say a good deal more, but I want to hear the Minister's reply. I have been critical, but my criticism is of the service and not of the individual. In common with others, I want to improve the service. I apologise for the time I have taken, and I conclude by paying tribute, as you have done, Mr. Speaker, to those who serve us in the House, and, in the context of my remarks this morning, I add my tribute to the postmen of my own area, the three regulars, who are friends of the family and a joy to my young children. They are never failing in their work and their carefulness, and no fault can be laid at their door. I pay tribute to the staff in the Palace. We are fortunate in the House in the service which we receive and the never-failing courtesy of the Post Office staff. Here is the service at its best. I want this to be the rule rather than the exception.

I want to see an efficient postal service, a service not living on its record but proving its essential value in a modern and appreciative society.

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that deliveries also are being made later in the day in some parts? In Wembley they are as late as 10.30 in the morning.

I agree that this is all part of the deterioration in the system. Although I have concentrated on facts within my own personal experience, I agree that some deliveries are getting later, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will make some comment about that.

Although I have been critical, I do not wish to end on an unduly critical note. I realise that this is a wonderful service. It has been a wonderful Crown service with a wonderful record. Its servants have been proud to work in it. I want to see that standard developed and improved to even greater efficiency.

The House has heard me say on previous occasions that the Post Office does not shrink from genuine criticism of its services, and I am glad to have this opportunity of another searching look into the quality of the postal services. The hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus) has, I know, taken a keen interest in the postal services in his constituency and has gone to much trouble to bring failures and shortcomings in those services to our notice from time to time. I am pleased that he has taken so much interest, and I think it quite right that he should be so keen to have as speedy and reliable a postal delivery service as possible, not merely for himself but for his constituency and the country as a whole. We are just as keen and are fully determined to give such a service.

But when we consider the failings of the Post Office, let us look at them in their right perspective. The Post Office handles about 35 million letters and parcels on a normal weekday and there is bound to be a small percentage of mistakes arising from human fallibility, transport difficulties and other causes, including the weather. By all means let us know when things go wrong—this is what the hon. Gentleman has tried to do—but I do suggest that in assessing the quality of the postal services we should measure the good against the bad. If we do so, in all fairness, I am sure that the House will see a much more favourable picture than that just described by the hon. and gallant Member.

The Post Office is presented with a formidable organisational task. Most fully paid letters are posted up and down the country in the late afternoon and early evening, despite our constant attempts to get the public to post earlier in the day, and the Post Office sets out, virtually within a span of about 12 hours, to collect these letters into sorting offices; to divide them into convenient groups for despatch direct to their delivery points or through some intermediate office; to convey them the length and breadth of the British Isles; and finally to sort them ready for the postmen to take out on their rounds. Considering how much is involved in all this, it is, surely, no mean achievement to deliver as we do some 90 per cent. of all fully paid letters on the day of posting or the next working day.

But what are the problems? I think that they can be put under three main heads. First, our stint cannot be fixed as a foreseen thing, for we do not know in advance precisely how much correspondence we shall have to deal with on any one day—and there are substantial variations in the number of letters posted day by day. Second, it is essential to have enough staff in the sorting offices to cope with these varying quantities of mail. Third, there must be reliable transport services.

Variations in the amount of work on hand present real problems. Of course we do our best to ensure that there is always enough staff available to handle these varying quantities; but there are occasions when through sheer weight of mail posted, the number of letters for treatment is beyond the capacity—I make no apologies for this—of the staff on duty to handle in the time available. On those occasions some letters are not cleared at the proper time.

The problem faces us twice every day: work peaks occur in the evening and again in the early morning. The pressures on the organisation at these times are such that there are occasional failures despite all that we do to try to prevent them.

Moreover, we have to reckon with the individual human error. Every letter has to be separately handled an average of at least six times from the time it is posted by the sender until the time it is delivered to the addressee. Every occasion of handling is a potential opportunity for human error.

Further, much of the work is done in the late evening and early morning, and it is not easy to ensure that we always have enough staff to cope with the work during these unusual working hours. I had a long experience before I became a Member of Parliament of having to get up at I or 2 o'clock in the morning and proceed to work.

Now the hon. Gentleman works till that time in the morning.

Yes, we have a long working day here.

If a postman fails to turn up at 6 a.m. because of illness or some other reason, someone else has to be found quickly to take on his delivery and this is not always possible especially when there is a general shortage of staff. In any case substitutes will usually take longer to prepare the letters for delivery and to deliver them than the regular postman. Thus delays in delivery on such occasions are sometimes inevitable. Similarly in the late evening and during the night, it is just not possible always to find men to stand in for their absent colleagues, and this gives rise to failures to clear all the correspondence on hand.

As Post Office Ministers have said in the House on a number of occasions, we have been suffering from an acute shortage of staff in the London area for some time and this has increased the difficulties. We are even now, in London alone, in need of 1,000 postmen to bring the postal establishment up to strength.

But despite these conditions we know that, while the quality of service has not always been as good as we should have liked, it has certainly been maintained at a high level; more than that, we have every confidence that it will become even better still when the overall staff position improves.

The need for reliable transport services is self-evident. We are grateful to British Railways for the facilities they provide. But our timetables leave little margin for error. Every connection missed—whether it be because of the late running of a particular service or whether it arises from a mistake on the part of our staff in loading mails—can lead to mail failing to reach its destination at the proper time. When this happens the mail very likely falls into a later delivery than the one it is due to get.

The hon. Member's criticisms mostly fall under one or more of these heads. I have already had correspondence with him on matters of the kind he has mentioned in the House today. While there have been some instances where I have been unable to explain just why the normal delivery was not maintained, we have established the causes of the others as being due to one or more of these factors.

Where our services do not work as they should do we are very much prepared to spend effort, and money if necessary, in putting matters right. For this reason, I can assure the hon. Member and the House that we shall always make prompt and thorough investigation into any cases of delay affecting himself or his constituents. I believe that we have a right to do this. It is our responsibility.

The hon. Member says that the services are not what they were. Of course they are not. They have had to be trimmed from time to time over the years since the war to meet the increasing need for economy of expenditure in both money and manpower. This has not just happened over the last two years. We are in fact still in the process of making the changes announced in the House on 2nd August, 1965. These changes, which in general are designed to reduce costs and improve labour utilisation, will mean slightly later finishing times for the first delivery and the consolidation of the number of letter deliveries in the London sub-districts to two on Monday to Friday; there is to be one delivery only throughout London on Saturday. These changes require a great deal of detailed preparatory work, and in consequence have yet to be introduced in some areas, including part of the hon. Member's constituency.

The hon. Member referred to the cancellation of the second delivery on Saturdays and the Post Office's obligation to deliver fully paid items posted in good time on Friday by first post on Saturday morning. I would wish to assure the hon. Member that our arrangements are designed to give this service. I am satisfied that in general we achieve the objective and that wherever there are failures from causes within human control we do our best to ensure that the trouble is eliminated.

Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to see to his correspondence in the Chamber.

To make another delivery on Saturday would not, however, be the right answer to the problem. It would be too costly, and it would mean pushing the postmen's conditions of employment out of line with those in broadly comparable jobs.

I am sorry that the hon. Member has twice had occasion recently to complain about letters posted on a Sunday not being delivered on the following morning. The trouble was traced to a failure to clear a pillar box near his home. I am sure these were isolated cases. One was due to human failure, and suitable disciplinary action has been taken. But in general we get very little complaint about boxes not being cleared when they should be. For example, in the Rickmansworth area where the hon. Gentleman lives there are 83 pillar boxes, and during the course of any one week the number of clearances totals 1,777. So far as we know there have been but two complaints in the past year about failures to clear the boxes in this area. But it is no excuse that they have not been cleared. I want to see them all cleared.

If a collection is missed on an ordinary day when there are four collections, that is too bad but it can be made up, but it is different when the Post Office misses a collection on Sunday. On the day when there is only one collection, there is an added responsibility on the Post Office to ensure that the collection is made.

Every course is taken to see that those in the service carry out their responsibilities and ensure that these boxes are all cleared. That is their job and we expect them to do it. I feel sure that the hon. Member will be generous enough to agree that, while failure to clear does occur on occasion, the overall record of clearance reflects an extremely high standard of efficiency. However, I agree that clearance should be 100 per cent. and I am grateful for the interest the hon. Gentleman has shown in the question of ensuring that all boxes are cleared at the proper times.

Each box has on it a tablet indicating the time of the next collection. When the box is cleared, the tablet is changed to indicate the next collection time. This work is supervised by patrolling officers. Detailed checks of letter box clearances have been tried in the past but have been shown to be unnecessary because failures to make proper clearances are very rare indeed in practice. We would not be justified, therefore, in asking postmen to certify that they have duly cleared each box. We have 100,000 boxes and most have to be cleared several times a day.

The hon. Gentleman referred to election addresses. We have all been in the position of preparing election addresses and getting them posted to the electorate in time for a general election. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the arrangements at the last general election.

The delivery of election addresses, as has been admitted, imposed a very heavy burden on all our offices and particularly those in London, where staff shortages made for difficulties in handling even the ordinary mail. The postmen staff worked loyally and diligently in order to ensure that the election communications of all candidates were delivered in good time. The election addresses in Wembley, North were all delivered by polling day, though a few for a very small number of streets in one particular delivery area were not delivered until the day before. This was due quite simply to staff shortages.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned arrangements at Christmas. We are very much alive to the need to ensure as far as practicable that the Christmas pressure causes the minimum interruption and delay to the handling of business and other fully paid correspondence. Therefore, while I am afraid that it would not be practicable to adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we are looking urgently at the question of having a first and second priority letter service and we shall certainly bear all these points in mind.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to mechanisation of the postal services. This is where the Post Office can claim to be amongst the world's leaders. Last autumn we held an impressive exhibition in London of automatic letter handling equipment developed by Post Office engineers assisted by British industry. It was visited by service representatives and Ministers of 22 overseas Governments and only the other day a Minister of a major European country here on a visit remarked that our parcel sorting and some of our other equipment was better than anything available in his own country. Our mechanisation programme is getting into its stride. Progress with installation is necessarily governed by the rate at which we can put up new buildings to accommodate it but these are going ahead and in the next few years we shall begin to reap considerable benefits in costs and manpower from developments which have taken place.

The hon. Gentleman made passing reference to work study and said that the Post Office is in need of organisation and methods treatment. But we have not been neglecting this important feature of management. Organisation and methods units have operated in the Post Office for many years and more recently special organisations have been set up for the application of modern management techniques such as work study and operational research to the postal services. In addition we have on occasion called in outside help to make special studies of our problems and at present the McKinsey Company is carrying out a fundamental and wide review of the postal services to see how they can be made more productive and more profitable. That is, indeed, what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do.

I am grateful for the opportunity of replying to the hon. Gentleman in this debate but I would not like to leave the impression that we are in any way complacent or even satisfied with our achievements in the Post Office. We are not. We recognise that the quality of the postal service, although high, is not good enough and that there is room for improvement. But I do not accept that the service is going downhill.

The complaints we get from the public generally do not suggest that it is going downhill. We get our share of complaints and we are glad to have them because they help in identifying and removing causes of failure. But, over all, they are of small dimensions in relation to the 11½ thousand million letters that pass through the post every year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am grateful for his criticisms and for the attention of the House but I assure the House that we shall spare no effort to put things right within the service as a whole wherever they may go wrong. That is our objective. That is the purpose of my right hon. Friend and the Post Office in general.

We now discuss the affairs of a very small and very distant Colony, British Honduras. I could wish for no better Minister to reply than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He has a long record as a doughty champion of colonial peoples and he and I together fought many battles in the 1950s on subjects of this kind. Thus, I am glad that he is to reply for the Colonial Office—or the Commonwealth Office as it is now—rather than perhaps someone from the Foreign Office, because there has been much activity in the darker purlieus of the Foreign Office in this matter and one might have expected to have some slight evasion from the Foreign Office. I shall do my best, but I must say that I am encouraged by the reply that my hon. Friend gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

We are now in the twilight of what was called the Empire and are encountering anachronistic survivals. Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands; I will not say that Senegal lays claim to Gambia, but certainly Spain lays vociferous claim to Gibraltar. Here, in British Honduras, we have this small territory of under 9,000 sq. miles—about the size of Surrey—with a population of 90,000, the size of the population of York. I believe that British Honduras not only wishes, but deserves, like any other Colony, such as Gambia, Mauritius or any other, to have independence within the Commonwealth.

But if we listen to people who have come back from there, or if we read reputable newspapers like The Scotsman, The Times or the Daily Telegraph, we are somewhat disturbed. The Scotsman, on 16th July, reported the following about the territory and the political conditions there. The report was headed "'Sellout' in Honduras" and said:

"Prime Minister George Price of British Honduras is authoritatively reported to be losing support even in the ranks of his own People's United Party as a result of the disclosure of secret proposals on the colony's future by the Opposition National Independence Party. The proposals relate to the longstanding Guatemalan claim over British Honduras territory."

On 2nd August, The Scotsman reported:

"The United States Government have offered large-scale economic aid to British Honduras if she accepts the Webster proposals on her future. This set of proposals was drawn up by U.S. Attorney Bethnel Webster on a request by Britain, Honduras and Guatemala, Honduras' neighbour, to President Johnson.

Webster's plan is as yet unpublished. But it is known that under it Guatemala would receive a share in the responsibility for the defence, foreign and internal policy"

of British Honduras after independence, which is expected in 1968.

I come now to the economics of British Honduras, because if the Colony can stand on its own feet it has a better chance of withstanding any overtures by its neighbour. I have mentioned that it has a population of 90,000, whereas Guatemala has a population of more than 4 million. The population of Honduras has so mixed an ethnic basis that the people cannot be separated, whereas next door well over half are pure Indian, descendants of the Aztecs and Toltecs of days past.

I come now to finance. I will translate Honduras dollars into sterling. In 1963, imports were a little over £7 million and exports were £4½ million, so that Honduras is wilting on that basis. The major exports are sugar, timber and citrus fruits, as opposed to Guatemala's almost monoculture of coffee. Honduras is not so steady with its public finance; so that by economic or technical aid, and by investment by British firms like Tate and Lyle, Honduras somehow has to get a more solid economic footing if it is to have a happy political future.

Honduras not only has a better administration than Guatemala, but a much more honest bureaucracy and local government. I cannot give the education figures for Guatemala, but in Honduras there are about 26,000 pupils in elementary schools and slightly more than 2,000 in secondary schools; opposed to this more than seven in 10 persons in Guatemala are illiterate. I am sad to find that only 34 students in Honduras are training to be teachers, which does not say too much for the future secondary education set-up.

I turn now to the political parties, where all the battle is taking place. The impetus to their formation was mainly the devaluation of the British Honduras dollar in 1949, which had the effect of raising the cost of living because Honduras is mainly dependent on American imports. A Labour movement was founded about that time, perhaps a little earlier; and it has a newspaper which is most scurrilous, perhaps libellous. This is called the Belize Billboard, which has to be seen to be believed. I have seen the West African Pilot in Z.I.G.'s days, but it is nothing as compared with the Billboard, which is edited by Philip Goldson, an old friend of mine. He is the Leader of the Opposition and has a place, with one other member of his party, in the Legislative Assembly in Belize. The largest party of all is the P.U.P., the People's United Party, which is led by Mr. George Price and which has 16 of the 18 members in the Legislative Council. In 1956, there was founded the Honduran Independent Party, a breakaway party, and which now has two of the 18 members and which is led by Mr. Philip Goldson, as I have said.

Mr. George Price, who is the Premier of this Colony, has for many years been a controversial figure, mainly because of his sympathies with Guatemala; and yet he is on record as having said, in 1957 and again this year, that he rejects any claim by any Government other than the British Government to sovereignty over British Honduras. In the past, he has declined to have anything to do with any plan for the incorporation of British Honduras in any other country. He has affirmed and reaffirmed the loyalty of the Assembly and its allegiance to the Crown.

By 1959, all parties were claiming that their policy was to seek self-government within the Commonwealth and at the constitutional talks in London in 1960 both the P.U.P. and the N.I.P. made a declaration totally rejecting the claims of the Guatemalan Government to any sovereignty over British Honduras.

The Guatemalans go back to a distant treaty to substantiate their claims, as do people similarly elsewhere, like Gibraltar. There was an Anglo-Guatemalan Treaty in 1859 under which we offered to build a road from Guatemala to the Atlantic coast. Much of the tangle and the motives behind all the dispute are due to the fact that while Guatemala has a large Pacific coast, it has a very small Atlantic seaboard. It is my surmise that the American Government would like Guatemala to have a larger Atlantic seaboard to make it easier for them to survey any Castroite or pro-Castroite guerrilla movements in Guatemala, for instance, on the United Fruit and banana plantations.

We have done a little road building. We built a road west of Belize to the Guatemalan border and we have built another road to the south to a place called Stann Creek, not very far away.

The top and bottom of the matter is that, like Spain with Gibraltar and like the Argentine with the Falklands, Guatemala does not acknowledge the existence of British Honduras. The Guatemalas say that this is part of the old Spanish territory and that they are the legitimate successors of the Spaniards and that this is, therefore, Belize State, or the Belize Province of Guatemala.

I do not much care for the political state of Guatemala. There have been some inspired revolutions over the past 10 or 14 years, some would say inspired by the C.I.A. in Washington. Gentlemen with names like President Guzman have gone down and Colonel Armas has come up. Colonel Peralta, the self-designated head of Government, agreed to elections on 6th March when Dr. Julio Montenegro emerged, the head of the army candidates. On 5th May, Congress endorsed his election and I should add with some diffidence that he did not have the clear majority needed by the Constitution.

Politics and violence are closely interconnected in the whole of this Central American peninsula. There have been student uprisings and organised Castroite guerrilla righting has continued. On 27th May, this year, the Leader of the Democrat Party in opposition, Dr. Menendes was kidnapped and has not yet been found, so The Times tells me.

For any political party in Guatemala to state that possession of Belize is one of its main objects, is always a winner in Guatemalan politics. In 1963, Guatemala broke off relations with us, shortly after the Peralta Government seized power. The United States has always kept a nervous watch on Guatemalan affairs. The Scotsman of 16th July said that American aid to the tune of 100 million dollars had been given to assist Guatemalans reforms, but on 20th July The Times reported the abduction and murder by the Gautemalan secret police of 28 Communist leaders before the elections.

In the context of all this, I for one—and I hope that my hon. Friend will echo this—do not think that the political and social and economic situation in Guatemala tempts any of us to agree to any association between the two States.

Now I come to the crisis at the moment. The Daily Telegraph, on 20th June, talked of a secret deal between the United Kingdom and Guatemala. This has been denied by politicians here and in Guatemala. The reports are said to be based on the publication of a plan drafted by Mr. Bethune Webster, who is the American arbitrator. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us what these proposals are, because there certainly are some proposals, known to the American, the United Kingdom, and to the Guatemalan Governments. Apparently this plan visualises a limited independence for Honduras in 1968, involving Guatemala taking over our share of defence and foreign policy for the Colonies. This has been denied by the Foreign Office.

The independence issue is a long and protracted tale. At the moment, the People's United Party has 16 of the 18 seats, and it is undoubtedly expecting independence in 1968. The Opposition, the National Independence Party, want independence within the Commonwealth and in 1968.

On 27th June of this year, after a leak by the Opposition about the alleged contents of these proposals, a curfew was imposed in Belize following attacks upon the radio station and the Guatemalan Consulate. There is no doubt that the violence and demonstrations were caused by the natural upswelling of anger and opposition by Honduras people against these proposals, which caused them to fear for their future. Whether Mr. Philip Goldson has leaked these proposals, after he had received them in confidence, I do not know. They were in his newspaper, the Belize Billboard.

The record of the Premier of British Honduras, Mr. George Price, does not suggest that he would be an implacable enemy to the integration of Honduras with Guatemala. This public outburst, and I believe that it was spontaneous, on 27th June, was clear evidence that union with Guatemala is not acceptable to the politically articulate and politically educated in Belize. It is admitted that well over 1,000 people attacked the Consulate and the radio station. Gold-son may be liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. He is distorting the facts, but in voicing concern about this he is, in my view, skilfully exploiting Honduran public opinion, as he is entitled to do if he feels that there is genuine concern among the electors of British Honduras against this projected take over.

Jamaica and Trinidad have publicly expressed their view that after independence they hope that British Honduras will be an independent state within the Commonwealth, within some West Indian Federation. The economic situation in Honduras is improving. Tourists, mainly from America, are adding to its income. Sugar, citrus and timber are also important dollar earners. I understand, and the Under-Secretary can perhaps confirm this, that Tate and Lyle are putting in a £7 million investment scheme. This is very important for the unskilled workers of the Colony.

The fears of the people are based upon three points. It is generally believed that the Premier, Mr. Price, plans to join Guatemala. The radio station will only broadcast material which is favourable to Guatemala and of which he approves. Apparently we have the old, old tale in the Civil Service that only supporters of the P.U.P. can get jobs. The national day has been renamed "dia de la inde-pendencia", although Spanish is not the official language, and this is a British Colony.

The British Foreign Office has said that no settlement will be entered into without the full knowledge and approval of the British Honduras Government. There is some ambiguity here. We have had Parliamentary Answers on the subject on 28th June, 11th July, 12th July and 18th July. Is it meant by this phrase that the Government, of Mr. Price, with his 16 members will be consulted, or do we mean that the people should determine this by plebiscite or a referendum, or some such means? I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us the answer to this.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question yesterday, the Under-Secretary said:

"I am glad to give that assurance. We shall consult the wishes of British Honduras before any final arrangement is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,11th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1855.]

Does this mean that the Government or the people will be consulted? Can we have a definition? The people of British Honduras argue that by race, language and religion, the Guatemalans belong to a totally different tradition. Guatemala is feudal, with an archaic land-holding system, and widespread peasant unrest.

British Honduras, on the other hand, is a British Colony, well-administered, with a peaceful population and an honest bureaucracy. Perhaps some see independence within the Commonwealth as meaning greater ties with the Caribbean, Jamaica, Barbados and the like, while others may see the future of British Honduras as an independent country, participating fully in Central American regional affairs. But union with Guatemala, which seems to be imminent to some people, is seen as an intolerably backward step by virtually everyone.

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for raising the problems of the last remaining dependent territory on the American mainland for which we are responsible. He has established a reputation for himself in this House as an expert on our evolving territories and it is no exception to his usual contributions that on this occasion he has brought to this debate not only a great deal of humanity and interest in the population of British Honduras, but also a great deal of background information.

I want to take this occasion of dealing with some of the points which my hon.

Friend has raised. British Honduras has had a connection with Britain which goes back over the last 300 years. It became a Crown Colony in 1871 and it has made steady progress in the constitutional field. In 1954, a new Constitution introduced adult suffrage, an Assembly and a semi-ministerial system.

After changes in 1960 a full ministerial system and a First Minister were introduced. The present Constitution was agreed at a conference held in London in 1963 and provides for full internal administration. This Constitution came into force in January, 1964, and the last stages of its implementation took place following the elections in March, 1965, when the Senate was established and replaced the nominated members in the Assembly, which is now called the House of Representatives. As is usual at this stage of constitutional development, the Governor remains responsible for foreign relations, defence and internal security; he also has certain responsibilities for financial questions.

My hon. Friend asked about the future constitution of British Honduras, and he referred particularly to the activities of Mr. Webster, who has been acting on behalf of the United States as the mediator in the dispute with Guatemala. I should like to put on record our appreciation of the work of Mr. Webster. He is a mediator. He is not involved in arbitration, which was the term used by my hon. Friend.

It was recognised at the time of the 1963 Constitutional Conference that independence was a natural and legitimate aspiration for the people of British Honduras, and both the political parties have declared themselves in favour of eventual independence within the Commonwealth. There is, therefore, no dispute about that. We stand ready to consider any proposals which may be put forward to achieve independence. Membership of the Commonwealth is a matter for collective decision by the existing members and will have to be raised with them in due course.

With regard to the mediation being carried out now, I think that it would be unwise for us to publish these proposals before there has been full consideration by all those concerned. We must try to reach an honourable and final solution to this dispute, and, although there have appeared some inaccurate reports about the mediation, it would be unwise for us to attempt to go into the detail of Mr. Webster's proposals because that could prejudice the consideration of his report. The allegations which have been made are wholly unwarranted, but I do not want to attempt to give the details of the proposals as we must await the decision of the mediator.

There is no question of this dispute with Guatemala being settled on any basis which is not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras itself. As I said yesterday—and my hon. Friend quoted my words—we will take steps to ensure that the wishes of British Honduras are consulted. We will at the apropriate time ask the Government of British Honduras how they would wish this consultation to be carried out. It is in the general interest, not only of ourselves and British Honduras, but of Guatemala, that this dispute should be settled in an honourable fashion. It is our aim throughout to achieve this. The resolution of the dispute will make further constitutional advance easier.

My hon. Friend referred to the country's economic position. I confirm what he said: the economic position is improving. The Tate and Lyle development to which he referred, costing about £7 million, will be a very important factor. But a country of this size with a budget of less than £3 million a year is faced with a tremendous problem in maintaining all the services which are required. However, I am glad to say that in recent years the revenue has been buoyant, and, as was forecast three years ago, we see no reason why the country should not be able to balance its recurrent budget in 1967 without financial help from the United Kingdom.

I should like to pay full tribute to the Premier and the Ministers of British Honduras for the way in which they have managed their financial affairs. Their determination to end the need for recurrent assistance is highlighted by the introduction at the beginning of this year of taxation measures designed to increase the revenue by over £250,000. They have a great many problems. They are committed to the construction of a capital to be sited about 50 miles inland, which is well out of the danger of flooding caused by the hurricanes. This will take a large share of their development resources. The development of the airport, which is essential if this country is to remain on the main air routes and is to take advantage of the development of tourism, will cost an enormous amount of money.

But the United Kingdom aid to British Honduras has been substantial. During the period 1959–68, we expect to provide nearly £11¾ million. This is equivalent to about £12 per head in each of the last ten years. The budgetary aid will have taken nearly £2 million of this. Over £3¾ million was to make good the devastation caused by Hurricane Hattie in October, 1961. I am glad to say that the territory has made a good recovery from this disaster. Colonial development and welfare assistance in this period will total nearly £4½ million. We have also undertaken to provide £1½ million towards the cost of the capital. In addition, there are sums which British Honduras has agreed to find from its territorial colonial development and welfare allocation.

Until comparatively recently, British Honduras was very largely dependent on its forest resources. More recently, the aim has been to change the emphasis to agricultural production not only for export but also to make the territory more self-sufficient in food. The production of rice, for example, has significantly increased, while it is hoped that the expansion of cattle ranching will shortly enable an export trade in meat to be developed. Citrus, planting also has seen a considerable expansion. I have already referred to the sugar developments.

While much will depend on the prices obtainable for these products in world markets, prospects for the future are by no means unencouraging. Land is available for development and there is considerable scope for private investment. The British Honduras authorities will welcome foreign investment and will provide financial incentives for the establishment of new industries. They hope, too, that they may enjoy some of the benefits of the fantastic growth in tourism in the Caribbean, and the development of the airport to which I referred will certainly assist that.

We therefore look forward to British Honduras moving ahead. We hope that the mediation being conducted by Mr. Webster will be successful and that no handicap will be placed in the way of British Honduras achieving her rightful place in the world.

Would my hon. Friend define further what he means by saying that we shall consult the wishes of British Honduras? Am I to understand that we shall at a given time in future, after the publication of the Webster proposals, consult the Government in Belize about the methods by which they will determine the will of British Honduras?

That is a correct interpretation of what I said.

Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me now to start the next Adjournment debate?

indicated assent.

I had hoped that some of my hon. Friends would be here to support me. If I am a little slow in the early part of my speech, I hope that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I wish to raise the question of the operation of closed shop policies in local authority departments, with particular reference to problems resulting from a rigid and disastrous policy being put into operation by the Socialist council in the city of Sheffield. My observations will, therefore, include a summary of what has happened in this city as a result of resolutions put forward by the city council within the last 12 to 13 months and the disastrous outcome of the policies resulting from these resolutions.

First, I ventilate this problem in the House—a problem which is essentially a local issue as a result of policies strongly opposed by Conservative aldermen and councillors in the city council—not to debate again detailed issues which are the concern of the local council but because there is a need for the nation, through the House of Commons, to clarify the principles on closed shop employment policy by local authorities and the powers which city councillors are asked to exercise.

I wish to make it clear that I do not believe that the central Government should interfere with the autonomy of local government and, therefore, that in this instance, as in any other instance, the central Government should not dictate to the Sheffield City Council what action to take. Hon. Members on this side will support the view of the former Minister of Housing, given in a Parliamentary Answer not long ago, that it is not his intention to interfere with the operation of local government.

Why, therefore, have I, as a Member of Parliament, involved myself in a wrangle which is taking place on the City Council of Sheffield? First, letters have been written by the general public to Members of Parliament. A letter resulting from articles in the Yorkshire Post was sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who then asked me what steps I had taken to help Conservative members on the city council. Other letters from constituents, friends and acquaintances who are familiar with Sheffield and local politics asked me what I, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, was doing about it. It has been inevitable, therefore, that during the past few months there has been close collaboration and discussion between Conservative aldermen and councillors and the Conservative Member of Parliament.

It is well known that owing to a recent series of unfortunate accidents I am the only Conservative Member of Parliament in the City of Sheffield and, for that matter, the only Conservative Member of Parliament in a large area of South Yorkshire and the West Riding. I have been fully into this whole case and the problems resulting from these policies and I have extracted leading newspaper articles, mainly from the Sheffield Morning Telegraph and the Sheffield Star. From this information and discussions with councillors, I was prompted on 19th July to ask certain Questions in the House. I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government

"how many county, borough and urban councils are now operating closed shop policies"

and

"whether he will inquire into the machinery of county, borough and urban councils for enforcing closed shop policies".

The Minister replied that

"There is a well established tradition that local authorities should be left to manage their staff employment matters without interference from me",

and this we have to accept. The right hon. Gentleman also drew my attention to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.

I was grateful for that information and I asked a series of supplementary questions about the operation of closed shop policies in local government. I asked:

"Is it right that trade union members who are also councillors should sit on a committee and decide whether an individual should get the sack? Is it also right that the decision of such a committee should result in an individual having without justification to hand back payments to a benevolent society as an alternative to a union subscription?"

The Minister replied:

"Having said that I will not interfere, I shall not do so by commenting on the hon. Gentleman's question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,19th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 366–7.]

The Minister went on to answer the other issues, but at no time was he willing to express a firm view.

Subsequently, the Minister wrote to me on 3rd August and said:

"I am not prepared to interfere in this matter It is for the electorate to decide whether or not they agree with the action taken by the council in their name. They have the means to secure that any councillors who have failed to represent their views are not re-elected"

That is a challenge. That paragraph invites a hotly-contested municipal election in the city next May, largely because of the new ward boundaries. Unless this fiasco is resolved, I believe that the Socialists in Sheffield local government will be in for a shock. The Minister also stated:

"On the question of a possible change in the law concerning the operation of closed shop policies, I must ask you to await the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, which has this subject within its terms of reference."

It is natural that before embarking on the situation in Sheffield, we in this House must fully understand the position of the closed shop. I am grateful for the help that I have had from the Industrial Society. In addition, I have found a book, "The Closed Shop in Britain", by Dr. W. E. J. McCarthy, published by Blackwells, of Oxford, to be a most valuable work of reference in helping me to clear my mind as to the operation of the closed shop policy and the extent to which it has advertently—or, may I put it, inadvertently—been accepted as normal practice in many industries.

Reference is made to that book in the written evidence of the Ministry of Labour to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and I think that it will interest the House if I dig into that evidence and refer to it. Some of the evidence is interesting. It estimates that 3¾ million workers, or about 16 per cent. of employees in Great Britain, are affected by the closed shop. For employees who are trade unionists, the figure is higher: two out of every five are employed in closed shops. The proportion of the labour force affected by the closed shop varies from about 26 per cent. in manufacturing and extractive industry and 22 per cent. in transport to 10 per cent. in distribution.

Dr. McCarthy explains, however, that what is meant is not that it is impossible for a non-unionist to remain within certain select trades, although the great majority would find it impossible to remain outside a union for any length of time and that the amount of non-unionism is very small. He states that it is accepted that if a worker declines to belong to a trade union where there is a closed shop, normally he will not be taken into employment or he will be dismissed from employment. I have had to bear this conclusion in mind.

In a situation where an employer has not agreed to a closed shop and declines to dismiss a non-union member, he may be brought under pressure to do so by a strike of his other workers. What is most interesting is the questions which the Ministry of Labour evidence goes on to ask. For example, is it reasonable that trade union membership should be made a condition of employment? Is it reasonable that trade unions should seek agreement with employers to this end? Is it reasonable that unions should use the strike weapon to force employers to make such agreements?

The Ministry of Labour evidence, which I have had to bear in mind, goes on to state that, on the other hand, a more practical approach to the whole problem might be to recognise the importance of the closed shop to the unions and the justification for it and to provide, where it is established, safeguards for the individual. I stress "safeguards for the individual".

Four cases are enumerated in which safeguards for the individual are required. The first is when workers have a conscientious reason for not belonging to a trade union. My view is that the definition of "conscientious objection" should be wide and not narrow. The second type of case is when workers, although willing to belong to a trade union, are refused admission to it or are expelled from it reasonably. The third case is when there are irregularities in the conduct of affairs of the union operating a closed shop, and the fourth is when a closed shop is introduced in an establishment where there is not already 100 per cent. union membership. There is a case, as the evidence states, that existing employees who are non-unionists should continue to have freedom of choice and that the requirement of trade union membership should be extended to new employees only. Paragraph 57 of the evidence finally states:

"It seems desirable in any case that employers should encourage their workers to join trade unions as is done in the Civil Service."

I come back to the point that existing employees who are non-unionists should have freedom of choice and that the requirement of trade union membership should be extended to new employees only. While evidence was being given to the Royal Commission, this last safeguard has been deliberately and arrogantly disregarded and ignored by the Sheffield City Council. That is why I have brought the matter to the House.

In the evidence to the Royal Commission, reference is made to the advantages of employers collecting membership subscriptions by deduction from wages. This is in the evidence. It is the check off to trade unions.

We have some useful outside comments. In a leader in The Times, written by The Times labour correspondent on 20th April, 1965 reference is made to this book:

"The first comprehensive study of the trade union closed shop in Britain has reached the conclusion that while capable of misuse it is justified".

Alan Fox, in New Society on 16th December, 1965 referred to this book by McCarthy and particularly to the "discharge of existing non-unionists on the job who refuse to join, and he suggested that such a discharge might be prohibited".

Recently in the House I attended an all-party meeting on industrial relations which was addressed by representatives from the United States of America. I am grateful to the Library of the United States Information Services for sending me information on the Canter decision on the illegality of the closed shop. It is taken from "Labour Law Legislation" by Mueller and Myers published in 1962. But Section 14(b) of the National Labour Relations Act, 1947, reads:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorising the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labour organisation as a condition of employment in any state or territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by state or territorial law.''

I have tried to obtain outside information. I have tried to obtain information about the attitude of the Association of Municipal Corporations and my informant tells me that the question of the closed shop in local authorities has not been discussed by that body since 1946 The recommendation of that body then was that

"the interests of local authorities and their staffs are best served by individual officers joining their appropriate organisations it being understood that the organisation he joins is a matter for the unfettered judgment of the individual officer."

In my view the A.M.C. should be much more informative and knowledgeable about the operation of the closed shop in local authorities, and I take this oppor-might well be put on their agenda at tunity of suggesting that this matter some suitable meeting in the near future and that Sheffield be a case study to be studied.

Examples of attempting to force a closed shop have occurred in the recent years in the West Riding County Council, Lambeth Borough Council, Greenwich Council, Crayford Council and Islington Borough Council. If the imposition of the closed shop by councils is successful in respect of manual workers and similar employees, this is by no means the case with professional workers. There is the case of the teachers in Durham in 1952 and subsequently the advertisement for the post of medical officer of health in Fulham, which have been drawn to my attention.

If I may reach a conclusion, what is interesting is that Socialist-controlled local authorities attempted to apply the closed shop when there was a Socialist Government in office in the period 1945–52. It is also fair to say that closed shop policies have not been pursued so energetically recently. If the Minister has evidence to prove to the contrary, I should like to hear it. It is strange that one year after the re-election of a Socialist Government the Sheffield Socialist City Council should once more attempt to impose a closed shop policy.

The Conservative Party has always made its views very clear. In the evidence to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions this year it stated:

"We are in favour of 100 per cent. trade unionism but we feel this must be achieved on a basis of recruitment and example. We are utterly opposed to make trade union membership a condition of employment, i.e. the closed shop. We regard this as an abuse of elementary human rights."

In 1946 the late Mr. Arthur Deakin said:

"You must apply discretion to establish 100 per cent. organisation."

In April, 1959 the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, Leader of the Socialist Opposition, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that he did not approve of people being sent to Coventry for not joining a trade union. He said,

"I do not approve of trying to bring about a closed shop by any means except persuasion."

In July, 1959, the Manchester Guardian quoted Mr. Frank Cousins—he was not then the right hon. Member for Nuneaton so I use his name—as saying at the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union at Douglas that the executive believed in organising towards 100 per cent. membership but in establishing it by conviction and not by compulsion.

There have been debates in the House about it, and I refer immediately to the Trades Disputes Act which was passed following the Rookes v. Barnard case. On the Report stage my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) moved a number of Amendments which he said were intended to remove the provision making it legal for someone to try to compel another person to join or remain a member of a trade union or employers' association.

When he wound up the debate on this series of Amendments the Minister of Labour—and I am quoting from The Times—said that the whole argument had been about the closed shop. He had made his position clear on that, he said; he had always taken the view that trade unions were voluntary bodies and it was far better for them to build up their membership by voluntary means. The Minister of Labour said that the closed shop, with all its complications, was precisely the sort of problem which needed to be studied by the Royal Commission and that to try to legislate for it without having the benefit of such study was like trying to read without learning the alphabet.

As reported in column 195 of HANSARD of 10th November, 1965, the Minister of Labour said,

"I am not advocating a closed shop. I have never advocated a closed shop."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,10th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 195.]

I am taking it a little out of context because he was then referring to men not in unions, not bound by collective agreements, benefiting from union membership. As reported in column 1019 of the report of the debate on the Trade Disputes Act, he referred to the closed shop as causing unnecessary hardship for individuals. There were Questions and debates in the House in 1960 on the case of N.A.L.G.O. in Salford. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) raised it in connection with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. There have been other instances.

I have discussed the merits and demerits of a rigid or less rigid closed shop policy with hon. Members opposite and many trade unionists, and most sensible trade union leaders reflect the philosophy of the Minister of Labour.

I will try to collate my own views. I think that it is fair in the context of industrial relations in industry to say that requests for a closed shop are less likely to arise if management is already taking the line of encouraging trade union membership. I have been a manager of a non-union shop, as I have told the House, and I admit that the absence of members of a trade union probably accounted for one of the fastest technological breakthroughs in the industry with which I was concerned at the time, about ten years ago. But I also say that there are advantages in having a union shop, which ultimately arose in that firm.

My own view at present is that there is even a case to support some modified and more tolerant closed shop policy but that it will have to be looked at and studied very carefully as a result of any report by the Royal Commission. It could be that it is right that all new starters should be told that trade union membership is one of the conditions of employment in a company, but it could be equally right that if management wished to run a non-union shop in a free society, then the conditions of employment could prohibit membership of a trade union in a free society. It is right that existing employees who are not union members should, in the event of an agreement to have a closed shop, be encouraged to join but they should be allowed to remain non-members if they cannot be so persuaded to join a union. I believe that it is right that genuine conscientious, religious and other similar objectors should be excused from joining a trade union where a closed shop policy prevails. There is the argument that those who contribute to a trade union provide benefits for those who do not contribute to the trade union and, in such instances, a contribution to charity as an alternative in my view is right.

Having clarified my own mind and, I hope, helped the House on the principles, and bearing in mind that nationally those principles have still to be deliberated on by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, I now find that in the middle of all this uncertainty and controversy the Socialist Council of Sheffield have declared a rigid closed shop policy in the City. What folly to do this at a time when there is so much uncertainty about the closed shop policy and when this situation is being looked into by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions.

What has happened in Sheffield? On 4th August, 1965, a resolution was debated in the city council, and I will outline some of its main points. It stated:

"… all appointments of officers or servants made by the Corporation shall be subject to a condition that each such officer or servant shall be required to join such a union not later than 14 days after taking up duties".

The resolution also stated:

"… each officer or servant in the employment of the Corporation shall be required to join such a union and thereafter continue in membership thereof."

An exception was to be made in the case of employees who belonged to religious organisations which did not allow their members to join trade unions, in addition to certain other cases to be determined from time to time by the establishment committee.

This establishment committee, a subcommittee of the city council, met on various occasions to discuss whether people who did not wish to join a trade union on conscientious or other grounds should or should not be sacked. Is it right that a council, let alone an establishment committee which consists of trade unionists who are councillors, should judge whether people should be sacked or kept on because they do not wish to join a trade union? This is going on in Sheffield—in this city in a country which is supposed to enjoy a free society. Further, the resolution stated:

"… no action should be taken in relation to the above except on the written representation, to the Town Clerk, of a trade union or other body claiming to be an appropriate trade union".

Various cases have arisen and, to the best of my knowledge, the first concerned five Sheffield firemen last January. I understand that the second, the following May, concerned two men in the Sheffield Transport Department and one in the water department.

Arising from this, it appears that one individual, Mr. Kenneth Platts, wrote to a Conservative councillor pointing out that he was a non-union member of the city transport department. If I recount in detail the case of Mr. Platts it is because I have looked into this case personally, although the other cases which have been dealt with by the Conservative councillors on the city council are, I am sure, equally relevant and important. I have sent to the Minister of Housing and Local Government a complete report on this case, including all the relevant newspaper cuttings dealing with the closed-shop policy in Sheffield. Most of the cuttings come from the Sheffield Star and Sheffield Telegraph but also from other local newspapers. I also tried to contact the Parliamentary Secretary this morning and I am sure that he will have had the advantage of taking note of this survey.

Shortly after the debate on the Resolution to which I have referred, in September 1965 there was correspondence between Mr. Platts and the Secretary of the Sheffield Branch of the Transport and General Workers Union and, in a concluding paragraph of one letter, the Secretary, a Mr. Cox, clearly stated that he would accept contributions to a convalescent home in lieu of membership subscriptions to that union. I sent a copy of the this letter to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. As the result of a suggestion at a city council meeting, Mr. Cox is reported in the Sheffield Telegraph in May to have decided that these contributions were no longer acceptable. They were returned to Mr. Platts by his shop steward without explanation. There was not so much as a "thank you very much". No reason whatever was given and I remind the House that the contributions to a convalescent home—a benevolent contribution as an alternative—had been accepted in terms of the evidence put by the Ministry of Labour to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions.

In Sheffield the position is even more confusing because of the close alliance between the Sheffield Trade and Labour Council and the Socialist Party and it accounts for the fact that many trade union officials ultimately become Socialist councillors on the Sheffield City Council.

It is impossible to describe in detail the convulsions that have taken place on the city council in Sheffield in the last few months, but the leader of Sheffield's Labour-controlled Council, Alderman Ronald Iremonger, is reported in the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers on 3rd August as having come to the conclusion that the closed shop policy was wrong. The whole question was reviewed in a useful article by Michael Crouch in the Sheffield Telegraph on 2nd August, in which he began by stating:

"The operation of Sheffield Corporation's closed shop policy, the largest of its kind in Britain, has become a farce."

The leading officials in the city's Labour movement are beginning to recognise this fact. There was a very heated debate in the city council on 3rd August, when it was decided that all action under Sheffield's closed shop policy was to be suspended pending a review of its operation. However, the leader of the Conservative Opposition, had a broadcast or television interview with the Socialist Leader, Alderman Iremonger, and there is a feeling among the Conservative Opposition there that Alderman Iremonger had modified his view that it was wrong, and it is suspected as put to me by certain councillors that he had been nobbled by the co-called Sheffield Trades and Labour Council. This is the way in which Labour-controlled local government is being operated under Socialism.

Despite all these events, there has been a catastrophe and tragedy going on in Sheffield because it has been decided that the latest decision should be delayed. Employees who have been part-time and full-time workers and who have not wanted to join a trade union have received notices of dismissal and, in particular, Mr. Kenneth Platts, a conductor—who, incidentally, is not a constituent of mine but of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom), who has asked to be excused from attending the House this morning—has also been dismissed.

I spoke to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, who told me that if Mr. Platts approached him he would be pleased to hear his case. However, the hon. Gentleman is an official of a trade union and Mr. Platts may reasonably feel reluctant to approach his M.P. When I met Mr. Platts last weekend he showed me a notice signed by the General Manager of the Sheffield Transport Department. Dated 1st August, it stated:

"In accordance with the conditions relating to your employment, therefore, I have to give you four weeks' notice to terminate your employment as a conductor on 29th August, 1966. If, at the end of this period of notice, you join an appropriate trade union and thereafter continue in membership thereof, you will be offered re-employment with the Corporation".

Mr. Platts has served the Sheffield Corporation as a conductor for about 20 years and has carried out his duties efficiently and well. There has been a non-contributory pension scheme and he asked me last weekend what would be the position of his pension—earned, remember, over 20 years. Inquiries at this stage are being made to ascertain the position, but I have been given an authoritative statement which leads me to believe that a pension which would have amounted to about 30s. a week on Mr. Platts reaching the age of 65 will be denied him because of his dismissal. Thus, I understand that he will receive no pension for his 20 years' service and no compensation for his dismissal. Is this right and does the Parliamentary Secretary approve of such a situation?

Having given these details, I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer a number of questions of which I have given him notice. Is he satisfied with the standards and conditions of employment, particularly in regard to pension arrangements, existing in local authorities? Is he satisfied that they meet the standards set in the Contracts of Employment Act, a Conservative Measure, which we debated at considerable length? Does he approve or disapprove of the circumstances in which an employee of a transport department is entitled to neither pension rights nor compensation in the circumstances I have described, and will he do something about it?

During a debate in the city council, Conservative councillors were accused by certain Labour councillors of inciting a strike and attempting to disrupt the public transport services of the city. What does this incitement mean? Does it mean that certain councillors will now prevail upon certain shop stewards in the Sheffield Transport Department to stir up trouble? I have a better opinion of the attitude and judgment of the employees of that department, and I hope that they show more sympathy for a colleague summarily dismissed after twenty years' service, and a man who has offered to pay the equivalent of his union dues to a charity—a gesture which presumably would have had the backing of the Ministry of Labour.

I hope that such organisations as the Society for Individual Freedom and even the New Daily which has recently circulated to Members of Parliament will look into this situation. In the absence of members of these organisations, it would seem that those who are fighting for their own rights as individuals in society have not been able to turn to their Members of Parliament, where these have been Socialist Members of Parliament, but have to turn to Conservative aldermen, Conservative councillors and, of course, myself as a Conservative M.P. in the area.

It was in 1947 that I made my first political speech, on. the Conservative industrial charter, about the rights and dignity of the individual in industry. It occurs to me that the dignity of the individual has been totally disregarded by a Socialist council under a Socialist Government.

Does the Minister of Housing approve or disapprove of the operation of closed-shop policies by Socialist councils? I do not want any weak reference to not interfering; we want to know what the Minister's attitude is. The Minister of Labour has been bold enough to let us know what his attitude is, and his Department has given very clear evidence that a closed-shop policy is not approved without safeguards—safeguards that have been ignored in this case by the Socialist Sheffield City Council.

Is the Minister of Housing and Local Government satisfied with the pension arrangements and conditions of employment in local authority departments? Can he give any indication of how closed-shop policies operate in other local authorities? Is he aware that an opinion now would be of great value to the Sheffield City Council, where there is conflict between trade unionists and non-trade unionists, and convulsions within the Socialist majority party? Good advice now would be very valuable.

Does the Minister approve or disapprove of these circumstances? Does he approve or disapprove of a committee consisting of trade unionists amongst other councillors deciding whether or not an employee be sacked for not joining a union? Is not this an abominable imposition in a free society that these political convulsions are going on which have resulted in dismissals of those not willing to join the trade union? Does he approve or disapprove of the fact that there is forfeiture of pension rights, and no compensation?

The first debate when Parliament reassembles will be on the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner. Is not this one of those issues which make a Parliamentary Commissioner so essential—an issue resulting from the fact that in many parts of the country we have Socialist councils operating under a Socialist Government? Does the Minister of Housing and Local Government approve or disapprove of the fact that the Sheffield City Council has declared a closed-shop policy when the whole subject is being reviewed by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Organisations?

Will the Minister use his good influence to ameliorate the hardship of those who are the victims of Socialist policy and muddle in the Sheffield City Council? Will he see representatives of the party in power in the city council and ensure that they do change their mind before the next council meeting? I am certain that, if this situation has not been satisfactorily dealt with meantime, it will be one of the first tasks which the Parliamentary Commissioner will have to face if the relevant Measure becomes law.

In the meantime, I, as a local city Member of Parliament, and Conservative aldermen and councillors, will be providing a case history of this ghastly fiasco for the Royal Commission, carrying out the advice of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in July.

But, in the final issue, I would quote the words of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in his letter addressed to me:

"It is for the electorate to decide whether or not they agree with the action taken by the council in their name and they have the means to secure that any councillors who have failed to represent their views are not re-elected."

I have tried as fairly as possible to represent the dilemma facing Sheffield. I recognise that many Socialist councillors have had severe qualms of conscience as to what is the right thing to do in the circumstances, bearing in mind that loyalties to the trade unions they represent can conflict with loyalties to other people, but I believe it is right that the electorate should be aware of the dilemma that is facing the city council in Sheffield, and particularly the majority Socialist party there.

I ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene with advice and guidance, so that these councillors may reach a right decision and ameliorate what in my view is an unjustified hardship.

We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for the thoroughness with which he has discussed this important and controversial subject of the closed shop, which has engaged our attention a good deal during the past two or three years. The present Minister of Labour has expressed himself on a number of occasions in very forthright terms about the practice of insisting on trade union membership. As a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Trade Disputes Bill, I referred to the closed shop, which was highly relevant to that Bill, on more than one occasion. On every such occasion the Minister of Labour expressed his disapproval of the practice.

The trouble is—and, of course, speaking on the Adjournment we are concerned with administration—that these declarations of principle, so often reaffirmed, do not seem to have been carried forward into the realm of action and influence of Her Majesty's Ministers. I appreciate my hon. Friend's hope in raising this subject today, but I do not think that it is a very bright hope. On the other hand, having known the Parliamentary Secretary for a long time, I am not without hope for him; he has his flashes, and it may be that today will be one of his better days and that he will say that he will advise the Minister of Housing and Local Government to do something about this case. I am afraid, however, that the Minister of Labour has contented himself with forthright declarations.

The whole policy of the Government on this subject of the closed shop must cause us the gravest disquiet. Many such issues of trade union policy have been referred to the Royal Commission. I was never in favour of the appointment of that Royal Commission, though I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were. I regarded it as something too slow in its operation to be helpful to us nowadays, when events proceed as such a pace. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself referred to it as a body which would take minutes and waste years. That is exactly what is happening.

Far from doing anything about it, the Minister of Labour introduced the Trade Disputes Bill, now an Act, which arose out of the case of Rookes v. Barnard. That case went to the House of Lords. It was concerned with the operation of the closed shop. It was a straightforward case of a man being dismissed, just as was the man mentioned by my hon. Friend, for no other reason than that he was not a member of a trade union. He had been, but he resigned. Then the other workers banded together to exercise threats on the management and the management weakly dismissed them and the case of Rookes v. Barnard followed.

What I understand is happening in Sheffield, although, of course, I have not the local knowledge which my hon. Friend has, is that it is not so much a case there of the trade unions directly bringing pressure on the council as that the trade unions have some degree I suppose taken over the council. Whether it happens that way or by trade union leaders bringing pressure to bear on the council is not the great materiality. The fact is that men are being induced by threats to join a trade union, or, if they are members of a trade union, not to resign from it. The threat that is made to them is that they will be dismissed.

There is nothing unlawful in that threat, of course. There could have been, even before the Trades Disputes Act, no legal remedy for that, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether this is not something which falls at least partly within the sphere of Ministerial responsibility. One can have various different views about the part which trade unions play and ought to play in the national life. My hon. Friend has indicated sympathy at any rate with a somewhat advanced view, which is that membership of a trade union is something which one can accept as desirable and that it might even be a good arrangement of our national affairs if an employer should say to a new employee, "Membership of a trade union is a condition of your working here."

I was quoting from books and other references that there is a case for this. I am not saying that necessarily I approve of it. I should like that to be clear.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not trying to disapprove too strongly of his point of view, because the theme of my argument is that there are many points of view about this question of trade union membership, whether compulsory or optional. To me, it is simply a point of view, whatever point of view it is, to be allowed and tolerated. I do not mind someone thinking that universal trade union membership is a good thing, provided he does not try to force that point of view on others. I am not sure that universal trade union membership is a good thing. I am more inclined to the view that membership of any private society, even one which has statutory recognition, like trade unions, is best left entirely to the will and whim of the individual.

Some men are very much inclined to rely upon their trade union for regulating the conditions of their employment, the rate at which they shall be paid and generally the environment in which they work, just as some men rely upon the State a great deal in matters of that and allied kinds. To me, that is all bad, except for the weakest brethren who, perhap, do need some crutch or help. But it is surely much better if men take the responsibility of all these matters upon themselves and rely upon no one else's help, and certainly not upon the help of any organisation.

If we want to see a self-reliant and stiff-necked nation, we should look a little askance at powerful bodies which might do for a man tasks which he should be doing for himself. After all, the responsibility for his progress in the world, the application of his energy, the services acceptable to his fellows, must depend upon each individual man. It is very dangerous indeed when the outline of personal responsibility is blurred, as I believe that membership of a trade union can quite often blur it.

So I am not a great admirer of these organisations, although I recognise that for men who are not perhaps men of great strength of character or ability, organisation together can perhaps be of some assistance, but I feel that these are matters which ought to be left entirely to the individual. Whether a man wants to fight his own way, or likes to go in concert and fight it on a sort of gang principle, is a matter for each man to decide according to his assessment of his own nature. What I understand is happening in Sheffield is that men are being told that unless they join up in one of these groups they may not work for the corporation at all.

Believing as I do, in and out of season in this House—as those who know me will agree—in freedom of the widest character and of paying the highest price for it, as I am always willing to do, it may be said, "Why should not the employer have the freedom to say that he will run a shop which shall be open or closed? Why should he not be free to say, 'My employees must be members of a trade union', or 'My employees may please themselves', or 'My employees shall not be members of a trade union'?"

Of course, he can say, "The man need not work for me unless he wants to do so; there are lots of other employers for whom he can work." That is a possible argument, but it is an argument which is not open to statutory bodies which occupy a monopoly position, and a local authority is a statutory body and it does occupy a monopoly position. Bodies which are so situated are, in my view, under a duty to take the middle course, which is the one of tolerance leaving it to the employee individually to decide whether he shall or shall not be a member of one of these industrial groups which have become so important in our industrial society.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say, "All this is very interesting, but what do you expect me to do? There is no law about this. All I know of is a Royal Commission about it. Why should you expect the Minister of Housing and Local Government to take positive action or persuasive action when he has no constitutional duty, perhaps no constitutional place, to do so?" My answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I think he has a constitutional duty here to exercise persuasion. I put it to him in this way. Let us consider other matters where he has no legal powers at all. There is, for example, a Race Relations Act, which was passed by the House during the last Session of Parliament, certainly not with my approval. I could not disagree more strongly than I did with that Act, but it is not outside my knowledge that a Minister of the Crown has been appointed simply to persuade people whom he cannot force to follow out the policy of that Act, bad though it be.

I should not be a bit surprised if I were told that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, dealing with local authorities answerable to him, perhaps at the request of the Joint Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, tried to bring influence to bear on local authorities not to discriminate in their employment on grounds of race. I should think that wrong, but I should not be in the least surprised if they did it. What about the graduated systems of rents, differential rents—I forget what they are called? Authorities, I understand, are entirely free to charge differential rents or not. Although the Minister of Housing and Local Government cannot force an authority, he has a policy; he tries hard to persuade local authorities to do just that.

The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the policy of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is as I have described—that people should be free. The Minister of Labour does not take quite the same view of membership of a trade union as I do. The Minister of Labour regards 100 per cent. membership on a voluntary basis as a good thing, but he is against compulsion. So be it. Let us take that policy. Why should not the Minister of Housing and Local Government, knowing that the Government's policy on the closed shop is that it is wrong—that 100 per cent. union membership on a voluntary basis may be good, but compulsion is wrong—seek to persuade local authorities to implement the policy of the Ministry of Labour?

I may be pushing at an open door. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has been saying this to local authorities for months. If so, that is splendid. Then this debate will have served a very valuable purpose by giving the Parliamentary Secretary a platform—the Dispatch Box—from which to say this, and to clarify and publicise his Department's attitude. This may have a salutary effect in Sheffield, where it is obvious that some kind of good influence and salutary effect is badly needed.

In case the Parliamentary Secretary still has any slight hesitation, or is thinking of expressing himself in guarded words which will wound no feelings in Sheffield, I say again that what is at stake is, quite simply, personal freedom—the proper and responsible personal freedom of a country which I hope will always be one of free, independent and stiff-necked people, hard to govern, but worth while governing. The Parliamentary Secretary can play his modest part if he advises his new master—I do not even know who it is; the Government changes come so fast; I remember who it was this morning—to play a positive part in the situation which has so unhappily arisen at Sheffield and which has caused actual injustice to individuals.

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) for raising this important subject. There have been a number of difficulties of a similar nature in the past, but they have not received such full consideration in the House in relation to local government. I recognise that trade unionists resent non-unionists getting the benefit of improved conditions won by union action. However, anyone with a sense of fairness must regard it as intolerable that a man should be forced out of his employment by the action of a powerful union.

It is a pity that keen trade unionists should want to force into their association those who are unwilling. Such action is in contravention of the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20(2) of which states that

"No one may be compelled to belong to an association"

and Article 23(1) of which states:

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment."

I cannot see how those Articles can tie up with the closed shop.

Like the Minister of Labour, I dislike the closed shop. If there has to be one, it should be because the overwhelming majority of workers want it and it should allow for a conscience clause. Especial considerations should surely arise when the closed shop is introduced in relation to those who are already employed.

The conscience clause should go beyond strict religious grounds to general grounds—moral, ethic, or even plain bigotry. Many people have resigned from a union in disgust at that union's performance. This should be recognised.

I do not see why a man should be forced to remain in a union of which he strongly disapproves.

In the case of local authorities special considerations arise. Local authorities should act as model employers, since the employers here are the trustees of the local public. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) pointed out that here the employer is a statutory one, occupying a monopoly position, and it even more behoves such an employer to be very careful about how he acts.

If a closed shop is introduced by a local authority, two special considerations arise. First, there may be the danger of political prejudice in appointments and in getting or keeping a job. Secondly, there is the difficulty for the trade unionist where his union representatives and his employers may be identical people. It appears from what my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has said that in Sheffield there is considerable doubt whether the employer is giving the orders about the closed shop or whether it is the trade union, because they are virtually the same people.

Advice has been offered to local authorities by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Technical and Clerical Services and several of the Provincial Councils of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Services (Manual Workers). The latter have announced:

"Local authorities support the system of collective bargaining in every way and believe in the principle of solving problems by discussion and agreement. Local authorities apply the terms and conditions negotiated by the aforementioned bodies and honour the decisions that are made from time to time.

In the opinion of the representatives of the local authorities and of the trade unions on the above-named bodies, if collective bargaining of this kind is to continue and improve, to the benefit of both employers and employees, not only should local authorities be members of the Provincial Council, but employees should also be members of the appropriate trade unions representing them on the negotiating bodies".

The National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services' pronouncement is printed in its Scheme of Conditions of Service, and is as follows:

"The National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services is a joint organisation of employers and employed and constitutes the recognised machinery for the application of collective bargaining in the Local Government Service. Negotiations between individual local authorities and unorganised officers are impracticable. The National Council recommends local authorities to recognise all the organisations represented thereon. On both sides the National Council agrees that the interests of local authorities and their staffs are best served by individual officers joining their appropriate organisations, it being understood that the organisation he joins is a matter for the unfettered judgment of the individual officer."

This makes it clear that it is desirable that members of staffs should join their appropriate union, but that the choice of organisation must be unfettered.

In the particular case of Sheffield, as my hon. Friend has described it, the situation appears to be, "Join the correct union, or you cannot be employed". It seems that a conscience clause is permitted, principally on grounds of religion, and other grounds rather at the discretion of a body, but I was not quite clear from the description of my hon. Friend whether that body represented the employers or the trade unions.

It is the establishment committee, which is a sub-committee of the city council, and that body consists primarily of councillors although it might also include aldermen. The Minister of Housing and Local Government has a list of the people involved.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that that makes the situation clear.

The Parliamentary Secretary has been urged very strongly to give directions to the local authority in this case. I believe that local government should be local and that interference from the central Government should be kept to a minimum, but that does not absolve the Government from indicating their view on the closed shop as operated in the way described by my hon. Friend.

The Parliamentary Secretary is here not only as a representative from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but as a representative of the Minister of Labour and of the whole Government. Consequently, while I do not believe that local authorities should receive a direction from the Minister on this matter, I believe that advice should be offered, and offered in no uncertain terms.

The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) referred in moving terms to the intolerable position one was in if one was forced to join a trade union. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I have both had to pay circuit dues and I expect that, like me, he still pays them. He may have been luckier than I, but I do not remember being asked to contract out of any of the fees which I had to pay, either to be heard in any particular court or to practise at the Bar.

But perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman suddenly thought of that, because he checked himself and said, "Of course, there is a special case where one is dealing with men of no great character or ability". It is just possible that the hon. and learned Gentleman was including the legal profession in that qualification.

I always marvel at the skill of the Parliamentary Secretary in talking with his tongue in his cheek, which is not an easy operation. He knows perfectly well, as I do, that whether one pays circuit dues or not is a matter of taste. A member of the Bar can appear in court whether or not he is a member of the circuit.

He cannot be heard if he is a solicitor, and if he has not paid his barrister's due and he cannot appear in the High Court, either. He cannot be heard in a court unless he has qualified by the rules of the game. But this is a rather more serious matter than the hon. and learned Gentleman made it appear to be in his intervention.

I have seen the dossier which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) sent to my right hon. Friend. He raised a particular question about pension rights, of which I have not previously heard. As far as I know, we have not been approached about that, and, therefore, I am not in a position to express any opinion on it. But it may well be that that is a matter within our responsibilities which I shall look at.

This has happened only in the past week and unless he has been kept informed from local Press reports the Parliamentary Secretary might well not know of it. I discovered that the person concerned would not get his pension, or was not likely to get it, when he asked me about it. The notice is short, but would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is singularly unfortunate that a person who has served a corporation department extremely well for 20 years should not, because of an anomaly in the contributory or non-contributory pension arrangements, be entitled to a pension due to him for that 20 years' service?

I am not criticising the hon. Member for not mentioning the matter earlier. I simply meant that this illustrates the difficulty and unwisdom of committing oneself, as it were, to a value judgment on something when one does not know all the circumstances. That is something that I would like to look at, and about which I should like further advice.

The hon. Gentleman raised one or two other points to which I now come. There is a great distinction between the question of the closed shop and what my right hon. Friend, now the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, said in his White Paper about rent rebate, because on the latter he has, through the subsidy, and particularly the new subsidies, a very important financial responsibility. That is a different position from the question which we are now to discuss.

I wish to make the legal position clear, because there has been a certain amount of confusion about it. The Local Government Act, 1933, which sets out the general constitution of local authorities, gives a local authority power to appoint such officers as it may think necessary for the efficient discharge of its functions. There are two exceptions to that. One is that county clerks, medical officers of health and public health inspectors cannot be dismissed without Ministerial approval, but otherwise local authorities are free to dismiss staff as they wish within the provisions of the law. It may be that if they did that they might endanger the efficiency of the service, and in certain cases my right hon. Friend would have responsibilities there. The other exception is education. The hon. Member for Hallam rather gave the impression that Mr. Tomlinson was a tough, good radical, and that he stood up for the rights of the teachers of Durham, whereas my right hon. Friend was feeble and weak, and had done nothing about these problems. But the position in the case of education is quite different, because under the Education Act, 1944, a duty is placed on the local education authority in connection with appointments of staff in primary and secondary schools, though not in further education or special schools, where there is a narrower power. There are powers in section 68 of the Act for the Minister to give directions on the carrying out of the local authorities' duty under Section 24. The Durham case was a very special one where there was a specific duty on the local authority and on the Minister. It was under Section 68 that those directions were made.

I accept what the hon. Member said as being an accurate summary of what happened in Sheffield. I have no amendment that I would want to make of his interpretation of it, but he rather implied, following out the theme about the Durham teachers, "Well, of course, all these Socialists come to power and trouble arises, because after Durham nothing happened. Then suddenly we get it all happening again". So far as I know, there were three cases during the period of office of the last Government in which the matter was raised, two in 1962 and one in 1964. The attitude of my predecessor in these matters was one pretty well the same as mine now, that this is not a matter in which the central Government have any right to interfere.

The hon. Member also asked about trade union members voting on the closed shop. I am advised that this is not a pecuniary interest and that they are entitled to vote but, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) probably knows, my right hon. Friend started a review of the question of pecuniary interests, the standards of reputable behaviour for local authority members and so on, and discussions with the local authority associations are still going on. Therefore, this is not something which we have ignored or swept under the carpet.

The hon. Member for Hallam rebuked the A.M.C., saying that it ought to have done more about it. No doubt, the A.M.C. will consider that and will take his rebuke to heart.

The hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend's letter of 3rd August, in which he said that this is not a matter in which he was prepared to interfere but that:

"it is for the electorate to decide whether or not they agree with the action taken by the council in their name and they have the means to secure that any councillors who fail to represent their views are not re-elected."

The hon. Gentleman, rightly and understandably, took up my right hon. Friend's advice painstakingly and in great detail, and it is quite clear that he is warming up for the election campaign in May. I hope that that campaign does not have the result for which he hopes, but one cannot blame him for that. We are all political animals, and we all try to make the most of a good opportunity if we have one, or think we have. But to try to combine that exercise with an academic, dispassionate "much research in the Library" type of discussion on the pros and cons of the closed shop is a little difficult. This has been turned into a political matter and an electoral issue. Let our masters decide it then by all means.

I want to say a little more about the situation as it now stands. The Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations was announced in February, 1965. Its terms of reference were:

"To consider relations between managements and employees and the rôle of trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation, with particular reference to the law affecting the activities of those bodies; and to report."

The Commission considers that the operation of the closed shop policy is a matter which comes within its terms of reference. The terms of reference are wide-ranging, as will be seen. The Commission is not giving special study to any particular sphere of employment, but any recommendation which it may make on any of the subjects it is studying, including the closed shop, are expected to apply to local authorities in common with other employers. Evidence has been received by the Royal Commission about local authorities from members of the public and from various bodies connected with local government such as the A.M.C., N.A.L.G.O. and the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board. I do not know when the Commission is likely to report It says that the inter-relation of many of the major problems it is studying is an obstacle to the production of an interim report. In parenthesis, I would add that it is an obstacle also to the Government butting in, as it were, in this delicate matter at his stage when it is under careful examination.

As the hon. Member for Hallam said, the Sheffield City Council has not said its last word on the matter. It is at present reviewing the application of the policy during the last 12 months. But, whatever may emerge from the review, I ask the House to accept that the policy in this matter and the detailed application of it are matters which should be left to the discretion of individual authorities.

In this connection, as so often in others, the cry is always for freedom and independence for local authorities, until something happens which people do not like. As soon as something happens which people do not like—my postbag shows this time and again—one is asked immediately to issue a direction, to interfere, to apply default powers, or whatever it may be. But one has to accept that this is a matter within the public responsibility of local authorities.

As I have said, the question is being considered by the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Association. Any recommendations on the subject which the Royal Commission may make will be considered most carefully by the Government. But at this stage, while it is under consideration, it would be most unwise for the Government to take any further steps.

Does the Ministry of Housing and Local Government share the views which have been expressed by the Minister of Labour, to which both my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and I have referred? Specifically, will the hon. Gentleman persuade the local authority concerned to withdraw all notices while it is conducting its review of the situation, as many people are being sacked while the question is under review? I hope that the Minister will say something more definite about what he approves and disapproves before he concludes.

On the first point, there is such a thing as collective responsibility in Government. Views which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour expresses in the context of his responsibilities are views which I would accept, just as, I hope, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour would accept something said by my right hon. Friend in our field of responsibility. This is one Government, and we act as one.

On the other question, the answer is "No, I would not". As I said, while this matter is under review, a matter essentially for the local authority, a responsible elected public body entrusted by Parliament under the 1933 Act with power to make such appointments as it needs in the carrying out of its functions, it is not for the central government to interfere and start lecturing it on how to carry out those responsibilities.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, pending the review by the Royal Commission, the Minister of Labour's view holds good and that is the view which the hon. Gentleman himself takes?

I shall not add to what I have said on that point. It is on the record.

On the other matter, I refer again to the difficulty to which I referred earlier, that, in the atmosphere in which the hon. Member for Hallam deployed it, this is becoming an issue which will be very actively taken up by a minority on the council, by Conservative candidates and by Conservative Members of Parliament. That sort of atmosphere makes it extremely important that the Government do not get involved in local politics. It is not for the Government to intervene in these matters. It is for the electorate and for the local people to settle.

I wish to raise the question of some traffic problems in Wembley, now part of the borough of Brent. To be more accurate, I should say that they are traffic problems in Wembley and its outskirts, because the first two I shall discuss are at road junctions not entirely within my constituency. The problems there were brought to my attention by a constituent and, on going into them, I found that three-quarters of each junction was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant). My hon. Friend is here, and I know that he hopes to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker later.

I take, first, the junction of Harrow Road and Sudbury Hill with Greenford Road and Sudbury Court Drive. It is only the south-east corner of Harrow Road and Sudbury Court Drive at that point which is in my constituency. It is a staggered crossroads. Greenford Road enters from the west about 40 yards from where Sudbury Court Drive enters from the east, and it is quite difficult at any time for traffic emerging from either of those two roads to turn right and even more difficult to turn left. Drivers have to await gaps in the traffic moving in both directions along Harrow Road and Sudbury Hill, and sometimes that traffic is going at quite a pace. At peak hours there is considerable congestion.

The solution, I suggest, is a system of traffic lights, probably in three or four phases, allowing traffic to emerge from each road in turn. But this is a technical matter which I shall not go into now. Some control of the junction is urgent.

The second problem is at the junction of Watford Road and Sheepcote Road with Kenton Road. Here again, it is a staggered crossroads, but it is the exits from Kenton Road which are staggered, with a railway bridge in between. Last Friday afternoon, just before the peak hour began, I saw a regular police officer and a special constable on duty directing the traffic at this junction. That is a complete waste of the valuable time of officers who could probably be much better employed dealing with crime. Traffic lights should be installed here, with three or even four phases. This junction, because of its volume of traffic, is perhaps even more urgent than the other one.

I also ask that at both junctions the needs of pedestrians should be looked after. I do not suggest any details because I have not investigated that problem, but I mention this because the needs of pedestrians do not seem to have been adequately covered at another junction where traffic lights have recently been installed. That is the junction of Ealing Road with Bridgewater Road, and it is a T-junction. The lights are so deeply hooded that it is difficult to observe how they are phased if one is standing on the sidewalk. So the hooding makes it difficult for pedestrians. They find it very risky to cross Bridge-water Road from east to west just north of the junction, at a point where there used to be a zebra crossing but the zebra part of it has been taken away since the traffic lights have been installed. Pedestrians can cross the first half of the road easily when the Bridgewater Road traffic is stopped, but when they start to cross from the small island in the centre to the west side they find traffic turning right from Ealing Road into Bridgewater Road bearing down on them. I believe that traffic in these circumstances ought to give way, but it frequently does not. There seems to be no period in which the west half of Bridgewater Road is completely free of traffic. I suggest that there ought to be an all-red phase of the traffic lights plus "cross now" and "wait" signs for pedestrians. I urge that consideration be speedily given to this problem.

In a letter from the Borough Engineer of Brent on 29th July, a constituent of mine, Mr. Reed, who lives in Burnside Crescent on the west side of Bridgewater Road—consequently, he has to cross Bridgewater Road frequently to get to any part of Wembley—was told that these points were being discussed with the police and with the Greater London Council. As a fortnight has elapsed, perhaps a decision has now been reached on what is really a simple problem and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some information about it My fourth point is that there are some roads in Wembley which could be made one-way. I mention this not so much because of the volume of traffic that they carry, which is not very great, but because they are very narrow and sometimes nearly blocked by cars parked nearly opposite each other on opposite sides of the road. If the cars were exactly opposite each other, the roads would be completely blocked.

I have in mind Eton Avenue and Rugby Avenue—all these roads are named after public schools—which are quite close to one another and parallel to the whole of their length, and possibly also Beaumont Avenue, Charterhouse Avenue and Repton Avenue, though these may be more difficult because Charterhouse Avenue begins by being parallel to Rugby and Eton Avenues and then turns right and becomes parallel to Beaumont and Repton Avenues. There are other areas in the former Sudbury Court ward of the former Borough of Wembley where there are narrow roads which I would urge should be examined.

I would stress that it is not only the volume of traffic but its safety and convenience which should be governing factors in deciding whether roads should be made one-way or not. It seems sensible to install one-way working in any two parallel roads which are close to one another unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary.

The last point, which concerns Wembley only, is the problem of dealing with traffic on days which important football matches take place at the Empire Stadium, Wembley. I know that this is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, but I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to answer this on behalf of the Home Office because it concerns the police.

This problem arose particularly during the recent World Cup matches. In the Wembley News last week it was stated that the police had received few complaints about the control of traffic during the World Cup matches and that on the whole the system of one-way working and no-waiting restrictions had worked well. I am sure that that is right. However, I have received some complaints from shopkeepers in the Broadway, which forms two corners of the junction on the north side of East Lane and Preston Road. I am not sure whether here I am trespassing a little on my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus). I am not certain exactly where the boundary is.

Some of the shopkeepers there suffered great inconvenience because vans delivering goods were not allowed to stop outside their shops on the days the World Cup matches were taking place and even before the World Cup traffic began to flow into Wembley, and, also, customers' cars were apparently turned away. I know that the World Cup matches are over, but every year there are several very important matches at the Empire Stadium, not only the Cup Final, the Rugby League Final and the Amateur Soccer Final on three Saturdays every spring but the England-Scotland Soccer International in alternate years and various international matches, usually on Wednesdays at other times. Most of these matches draw crowds of 90,000–100,000, which is the capacity of the stadium for a football match. I should like my constituents to be assured that they will not be inconvenienced any more than is absolutely necessary and will not have their trade damaged by the regulations which have to be imposed in order to control this traffic.

Lastly, I return to a point which is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a very general one, concerning not only Wembley. It is the attitude of some pedestrians to road traffic. I am thinking particularly of Oxford Street. Some pedestrians seem almost deliberately to ignore traffic lights and stroll across busy junctions, such as that at the foot of Baker Street, if there is the slightest gap in the traffic. Sometimes it is difficult for traffic to move along High Road, Wembley for the same reason. A month or so before Christmas police usually have to be installed by the junction in Oxford Street to hold the crowds back, or they would completely ignore the traffic.

This is in striking contrast to most places abroad. In West Berlin, for example, I was once ticked off by a police officer on point duty for crossing the road when the signal was against me, although no traffic was in sight. In Paris, I mink that one would be run down if one did not obey the traffic signals. There seems to be a big gulf between drivers and some pedestrians in this country almost like the gulf we are hoping to narrow between what are usually called the two sides of industry. Yet many pedestrians must also be drivers these days.

In San Sebastian in Spain some years ago, I once stopped my car to look at a map I had with me. I was somewhat astonished when a pedestrian came up to me and said politely that parking at that point was forbidden. I cannot imagine anyone doing that in this country. I am sure that no pedestrian here would be concerned about the position of a motorcar and a possible offence. This was 15 years ago in Spain when there were comparatively few cars in the country. There must even then, however, have been more traffic consciousness between pedestrians and drivers than there is here now—unless, of course, the pedestrian wanted to air his English. What plans have the Ministry for making pedestrians more traffic conscious in this country and educating them to take notice of traffic lights and police officers when they cross the roads? It is an important matter.

From the broad sweep of the Continent perhaps I may be permitted to contine my remarks to the rather narrower ambit of Harrow, Central and, indeed, of Wembley, North. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for raising this important matter and informing me that he would refer to my constituency. We all know the assiduity with which he cares for his constituents and I am glad to support what he said on the two particular bottlenecks and problems affecting our two constituencies.

The first problem to which he referred was the double-T junction of Sudbury Hill-Greenford Road-Harrow Hill-Sudbury Court at the border of my constituency and his. This junction involves a great deal of traffic, as I know to my cost when hurrying to a meeting, for traffic from the South seeking to get to the Ml also goes past this point.

It is a most difficult and dangerous manœuvre to negotiate the right and left turns involved, causes considerable delay and has a deleterious effect on road safety. Going up Greenford Road, it is easier, if one is so minded to go through Harrow, to turn left and go over Harrow Hill itself. But this is undesirable because the last thing we want is for this unique hill to become a through way to traffic. Harrow Hill is one of the most beautiful and unique features of Greater London.

I believe, therefore, that my hon. Friend is right in suggesting that some sort of three-phase or four-phase traffic lights are necessary. This would not only help the passage of traffic, but would also contribute to safety on that part of the roads, because it would have a restraining influence on vehicles which come rocketing down Sudbury Hill into Harrow Road, causing danger to life and limb—not least the life and limb of my hon. Friend when seeking to negotiate that corner.

Harrow Borough Council has prepared a scheme for traffic lights which it has submitted to the Greater London Council and my latest information is that the G.L.C. is agreeable to a traffic lights scheme and is indeed offering some embellishment in the way of islands and channelisation. This scheme of the G.L.C. has been put to both Harrow and Brent Councils and I am confident that they will accept it. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will approve it and that there will be no further delay in rectifying this serious problem.

The second point my hon. Friend referred to is the rather worse position at the junction of the Kenton Road, Sheep-cote Road and Watford Road, a complicated maze of T-junctions going over the railway bridge towards an even greater bottleneck and also involving traffic from the South to the M1. At peak hours there is always one or more policemen directing traffic and considerable congestion takes place.

I have reason to know this bridge very well because, during the election campaign of 1964 a very large whitewash sign appeared on it. In enormous letters there was the slogan "Labour Now". In recent months the whitewash has become somewhat grey and tarnished, but at that point, during the campaign, I was nearly cut down by my then Liberal opponent.

The majority of Harrow people probably favour as a long-term solution a new bridge widening and some sort of roundabout. We realise, however, that this is a long-term solution and would involve considerable expenditure and the acquisition of land. Therefore, we are concerned at this point with a rather short-term solution. This might well be a system of traffic lights. I accept that it would have to be a sophisticated system and I understand that there are certain basic practical difficulties.

The Harrow Borough Council is meeting the Greater London Council tomorrow to consider not only this, but a whole range of traffic problems which are bedevilling Harrow so much. My constituents are very much concerned with the traffic congestion and other problems in Harrow and I know that the council and the Greater London Council will consider them very carefully. They will be thinking, for example, of a system of one-way routing in Harrow, which may be a solution to the problem if traffic lights are not the answer.

I hope that they will consider a scheme put to me by a young man of only 17 who is at the Harrow Technical College studying traffic management, and who put what I thought, for one so young, was an extremely thoughtful and sensible scheme for one-way routing through Harrow. I have forwarded it to the borough council and the Greater London Council and I will send it to the Minister if he so desires.

I understand that if it is decided that traffic lights will be in the interests of the flow of traffic and safety, the mere money consideration will not come into the matter and that the criteria will be only delays to traffic and road safety. I very much hope that there will be an early solution to these two major problems. The local councils are very alert to the problem and their postbags and mine are full of the problems of traffic congestion in this crowded, but important area. I trust that if they arrive at a solution, which will be reached only with considerable thought, the Minister will give it his immediate blessing.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for giving me notice in detail of the specific local items which he wished to raise so as to enable me to make inquiries about them. As he knows, nearly all these matters are matters, in the first place, for the boroughs, and secondly, for the Greater London Council, as the traffic and highway authority, although my right hon. Friend has a responsibility when it comes to approving traffic orders or allocating funds for new schemes for signalling systems.

I will deal seriatim with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), who also has an interest in the matters raised by the hon. Member for Wembley, South.

I want, first, to deal with the junction of Greenford Road, Sudbury Court Road, Harrow Road and Sudbury Hill. As I said, these are all Metropolitan roads and I have, therefore, made inquiries of the Greater London Council, which has the responsibility, about this junction. I understand that there have been considerable discussions between the Greater London Council and the Boroughs of Harrow and Brent about a signalling system for this junction. It is generally admitted that the need is clear.

Plans have been made for a signalling system, but I understand that the G.L.C. wishes to have further discussions with the two borough councils about the details of the scheme, but I am assured that there will be no delay in submitting it and I can certainly give the assurance that, if and when agreement is reached between the G.L.C., as the major authority, and the two borough councils concerned, we in the Ministry of Transport will endeavour to expedite the installation of any signalling system which they regard as necessary at that junction.

The hon. Gentleman then referred to the junction at Watford Road, Sheepcote Road and Kenton Road. A scheme for the improvement of this junction, which is in the Borough of Harrow, was added to the classified roads programme for the three-year period, as it then was, 1965–68 at an estimated cost of £150,000, to which a grant of £112,500 would be paid. That was when the Middlesex County Council was the highway authority. On 1st April last year these roads became Metropolitan roads and the G.L.C. became the highway authority. The proposals formulated by the Middlesex County Council have since been reviewed by the G.L.C. and the Borough of Harrow, and they consider that the. scope and design of the scheme for the improvement of this junction requires revision.

The position is that there is no doubt that this important scheme must be carried out, but my present advice is that the G.L.C. does not expect to be able to start work on it this side of 1970. Therefore, it is clear that an interim scheme must be considered, and that is now being devised by officers of the G.L.C. I am informed that this is likely to take the form of a one-way system in the town centre of Harrow and incorporate the introduction of signal control at this junction. More than that I cannot say at the moment. That is as far as the technicians have got. The hon. Member can rest assured that the work on the interim scheme which is thought to be necessary is going ahead as rapidly as possible.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman raised the position of the junction of Bridgwater Road and Ealing Road, again a Metropolitan road, for which the G.L.C. is responsible. The traffic is certainly heavy at peak hours, but I am informed that, in contrast to what has been said by the hon. Member for Wembley, South, although there is no pedestrian phase included in the traffic signals at this junction, pedestrians do not appear to have difficulty in crossing. I am told that there are central refuges on all arms of this junction. Those who have inquired into this for me since the hon. Gentleman notified me about the position say that there seems to be little scope for providing more effective facilities for pedestrians without considering a major alteration of the layout of the whole junction, which would be a matter for the G.L.C.

That is my information, but if the hon. Member would care to supply me with further details of the complaints made by pedestrians about the junction we are prepared to enter into further discussions with the G.L.C.

Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman made a suggestion about the introduction of a one-way system on certain unclassified residential roads in the Borough of Brent. He mentioned Eton Avenue, Rugby Avenue, Beaumont Avenue, Charterhouse Avenue and Repton Avenue—the schools roads. It is understood that a proposal for a one-way circulation of traffic at these roads is strongly supported locally as a means of discouraging the parking of cars on the grass verges, mainly by shoppers and visitors to a nearly sports ground. However, no formal application for the necessary traffic regulation order which would concern my right hon. Friend, has yet been submitted by the G.L.C., as the traffic authority.

Again, this is primarily a matter for discussions between the G.L.C. and the borough, and local interests concerned. I have no doubt that what hon. Members have said this afternoon will be noted, not only locally, but in County Hall, and I can give an assurance that if a submission is made for a traffic regulation order on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Wembley, South, that we will certainly consider it as expeditiously as possible.

At the conclusion of his speech, the hon. Gentleman made some comments about Oxford Street, which is a little outside his territory, with special reference to the behaviour of pedestrians. I should be reluctant to make any particular animadversions about special classes of travellers in Oxford Street. Naturally, we in the Ministry of Transport are almost continuously in receipt of claims for more rights by motorists and pedestrians in Oxford Street, who consider that they are hard done by. It is a fine example of the need for self-restraint and self-discipline on the part of all concerned.

We spend a good deal of time and labour, and quite a lot of money, on the advocacy of obedience to traffic signals and the acceptance of restaint by different classes of travellers who should take into account the interests of others. I wholly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, and I know that the G.L.C., which has the heavy responsibility of considering future traffic management measures or other measures to deal with Oxford Street, will be fully cognisant of the situation and will note it. We will assist in any way we can.

I pass to the comments which the hon. Gentleman made about the actions taken by the police in connection with Wembley Stadium. As he said, this is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. However, I took advice from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the notice which he gave, and I should like to give the House the benefit of a statement on the measures taken around Wembley Stadium in connection with the World Cup series.

Nine of the World Cup series of football matches were played at Wembley between 11th and 30th July. Total attendance at these games amounted to over 680,000 people. The individual attendances at the matches varied between 35,000 and 93,000 at the final. The number of vehicles on the nine days concerned was well over 25,000 private cars and 1,500 motor coaches.

The police arrangements were basically similar to those normally made for capacity crowds at Wembley Stadium. But additional arrangements included extensive signposting by the Automobile Association of certain main routes radiating from the stadium with the object of spreading the concentration of vehicles and reducing the number of right-turning movements. These signs were specially designed so that they could be readily identified by drivers, including foreign visitors. Additional parking facilities for 2,250 vehicles were made available and special facilities aimed at reducing inconvenience to local residents were also made.

These traffic arrangements were given extensive publicity through the Press, television and radio, and about 1,500 special maps were distributed in advance to the Press, motoring organisations, coach operators and police officers. Assembly for six of the matches coincided with evening peak traffic. But reports indicate that traffic in the area was normal on those occasions about 20 minutes before kick-off in the matches, and, apart from the final, when spectators were naturally reluctant to leave, the bulk of the traffic had cleared within 30 to 45 minutes of the final whistle being blown.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concluded that there was general satisfaction with the way in which this quite abnormal flow of traffic in connection with the World Cup series was handled. We have, therefore, been surprised to hear of complaints about, for example, the use of no-waiting signs.

We have had special inquiries made into this, and I am advised that 260 no-waiting signs were used in the vicinity of the stadium during the World Cup series under the authority of the Standing Commissioners' traffic directions, which are applicable to all important events at the stadium.

To cater for a 3.30 p.m. event at the stadium, these signs are normally spaced out during the early hours of the morning by the night duty relief police. To cater for an evening event, they are placed out between 6 and 7 a.m. The object of this early placing of signs was specifically to warn the all-day parker that he could not leave his vehicle in those streets. We know that there is a heavy commuter parking problem in the vicinity of Wembley Park and Wembley Hill Stations, and it was essential for the smooth flow of heavy traffic engendered by the Stadium events to ensure that these vehicles were not left on the highway all day. That was the reason for the considerable period of advance notice.

To have placed the signs later in the day would have been not only unfair to the commuter who parked his vehicle in ignorance of the restriction which was to be imposed, but would have presented an impossible task to the police later, when removal of the vehicles was necessary in the interests of traffic movement. That is the reply about why this was done.

We appreciate that inconvenience was caused temporarily to, say, local shopkeepers, but in the view of the police it was inevitable to put out the signs for the no-waiting restrictions many hours before the events occurred, otherwise the streets would have become cluttered up with the all-day parkers and the police would have been confronted with an impossible problem.

In conclusion, I should like to say something briefly in general terms about the tackling of London's transport problems. Our approach in the Ministry of Transport is based firmly on cooperation and joint action on the part of a number of bodies which have responsibility for transport in the capital. Earlier this year, for the first time, my right hon. Friend brought these bodies together on the London Transport Coordinating Council, of which my right hon. Friend is chairman. On that council sit together top-level representatives of the public transport operators—British Rail and London Transport; the highway and traffic planning authorities of the Greater London Council and representatives of the London boroughs, the transport trade unions and the regional economic planning council.

This Co-ordinating Council for London has set in progress an ambitious programme of work by five working groups. The emphasis is upon improved public transport and the need to get the right balance between public and private transport to make an impact on our traffic problems. The operations group of the Council, under the chairmanship of Sir Alex Samuels, is probably the one whose work is most directly and immediately relevant to the sort of problems which have been raised this afternoon by the hon. Member for Wembley, South.

At regular fortnightly meetings that group is discovering and putting into effect ways of improving the bus services, bringing together traffic management schemes and improvement of interchange between different forms of transport. The results achieved so far are not spectacular, and nobody would expect this, but I will give an example of the kind of thing which has been done.

This group of the London Coordinating Council has recently arranged for Tyburn Way, at Marble Arch, to be opened up for the exclusive use of the Red Arrow buses to improve the operation of this part of the new service. This is an example of co-operation between the police, London Transport and the Greater London Council, which is the traffic management authority. We believe that in other parts of the capital, by achieving a similar kind of co-ordination, we may be able to get rid of bottlenecks or to achieve special ways for the public transport operators to improve their working.

Four other groups of the Co-ordinating Council are working on interchange facilities—for example, the provision of more car parking space at peripheral stations; proposals for major extensions and improvements by British Rail and London Transport and other aspects of their work, including the planning of London's future road system, the problems of freight movement in London and the loading and unloading of vehicles.

In all this the emphasis is upon joint effort by co-ordinating the work of those who make the traffic regulations, who plan the improvement of highways and who carry on the day-to-day job of operating the public transport system. The aim is to achieve immediate improvement in travelling conditions and to define the changes in the law which may be necessary in the longer term if we are to have a properly integrated transport system in London.

I feel that I am fortunate at this very late stage in this sitting of Parliament to be able to introduce in the final Adjournment debate the subject of regional planning in the South-West. I feel that I am particularly fortunate because this is one of the most important subjects for my constituency and my part of the country.

The sparse attendance in the House today is to a certain extent due to the fact that many of our colleagues are at the moment in the region about which we shall be speaking because one of the most encouraging things in recent years has been the increasing tendency of hon. Members and Ministers to take their holidays in the South-West. I hope that in the next day or two some of them will read reports of this debate and will realise some of the problems which this part of the country is facing—and will also realise that the South-West is not just a holiday area but an area in which people live and work for twelve months of the year.

I have been very fortunate in the last twelve years to have lived and worked in the South-West. I am not a West Country man—I was not born there, and it takes many years truly to become a West Country man—but at least I can claim to be a West Country man by adoption. I am very concerned about the future of this region. I want to talk about the South-West as a region as a whole, and I shall try to avoid the trap that lies waiting for all of us, particularly those from the farther part of the region in being too parochial. It is very easy, because many of us have severe constituency problems, sometimes for us to look more at the local problems in our own constituencies and our own counties than at the region as a whole in the way that we should.

I am very concerned at the present position in the South-West and disturbed that we are not making the sort of progress in the south-western region which I feel we should be making. Indeed, I am particularly concerned at this time of economic crisis that the measures that have been taken by the Government—and I do not intend to discuss them in any detail—should not fall too heavily on regions such as the South-West which, to some extent, are already falling behind the rest of the country. We know from previous economic crises over the years that regions such as the South-West in years gone by have been hit particularly hard. I am very glad that the Government have seen fit in the recent measures introduced in the last few weeks to make allowances for development areas, allowances which I hope will help regions such as ours, but I can assure you Mr. Speaker, that all who represent constituencies in the South-West will be looking very carefully at the local impact of the economic measures introduced in recent weeks.

I am also disturbed about the present position in the South-West because I believe in planning, and particularly in planning on a regional basis. The keystone of progress under any progressive Government, and certainly under a Socialist Government, must be economic planning, and this must include regional planning. Over the last 50, 60 or 70 years political parties in the country and Parliament have concerned themselves with the social and economic inequalities in our society, and particularly with the in-qualities between different groups in our society—between different occupations and between people of different wage levels. This concern has produced dividends. Many of the more glaring inequalities have been ended and we have a fairer and more just society today than in days gone by.

But while we have been going some way toward solving this problem, a different set of inequalities has arisen in our country, of a vertical rather than a horizontal nature—inequalities between different parts of the country.

We have seen the gap widening between the poorer parts of Britain, like the South-West, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the richer parts, like London, the South-East and the Midlands. While the country as a whole has become more affluent, the gap between the richer and poorer areas has become wider. If we are to end this inequality, we must have effective regional planning.

I am disturbed because while we can see worthwhile signs of progress in other regions and while the measures introduced in past years by successive Governments to stimulate regional development are paying off in many areas, including some of the poorer parts of the country—with many dramatic and encouraging developments taking place—I fear that progress is not so rapid in the South-West.

The problem facing us in the South-West region is a problem partly of geography and partly of economics. First, the geographical problem. This is linked to the size of the region. By the size of the south-west region I do not mean just its population, which is not particularly large compared with other regions, or its geographical area in terms of square miles. I refer to its overall dimensions.

One cannot emphasise too frequently that the distance from one end of this region to the other is the same as, for example, the distance from London to the Scottish Border. From London to Carlisle is the sort of distance one must travel to go from one end of the South-West to the other. The distance from Bristol to London is only just over half the distance from Bristol to West Cornwall. In other words, one is only one-third of the way to the far end of the region when one has got to Bristol. People who should know better tend to think of the south-west region as a compact area based on and around Bristol.

We in the South-West are also plagued by the problem of geographical isolation from other centres of population, particularly from the densely populated areas from which we must obtain many of our supplies and to which many of our products go to be sold. We are, therefore, more dependent on transport than most other regions.

Another problem in the South-West is that it includes two different parts, the northern half based on Bristol, an industrialised area which I regard as an extension of the industrial Midlands, and what one might describe as the Far West of the region, the southern half, with its mainly rural counties of Devon, Cornwall and parts of Somerset and Dorset. The difference between the two halves of the region is dramatic. There is a marked difference in the general economic level and in employment opportunities and prospects. One need only look at the unemployment figures for the South-West generally covering the last 10 or 15 years to see the gradation of figures and the fact that the further west one goes the worse the position becomes. Wage and salary levels are not so high in the Far West as in the area in and around Bristol.

This realisation that there are two parts to the South-West and that their problems are different because of the different economic backgrounds and transport difficulties has led to the suggestion that the South-West should be subdivided and that there should be an area based on Plymouth, consisting of Devon, Cornwall and parts of Somerset and Dorset, which would be regarded as an entity. Planners should realise that these two halves have many different problems.

I must issue a word of warning, because a far west area based on Plymouth is not large enough in population, industrial resources and so on to be one viable region. Although we can think in terms of subdividing it to a certain extent, a rigid division of the South-West region would not be helpful.

As I see it, of all the domestic political policies, the keystone to our progress and development in this region is transport. It is a subject about which the regional planning authorities are already deeply concerned, and I hope that they will continue to be so. Our road, rail and air links with the rest of the country really are our lifeline, but it is no exaggeration to say that they are woefully inadequate. That has been said many times, and I have no doubt that we shall go on saying it. We may never be completely satisfied, but the present situation is just deplorable.

Our two main link roads, the A30 and the A38, are congested from the beginning of the year to its end. We are not just facing a dreadful seasonal problem—there are traffic problems on our southwest main roads throughout the year. I know that progress has been made, that improvements have been carried out and bypasses constructed, but not at anything like the rate the economic situation demands.

These two main link roads meet and cross at Exeter, at the infamous Exeter bypass, which is a classic example of Britain's traffic thrombosis. I am certain that at this moment queues are building up on the Exeter bypass, and if any hon. Member has any doubts about the size of the problem I would invite him to accompany me and my family by car to the West Country later today, when I know that I will be able to give him some very practical experience of our problems.

I believe that after a period of considerable doubt and anxiety we are beginning to see the light with our railway services, and that the modernisation programme and the suggestion of increasing integration of the various services holds a hope of effective rail links between the South-West as a region and the remainder of the country.

I am very concerned at the almost total absence of an air link, because I believe that air travel in such an area as this will be of increasing importance. We are a long way from other centres of population. Many of our people live well over 200 miles from London, and at that distance air travel is very competitive with other forms of transport. There is no air service to the South-West. and, outside Bristol we do not have an airport that we could regard as adequate for the needs of the South-West.

Turning to industrial development, we are desperately short of opportunities of work for many of our young people. In the Bristol part of the region there is considerable diversification of industry, and that is true also of much of Somerset and Gloucestershire. There are doubts in Bristol about the future of the aircraft industry, and doubts, as well, about the future of the docks there, but the problems in that part are not of the magnitude of those in the remainder of the region. in the far west part of the region, city and town are dependent on one industry, and it seems to matter little whether one goes to the big city or the small town. I have been fortunate in recent years to have had the opportunity to contest three different divisions in the South-West—Tiverton, Plymouth and my present division of Falmouth and Camborne. They are all very different divisions, but in each of them the same factor is present—town or city utterly and completely dependent on one industry. That is a potentially dangerous state of affairs. We must have more diversification of industry.

Throughout the region, agriculture and the tourist industry are of considerable importance. The tourist industry, in particular, is a very useful foreign currency saver though, unfortunately, not a positive foreign currency earner to the extent that I would like to see. I hope that we shall get more foreign tourists coming to the region. The trouble is that tourism is seasonal, and not an ideal solution for many of our problems. The tourist and hotel trades often explain in considerable detail the various things which they think Ministries should do to improve their prospects. If I might suggest one thing which is needed, it is to start thinking seriously about how to help the tourist industry by spreading school holidays so that we do not get the dreadful seasonal rush which we are experiencing in the South-West at the moment.

In the South-West we need improved communications. I think I am justified in calling, as my hon. Friends and I have called before, for a road of motorway standard throughout the South-West. I know that it would be expensive, but when we think of the future I think we are justified in calling for a really first-class link with the remainder of the country. We also need to give new opportunities for youngsters who are forced out of the region because they cannot find the sort of work they would like to do there.

To do these things we have to start thinking about new and more selective inducements for people to set up industry. Many of the inducements which are offered are very effective in the national sense, but in the development areas themselves there are black spots remaining and some methods of giving inducements favour some development areas at the expense of others. We have to try to introduce more flexibility and a more positive and dynamic approach to regional planning. There has to be even more consultation, and it must be a more continuous process than it has been in years gone by.

There is no doubt that those who represent constituencies in the South-West—I believe I am speaking for hon. Members on both sides of the House-believe in the region's future. We believe it has a very bright and cheery future. Some of us are rather disturbed by some recent statements made by those in positions of considerable power and responsibility in regional planning. We have to remember that from this region has come much of the wealth and prosperity of the nation which we have today. From Bristol the merchant venturers went out in years gone by and brought back much of the wealth which we still retain. From Devon explorers went throughout the world. It was in my constituency, in Camborne, that one of the greatest inventions of all time was made by Richard Trevithick. who invented and operated the first steam locomotive.

These enthusiasms and this inventiveness are still in the South-West. We need this enthusiasm and energy and this belief in our region to be harnessed in the regional planning machinery. To those who may have doubts about the future of the South-West, I say make way for others because there are plenty who believe in its future. The people who live in the South-West certainly do so. Given enthusiastic leadership and effective regional planning, we can share more fully in the prosperity of Britain and contribute more to the progress of our country as well.

We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. Dunwoody) for raising this subject today.

Although I may possibly be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask you to convey to Mr. Speaker our personal thanks? Earlier in the House today he offered to members of the staff his thanks for the extra work they have had to undertake during this rather hard Session. We agree, and I should be grateful, if you would not think me presumptuous, if you would convey to Mr. Speaker, on behalf, I am sure, of all hon. Members our sincere thanks to him for the way in which he has presided during this very difficult period, especially when we know that he has had particular personal grief.

We are very grateful for what Mr. Speaker has done and for helping us during this historic Session. Therefore, I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to convey our thanks to him.

Hear, hear.

We sincerely thank the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne for raising the points that he has raised. I agree with him that the south-west region should be considered as a whole. I also agree that we are a low-earning area, that we have great potential, and that we are willing to undertake any form of activity which will help to improve the prosperity of the area.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having brought to the notice of the House the transport difficulties in the area. In his comprehensive speech, the hon. Gentleman made the major point that we wanted effective regional planning; and this is a point which I want particularly to stress.

Earlier, when it was decided that we were to have a regional organisation, I had an Adjournment debate which was answered by the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, who is to reply to this debate. I understood at that time that there was a possibility of a sub-office being set up in Plymouth to deal with the South West. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about this.

In amplification of what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, I point out that the average weekly earnings in our region are £3 or £4 below the national average. We have heard much about the Jarrow unemployment march, but there was also one from Plymouth. We do not want to see that happen again. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for the diversification of industry and for an air service.

I draw the Under-Secretary's attention to Motion No. 203, entitled, "Failure to Consult South-West Regional Council". The Motion states:

"That this House deplores the failure of the Minister of Transport to consult the South-West Economic Planning Council prior to her decision to defer indefinitely the Portbury Port project, a failure that has resulted in the threatened resignation of the Chairman of the Economic Planning Council and the resignation of Mr. Richard Hill, one of the members of the Council, and notes with regret that the Minister, instead of apologising for her failure to consult, excuses her action on the grounds that she was aware"—

this is I think unfortunate—

"that the views of the South-West Economic Planning Council were contrary to her own policy."

If we are to have a planning council, surely it should be there to advise the Minister and she should not bypass it merely because she thinks that the views of its members are contrary to her own policy.

I have before me a document which was printed in 1963 and which deals with a joint economy for the South-West. In those days it was a local effort. The Conservative Government of the day made a 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of employing a firm of consultants to help to produce this document. The document expressed the unanimous view that the top priority for the South-West, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, was the improvement of the road from East Brent to Penzance, and for that purpose £2½ million was allocated with a view to this road being completed by 1975. I understood, when we had the pleasure of a recent visit from the Under-Secretary, that he accepted this view, so perhaps he would confirm this when he replies.

Since then, the Somerset County Council has commissioned the survey of a new road from East Brent to just west of Exeter by a firm of consultants. I understand that the Minister of Transport required that the report be treated as confidential. Therefore, neither the Somerset County Council nor the Devon County Council knows the contents. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some details, because we are anxious to know whether the motorway has been recommended.

We are also very keen to know whether it is possible to have an aerial survey of these roads this autumn, as one was asked for some time ago. It would not cost a great deal of money, if we could have one, plans would be ready for when the economic position has improved.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that we were a tourist area and that the industry was not confined to certain parts of the year. However, we have a holiday season, and it is only fair to point out that the hotels in the area will contribute £4½ million by means of the Selective Employment Tax. It is only right that some money should be spent on the area concerned. There is shocking traffic congestion there. Only last week we had a very dramatic example of hold-ups for six or seven miles, with particularly bad congestion near Bodmin. This will stop tourists coming to the area. As the travel allowance for overseas will be so limited in future, we want to expand our tourist attractions in the South-West. We are also a very good dollar earning area, and this consideration is particularly important at present.

I want also to refer to the question of the South-West Economic Planning Council. On the 29th July, the Chairman, Professor Ronald Tress, made a statement to the local Press. I want to make clear that I am in no way attacking him, but he has been put in an extremely difficult position. He said that he was in profound disagreement with the Government's economic policy and added:

"I believe the policy to be profoundly wrong, not only because of the hardship it will bring through unemployment."

Unemployment has already started in Plymouth. One firm alone has had to dismiss 80 people as redundant owing to the Government's policy, and to my knowledge about another 10 people are to be made redundant in the City of Plymouth alone. There is also a downward trend in the employment of male employees. The number of insured male employees has gone down by 1,122 since 1963.

Professor Tress added that besides the hardships that would be caused by unemployment there would be the loss for opportunities for social betterment. Discussing the Portbury scheme, he said—this is very important—

"No one, as far as my council is concerned, has seen the basis of the calculations in the White Paper".

He is a very fair man and added that that was not to say that the arguments might not be good, but that we in the West Country did not know what those arguments were. If we are to have a planning council trying to put over the policy of the Government, there should be some consultation between the two.

Will the Minister consider, first, better co-operation between the Government and the Council? The former First Secretary, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), was kind enough to see the deputation from the City of Plymouth which I and my previous colleague led, and the Minister himself came in during the last half-hour of our discussions. We were disturbed at that time about the by-passing of the council in regard to the views of the local authority. The local authority had also said that Plymouth was principally an agricultural and tourist area, which we do not consider that we are. I hope that the Minister will see that there is better co-operation between his Ministry and the council.

Second, I hope that he will see that there is better co-operation between the council and the local authority. All too often one hears that something has been considered or decided without any consultation with the local authority. We already had a voluntary regional planning organisation before the Government one was set up, which worked very well. It is essential that we have a real understanding between Government, region and local authority, for otherwise the system will not work.

I wish to say a word or two about Plymouth itself, because it is in a rather different category from the rest of the area. In Plymouth, the unemployment percentage in 1965 was about 2·1. In 1959, it was 4·1 per cent. But then we became a development district, and between 1960 and 1961 a number of factories were established there. In fact, since 1962 28 industrial certificates for Plymouth have been granted, but we are not now in a development area, and as is the area which the hon. Gentleman represents.

When the Minister of State, Board of Trade, came to the conference with the South-West Economic Planning Council in April this year, he stated that he would consider any application sympathetically, and I am glad to say that we have had one application, from the firm of Gleasons, accepted since. However, we do not want sympathy. We want an assurance that there will be quick action if the situation should get worse.

Plymouth is in a difficult position. We are particularly affected by the Selective Employment Tax because 15 per cent. of employees in the city are in the retail trade. Retail trading is the second largest employer after the dockyard, and the dockyard itself may be considerably affected by the proposed cuts by the Minister of Defence. I want the hon. Gentleman to take full note of these points. He may say that at present we cannot have investment incentives because we are not properly a development area, but, being in touch with the major firms in the locality, I know what the dangers of unemployment are. I very much hope that, if I ever have to bring evidence to him that unemployment is increasing rapidly, he will give us not sympathy but action.

Finally, the question of an airport. I understand that the Economic Planning Council is considering an airport west of Torquay and south of the A.38, approximately halfway between Exeter and Plymouth; in other words, about 25 miles from Plymouth. I understand that the local authority council regards this as being in accordance with its wishes, but we would like to know what the intention is. Will there have to be a survey of the area, will the Minister tell us that action is now to be taken, that further consideration will be given to their proposal or will it be bypassed for a number of years?

In supporting the hon. Gentleman and urging that the region be considered as a whole, as we have done in the past, I remind the hon. Gentleman of the Government's policy stated in their pamphlet issued at the time of the conference to which I have referred:

"The Government's policies for regional planning and national planning are two aspects of a single purpose—getting faster economic growth and more prosperity. Regional and national progress are dependent on each other, and must be planned coherently in the interests of each."

This is what we are asking for. We want faster economic growth and we want more prosperity in the area. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne will agree that we have a very good labour force in the area. One cannot find steadier workers, and no firm which comes to the area will want for better workers.

All we are asking for today is an assurance that the Economic Planning Council will be taken into the Government's confidence so that we all know what is planned. The First Secretary of State has given up his job, the chairman of our Economic Council threatened to resign. It must have been an extremely difficult position for him and for some members of the Council when, having been appointed by a Socialist Government to carry out Socialist policies, he then found that he had to disagree with them. This must be particularly disagreeable for many of the Socialist members of the Council, not knowing where they stand in regard to future policy.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that, in future, the South-West Economic Planning Council will be consulted before action is taken. Otherwise, that Council, which we all hoped would work for the benefit of the area, will not be a success.

We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) for introducing this subject. He said that we should look at the problems of our region as a whole. That is right. He somewhat weakened the case by saying that he very often regarded Bristol as part of the industrial Midlands. I should like to disabuse him of that notion. We in Bristol regard ourselves as very much a part of the South-West, and a very important part of it.

I want briefly to touch on one or two subjects. Because of the size and importance of Bristol, what goes on in that city affects very largely the rest of the region. I should like to say a few words about the Portbury scheme and ask the Under-Secretary one specific point on which I should like reassurance.

We in Bristol were very concerned—indeed, the whole of the South-West was—about the decision announced on Portbury. We were very disappointed. Two reasons were adduced for putting off the scheme and the decision on it. The first one was:

"it has been necessary to reconsider this concept on various grounds. In the first place, the recently completed analyses of port traffic flows and their relationship to port hinterlands show that the great majority of our imports and exports are generated close to the ports through which the traffics flow."

We have not yet been able so far to investigate and consider this evidence. We shall be very interested when it becomes available for us to study.

With regard to Bristol and the connections onwards with the South-West, the stage has been reached when we shall shortly complete the M4 and M5. Through the M5 we shall have superb connections with the true industrial Midlands, and with the London complex through the M4. It has been said—I think that it is true—that this part of the region will be very well served indeed. Having regard to the docks facility, I think that it will be a practicable possibility to move goods from the area of the Port of Bristol to the western industrial side of London quicker than can be done through the maze and congestion of London itself. When we study further evidence, I think that we shall find that there is a case on that ground.

The second reason adduced for putting off a decision on the scheme was that studies of ways of handling cargo, such as containerisation, roll on/roll off facilities, meant that berths which formerly could handle only 100,000 tons of cargo a year could now handle one million tons. That may be so. Even considering these arguments, I do not think that we can forget that there was a statement in the White Paper not that Portbury had been put aside for all time, but that the verdict was not proven. The statement was:

"For all these reasons, the Government believes that the case for allocating a substantial part of the resources available for port investment to the creation of a new major liner terminal, whether at Portbury or elsewhere, has not yet been made out"

In other words, the case for Portbury or anywhere else has still not yet been proved.

It is, therefore, surprising that when we go on to consider the latter findings ambiguous words should be used. I specifically ask my hon. Friend to enlighten us further on the last part of the statement. It states:

"The Government is, therefore, inviting the National Ports Council"—

referring to containerisation, modifications and dock facilities, etc.—

"to prepare a phased programme of selective investment in schemes on these lines and to consider alternative proposals for the development of the Port of Bristol."

It is the word "alternative" on which argument lately hinges and about which I should like an assurance.

The existing facilities at Bristol—at Avonmouth—must be made the best use of. If it is possible to expand and modernise them—and it is—the work must be done. But I hope that the word "alternative" does not mean that this is an alternative to Portbury, because in that part of the White Paper, it states that the case for Portbury is not proven.

We in Bristol believe that we will prove the case for Portbury and, therefore, that we should also, alongside this, continue to improve the facilities we have. But the use of the word "alternative "could be construed to mean that we get either these improved facilities on Portbury. We believe that there is a case for improving the facilities we have and that, since Bristol is a fast developing place, we shall prove the Portbury case as well. I hope we shall have an assurance that, if this is so, we are putting a correct interpretation on the White Paper.

Unlike many parts of the country, the Bristol area will see unprecedented expansion. When I stand in my constituency and look towards the Severn Bridge and the roadways now opening up, together with the industry already coming there, it is obvious that it is a natural place for unprecedented expansion. I come from the North and with such a background I am convinced that, in the Bristol area, we need a planning council to plan wisely and well for the future.

I am sure that every hon. Member has seen in various parts of our fair country the outrages of the industrial revolution, when fine estuaries such as Tees-side were ruined by complexes of factories. Bristol is a beautiful and clean city—one of the best cities in the country. One looks across the Severn Estuary to Wales. We shall see much development in the area and I would hate to see the whole of the Severn Estuary become a kind of valley filled with industrial fog and haze with factories spread along all over Severn side. To avoid any such danger we must have wise planning so that we can come to grips with all these proposals and great ventures for the future.

The major rôle of air transport in the West has been mentioned. Bristol City authorities have displayed great initiative in planning for the future of Bristol Airport. But in considering schemes for improving it I hope that we shall also consider another airfield—Filton—which is in many ways more naturally accessible to the city. It has magnificent runway facilities and is much closer to Bristol.

For many reasons, therefore, it would be wise, in discussing the future of air transport throughout the West and any improvements that may be thought of, that we should consider whether there is a case for developing this superb airfield, which is now very little used. There could be a direct bus service to Bristol. Filton is within the city invirons and in many ways is a much better airport, more in line with the needs of Bristol, than the one we already have.

I have covered the major issues which I wanted to mention. I hope that when we are considering the South-West, the planning boards and councils will attack our problems with vigour. With the stimulation of the hon. Members representing the area, I think that we shall do a worthwhile job.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) for being brief. I am trying to get in two more speakers if I can before calling the Minister, but I must preserve his time.

I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), because he was talking about his ideas for Bristol Airport, which is at Lulsgate, in my constituency, which serves Bristol excellently within the opportunity which it gets from the Corporations. I will come to that later.

The hon. Member was very moderate when discussing the rejection of the Portbury scheme, much more moderate than I would be if I had time to develop the subject, but, naturally, he is a supporter of the Government. I welcome the Under-Secretary here today after an enjoyable fortnight bulldozing the Prices and Incomes Bill through the Standing Committee upstairs and through the House, but I hope that he and his Department will not attempt to bulldoze the regional planning council. There is a strong feeling that the planning council was completely ignored before the decision about Portbury was taken, a decision very much regretted by Mr. Hill, who has resigned from the council. He is a very public-spirited and extremely able man, and we in the West Country are very hurt that he should feel it necessary to resign. I certainly sympathise with him.

I hope that the Government and people in other parts of the country are thoroughly aware that the people of the West Country are not yokels with string round their trouser legs, but live in an area of great development potential which has recently suffered a 10 per cent. increase in its taxation as a result of Government activities. There is a deep feeling of sorrow and regret about what has happened in the West Country.

As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) has rightly said, one of the key issues in the development of the West Country is that of communications. I agree with what he said about the A38 and A30 roads. I hope that we shall hear from the Under-Secretary what the Government are to do about speeding up the improvement of these roads, because a year ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a cut-back in road building, the A38 suffered six or seven cutbacks in its development. Because of my feelings about Portbury, I would like to know whether we can be given a date for when the M5 is to come through to Bristol and when it will go further south to end at East Brent, in my constituency. I hope that it is possible for the hon. Gentleman to tell the House something about that.

I do not wish to develop a case about the railways at this point. In the West Country we have recently had very difficult problems with land slips and as the wintry season is not very far away, this is something on which we ought to keep an eye.

I want also to refer to the air communications of the far South-West. As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, this is a widely spread out district. People from other parts of the country think of it as a small area, but when they try to motor down the A38 this weekend, they will realise that it is a huge area, a long sausage.

The Plymouth issue has been raised. It is desplorable that it is impossible to go by a scheduled air route from Bristol to London whereas it is possible to fly from Bristol to Paris. It is easier to get to the capital of France from Bristol than it is to get to the capital of England. This is utterly deplorable, and I hope that the Airways Corporations will do something to improve this situation and to improve the feeder services to Heathrow. It is essential that this should be done.

The Portbury decision is an utterly deplorable one which was arrived at in the face of the recommendation by the Rochdale report that we should have this highly imaginative new port at Port-bury. It is essential for the development of Bristol. As has been said, it is an area of stability and growth, and this growth will increase considerably if we get this port. I do not criticise the decision to proceed with Hull—it is entirely right. But when we have four estuaries in the four corners of England, the Humber and the Mersey, the Thames and the Severn—it would be consistent and sensible if we used those four estuaries fully and relieved the strain of communications on London and Liverpool.

It is also deplorable, at a time of roll-on, roll-off, as well as containerisation, that the hinterland argument is brought in, because as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West has said, we are having motorway development which will extend the hinterland immensely. That is why I ask for these figures and dates about when M4 and M5 are to go through to Bristol, because one begins to wonder whether we are ever to get these motorways.

The hotel industry is another sufferer. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has remarked upon how much the hotels earn in foreign currency. Not only that, but they could save foreign currency if their facilities are good enough to keep people from going abroad. I think that we should keep people from going abroad, not by Government decisions to restrict currency, but by increasing competitiveness in hotels.

Our hoteliers, as we who have spoken in this debate know, work very long hours and have the greatest difficulty in obtaining staff. This difficulty has been greatly increased by the burden imposed by the Government. September will be here soon and the House has not yet risen. It is not surprising that we should be beginning to think of winter, because winter is already beginning to reach out its icy fingers in the areas of the West Country, where we are dependent upon seasonal employment, where the hotel industry and the other industries catering for people who have worked for a whole year and who want some respite and a decent holiday, are situated.

People come to the West Country and work part-time during the summer months. They help out in hotels and in these ancillary industries. The moment the first whiff of autumn comes they are put on the scrap heap. The level of unemployment in the South-West will rise very fast indeed after the beginning of the payment date of the S.E.T. We in the South-West are bitterly sorry about what this Government have done. They have slowed down the development of our communications and this wonderful, imaginative Portbury project. This has made it difficult for those who live within the industry to have a balanced life and full employment throughout the year. I predict hardship and frustration in the South-West, and I hope that we shall receive some encouragement from the Under-Secretary.

I should like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in her thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for your work throughout the whole of this part of the Session. I would also like to echo her in saying that we owe a real debt to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), for raising the subject of the South West on this, the last Adjournment debate before the Recess.

It brings to my mind an occasion, almost exactly one year ago, when I raised the same subject on the Adjournment for the Summer Recess. I recall very well that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State who is replying this afternoon, was in the same position then as he is now. I also recall that because a number of people wanted to speak, he was left with very little time in which to reply. I shall keep my remarks very brief indeed this afternoon, so that he may have a chance to reply to all of the many points raised by hon. Members on both sides.

I wish to make one comment on the Government's programme as it affects the South-West. It has been raised, but it cannot be underlined too much. The Selective Employment Tax will hit the tourist trade in the South-West, particularly the far South-West, very badly. The hotel charges made to visitors there are necessarily quite low, and it is important that we should do everything we can to encourage people to come to the South-West, not only because of the economic situation and because visitors to British resorts lessen the burden on our foreign currency, but because of the importance of the tourist industry to the South-West.

There is no doubt that the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax will put a very heavy burden on hoteliers and everyone engaged in the tourist industry in the far South-West. The absence of development grants for hotels will be another serious blow, because if we are to raise the general standard of quality of hotel accommodation in the South-West to such an extent that we can hope to attract foreign visitors a great deal of money will have to be spent on hotel development.

It would, however, be unfair if I did not acknowledge that the Government have made a real contribution to the future of Cornwall by making almost the whole of the county a development area. This will considerably assist us in developing our light industries and in resuscitating tin mining and other indigenous industries. To this extent, progress has been made in the last 12 months and it would be unfair if I did not acknowledge that.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne rightly drew attention to the fact that there has been a considerable amount of development in certain other regions in the last few years. This has been the result of policies adopted by previous Governments. But the fact remains that we in the South-West have not enjoyed the same degree of opportunity. The South-West remains, I believe, the most neglected area in the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that I implore the Under-Secretary of State to give serious consideration to the plea made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and to assure us that the South-West will receive priority in the next twelve months.

I should like to draw attention to something which I asked the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) when he was First Secretary of State. I asked him whether he would consider establishing a sub-regional office at Plymouth to deal with the problems of the extreme South-West. He replied that if it was the wish of the people of the South-West that a sub-regional office should be established he would consider the matter. I raised it again with the right hon. Gentleman in the latter part of last year. Then a change of heart had taken place.

There is no doubt that it is the wish of the people of the South-West, or if the far South-West is to have sound economic planning, that the plea of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne for consideration to be given to the setting up of a sub-regional department must be answered because we cannot hope to have the planning of the economy of the South West carried, out effectively and properly from Bristol. Bristol is as far removed as London to the majority of people living in Cornwall; it is just as remote. It is vitally important that this matter should receive attention in the Minister's future plans.

A great deal has been said about transport. I wish to make one comment only on this matter. The roads and communications by air to the South-West are the key to the future development of Devon and Cornwall. We cannot hope to have anything like the degree of prosperity enjoyed in other regions unless we can have adequate roads and air services.

It is regrettable that during the nearly two years that they have been in office the Government have not produced any additional plan to that which had already been produced and laid down by their predecessors concerning air services and roads to the South-West. There has been no progress of any kind. The plan on which the Government are working is the one which was introduced by their predecessors. We said at that time that it was not good enough. Hon. Members opposite also said that it was not good enough. They have a duty now to produce a revised plan. Allowing for the country's present economic conditions, I hope that they may give consideration to a method of road loans if they cannot produce the money or persuade the Treasury to produce it for them.

In the debate this afternoon, as in the debate 12 months ago, we have cut across all barriers of party. Indeed, it has been a debate in which on almost every point the three parties have been agreed. It is extremely important to stress that hon. Members who have spoken today, as in the past, on the problems of the South-West have been united in their demand that it should receive priority from the Government. The Government cannot continue to ignore the demand which we are making.

I suggested last year that it might be necessary to devise a 10-year plan. I based that on the fact that a large amount of money must be invested in the South West if we are to enjoy the development and prosperity which other parts of the country are having. The Under-Secretary admitted in his reply last year that it might be necessary to have a long-term plan of that kind.

I hope that during the 12 months that has elapsed the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to consider this carefully. I hope that he will be able to produce a plan this afternoon, because I am disappointed to know that the regional economic planning council, which by January next will have been in existence for two years, does not expect to be able to produce even its draft plan until sometime early next year. That was the reply which the hon. Gentleman gave to a Question of mine a few weeks ago. This is a serious and disappointing state of affairs. We still have not had the plan which we need most desperately.

We in the South-West have never sought charity from the Government or from any other source. We are asking, it is true, for very large sums of money to be invested in roads, in air communications, in the tourist industry, in light industry and in our indigenous industries which require redevelopment, such as tin mining. In asking for that investment, however, we are doing so in the knowledge that given the opportunity the South-West can contribute to the general prosperity of the nation. We regret that our poverty at the moment prevents us from giving to the country, and we want the opportunity to do that. I believe that if the Government will take a realistic attitude to the problems of the far South-West, if they will make the investment that is necessary, it will yield them a dividend far beyond their expectations.

I hope that you will not feel it presumptuous or improper, Mr. Speaker, if I use this opportunity to associate all Members of the House, at least those of us who are left behind at this late hour, with the remarks made in your absence by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and in your presence by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) in saying how greatly we have appreciated the opportunity of being under your guidance during the past very difficult and trying months. If any of us go away somewhat exhausted to our holidays, we shall all remember that however tired we may be, your job has been more continuous and more exacting than that of any of us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambourne (Dr. John Dunwoody) has taken this opportunity of raising the problems of the South-West in what seems to be becoming an annual occasion, because he has already shown in the House, amongst other things, a devotion to his constituency which equals that of his much-loved predecessor, the late Harold Hayman. We were delighted also to hear not mainly a statement of a constituency case, but an eloquent advocacy of the problems of the region as a whole.

I hope that in the time available to me I shall talk primarily about the regions' problems. If in so doing I do not deal with any matters of detail which have been raised, quite properly, by hon. Members on both sides, I hope that they will not feel that I have simply overlooked them and that I shall not pay great attention to them and take action when it may be required.

The first thing which all of us must recognise about the South-West—the point was well made by my hon. Friend—is that it is a region of great diversity. It would be easy to argue from that that instead of having one region in the South-West, we should have two regions. This is the view which has been taken from time to time by some hon. Members and by a number of people outside. We should, however, recognise that although the South-West is unique in a number of respects, particularly in the size of the area—that was another feature which was put dramatically by my hon. Friend—other regions which have been designated for planning purposes by the Government are also diverse, although in different ways.

Anybody who was born, as I was, in Lancashire knows of the sharp differences between the problems of Merseyside and those of North-East Lancashire. Although I was born in Liverpool, only 30 miles from Manchester, for the first 16 years of my life I did not travel that short 30 miles to Manchester, because those were different parts of the region. Again, in Scotland the problems of Clyde-side are very different from those of the Highlands. To take Yorkshire and Humberside, the problems of the West Riding and Sheffield are very different from those of Humberside. In this respect, therefore, the South-West is not unique.

We have decided that it is desirable for planning purposes, where scale is important, to put the whole region together. We shall be judged in the end, not academically whether this was the right division, but by whether the planning machinery which we have set up, acting in full co-operation, as the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport rightly said it should, with both local government and other authorities, produces results. That is the criterion by which our decision, made a year ago, should be judged in due course.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, it is easy for those who travel to the South-West on holiday—as I have done for more than 20 years—to overlook the very real problems which we associate mainly with other regions. I confess that it was only a few years ago that I fully appreciated the severe and persistent unemployment problem which has been a characteristic particularly of the Falmouth and Camborne area but also of a very large part of Cornwall. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bodmin pointed out that our decision to extend the development area over a greater part of Cornwall was a step in the right direction; a recognition of a long-standing problem which had often been overlooked. It was right, therefore, for all hon. Members today to emphasise the need for getting more industry, particularly into Devon and Cornwall.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) will concede that although there are real problems in his part of the region, they may now be problems more of congestion. The problem of providing more jobs, including jobs for young people who we do not want to desert the region, is a characteristic of the problems of Devon and Cornwall. Although I could tell hon. Members of the progress which has been made—and draw their attention to the fact that the approval of I.D.Cs in 1965 represented a record year and that additional estimated employment in Cornwall numbers 1,697 jobs and in Devon, 1,419—I am ready to concede that we must continue to be most concerned that these parts of the region are given priority by trying to attract new industry to them.

Reference has been made to the activities of the Economic Planning Council, and I will shortly refer to the rôle of the Council. I do not believe that either the Council or its Chairman are in any way unaware of the problems of the region or that they would become more aware of them if there was a sub-office of the regional organisation in Plymouth. The important thing is that the problems should be understood.

During the last year Professor Tress, the Chairman of the Council, has paid at least a dozen official visits to Devon and Cornwall to meet local authorities, university groups and to have a look at industry there so that he knows at first-hand just what the problems are. In addition to the activities of the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Board has been a frequent visitor to the far extremities of the region, meeting local authorities and others. I would like to see this consultation continuing because—and perhaps this is one of the problems about the nature of the rôle of the Economic Planning Council—the Council has not been set up to usurp the proper functions of local authorities, which retain their statutory power. There are two views about whether it is right or wrong. The hon. Member for Bodmin might think it was wrong that the Council should have no statutory powers. While it is not an elected regional authority, I am sure it will be generally agreed that these consultations should take place. They have taken place, and I am sure that they will continue.

I have been reminded by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the problem of communications in Devon and Cornwall. I am familiar with them and I remember very well a year ago, when travelling to the South-West, being a victim of those problems when I was rash enough to believe that a road built many years ago was of sufficient character to enable me to travel at speeds higher than those which the Minister of Transport thought right. I also suffered the penalties of travelling on the Exeter bypass. While coming to the House this afternoon one of the officials of my Department who had spent long nights working on the Prices and Incomes Bill said that he expected to spend another long night waiting to get through the Exeter bypass. I therefore assure the House that the problem of communications in this area is fully understood.

The Economic Planning Council, speaking clearly on behalf of the region, has made clear its view that the first priority should be the provision of a spur road of an adequate standard from Bristol all the way to Penzance. I do not think I can add much to what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) knows about the intended extension of the M5. The expectation is that the extension will be continued to East Brent by the early 1970s, but on this occasion I am unable to give a more precise date.

I also agree very much with what has been said about the provision of airport facilities. When about one and a half years ago I found myself given certain responsibilities for regional development, I discovered quickly how important airports can be. In the past the argument was that one provided an airport when the traffic was sufficient to justify it. I have sought to argue since, not always with overwhelming success, that airports should sometimes be used as generators for economic growth and that if one could provide adequate air facilities, industrial development might follow. I must be careful not to commit the Government in this matter, but at least I can say that Government expenditure in providing airports could result in economies in other directions by achieving a more rapid rate of economic growth. It is one of the propositions to which we have been trying to give greater definition.

One of the problems in choosing the location of airports is that we have not previously had an adequate technique of judging against the cost, the benefits that might flow from a new airport. I hope that in the course of the coming months it may be possible, under my Department's supervision, to move at least tentatively towards the new methods by which we can do cost-benefit studies of airport location in the way that cost-benefit studies are now very often done for new major highway developments. I say "under my Department's supervision", but this is something that is essentially within the compass of the Ministry of Aviation. I am merely trying to emphasise that we recognise its very great importance to regional development.

Here, we must again see the need not to spread resources too thinly; to look at the matter in regional terms, and not necessarily in terms of the immediate needs of a single town or city. As the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport knows, there was a long discussion about the provision of an airport for Plymouth. She knows also that we tried very hard to find means by which the needs of Plymouth could be met. In the event, when this was not possible, further discussions followed, as a result of which the Economic Planning Council has been carrying out an investigation, during which it has consulted local authorities about the full provision of airport facilities for the whole region's needs. I hope that the report upon which the Government will be able to make decisions will be available very shortly.

Referring to the rôle of the Council and the advice it gives to Government, in the end, for obvious constitutional reasons, Government, whether it be at local or national level, must govern. We must consider any advice we receive, attempt to reconcile it to other advice we may receive, and then decide on the priorities.

I say that in relation to the Portbury problem. It is not the case that the Economic Planning Council did not have the opportunity of tendering advice to us and expressing its view about the wisdom of the Portbury scheme. We were fully aware of, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport took into account the views that had been expressed by the Council but, as I say, in the last resort, once advice has been received and fully considered, it is the job of Government to make a decision in the light of that advice and of the other information that is available.

As hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport points out in paragraph 106 of Command 3057

"… recently complete analyses of port traffic flows and their relationship to port hinterlands show that the great majority of our imports and exports are generated close to the ports through which the traffics flow. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that a new major port, to be viable, requires, like London and Liverpool, a very large hinterland in terms of industry and population."

The only point I seek to make—as it would not be proper for me to discuss at length the nature of and reasons for the Minister's decision—is that the advice of the Council was not overlooked. It was taken account of but, in the light of all the circumstances and of those investigations which the Minister mentions, she felt it right to make that particular decision.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North West implied, circumstances change, and it would be quite wrong for me to suggest that this matter can be reopened, it is the case that we shall be carrying out a very massive study into the prospects of the major industrial and urban development of Severnside.

My hon. Friend was quite right to say that it is important to have those investigations and to make the plans now so that with any industrial and urban development that takes place we shall not ruin some of the other aspects of that very attractive estuary. By using proper planning methods and making our decisions as a result, this will not be the haphazard development that has destroyed much of the beauty and attraction of other parts. Our study of Severn-side will, we hope, go forward soon, and in its light we hope to draw conclusions about communications for the South West.

I say this about the total context in which we are looking at the South West at the present time. It is not for me today, particularly in view of the events of the last week, to hold out a rosy view of the development in the next few months and to suggest that there are no problems we shall have to face and no hardships to be encountered. Of course that is not the case. We have to recognise, following the Prime Minister's statement on 20th July, that there are some hard problems to be faced and that in the coming months we shall not see the rapid growth of prosperity which once upon a time we hoped would be possible. All our regional planning and all regional development must now take place within that context. That ought to be on record; otherwise I think I would mislead the House and my hon. Friends by suggesting that more could be done than will be done in that time.

The important point, especially for the development areas, is the one which has been very well made during this discussion, that the Government have made it clear that, even during this difficult period, development areas will continue to have priority. This is the great contrast between the period we see immediately ahead and periods in the past which in other respects might have been comparable. We want to use the difficult period from which to gain some advantage.

We can do it in the industrial field, in the whole field of productivity, prices and incomes, but also in the regional field by making sure that during difficult times the structure of the less fortunate parts of the country are strengthened and they receive priority, not only for good economic reasons, but for vitally important social reasons as well. However much we want to see the South-West contribute fully to the prosperity of the country, we must also be concerned with the real human problem of jobs for everyone, including youngsters who might feel that they have to leave the region.

One word about the Economic Planning Council. I fully appreciate the impatience which hon. Members representing the South-West feel. The hon. Member for Bodmin was slightly misleading when he referred to the Council having been set up in January 1965. It has had a slightly shorter life than that but I take his point that of course we want to see the plan for the Southwest as soon as possible. Naturally, while that plan is being formulated, there will be impatience and those who will say, "What is the Economic Planning Council doing?".

We had a choice when we set up the councils. We could have decided that they should operate as forums for public debate making their views known publicly, representing the regions speaking to Whitehall. That was one possible choice, but we decided that it was far better to gather together a group of experienced men who knew the region, who were devoted to its problems, who were prepared to give their time and their knowledge and experience and study and that they would undertake to give the Government advice. If it were confidential and therefore advice to which the public did not have access, if it resulted in intelligent regional planning, this was the important thing.

That is why we elected to have economic planning councils throughout the country working in this way. I think the Economic Planning Council in the Southwest has tackled its problem very well. It has been gathering together the information and carrying out the studies. As I have mentioned, its chairman and the chairman of the Board had been getting about the region. It is too soon to see the fruits of their work, but I believe that those fruits will come and when they are harvested they will be for the good of the region as a whole.

The whole object of regional planning is to look at an area much larger than the areas covered by local authorities. It has to get away from narrow parochial issues. It has to see that tradition should not be the determining factor, but that function is the important thing. It has to provide the people of the South-West with a better standard of living and better prospects than they have known in the past. This is the task to which the Council is dedicated and I hope that the whole House will help, as the Government will help, to enable the Council to do its job.