asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the Scottish Economic Council the problems which will arise in placing school leavers in suitable jobs in 1973 and 1974.

Reduction of unemployment for both adults and young people is a primary aim of the Government's policies for the stimulation of economic growth and these policies are clearly meeting with success.

The unemployment situation is an important aspect of the Scottish economy which, as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) on 21st February, is regularly discussed at meetings of the Scottish Economic Council.—[Vol. 851, c. 444–6.]

Despite that answer, does not the Minister agree that the future employment situation facing young people is very grave especially in the light of continuing high unemployment in Scotland? Will he ask the Secretary of State whether he and the council will consider approaching employers in the private and public sectors to increase the apprenticeship intake and opportunities for young people generally over the next two years?

I will certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend. I agree that any unemployment of young people is particularly serious. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since April 1972 there has been a reduction of 4,902 in unemployment among young persons. That represents a fall of about 44 per cent.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the school leaving age has been raised, which meant that there was no flow of young people from school in January of this year? Does he appreciate that it will probably take until next January to clear those out and that then there will be a resumed flow with 20,000 youngsters leaving school? Will he take steps to ensure that consideration is given to the provision of work at that time?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that any support we can give must be carefully considered, particularly by the Scottish Economic Council. I am sure he will agree that the main way to secure jobs for these school leavers is to see that the expansion in the economy is kept going and that inflation is defeated. No doubt we will have his support in this.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the recent representations made to him regarding land use in the Western Highlands.

We receive many views, both written and oral, about planning proposals involving land use which may or may not become formal planning applications. When they do, most are dealt with by the local planning authority concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that local authorities have sufficient powers under the planning Acts to deal with the comprehensive applications that come before them? Will he consider using the legislation in the 1972 Act to set up a planning inquiry commission which would be able to point to alternative sites? Will he also condemn the rather passive view expressed in today's Scotsman by the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board about oil developments in the Highlands?

The planning procedures are laid down in Acts of Parliament passed by this House. I have used the speediest means possible on the appropriate occasions to enable planning permission to be given in an accelerated way, or by calling in applications. The powers of the local authorities are laid down and it would need another Act to change them. If the reform of local government as we have it in our Bill is carried out, the local authorities will become larger and able to cope more easily with large projects.

What progress is my right hon. Friend making with his consideration of the report on land use in Scotland produced by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

It is being considered most carefully, as I said recently in the House, and the views of the Government will be made know as soon as practicable.

Bearing in mind the welcome given by the Department through the Minister to the new powers being sought by Shetland County Council, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has had applications from either the Highlands and Islands Development Board or the mainland county authorities for the use of compulsory powers in respect of land problems?

I need notice to be able to give a precise answer to that question, but certainly no proposal similar to that of Shetland have been put forward by another county council.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the Government's attitude to the report by the Highlands and Islands Development Board entitled "Housing in the Highlands and Islands".

The report is still being prepared by the board.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the report refers to the serious problems created by second homes in the Highlands? Does he agree that, although most of us are in favour of people having holiday homes in the Highlands, this demand should be met by an increase in the housing stock and not lead to local people being priced out of their home market? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent talks with local authorities to find a solution to what is a serious problem in some areas which is bound to get worse as time goes on?

The report has not yet reached me, so I am not aware of what will be put to me. The question of second homes in the Highlands is a serious one of which I am aware. Last November I had discussions with representatives of the local authorities and other bodies concerned on this whole question, which needs urgent consideration, particularly in view of the welcome boom in the North which has led to new developments and has put great pressure upon housing in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with local authorities about his proposals to widen their rôle as outlined in "Homes for People: Scottish Housing Policy in the 1970s". Command Paper No. 5272.

The wider rôle which local authorities are encouraged to adopt covers a number of activities on which discussions are held as appropriate.

The Secretary of State says that he holds discussions with local authorities on the widening of their rôle in housing. What wider rôle can local authorities have than that which they have at present? What wider rôle does the Secretary of State envisage local authorities having? Is he aware that the White Paper is probably the biggest non-event in housing history? It makes no new proposals and it refers to discussion on only two specific points—the need to release more land for private house building and the land hoarding charge. Is not the fact that the Minister is responsible for restricting the rôle of local authorities rather than for widening it?

I disagree. The local authorities have wide powers but not all of them are adopting the rôle which those powers enable them to adopt. For example, some are simply becoming letting and repair agencies, whereas they have duties to meet all the housing needs in their areas. I am asked what points are envisaged in the rôle of local authorities. They are set out in the White Paper. I will give the hon. Gentleman one straight away—the selling of council houses in appropriate situations to sitting tenants. That is something which local authorities can do and which many of them unfortunately are not doing.

In the light of what he has said, will my right hon. Friend give the latest figures for the sale of council houses to tenants and say which authorities in particular are holding back?

I cannot without notice give the latest figures. I have given figures from time to time and I am glad to see a steady increase in the number of council houses being sold. I should like to see many more sold on appropriate occasions because I know that many tenants want to buy their houses and it is sometimes frustrating for them when their local authorities for apparently doctrinal reasons refuse to sell.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what contribution the sale of council houses will make to the solution of the overall housing problem? How much easier is it now for young couples to get a mortgage than it was, say, two years ago?

It is a useful contribution, with others, that can be made to help the housing problem. Where payment is immediately made the local authority is provided with money with which immediately to start building another house for someone on the housing list. One of the objections which have been raised is that in some way this process holds up people who are on the waiting list.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local authorities have long housing waiting lists and, at the same time, many empty houses that they are unable to let? Is not this one of the major housing problems in our cities which councils themselves should do something about by providing more amenities and glamorising schemes in which houses are empty when there are thousands of names on the waiting list?

I agree that that is one of the misfortunes of the present situation, and it is entirely due to the game of numbers that the Labour Party started in trying to hit a target, which was missed. The Labour Government encouraged local authorities to build houses as fast as they could without proper thought about where they should be, what was the need or whether there were proper amenities. As a result, there are now hundreds of council houses empty although there are many applicants who wish to live in them.

Does not the answer given by the Secretary of State show that he has his priorities totally out of context? He is concerned that council houses should be sold at a time when the replacement rate of new building is lower than is needed to replace houses demolished for slum clearance. When will he tackle the question of raising the house building target?

I said that there were other points in the White Paper, and I gave only one. At Question Time I cannot give a long catalogue. Another point, however, is concentration on slum clearance. The year before last was a record year for Scotland for slum clearance, and last year was very nearly the same. This is one of the important duties of local authorities. They have the powers. There are also other matters such as environmental improvement. I cannot go into them all. These are the areas in which the local authorities have the powers but in which too few of them are adopting the rôle they could adopt by doing a great deal more than simply being letting agencies and carrying out repairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he took account of the recently published Shelter report "No Place to Call Home", before publishing the White Paper, "Homes for People".

Yes, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State say why there is not a more urgent reflection in the White Paper of the need to co-ordinate work on housing with the social work authorities? It is not good enough to leave it until after the reform of local government. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the legal situation in Scotland is inferior to that in England in terms of the protection of the homeless. Nor is there the same guidance. The number of children in care is higher in Scotland than in England and there is not the same provision of temporary accommodation for the homeless in Scotland as there is in England. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all this requires urgent attention?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation if he thinks that there has been any oversight. I regard the problem of homelessness as extremely urgent. I am setting up a special body to consider this matter and to make recommendations. In the meantime local authorities have power to assist.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to call a meeting with Aberdeen Corporation to discuss the relevance of the recent White Paper on Scottish housing to the special housing problems of Aberdeen and the North-East.

I hope that it will be possible to arrange a meeting shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Aberdeen is a special case in matters of housing and problems of land shortage? The increase in house prices is particularly acute in Aberdeen, almost more so than anywhere else in Scotland. May I suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch directly and as soon as possible with the Lord Provost of Aberdeen to arrange a time for a meeting to discuss these problems?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. He has been to see me several times in recent days about it. I agree that Aberdeen has special problems at the moment. These are due to the fact that large numbers of people are trying to find homes in a limited amount of accommodation. The only solution is to build a lot more houses. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I have today written to the Lord Provost and the County Convenor offering to meet them and to give them what help I can regarding this difficult problem. I hope that the meeting will take place before long.

One appreciates the action being taken by the Minister and welcomes the conversion of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) who only recently was telling the people of Aberdeen that it was just hard luck that prices were going up.

Rubbish.

May I ask the Minister, however, whether he will consider meeting not only the Lord Provost of Aberdeen or the County Convener of Aber-deenshire but other county conveners too, because land is being purchased in the area at £25,000 an acre and the price rises by £5,000 an acre every time there is a sale of land?

I reject the hon. Gentleman's unfounded suggestion about what my hon. Friend is alleged to have said. For some considerable time my hon. Friend has been raising most actively with me the problem of Aberdeen's housing.

On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I think that it would be wise in the first instance to offer to meet Aberdeen Corporation and the convener for the surrounding area to see whether we can identify special problems in relation to which we can give particular help. The increase in prices is a result of many people chasing a limited amount of accommodation and I hope that local authorities will explore all possible ways of building more houses to meet the demand.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to extend and improve the harbour facilities at John o'Groats, Caithness.

Responsibility for this harbour rests with Caithness County Council. I am aware of proposals which it is considering for improvements and my officials are to discuss these with the council at an early date.

Is not that a somewhat disingenuous reply, as the council has already on several occasions approached the Scottish Office for financial assistance and the Government have been unwilling to countenance the original schemes? Is not the Minister aware of the vital importance of the Pentland Firth to fishermen operating out of the John o'Groats area and the development of the tourist industry through the ss "Pen-talina" which is using the John o'Groats harbour and jetty? Will he take more urgent action than he has done in the past?

I know that there have been contacts with the county council on this subject for quite a time. As to the original scheme, it was explained that neither the level of the present fishing activity nor the prospects of significant development were such as to justify making grants available for the improvements proposed. We invited the council to produce further proposals. It is in the course of doing this and my officials are planning to meet the council on 16th May to discuss those proposals, which will be sympathetically considered.

Is the Minister aware that the ss "Pentalina" has been a great success across the firth and that my constituency welcomes what has been suggested by the council in Caithness? I ask the Minister again to reconsider the matter because the improvement of John o'Groats harbour is a matter of great importance to the North.

I agree with that, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to look at proposals for harbour investment as a whole according to a system of priorities. Approval for such investment has not normally been given when it is for seasonal traffic, but I will look at the proposals of the Caithness County Council as sympathetically as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average prices of new and old houses in Scotland in June 1970; and what are the figures at the latest available date.

The best information available to me indicates that the average price of a new house mortgaged by a building society in Scotland in the second half of 1970 was £5,504 and of an existing house £4,962. The comparable figures for the second half of 1972 are £6,832 and £6,477, respectively.

Bearing in mind that shocking reply, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult for young couples to obtain the down payment and that because of low wages and unemployment they will not get mortgages in Scotland? Does he further agree that because of the Government's rent policy local authorities do not have houses to let, young couples are becoming homeless and the position will get worse? What do the Government intend to do for the homeless?

I have always been most concerned about houses being available for young couples to buy, but I cannot accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. Whereas the increase in house prices generally in England and Wales over the same period has been about 62 per cent., in Scotland it has been about 29 per cent. That is slightly less than the increase in male average earnings over the same period. It does not suggest that the matter is becoming relatively more difficult. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make on this topic, I shall consider them carefully.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the rise in house prices in Scotland, as in England, is a symptom and not a cause of inflation? May I ask him not to allow himself to be diverted by Opposition and other pressure from tackling the causes and not the symptoms of inflation?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will not allow myself to be diverted by any pressure from the Opposition. I am sure that that statement will be welcome to my hon. Friend.

Is it not ludicrous to talk about percentage increases and to relate house percentage increases to wage percentage increases? Will the hon. Gentleman do a quick calculation and say what is 29 per cent. of £6,000 and what is 29 per cent. of £30 per week?

Surely the correct calculation relates to the effect on a person's weekly budget of having to pay mortgage for a house. The point I was making was that if the rise in house prices has no more than kept pace with the inflation that has taken place over the period, a family with an inflationary wage increase of approximately that amount should be relatively in much the same position.

Will the hon. Gentleman say from his own personal experience why in his constituency of Ayr the increase in the price of old and new houses is so much higher than the national average?

If that is so, it may be because of the fact that, wisely, a great number of people wish to live in my constituency. I am not the least surprised about that. The right hon. Gentleman may know that on Monday I handed over the keys of a brand new house to somebody near his own constituency and the house price was less than £5,000.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of planning applications that are presently being considered by him and local planning authorities for permission to define future Scottish and foreign oil.

Two, as indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 5th March, in which also I gave particulars. —[Vol. 852, c. 53.]

When will the Secretary of State start to give permission for construction of oil refineries in Scotland to allow the estimated production by 1980 of 75 million tons of North Sea oil to be refined in Scotland? Is it Government policy to prevent oil refineries being built in Scotland so as to allow Scottish oil to be refined in England and on the continent? Are the Scots destined to become the Arabs of Europe—situated among the richest oil-producing nations in Europe but with the poorest population?

On the question of timing I must make clear that I wish to proceed as quickly as possible with these two applications, but they are being revised by the applicants. I cannot consider them because they have been withdrawn by the applicants for revision and resubmission. Once applications are in the planning machinery, I cannot comment on the merits or demerits of particular proposals. In general, however, my right hon. Friends in the Government and I are making sure that the maximum benefits from this new oil industry, which has begun only in the last two years, will come to Scotland.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an overall view of the problem of oil refining in Scotland, because the applications that are before him are for export-oriented refineries? Does he appreciate that those of us who represent Stirling and Grangemouth are concerned about the expansion of existing refineries in Scotland? When will he do something about the situation?

The hon. Gentleman will note that the original Question refers to both Scottish and foreign oil and that is the Question I have answered. I was also asked what applications were before me. The proposal for the extension of the existing oil refinery at Grangemouth is not in the planning machinery, but statements have been made on this topic by BP.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a commission to co-ordinate planning decisions about oil development in the North and North East of Scotland.

At present the normal machinery of the planning Acts passed by this House applies and responsibilities are clearly allocated. In addition I have commissioned overall surveys of coastal sites and the impact of oil developments on Scotland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful for his letter, which I received after putting down my Question, and for the interesting discussion document on rig building? However it bears out my point. The document deals with the geographical aspects of rig building and does not take into account many of the social and economic aspects. It will not, I suppose, be kept up to date. It indicates that there is no suitable site north of Cromarty Firth for deep sea rig building. Practically everyone concerned with planning, such as the National Trust, says that the present procedures all need supplementation and should cover the whole area.

The present procedures are governed by Acts passed by this House. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, I think, that I have used these as flexibly as possible to deal with very unusual situations sometimes requiring great speed and other situations where there is a huge dilemma between the requirements of a new industry and the new and valuable jobs which can be brought in and the need to conserve the environment. Technical points come up all the time such as whether it is possible to build a certain kind of rig north of a certain area. But a special issue of the Scottish Economic Bulletin is to be published on Monday which will give a great deal of up-to-date information on the Scottish onshore aspects of the new industry and that will supplement what was presented to Parliament in January by the Department of Trade and Industry.

When will the overall survey be ready? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as most planning decisions are liable to be held to be wrong by some sections of the population, there is still a need to keep the responsibility for these planning decisions as local as possible?

That is the object of the Acts passed by this House. It is the local planning authorities which start considering applications. Then, depending upon the objections or the nature and magnitude of the questions involved, they come to the Secretary of State. As planning Minister for Scotland I am very much aware that this is an area where the most difficult decisions referred to the Minister are bound to cause offence whatever decisions he takes. Some people will be pleased, others may not. This House has recognised that because it is such an important responsibility it must lie with the Government of the day and cannot be handed over to an appointed body outside the elected representatives.

Without reflecting upon the actions of local authorities in this matter, may I ask whether the Secretary of State realises that there is genuine and growing concern that before the reorganisation of local government there will be a critical period during which the resources of local authorities will be stretched? We need from the Government some general indications of their planning criteria which we have not had so far. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of this in the light of the growing interest of American oil companies in finding refining sites in the north of Scotland because they are unable to find suitable sites in their own country?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think we have widely publicised the general criteria involved in these planning decisions. In that way we have been able to give guidance to those who are setting up projects so that they go to sensible places initially and do not choose something like a bird sanctuary as a place for an industrial project. Once an application has been put in under the Act, it has to go through the procedures. No one can definitely say before an application has formally been lodged and gone through the procedures, with opportunities being given for objection, whether something will be successful at a certain site. It is impossible for the Government to give more than general guidance. This we have done. If hon. Members will await the document that is to be published on Monday they will find a great deal more guidance of this kind in it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the legislation before Parliament there are means for providing the necessary co-ordination between the regions in Scotland and that he has so far refused to take them?

No. I should be glad to pursue this matter with my hon. Friend if he would care to suggest further ways in which we can flexibly deal with the situation, particularly the North Sea oil developments, under the Act. I think we have been able to help in a number of cases. Otherwise, projects now producing hundreds of jobs in certain parts of Scotland would not be there—for example at Nigg Bay, Ardiseer and Methil, in Fife.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that voices are being raised particularly in these areas, not least by his colleague who has to sit silent beside him, suggesting that it is time to call a halt for a reassessment? Is he satisfied that there is power to regulate these developments in a way that will enable local authorities, weak as they are, and the local population to cope with the embarrassing problems that apply to them during the construction period because of the local authorities' failure to get adequate information to make permanent long-term arrangements?

Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter in a wider sense than the North of Scotland? Will he have another look at the proposals in the IMEG report which suggest that we should be looking at the extent to which other parts of Scotland could participate in these developments and might therefore save us from some of the embarrassing decisions that he has to make concerning a part of Scotland which is part of our heritage?

On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I gave planning permission for the project at Ardyne Point which is near enough to West-Central Scotland to be of value in that area. There are applications for development in other parts of Scotland as well as the North-East.

I should never say that I am satisfied with the procedures. However, I have to work within them because they have been laid down by this House. It is not possible for me, in a few weeks or months, to put through a new planning Act. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have to work within the present procedures, but I am prepared to consider anything which might improve the situation and to get this House, if it will, to endorse it.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman has power within the planning Act to do what he did regarding Hunterston.

I have done that. On appropriate occasions I have called in. On other occasions local authorities have applied to me so that, under the Article 8 procedure, I could give accelerated planning permissions so that they could change their development plans. In two of the projects that I mentioned, which provided hundreds of jobs, I have been able to deal with the planning permission within six weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the approved establishment of physiotherapists in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, and the number required to be recruited to meet the establishment at the latest available date.

There are no nationally-approved establishments of physiotherapists. The hospital authorities at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, put their overall requirement at the equivalent of 12·5 whole-time staff, and on this basis the number required to be recruited is equivalent to 9·3.

Is the Minister aware that the extremely unsatisfactory figures he has given reflect additional pain and suffering to many patients in the area? Does he recall his reply on 21st March stating that the school of physiotherapists at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary had refused admission to over 20 suitable applicants in the past three years? Will he attempt to rectify this scandalous state of affairs by allocating the necessary finance to enlarge the school at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary or, alternatively, by seconding some of the physiotherapists at Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy on a part-time basis?

I appreciate that there is a serious shortage of physiotherapists in Scotland, but many steps are being taken. There are 274 students at present in training. One of our major problems is the shortage of instructors. There will be a course starting at Jordanhill next session. Furthermore, the regional hospital board is making every effort to attract back to work those physiotherapists who left for marriage or for other reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding the recent accidents on the M90 in Fife which resulted in several fatalities and cases of serious injury; and if he will make a statement.

Fife County Council has recommended to my right hon. Friend that, to reduce the risk of accidents involving stationary vehicles, hard shoulders should be provided throughout the length of the M90 motorway. I announced yesterday that, in view of the substantial growth in traffic expected on M90 as a result of North Sea oil development and other factors, my right hon. Friend has decided to provide hard shoulders.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome news. Does he agree that it was a mistake in the first place not to introduce hard shoulders on the motorway? Does he recall that over two years ago I made representations to him about a hard shoulder and he replied that the volume of traffic was not sufficient to warrant it? I am sure he will agree that a hard shoulder will not stop accidents altogether but will be a determining factor in reducing them.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to this move. If the original planning of the road was wrong, I have no doubt he will take up the matter with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). However, I would defend his right hon. Friend by saying that the traffic figures at that time did not justify the provision of hard shoulders. My right hon. Friend has now taken this step in anticipation of the increase in traffic due to North Sea oil and other factors. This is a sensible move at this stage now that we can foresee additional traffic. It will be widely welcomed by all who use the M90.

Will my hon. Friend now give immediate consideration, in the planning of bridges and flyovers on the next section of the M90, to the need to construct them of sufficient width to include hard shoulders?

I can give that assurance. The next stages, as soon as they are given the go-ahead, will be constructed with hard shoulders.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what up-to-date evidence he has of land hoarding by individual landlords and private building firms in Scotland.

Specific evidence has not been presented to me and local planning authorities have not suggested to me that land hoarding is creating significant problems in Scotland at present.

Since the Government make something of this in their White Paper, and since I agree that it is a problem worth examining, would it not facilitate a continuing monitoring of the situation if the Secretary of State took power to have a return of all owners of lands and heritages of above, say, 5 or 10 acres, that return to be kept up to date? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last time Parliament authorised this was in 1872 and that it is not possible through the Register of Sasines to be certain about present land holdings? Would not this be a way of establishing land ownership?

I shall have to think about that suggestion. But if there is such land holding it will be dealt with by the land hoarding charge which is to be introduced. If it happens, it will be dealt with automatically. It will not be a problem difficult of solution.

Will the arrangements in respect of the land hoarding charge apply fully to Scotland? As many of us rushed back here from the municipal elections in order to hear the answer to Question No. 11 on landlords' and tenants' deflation, is my hon. Friend prepared to give the answer in reply to a supplementary question to Question No. 14?

I can understand my hon. Friend's annoyance. However, the answer will be given in written form and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will give it adequate publicity. In reply to his first point, I confirm that the land hoarding charge will apply in Scotland exactly as it is planned to apply in England.

Is the Undersecretary aware that I share his feelings that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Edward Taylor) left Glasgow yesterday very annoyed having been heavily defeated in the local elections? Does the Under-Secretary realise that it is now more than six months since the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that a land register for Scotland should be drawn up? When does he intend to act upon that?

My right hon. Friend has assured the House that the Select Committee's Report is being actively considered. I repeat that assurance. Incidentally, I made no such suggestion about the arrival here of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). He is, as always, on duty here in good time to do his job, as his constituents and everyone else would expect.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall, with your assistance, seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any evidence of the demand for adequate training courses in the fishing industry being in excess of supply; and if he will make a statement.

I have no reason to think that the facilities for courses leading to certificates of competency are inadequate. A number of applications by fishermen for maintenance grants have had to be rejected by the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority through lack of funds. These grants are met from the authority's general levy on the white fish industry, and it is for the authority, in consultation with the industry, to determine what funds should be made available for the purpose.

While appreciating the full nature of my hon. Friend's reply, and that the Government are aware that training for fishermen is in short supply because of the lack of funds for maintenance grants, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is conscious of the fact that there are problems in the industry about an increased levy since so many sections of it already support other training boards? What can be done to improve the situation in time?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the possible implications of training in the industry. I cannot say more at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the representations of Glasgow Corporation about the existing financial arrangements for the construction of motorways within the city and beyond the city boundary; and what was the nature of his reply.

My right hon. Friend has informed the corporation that he sees no justification for a change in the present grant arrangements at this time.

In view of that answer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present financial arrangements bear inequitably on the citizens of Glasgow, who have to pay 25 per cent. towards the construction of roads in the city, whereas the citizens of adjoining burghs find that the Exchequer bears the whole brunt? Why should my constituency have its community broken up and be decimated by a highway to provide a route into the city centre for commuters from Bearsden and Milngavie?

The hon. Gentleman's latter point is an interesting one which I shall want to consider. As for the general arrangements, they are not unreasonable, as the provision of a motorway of this sort has substantial benefits for traffic patterns in the city. Whereas the central Government pay 75 per cent. and the city authority should pay 25 per cent. in the case of Glasgow, of that 25 per cent. about 14 per cent. comes back to the city in the form of rate support grant. The net cost to the corporation, therefore, is not all that severe, and the resultant benefit is the relief of traffic congestion in the city.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to issue advice to education authorities and school teachers on the problems associated with drug taking.

Yes. I am awaiting the advice of the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum which is considering the report of a working party on all aspects of health education including the problems associated with the misuse of drugs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that news. Will such guidance take account of the extremely good pamphlet published by the Department of Education and Science for England and Wales on drugs in schools? Is he aware that a disturbing report was put out by two researchers at Strathclyde University indicating that there was a significant drug problem among young people in the West of Scotland and that a conflicting view was put forward by other experts in Glasgow? In view of these conflicting reports may I suggest that the Health Department should look at the problem in the West of Scotland and indicate whether a major problem exists?

I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has brought out. We must keep this problem in perspective and in proportion. My hon. Friend has indicated that there was conflicting opinion on the report produced by Strathclyde University. That report and the views of the authorities in Glasgow and of my Department will be borne in mind when we produce the report which I hope will be available by next Session.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House think that his method of handling this problem through the curriculum and health education unit is the best way of doing it? Does he agree that, while we all deplore the increase in the use of drugs, the sensationalism of some of these reports does not help the situation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approach, which is similar to my own. The exaggerations were uncalled for. No one in this House or in Glasgow is complacent about the situation. However, it is not as serious as was made out by the report to which reference has been made. I hope that we shall be able to improve matters still further by the autumn.

Does my hon. Friend agree that alcoholism is still a far greater danger among young people than drug taking? Will he indicate by what further measures he proposes to make young people in schools aware of the dangers of alcoholism?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have taken this matter seriously regarding not only children but adults. The more publicity that we can give to this illness the better. Many steps have been taken by the Glasgow Council on Alcoholism.

Is the Minister really aware of the immensity of the problem? I am not particularly pinpointing schoolchildren. I refuse to believe that some of the reports are conflicting to the extent the hon. Gentleman makes out and I refuse to subscribe in any shape or form to the sensationalism that some hon. Members might wish. However, I am concerned that he should instruct education authorities in Scotland to have a campaign within all schools to inform children of the dangers of drug taking and drug experimentation. I have asked him to do this before. I ask him again to instruct local education authorities in Scotland to have such a campaign in all schools.

I will deal with what should happen within schools after the advice from the Department is given in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman should realise that there is a limit to the exaggeration of this problem. The Glasgow police have an active and efficient drug squad. In 1971 there were 17 cases relating to children, eight cases in 1972, and so far this year only two cases. We must keep matters in proportion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Anglo-Icelandic fisheries dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Icelandic Government on the current fishing dispute with Iceland.

As hon. Members will know, ministerial talks between the British and Icelandic Governments are now to take place in Reykjavik on 3rd and 4th May, provided the situation on the fishing grounds so permits.

I welcome the resumption of these talks, but does my hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty which has gone on for eight months must be ended one way or another? Does he also agree that the British industry has made considerable concessions and that there are limits beyond which it cannot go?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am glad to say that there has been a reduction of tension at the fishing grounds since the dates for talks were agreed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that everybody welcomes the fact that the talks are to take place and hopes that it will be possible to put behind us the unhappy incidents of the past eight months? Will he confirm that there has been no suggestion by Her Majesty's Government that this is anything more than an interim solution and that we are not prepared to give way on the principle of the 50-mile limit, which is due to be considered at the international conference?

That is correct.

I accept and welcome the fact that talks are to take place in Iceland. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is doing everything he can with our European partners to ensure that until this dispute is settled the 50-mile limit is not accepted, while the existing 12-mile limit is, and that there is accord between ourselves and the Europeans about there being no imports from, and no agreement with, Iceland about the trade position in Europe?

Yes, Sir. We are in close touch with the German Government in particular, and we shall continue to keep in touch with them on the problem as a whole.

While all sensible people, on both sides, in Iceland and here, welcome the fact that the talks are beginning tomorrow, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept two things: first, that in the long term there are much bigger issues than catching fish in this whole matter of international limits which will be settled next year, 1974, at Santiago; and, secondly, that in the short term the lives and livelihood of our constituents on Humberside have been at issue and at stake for about seven months? It is therefore my belief that the less said today the better, in view of the fact that the talks are beginning tomorrow.

I should not disagree with any remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously everyone on both sides of the House is hopeful that these talks will prove to be successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to public funds of the message passed recently from the British Embassy in Prague to London at the behest of the Leader of the Opposition.

Seventy-four pence.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the cheapness of the cost involved is almost equalled by the subsequent antics? Will he confirm that the services of the Foreign Office were confined to conveying the message from the sender to the recipient and that it played no subsequent part in the proceedings?

I shall not comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's question. This service is a normal courtesy offered to senior members of the Opposition when they go overseas, and this is right. There was no leak of the text of the message sent by the Leader of the Opposition or the fact that there had been a message from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it was not my Press secretary who called the conference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although many of us on this side of the House think it is about time this whole business was dropped by the media, the actions of my right hon. Friend were perfectly justified and that he helped in a very difficult situation? It is time that this country accepted the good faith of people when they are trying to do a job on behalf of its citizens.

It is high time the episode was closed, but who the media were, and who did the job, I would not know.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Prime Minister of Australia regarding the series of French nuclear test explosions in the Pacific.

Mr. Whitlam referred to the communiqué of the South Pacific Forum and asked that it be drawn to the attention of the French Government. This I have done.

If the British Government are opposed to these tests, as they say they are, why have they not the guts to press the French Government, as Mr. Whitlam and the New Zealanders are doing, to stop them?

As I have said many times in this House, we have made our position plain to the French Government. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I must state as a fact that we have many times told the French Government that we do not think these tests ought to be held in the atmosphere. That is our position—and we have made it clear—and that of those on the spot in our dependent territories.

Is it not a fact that the New Zealanders are proposing deliberately to send a frigate into the area in order to test the situation in the environment? Having regard to the interests of the British Crown in this area and the position of the Pitcairn islanders, who the Prime Minister has denied have any interest in this controversy though my information is that the fall-out from nuclear weapons in that area is acute and has already influenced the flora and fauna on the island, may I ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine that aspect of the matter?

My hon. Friend may have his own people whom he consults on the matter of fall-out. All I can say is that following the previous tests, all of which we have monitored, there has been no appreciable increase in the pollution of the atmosphere. That is the fact which is given to us by our scientific advisers and the best advisers we can find. The position is clear. The Government disapprove of tests in the atmosphere, and this has been made abundantly clear to the French.

If the right hon. Gentleman is so certain that his scientific advisers are right and that there is no radiological hazard, why not offer the French the opportunity to carry out the tests off the coast of Berwick?

Because France is an independent country which can take its own decisions.

In view of the undoubted opposition of both the Australians and the New Zealanders to these tests in the atmosphere, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be possible to offer the French facilities for underground tests, if there are such things—as indeed there are—so that their tests can be transferred from the atmosphere to underground where the hazards are much less?

That is not for us. It may be for the United States, but not for Britain.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a serious matter because it affects our relations with both Australia and New Zealand, apart from the intrinsic importance of maintaining the test ban treaty. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that he has sought to raise the matter and put it on the agenda for the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Europe and has been refused permission to raise it there or, alternatively, that he is so complacent about this that he does not think it is of sufficient intrinsic importance and that it it does not constitute a real danger to the atmosphere?

There is no complacency here. This is a matter for the French Government to decide. We make our representations, and Australia and New Zealand, which are independent Commonwealth countries, make theirs. My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is that it may be that the New Zealanders will send a ship into the area. That is their decision. They are an independent country. We make our position clear and also the position held by the occupants of our dependent territories to the French Government. They have to make up their own mind.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he was informed and approved of the recent visit of the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs to Belfast; and whether he will make a statement.

Dr. Fitz-Gerald visited Northern Ireland in a private capacity on 25th April. I understand that the purpose of the visit was to fulfil a long-standing engagement to meet certain members of the Protestant community, and that he took the opportunity of meeting representatives of the Catholic community as well. We were given advance notice of his intentions, and no objections were made.

Acknowledging the high qualities of Dr. Garret FitzGerald and agreeing that Irish Ministers are always to be welcomed in the United Kingdom, may I ask why, if this was a private visit, it was abused in order to level strictures against the conduct of Her Majesty's forces? What assurance has my right hon. Friend obtained that there will be no repetition of such intrusion on United Kingdom sovereignty?

The more exchanges there are between North and South, the better it is for everybody if they are conducted with discretion, and I am sure that Dr. FitzGerald conducted himself with every possible discretion in this matter. I cannot answer for what I consider to be unjustifiable, alarmist and misleading reports that have appeared in some newspapers.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal.

According to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), whose researches are always thorough, hare coursing was introduced into Britain by the Phoenicians some 2,500 years ago. This was apparently just one of their bloodthirsty habits copied by our ancestors, and over the years we have managed to get rid of most of these practices. However, the disgusting and horrible practice of coursing hares remains with us in spite of repeated attempts to abolish it. Even when circumstances have been most propitious, Bills to abolish live hare coursing have been accident-prone.

As far back as 1926 such a Bill, which had survived Second Reading and all other stages, went down on Third Reading. More recently a Bill introduced in 1967 under the Ten-Minute procedure by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and given time for Second Reading by the then Government, was inadvertently talked out on Second Reading. In 1970, the Labour Government, determined to end the barbarous practice of hare coursing, introduced a Bill of their own, but this fell due to the intervention of the General Election.

During this Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) introduced in the 1971–72 Session a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal and he obtained a Second Reading debate on 4th February 1972. His zeal took him to a hare coursing match to see what was going on. I am sorry to say that he nearly suffered the same fate as some of the hares since some of the atavistic supporters of this so-called sport set upon him and nearly pulled him apart. His Bill, too, was talked out amidst uproar.

The most recent attempt to end this blood sport was made in another place on 2nd May 1972 when Lady Bacon introduced a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal. During the debate quaint ideas were expressed by opponents on the subject of pain and suffering and in the final analysis the blood sport lobby again won the day by defeating the Bill by 115 votes to 71.

However, in spite of these disappointing set backs, those of us in this House who are opposed to this vile practice are determined to keep the issue before the public and to continue to fight to get the so-called sport abolished. We will not be silenced and we will not cease our efforts until victory has been achieved. That is why I am asking for leave to introduce the Bill today. It has overwhelming support outside this House, if not inside it, although many hon. Members have approached me asking to be associated with the Bill. Because of the limitation of numbers, not all who have approached me have been able to be accommodated as sponsors.

There is insufficient time to give a detailed description of what hare coursing entails, but, simply put, there are two large greyhounds matched against each other chasing a very small hare. The chances are that one in every two or three hares will be caught and killed, some of them in a most horrible and excruciatingly painful way. Even supporters of the sport do not claim there is any pest control element and obviously the blood lust is paramount in their minds. Animal organisations have collected much detailed information about the sport and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which unlike the League Against Cruel Sports is not entirely against blood sports, has sent inspectors to coursing matches and has made its reports available.

There are many of them, and to read them is a sickening experience. I have time to quote from only two. The first deals with the fate of the hare. It is the most recent report, dated 11th February 1972. It reads:

"Of the 16 hares killed one of them took approximately two minutes to die and featured in a tug of war between two dogs."

That is not a sport, it is torture of entirely innocent creatures in order to satisfy the blood lust of certain kinds of human beings.

The other report from which I want to quote concerns the effect on the dogs. The quotation comes from the report of the RSPCA Inspector No. 102 who was at Northampton on 3rd December 1969. He reported:

" The surface area coursed over was terrible —the land in the district is very stoney—many dogs—injured—cut paws, broken toes, dislocated toes."

So the sport involves cruelty not only to hares but to man's best friend as well.

There are those who would have us believe that animals do not feel pain in the same way as human beings—that the scream of the hare as it is chased and perhaps pulled between two dogs is nothing to do with the pain and terror. I do not believe it. Nor do most animal-loving Britons, who feel only horror and disgust at this appalling blood sport which is still with us. All too often the supporters of hare coursing and other vile blood sports are loudest in their condemnation of violence in human society. I do not believe that the two can be divorced. Violence breeds violence and disregard for animal suffering merely blunts reactions to violence towards human beings. We want an end to violence and we must abhor it in all its forms. I hope the House will make a start today by permitting the introduction of my Bill.

Before we continue consideration of the Water Bill, I remind the House that, as hon. Members may have already noticed, it has not been possible to reprint the Notice Paper of amendments to the Bill. Therefore, we shall have to work from yesterday's Notice Paper. Adequate stocks are available in Xerox form in the Vote Office.

Notice was given of two further amendments to the Bill yesterday in the name of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and these are available on a separate paper. Both amendments are to earlier parts of the Bill whose consideration was completed yesterday, and they are, therefore, not capable of selection

I beg to move amendment No. 73 in page 30, line 14, at end insert:

' and in framing a Charging Scheme a Regional Water Authority shall have regard to any representations that might be made to it by any person appearing to the Regional Water Authority to be interested in any such Charging Scheme regarding any significant variations of local circumstances'.

This is the beginning of the part of the Bill which deals with charges. I shall, with permission, take a little time in looking at the background. Unless we consider the background it is difficult to see the focal object of the amendment. The Bill deals with administration. That is administration of a technical nature and not, as perhaps has been apparent from debate to date, solely an extension of local government. Basically it has nothing to do with local government.

Water is more vital than gas or electricity. They are alternatives. We can do without them for considerable periods but we cannot do without water. The hazards of gas and electricity are obvious to most people. The potential hazards of water should be causing the greatest concern. I shall refer to the cumulative effects which perhaps in their simple form can be observed when the radiation content of water is measured, and the cumulative effect to the fishes of the water which has been passing through them. It is found that, for example, the measurement of strontium 90 is very much greater in the fishes than in the environment.

We are paying for a service which provides a supply. It must be adequately safeguarded to protect us from known or unknown hazards. One of the ways in which that can be done and, of course, the way in which we pay for the supply, is by obtaining cash from three different groups of people who in the ultimate are all the same. We obtain cash from householders, from taxpayers and from customers.

Charges can be levied on water supplied, on water discharged or on the subsequent treatment of water that has been discharged. Charges can also provide a brake on consumption. If we consider the effect of such a brake on the groups which I have mentioned, I believe that the small householder would be affected negligibly. We must consider the amount which he is paying. Of course, we have no means of telling how much he consumes. It is the general belief of those in the water industry that he is probably being overcharged if he has a small house with few taps and is levied on a rateable value. But if we consider the effects of charges on consumption we find that they are negligible.

Perhaps I may illustrate that point by suggesting that if the two Front Benches agreed not to wash for a week, not to have a bath for a week and to find means of attending to their daily needs which involved no flushing of water, the amount that would be saved after that week would not purchase a packet of cigarettes. Therefore, the braking effect, by so charging a domestic householder of the type which I have mentioned, is negligible.

If we consider a slightly larger type of house which has a garage tap and a tap used for watering the garden, the pattern is quite different. Such a householder pays a fixed charge. In all probability he is underpaying for the water which he consumes. The taxpayer is totally eliminated because his rôole as a taxpayer must be either as a householder or as a purchaser of goods.

We must now consider industry's rôole. Of course, there could be a control by charges on the amount that industry extracts. There could also be a charge on the amount which is discharged. That would restrict extraction. Further, there could be a charge on the cost of treatment if water standards are not acceptable. That is immensely important so long as it is used properly. That will in many instances result in the conservation of water. If the charges are balanced correctly, industry will have to decide whether to put in its own treatment plants and whether to recycle.

Great savings can accrue once people become conscious of the amount of water which they are using because they have to pay for its supply and for its discharge. I know of that from my personal experience. There is, despite what the amendment is aimed at, room for discrimination. That is the virtue of the 10 regional water authorities. Indeed, there should be discrimination as to the rates which are applied within their areas.

The guide should be that clean rivers must remain clean and that dirty rivers must be made cleaner. That should be achieved by rates which permit a competitive position between firms within various areas of the country. What is much more important is that that should be at an international level. That adds up to a temptation for the separate regional water authorities, with their built-in local authority majority, possibly to overtax industry or to make charges which are much higher to industry than to other consumers. Knowing human nature as it is, it is not impossible that that could happen at the time of vital elections.

Many problems result in as much as the Bill repeals Sections 57, 58, 59, 61 and 62 of the Water Resources Act 1963 and Section 40 of the Water Act 1945, and in as much as under the present arrangement with river authorities, where there is a local authority majority, it is well known that many of the problems result from the fact that there are no votes in sewerage.

A situation might arise where discrimination took place. I am only visualising the possibility. I am not saying that it will happen. However, every group should have some form of safeguard. I understand that that has gone with the repeal of the Acts which I have mentioned, or parts of those Acts.

Every group should have a safeguard because the only alternative, so I am informed, is to go to law. That is enormously expensive. If industry has to go to law it will put up the price of its goods. If industry is charged disproportionately, instead of an immediate increase in the cost of water becoming apparent to the elector there will be a price added to the cost of goods, despite what my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment said—that polluters must pay for their pollution. That would be the equivalent of 4p on a packet of crisps. That factor cannot be avoided in the ultimate. Disproportionate charging will result in an increase in the price of goods.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider that matter and tell us what safeguards there will be either for individuals who feeel that they are being overcharged or for industry if it feels that it is being overcharged.

The House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) for his analysis of the possible charging schemes and methods of charging which could be adopted by regional water authorities. He desires by the amendment that water authorities when preparing charging schemes should have regard to representations made by people with interests about

"… significant variations of local circumstances ".

My hon. Friend gave at least a partial reason for asking for representations of that sort to be recognised formally when he asked what other form of appeal there should be for a consumer who was dissatisfied.

The purpose of the amendment is to oblige the water authorities to take into account

"…significant variations of local circumstances "

within their area when framing their charges. I sympathise with the motive, which is to enable consumers who may feel that the circumstances in their area should be taken into account in fixing the water service charges levied on them to bring them to the formal notice of the water authorities. But the amendment does not appear to be necessary to achieve that result.

There is no doubt that charging schemes of water authorities will be both long term and short term. I imagine that the authorities will make clear the distinction between the two. But the general framework of the schemes will obviously cover a number of years, and while the determination is that the non-domestic use of potable water should be charged by volume, domestic use, initially at least, will have to continue as a charge by water rate. My hon. Friend has distinguished between supply and discharge and treatment for industry, and no doubt rates will be worked out for them. It is intended that guidance on the general charging principles should be given to the authorities, but only after consultation between the Government, the National Water Council and the regional water authorities themselves, backed up, if necessary, by ministerial directions under Clause 26(3) or Clause 27(3).

It is intended that such guidance should be the subject of wider consultation with interested bodies, and it is at that stage that the representations which my hon. Friend contemplates should be made. I say "at that stage" in dealing with longer-term proposals in the schemes because the short-term proposals —the standard unit charges for measured supply, the water sewerage charge based on annual values and so on—may be varied, as indeed water rates and charges and general rates are varied at the present time and varied annually. But in the nature of things the timetable of the annual fixing of charges and the printing and issue of bills will not permit protracted consultations about the process.

But the task will, of course, be one of the most important falling to the authorities, and it is intended that the considerations leading up to the fixing of all the levels of charges should be fully publicised. But to place on top of that an obligation to hear formal representations would be so obstructive to the annual working out of the charges as to make it extremely difficult for regional water authorities to carry out their duty. The extent to which variations in the circumstances may justifiably be taken into account will, of course, be the subject of national guidance from the National Water Council from time to time.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point that representations should be received, and received if necessary in some formal manner. But I would not wish to tie that to the fixing of the rate annually. I imagine that the water authorities will be continually receiving representations and will work them into their charging schemes as they may see fit. My hon. Friend said that the Bill deals with matters of a technical nature. It deals with the provision of a service on a commercial basis, and to that extent we seek not to bind the authorities with unnecessary statutory obligations but merely to lay down general guide lines and general rules which appear in Clauses 26 and 27. My hon. Friend's desires will be realised. The object of the amendment will be achieved—but not by placing any statutory obligation on the authorities.

In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 30, line 30, after ' premises ', insert ' other than domestic premises'.

We have discussed many clauses and amendments of vital significance to local authorities or to river boards or to fishermen, or to various other interests. This clause is of direct concern to every consumer of water—to every householder in the British Isles. Subsection (1) is the most retrograde part of the whole Bill.

The Government seek by subsection (1) to introduce the principle of metering by volume to domestic consumers in the same way as there is metering by volume to industrial and some commercial consumers. It may be argued that it is fair and proper that water should be treated like any other commodity—like, for example, coal, gas and electricity—and that one should pay for one's water in accordance with what one consumes, regardless of one's circumstances, of one's means, of one's necessity, of the size of one's family.

That concept is totally foreign and alien not only to the Opposition's view but to the traditions of the country. Our Victorian forefathers, even in an age where everything had to be charged and paid for, treated water as something which it was the right of the public to use according to need.

Of course the provision and supply of water has to be paid for. But it is paid for at present by domestic consumers on the much fairer basis of a water rate, which does not take into account the amount of water consumed or the need of the particular house but spreads the cost of water consumption over the community as a whole. That has been in existence for 100 years. It is something we think of as part of the tradition in Britain—that water should be supplied to people in accordance with their need and not in accordance with their means.

4.0 p.m.

Why should water be treated on a financial basis in the way the Government propose? From a public health point of view the step which the Government are taking is extremely grave. Water is used not only for drinking but for flushing toilets, for cleaning and for washing in domestic premises. A charge for water such as the Government would allow the water boards to make would be a tax on cleanliness, a tax on public health.

In Committee on the Bill someone said that this clause would condition the number of times a person goes to the toilet. It cannot condition that, but it can condition the number of times that a toilet is flushed. That is the level to which the Government have brought us by introducing a charge on the consumption of water.

Would not the hon. Member accept that even if everyone in this Chamber refrained for a week— Heaven help that they should—from using water for washing, the saving in cost would be so small that one could do hardly anything with the money saved? Such non-use of water would have an effect only in larger premises, and they are already metered.

I shall deal with that aspect but at the moment I am dealing with the householder in an ordinary house where water is used for drinking, for making tea, for washing, for baths and for cleaning the house—the ordinary use of water in households. Although it may not be known to the general public, it is proposed by Clause 28 that the regional water boards, when the Act becomes effective or at such time as they may determine, should introduce in their areas meters in domestic houses.

The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) spoke about the more abnormal use of water. The Government could have dealt with that without a general metering charge. I accept that where water is used in domestic premises for what one may consider as non-domestic purposes—for example, for a swimming bath—there should be some metering of the water. We would not disagree about that, but very few households in this country have swimming baths. In fact, too few have ordinary baths. The Government could bring in an amendment to charge for water going into swimming baths or for water used for garden purposes. We would not object to that. But we object to the use of that as an excuse for a blanket charge for water in ordinary domestic premises.

Another aspect which I am sure the Government have considered is the enormous cost of the scheme they are proposing. There have been various estimates, running into millions of pounds, of introducing water meters into domestic premises. That would be on capital account alone. The cost of introducing meters, which would have to be paid by the householders, would itself be astronomical. In addition, there would be the revenue cost of all the water inspectors going round to read the meters and then the computing of bills, not on the comparatively simple basis of the present water rate but according to a consumption basis.

I wonder what is to happen to the household which does not pay its water bill when charged in this way. Could the Government or the water authority cheerfully cut off the water supply as some authorities at present cut off elec- tricity or gas supplies? Have the Government thought of the public health hazard which would result from such a step? These are all difficulties which can be envisaged in treating water as a commodity in the way in which commodities bought over the counter in a shop are treated.

What would be the attitude of the hon. Member if the metering of supplies actually meant that the cost of water to a domestic consumer should go down?

I can envisage that to certain domestic consumers this might lead to the cost going down. Their consumption is small because of their needs. But to the family with four, five or six children with napkins to wash and all the problems of a household, I think the cost would go up. It would go down for some people who perhaps could afford the cost better than the family with a number of children. I still say that our present system of a water rate spreading the burden over the whole community is a far better and fairer system of charging than one with the minor advantages that might be achieved by a small section of the community paying a smaller charge because their consumption is less.

When dealing with water we are not dealing with a commodity which—apart from swimming baths and things of that sort—is a luxury. We are dealing with a basic, essential necessity of life. The Government are trying to bring in a metering charge for a basic, essential factor of life. We are totally opposed to the concept of metering being introduced in this way into private houses.

Is there such a waste of water resources in private houses as to make metering essential? Consumption of potable water in domestic premises compared with the enormous consumption for industrial purposes, is almost negligible. Consideraing the amount of water wasted at present for all sorts of reasons, metering would not be an answer. There is wastage because of burst pipes or defective washers on taps. Surely the Government should introduce a free plumbing service by which those washers could be replaced to conserve water rather than embarking on the enormously costly and unfair procedure of introducing meters into private houses.

Will the hon. Member say what he means by "a free service "? Who would pay?

The water authority would pay. When I say "a free service" I mean that if someone has a leaking tap it could be to the advantage of the regional water authority, just as it is for many local authorities today, to send someone to mend that tap rather than having the deterrent for the consumer of receiving a bill for mending the tap. If that is the Government's intention, that would be far more economical than introducing metering and far fairer to the poorer-paid family, those people who have no choice but to use water.

We do not approve, either, of the way in which the Government have done this. The Under-Secretary was cautious in a recent speech about metering, because he knew what the effect in the country would be of the introduction of a commercial basis for an essential need. He said that meters would not be automatically introduced into every home but that certain water authorities would have the power to introduce them, that it was their decision. What he meant was, "We do not have the guts to do this. We will leave it, not to democratically elected councils, but to regional boards, the chairmen of which will be appointed by the Secretary of State." The people will have no say in this revolutionary change.

We have no objection to metering of the abnormal needs of commercial or industrial premises or of swimming baths and other unusual uses in domestic premises. We are concerned about the tens of millions of ordinary homes in which, under Clause 28, un-elected water authorities will be able to install meters. We are concerned about the cost of metering and of servicing and are very much concerned about public health. Most of all, we are concerned about the effect of this on the pockets of ordinary people.

The charge for water will be imposed not simply for water, as at present. Clause 28(1) means that it will be a charge for sewerage as well. Whatever passes through the meter will be registered as water. Just as water has been paid for by a water rate, so sewerage has always been accepted as a public responsibility of local authorities, aided by the Government through the rate support grant. In the early hours of this morning, the dead hour when there is no reporting, we heard that the Government intends that the regional water authorities should, in the Government's classic phrase, "stand on their own feet"—which in fact means standing on the feet of the consumer, especially the domestic consumer. Clause 28 also provides that £100 million in grant will be saved by the Government but put on to the shoulders of the domestic consumer. The meter will deal not only with water but also with sewerage.

4.15 p.m.

This is not a decision which should be left to the undemocratic regional water authorities. This elected House must make up its mind on so vital a change in our attitude—whether water should be treated as an essential need or like any other commodity.

I would ask hon. Members on both sides who care about public health as well as the situation of the ordinary consumer to support the admendment and thereby avoid this attempt to put the clock back in public health over 100 years.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and I remind the House that Clause 25 puts a responsibility on regional water authorities to make a return on their notional assets In other words, not only is the £100 million being taken from grants towards sewerage, but the Minister will be able to make the water authorities show a profit.

No doubt the method of metering will be used possibly as a threat or in marginal circumstances at first and may be, as the notes on the clause suggest, gradually extended over the years to produce those notional profits. This will be done at the householder's expense.

My hon. Friend missed out an important part of society who use a good deal of water—the invalids, the sick and children. Imagine a housewife with an elderly, possibly incontinent, relative and many children. The amount saved by economy may be only 4p or the price of a packet of crisps, but we all know what women do when they are trying to save. They will be nagging the children and they will think twice about washing the kitchen floor—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary laughts at this. He thinks that I am talking moonshine. He talks moonshine about metering. He seems to think that this will not worry many housewives. He and the Government are as unrealistic about this matter as about so many others.

Why is it wrong to meter water but right to measure milk? Both are vital.

That may be, but the point about water—I do not want to go into a long lecture, because time is limited —is that it is far more important to public health and the basic proper living of people than anything, including food.

If the hon. Member does not understand the basic importance of water in public health and in community life in this country, he should read a few history books of the nineteenth century. The total organisation of water in Britain is founded on a series of Public Health Acts of the last century. It is a far different system from that on the Continent, where they also meter water more extensively. Indeed, the fittings and the taps to which my hon. Friend referred are of a very high standard in this country and are kept to a very high standard because if there is a leak the loss goes to the water undertaking and not to the consumer.

The document which we have from the Government on this matter in default of a proper White Paper says that they are engaged in experiments to see how far metering would be helpful. They go on to say in their notes on clauses that there may possibly be a meter not to charge by volume but to give a charge on minimum consumption. This requires reading and it will require extra billing. At the moment the water rate is collected in many places with the ordinary rates. Under the new organisation this will need new machinery.

The Government have never said why they have put this into the Bill. The British Water Association has published a memorandum on metering and has said that studies show—and of course there has been a study in Malvern—that

"… there was little difference between meter charges and charges based on net annual value. The minimum charge for metered supplies to domestic premises would have to be set at a figure which would allow an adequate supply of water to meet normal health requirements, so that a large number of meters would be unproductive, because the minimum would be unlikely to be exceeded."

I know the hon. Gentleman says that he is not definitely going to insist that water authorities do this, but the fact that there is a provision in the Bill for domestic premises is a very dangerous and bad precedent. If he did not mean it seriously, if it was nothing more than moonshine, as he tried to make out in a speech not long ago, this part of the clause would not be there.

I refer in even stronger terms to the lack of information from the Government on this subject. We dealt with this briefly in Committee and, as reported in column 980 of the Standing Committee report, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the present Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, no less, chaired a sub-committee on water charges in 1963 which reaffirmed the retention of a system of charging related to net annual value although they were aware that the system concerned was not ideal.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman at that meeting of the Committee what had happened since then to change the Secretary of State's mind. At the end of a subsequent debate the Minister for Local Government and Development said that he would provide a letter which he would send to me, with copies to the members of the Committee, which would set out the reasons. He said that he would

"… write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the case for this clause"

—that is the metering clause—

"and provide the rest of the Committee with a copy of the letter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th April 1973; c. 995.]

I do not recall having received that letter and I have checked with some of my hon. Friends who tell me they have not received it either. Not only have we not had a White Paper on the Bill, not only has the country as a whole not been properly informed about this, but even hon. Members who were members of the Committee have not received the letter they were promised. I absolve the right hon. Gentleman from any deliberate intent—I know him too well to think that he intended that—but there appears to have been a slip-up in the machinery. I think it is a very good example of how bad things are in terms of information to the public and the accountability of Parliament that we come to the Report stage in the House when information of this sort is not available.

I raised this point on a Welsh matter yesterday, and I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Welsh Office, is here. I was not concerned with the Welsh issue but with the question of information to the public, and I am glad he takes that point.

I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had kept up to date with all the letters I had promised to write. I gave a rather large number of undertakings during the Committee stage. I did not know that I had slipped up, and I apologise sincerely.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I knew his intention and I am perfectly well aware that he was very anxious to do this. I do not think it is necessarily his fault. I would not expect him to read all the columns afterwards. But I think this is symptomatic of the difficulties in which perhaps some of those who advised him on the Bill have put the House and the country.

The speech made by the Undersecretary on 6th March was also symptomatic. The Press notice read:

"Water metering will not become compulsory—assures Eldon Griffiths.

Suggestions that water metering to domestic households will be made compulsory on 1st April 1974 are complete moonshine, said Eldon Griffiths, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of the Environment in London today."

It is easy to imagine the impression that people will get from that. It is an official Press statement from the Department of the Environment. But nobody had suggested that it would become compulsory on 1st April 1974. That is another way in which the Minister sometimes gets things wrong, and we misunderstand him on too many occasions, I fear.

However, it is quite clear that the power is there for a regional water authority to make it compulsory. Far from being moonshine, I fear this is something which is very real indeed. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used this technique at that time because I believe that, combined with the lack of information from the Government on this subject, it has caused great discomfort and will cause great discomfort to them in the future and indeed cast doubt on the probity of Government, politicians and democratic institutions as a whole.

Is that point not even more realistic when it is considered that the Government have reserved the power to appoint the chairmen, so that the first question to be put to any potential chairman is whether he agrees with having domestic water metered?

We were discussing that very question only last night. I think it is very unlikely that any Minister would appoint a chairman of a regional water authority knowing that he was against the policy of domestic metering. It could be that he would do so, but this whole question of the independence of regional water authority chairmen is brought into focus by this very important issue. Even if the public are not interested in sewerage and water as a whole, they are, I am glad to say, interested in water metering because this is something they will have to pay for out of their own pockets.

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) and the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), would he not also accept that there is an additional point concerning cases in which these regional water authorities are against water metering but the chairmen support it? In this way discord could arise in a very important area of public policy.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Methyr Tydvil is completely right. I am horrified to contemplate the situation in a large regional water authority—perhaps Severn-Trent— where the majority of members say one thing and the chairman another, and the Secretary of State backs the chairman, it is easy to imagine the effect on the efficiency of the organisation in that huge area. That is a very good example of why the administration of this Bill will cause great difficulty.

This is a very important clause. The Government have not provided their case for having it in the Bill and that is the very reason why the right hon. Gentleman courteously said that he would send me a letter giving the reasons. That was a tacit admission that a case had not been properly made out. As he admitted today, that case has still to be made. That is one of the reasons why I shall vote in the Lobby, and I hope that many other hon. Members will do so, too.

The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) is right in saying that a plentiful supply of water, including water for domestic use, is vital to public health, but I am sure he would agree that it is equally vital, and perhaps for the very reasons he has given, that water should not be wasted.

We are in the early days of experiment and thought on the subject of metering, especially metering for domestic purposes. If experiment and thoughts show that water would be saved in substantial quantities by its being metered for domestic purposes, it would be foolish to suggest to the Government that they should come back at a later stage and obtain the power to meter, when there is this obviously suitable opportunity of taking that power now.

I was very surprised that the Opposition Front Bench argued that provision for the metering of water for domestic purposes should be excluded from the clause. If, by some misfortune, they found themselves in power after some years, when experiment and thought on the matter had gone further, I am sure that they would greatly regret not having the power if it were found necessary to use it.

Consumption of water per head has increased every year since records were first kept, and every year this century the population has increased. Even if we manage to stabilise the population, it will increase by another 5 million to 10 million above its present level by about the end of the century. In those circumstances, as it will not be easy to secure the increased water supplies both for further increased consumption per head and for a much larger population, the exclusion of the possibility of metering domestic supplies at this stage would be utterly wrong.

I hope that my right hon. Friend, without labouring the point too much, will advise the House to reject the amendment.

In some ways the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and I see the matter through different political eyes and through different personal eyes. We are in different stages of our life. I am still in the nappy-washing stage, as a young father with young children.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about wasting water. I would not consider it wasted in the average young family household, even when occasionally I see my son running the taps and dabbling his hands in the water. Young parents sometimes have to nag their children about putting out the lights and so on. I should hate to have to nag children on the use to which they are putting such a simple resource as water.

The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) has made the point that the savings achieved by the use of petty metering techniques in domestic households are likely to be small in proportion compared with the savings in industry or what can be achieved by the reuse of water or other techniques.

The point I was making was that in monetary terms the saving was negligible, but in gallonage it was quite high.

Both sides will agree that all the evidence points to the fact that great savings of water can be made in other ways, and that metering will make a marginal contribution.

We must take into account a whole variety of family and domestic problems that could arise if we put a higher premium on the use of water. The Minister said yesterday that he believed in charges, not taxation. That is the thin end of the wedge, as the clause is. The Government do not openly admit that they want meters, but they want to hedge their bets. They realise that metering is unpopular, but the whole philosophy of charging the consumer, irrespective of income and need, pushes them along the path towards water meters. The House would be misled if the Government did not admit that the clause is pushing open the door, and that eventually Government policy will be that water meters should be in every household. That is why we oppose the clause in principle, not because we expect metering to begin in April 1974.

We have seen government by Press release from the Under-Secretary. The Press office of his Department must be working full-time for the hon. Gentleman on these issues. He travels the country explaining the position. Metering may not begin in April 1974, but the Government intend to introduce the principle of water meters and switch the burden of the cost of water from the community as a whole to the individual consumer, irrespective of income and need.

Does this mean that we shall have the equivalent of rent rebates on metered water charges? [Interruption.] It is not silly. If the householder is charged, the Government will presumably then say "Some householders cannot afford to pay, so they will have to be means-tested to have a rebate." That is what happens once the Government start along the path towards switching the burden of the cost of water supplies to the individual family and household from the community as a whole, in the form of direct charges. We should oppose that, not because we think—

The next stage is the police State, which we had in the war, when the Government did not put in meters but forbade people to have more than four inches of water in the bath. They are now trying to do the same thing by meter, but will have to fall back on the police State.

I am in the nappy-washing stage. I was not born at the time of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I am grateful for his historical references.

We suffer from gas boards that cannot send out correct gas bills. Is the same thing to happen with water? Shall we have inspectors and water meter readers?

There is a principle involved in the clause, besides the practical problems. The supply of water to households and families is a part of our local public health and social services, and, therefore, should be kept as cheap as possible. Whatever savings there might be for some people, usually single persons, the concept of water meters will herald an era of more expensive water for the household and family. That is why the Opposition will divide the House on the matter.

I apologise for contributing to the debate now, when I have not been conspicuous by my dutiful attendance on other occasions during the consideration of the Bill. I have received many representations on the subject from different quarters and felt that I should try to take part in the debate.

I do not oppose the giving of a permissive power to meter water supplies to all types of premises, and therefore I oppose the amendment. My approach is slightly different from that of certain other hon. Members. To give a power to meter water supplies is not precisely the same as to make a direction that in all circumstances supplies should be metered. It would be helpful—I make this concession to what was said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)—if the Government could be more specific and give greater clarity on precisely what is in their mind in seeking to include the power in the Bill. [Interruption.] It is fair to say that previous statements from the Government Front Bench have not been specific to the last degree.

My enthusiasm for metering varies according to the circumstances we are considering. It is accepted that almost all supplies to industrial premises are metered. There is provision for metering commercial premises, and the clause would allow that provision to be widened.

A commercial user in my constituency has seen his water rates rise from £4·10 per annum in 1964 to £88·69 in 1972. That was without any increase in water usage. While the cost of water has risen 47 per cent. the charges have risen by 2,100 per cent. I can understand the anger felt by commercial users about the present system for charging for water. An extension in metering for them is wholly justified. It is the same sort of considering which affects the minds of domestic users.

I look at this first on the basis of what sort of metering is proposed for domestic users. Is it to be metering without the option or are we giving a power to the new water authorities so that they may be able to respond to demands from users to have their supplies metered? There is a considerable distinction between compulsory metering and a person's right to have his water metered. I do not know with whom Labour hon. Members mingle but I have found that many people are totally incensed by the present method of charging for their water supplies. They get pretty hot under the collar about the ordinary system of general rating. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite had not heard of that.

When, in addition, they find that the charges for water are related to the rateable value of their premises and they are suddenly facing a severe increase in water charges which has nothing to do with consumption they get even more angry. If hon. Gentlemen have not encountered that point of view I will not accuse them of being in dereliction of their duty in failing to meet their constituents. All I will say is that I am slightly surprised that they have not met this.

What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that while the water race is tied to reateable value, by and large water charges are relatively small so that the increase in cash terms is also relatively small.

I understand that, but that sweetly reasonable explanation is not always greeted with unalloyed pleasure by the people to whom it is given. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that there is great resentment about this, I am surprised.

Can my hon. Friend say whether it is intended that a choice should be given to the consumer as to how the charge shall be levied? Does the case for domestic metering rest entirely upon the amount of water that can be conserved, and must it therefore be a universal practice? It would be interesting to know whether the Government have investigated the potential saving of water through the introduc- tion of metering in domestic premises and whether they can say how these savings compare with savings in other directions, for example as a result of research on desalination processes.

While I am curious to know the answer to these questions—and we need to know the answers—when we come to the arguments advanced by the Opposition we can well ask what evidence they have for some of their propositions. There is the idea that this is hitting at large families or at people generally and that there is a risk to public hygiene because people will not wash regularly. These are theories that may be introduced in some debating society. What clear, quantifiable evidence is there that this is a danger following upon the permissive powers in this Bill? Are not their statements based upon some homespun philosophy, as we see the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) toiling over the nappies in the bath? Is this based on what they think may happen or can they say that there is a measureable amount of danger to health standards?

4.45 p.m.

If hon. Gentlemen are representing the fears that exist in the minds of some of their constituents they ought to measure them against the feelings of other constituents who are just as numerous, if not more so, and who are incensed about the present method of charging. These people are urging their representatives to change the system in some way. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that we should oppose this because it is opening the door to action by future Governments. I cannot see any great harm in giving a permissive power, particularly if it is to enable citizens to have a wider choice. Any Government can come forward and take this step in future if they want to. I do not understand the hon. Member's argument about the thin end of the wedge. It is not a very strong one for a vote on the principle.

I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is undertaking a study into the system of charging, in conjunction with the National Water Council. I hope that when advice is given it will be in the attempt to provide a choice. I hope that the individual water authorities will not be told that they must go ahead with a compulsory system of metering but that this might be conceded as a right of the consumer. That is my approach, and if this is at the kernel of the Government's intention in introducing the clause, I do not see why there should be so much steam raised against it. I am certainly prepared to support the Government.

When the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) moved the amendment he was good enough to tell us that the Government's action was the most retrograde step taken—I am not sure whether he said this century but certainly for a considerable time. He waxed eloquent and indignant, and it was obvious that his party had made this a set piece. This was the moment when it would demonstrate to the public how defective the Bill is and how it is the champion of the long-suffering public.

I had expected to see the Labour benches packed when the hon. Gentleman rose to deliver this tirade which would destroy the Government's case. There was, however, but a thin cheer from two of his hon. Friends. I was reminded of the actor who peered out from behind the stage curtains at the theatre and discovered that there were only two people present. The producer comforted him by saying that it was a splendid audience—both of them were chatty. That was the situation in which the hon. Gentleman found himself when he delivered this attack designed to make the flesh of the public creep, saying that somehow or other the metering of water was to be forced upon the public by a Government seeking to finance the whole of the water industry at the cost of the nappy-washing of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands).

This is a total travesty of the truth. I could not think of a better phrase than that quoted by the hon. Member from an earlier speech of mine when I said that the Opposition's case was sheer moonshine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)—who understand these matters—has said, we are at a very early stage. A good deal of thought must be given to this and more experience gained before final decisions are taken.

We give the regional water authorities —which will be powerful statutory bodies with elected local authority majorities—a broad power to charge. There is no reason to suppose that they will use their discretionary and permissive power irresponsibly. They will be able to make charges according to the volume of water supplied to or taken away from any premises, whether they be domestic or industrial. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwick (Mr. Haselhurst) that this is a discretionary and permissive power which the regional water authorities themselves must determine in the light of the circumstances within their area.

To answer my hon. Friend's other comment, it would be possible to give the individual consumer the right to opt for metering, but if some individuals only were to opt in that direction inevitably the cost of the installation of metering in one place, and all the con-sequentials, would be extremely high. Such an individual consumer might well find that the capital cost would be hardly worth the gain he might achieve. But I will make sure that the group under my Department that is studying this matter gives consideration to the points which my hon. Friend has raised.

The regional water authorities will have power to make charges for the water that they supply. I was reasonably asked why the Government thought that this discretionary power should be given to them. One reason is that the Central Advisory Water Committee—the statutory body that advises the Government on these matters—concluded that metering was by far the fairest and most effective method of ensuring economy in the use of water. The Central Advisory Water Committee's Sub-Committee on Water Charges reported that this would be the best way of doing it, and its conclusions gain a good deal of support from the grievances, expressed to my Department frequently through hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches, of elderly people living alone who use water only for their modest domestic purposes. These people see little justice in their being obliged to pay the same charge for their water as do the family of four or five living in the identically valued house next door who use perhaps six or seven times as much water, for the automatic washing machine, the dish washer, the sink waste grinder and the couple of cars which they shampoo regularly. We frequently hear from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches complaints from elderly people who find little justice in the present system of charging.

I come to deal with the specific complaints that have been made in the debate. One suggestion was that metering will enforce economy of water use on the lowly-paid and that this will produce dangers to public health. We have looked into this matter in some detail, and we find that domestic water supplies are metered in most of the rest of Europe and in North America and, for approximately 100 years, have been metered in Malvern, England. There is no evidence from any of those countries, or from Malvern, that public health or personal hygiene are in any way at risk where domestic water supplies are metered.

I say to the hon. Member for Acton that the cost of washing is not so high as to be a risk to public health. The cost of water, even if it were to be charged by volume, is infinitesimally small compared with the cost of heating it before it is used or buying and running a washing machine in which it is processed. There are—this may give some comfort to the hon. Member for Widnes —various methods whereby an entitlement to a basic supply of water for the reasonable demands of a family could be handled through a standing or even a token charge. Quantities in excess of that amount would be charged for by volume. That would provide for the supply of more than sufficient water to meet the reasonable demands of the ordinary family with the metering of excessive amounts which are wasteful to the country as a whole.

The second charge made by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches is that the scope of and the need for economy in domestic consumption are negligible compared with those in industry. That point was made much of by the hon. Member for Widnes with his knowledge of the industries in that area. But he is not right on the facts. The need for sensible economy in industrial use is acknowledged on all sides. As water consumption is a cost on industry, industrialists for the most part are sensible about it.

On the facts, unmetered consumption, mainly by domestic users, accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total water supplied by public undertakings. Therefore, even a small percentage saving on the future increase in use would be very valuable. The waste of water through leakage, washers and for a variety of reasons in the domestic sector is conventionally taken as approximately 15 per cent. This waste arises from filling a handbasin simply to wash one's hands, using two gallons or more to flush half a pint and from the fact that most of us tend to take our water for granted as something that just appears when we turn on the tap. We have to recognise that water is becoming too expensive to collect, transport, purify and distribute to be wantonly wasted or polluted in the manner to which we are accustomed.

The Bill does not simply require the installation of meters in all domestic premises within a short period of time. The capital cost of doing this would be extremely high. The technical difficulties of retro-fitting meters into the multi-occupation premises of many of our larger cities is probably beyond practical possibility. We are saying that the new regional water authorities, which will be responsible statutory bodies with an elected democratic majority, should themselves be able to determine whether, in the overall interest of their consumers and of the safeguarding of future water supplies it is right to go in for metering. It woud be entirely wrong, when we are passing through the House a major piece of water legislation, not to put into the Bill that discretionary and permissive power against the future in case the regional water authorities should decide that it is wise to use it.

I reject the scaremongering indulged in by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches. I agree with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire, that we are as yet at an early stage and it is wise to make this provision because otherwise we should not be doing our duty by the future consumers, many of them yet unborn.

That was a lamentable explanation by the Under-Secretary of State of the most retrograde proposal in the Bill. I agree with with him that water is a luxury, but it should be available in plentiful supply. The hon. Gentleman argued that increase in capital costs may make it more difficult to collect and transport. I do not see why he should approach this subject in such a mean-minded way. The air we breathe and the water we drink traditionally have been available to our people in plentiful supply, and should remain so. A metering system will bear most heavily on those who should be encouraged to use water. They are the people who can least afford to pay on the basis of the water they use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) was right to say that we should not expect large families to pay because of the amount of water they use. Once that is allowed to happen, we shall have to have regard to their ability to pay—and once people are charged in such a way, if they cannot afford to pay there will have to be some mechanism to allow them to be supplied with water.

The Under-Secretary of State said that the course which might eventually be followed would mean that people would pay a nominal charge for a given amount of water and would pay by volume for any excess. If that sort of philosophy were allowed to play a part in our national life, the total amount of water used would have to be related to the number of children in a family. In other words, there would have to be a rationing system for water. That is what the Under-Secretary of State is now proposing. He is saying that every householder shall be given a certain amount of water as a ration, and that if he has the audacity to use more water he will have to pay for it. I thought that we had got beyond that type of mentality in this House, but apparently that is not so.

The hon. Gentleman tried to make fun of what Opposition Members said about nappies. He will be interested to know the section of the population that uses most water. By and large, it is the working-class family with children. It may be surprising news to him that working-class people wash and want to keep clean, and to keep their children clean.

The hon. Gentleman well knows that our average consumption of water is now about 50 gallons per head per day. In 25 years it will be about 100 gallons per day. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we are only half as clean now as we shall be in 25 years' time? The increased use of water is related to increasing standards of life and the use of water for many other basic domestic purposes.

That does not follow from the argument. Society as a whole is using more water, and it is the Government's job to see that water is available. The Minister gave us a vivid insight into the sort of family life to which he is accustomed. He instanced the family which used dishwashers, washing machines and waste disposal units, and which was in the habit of shampooing two cars. He appeared to regard that as the average family. A recent survey showed that people in my constituency have the least number of cars per family in the whole of Birmingham. The picture which the hon. Gentleman tried to paint was certainly not related to the average working-class family. All this is Tory theorising. Their philosophy is to make people pay for what they use. We are totally opposed to that philosophy.

I turn to the economic argument, mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I take the opposite view to that which he put forward. I believe that we should not allow the supply of water to be turned into a completely managerial function. Such a course will give an incentive to management to sell the product that it produces. Our experience has shown that all the emphasis in gas and electricity boards is on selling. If people are appointed and given salaries to manage a commodity, their incentive will be aimed not at saving the commodity but at selling it. A great deal of money is spent in television advertising urging the public to buy electricity and gas because the people, who are involved want to sell them. At present local authorities have an incentive to obtain the greatest economic use of water, but if the proposals in the Bill were accepted the emphasis would be the other way.

This provision is in the Bill because the Government intend at some time to use it. Tory Members say that they want to alter the traditional pattern to enable people to pay for what they use. Our philosophy is that such a course is regressive, and we oppose it, on the ground that people should have a ready supply of water as of right. We also oppose this proposal because the capital cost will be enormous and will add to the cost of water. The capital cost of installing meters will be colossal, as will the cost of providing people to read the meters. I believe that already far too many meter readers call at houses. The West Midlands Gas Board supplies people with a card