I welcome the opportunity to raise the question of the appointment of Lord Polwarth and associated matters in relation to his duties, but in welcoming this opportunity I return once again to the charge that it is a scandal that still, after all this time, there has been no debate on North Sea oil either initiated by the Government or in Government time. There has been no proper occasion on which we could have a full-scale debate on this topic.

I would point out that we did have a debate initiated by the Government in the Scottish Grand Committee, and it was a very valuable debate.

That in no way answers the criticism I am making because, although this was in Government time in the Scottish Grand Committee, the debate was nevertheless arranged through the usual channels. I am certain that had this approach not been made we should not have discussed North Sea oil on two mornings in the Scottish Grand Committee.

I have two criticisms of the appointment of Lord Polwarth. I do not criticise that it was announced at the Tory Party conference in Perth. There is a precedent for that. The Prime Minister was in a particular difficulty. The morale of the Tory Party in Scotland was low as a result of its defeats at the municipal elections. On the platform the Secretary of State had been under severe criticism, and the Prime Minister naturally took the opportunity to try to boost the party's sagging morale.

However, having made the announcement, the Prime Minister should have come to the House and made a proper statement and set out for the House in question and answer what the job was about and how it was to operate. In order to find out what it is all about we have to rely on Press statements. We have had to try to winkle out the information in Questions and supplementary questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) asked what kind of job Lord Polwarth would do and what kind of troubles he would have to investigate. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told him:

"If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to turn up next Friday morning he can make his speech about it then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May 1973; Vol. 857, c. 17.]

In my view, that was to hold the House in contempt, and it was the wrong way to deal with this matter. If the appointment is so important—and I regard all appointments in relation to North Sea oil as important—it is disgraceful that we should be treated in this way.

It is wrong that a Member of the House of Lords who is not answerable to this House should be appointed to this job. What is Lord Polwarth to do? It is clear that the appointment was made in a hurry because the details have not been properly worked out. For example, we are told, again from the Press, that Lord Polwarth is to have direct access to No. 10 Downing Street. In what circumstances will he go to No. 10?

Lord Polwarth is quoted in the Scotsman on 14th May as saying:

"I shall have a special link with Ministers at the DTI and indeed will be fully involved in their discussions. Where necessary I shall have a direct access to the Prime Minister—in circumstances of last resort where I find a position of unreasonable delay or conflict in the normal channels. I would, of course, only approach the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Scotland."

Who is involved in this question at the moment? There is the DTI and the Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office in the Commons. There is the North Sea Oil Standing Advisory Conference, which appears to be the body to which Ministers go to issue Press handouts, where the Press is not allowed to attend meetings and where details of the discussions which take place are not available to the Press. There are the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Prime Minister and Lord Polwarth. Now there is this curious body of which we know little, the North Sea Oil Advisory Committee, which is to be nominated by the Secretary of State. These add up to a curious conglomeration, and we are bound to ask, with all these people involved, who will answer in the House of Commons when we want to question aspects of Lord Polwarth's job. He cannot come here, being a Member of the House of Lords. Therefore, will it be a junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State himself or one of his junior Ministers in the Commons?

It is a curious position, especially as we are told that one of the reasons for Lord Polwarth's appointment is to counterbalance the influence of the Department of Trade and Industry. In a comment on 14th May the Scotsman said:

"If he "—

Lord Polwarth—

"is successful in counter-balancing the London based departments—and in particular the DTI—he will undoubtedly have checked the erosion of the Scottish Office's rôle in guiding the evolution of the Scottish economy."

That is a very curious attitude to be abroad in Scotland, that the rôle of the Scottish Office has been eroded in relation to the guiding and evolution of the Scottish economy. Will the real Secretary of State please stand up? Clearly, we have one Secretary of State in this House and another elsewhere.

But it is a much more serious question than simply how Ministers answer to the House of Commons. Lord Polwarth's rôle in planning is very important, and I find it very difficult to understand. I quote again from the Scotsmanp, which said on 14th May:

"The Secretary of State will remain in charge of planning in Scotland and will be ultimately responsible for all planning decisions."

It then reports Lord Polwarth as saying:

"But through the broad forum I shall filter to Mr. Campbell public opinion and also insulate him from conflicting interests."

Here is a man who is to be actively engaged in identifying sites for on-shore development, as the Secretary of State told us in answer to Questions on Wednesday. He is to filter public opinion. What is the purpose of the public inquiry? He is to insulate the Secretary of State from conflicting interests. What does that mean?

When asked about specific developments, the Secretary of State is very fond of dodging the question by pointing out that he has a quasi-judicial rôle in relation to planning.

That is the question of formal planning under the Town and Country Planning Acts. The word "planning" is used rather loosely in different ways, but under the procedures of the Acts I have that rôle.

I do not think there is any doubt that in the formal planning procedures the Secretary of State has that quasi-judicial role. All sorts of influences are brought to bear before a public inquiry is reached. Individuals and interested groups will contact the Secretary of State and complain on one ground or another that a particular development should not go ahead. If there are conflicting interests, the Secretary of State should not be insulated from them. He should know what is happening, but not through the Minister, who we understand is still junior to him. All the conflicting interests should be made public, and at the public inquiry all those matters should come into the open.

I find it difficult to believe that people will still accept that the Secretary of State is behaving entirely impartially if there is to be that kind of link between himself and Lord Polwarth. We need a much clearer definition of the phrase.

There are all the signs in the appointment—the manner of its announcement, the way in which the duties apparently have not been properly worked out—that muddle prevails. The Government have never had firm control of the situation, which now seems to be getting completely out of hand. They have no control of the strategy. I am not alone in thinking that and in believing that there are grounds for disquiet.

Under the heading:

"Oil control system 'getting out of hand'".

the Glasgow Herald of 22nd May reported:

"A warning that the whole system of control of oil development in Scotland was in danger of getting out of hand was given yesterday by Mr. William A. P. Jack, president of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce."

Speaking about the different overlapping activities of the various authorities, Mr. Jack was reported to have said that

"Since those activities were bound to impinge on those of the Scottish Industrial Development Board"—

another body now involved in North Sea oil—

"it seemed there was a distinct danger of the whole system getting out of hand.

There was now an urgent need for a further look at the whole strategy of oil development control and of the development of the supply industry.

He recognised that MPs were worried about parliamentary responsibility since Lord Polwarth was to have direct access, and would presumably report direct to the Prime Minister.

In future, it appeared, responsibility to Parliament would be divided between Lord Polwarth, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

None of that appeared to be very satisfactory, but it was something he could leave to the MPs to sort out."

One of the reasons why I initiated this debate was the conflicting responsibility and the great difficulties of finding out information. For the umpteenth time I must ask—and I am not the only Member to do so—when we shall have a White Paper from the Government laying out their strategy in serious detail. We have had all kinds of reports, White Papers, red papers, brown papers, telling us what is going on. They usually relate to past developments and not to the future.

I have not had a chance to check the source, but I am advised by one of my hon. Friends that a Question on the material contained in the special issue of the Scottish Economic Bulletin relating to North Sea oil, issued by the Scottish Office, has been transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry for answer. How much of a muddle can the Government get into?

Because a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, I shall not say much more about that document, except that it contains the following curious phrase in the introduction:

"So much has been written and said about the new discoveries in a short space of time that misconceptions abound. There seem even to be some who think the oil is a few feet below Aberdeen harbour and is already flowing."

I do not know who wrote that, but it is so bad that it could almost have been written by the Secretary of State himself. I know no one who believes that the oil lies a few feel below Aberdeen harbour. How silly can one get?

I have met several such people.

If the right hon. Gentleman has met some, his contacts must be solely with the Tory Party. It shows the kind of intelligence that there is there.

I turn finally to the serious matter of financial interests, which needs to be examined. I am indebted to the Glasgow News for sending me a copy of its current issue in which it prints facts about the involvement of Lord Polwarth in firms associated particularly with onshore development. I wrote to the Prime Minister asking certain specific questions, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has replied in a very cavalier way. He rightly says that

"If a Minister has shareholdings which at any time are likely to come into conflict with his duties he is required to relinquish them as well."—

as well as directorships.

"Lord Polwarth reviewed his shareholdings from this point of view and satisfied himself that there did not appear to be any risk of conflict involved."

I do not know whether that refers to Lord Polwarth's original appointment as Minister of State or to his specific appointment, but, bearing in mind the statement that he reviewed his shareholdings and was satisfied that there was no conflict of interest, I find his answers at the Press conference in Aberdeen on Tuesday remarkably coy and evasive.

Lord Polwarth said that he was not prepared to discuss his shareholdings, that if there was any question of public policy as to whether he should sell them he would naturally consult the Prime Minister. If he was satisfied that there was no conflict of interest he should have been able to say on Tuesday "I have reviewed my shareholdings and I am satisfied that there is no conflict of interest." That would have been a clear-cut, above-the-board statement, and most people would have accepted it. In fact, that is not what happened.

In view of that, one has to look at the companies in which Lord Polwarth has a financial stake. I refer specifically to his own financial stake. I do not refer to any trust settlements or the fact that his brother holds certain shares. Lord Polwarth has shareholdings in British Assets Trust, Second British Assets Trust, and Atlantic Assets Trust. I think it is worth quoting the statement issued on 23rd November 1972 by the Chairman of British Assets Trust. It reads:

"Management have spent a great deal of time on research among opportunities that are being created and in line with their optimism for North Sea oil. The company's percentage invested in oil has arisen from 13 per cent. to 15½ per cent. and the company has also invested in some industrial and financial companies with participation in North Sea oil leases."

It may be argued that an increase from 13 per cent. to 15½ per cent. is not very big and that 15½ per cent. by itself is not a very large stake. However, more significant is the report of the Chairman of the Second British Assets Trust Limited on 27th February 1973, which reads:

"During the year, some significant changes have been made in the company's portfolio of investments. Firstly, 1972 has seen some considerable progress made in exploration and development of Britain's North Sea Oil. Discoveries being made are very large and it is possible that Britain could become self-sufficient in oil during the 1980s. Management has spent a great deal of time on doing research into opportunities which are continually arising. The amount invested in oil has risen from 10·5 per cent. to 15·6 per cent. and the company has also invested in some industrial and financial companies with participation in North Sea oil leases."

These may all be said to be amorphous shareholdings in individually managed companies and for that reason they are not so significant. However, we have to look at the scale of the involvement and at the links of Atlantic Assets Trust, British Assets Trust and Second British Assets Trust. They have shares in oil direct. As the Glasgow News puts it:

"The total investments by the trusts in major firms were as follows: Pennzoil £3,084,000, Shell Transport and Trading £5,091,000, BP £3,383,000. Petrofina £1,950,000, Murphy Oil, £1,382,000."

A 15 per cent. interest in North Sea oil, which sounds low, does not mean that there is not a major financial involvement. These are very large sums amounting to between £10 million and £13 million of investment.

That is the size of investment in major oil companies. However, again according to the Glasgow News:

"The investment trusts have not neglected onshore development. In 1972 Atlantic Assets bought £1,464,594 worth of shares (50 per cent. of the total stock) in the Mount St. Bernard Trust."

That company owns and controls Onshore Investments, which is the parent company of the Cromarty Firth Development Company, Peterhead and Fraser-burgh Estates, and Nordport, which is the company owning 40,000 acres of land in Shetland and threatening to undermine the Zetland County Council Bill. That fact was brought out by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont), who said that it was wrong that this company should be able to thwart the views of Shetland County Council.

Anyone who believes that no conflict of interest can arise is incredibly naïve. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that if a conflict of interest were to arise Lord Polwarth would take no part in Government discussions. If that is so, it negates the whole purpose of his appointment. I have already dealt with his relationship with planning and with the identification of sites. He could be doing that for onshore development where a company in which he has a shareholding has a direct controlling interest in developments of this kind. It is a very serious matter.

This sorry tale of financial involvement throws a beam of light on the curious morality of the Prime Minister and his Government. I regard this matter as more serious even than the events of recent days. It is extraordinarily complacent of the Prime Minister to accept without qualm this apparent conflict f interest.

The Scottish Press has given this matter a fair amount of coverage and certainly does not take this view. In an editorial headed "Troubled Waters for Lord Oil", the Daily Record says that Lord Polwarth should sell his shares. It goes on:

"It is not just a question of 'public policy' Lord Polwrath. It is public confidence and duty. Your duty."

I believe that Lord Polwarth should sell his shares or resign. It is clear that if no direct conflict of interest exists at the moment there is great danger that such a conflict will arise.

The Government's handling of this appointment has been totally inept. Their reaction to criticism is typical: hive oil the problem to some committee or other. We have this new North Sea Oil Advisory Committee. Just what it is supposed to do no one knows. If the progress, the spate and the rate of public and private exploitation of North Sea oil continues unabated, clearly this committee is simply a piece of window-dressing.

The Government are passing the buck and reacting typically to criticism. They must now act to control events. If they are unable or unwilling to control events, they should make way for a Government who can.

I welcome very much the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, to his new office. I do so because of the nature of the job, about which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) made rather heavy weather. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to explain that it is quite a normal application of the powers of State. I also welcome the appointment because of the character of the man who has been chosen to fill the job.

It was necessary to focus and to concentrate the powers that the Scottish Office already had, and it was necessary to co-ordinate those powers with the powers and interests of other Government Departments. To do that it was necessary to have one man under my right hon. Friend to act as a troubleshooter. It was necessary to have one man who, above all, was in a position to cut any red tape and unblock any blockages which inevitably would arise in so complex a matter in which so few people in Scotland had any experience.

A Minister of State is precisely the right level at which to introduce the noble Lord, and Scotland is the right place for him to be based. As a Member of the other place he will have more time to be in Scotland and will not be tied to this House in the way that my right hon. and hon. Friends must be. In what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, I detected some criticism that we should have chosen a Member of the House of Lords—

Hear, hear.

Is the hon. Gentleman criticising the British Constitution by saying that we should not have Members of the House of Lords in this position?

From time to time obviously we must have Ministers in the House of Lords. After all, it is part of the decision-making and part of Government. However, I believe that the power in the land should rest in this House and that extremely important appointments should be made here. I have always felt that it was wrong to have the Minister of Defence situated upstairs. I regard this appointment as being of equal importance, and, in my view, it is quite wrong that it should have been made outside this House.

No doubt to pursue the question whether the Defence Secretary should be in this House would be out of order, but I believe that the previous Labour Government had more peer members than are in the present administration—certainly they had roughly as many. It is absolute hypocrisy to attack the Government for appointing Members of the other place to serve in this capacity. I think it is an ideal position for a man whose job should and must take him around Scotland as much as possible. Being a Member of the other House enables him to do that.

Contrary to what hon. Members opposite have implied and what I have read in the Press, I strongly welcome the idea of a Minister of State being advised by a council such as the Prime Minister has decided will be set up, backed by a special task force and with close relations with the other Departments interested in the development of North Sea oil. It is an ideal situation that we should have a council of this sort to include members who have a wide knowledge of various aspects of Scottish life, who will not serve specifically as delegates with vested interests but will nevertheless have a knowledge of those interests and be able to advise the Minister of State.

I imagine that one member of such a council would be somebody with a close knowledge of the trawling business—perhaps a member of the Scottish Trawlers' Federation. I know that in Aberdeen there has been considerable worry about how oil is going to affect the fishing inter- ests in general in Scotland, and, although many of these fears are groundless, we require constant liaison between those most closely associated with oil and the fishing interests so that the latter can feel that their interests are being taken into account and that their fears can be allayed. I was glad to see that Lord Polwarth had a meeting with representatives of the Scottish Trawlers' Federation this week. I believe he was able to allay some of their doubts and worries.

Others have suggested that, instead of the present arrangement of a Minister of State with an advisory council and a special task force, we should have a giant oil agency.

Hear, hear.

I do not think this is necessarily a political matter, and I did not approach my rejection of the idea in a political spirit. I hope that politics will come into North Sea oil as little as possible. I reject any idea of such a giant, all-embracing agency for the development of oil in Scotland on two main grounds. First, such an agency would become inevitably more and more oriented towards sheer development as speedily as possible. The momentum would be towards the exploitation of the oil as such. This would inevitably lead to conflict between the quasi-commercial interests and environmental interests, which would to a degree upset the balance that we must strike between commercial exploitation and other interests, such as social community needs, housing and environment.

The second and even more important objection to such an agency is the fact that it would not be sufficiently politically sensitive and politically responsible. It is vitally important that there should be the closest political control by Parliament so that this development is not undertaken by some amorphous State bureaucracy not responsive to social needs as we know them through the representations we receive from constituents.

Such an agency would become totally oil-dominated as opposed to all the other connected facets of oil development—environment, social community needs, housing and so on—and it would not be politically responsive. These are my two main reasons for opposing the setting up of such an agency. There are other reasons, but I will not develop them in view of the time.

I therefore welcome the manner in which the Prime Minister has appointed Lord Polwarth to this job with an advisory council and with a task force to help him. But I also welcome the appointment because of the character of the man himself. It is only right to point out that we have a man of proven and outstanding ability—ability and experience in commerce and industry, and all in Scottish terms. I do not need to go through the list of his achievements, but I remind the House that he has been President of the Scottish Council, a governor of the Bank of Scotland and Chairman of General Accident, whose headquarters are in Perth. This gives him wide experience of Scottish industrial and commercial life. We are lucky that a man of his calibre is prepared to come into politics at this late stage; we are equally lucky in the perception of the Prime Minister in appointing him. For the job itself and the man who is filling it, I strongly welcome the appointment.

When I came here today I was not certain how much time we should have to discuss Lord Polwarth's oil interests. I do not criticise the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for raising this matter. It is right that a matter of this nature should be given the widest inspection in the House. I took the trouble yesterday, therefore, to look into one or two precedents.

I think the present rules stem largely from the Marconi case in 1913, when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, set out certain sensible regulations and suggestions. This was followed up in 1952, when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, made an announcement. I refer to it because it is important to put on record precisely what the situation is and the criteria against which Lord Polwarth should judge his own holdings and against which the House should judge him. When the House hears what is on record, it will realise that Lord Polwarth has behaved perfectly correctly.

Mr. Churchill said of shareholdings:

"Ministers cannot be expected, on assuming office, to dispose of all their investments."

I certainly accept that. I do not think that many people would dispute it. Mr. Churchill also said:

"Each Minister must decide for himself how these principles apply to him. Over much of the field … there are established precedents; but in any case of doubt the Prime Minister of the day must be the final judge, and Ministers should submit any such case to him for his direction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 702.]

Lord Polwarth has behaved impeccably He has kept the Prime Minister fully informed of his holdings, and the Prime Minister has decided as he wrote to the hon. Member.

The latest statement on this subject was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to a Question in November 1970. He repeated the ruling about Ministers:

"If they have shareholdings which at any time are likely to come into conflict with their duties, they are asked to relinquish them as well. If at any time they find that a matter arises in an industrial or economic sphere which will cause a conflict with their existing holdings, they must notify their colleagues and desist from taking part in a discussion on that subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1429.]

The Prime Minister paraphrased that in his letter to the hon. Member.

If Lord Polwarth's holdings in British Assets Trust, Second British Assets Trust and Atlantic Assets Trust are all that is in question, it does not seem at this stage that there is the slightest question of there being any permanent conflict between his holdings and his new duties. If at any time such a conflict should arise in some small aspect of his job, everybody would know his interest—after all, we have now debated the subject.

The hon. Member gave away the point when he talked of such a conflict arising in future, which seemed to imply that even he did not think that the small holding in the unit trusts, which themselves have small holdings of 15 per cent. and 8 per cent., would cause any conflict. If at any time those holdings should increase, no doubt Lord Polwarth would reconsider his position in the light of the changed circumstances. In view of his totally impeccable and proper behaviour so far, that is what we should all expect.

That is precisely the point. If such a conflict of interest did not arise on his appointment to the job of Minister of State in which he deals primarily with regional development, it certainly arises now that he is to be specifically concerned with on-shore developments in connection with North Sea oil. The company has said that it will increase its holdings, and will no doubt continue to do so. Does the hon. Member think that a holding of 15 per cent. would not bring the interests into conflict? If he does, what does he regard as a conflicting interest—20 per cent., 25 per cent.?

The difficulty is that there is so much distrust of public figures arising primarily out of recent bankruptcy proceedings that Ministers must behave totally impeccably. Lord Polwarth has the opportunity to do that by selling his shares.

We all agree that public figures must be not only above suspicion but seen to be above suspicion. I believe that Lord Polwarth has been above suspicion, and in that sense I wish that the matter has not been raised here: however, as it has been raised publicly, we might as well have it out.

I do not know whether it was by a slip of the tongue or whether the hon. Member is under a delusion, but he referred to Lord Polwarth having a 15 per cent. interest in one of the companies. It is the unit trust in which Lord Polwarth has only a small holding which itself has this small holding, so that it is at one or two removes. Perhaps we should leave the matter. I do not think that any conflict arises at the moment, and if it does, no doubt the noble Lord will look at the matter again.

Important as is the appointment of Lord Polwarth and excellent as is the structure of the new post, it would not be right to view these matters totally by themselves. They must be seen in the perspective of all that the Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, have done to encourage the best possible framework within which to maximise for the people of Scotland the benefits of oil development. The House is well aware of the benefits in roads, housing, ports, airports and so on that will improve the infrastructure. This is another example of the energetic, flexible and speedy response that my right hon. Friend has shown to the challenge of North Sea oil.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) on his success in obtaining the opportunity to initiate the debate. To some extent it was inevitable that it should have dealt with the issues of Lord Polwarth's investments, but I do not wish to dwell unduly on that subject. I do not wish for a moment to suggest any impropriety has taken place but it is an important matter of principle. It is rather different from whether a Minister holds part of an investment trust. It is not just that this investment trust has a heavy stake in the oil companies but it has major holdings in the important companies set up to develop onshore facilities.

The point is that a large proportion of the capital of these companies is held by British Assets Trust and Atlantic Assets Trust and that raises a separate issue. It is between the situation in which a Minister holds an investment in an oil development company and that in which he has investments in an ordinary investment trust. I do not know what the answer is, but it raises new questions and I do not believe that the Prime Minister's ruling has come down on the right side.

I want to concentrate on the Government's handling of North Sea oil development. Lord Polwarth's appointment was hastily conceived and ill thought out. All the suggestions have been to that effect and subsequent Government statements have confirmed it—not only statements attributed to Lord Polwarth himself, but subsequent statements by the Secretary of State. Lord Polwarth will have no power to take major decisions. The big decisions will still be taken at the top of the Department of Trade and Industry and to a lesser extent at the top of the Scottish Office and in the Cabinet.

I believe that he was appointed because the Government are extremely vulnerable on their handling of North Sea oil. The appointment was an electoral response to Scottish opinion, not just in the Labour Party, but throughout a wide range of people and organisations. The Government are mishandling and not coping with this development as they should, and they reacted ill-advisedly by making this appointment.

The question of North Sea oil impinges on a number of distinct issues of Government policy. It raises the whole subject of energy policy, with its implications for the balance of payments and the subject of taxation of international companies. I do not wish to touch on those, because in the short term the most important issues for Scotland can be summed up in two words: "employment" and "environment". By "employment" I mean the need to see that the Scottish economy obtains the maximum possible benefit from this development, the maximum number of new and lasting jobs. By "environment" I mean the need to develop an infrastructure to cope with this massive commercial investment while at the same time protecting the environment so that our national heritage is not destroyed or irredeemably spoiled.

The appointment of Lord Polwarth is a culmination of all the mistakes made by the Government on this issue. The biggest mistake of all was in the Government's response to the IMEG report. The Government had a real chance to start tackling this issue in a sensible and decisive way. That report recommended the setting up of a petroleum supply industries board. It recommended that the board should be independent of existing Departmental structures. The Government rejected that. The arguments were spelled out in detail but I do not accept them. It was a great mistake.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair about this. He would wish to point out that the action taken by the Government involved the alternative structure set out in the IMEG report.

The hon. Gentleman is making too much of that. The IMEG report said decisively that the PSIB was its first choice. It said that if that was not acceptable there was the possibility of doing it within the context of the Department of Trade and Industry.

The Government has missed not just the chance to set up a separate agency but also to base it in Scotland. I have heard it said that the consultants who produced that document almost recommended that such a set-up should be based in Scotland. Whatever was recommended I believe the IMEG report was a useful document in terms of spelling out the existing opportunities. It is a pity that the Government could not bring themselves to be as interventionist as was advocated by the consultants from private industry.

Whatever should have been done, I believe that we will, sooner or later, be forced to establish a separate development agency or board, independent, but accountable to Parliament—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman reads the IMEG report he will see that it uses the word "independent". There are plenty of precedents. The research councils, for example, are independent of Departmental structure but accountable to Parliament. Such an agency would carry out the function of the Offshore Supplies Office. It would be a separate body and would not call simply on the general pool of money available under the Industry Act.

It would have a separate budget which it would use to encourage industry to obtain a bigger share of the market. In my view—and I think it is the Labour Party's view also—this body should also have a separate state holding company so that when we create new enterprises to supply the oil companies there will be a State stake in them. At the same time it would support research and development in the new techniques required for deeper waters.

I believe that ultimately there is a strong case for the revenue coming from the North Sea to go to this body which would have a United Kingdom remit although it will be based in Scotland. The returns from the oil companies would go to this body for scrutiny together with details of equipment purchased so that the experts could bring pressure to bear upon the oil companies to buy from Scottish and English firms. We would have an agency headed by people acknowledged to be experts. They would have a clear-cut, well-defined remit to do the sort of job which the IMEG report set out, namely to ensure that we get a large share of the jobs being created by the exploration and exploitation of North Sea oil.

In my view there is a strong case for making that body the main repository of Government expertise, including expertise required by the Secretary of State in reaching decisions about the siting of developments, handling infrastructure matters, protecting the environment and carrying out studies and investigations. Local authorities would be able to draw on such expertise.

I welcome the publication of the study by the Scottish Office planners of the possible sites for development to produce platforms for North Sea oil work. It is a useful step forward. The logic of the situation is that the Secretary of State must go further. He acknowledged at his Press conference on this document that this did not change any of the planning machinery. These issues will still be handled by the local public inquiries.

I do not think that is satisfactory. Anyone who followed the Dunnet Bay inquiry closely must come to the same conclusion. The Secretary of State must be prepared to take new powers and to implement an overall plan. It seems—this is the impression I got when I was up there, that the local authorities do not have the expertise with which to answer the big oil companies. If Chicago Bridge says that it is Dunnet Bay or Spain there is not the expertise to challenge this. The objectors are able to call witnesses at a public inquiry but that is not the best way to take decisions—on an "either—or" basis.

The local inquiry can decide simply whether or not a development should take place in a certain area. We want the developments, but in the right place. That means an overall plan. There is a strong case for the Secretary of State's taking into public ownership those areas which he wants to see developed. It is interesting that a Conservative Member—the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont)—has drawn attention on more than one occasion to the danger of allowing one company, and one individual—because that is sometimes the case—to buy up large areas of land and thus be able to decide which oil companies and which supply companies shall develop there. In addition, extortionate rents can be demanded.

I know that the Secretary of State is not with me all the way on the question of the public ownership of land. The answer he gave me about this was not unreasonable, in the sense that it did not rule out public ownership. The sensible thing is to designate areas and to have an overall plan, with the Secretary of State controlling the situation.

In his foreword to the Scottish Economic Bulletin on North Sea oil the right hon. Gentleman said:

"There is no reason why Scottish industry should not become a focus for the new expertise required, taking part in under-sea operations elsewhere in the world as well".

I am afraid that if things go on as they are now, in 10 years' time we shall look back and realise that the reason for our failure to capitalise on the opportunity presented to us was the inadequacy of the response of the British Government.

The Government have a chance to change their policy, but we cannot wait indefinitely for them to do so. Their response to this massive development has been inadequate. Only the week before last the Department of Trade and Industry spelled out again the fact that we have been underestimating the amount of oil that we are likely to get. We still do not know the quantities involved, but all the signs are that this will be a major development which could have a major influence on the development of the Scottish economy if it was handled in the right way. The Government have a chance to rethink the whole issue and to establish a new structure. I hope that they will have the courage to do so.

I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) on his good fortune in being able to have this debate and on choosing this subject for discussion.

I propose to deal particularly with the appointment of Lord Polwarth and to say something about his financial holdings, but before doing so perhaps I may take up one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) because it is important to remind ourselves of the background against which Lord Polwarth's appointment was made.

The fact is that since it became clear that there were large resources of exploitable oil in the North Sea the Government have badly mishandled the situation. They have been subjected to criticisms which they have met with constant reassurances that everything was being handled adequately and that the criticisms were uniformed and malicious. But every time an independent body has looked at the situation it has confirmed that the criticisms of Government policy have been justified. The Government's policy has consisted largely of reactions to those criticisms.

That was true of the IMEG report, which confirmed the criticisms made from this side of the House that unless there was a greater emphasis in Government policy on getting Scottish industry involved in the offshore development and ancillary activities it was liable to miss the boat and not be involved in North Sea oil exploitation. In addition, it would miss the opportunities which ought to present themselves worldwide. The Government's response to the IMEG report was totally inadequate, and in appointing Lord Polwarth to the job that he has been given they are to some extent reacting to criticisms of their response.

The Public Accounts Committee's Report confirmed the criticisms made from this side of the House and elsewhere that the licensing arrangements laid down by the Government, particularly in the fourth round of licences, were ridiculously generous to the oil companies, and there was a strong suspicion that the tax revenue from North Sea oil development would be derisory because of the international ramifications of the companies concerned. The PAC said that, and the Chancellor in his Budget this year said that he had taken that view to heart and that the Government intended to look again at licensing policy and new tax provisions would be introduced in next year's Budget.

The Government had been criticised for consistently underestimating the out- put of North Sea oil and for having been misled by the oil companies themselves. During the last week, the Minister for Industry has admitted that previous estimates have been too low, and, although he has not come up to some of the figures quoted, the Government have revised their estimate of the output of North Sea oil in the 1980s.

On the question of planning—whether in the technical sense where the Secretary of State is involved in a quasi-judicial capacity, or in the overall sense—again there have been strong criticisms of Government policy on the grounds that there is no coherent strategy, that there is no means of knowing the Government's views about the general planning issues involved in this development.

When the Zetland Bill was debated the other day, the Government said that they wanted to deal with the matter piecemeal, that there was no need for an overall strategy and that the kind of Bill which the Shetland County Council was promoting was what should be done. But the situation in the Shetlands has changed following the local elections, and there is now a state of uncertainty there.

That is the background against which Lord Polwarth's appointment has been made. It is a background of increasing criticism, anxiety and concern in Scotland, not just in political party circles antagonistic to the Secretary of State but also within his own party. There is criticism about the way in which the Scottish Office and the Government generally have handled the whole question of North Sea oil development, and it is in that context that one has to look at Lord Polwarth's appointment.

It is not yet clear, but perhaps it will be clearer after today's debate, exactly what will be the range of Lord Polwarth's responsibilities. He has been described as a troubleshooter, as a co-ordinator, and as many other things, but, on reading the Prime Minister's speech and on reading what Lord Polwarth himself has said about his job, I find it difficult to understand just what he is to do.

About a week ago Lord Polwarth said he did not want to see the State being involved in oil affairs, and there was the profound statement that "a dictatorship, however benevolent, is a negation of democracy". I did not think that took us very much further along the line, and we are still uncertain about what Lord Polwarth is supposed to do. The uncertainty exists despite the fact that the newspapers assure us that the appointment was the Secretary of State's idea and that he had been working on it for months. That being so, one might have expected to be given a good deal more information about just exactly what Lord Polwarth is meant to do.

This week there was the announcement about the establishment of the Scottish Economic Planning Development, and I welcome that. It seems to be a sensible rearrangement of duties within the Scottish Office, but it ought to be said—because this is not always understood outside—that by itself it adds not one bit to the responsibilities, statutory or otherwise, of the Scottish Office. It is merely an internal reorganisation, however sensible it may be. Within the Scottish Office, it is no more than that. It does not in any way add to the powers of the Secretary of State.

Similarly, there was announced the other day the setting up of the so-called task force. It consists almost entirely of Scottish Office officials, but it has on it representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment, and so on. However, anyone who is familiar with the processes of Government knows that interdepartmental committees of officials are ten-a-penny in Whitehall and in the Government machine as a whole. Calling it a task force means nothing. This is the great "in" expression recently. We do not talk about interdepartmental committees now because that sounds fuddy-duddy and bureaucratic, and we call them task forces, but they are only interdepartmental committees, and there are literally hundreds of them littering Whitehall at present. This task force adds nothing of additional power to the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office.

After the months of planning which have gone into this I hope that the Secretary of State will be able when he answers this debate to announce the names of the membership of the Oil Development Council. Again, by itself, however useful this may be as a piece of advisory machinery—although till we have seen what its membership is and what it is to do it is difficult to say how useful it will be—it does not alter the main spheres of responsibility of the Scottish Office in relation to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Nor does that rather pathetic little bit in the Prime Minister's speech which has been repeated again about the right to see papers. That does not tell us very much about what is likely to happen as a practical consequence. It was my experience when in Government that I had no difficulty in seeing papers because if a Minister wants to see papers he will always get plenty of papers to see. What really matters is what he does with the papers and whether he has any responsibility for them.

These are, therefore, some of the questions I want to put to the Secretary of State. First of all, and perhaps he would answer this—it is a simple question but I think it is important—has there been any transfer of decision-making from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish Office? My answer to that is that, as far as I know, there has been no transfer of decision-making responsibility from the Department of Trade to the Scottish Office. It remains exactly the same as it has always remained.

Secondly, what authority does Lord Polwarth have over the Department of Trade and Industry? Again, the answer to that, in my view—perhaps the Secretary of State will contradict me—is that he has no authority at all over the Department of Trade and Industry. He is exclusively a Scottish Office Minister, and seeing all the papers in the world will not make any difference to that.

The third question I want to ask the Secretary of State is this. On what issues and in what circumstances can Lord Polwarth go directly over the head of the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister? On this aspect of Lord Polwarth's appointment I must say that if it is indeed true that the appointment was the idea of the Secretary of State, and if the Secretary of State negotiated the proposition that a Minister of State within his Department should have access directly to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State must have gone mad. No senior Minister, no Cabinet Minister, should place one of his juniors in his Department, regardless of what that junior is responsible for, in a position to have direct access to the Prime Minister, for this can only be damaging to the status of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is a senior and Cabinet Minister. He is Scotland's voice in the Cabinet, and anything which requires to be done either at Cabinet level or Prime Ministerial level ought to be done by the Secretary of State himself, and it can only diminish his status and damage his own position if there is in his Department a junior Minister who has this direct access to the Prime Minister. I hope the Secretary of State in answering the question can tell us on what issues and in what circumstances Lord Polwarth will have this direct access. Perhaps if he feels that the Secretary of State has not done his job properly in Cabinet Lord Polwarth will be able to make direct representations to the Prime Minister.

Then, again, what about planning responsibility? First of all, let us take the town and country planning aspect of this. Lord Polwarth cannot have ultimate responsibility for this. This can rest only with the Secretary of State. Otherwise, again, he diminishes the status of the Secretary of State and his responsibility in relation to this matter. Can we know what the rôle of Lord Polwarth is in relation to planning?

What is Lord Polwarth's rôle in the planning strategy of oil development? This is in the wider, overall sense—the whole business of how the oil industry, offshore and onshore, should be guided and developed and controlled in relation to the Scottish economy. I do not know what Lord Polwarth is meant to be doing. He has said to the newspapers that he does not believe there should be an overall strategy. He thinks it misguided to have an overall strategy at all in relation to oil developments in Scotland. If the Minister himself has said that he does not believe there is a need for an overall strategy, exactly what is he supposed to be doing in the Scottish Office? I quote his words as reported in the Glasgow Herald of 14th May:

"I do not think it is realistic to talk of laying down an overall strategy. Oil developments are unpredictable and one does not know where oil is going to be found next."

I have certainly had the impression over the last two years that the Government do not know what is going to happen next in regard to oil developments or in other respects. They are always caught on the hop and, as I said earlier, they are always reacting to events after they have happened—and, normally, have happened disastrously.

It seems to me that the real questions with regard to Lord Polwarth's appointment are two. First of all, appointing special Ministers and giving them special responsibilities with access to the Prime Minister and the rest of it does not really make a ha'p'orth of difference unless the policies are right. The Government's policies have been found to be wrong and misguided and inadequate, and there is no sign yet that the policy of the Government and what the Government are doing will make the policies right.

The second thing is that in the Scottish context, if Scottish interests are to be protected, we need a Secretary of State who takes the widest view of his responsibilities as Scotland's Minister and that, whether he has statutory or departmental responsibilities directly or not, he interests himself in economic developments and in industrial developments and ensures that at every point Scotland's voice is heard and Scottish interests are looked after. That is one of the reasons, the main reason in my view, for the Secretary of State's presence in the Cabinet.

The Secretary of State, unfortunately, takes a rather legalistic attitude towards his office. He rather takes the point of view that unless something is directly within his departmental responsibility it would be wrong for him to get involved and that he might be treading on somebody else's toes. I think the success of a Secretary of State for Scotland is to be measured by the frequency with which he treads on other Ministers' toes. There is no sign at all that in oil developments over the last two years the Secretary of State has done the principal job which is required to be done—to fight always for Scottish interests in the Cabinet and elsewhere.

Finally, I turn to Lord Polwarth's financial interests, because I think that this is a really extremely unsatisfactory situation. I must confess that I saw the Glasgow News article only an hour or so before this debate started, and I have only seen at the same time my hon. Friend's letter to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's reply, but I must say that, reading the Prime Minister's reply, I wondered whether—perhaps he had other preoccupations this week—he or his officials actually read the Glasgow News article, because his reply is completely inadequate as an answer to the charges made in the Glasgow News.

First of all, for the purpose of what I have to say, I take the Glasgow News article as being an accurate account of the shareholdings. My hon. Friend in his letter specifically asked the Prime Minister whether the article was accurate in that respect, and there was no denial and no repudiation of the point, and, therefore, one must assume that this is an accurate article.

I want to deal only with the Atlantic Assets Trust. It is not true that in relation to oil development Atlantic Assets Trust simply has, as an investment trust, minor holdings in a wide range of companies. In 1970 Atlantic Assets Trust took over Edward Bates and Sons Holdings Limited, merchant bankers, which is now a completely owned subsidiary of Atlantic Assets Trust. It is well known that Edward Bates and Sons Holdings Limited is heavily involved in the oil industry.

During the last financial year up to June 1972 the considerable increase in the profits of Atlantic Assets Trust came almost exclusively from the considerable increase in profits of Edward Bates and Sons Holdings Limited. As the chairman's statement says:

"For the year to 31st March …"

that is 1972—

"… Atlantic's share of Bates after tax profits increased from £95,000 to £547,000 and this momentum has continued into the current year."

This increase in profits of Edward Bates came from the company being involved in a number stock issues, flotations, and so on, all specifically related to North Sea oil.

Time does not permit me to give the full details of this, but they are available. There has been an involvement, over the last year in particular, of Edward Bates with the Viking Resources Trust Limited, an investment trust formed to specialise in oil and gas, KCA Drilling Group Limited, which provides drilling services for oil and gas exploration, Viking Resources International NV, which has a similar investment policy to that of Viking Resources Trust Limited, and North Sea Assets Limited, an unquoted public company specialising in support services for North Sea oil development. These were the main new activities of Edward Bates, and, presumably, they produced these considerably increased profits which have gone into Atlantic Assets Trust Limited in which Lord Polwarth has certain holdings.

Atlantic Assets Trust Limited is also associated with Mount St. Bernard Trust —not by way of a normal investment trust investment. It has bought—and it is stated in the annual report of Atlantic Assets Trust that it owns—50 per cent. of Mount St. Bernard Trust. That is a normal investment of, say, 10 per cent. suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

Mount St. Bernard Trust in its turn controls Onshore Investments, and Onshore Investments controls the Cromarty Firth Development Company, about which there has been controversy, Peterhead and Fraserburgh Estimates Limited and also Nordport Limited, a company that is the subject of considerable controversy in the Shetlands. It has bought 40,000 acres of land in the Shetlands for oil development, and the executive head of Onshore Investments a week ago in a rather threatening speech said:

"There is no question of our selling the land even at a large profit unless we are left with absolutely no alternative by the Shetland County Council."

What does that mean except that if the county council does not follow a policy which the company finds acceptable the company will be awkward and cash in on its substantial holding of land in the Shetlands?

I have not time to go into these matters in the detail they require. I have concentrated on one particular trust. I have absolutely no complaint that Lord Polwarth should have had at one time an association with these companies. He had that before he went into Government, and it is perfectly natural that that association in terms of investment has continued. But even before this appointment, and particularly after it—to confine myself only to Atlantic Assets Trust —it is absolutely wrong that Lord Polwarth should have holdings in Atlantic Assets Trust, and I hope that he will relinquish and divest himself of these holdings immediately.

There is a potential clash of interests. The whole business of land development in relation to North Sea oil has caused the greatest concern and anxiety. There have been allegations of malpractice, and it is utterly wrong that Lord Polwarth should be involved in any way, even indirectly through his holding in Atlantic Assets Trust, in the activities of some of these companies.

I repeat that on all these points we require assurances from the Secretary of State today. Above all, we want to get some impression, which has so far been lacking, that the Secretary of State has a grip on the situation, that he understands the issues involved and that he will see that there is a policy for oil development in Scotland in the widest sense which meets the needs of the Scottish nation.

I, too, am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) chose this subject for debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the arrangements made to respond to the rapid growth in a short time of this new industry. The House will recall that only three years ago no one knew whether workable oil fields existed in the North Sea, although gas has been discovered in the southern basin.

I regret the sniping at my noble Friend and the carping at the initiatives being taken by the Government. I also regret the muddled thinking evident from the hon. Gentleman's speech. In Scotland there has been a general welcome from all sides to a Scottish Minister being given special responsibility for the important, new and rapidly developing situations arising from the promising new resource. In matters of such importance major decisions must remain with the Government. They cannot be shuffled off to some agency which is non-elected. Licensing and formal town and country planning decisions are matters which the House expects to be dealt with by the elected representatives of the Government who are accountable to Parliament for them.

The whole House will agree that the discovery of oil is probably the greatest thing for Scotland this century. Providence, it seems, has inscrutably arranged for all the oil so far found to be off the shores of Scotland. Natural gas has for some years been found and piped from the Continental Shelf off the shores of England. This situation may change if oil is discovered off England or Wales. At the moment the position is that valuable oil fields have been discovered off Scotland and that the oil industry, as distinct from the North Sea gas operations, has been rapidly developing over a short time.

The oil is about two miles below the sea bed in deep water. Operations often have to be carried out in formidable weather conditions. The first oil is not expected to start flowing before next year, 1974, but already there is a stimulating prospect for Scotland. It brings great promise but it also brings problems.

The new oil industry has appeared only within the last two years. During that time things have been happening fast, and the Government have been helping them on. Oil is joining whisky as a very important liquid for Scotland. But the distilling industry has had at least two centuries in which to evolve. The oil industry has so far had only two years.

There is still a lot of exploration to be done. There are many blocks in the North Sea still undrilled and huge areas of the Continental Shelf to the north and west where exploration has not yet started. Almost every week there have been announcements of new discoveries, plans for extraction or land-based projects, and it is still not possible to forecast precisely future developments, as some speakers recognised. For example, even with all the latest technology, within the past few weeks two wells have been drilled which proved to be dry. Each cost about £2 million and will produce no oil.

I do not think that hon. Members of the Opposition are claiming to know whether oil will be found, for example, west of the Shetlands, where only one block has been drilled so far, or whether it will be found eventually near Rockall. I hope that hon. Members of the Opposition are not setting up as oil diviners. If they are, they will be claiming powers greater than the most modern devices and beyond the scope of the huge investment now being deployed. That is why Government policy has been and must in the future be flexible and ready to react quickly, and respond to new discoveries and their effects.

I am glad to say that we have already had a considerable impact upon the employment situation in Scotland. About 4,200 jobs have been created already from the projects which have started or those in train, and about another 9,000 jobs are in prospect. These are in addition to indirect employment which is caused in services and through the generally increased activity.

The House will have been pleased to see the unemployment figures yesterday. The largest proportional drop in wholly unemployed was in Scotland. The new oil industry is playing an increasing part in bringing about this improvement. The new industry offers gleaming prospects for Scotland. At the same time, it presents many problems, which we have been tackling in this brief period of two years. The matters which arise affect almost every sphere of Government, both central and local. At sea there are questions of the safe operation of oil rigs, for example, 100 miles or more from land, the prevention of pollution and the effects on the fishing industry. Onshore there are problems of harbour facilities for service vessels, landing points for pipe-lines, and sites for constructing mammoth rigs and platforms. Those are just some examples.

There are also questions of location, governed by the planning procedures among other things, and all the rapid building required where new communities are added or existing communities are growing. Here we have demands for housing, schools and other living requirements to be produced as quickly as possible, but in the right places and properly planned. We also want to ensure that Scottish industry, together with British industry as a whole, plays a full part in the new development, and that Scottish firms in particular get into the wide range of this new business.

Another important factor, which is part of planning, is the need for conservation and protection of natural assets. In certain areas of natural beauty or amenity —I hope that hon. Members will listen, because this matter is exceedingly important—the Scottish interest of conser- vation can be more important than any other Scottish interest.

Against this background, and the likely course of events in the future, my noble Friend Lord Polwarth, has been given his new task. As a Minister in the Scottish Office he will take direct responsibility for those matters which fall within the work of the Scottish Office departments and which affect the oil industry and its developments. This covers much of the work and development on shore, in contrast to the activities at sea which mainly fall to the Department of Trade and Industry. On these and other matters affecting the DTI, Lord Polwarth now has special links with the Minister for Industry and the other DTI Ministers on matters relating to oil affecting Scotland. Everything to do with the new oil industry in Scotland will have priority in his work. Lord Polwarth will be spending most of his time in Scotland supervising and co-ordinating, and ready to deal with situations rapidly as they arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the responsibilities at present resting on his hen. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development. Scottish Office, are now to be placed with Lord Polwarth?

Fortunately, because of the arrangements within the Scottish Office team, some adjustments are now being made, so that my noble Friend is dealing primarily with all matters affecting oil developments, whereas my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, will be concentrating more on the wider aspects of development, the development department's rôle which covers roads, houses, electricity, and so on, for the whole of Scotland, and developments which are not necessarily related to oil. They will work together, and my hon. Friend will naturally be the Minister who, with me, is accountable to the House on these matters.

Here I should remind the House of the procedures which the House itself has prescribed for planning, in the formal sense of the Town and Country Planning Acts. I am glad that hon. Members have raised this matter because it is important to try to get this clear. Important or highly controversial decisions go to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has the responsibility clearly placed upon him to take decisions in a quasi-judicial capacity, for example, after a public inquiry. I agree that he can call in, if the procedures do not bring matters to him and if he considers that there are matters of such major importance that they should come to him. But there is no question of Lord Polwarth's taking over that final responsibility, any more than he or any other Scottish Minister in his work has in the past assumed responsibilities in other fields which are laid by Acts of Parliament upon the Secretary of State. Their functions are to work as a team with the Secretary of State in helping him to carry out these responsibilities.

There is a great deal which can and should usefully be done in the other sense of planning ahead, in the ordinary meaning of the phrase, in forward and informal planning, for example, as distinct from the formal procedures laid down by the Acts. Much can be done to help and steer firms and projects before a formal planning application is submitted and the statutory procedures are started under the Town and Country Planning Acts.

My noble Friend will be assisted by a task force led by a senior official of the Scottish Office. It will consist of senior officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, including the petroleum division, from the ports directorate of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment, as well as from the Scottish development department. This task force had its first meeting with Lord Polwarth this week and it will be meeting regularly in the future. A new Oil Development Council for Scotland is also being established to advise on all aspects and implications of oil developments. My noble Friend will take the chair and the members will be individuals who can bring special knowledge and experience from industry, trade unions and local Government. In particular, it will include members with knowledge and experience of conservation and environmental matters.

I have already issued invitations to a number of people asking them to become members. I hope to enlist leading members of Scottish conservation bodies and, for example, at least one from the fishing industry. The council will be concerned not only with the most effective industrial development which can be beneficial for the Scottish economy but with the preservation of amenity, the coastline and the countryside.

This council has had a wide welcome in Scotland. So has the appointment of Lord Polwarth. He is the ideal person for this special task. His experience as Chairman of the Scottish Council for Industry in the past has meant that he is held in wide respect throughout Scotland, regardless of politics, for what he has achieved for Scotland in that capacity and in other capacities. As a Minister in the House of Lords he can spend more time in Scotland without risk of recall and sudden changes of plan which affect us in this House. A large majority of the people of Scotland have already recognised this, and many regard it as regrettable that there should be petty sniping at someone who has battled successfully for Scotland's interests in the past before he became a Minister.

The Liberal Party has criticised the new council in the Press. I have been informed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)— who is, I believe, the Liberal Party's spokesman for Scottish affairs and whose constituency is near the oil fields—that he welcomes this new council and considers it to be the kind of council that is needed.

Quotations were made from a speech of Mr. Jack, of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce. In that same speech he said:

"We welcome the recent appointment of Lord Polwarth to be in overall charge of oil developments in Scotland and to preside over an oil development council. Most of us here know him and some of us have worked with him in various spheres of activity. We are glad that he should have been chosen for this important task."

That was another part of the speech which was not quoted.

I come now to the question of my noble Friend's shareholdings—

rose—

I must get on. I have already given way sufficiently. If the hon. Gentleman will give me time I shall not run into the next debate.

I must deal with the question of my noble Friend's shareholdings. The Prime Minister replied to the hon. Gentleman last night. The hon. Gentleman put forward a proposition that no Government —Labour or Conservative—has ever adopted or applied when he said in his letter:

"A Minister whose duties are connected with economic affairs should divest himself of all his industrial shares."

That shows a complete misconception of the convention observed in this matter by all Governments. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given the hon. Gentleman a full reply.

I come to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He asked about the transfer of responsibilities. It has been made clear that there are no transfers between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office. He then asked a question about access to the Prime Minister. This has been a red herring. Before this new appointment—the same applied to his predecessor, my noble Friend Lady Tweedsmuir—my noble Friend has been a deputy for the Secretary of State and if the Secretary of State is engaged on some other matter, as for example when a few days ago I was at the last meeting of the Scottish Standing Committee, where I had to be, my noble Friend naturally, as he has done and as his predecessor did on many occasions, attended meetings of Ministers in my place—[Interruption.] As I understand it, the question of access to the Prime Minister arose, in the Press, from the fact of that meeting which happened to take place like many other meetings. That is why this question is a complete red herring, and why I can say that at present my noble Friend is with the Prime Minister in Edinburgh because I have the duty of answering this debate in the House today. That is just an example, because the Prime Minister has duties in Edinburgh at this moment.

I have already dealt with the town and country planning aspect, which was the next question the hon. Member for Craigton raised.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the Government had been reacting after events. He is completely wrong. The Government have been operating completely flexibly. We have been ahead of events and, in fact, assisting them. Peterhead is a good example. The hon. Gentleman will know what happened at Nigg and Ardersier. The Government enabled the projects to go ahead faster than anything comparable has happened in this country previously.

In the short time since the oil industry has appeared the Government have been helping events, so creating thousands of valuable new jobs. We have been able to help to steer projects to suitable sites. As these become occupied there are bound to be more difficult decisions to be taken between conflicting interests of desirable development and jobs, on the one hand, and the dangers of despoiling the countryside, upsetting small communities or endangering the existence of rare species of wild life.

Where such conflicts occur, it must be our job to reconcile them and achieve a proper balance, though this may mean some inconvenience or delay to the industry. The new council can help us to make decisions which are seen and understood to be in the best interests of Scotland.

Housing is one of the urgent problems in the areas of the north and north-east of Scotland affected by oil developments. Extra housing is needed quickly for those coming in to work on the new projects. Some time ago, when this first became apparent, machinery was set up to enable all the agencies, including local authorities and private builders, to get together and make the most effective and swift arrangements. An important contribution by the Scottish Special Housing Association has been authorised by me to help to meet particular needs. The association now has a programme to build about 2,500 houses in north and north-east Scotland.

All that the Opposition have proposed in this matter is nationalisation. That was confirmed by the Scottish Council of the Labour Party's Conference at Dunoon this year. What can that do to help those working on the job at the moment? It is merely a threat to the jobs of the men who are working on the rigs now—[Interruption.] That is what it is. It is also a threat to the new jobs that are being created. That is the Labour Party's policy, which seems more designed for the Stone Age than for the new oil era in Scotland. The snail's pace of the Labour Party's thinking and its ideas is incapable of keeping up with the speed of events in the new Scottish oil scene.

Let me remind hon. Members of the recent history of the steel industry. The threat of nationalisation, and then nationalisation itself, held up investment and modernisation for several years. Nationalisation then produced the Steel Corporation, which Scottish Labour Members now criticise and abuse more than anyone else in the country. Are they now prescribing the same treatment for this valuable new industry—the oil industry—which is so important for Scotland?

We have made phenomenal progress within two years in responding to and gaining the maximum of benefit from the discovery of the oilfields. More are likely to be found. We have made special expenditure on roads, harbours, housing and infrastructure. These are going ahead. Much has been done already, for example at Peterhead Bay. These expenditures are not affected by the reduction in Government expenditure announced last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

There are one or two exceptions among hon. Members opposite. The hon. Members for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) have made it clear that they do not agree with the policy of nationalisation. However, the general policy of the Opposition is apparently one of nationalisation. With one or two exceptions; there are too many Jeremiahs on the Labour benches. Instead of recognising the success in Scotland so far, and the opportunities for the future, all we get from them is carping criticism of those involved in Scotland.

Scottish industry and industry in Scotland are going ahead, with the Scottish Industrial Development Office and the Scottish Petroleum Office working together in Glasgow, ensuring that the opportunities of entering this new field are known, and to providing help to do it. Several prominent Scottish firms have already won orders and also delivered the goods on time.

I ask those hon. Members who have been carping about what has been happening to visit and see what is happening at Nigg Bay. Let them see what has happened in just over a year—the transformations that have occurred, for example at Peterhead, Lerwick and Mont- rose. A good deal is happening. If they saw that for themselves, instead of simply carping and doing nothing about it they would recognise what a success Scotland is making of this new resource.

I am sure that the House and all concerned in Scotland will wish to see oil development in Scotland go ahead successfully, with the protection of the environment. The Government have been flexible and have made a positive contribution to the success so far. We shall continue to give all encouragement with the main Scottish interests, including conservation, well in mind.

Leaving Scotland where she is, I wish to turn the attention of the House to another subject on which I have spoken frequently in the past, namely, the problems of the disabled. The problems of which I have spoken in the past have been of particular categories, like the haemophiliacs. Today I want to touch on an aspect of the matter which is both broader, in the sense that it affects all categories of disabled, and also narrower, in the sense that it is limited to the choice of suitable vehicles to meet their needs.

I am talking not of recreation or family outings but of the need of these persons to get to work to earn their living, to lead a normal life, and cease to be a burden on the taxpayer. I am well aware that the problem is under examination by Baroness Sharp, and my intention is precisely and frankly to influence the outcome of her inquiry.

Before coming to the central point I want to take the opportunity of saying publicly what every disabled person in the country knows and what will be admitted by both sides of the House—that there has never been a Minister who has done more to help the disabled than the present Secretary of State. I associate with him the two junior Ministers, one of whom will be answering the debate today.

What I say applies to the problem of mobility in the home and in public places, and I want it to be seen to apply also to mobility on the road. I believe that my right hon. Friend has been helped and not hindered by the pressure of many back-bench Members on both sides of the House. I mention particularly the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) whose disciples we all are and who I am glad to see on the Opposition Front Bench, and his hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)—who I am also glad to see here—and, on this side of the House, my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and Banbury (Mr. Marten), besides many others. I hope that we have helped the Secretary of State to stand up to the Treasury, and that we can now help him to stand up to his own expert advisers.

There is one question about which the expert advice given to Ministers is utterly mysterious to everyone outside the Department of Health and Social Security—the reason why the three-wheeled invalid vehicle, of which the latest model is known as the P70, is the standard issue of the National Health Service, instead of an adapted four-wheeled car such as the Mini, which is made in my constituency —I am not advocating it merely for constituency reasons, but because it is the best for the job—and is issued only in exceptional cases.

I do not deny that the exceptions today are much more numerous than they used to be. They include, for example, war disabled persons as of right, and some others, but the figures show some remarkable anomalies. Some calculations which I have based on a number of Parliamentary Questions over recent years, including some as recently as last week, indicate that out of 8,050 cars issued by the National Health Service—Minis or Minor 1000s in the majority of cases—6,290, or just over 75 per cent., are issued to war disabled drivers. Of between 18,000 and 19,000 drivers, only 250—less than 2 per cent.—are issued to war disabled drivers. It is therefore clear, from these same figures, that over 96 per cent. of war disabled drivers who have the choice in this matter prefer a car to a tricycle.

The difference in disabilities between the war disabled and the civilian disabled—I have no doubt there are differences—simply cannot be as great as that disparity would suggest. The Disabled Drivers' Association tells me that about 95 per cent. of its members would prefer a car to a tricycle, which is exactly the same as the proportion of war disabled drivers who, having the choice, choose the car rather than the tricycle. Nevertheless, the principle of the Department remains that the tricycle is the standard issue and the adapted car is a privilege, only for exceptional cases.

My argument in a nutshell is quite simply that that policy should be reversed, that the adapted car should be the standard issue, and that the tricycle should be the exception for those who cannot operate the four-wheeled car. I accept that some disabled persons cannot operate anything but a tricycle, and that the tricycle must continue to be available for their needs, although I admit that I never met anyone who fell into that exceptional category and I should like to know what is the nature of their disabilities that makes the tricycle the only suitable vehicle for them, and they are so much more numerous, as apparently they must be, among the civilian disabled than among the war disabled. But, however numerous they may be, it is an unquestionable fact that they are a minority and that the overwhelming majority of both civilian and war disabled would prefer the adapted car to the tricycle.

The reasons for the preference are obvious. They can be summed up under the two headings of safety and convenience, which overlap. Convenience includes ease of driving and maintenance, freedom from noise, warmth and comfort, room for getting in and Out and, perhaps most important of all, carrying a passenger. Safety is a much more serious matter, and includes stability, strength and protection for both the driver and the vehicle. On the matter of convenience, is it recognised that the P70 tricycle represents some improvement on its predecessor.

On safety, the most temperate verdict that I can quote Is that in the magazine "Which?" in March 1972. It says that

"Very little has been done to improve safety, and this model is still extremely hazardous".

I could quote far more extreme verdicts from a wide range of publications, including letters and articles in professional journals like the BritishMedical Journal, Doctor, Pulse, World Medicine, Medical News, General Practitioner. In the lay Press the subject has been dealt with recently in The Guardian, the Sunday Times and the Evening Standard.

Also, the Minister will be aware that less than three weeks ago the local Press in Hertfordshire reported the death, in a driving accident, of the secretary of the local branch of the Disabled Drivers Association, Mrs. Florence Paul. The report was accompanied by devastating comments on the P70 tricycle that she was driving.

I also warn the Minister that further devastating comments on his Department's policy in issuing vehicles, based on test driving by myself and by Graham Hill, the racing motorist—who was at one time himself a disabled driver—will appear in the Daily Telegraph colour supplement next month.

The evidence against the tricycle is so overwhelming that I hardly know where to begin extracting it from my dossier. Among the items and components of the P70 which are specifically criticised in these documents, on grounds of safety of convenience, or both, are the brakes, gears, steering, clutch, throttle cable, drive chain, speedometer cable, windscreen seal, dashboard projections, heater, fire extinguisher and fibreglass body and roof. In addition, specific criticisms are made of the unpadded interior layout, the fire risk from the frontally located petrol tank, lack of engine power on hills, rattle of loose components, and in respect of hub caps falling off, the bonnet flying open, instability and noise.

All of these could be more fully documented with examples. At the risk of disappointing those who have supplied the examples I shall confine myself to three or four items, chosen to show not only that the complaints are clear and specific but that they are not made in a spirit of mere bloody-mindedness and perversity. First, there is the Which? report which states that

"In two years some improvements have been made, particularly in performance and in the ease of driving the car"—

that is, the P70—

"with the automatic transmission, for instance, and improved brakes. We found getting in and out was much easier also. However, there were still major disadvantages. It was very noisy, and could feel unstable when cornering. It was difficult for a handicapped driver to do his own daily maintenance. There was very little space inside. Above all, its size and construction made it vulnerable and potentially very unsafe in a crash. It was also very lonely. We think that this three-wheeled vehicle is now out of place in modern society—and in modern traffic conditions."

My other examples come from users, themselves disabled drivers. They have been collected by Dr. Geoffrey Sherliker, in my constituency. He has specialised in their problems. First is a woman driver who says:

"I have a new P70 automatic which is much better in some respects. The throttle is dreadful and very hard to regulate. When driving in heavy traffic it is very awkward and, in fact. I have corns right along the palm of my hand since driving this vehicle. The worst experience, is to attempt to hold it in a fairly high wind—and I have had had a very nasty experience of nearly being blown over in a strong wind although I was only doing about 20 miles per hour at the time. I was fortunate that I was blown on to my left, where there was no kerb—a few yards further down was the kerb, and I would not have been able to hold it."

Another writer, a man, says:

"A few months ago, while waiting in a line of traffic, smoke started coming up under my seat and seized the engine. A following car, in avoiding my tricycle, tipped me over and if this had been on the side with only one door, I would have been burnt to death as it had a fibre-glass body. A nurse and others at the bus stop pulled me out, as I am a large built man (over 6 feet 4 inches height), but it damaged my shoulder doing so. I have had a clean licence for 45 years and have driven all types of vehicles (including tanks in wartime), and I think this tricycle torture should be scrapped, particularly as they cost as much as a car."

Next is a letter from another woman. She says:

"As a disabled driver of the P.70 for the last twelve months, I was very glad to see that a Dotctor is taking up our case. While I am grateful for the improved features on this model; such as automatic transmission, a sliding seat, two doors and a fuel gauge, the single wheel at the front combined with the light weight of only 8 cwt. definitely makes the vehicle most unstable, especially in crosswinds."

I have one final quotation from a man driver who says:

"I have had a P.70 invalid tricycle since February, and although I have been driving since 1936, it is the most dangerous vehicle I have ever driven—and I have driven just about everything. The road holding is nonexistent, I dare not take it out on a windy day, when I am overtaken by a larger vehicle I find it impossible to hold—with there being little weight and only one wheel at the front. I also get a headache every time I go out in it due to the noise levels. When driving along, I can see the road slipping past through the gap left between the car and the door. I wonder what the cold and draughts will do to my arthritis when winter comes, and many times I have pain in my hips caused through this draught. At the time of writing the tricycle is in the garage for the fourth time in less than three months with something wrong with it. With this letter, you may well think I am a real old grouse, but really I am a very mild, patient fellow, who is very grateful to this really great country of ours for what is done for the sick and disabled, but I do think that people who are really full of pain to start with, do deserve something a bit more comfortable than these."

These are representative quotations and I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that the people concerned are not mere grumblers. Where there are good points to be said for the vehicle they are said. But to these comments I should like to add my own. I recognise that as I am not a disabled driver my judgment of the tricycle is necessarily very different from that of those who have to use them. However, having driven all the invalid vehicles which are now on the road I am convinced that the P70 is the most dangerous I have ever sat in, except for its predecessor.

Why was such a vehicle ever designed? It was designed, first, because a small minority of disabled drivers can operate no other. I accept the Department's word for that. It was designed, secondly, to meet a rigid specification laid down by the Department to reduce costs of production. That is the crux of the matter. The only possible justification for preferring a tricycle to an adapted car is the comparative cost. The question is whether this is a valid case. Some would say that cost should not be a criterion at all, but with that I disagree. It can, however, be seriously questioned whether the tricycle is cheaper than an adapted Mini or other small car.

Parliamentary Questions over the past decade strongly suggest that when every relevant factor is taken into account—the initial cost, insurance, running costs, maintenance and repairs, and the probable working life of the vehicle—there is not much to choose between a tricycle and a Mini. But even that verdict needs to be qualified in favour of the Mini. The P70 requires the import of certain manufactured components from abroad, including Austria, Italy and the United States, so that it represents a marginal burden on the balance of payments.

Secondly, the tricycle, unlike the Mini, has no resale value. Thirdly, the unit costs are naturally lower for a vehicle produced in quantity with long production runs. This advantage has been arbitrarily and artificially conferred on the tricycle by making it standard issue. If the advantages of quantity production were transferred to the Mini, which is preferred by the overwhelming majority of the users, its unit cost would certainly be far below the tricycle. Even today it is possible to make out a strong case for the Mini on economic grounds alone.

I understand that the basic cost of manufacture of the tricycle is between £600 and £650. The manufacturers of the Mini have offered before now to operate a scheme of guaranteed repurchase of the Minis after three years or 36,000 miles, whichever is earlier, on very competitive terms. The latest costing by a director of Morris Garages—I have the costings here but they have not yet been formally submitted—shows that a Mini 850 saloon could cost the Government only £328·69 on these terms. The list price is £581, the total invoice cost on delivery is £718·69, and the repurchase price after three years is £390. Similar figures have been quoted for other British Leyland models.

I simply cannot believe that this is not a better economic proposition than plodding or tottering along with the P70. For years I have been puzzled to understand the Department's attitude in this matter, and over 10 years I have at last reluctantly come to suspect that there is but one possible explanation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will refute it and offer a better one. My suspicion is that unless the Department can compel a substantial majority of disabled drivers to take a tricycle, whether or not they want it, its unit cost will be uneconomic. If the Mini were to become standard issue instead, the increased demand, although reducing unit cost, would impose an unacceptable total burden on National Health Service resources. Therefore, the majority must be compelled to accept a vehicle that is not suitable to their needs—a vehicle that, in fact, is suited to the needs of less than 5 per cent. of disabled drivers. If that were to be the Department's reasoning I should have a great many arguments—social, medical, humanitarian and economic—to advance against it, but I hope to hear that it is not.

In any case there can be only one logical conclusion, which is bound to come in the long run, and I urge the Minister to seize the credit for being the first in his office to reach it. It is that the tricycle should be kept in production only as a standby for the minority—that is, the limited group of disabled who cannot operate anything else—and that the adapted four-wheeler should become standard issue for the rest, that is, the majority, instead of vice versa.

I am speaking for many organisations and doctors—for the Disabled Drivers' Action Group, the Spastics Society, the Haemophilia Society, the British Polio Fellowship, the Association for Research into Restricted Growth and, I have no doubt, many others—when I ask the Minister simply to turn his Department's policy upside down.

The House and, more important, all disabled persons will be most grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject today. He put his finger on the crux of the problem at the end of his speech when he said that the increased take-up is the main problem that the Ministry must face, but I hope we shall get an opportunity of pursuing that later.

I want to raise three short points. I do not have time to deploy all my arguments here but I hope the Minister will examine what I have to say. The first concerns whether there should be a three-or four-wheeled vehicle in view of the problem of parking, which has been helped by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I am thinking in particular of the way in which the National League for the Blind has been making representations about blind persons and persons who are so severely disabled that the problem of parking and of accompaniment becomes extremely important.

Whether they drive a three-or four-wheeled vehicle, there are other contin- gent problems for which the Disabled Living Foundation has developed a new and wide range of implements—for example, for the person who is mobile and goes to work but needs to carry tools or shopping. Will the Minister give further consideration to spreading the gospel about the equipment that has evolved for a vehicle which enables a disabled person to remain an active member of the community, equipment which the Disabled Living Foundation is able to demonstrate?

My third point arises from my second. As only English people, and Londoners in particular, have the advantage of the wide range of information from the Disabled Living Foundation, I would be glad if the Under-Secretary would bring pressure to bear on the Government for similar facilities to be made available for disabled persons, social service officers and medical welfare people who are interested. These facilities could be provided in Edinburgh, to serve Scotland, and in Cardiff, to serve Wales, in the same way as people in England can go to Kensington to see the range of services available for disabled drivers.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for the timely opportunity he has provided for the very important issue of mobility for the disabled to be debated. The hon. Gentleman enjoys well-deserved respect among disabled people for his work in this field. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), the hon. Gentleman has a genuine and abiding concern to improve the mobility of all disabled people.

The Under-Secretary should take serious note of the strong, indeed compelling, case that has been put to him from both sides of the House. The debate is of strictly limited length and the Minister needs adequate time to reply, so I will not make a long speech.

The main purpose of my intervention is to emphasise to the Government that they will save nothing by restricting the mobility of the severely disabled. There is no saving by running a vehicle service on the cheap. Many of the disabled could work if only their mobility could be improved. They passionately want the dignity of being taxpayers, not the dependence of supplementary benefits.

The percentage of unemployment among employable disabled people is shocking. The current figure is 13·4 per cent. We should link the problem of mobility to the problem of unemployment among disable people who are seeking work. We shall help to solve both problems only if we regard them as being related.

It is argued that a four-wheeled vehicle is more expensive to provide than a three-wheeler. I was strongly convinced by motor manufacturers, who were brought into contact with me by Mr. Graham Hill and others, that a four-wheeler can be provided at a cost, per car, as low as that of a three-wheeler. Ministers say that the total cost to public funds would, however, increase because more, entitled applicants would apply for a four-wheeler. What they are really saying is that it costs less to distribute distasteful sweets, not because they are cheaper but because fewer people want them.

There is also the problem of the disabled passenger, about which the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled is deeply concerned. The more disabled a person is, the less help he receives. One minor concession has been brought about by all-party activity in the form of an amendment to a recent Finance Bill. It is entirely wrong that the more heavily disabled who have cars to enable them to work, or to normalise their lives, should receive no real help whatsoever with their mobility.

The hon. Member for Oxford referred to the report awaited from Baroness Sharp. Here I wish to emphasise that the Government have executive responsibility. We were told recently by the Prime Minister, at No. 10 Downing Street, that we must await the report from Baroness Sharp. We are doing so in the hope that it will contain conclusions and recommendations that will be of enduring help to all disabled people. But the Government must ensure that the report is presented to Parliament as soon as the final draft is available. That will enable Parliament to express its views to Ministers before they make decisions on the report's conclusions and recommendations. Many hon. Members are experts in this field, and it would be wise for the Government to give them an opportunity to say what they think about the report before final decisions are reached.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) very much regret that they cannot be here today to participate in the debate. They are extremely well-informed on the problems of mobility for disabled people. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) will also be sorry that their constituency commitments have made it impossible for them to participate. The Under-Secretary is himself, of course, a man of much experience in this field, and I want him to appreciate that the House can help him and his ministerial colleagues in reaching the right decisions on the conclusions and recommendations of the Sharp Report.

There are three brief points to which I now turn. The first concerns an undertaking given during the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in the House of Lords in 1970. The undertaking was given, by a Minister, that advice would be issued to public transport operators and manufacturers on the subject of access to public transport for disabled people. Sir Eric Errington, formerly the hon. Member for Aldershot, took a great interest in this subject during the debates on my Bill. I believe that the Government will be issuing a circular on the question of access to public transport for disabled people. I hope the Under-Secretary will say something about this and also about the implementation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As he will appreciate, Section 20 is of especial importance to severely disabled children. My hon. Friend referred to Section 21 and to the parking concessions which it provides for the severely disabled. There are still some London boroughs that have not extended the benefits of Section 21 to the disabled people in their areas, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to comment on this.

There will be no objection from the Opposition if the Minister acts decisively to ensure a radical improvement in the vehicle service. I wish finally to pay tribute to Peter McBryan and Nigel Harvey. The Disabled Drivers' Association and Disabled Drivers' Motor Club have come together to press for immediate action on this issue. The disabled are, as it were, on the march on this issue, and there are many of us on both sides of the House who are proud to be marching with them.

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for raising this important issue today and for the effective and persistent way in which he and many other hon. Members on both sides have focused attention on the problems of mobility for the disabled. The Government welcome this as much as the House will.

The Government approach the matter in the spirit that much has been done but that there is a long way to go before any of us can be satisfied. I hope that the debate will help to provide more information on the points raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I join in the tributes which have been paid to the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled and other organisations for the disabled which help constructively to keep the problem before the House and the country. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for the generous tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend. Brickbats are more potent when mixed with a little praise.

The significance of increased mobility is recognised by all of us because of what it does not only for the disabled but for everyone. It is not so long ago that people worked in the area in which they lived. That was a time when a visit to the nearest town was an event, when a visit to the seaside was a rare luxury and when a venture to foreign parts was beyond people's wildest dreams and, in many cases, their desires. All this has changed. It has meant changing habits, changing expectations and changing necessities, and this has had an influence on the disabled as it has on everyone else. In this modern age we are all caught up with movement and its problems. For the disabled those problems are greater and have dimensions which do not exist for most of us.

The changing pattern is well illustrated in the vehicle service itself. Twenty years ago there were 1,700 cars available through the vehicle service and 8,300 three-wheelers. Now the figures are 8,000 cars, 20,000 three-wheelers and 12,000 people with private car allowances.

To answer some of the criticisms of my hon. Friend, the original concept of the vehicle service 20 years ago was to replace walking ability. It was a fairly modest objective, rather like the artificial limb. As such it was a health provision and was provided by health departments, as it still is. It meant in practice that the vehicle was a single-seater which the disabled person drove for himself. One of the obvious disadvantages of this—and it is one that has emerged increasingly over the years—is that he is on his own and cannot take his wife or companion along with him.

I hope the House will recognise that it would be wrong for me today to attempt to prejudge the future of the vehicle service or to try to reach conclusions about cars or tricycles. What I can say is that the Government recognise the need for change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognised this when he announced interim changes in February of last year. We were then able to make some modest improvements. For example. we were able to help for the first time those who were not working and who could not walk, not because of anything wrong with their legs but because of a heart or lung condition. We also provided a car instead of a three-wheeler for a few more disabled persons for whom the three-wheeler was recognised to be unsuitable, and we introduced the car allowance, which already has attracted nearly 12,000.

These were interim changes, and we are well aware that the basis of the vehicle service needs re-examination. This includes not only what sort of help should be given but also who should get it. That is the significance of the inquiry now being carried out by Lady Sharp. I know that she is pressing on with this as quickly as is compatible with the complexity of the subject and the need for a report pointing the way to a service which is in line with modern requirements.

I understand that Lady Sharp has received evidence from many voluntary bodies concerned with the subject and has seen those who expressed the wish to see her, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. I am sure that she will take all these views into account, as well as what has been said today, in reaching her conclusions. We expect to receive her report before many months have passed, and it will be published. I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). The collective wisdom of people with experience in this House and outside will be valuable to the Government in considering the report that we shall shortly receive from Lady Sharp.

Will it be published before the Government make their decision about its recommendations?

I cannot say exactly when it will be published. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I assure him that we shall wish to have the views of hon. Members and organisations who clearly have contributions to make before final decisions are put to this House by the Government.

Against what I hope is that responsive background to the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, perhaps I might make one or two points before going on to the broader matters. The first is about the safety factor.

The safety of three-wheelers has been questioned. They conform fully to the relevant construction and use regulations. Some critics maintain that they are unstable and easily blown over. I admit that drivers are conscious of side winds and that three-wheelers, like any other light vehicle, have to be driven with regard to their performance limitations and the prevailing weather conditions. But they are not inherently unstable or unsafe.

There has been criticism of the glass-reinforced plastic body, which it is claimed offers little protection in an accident. Experience does not bear that out. Since this type of body was introduced some years ago, the number of serious injuries to disabled people driving them has remained very small despite the substantial increase in the number of three-wheelers and other vehicles on the roads.

In general these vehicles have demonstrated over many years a good accident record, and insurers are satisfied that they are not a bad risk. It is important to emphasise this to reassure the thousands of disabled people presently driving these vehicles.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said, mobility for the disabled does not only involve getting from A to B. Perhaps the most important help that the disabled require is mobility in their own home environment. The solution to this lies partly in the right accommodation and partly in suitable aids in the home. My Department has on issue some 130,000 non-powered wheel chairs and nearly 3,000 powered chairs supplied for use in the home to those unable to walk and unable to use an ordinary wheelchair. In addition there are about 1,500 powered chairs on issue controlled by attendants and provided for outdoor use. Constant efforts are made to improve the type of chair which is issued.

Purpose-built housing and adaptations to existing housing can make all the difference between dependence and independence. Under Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, of which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe was the author, housing authorities have a duty to have regard to the special needs of the chronically sick and disabled. A circular has been sent to all housing authorities drawing their attention to this. The Department of the Environment and my own Department have joint studies in hand designed to provide information on how these needs can best be met.

These are all very important aspects, some of which flow from the hon. Gentleman's Act. Equally the problems faced by the disabled in overcoming immobility are part of the question of rehabilitation. The importance that we attach to this is shown by the recent announcement about the creation of a Chair of Rehabilitation at Southampton University. We have also said that we shall set up two new demonstration centres for rehabilitation at Norwich and Derby, and they will be followed by others later.

Another aspect is parking and getting into buildings at the end of journeys. Here, too, things are on the move, although there is still much to be done. The hon. Member for Willesden, West made special mention of parking arrangements. Perhaps I might remind the House of the orange badge scheme of parking concessions for the disabled. This again is an important contribution towards mobility.

The scheme was introduced on 1st December 1971. Under it orange badges are issued by local authorities to certain categories of disabled people. The badges are for identification purposes and do not in themselves confer parking concessions. Parking concessions derive from exemptions written into traffic regulation orders by the individual local authorities. The effect of the regulations is that vehicles displaying the orange badges can be left free of charge and without time limit at parking metres and without time restrictions in places where waiting is limited to specified periods. The concessions apply throughout the country, apart from certain parts of the City and the West End of London where pressure on the limited amount of parking space is very great. However the London boroughs concerned operate their own schemes of parking concessions for the disabled living and working in their areas.

The Department of the Environment also encourages local authorities to use the orange badges as a means of identification for providing further parking concessions for the disabled wherever possible. For example, some local authorities reserve spaces for orange badge holders in car parks near shopping centres, or allow them to park in their off-street car parks free of charge. The orange badge scheme represents a considerable improvement over the previous yellow badge scheme. Apart from providing concessions for passengers and institutions as well as drivers, it has the force of law, and the orange badges are valid throughout the country, except for central London, whereas the previous scheme was operated on a voluntary basis and the yellow badges were valid only in the area of the local authority which issued them. The scheme has been working well in practice but it is hoped to improve it in the light of experience.

Another recent change concerns the use of invalid vehicles on pavements. Previously, they were forbidden to use pavements; now they are able to use them, subject to certain conditions.

Another aspect to which my hon. Friend referred is access to public buildings and to public transport. This inevitably is a slow business, particularly with existing buildings, but it is important because steps to a public building can be like the Berlin Wall to a disabled person. The lavatory which a disabled person cannot get into can be as much a barrier to him as a no-entry sign.

For new public buildings there is now the obligation to provide for the needs of the disabled as far as practical and reasonable. All of us who move about the country see clear evidence of progress in this respect, not only with these facilities being provided but also with clear signs so that the disabled know where lavatories are available and where there are entrances to buildings which have no steps or other impediments.

I hope the House will feel that, although inevitably in dealing with the vehicle service I have to say that we are waiting for the Sharp Report, the fact that changes have been made in the vehicle service and that Lady Sharp has been asked to undertake this inquiry show the concern of the Government. I hope I have also been able to show the progress which has been made and which will continue to be made in many other aspects of mobility for the disabled, all of which are important if we are to achieve the aim we all share for the disabled—to equip them to lead a life as independent and as near to the life of any other person as possible.

We turn now from the intensely human problem rightly raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) to consideration of another problem which is bothering people who work in the small but important industry largely centred in Nottingham but with centres in other parts of the country—the lace industry.

Under the Customs Duty (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969 the Department of Trade and Industry has power to impose customs duties over and above the normal duties on goods which are regarded as having been dumped in this country. For the purpose of the Act imported goods are regarded as having been dumped

"if the export price from the country of origin is less than the fair market price …"

in that country.

I wish to show that this legislation is completely useless in the circumstances facing the lace industry. I believe it to be the case that officials of the Department of Trade and Industry have conceded that this is so. The legislation can be used only in those cases where a foreign manufacturer or an exporter is constantly and over a long period of time selling goods in this country at prices which can be established to be below the price at which identical goods are being sold in the home market of the exporter or the manufacturer, and where this can be demonstrated to be to the detriment of the relevant industry in this country.

For example, if a Japanese car manufacturer sold a particular model of car in Britain more cheaply than the same model was being sold in Japan, there would be a prima facie case for the Department of Trade and Industry to consider whether anti-dumping duties should be imposed on that model. Of course there would be discussions with the Japanese manufacturer and the Japanese Government before any anti-dumping duty would be imposed. It would be a simple matter to establish the relevant prices of cars here and in Japan, since the cars would be on sale to the public in both countries. Even so, a great deal of time would go by before duties could be imposed while the Department of Trade and Industry first examined the consequences for the home industry of what was going on, and held discussions with the Japanese.

Lengthy though the procedure might be in that example, it is all a relatively simple state of affairs compared with the situation one meets when considering dumping in the lace industry. Much of the dumping in that industry concerns patterns or designs which are not being sold by the foreign exporter on his own home market. For the most part, it is impossible to compare prices here with the prices in the home market of the exporter, since there may be no home market in that exporting country. Further more, the bulk of the foreign lace sold here is sold to manufacturers for use in garment making and trimming, and it is not possible to see clearly and readily the price which is being offered here. The British manufacturing buyer is not likely to disclose his purchase price, and the fact that he is purchasing at low prices can be seen normally only from the price that he is prepared to pay for comparable British goods.

Recently a great deal of Austrian Raschel lace has been coming into this country, and its price is clearly low. Offers of comparable British lace at completely uneconomically low prices have been rejected by British garment makers. The Austrians do not have a garment industry and they export the vast majority of their products. One cannot therefore obtain, for the purpose of comparison, a price at which Raschel lace is sold on the Austrian home market because there is no home market. The comparison required by the anti-dumping legislation cannot be made.

If one could find positive evidence, rather than rely on logical inferences drawn from British garment makers' purchasing policies, that the prices at which Austrian lace is being sold here are abnormally low, the Department of Trade and Industry would presumably pursue the matter through governmental channels with the Austrians.

But, apart from the fact that this positive evidence would be difficult to come by, the process of pursuing the matter internationally would be a long one. However expeditious Her Majesty's Government might be in pursuing the matter, it is hardly likely that the Austrian Government would act with similar speed. It may be that I am maligning the Austrian Government. In any case, the Austrian lace manufacturers would not be likely to be in any great hurry to provide damning evidence on their own production costs.

To a lesser extent, the dumping of foreign lace consists of surplus stocks that foreign producers sell on their home markets, but those are just as troublesome to the British industry. Another problem is that the volume of imports of dumped lace varies from time to time and the country of origin changes at intervals. Occasionally, the American lace industry has a long run of production of certain lines and then proceeds to dump its surplus in this country and elsewhere. Difficulties are now looming for the British lace industry because dumped lace from Scandinavia is coming in.

So the problem goes on changing in pattern from time to time in such a way that our cumbersome anti-dumping procedures are totally unable to cope with the situation. The extent of the intrusion of the dumped lines is impossible to determine from Customs returns partly because of the misdeclaration of goods and partly because there are so many different types of lace which are not separately classified in Customs returns.

It will be seen from all this that by the time a case of dumping has been produced and agreed by the British Government fashion changes will undoubtedly have changed lace patterns and lace types and designs, so that the antidumping duty then imposed will be completely meaningless because the foreign exporters to this country will long ago have switched to other alternatives. So the whole abortive business would have to be gone through again if anyone considered that there were any point in going through this whole useless procedure.

I understand that our anti-dumping procedures will be changed in 1977 because of our entry into the Common Market. The Under-Secretary may well argue that the problem is best left until then. If that is the Government's view, I cannot agree. Why do we need to be so subservient to the countries of the Common Market, or any others? Other countries have anti-dumping legislation that is much more effective than ours and they will not permit within their home markets the unfair trading that creates such difficulty for our industries, the lace industry and others. Why can we not as quickly as possible thrash out a procedure which is good for Britain and Britain's industries and use it as a base from which to agree possible future Common Market legislation?

It is time that we started to call the tune on matters like this instead of supinely accepting Common Market arrangements and struggling to change them afterwards and ending up with a procedure which has regard only marginally to Britain's difficulties. Why do we have to behave all the time as though we were poor cousins taken in out of the cold and gratefully accepting scraps from the rich man's table?

What we need, and need urgently, is a simple procedure so that in cases where the prices of imported goods are not published and there is a clear inference from purchasing policies that those goods are coming into the country at abnormally and uneconomically low prices the Department of Trade and Industry would be able to call for documentary evidence within a limited time from both importers and the relevant British industries as to the cost of production of comparable goods. If that evidence supports a prima facie case of dumping, anti-dumping duty should be imposed forthwith for a period of six months, the onus being on the importer to demonstrate that the goods are not dumped.

I therefore suggest the following procedures. First, if an industry produces documentary evidence that the goods are being sold in the United Kingdom more cheaply than similar goods are being sold in the exporting country, appropriate duty should be imposed immediately for a period of three or six months so that the impact may be assessed. This should take care more effectively and expeditiously of those cases where the surpluses of another country are being dumped, as for instance American products to which I referred earlier.

Secondly, where it is not possible or practical for an industry to produce documentary evidence of the relative selling prices, but where evidence can be produced showing that United Kingdom products are reasonably priced but are being constantly rejected in favour of imported goods which are similar in all material respects, including quality, so that the inference is that the imported goods are cheaper, the importer should be required by the Department of Trade and Industry to produce evidence within 14 days of the duty-paid bonded prices. Should a comparison of those prices with production prices by the United Kingdom industry give rise to a reasonable assumption of dumping, the appropriate antidumping duty should be imposed immediately for a period of three or six months so that the issue may be examined in detail.

The important and attractive lace industry is being seriously affected by dumping practices such as those I have described, and so are other consumer industries. In place of the ponderous, ineffective procedures of the present arrangements, let us have something that works and that takes care of Britain's interests as effectively as anti-dumping procedures take care of the interests of the industries of other countries.

During the day we have debated national problems concerned with North Sea oil and the disabled, and we now turn to a small, industrial and perhaps even local problem, which is none the less as important to those concerned as the widest national problem. I immediately accept that.

It is interesting that, as the Member for Honiton, I should be replying to a debate concerned with lace. Honiton is a revered place and name in lacemaking—lace made by hand and lace of the most intricate and ancient patterns. I therefore have pleasure in being able to say that I understand the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock).

With my background—I spent part of my life in the fashion industry, where one has to meet problems of patterns and designs, seasonal changes and the disposal of stocks considered no longer attractive to the ladies this season, although they were last—I am able immediately to sympathise with the problems that the lace industry faces. The hon. Member will know that the lace industry has been discussing with the Department the possibility of seeking action against imports under the provisions of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969—an Act passed by the Labour Government of which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North was a member, so that not all the criticism he makes falls on the present Government.

This Act empowers the Department to impose anti-dumping duties, if it considers it is in the national interest to do so, on imports into the United Kingdom that are found to be dumped, as defined in the Act, provided the Department is satisfied that the dumping is causing or threatening material injury to a British industry.

The word "dumping" is closely defined in the Act. Where, in the ordinary course of trade, there are domestic sales of identical or comparable goods in the exporting country, on the basis of which the fair market—or undumped—price can be assessed, dumping means exporting to Britain at prices lower than those obtained by the exporter for similar domestic sales of such goods. The hon. Gentleman says that this definition is not applicable in the circumstances he has quoted.

That is the normal definition of dumping. If there are no such comparable domestic sales on which a comparison can properly be based, dumping is not impossible of definition, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is defined either as exporting to Britain at prices lower than those at which the exporter sells identical or comparable goods to other countries, or exporting to Britain at prices below costs plus reasonable profits. In the former case comparability can be difficult, because in certain areas people are producing patterns and styles for specific markets. It may be that certain patterns and styles produced for the British market would be different from those produced for the French, German or American market. My Department realises that.

With imports into the United Kingdom from state-trading countries the Act also provides for a finding of dumping if the price of these imports is lower than that of imports of identical or comparable goods from other countries after making necessary adjustments. This definition of dumping is based on the definition in Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and on the Anti-Dumping Code which has been signed by the United Kingdom, the original Community and its member States, as well as by other countries, such as the United States and Canada.

The definition of dumping in the Community's Anti-Dumping Regulation is similar, being also based upon Article VI of GATT. Perhaps I can deal with the point made by the hon. Gentleman when he suggested that we could not do anything until 1977. That is a nonsense. We believe that we have to keep this matter under review the whole time. It is wrong to imply that it is because of our joining the European Community that the Government cannot or will not take action. Initially, the definitions were nothing to do with the EEC. They came from GATT. Thus, quite apart from the domestic matter of changing our legislation, we could not widen our definition without departing from the provisions of Article VI in GATT and the Anti-Dumping Code.

In any case, we are now bound to consider this matter. The Community has agreed to this definition. As a major exporting nation—and this covers all our exports—it must be very much in our interest that there should be clear-cut international rules to ensure that antidumping action is not taken by other countries against our exports unless there are good and acceptable reasons for it. Naturally, we must abide by the same rules. It is sometimes said that we abide by the rules, but other do not. If we were to break the rules it would not help us in seeking to obtain world-wide agreement on exports.

We remain able to take national antidumping action under our own legislation against dumped imports from any country outside the Community, except where common agriculture policy products or the interests of a Community-producing industry are involved. At the end of the transitional period all antidumping action against dumped imports into the enlarged Community will be taken on a Community basis, under the EEC Anti-Dumping Regulation. It is as well to get that on the record. During the transitional period the Department will always be ready to investigate complaints by British industry of dumped imports from countries outside the Community, supported by the necessary prima facie evidence of dumping and resultant material injury or the threat thereof.

We do not expect proof of dumping, only prima facie evidence, and we are very willing to advise industries on the preparation of anti-dumping applications. We are also ready to advise them on the formulation of complaints to the Commission about dumped imports from other member States of the enlarged Community. Although the hon. Gentleman has talked only about Austria he will know that there can be problems with Germany and other counries.

In the present instance my officials have been in touch with the Lace Federation. Three of my officials attended a meeting of the federation in April. They explained carefully how dumping was defined in the legislation and what information was needed to substantiate an anti-dumping application. So far, the industry has not produced the requisite factual information. I am sorry that I have to say this. From such information as has been given it does not look as if the practices complained of constitute dumping as defined in the Act. The problem, as I understand too well, is that the industry is subject to fashion changes.

Producers of all fashion garments, at home and overseas, sell off at low prices stocks or lines which have gone out of fashion. As I have said, in the fashion industry a manufacturer goes to the wall twice a year because of the need to sell off these lines.

The problem of meeting changing fashion needs is faced by other countries. The Minister has talked about the GATT arrangements and has spoken of the need for clear-cut international agreement. Is it not the case that other countries have much more effective antidumping procedures than ours to deal with the problems I have highlighted?

We have to consider whether, because of the changes in fashion, the disposal of stock is really dumping. No evidence has been produced that these out-of-date patterns are being exported to Britain at prices lower than those at which manufacturers sell them domestically at the same time. Unless this is the case, there is no dumping within the meaning of our antidumping legislation or, as far as I am aware, within the meaning of antidumping legislation anywhere in the free world.

As to any other action that we might take against imports, we are, as the textile industry is aware, prepared to consider proposals for the negotiation of new import restraints with exporting countries. This applies to any sector where the domestic textile industry believes that there is a risk of injury to that sector serious enough to warrant an examination. In considering such proposals we should have to consider our overall international position as one of the major exporters in the world.

I have tried to deal not only with the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman but with the overall position. I see the difficulty of making comparisons, but I have tried to show how that can be overcome. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of misdeclarations of goods on Customs and Excise declarations, I hope that he—or the industry—will let me have it, because that is part of the evidence that I do not have at my disposal, and would be delighted to have.

Much as I sympathise with the difficulties facing the industry, I cannot offer encouragement to the idea that antidumping rules can be changed as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. However, if, within the rules, there is a case to be made—and I have outlined how it can be made—and fully substantiated, my Department and I will be as helpful as humanly possible to this old and very necessary part of British industry.

The subject on which I wish to speak this afternoon is the skyline of tall buildings. Originally, I called it the ugly skylines of many tall buildings, but Mr. Speaker evidently did not like the partisan adjective and struck it out.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for coming to the House to reply to the debate, and I hope that he will be able to give us some information on this subject.

I do not intend to go into the desirability or otherwise of having tall buildings such as high rise flats or office blocks, nor their location, excepting in one instance, nor their design, except as it relates to the skyline.

Many skylines make these buildings more ugly than necessary because of what seems to be nothing but thoughtlessness on the part of all those concerned—planners, designers, local authorities and everybody else—but I was prompted to raise this problem partly by looking across the river from the Terrace of the House of Commons.

Looking at the Albert Embankment from Lambeth Bridge House southwards, there are 12 tall buildings, eight of them of more or less the same height. Every one has some kind of erection stuck on the roof. One seems to have a kind of terrace of cottages, coloured brown I think, and there is even a black box on top of one end of this terrace. The result is extremely unsightly, even at that distance from the Terrace of the House of Commons.

The Decca building, nearly opposite, seems to have a revolving horizontal propellor at one end which is floodlit at night. I should have thought that something like that would look more comely in the centre of the building, rather than at the end. Directly opposite the House, the new St. Thomas's Hospital is gradually taking shape, and one wonders what its skyline will be like when it is complete. So far the outlook is promising.

From the Committee Rooms on the Committee corridor, one sees tall buildings further east, with what I can only call enormous excrescences protruding from their roofs. I have not been able to identify what they are. They may even be grain elevators in the dock area, but at any rate they are hideous.

Many of these additions, particularly on high-rise flats, are possibly water tanks or coverings for lift machinery. I wonder whether they are shown on the plans at the time they receive approval by the planning authority, or whether the plans show only flat roofs and the excrescences are added afterwards. I cannot imagine how any planning authority could pass some of the ugly skylines that exist.

Most high-rise flats, not only in London but all over the country, have something spoiling the skyline. It is difficult to find any that have not. I quote the Alton Estate, Roehampton, as a particularly bad example. Its only saving grace is that the objects sticking up are painted white like the rest of the building. In many other cases the objects are painted black, unlike the rest of the building.

Some high buildings have pieces of black ironwork. Some council flats in Camden—in Adelaide Road, Hampstead —have black metalwork at one side of the roof, and they spoil an otherwise pleasant view looking northwards from Primrose Hill. It may be the ironwork of a communal television aerial. I do not know enough about TV to know whether that is so, but I think that it should be in the centre of the building and not on one side, so that at least the skyline is symmetrical. One wonders, too, whether they could not be painted at least approximately the same colour of the building on which they stand, rather than black.

Incidentally, I think it is one of those blocks that has blotted out what, up to two or three years ago, was one of the most attractive views in London. Looking up Park Street, Mayfair, and even further north, up Gloucester Place, one was formerly able to see a church spire on a hill, which is always a pleasing sight. I think that it is St. Peter's Church, Belsize Park, Hampstead. That is now hidden by one of these high-rise blocks. It is a great pity that that was allowed. The block could have been sited differently.

That view of a church on a hill from Central London always reminded me—though there is not really any comparison —of the wonderful views that can be obtained of the church of the Sacré Coeur de Montmartre from many parts of Paris. The comparison may not be valid, but it is a similar object. The only other similar view near London, but not visible from anywhere near the centre, is the church at Harrow-on-the-Hill. It is a great shame that the view up Gloucester Place is no longer what it used to be.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend's Department sets such a good example with its skyline. Seen from ground level it is perfect, with only a flagstaff at one end of each of the high blocks. It looks quite elegant. I have not looked at the building from the level of the roof. There may be things there which spoil the skyline, but perhaps my hon. Friend will assure us that that is not so. I hope he will be able to tell us that there are no blemishes on the roof of the Department of the Environment.

There are several tall buildings in my constituency which I should like to men- tion. Middlesex House, Ealing Road, to which those who come under the North Thames Gas Board pay their gas bills, could be vastly improved. There are large black erections which spoil the roof of this otherwise fairly white building. Harrow Technical. College could also look less ugly, and I hope that when the new Northwick Park Hospital is complete, if there are tall buildings they will have no blemishes.

The building constructed so skilfully from an engineering point of view on top of Wembley Central Station, under which anybody travelling on the line out of Euston goes, could have been made more symmetrical, but obviously it is too late to do anything about it now. Station House, on the corner of the North Circular Road and Harrow Road, could have had a more pleasing skyline. On the other hand, Wembley has a tall office block—York House—near Wembley Stadium—where an attempt has been made to conceal black erections on the roof by raising side walls. Unfortunately, the gaps in the side walls are a little too wide, and the unsightly erections can be seen through them.

I have skimmed through various documents provided for me by the Library—documents such as the Greater London Development Plan, studies made by the GLC, and articles of various kinds. Little official guidance seems to be given by the Government, the GLC or any other body about the details of the skyline problem. But London planning regulation No. 7 lays down that the

"location and effect on the skyline of tall buildings should be taken into consideration."

This, clearly, has not been done in many cases. The GLC study of July 1972 says that the silhouette of tall buildings should be taken into consideration, but that, again, seems to have been ignored, though I do not think it has statutory authority.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about the position. I hope that he will agree that this kind of ugliness is completely unnecessary and that his Department will be able to persuade the GLC and other local authorities not to allow any more ugliness of this kind. I also hope that he will be able to persuade the owners of these buildings to improve their skylines by fencing in ugly structures.

I am glad to have been able to provide the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) with an audience that he might not otherwise have had today, and I think that I can claim to be the only Member present, besides himself, who is here voluntarily. However, the hon. Member has raised some important issues.

The time has come seriously to reconsider the desirability of high-rise buildings, particularly for residential purposes. I know what the problem is in congested city centres where we want to rehouse people and also provide a certain amount of open space. The planners thought that high-rise buildings were the solution, but it is a very curious thing that no matter what tests we apply, or whatever kind of tenant we consider suitable for a high-rise block, we come up against serious difficulties. Some local authorities take the view that only older people who are not likely to have children should live at the top of high-rise buildings, but old people do not like to be cut off from the ground to that extent, and if a lift breaks down or there is some technical fault they are completely cut off. They could even starve to death—if kind neighbours were not willing to come to the rescue. On the other hand, the putting of young married couples at the top of a high-rise building creates other problems. If the children are playing outside the building they are a considerable distance from home. Moreover, their mothers cannot see them from the windows, as they could from old-fashioned houses.

The time has come for the Government to give some guidance to local authorities on the subject of high-rise buildings. I have raised this matter before in the House. It may well be that it would be better to spread people out rather than push them up into the sky.

That leads me to remind the Minister that I have advocated a much bigger bite being taken into land which is at present zoned as green belt but which has no immediate amenity value. I know that a few acres have been taken out for housing purposes but I think that we should go a good deal further than the Government are apparently willing to go. For instance, at Kingston there are two or three golf clubs very close together, and I ask myself whether, by a little judicious planning, one or two golf clubs might not be sufficient for that part of the world, so that the rest of the land could be used to accommodate the many thousands of people in serious need of accommodation who are at present living in the so-called stress areas.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity of dealing with the points that his hon. Friend and I have raised.

The effect of high buildings is a perennial topic of interest and concern. It has been raised on several occasions in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) himself put down a Question on it in August last year, but further debate and discussion is always useful, and I welcome very much the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this matter today. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who is always keenly interested himself in matters affecting London.

In general, an official attitude towards high buildings must depend very much on circumstances. Total prohibition might be appropriate and entirely desirable in an historic town where architectural preservation and retention of small scale is important, but in other towns a carefully planned pattern of high buildings might be desirable to give point to otherwise flat and uninteresting surroundings. Relative scale is very important. A building regarded as tall in a Cotswold market town would not necessarily be considered as such in an urban business centre.

My hon. Friend's principal concern is the changing skyline of London and it is shared by the hon. Member for Brixton. Tower blocks are now present for all to see, and few have escaped public controversy. The traditional pattern of London, dominated by churches and public buildings, has gone; which often gives rise to deep regret. No real coherent pattern seems as yet to have emerged in its place, but the tall building in London is still a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1930s there were virtually no high buildings in London; after this they began to appear gradually.

The rate of building increased appreciably after the 1939–45 war, and continued apace throughout the 1950s and '60s. This is not surprising in view of the shortage of land in urban areas, which inevitably leads to pressure for building upwards rather than outwards. There are also other reasons—perhaps prestige for a company head office, or perhaps because it is the fashionable architectural planning solution. But there are design reasons, too. A high building may be necessary to provide good lighting and working conditions for a given amount of floor space. Equally, a high building can release space at ground level for public movement, amenity or recreation.

To turn to the procedures for planning control, planning permission for high buildings is primarily a matter for the local planning authorities. It is important that the local planning authorities should evolve their own policies in the light of their particular circumstances.

In London the current regulations provide that the London boroughs must refer to the GLC any planning application for a building exceeding 150 feet in height in respect of a specified area in central London or exceeding 125 feet elsewhere in Greater London. The GLC may give a direction as to how such an application should be dealt with, taking into account the suitability of the site for a building of the height proposed and the effect which it would have on the skyline. The Secretary of State can become involved if the development proposed represents a substantial departure from the development plan or if it is the subject of an appeal. An application can also be called in for the Secretary of State's decision if it threatens to be highly controversial or if it is considered to have an effect which is regarded as being national rather than local in importance.

Called in by whom?

By the Secretary of State.

Special provisions exist for the consideration of any proposed development in the vicinity of a Royal Palace or Park. In such cases the local planning authority is obliged to consult the Department before granting planning permission for any development within half a mile of any Royal Palace or Park which might adversely affect its amenity. The Depart- ment naturally aims to secure modifications to any scheme which might have this effect.

The particular problems facing London have been appreciated by the local authorities, and in the early 1960s the then London County Council evolved a code of principles against which a high building should be judged. These principles covered particularly the protection of the skyline and traditional views, the effect on the immediately adjacent area, and the quality of architectural design and external finish.

Subsequently, when submitting its Greater London Development Plan in 1969, the Greater London Council made clear its view that high buildings constituted one of the most powerful visual elements in the metropolitan scene, and proposed a policy for controlling their location. This involved designating three types of area: first, where high buildings would be inappropriate; secondly, where the location would be particularly sensitive to the introduction of high buildings; and, thirdly, where a more flexible approach would be possible. The Lay-field Panel agreed that inappropriately sited high buildings could affect wide areas and cause "visual" blight; its comments on the GLC's proposed policy are being considered most carefully in the Department in common with all the other aspects of the Greater London Development Plan.

The problems of high buildings have also exercised the Royal Fine Art Commission. Many of the cases submitted to the commission concerned high buildings, and their effect on the urban scene, open spaces and Royal Parks. The commission is always a ready source of advice and assistance, and its views are most helpful to Government, local authorities and developers alike.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South raised several specific points. He particularly mentioned the view from the House of Commons Terrace, and his strictures are noted. The effect of the various buildings along the South Bank has always been a matter of keen debate. My Department shares the anxiety which is often expressed to ensure that riverside views are protected. The question of Thamesside development is very sensitive. I should mention in this connection the Secretary of State's decision last month to "call in" the planning application for the 372 feet high hotel on the South Bank behind the National Theatre.

I am aware that opinions differ on the development of St. Thomas's Hospital. Proposals for stage 2—which is now under consideration—were the subject of wide consultation and were given planning clearance by the Greater London Council. A model of the scheme was put on display in the Palace of Westminster on two separate occasions, in 1966 and 1969, so that hon. Members had an opportunity to make their views known.

My hon. Friend referred in strong terms to the damage to the views from Primrose Hill. I can only agree that the tower block flat development is prominent there.

My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of disguising machinery and other fittings on top of high-rise buildings. Some "machinery" is essential for ventilation, lifts, water tanks and so on. Most architects are sensitive to the need to conceal roof-top plant, and this can easily be done by adding screen walling. But there has been a phase of architectural fashion when angular shapes enclosing tanks and plant have been deliberately designed to provide skyline interest to blocks of flats. To answer my hon. Friend's specific question, these matters come within the purview of the local planning authority.

I much appreciate the kind remarks my hon. Friend made about the Department of the Environment buildings in Marsham Street. I have heard different views expressed. I have not so far had an opportunity of going on the roof of those buildings, but I will certainly do so as soon as possible and let my hon. Friend know the position about the fittings up there.

Turning to future trends, it is interesting to note that in the last few years in the country as a whole there has been a marked change in the attitude towards high-rise housing. The proportion of new dwellings built by local authorities in England and Wales in blocks of 15 or more storeys has declined from almost 10 per cent. in 1966 to less than 2 per cent. in 1970, and the trend is still decreasing. This bears out the view expressed by the hon. Member for Brixton. I have heard many complaints similar to those he voiced about the accommodation of older people and young couples with children in high-rise buildings.

It is clear from what has been said that in London a considerable amount of control and supervision is already exercised over the design and siting of high buildings. In recognition of the concern which tall buildings can cause, the Department took steps to include a provision in the 1973 Town and Country Planning General Development Order which requires public advertisement to be made by notice on the site and in the local newspapers of any proposed development more than 20 metres high. I am told that the Treasury building—the Bryden building—across Parliament Square is approximately this height.

Are more rigorous controls and more comprehensive guidance required? This is open to doubt. So much must depend on individual and local circumstances. Any detailed advice would need to go well beyond the general principles already well known to most local planning authorities, and even then that guidance could not be guaranteed to cover the whole range of possible situations.

What is important is that local planning authorities should consider the possible effect of a high building, not only on the immediate locality but also on the wider surrounding area and on the skyline itself. Great care and sensitivity are required by the local authorities in exercising their responsibilities.

However this may be, it would not be right to suggest that high buildings are universally to be deplored; in the urban situation today they are in many cases appropriate and meet an essential practical need, including the improvement of working conditions.

Developers and designers have a special responsibility when proposing to erect such a structure. Overall design, silhouette, materials and finish must be of high quality. The developer and the local authority have a joint responsibility to ensure that the public are fully acquainted with the details of the proposal. Models and photomontage are very useful for this purpose.

Efforts are being made in London by the local authorities to refine their policies and methods of control. They have access, where necessary, to expert bodies such as the Royal Fine Art Commission for advice. The Department will certainly do whatever it can to assist and encourage their efforts. But it would be wrong for central Government to attempt to undermine the public responsibilities for planning control which have properly been placed on these local authorities.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this interesting and important matter today.

I beg to draw the attention of the House to a date that is as yet some months away. I do so because arrangements of the kind that I am inviting the Government to make take a little time, and it would be pointless to suggest in the week previous to this date that they should arrange appropriate celebrations. I accept, if it will assist the Under-Secretary, that we tend to overload our calendar with dates. But this is a date which will loom large in the history books of the future.

On 10th December 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It came at a time which, looking back now, may seem to us rather remote. It came at the end of an era when the world had witnessed what atrocities a Government could commit. Mankind had seen and shuddered. People were determined that never again should any group of men, much less governmental officials, inflict such tragedies on individuals.

The Governments assembled at the United Nations instructed a commission, under Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, to ascertain those standards of conduct which were common to the whole civilised world, those standards embodying the very minimum which men and women expected of their Governments, and they instructed the commission to formulate these as rules. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the result.

The declaration is a document that would repay closer study than it sometimes receives. It sets out all that is best in human aspirations. It recites that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Then it declares that everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of person, and that no one shall be held in slavery; that no one shall be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading punishments; that everyone has the right to a nationality and to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; to freedom of opinion and expression; to freedom of peaceful assembly.

It then goes on to mention those rights which are now normally referred to as economic and social rights—the right to rest and leisure, including limitation of working hours; the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of a person and his family; the right of everyone to education.

Those are only some of the aspirations set out in the document.

December 10th this year will be the 25th anniversary of that document. Now, 25 years later, at this moment while we are debating, at the very minimum there are 100,000 people in prison not for anything that they have done but because they have expressed views that do not commend themselves to their Governments. There are at least 500 million people who never once in the whole of their lives have known what it is like to sit down to a square meal. There are people who find themselves the victim of torture practised by their Governments as a perfectly normal routine instrument of policy.

We ought not to be disheartened. We know that we do not end these atrocities by declarations, but it does not follow that we can dismiss these aspirations from our consciences.

This debate is about the expenditure of Government money. Some steps that could be taken would not require any expenditure, and I should like to mention three. The problem at the very beginning was that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lacked the means of enforcement. There was no forum where the international community could investigate complaints of infringements—nowhere where it could focus the sanction of international disapproval. That, subsequently, has been supplied from at least two sources. It has been supplied, first, from a number of regional arrangements and, in particular, the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been effective more than once in remedying what might otherwise be a very real personal tragedy. But normally the European Commission has jurisdiction to hear complaints only if they are made by Governments who are signatories to the convention. Under Article 25 there is an optional protocol which empowers a Government to submit to the jurisdiction of the commission to hear complaints made by private individuals, so that ordinary people can complain to the international community even over the Heads of their own Governments. So a Government, if they feel that they have nothing to conceal, can submit their record to the scrutiny of the international community.

The Labour Government thought that they had no reason to fear such a scrutiny. In 1965 they accepted that optional protocol for an experimental period of three years. At the end of that period they saw no reason not to renew it for a further period of three years. So in 1968 it was renewed until the end of 1971.

In 1971 one might have thought that, no obvious problems having appeared, the Government would have had nothing to fear and would feel it safe to renew it for an indefinite period. For a reason which has never been explained, the present Government saw fit to renew it only for a further period of two years, so that at the end of 1973 the question will arise whether it is to be renewed again.

The Government could celebrate 10th December this year by an announcement that they propose to renew that optional protocol. This time one would hope that it would be renewed for an indefinite period.

The second source from which the lack of means of enforcement in the Universal Declaration might be supplied lies in the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. They contain limited measures of machinery for enforcement —not enough to satisfy all of us, but at least a distinct step forward in giving to the international community a responsibility for the observation of human rights. They were adopted in 1966. Her Majesty's Government have still not ratified those covenants.

We debated this matter at some length on 21st February 1972, when the Under-Secretary was kind enough to elaborate on the Government's reasons for hesitating to ratify these covenants. I shall not re-open all the arguments in the limited time that we have today, but I again submit that Her Majesty's Government might announce, on the 25th anniversary of the declaration, that they are proposing to ratify those covenants. If they were to do so it would certainly earn the approval of all the non-governmental organisations which have given so much time and thought to this question.

Finally, in that last debate the hon. Gentleman said that one reason why the Government were reluctant to ratify the covenants was that they had not yet clarified their intentions in relation to certain matters which the covenants contained—for example, the right to privacy. Much water has passed under the bridge since February 1972, and one might hope that the Government would celebrate the 25th anniversary a little nearer home by seeking to have on the statute book by that date a statute giving effect to the recommendations of the Franks Report, or, if that does not commend itself to the Government, and if they wish to deal with the right of privacy in some other way, by an alternative kind of statute. But year after year these matters are raised. There may be another 25 years' water flowing under the bridge, and still there is nothing to indicate that the Government propose to take any action on these matters.

I said that I was conscious of the fact that this was specifically a debate about the expenditure of public funds. None of these matters would require the expenditure of public funds. It might be replied with some force that human rights are not guaranteed by ratifying covenants; human rights are not implemented or denied in conference halls, in the courts of law, or even in this House.

I should be the first to agree that the cutting edge of human rights arises in grim prisons and dismal ghettos, in areas of squalor and famine, and that ratifying covenants is certainly not all that is required. I believe that the campaign for a kinder and more tolerant world would be very considerably strengthened by appropriate institutional machinery, and perhaps strengthened even more if Governments formed the habit of using that machinery where it exists.

But I accept that the battle for human rights will essentially be won or lost in the hearts of men and women. Surely here there is a great opportunity for the Government to give a lead in calling attention to the aspirations set out a quarter of a century ago in the Universal Declaration and in pointing out that they are about the way in which we all treat our neighbours.

It would not be too much to hope that a senior Minister—perhaps the Prime Minister, perhaps even the Sovereign—could be invited on some suitable occasion arranged for the purpose to declare that the United Kingdom believes in the rights of man, that we are prepared to submit our record to international scrutiny, to invite the media to take account of the work which has been done in this field over the last 25 years, to hold up a torch to light the way forward to a world where people are not victimised by reason of their race, sex or religious beliefs, where they are not imprisoned for their private conversations, and where they are not tortured for their peaceful associations.

When I asked the Government what was planned to celebrate the jubilee of the Universal Declaration I was told that it was proposed to hold a seminar in London. I took leave to follow up that inquiry, and on 28th February in answer to a Parliamentary Question the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed me that it was proposed that the subject of the seminar should be "The family in a changing society".

That is very commendable. I think that we would be the better for a study in depth of some of the problems which arise in this field. But we must be realistic. I know to my cost, because I was privileged in 1967 to lead the United Kingdom delegation to a similar seminar held in London, that whatever matters are discussed, however much attention Governments may give to them, whatever expertise is focused upon them, in the end they are not widely discussed in the news media. They do not become the subject of conversation in every supermarket, every church, every club, and every public house.

This is not sufficient to celebrate a quarter of a century of work for human rights, some of it admittedly bitterly frustrating, some of it sometimes surprisingly successful in preventing personal tragedies. I hope that the Government will produce something fitting to celebrate this anniversary which is likely to attract more attention and that they will seize the opportunity to remind us of all that is entailed.

I promise the Government that whatever they may do there are many non-governmental organisations which will regard this as an anniversary well worth celebrating. Already a conference of non-governmental organisations has produced two very important documents—a draft resolution on the abolition of torture and a draft resolution on human rights in armed conflicts which it is hoped will be placed before the United Nations at the next General Assembly, and it may even be that on 10th December of this year the General Assembly will find itself debating these matters.

Amnesty International has pledged itself to seek to persuade as many Governments as are prepared to listen to sponsor these resolutions at the next General Assembly and perhaps to seize the opportunity of the 25th anniversary to announce clearly their support for them. Many other non-governmental organisations will be supporting that initiative. I can speak for a number—the United Nations Association, the Anti-Slavery Society, the British Institute for Human Rights and the International League for the rights of Man. Perhaps it would be invidious to seek to list all the organisations. In any case, there are many more than there are time to list this afternoon.

If while all these declarations are being made the Government remain silent, they will lose a great opportunity to make clear where they stand and history books which write of these last 25 years will record that, while the Samaritans were being effectively busy, the priests and the Levites have learnt nothing in 2,000 years.

Once again the House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for having introduced this subject and enabled us to express our views and pay tribute to the importance of the subject. I again pay a tribute not only to the hon. and learned Gentleman's sincerity in this matter and to the lead which he takes in the country, but also to the eloquence with which he expounds his case.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, anniversaries of United Nations agencies and other organisations throughout the world come thick and fast upon us. Today we are invited to celebrate a 25th anniversary, but all the time we know that we are invited to dedicate days and years. Next year I understand will be population year. I am not too clear about whether it is for or against, but that is the year which we have to celebrate. Even decades are pointed out as times in which we should take special active measures to propagate the doctrines which the convention is designed to protect.

I suppose there can come a period when the law of diminishing returns arises. Nevertheless, I am sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about this one will command the enthusiasm of everybody because there can be nothing more important than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the hon. and learned Gentleman has so eloquently propounded.

We propose, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, to have a seminar at the end of this year to celebrate the 25th anniversary. The seminar will be devoted to the theme "The family in a changing society". We regard this as a study of the aspects of women's rights. I cannot say at present exactly how the seminar will be set up or which prominent people will, as we hope, take part in it, but we have, as a tentative budget, allocated £15,000 to the seminar, which shows that we take it seriously. I hope that the arrangements are adequate for the day which we wish to celebrate.

This year is also the 20th anniversary of the World Health Organisation. We propose to mark this anniversary also by some suitable activity.

Both these considerations—women's rights and health matters—are comparatively new in public estimation. Even in our own advanced country, women's rights are still actively campaigned for. As regards health, it was only a little over 100 years ago that Disraeli, standing I suppose at this Dispatch Box or a duplicate of it, demolished the opposition of the day to what was derided as "a policy of sewage" by saying that it might be sewage to the party opposite but was life itself to the citizens of Britain.

The hon. and learned Gentleman recited the majestic tenets of the Declaration of Human Rights and rightly said that, unfortunately, there are many institutions today in which human rights are flouted. We all regret it extremely when we hear of these cases, and it often happens, quite rightly, that the Government of the day are asked to intervene to put wrong right. We naturally wish to do so whenever we can. Also, we are often chided for not doing enough in this regard. But I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience of public affairs, will agree that there are limitations to the possibilities which are open to any Government. In the first place, only a direct involvement of our own nationals can normally justify, either in law or in fact, our intervention on behalf of individuals. If our own nationals are not involved, only the most extreme cases of injustice obviously amounting to a breach of international law can justify intervention by us. When I say "can justify intervention by us" I should say "can give us a standing to intervene". Justification perhaps is a moral matter. It is the legal aspect to which one must unfortunately address oneself.

Secondly, we must have firm evidence rather than suspicion. Thirdly, we must be sure that our intervention will not result in a worsening in the condition of the victims whom we are trying to help. It is, I believe, in the general field rather than in the particular case that Governments can best forward the purposes which the hon. and learned Gentleman has propounded.

Is it still the view of the Government that there is an international reason for intervention—that it becomes a matter of international concern in any situation which discloses a consistent pattern of violations of human rights?

That is a little hypothetical. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in any cases where the States concerned in these matters are signatories of it we shall draw the attention of the United Nations appropriate committee, and the Assembly, if necessary, to violations of the declaration. But normally in order to achieve, in respect of individuals, some relaxation of the rigours which they suffer it is necessary to make individual representations to the Government concerned. It is rather to that that I was addressing myself.

Certainly we have a right, shared by every signatory, to call attention to violations, and I am sure that we ought to do this, subject to my third proviso that we have to calculate whether the intervention will help those whom we are trying to help. Therefore, as I say, it is rather in the general field than in the particular that Governments can best press this matter forward. I am sure that the way in which the Government can best help is by doing whatever we can to build up the organisation, the prestige and the efficiency of international institutions which are devoted to the rule of law, and by disseminating amongst our own citizens—here I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said—knowledge of what is being done and what can and should be done. I believe that this is the way in which the individuals whom we are trying to help, who are suffering deprivation of rights and liberty, can best be safeguarded in the future.

That is not to say that Her Majesty's Government ought not to intervene in particular cases whenever it is prudent to do so. I am afraid, however, that Governments of any complexion are frequently chided for not instantly remedying what seem to be, and usually are, injustices perpetrated in other countries. We must remember that other countries are just as sensitive as we are to foreign interference, and in almost all cases, I believe, far more so, especially if it is overt and can be seen. In many cases, even in recent ones, which have figured largely in the Press, in which so-called rescuers have rushed precipitately to our aid, the result has been achieved by many months of patient and tactful diplomacy, where as had it been openly conducted it would not have been effective. We often find that it is better to do good works by stealth. Indeed, in these days of heady nationalism and dogmatic beliefs I dare say that it is the only way in which it can be done.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned the Human Rights Convention. He has pointed out that we have not finally ratified it. The reasons were set out in the debate which we had in February last; namely, the difficulties of interpreting some of the clauses. Some of them do go rather far. The first one which he mentioned is interference with privacy. We still have not got in our law a definition of privacy, so it could be a little difficult to adhere to that convention.

Then there was also prohibition against making propaganda for war, which our journalistic friends regarded as dangerous because the possibility that an article could be so judged was a matter which would inhibit their proper reporting.

Then there were the problems of our dependent territories. The obligations laid upon the States which ratified the convention are very onerous indeed. We can hardly meet them in our own country.

We have the obligation of equal pay for both sexes, of free education, health and various other matters, which frankly an emerging territory is not equipped to undertake. In due course, no doubt, such territories will be able to do so, but we do not think that it is desirable to ratify a convention or a treaty in respect of which we have to make large or important reservations. This still remains the case with this convention, although, in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we shall certainly continue our studies into the possibility of ratifying it.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the right of individual petition under the European Convention, which we have applied for all our territories except Hong Kong. Therefore, it is on a temporary basis. We shall certainly consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and will try to decide what is best to do when our present temporary adherence runs out. It takes rather a long time for all these cases to go through the commission and the court. I speak subject to correction, but I am not aware of any case which has gone right through both processes and has come out the other side, so to speak. I know that some are before the court, having passed the commission, but they have not yet been decided. During the whole of this time, therefore, the commission and the court have had before them these cases which depend upon the right of individual petition against the United Kingdom Government. It would be desirable that we should at least see the finish of some of the cases which have started before we finally make up our minds.

I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister, but is he saying that we should wait to see whether these cases go against us before we decide whether to renew the option?

No. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. We are entitled to see what the full process is before finally making up our minds.

We have been extremely impressed during the course of these years by the expertise, impartiality and intellectual capacity of the commission to do its work. It is by the way in which it has discharged its duty that it has commanded the general confidence of all the signatories to the treaty, and we shall certainly examine our future attitude to the European Convention in the light of the respect which we have for those who have built up the commission and for the way in which it has worked and in this way advanced the purposes to which the signatories have dedicated themselves.

However, the processes are lengthy and we shall certainly consider what we should do. I have noted carefully what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. He has expressed a vivid wish that the 25th anniversary should be signally marked by the attendance of important people, and certainly we shall wish to do that. Our country has nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, we have occasion to be proud of our record in matters of human rights. Because of our very extensive empire, which extended over a large number of countries which were not of the same race and background as ourselves, I suppose hardly any country could have found itself more exposed to criticism by the countries over which we ruled than ours. I believe, however, that we have divested ourselves of that empire in circumstances which have not been thought dishonourable, and that, therefore, in adhering to the Declaration of Human Rights we can say that we have done as much as any country to support it in our record and that certainly we should now support it as best we can in the international sphere. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for having introduced this subject.

There is surely one thing upon which we can all agree. No form of taxation is ever popular. As the younger Pitt remarked when Chancellor of the Exchequer:

"To tax and to please is no more given to man than to love and be wise."

That being so, the British people will generally accept the burden of taxation, provided they are satisfied that it is fair and is seen to be fair.

It is ironic, therefore, that at a time when the Government have been endeavouring to bring our system of local rates and Exchequer support up to date and to cushion any adverse effect upon particular areas and particular groups of ratepayers—for example pensioners and others whose incomes are below a certain level so as to ensure a fair spread of the burden—ratepayers in South-East Essex are complaining bitterly of unfair increases in their rate bills.

For some weeks I have been receiving letters from constituents which reveal increases far above the level that the Government envisaged and well out of line with what is happening in neighbouring areas. These increases range from 30 per cent. to over 100 per cent. We had, of course, expected an above average increase in our rateable values. Although Parliament had laid down that revaluation should take place every five years, the Labour Government postponed the valuation due in 1968. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), candidly admitted on BBC 1 on 18th February that he had said at the time that this:

"is something we can well postpone. We can do nothing but lose votes on this and the rates will go up."

Comment on that cynical observation is superfluous, but the result of that calculated piece of expediency was to ensure that the impact of the 1973 revaluation was bound to be proportionately greater in areas where, for one reason or another, rateable values had been traditionally lower than elsewhere. This has proved to be the case in South-East Essex.

What we had not expected—and what our people are not prepared to accept—are increases which are manifestly unfair in a time of Government-imposed income restraint. Reports reaching me suggest that there are wide discrepancies in rateable values of similar properties in my constituency and next door in Southend, where some rate bills have actually fallen. What is more, within my constituency itself there are wide discrepancies between similar properties in the same roads, although, of course, there could be explanations for this which are not immediately apparent. For example, in the Rochford rural district assessments are up less than three times in the town of Rochford but over four times in the neighbouring village of Paglesham.

Some assessments are totally inexpliable. For example, the rateable value of a wooden bungalow in Ashingdon providing a home for two old-age pensioners—a bungalow with no mains drainage which is two miles from the nearest bus service and four miles from the nearest shops—has risen from £42 to £190. As a consequence, the rate bill has increased from £28·30 last year to £55·60 this year. The rates have been doubled. How can such an increase be justified?

In the Benfleet urban district about 85 per cent. of all domestic properties are in private ownership. How could the rental value of those properties have been assessed fairly without a detailed examination of each? Where is the rental evidence for such a district? As a consequence, there is a widespread suspicion, which I share, that valuations there have been upgraded en bloc, and that may well have happened elsewhere in the constituency. Against that background, there is bound to be a huge volume of appeals.

Over Essex as a whole, domestic premises accounted for 52·5 per cent. of the total assessment on the old lists; they now constitute 56·9 per cent. The domestic multiplier for the county is 3·09 per cent., which is above the national average. In my constituency, however, where the capacity to meet increased rate bills is about the same as it is elsewhere in the county, the multipliers are well above the county average as well.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is concerned about the effect of the Maplin project on the population of South-East Essex. We have had many exchanges on the subject, and many more are to follow. In particular, he knows the dire effect that this project will have, especially upon my Foulness Island constituents. Many islanders have had their rate burden doubled, at a time when their whole future has been darkened by the Maplin project, yet there has been no improvement whatever in the scant amenities they enjoy. Incidentally, the landlord here is the Government. Something must be done about the situation in Foulness.

All this appears to be in direct contradiction to Government policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech to the Association of Municipal Corporations at the Guildhall on 13th December last that there was no reason at all for supposing that there would be a wholesale increase in rates this year. Indeed, he said that the Government had made the largest-ever increase in the rate support grant, which meant that ratepayers would have to pay for a smaller share of the services which the local authorities provide. My right hon. Friend added that if rateable values went up by an average of two and a half times

"we must expect to see a comparable reduction in the level of poundage".

Thus, there can be no doubt as to what was the Government's intention. It was to ensure that no undue burden was to be placed on ratepayers at a time when the counter-inflation policy called for income restraint.

The Prime Minister spelt this out very clearly in his Guildhall speech. He said:

"Revaluation provides no warrant for weakening in any way the policy of restraint when rates are fixed … revaluation does nothing to increase the total of expenditure … it would be totally unreasonable for revaluation to be used as an excuse for increasing the total of the demands made on the ratepayer. This will be extremely damaging to our efforts to restrain inflation ".

He had said previously in his statement in the House, on the Government's inflation proposals last November, that the Government were consulting the local authorities in order to moderate the growth of local rates.

The White Paper, "The Programme for Controlling Inflation: The Second Stage" said in paragraph 22:

"The Government have … substantially increased the Exchequer contribution to the financing of local government expenditure through the rate support grant for 1973–74 with he aim of enabling local authorities to keep the average increase in rates down to a level consistent with the need to contain inflation.… The Government intend … to establish arrangements to monitor proposed increases in rates …".

In the debate on the rating system on 12th February, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning reiterated that the Government's aim was to keep the average rise in rates to a level compatible with the Government's prices and incomes policy. In his Budget Statement on 6th March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was even more specific. He said:

"The Government are … to help those domestic ratepayers who face big increases in rates due to revaluation … by meeting half the cost above 10 per cent. of any increases in domestic rate bills … which are attributable solely to the effects of revaluation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 268.]

All these statements were reassuring. No doubt they were intended to show that the Government were concerned to be fair. I concede that probably over the country as a whole the arrangements they made have worked out fairly: but they have not worked out like that in South-East Essex.

May I remind my hon. Friend that this is a year of income restraint? Yet some of my constituents face rate rises which they can meet only with difficulty. Many people who do not qualify for rate rebate have incomes that are still comparatively low. Scores of them have told me that while they have had a wage increase in the past year of about £2 a week to offset inflation, all of it will now be swallowed up by increases in both rates and mortgage interest repayments.

I put the question bluntly in a letter that I sent last month to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:

"How can the Government justify a price increase of between 30 per cent. and 60 per cent. imposed on one section of the population while providing relief for others, and this at a time of income restriant?"

I have discovered since that some of my constituents face a price increase of 100 per cent. So far, my right hon. Friend has given me no answer. I am determined to get an answer. The question, therefore, is what can be done to put the matter right.

As a consequence of revaluation, Essex as a whole has lost all its resources grant, thus adding to the burden which our ratepayers have to meet. Not only has the county council lost resources grant of about £1·7 million; the county district councils have either lost completely or sustained a very severe reduction in their percentage share of that grant. The Rayleigh urban district, for example, has lost the whole of its grant.

Much of this was foreseen, and, after consultation with my local authorities, I warned the Government well in advance of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about support measures on 6th March last. That was in February. It is no comfort to me to say now on the Floor of the House that I was right.

I must mention another consequence of revaluation which is causing widespread local concern, namely that domestic water rates must automatically go up although householders will not use any more water.

It is true that adjustments to be made by the water authorities as a result of revaluation were considered in Circular No. 106/72 on water charges issued by the Department of the Environment. That circular pointed out that

"the same revenue can therefore be raised with lower poundages."

It is possible, of course, to argue that all of us ought to pay more for water, which is becoming increasingly in short supply. But if in fact our rating assessments in South-East Essex have been increased by more than the facts justify, any increase in water rate will compound the inequities in our situation. Some action must be taken to deal with this facet of the problem.

Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give urgent consideration to certain suggestions. First, I ask him to accept that it is not reasonable for us to wait for the promised reform of local government finance. This will not help us in a year of income restraint. I suspect that it will not help us next year, either. It is true that our ratepayers can and no doubt will in large numbers withhold some rates by making mass appeals so that by their own efforts they can get some temporary relief, although ultimately they may have to meet their full liability. But the need is for action now.

Secondly, when the total effect of the special rate relief arrangements over the country as a whole has been ascertained —which should be soon—there should be immediate consideration as to how relief can be given to areas like mine, which are being heavily penalised under the existing arrangements. I ask my hon. Friend to say what arrangements there are for an early review of the situation.

Thirdly, since it has taken 10 years to cause the present imbalance, can consideration now be given to phasing the loss of rate support grant over a longer period than 12 months? That would enable local authorities, if the will exists and the necessary direction is given by the Government, to start making an adjustment this year which could bring some relief to the most heavily affected areas.

Fourthly, in order to assist ratepayers in lower-rated properties, immediate consideration should be given to amending the Statutory Deductions Order 1962, which, for reasons beyond the comprehension of the treasurers of my four local authorities, remained unchanged this year.

I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say. In particular, I want an answer to the question how a price increase of 30 per cent. to 100 per cent. can possibly be justified for some citizens as against others in a year of income restraint for us all.

This is the seventh time that we have debated rates in this Session. I cannot recall a more eloquent statement of his constituents' problems than that which we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). I fully appreciate his concern, and that of his constituents. He has been foremost in putting forward their grievances but he will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development and myself are fully aware of the problems affecting South-East Essex. We are grateful to my hon. Friend—as I am sure his constituents are—for the forthright way in which he has deployed the very real concern and anxieties of his constituents.

I thank my hon. Friend for that service to his area and, indeed, to my Department. In replying I will start with a point of perspective; namely, that we have to be clear in our minds what rates are for. They are, of course, nothing mare or less than the means whereby local authorities are enabled to meet that part of their expenditure in their areas which is not covered by Government grant or other income. It is certainly common ground between us that the services which local government provides and for which the rates pay are essential services. They need to he maintained and, as possible, improved.

The Government believe, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that flourishing and independent locally-elected authorities must have a large area of discretion to take decisions affecting their local electorate, subject to any overriding requirements of national policy, and, therefore, the prime responsibility for levying the rates and for fixing the poundage levied is clearly that of the local authorities. I stress, therefore, that much as my right hon. Friends and I sympathise with those facing increased rate bills—indeed, I am facing one myself—it is not for the Government to dictate to the local authorities the rates that they should levy.

The main responsibility is that of the local authorities—for South-East Essex as everywhere else. Nevertheless, I must accept that this year there is the particular factor over which local authorities have no control themselves and which has caused—other things being equal—rates to go up in some places, although down in others. This is the factor of revaluation, and I appreciate that South-East Essex is an area where, because of revaluation, rateable values are generally higher relative to the national average than they were before.

I make no apology for the Government's proceeding with revaluation. I believe that in principle revaluation is fair play. It had been made long overdue by the decision of the Labour Government to postpone the revaluation which had been due in 1968. Rates are a levy based upon rental values and for rates to be fair in their incidence those rental values need to be kept up to date, and that, in effect, is what revaluation does. It cannot be seriously argued that the relative values set in 1963 were not already well out of date by 1968, when there should have been a revaluation, and by 1972–73 in many parts of the country they were widely out of line. Fair play itself requires those values to be brought up to date.

Generally in these debates we tend to hear from those areas whose values have increased more than the national average, but my hon. Friend who is a fair-minded man, will accept that there are parts of the country from which we do not hear and where values have increased a good deal less than the average. They have nothing to complain about, and so we never hear from them. But it is only right for me to recall that revaluation brings benefits to those areas which, for five or even 10 years, have been paying rates that have been unfairly high. This is the redistributive fairness of revaluation.

There are repercussions on the rate support grant. One important factor in South-East Essex is that the rate support grant has been reduced because, broadly speaking, valuations in that area show that Essex has gone up in the world, is richer, is better off, and is, therefore, receiving from the national Government a smaller proportion of help in respect of its resources element. It is this effect of revaluation that has played a great part in putting up the rates of householders in South-East Essex.

Like revaluation itself, changes in the rate support grant are essentially fair, and that is the main purpose of that element of the grant. It takes money from those whose rates resources have risen, as in Essex, to give to those whose rate resources have fallen. For this reason more than any other the Government could not contemplate a redistribution of the resources element so as to give more to South-East Essex, for if that were to be done it would simply mean giving less to areas which need help rather more. So the Government's standpoint has been, and must remain, that revaluation itself and its indirect effects are fair and that the redistribution of the rate support grant is also fair.

That does not mean for a moment that the Government should simply stand idly by and watch the effects of these changes on areas and individuals. The Government have a duty to take some action to mitigate the most severe effects. What have we done?

The Government have taken a number of actions. We won the agreement of the local authority associations that there should not ordinarily be, taking the country as a whole, a rate increase nationally beyond the figure agreed within the incomes policy, and I believe that the great majority of authorities have conscientiously sought to achieve that, although by no means all. Secondly, we have made the largest ever increase in Government help to local authorities, so that we are now providing 60 per cent. of all their relevant expenditure at a cost to the Exchequer of some £3,000 million, which means that for the first time nationally only 40 per cent. of the relevant expenditure in local authority areas is provided by the ratepayer, the smallest proportion ever. We have increased by a half the domestic relief element. The figure now stands at 6p as opposed to 4p, which is a useful addition.

Under the incomes legislation we have conducted a rate monitoring exercise which has produced a reduction in local authority expenditure of just over £13 million. We have had good co-operation from many Essex local authorities. For example, Rayleigh Urban District Council was invited by my Department to cut its rate proposals by £30,000. It agreed. Rochford Rural District Council was invited to cut back its proposals by £80,000. It managed to reduce them by £60,000. The other two authorities were merely invited in general terms to review their expenditure.

The county council was also asked to review its proposals but was unable to make any reduction. I would like to say that I am most grateful to the urban district of Rayleigh and the rural district of Rochford for their help. Local ratepayers will feel the benefit. I am sure that the authorities have been impressed by my hon. Friend's efforts on behalf of his constituents when they came to consider reducing their expenditure.

All of this is useful but the main thing which the Government have done is to produce the special scheme to mitigate hardship to individual ratepayers who find their rate call increased solely as a result of revaluation, in some cases by a substantial figure.

There is also the effect of the withdrawal of the rate support grant.

Indeed, but the net effect of this scheme is that all increases over 10 per cent. due solely to the effects of revaluation in all its forms are payable by the Government.

My hon. Friend mentioned one or two specific points with which I must deal. He mentioned a number of properties which appeared to be identical and were in the same locality but had different rateable values. Without further information I cannot agree that this means that someone has got his values wrong. There may well be circumstances not readily apparent which account for the difference. Parliament has provided legal redress where there are such mistakes as my hon. Friend has in mind. If necessary, an aggrieved ratepayer can take his case to the local valuation court.

My hon. Friend also complained that the reply he received from my right hon. and learned Friend did not deal with his points. I will try to deal with his bull point later. I am sorry if he felt that my right hon. and learned Friend's letter was not responsive but I ought to remind him about the opportunities which exist to help those on relatively low incomes who find it difficult to meet the increases.

There is the rate rebate scheme. Where the income is within the limits which determine entitlement the ratepayer has only to pay one third of any increase in his rate bill. Thus, a married man with two children who in the second half of last year earned up to £22 a week would have to pay only £3·75 in the present half-yearly rate period plus one third of the rates in excess of that amount. I would be happy to look at any particular case which my hon. Friend may care to raise.

My hon. Friend made a further important point, and he, his constituents and local authorities throughout the country may be interested in my reply. He raised the question of the statutory deductions from gross values. I accept that my hon. Friend may have a point and I hope he will be pleased to learn that the Department is currently discussing this matter with the local authority associations. It is still a little early to say what the results will be but I give him the assurance that if it seems that some adjustments to the scale may be justified we shall certainly consider this most sympathetically and quickly. That is of importance particularly to those at the lower end of the scale.

I am looking into the water question. I am not aware that the Essex water authority has substantially increased its overall expenditure, but I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend and I have discussed Maplin many times and, as he said, we shall no doubt return to the subject. Essex has in prospect the injection of substantial Government expenditure, thereby raising substantially the rate resources of the county and various districts. I very much hope that local ratepayers will see some benefit from that to offset some of the disadvantages which my hon. Friend may feel arise from this subject.

About 800,000 householders in England and Wales now receive a rent rebate, and more than four-fifths of them are retired. The higher limits that have been set here will not in themselves enable someone getting the maximum rebate to get a higher proportion of rebate, but they will mean that in most circumstances people will get more money.

I recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that revaluation at a time of an incomes policy has caused problems, but I hope he will agree that that is not a good reason for postponing or running away from revaluation as our predecessors did. I think that it was right and fair to revalue. It was right, however, also to bring in a scheme to mitigate the more severe effects in the manner that I have described.

I can only say to my hon. Friend that he has effectively deployed the concern of large numbers of his constituents. I believe that when the full effects of the Government's special help have been seen fewer people will have quite such grounds to complain as seems the case now.

This debate which I am initiating on village speed limits of 30 m.p.h. is very much a second round for me, because last November I had a debate on traffic conditions in South Bedfordshire, and the speed limit required and wanted by many villagers of 30 m.p.h. played a big part in that debate.

On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) answered the debate. I know that he is familiar with the problems of Bedfordshire, but I understand that he is abroad on a departmental visit, and I, therefore, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), another Under-Secretary, who I hope will be able to assuage the anxieties of my constituents.

The ability to put in a 30 m.p.h. village speed limit depends on general road conditions surrounding the village and what is happening in towns near that village. Before I go to the criteria and specific village problems, I should like the Minister to be aware of something that is relevant to this matter, and that is that the Luton-Dunstable and Houghton Regis Transportation Study is looking into traffic conditions in my area, including village speed limits, and is possibly considering an inner ring road in Dunstable.

I know that the Department cannot answer fully any questions about the future of such a proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said at column 1161 in reply to the earlier debate on 8th November 1972 that until this study group had finished its work no decisions could be taken about the Dunstable road. My hon. Friend may be able to help. Bearing in mind the Government's order that there should be a £600 million reduction on road expenditure by local authorities, to me it would make sense if that committee were no longer to consider any form of inner ring road. The matter is far too controversial. It is causing tremendous uproar in the town and, bearing in mind the environmental and economic considerations, I urge that this proposal should no longer be considered by the committee.

I think that one must first look at the current criteria for determining 30 mph village speed limits. I have here the Department's circular on roads of 1969, annexe B, paragraph 9 of which says:

"For villages on trunk and principal roads where a 30 mph limit would not be appropriate or enforceable, 40 mph limits may be imposed, provided that most criteria for a 40 mph limit are met. In such cases some latitude may be allowed over the speed criterion but if 85 per centile speeds are much above 50 mph a limit of 50 mph should be considered in preference to one of 40 mph. For limits of this kind, the development need not be in depth but it should extend throughout the length of the village and cover more than 50 per cent. of the frontages to the road. The advice in paragraph 4(a)(iii) is particularly relevant in the case of speed limits in villages."

When we turn to that we find:

"Speed limits should not be imposed where the character of the road itself limits the speed of most vehicles (say 95 per cent.) to a level at or below that of the limit under consideration."

That was in 1969. Earlier this year, 1973, the Government issued a circular updating the 1969 circular. It is dated 26th March. Paragraph 9 on villages says:

"Limits are often proposed in villages where the alignment is tortuous and most vehicles are already travelling at low speeds. In such cases, unless there is an accident problem which seems to be associated with speed, a limit will merely lead to unnecessary signs."

I do not know what that means—" unnecessary signs". I do not believe we can have too many signs in villages warning people of what the speed limit is. One of the arguments about enforcement is the shortage of police. Constant reminders by signs to people driving into villages that 30 mph or 40 mph is the limit can often be a substitute for a police car or police presence. Therefore. I would quarrel straight away with that point.

In the earlier debate I referred to four villages in my constituency which, in my view, ought to qualify for the 30 mph limit although they have been told that because of these criteria they do not qualify. First of all, there is the village of Totternhoe. Paragraph 9 of the 1973 circular is relevant here. That is the one which says:

"Limits are often proposed in villages where the alignment is tortuous and most vehicles are already travelling at low speeds."

If one is saying that roads are tortuous and bending, in Totternhoe they are; it is quite true. Nevertheless, there is only a 40 mph limit. There is anxiety in the village. The nature of the road would indicate that people should drive at 30 mph. It is no great hardship that they travel at 30 mph. There is the added reason that with the heavy lorry vehicle testing site nearby at Stanbridge one finds many lorries going through Totternhoe to be tested and they go at 40 mph quite legally though they ought to go at 30 mph. Bearing in mind that paragraph 9 about roads being tortuous, that is something which could be looked at again.

Then there is the village of Hockliffe on the A5, a very straight road, and it might be thought that to impose a limit of 30 mph there would lead to people disregarding it. In the criteria which I have quoted mention is made of the need for speed limits to be realistic, but the fact is that there is a lot of traffic going through Hockliffe which ought to be on the M1, because it is going en route on a north-west industrial corridor. This country spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to build the motorways to get the traffic out of the villages and off roads which have become manifestly overloaded. That is what Hockliffe is. It is overloaded on the A5, and it is the conditions and the view of the villagers there which ought to come first.

At Slip End, again, there has been a battle for over 10 years to get a 30 mph limit imposed. There is nothing imposed there at all. It is amazing that there is still no speed limit in that village. Bedford- shire County Council has done a survey of it and has made a film of it, and there have been intensive discussions, but apparently it was not thought that it met the criteria. I get the impression, and many of my constituents get the impression, that a lot of buck passing is going on; we appear to be going round in circles between county hall and the Department of the Environment.

The fourth village which I mentioned in November and for which nothing has been done is East Hyde, which is wedged close to Luton. Many people travel through the village en route to work in Hertfordshire, and there is no reason why a 30 mph limit should not be imposed.

To go back to the 1973 circular which contains the criteria and says what the Department expects local authorities to do, paragraph 6 reads:

"The Department therefore urges those local authorities who have not set in train a radical review of their limits to do so without further delay, and those who have already taken action to ensure that the impetus of their programmes is maintained."

I hope that Bedfordshire has done so. Careful attention should be given to the villages I have mentioned.

Paragraph 1 of the 1969 circular reads:

"The purpose of speed limits is to reduce the speed of vehicles to a level at which drivers can more readily meet the general dangers to be expected on a road."

Paragraph 4(a)(i) reads:

"The effectiveness of speed limits in controlling speeds depends both upon the readiness of drivers to obey them and upon police supervision. It is thus of primary importance that each speed limit should be accepted by drivers as a reasonable restriction which is justified by conditions on the road."

I agree that much depends on effective police supervision, but where there is no effective police supervision the 30 mph limit would be obeyed if more signs were displayed.

What should be the alterations to these criteria? First, both county and Government should pay great attention to the wishes of the parish or village council. The villagers have better evidence than anyone else whether their village can or cannot sustain speeds above 30 mph.

We should look next at the nature of the village. Is it near a large town? If it is, naturally there will be more traffic. If it is near a large town which manufactures cars and trucks, it is in a different category, and this applies to my villages in South Bedfordshire. Do a great many commuters go through the village? Is the population increasing? One sometimes thinks of a village as a dreamy, rural backwater with a static population. That is not so in Bedfordshire, where the population of every village is growing because of the overspill that the county is taking and because of the expansion of local industry.

Is it feasable to build a bypass round the village so that some of the traffic is taken away from it? It is manifestly not feasible to build bypasses round the villages I have mentioned in South Bedfordshire. The land situation is such that it is impossible to set aside land for bypasses.

Does heavy lorry traffic go through the village? Where that happens, the mothers of young children who have to cross the road to go to school are particularly concerned. In Slip End children have to cross busy roads to go to school. A great many lorries go through the village because it contains a park for Vauxhall lorries which are turned out of the factory and are awaiting export. Bearing in mind those questions which I have posed, it will be seen that it is possible to change the criteria.

To go back again to the 1969 circular, paragraph 4(a)(i) reads:

"It is thus of primary importance that each speed limit should be accepted by drivers as a reasonable restriction which is justified by conditions on the road."

I think that drivers would regard a 30 mph restriction as reasonable.

In talking about the enforcement of speed limits, we must bear in mind what is done on the motorways. I am not opposed to the 70 mph limit, although I think it might be altered in some areas. We expect our county police to spend a lot of time making sure that the 70 mph limit is obeyed. They will be there this afternoon as traffic pours out of London on the M1. I hope that we have not arrived at the position where the police supervision of speed limits on the M1 takes precedence over police supervision of speed limits in our villages. I hope the argument is not used that a 30 mph speed limit cannot be imposed in a particular village because the police are so tied up with enforcing the 70 mph limit on the motorways. In other words, we must not pay attention to motorway speed limits at the expense of what villagers want.

What I should like to happen now in our area, after my very long battle with the Department on this matter, is the regional controller for traffic in Bedfordshire visiting the villages that I have mentioned, having intensive talks with the parish and village councils, and possibly having an open meeting and hearing for himself what the worries are and why it is that an overwhelming majority of these villagers want a 30 mph limit imposed. The county of Bedford is very conversant with the facts and has made a film of traffic conditions in Slip End. It has recently conducted a survey at Hockliffe. The regional controller plays a part in these matters. I hope that, as the linchpin in the link between the county and the Government for Bedfordshire, he will be able to set aside time for this.

In view of the £600 million cut in Government expenditure, not only on new road building but on repairs, it surely makes sense to have speed limits imposed now, because where traffic is travelling too fast it will wear out roads that much more quickly. I hope that we shall not reach the situation where it will be said that roads would not have fallen into disrepair but for vehicles travelling too fast. It would make sense for the limits to be looked at now, because the Government are anxious to save money on the cost of repairing roads. That is another reason for imposing these 30 mph limits.

I am grateful for this round 2 in my struggle to try to get these limits imposed. It is not an unreasonable request by villagers and it is not harsh on drivers to impose a 30 mph limit. We are in this unique situation in Bedfordshire because the villages are so close to towns and because we have an abnormally large amount of traffic of all types travelling through our villages.

Therefore, I hope that we can have this further consultation. I hope that there will be no more suggestions that proposals do not meet certain criteria, after which the matter is put to the Department, which says that it is for the county to impose.

Many people in my constituency are getting into a whirl over who is responsible for imposing these limits. It is a fair and reasonable request from these villagers that 30 mph should be the limit. People request this not for irrational reasons but because they are fearful of the traffic conditions and worried about their young children and about how the traffic will increase in the future, and because they are conscious that their villages are increasing in size, which will mean more people and children who could be at risk.

With the leave of the House, I should like to speak for a second time and to reply to this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), who is a most diligent champion of the rights and interests of his constituents, has raised a number of points about fast traffic through villages. I appreciate his concern with the problem, which, of course, arises not only in South Bedfordshire but in villages throughout the country.

I would first make clear the relationship between my Department and the local authorities in the matter of speed limits. For all roads except motorways and trunk roads the local authority is responsible for orders imposing or varying speed limits, but for principal roads such orders need my right hon. and learned Friend's consent. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend has certain reserve powers. For motorways and trunk roads responsibility lies entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend.

The problem which every highway authority has to face, not only in this country but throughout the world, is that, whilst speed limits have an important contribution to make to both road safety and amenity, this contribution is very severely governed by the law of diminishing returns and can indeed be completely nullified if speed limits are applied so liberally or indiscriminately that they lose the respect of drivers.

My hon. Friend has spoken of villagers' desire for limits that are properly enforced, but it is an inescapable fact, which hon. Members will no doubt recognise from their own experience, that limits which do not command the respect of drivers are not observed and enforce- ment is impossible: the police simply cannot be everywhere all the time. The result of a proliferation of unrealistic and unenforceable speed limits is—again, all experience confirms this—to debase all speed limits.

What my Department has done, therefore, is to issue advice to local authorities on the criteria for the application of speed limits at the various levels. By this means a consistent pattern of limits should be maintained throughout the country which commands the general respect of drivers and hence makes the maximum contribution to road safety. I say "should be", because, although the present criteria are of many years standing, a great many unrealistic limits are still in evidence, as any journey through town or countryside will confirm.

What the criteria aim to do is, first, to identify those stretches of road which are particularly dangerous and where, therefore, a speed limit should be considered, and, second, to determine its level. The most important elements of the criteria are, therefore, the accident record of the road and the prevailing speed of the traffic. Account is also taken of the nature of the road, of the traffic and of the environment, as drivers will respect a speed limit only if it makes sense in the light of these factors.

My hon. Friend has argued that the criteria do not take account of the special nature of villages: for instance, that they do not recognise the problems of heavy lorries thundering along village streets. Let me say at once that this problem is very much and continuously on our minds. My hon. Friend, who has, I know, studied the circulars carefully, as his summary proved, will have noticed that local authorities are specifically advised to give some latitude to proposals for 40 mph limits in villages. However, drivers associate 30 mph limits with urban conditions, and such a limit is seldom realistic in a village. However much one sympathises with the local residents, it is impossible to ignore the fact that 30 mph limits applied in inappropriate places are ignored; their value is purely illusory and they debase the currency of speed limits as a whole.

My hon. Friend is concerned in particular with the advice that speed limits should not be imposed where the speed of, say, 95 per cent. of the traffic is physically limited by the nature of the road. He argues that in villages such as Slip End much of the traffic is, in fact, going too fast for the road. Taking Slip End as an example, the fact is that the 85 percentile speed—that is, the speed within which 85 per cent. of free-flowing cars travel—is a little over 38 mph. I am afraid that this is just the sort of case where a 30 mph limit would be unrealistic: it would be so widely disregarded that it would be quite unenforceable and would bring the whole system into contempt.

My hon. Friend is concerned about recent accidents in Slip End and other villages. I fully appreciate this. Unfortunately—we all regret this—accidents happen on every road; I would remind the House that last year nearly 8,000 people were killed and 350,000 injured on our roads. We all deeply deplore this toll. But, again, if speed limits are to retain their value they must be confined to those stretches of road that are more than usually dangerous, and I have to say to my hon. Friend that the record for Slip End, however much each individual accident is to be deplored, is not, by national standards, an especially bad one. Moreover, from the information in the Department's possession it is not at all certain that excessive speed was a factor in these accidents.

Turning to the other villages with which my hon. Friend is concerned at Heath and Reach there is a 30 m.p.h. limit which has recently been extended. Any further extension would be unrealistic. Hockliffe and Totternhoe have 40 m.p.h. limits, and at Hyde the limit is 70 m.p.h. Speaking more generally, I can assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be looking again at the advice given to local authorities to see whether any additional guidance can usefully be given on the application of the criteria to villages. The problems of villages are seldom clear-cut—it is usually a case of balancing conflicting considerations—but my hon. Friend will be looking to see if there is anything more that we can say to help local authorities apply the policy to them.

My hon. Friend asked about the proposals for an inner ring road at Dunstable. I can, I am afraid, add little today to what the Under-Secretary told him on 8th November last. No proposal for such a road has yet been put to the Department. If and when it is—and I hope this will give some assurance to my hon. Friend—it will, of course, be considered in the light of all the factors, including the views of the local people and the financial position.

Returning to the main question of speed limits, I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friend that my Department is fully alive to the problems of traffic through villages. Speed limits are a valuable element in road safety, in villages as elsewhere; but they are at best of times a blunt instrument; they are easily debased by over-use and they are not a panacea for all the hazards of the road.

The advice of my Department on road safety problems is always available to local authorities, to help them consider not only speed limits but the whole range of other safety measures any one of which, or any combination of which, may be equally or more relevant to the problems of a particular locality.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject again. It is right that we in this House should spare the time to consider the very real problems of people in rural areas confronted with traffic problems of a new and increasing severity, even if the complication of circumstances does not allow agreement on the right measures to be undertaken.

I am happy to have the opportunity to raise the question of missing persons. Indeed, it is appropriate that this subject should be debated at this time, shortly before we go into recess, because this problem has reached staggering proportions, such as have never been recognised in this country. It involves the almost certain disappearance from home, during the three days of the Whitsun holiday, of some 1,500 people, of whom 75 per cent. will be below the age of 18.

The figures are remarkable. They are not yet fully established, but they show not merely anguish and misery within individual families, affecting something like a million people in this country in the course of a year, but also a dreadful growth in the problem of homelessness as a result of young people leaving their homes with nowhere suitable to go.

The estimates which I am about to give to the House arise out of some of the most unsatisfactory figures ever to have been produced by a Government in answer to a Member's Question. On 7th May I asked how many people—men and women, boys and girls—were reported to the police as missing during 1972. In a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office dated 9th May I was given figures of missing people amounting to some 70,000. These figures are startling and reveal a vast human tragedy. But the figures themselves were clearly incorrect. I say this because it was impossible that an area such as Leicester should have about 1,600 missing people, whereas London, with a population some 40 times greater, should have 3,815 missing and West Yorkshire, not including Leeds and Bradford, should have a figure of no less than 6,147.

In other words it was very nearly double the figure for London. The letter from the Minister, sent with the figures, said:

"I should give a warning against making too close a comparison between the different forces. There may be some variations in the definition of a 'missing person', such as inclusion or exclusion of absconders from Remand Homes or Local Authority Homes, which should not materially effect total figures"—

In other words, the Minister was saying that there may be variations between one area and another but that the total figures should not be materially affected—that total amounting to 70,000. I asked what was the position in London. I asked how many men, women, boys and girls under 18 were reported to the Metropolitan Police as missing in 1972 but were not listed as missing or included in the numbers supplied to me. The Minister of State replied:

"Many people, although reported to the Metropolitan Police as missing, are traced during the initial inquiries and are not recorded as missing for statistical purposes. In addition to the total given to the hon. and learned Member on 9th May, of 3,815 persons recorded as missing by the Metropolitan Police in 1972, a further 15,887 persons were reported as missing in 1972 but traced during initial inquiries." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 411.]

So the figure should not have been 3,815 but 19,702, namely, five times as many. By any stretch of the imagination that is a highly material difference between the figures as given and the figures which should have been given. Indeed, it cannot be attributed to a mere variation of definitions of "missing persons", such as an inclusion or exclusion of absconders. This represents a group of people traced during the first few days after being reported as missing by their anguished families. Seventy-five per cent. of them were under 18 and they were not included in the Minister's reply. Why not? It could be that this was a deliberate exclusion, but I do not believe that, because I know personally of the concern which the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary have over this problem.

The Government were supplied with the wrong information by the police because, presumably, the police do not regard someone as missing until he has been missing for a few days. That is an astonishing and ridiculous attitude, because for the family the first few days are often the worst. The mere fact that a person is traced does not mean that he has gone back home—far from it. Tracing is only the first step. I pay tribute to the police for the manner in which they trace missing persons. It is truly remarkable in the absence of a central register. They trace something like 99 per cent. of those who go missing. It is a considerable achievement, which costs a vast amount of time and effort on their part, and one that would be made very much easier and swifter if there were a central register.

I do not understand why there is not a central register, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us that consideration will be given to the possibility of setting one up to make it easier for the local forces to trace those who are missing. The police do not trace adults who are above the age of consent and are unlikely to be a danger to themselves, and who leave home deliberately because they are unhappy—usually through matrimonial troubles. These are not the people who the police—at least in Leicester—feel it is their duty to trace. Let us, therefore, concentrate on the youngsters who are under 18 and who represent 75 per cent. of the total. The first essential is to find the correct figure. The figure of 70,000 is vastly incorrect. If I challenge only one figure out of the 47 supplied, I find that the difference is between 3,815 and nearly 16,000. In other words, the figure provided was only one-fifth of the true total.

This is a startling inaccuracy. I trust that the Minister will give an assurance that the figures contained in the letters of 9th May will be brought up to date, corrected and supplied, so that the minor variations that remain are immaterial. But we shall know that the figure—which was 70,000, is now 100,000 and probably should be nearer 150,000 at least—is accurate.

That is not all, because in addition to the figures reported to the police—they must be 125,000–150,000 on the basis of those figures—there are all those who are not reported. They may even be in the majority. So the total cannot be less than 175,000 missing in a year. That means that 500 people in England and Wales alone leave home in any one day, go missing, so that their families report their absence to the police. That very high figure cloaks the misery and tragedy which are sometimes unnecessary. They are often avoidable, and have never been recognised or properly dealt with in this country. That is the importance of the matter.

Secondly, I appeal to the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will now reconsider all the questions raised by these staggering figures, recognising that in one year alone they affect about 2 per cent. of all our families. Those who go astray in one year are not the total, because there are people left behind from years before. The figures of the totally homeless, the people who cannot cope, often from good homes, reveal a situation that must be dealt with by the Government and the voluntary organisations assisted and succoured by, and in some cases brought to life by, the Government.

We arrive at a situation in which there are no fewer than 150,000 missing and probably not more than 200,000. If the figures I give are estimates, that is not my fault; it is because the figures we have are admittedly totally inaccurate. I presumed that after the figures were given for London there would be an apology, as is the normal custom. There has been none. I presume that the Minister will now wish to express his regret that the figure for London was only one-fifth of the true figure. I asked for the number of people reported missing. They were not 3,800 but 19,700. That merits, if not an apology, at least an expression of regret that the wrong figures were provided.

When we have the figures, they will reveal, as even 70,000 reveals, a startling and serious problem which must be dealt with. How great is that problem? The answer depends on some other questions that I have asked, against which the Government have thrown up a brick wall of silence. I cannot conceive why. I asked for the same information about Scotland as has been provided for England and Wales, and the answer was "No". I asked how long it has taken to trace missing youngsters, so that parents may know, all else being equal, the hopes of getting their children back quickly. The answer I received was "We will not tell you." I asked how many of the people were found dead. The answer was "We do not think that we would be justified in asking the police even to look in the records for that figure."

The Leicester police have looked, and they have found that only one was found dead, and he was dead before he was reported missing. That is important information, because it sets parents' minds at rest. At least they know that the chances of the child being dead when he has gone are remote in the extreme. They should know the comforting facts as well as the discomforting ones. Those facts will come out of the figures that I hope will one day be provided.

I was given no figures for Scotland, no figures for how many missing people died and no figures about the past, to show the size of the problem and whether it is growing.

In Leicester the number of young people who have gone missing has almost doubled since 1968, when the figure was 946. Last year it was 1,667. Boys and girls under the age of 18 were in the majority, as is the case throughout. It is interesting to note that the Leicester figures for last year show totals of 482 boys and 390 girls missing from home. We do not know any more about the facts than those which the Minister has seen fit to reveal, but we know the harvest of homelessness that this helps create, and it is superimposed on a great shortage of homes in many areas, certainly in Leicester. Compared with other areas, I understand that ours is somewhat better off.

What is being done? There is a Consortium for Homeless and Rootless people composed of a number of mainly voluntary organisations working together in the hope of providing refuge for those who cannot cope. The organisations range from the Salvation Army, which does a magnificent job for older people, to New Horizons here in London, which looks after youngsters and tries to help them keep away from the drug scene and to help them when they are adrift to find new roots. They are run by dedicated champions of humanity who are overworked and who operate without the funds that they need. In Leicester there is only one refuge for the young. It is known as "The Vicarage". It is run by Mervyn Thomas who, with his helpers, does a marvellous job in difficult circumstances. There are rumours, which I hope are groundless, that even here the time will come when they have to move.

The situation is not being met because it is not recognised. Before dealing with a problem we must see that it is there. We must recognise that this is no longer a problem simply for the families of these people. The young people who go adrift are boys and girls of 16 and 17. They are from ordinary average families, some of them very good families. They feel that they want more independence, and they demand it. They cannot communicate properly with their parents. These youngsters are at work and are earning far more than many of us thought of earning at their age. They have money. They demand independence. They do not get it. The result is that they fight with their families, something bursts, and they leave. It shows no lack of love on the part of parents that they cannot cope, it shows a lack of understanding of how to deal with the problem. It shows no lack of love on the part of the youngsters for their parents; they simply do not know how to cope with the situation, and they go adrift and need help.

This debate is taking place just before the Whitsun Recess when most of us will head into the sunshine with our families for what we hope will be a happy time. It is a time when 1,500 families will for the first time have to face a situation where members of their intimate home surroundings are missing and there whereabouts are unknown.

What do I ask of the Government? I ask first for a central register and for more help to be given to the police to do what they are trying admirably to do in tracing missing persons quicker, more effectively, and more cheaply.

Secondly, I ask for the true facts. It is no answer to say that it would take a certain number of policewomen X number of hours to discover the true facts. This is not a party problem. The All Party Parliamentary Committee for Rootless People is not a party committee. It is one which feels that the facts should be made known. We differ very much in our approach to the type of help that is required, but we are united in our belief about the need for help. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not only provide an apology for his Department's past error but provide an assurance that the correct facts will be given.

Thirdly, I ask for an assurance that those who help people who are adrift to find roots of some kind will be given more assistance so that young people may know that there are places in their areas to which they can go for help and do not need to go adrift. In that way, it may be that the problem will diminish and not increase to the point where in five years we have another doubling of this staggering figure.

Finally, we must recognise that there must be help to the youngsters who are adrift and are not going home—the 16-and 17-year-olds who will not go home. There is not enough hostel accommodation or homes for them. They need guidance and help and perhaps a new Government agency to look after them, or, alternatively, a voluntary agency with Government help. I hope that with the assistance of the Department of Health and Social Security it will be possible to look into this matter.

This is a vast and increasing problem. It is essentially one of understanding of the young, and if it is dealt with in the four ways I have suggested—by a central register, the making known of the facts, help at home and help to those youngsters still adrift—there is some hope of some reasonable peace for people, if not at this Whitsun, then at Whitsun in years to come.

As this is the last oration before the recess, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may convey to you and, through you, to the Officers and staff of the House our very good wishes for your and their relaxation during the recess and our appreciation of what you, your colleagues and the staff do to help our lives in this place.

I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has taken the opportunity today to enlarge on his interest, which I know is a very keen one, in missing persons. I appreciate the reasons why he has put down a number of Questions to my right hon. Friend, because it is easier for us to reply to questions or to a debate of this kind when we know more precisely what the areas of interest are.

The hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised three points above all. First, he called for a central register. I will think very carefully over what he has said about the present arrangements. I cannot go beyond that now.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's second main point concerned the statistics. I reject his lurid phrase about a brick wall of silence. There is nothing of the kind.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's third main area of concern, which I share, is homelessness, to which this problem partly relates in wider aspects—the need for more hostels and agencies and helpers. I will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that aspect is more his problem than mine.

I want to try to put the general question into perspective. If I have any criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, it is that he tended to get it out of perspective. I want to put it back into perspective as well as one can.

Everyone shares the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern over the large number of people reported missing. Whatever one's views of the precise figures and definitions, we do not need much imagination to realise what misery, worry and fear is caused to the families, however short the unexplained absence from home of the loved one may be. But the figures which individual police forces keep and which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been given, although he is not satisfied with them, demonstrate that the great majority of missing persons are traced—in many cases very promptly.

I can condense the figures into one sentence. In the majority of areas from whose police forces we accept statistics, more than 99 per cent. of the people missing are traced sooner or later. My understanding is that the police do a very thorough and conscientious job in tracing missing persons, and tracing them as rapidly as possible.

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House now, or promise that he will do so later, what he means by "sooner or later"? How long does it take? How many of these persons return home when they are traced?

I cannot give a precise analysis of how many are found in one week or in two weeks or in three weeks. The pattern varies over days, weeks and months. I want to impress on the hon. and learned Gentleman what the police do—and this is the guts of the debate —when someone has been reported missing in the Metropolitan area in particular, and initial inquiries have failed to trace him. Details are recorded in the Missing Persons Index. In addition, local forces elsewhere which may think that a missing person has left their area may also record him as missing in the index.

In the London area—I stress this particularly because the hon. and learned Member made much of it—in all cases where someone is taken to hospital by the police as the result of an accident or an illness in the street and for some reason relatives are not informed, or cannot be notified, or when someone is found wandering, a message is sent to the missing persons index and particulars are there recorded to see whether they match those of any missing persons. Similarly, in all cases where juveniles coming to the notice of the police may be missing persons, the index is invariably checked.

The hon. and learned Member mentioned publicity. When the police think that publicity would be useful, particularly with juveniles, they offer particulars to the local and national Press, and the Police Gazette which goes to all police forces, is used regularly to circulate details of missing persons nationally.

The hon. and learned Member rightly made much of the problem of missing young people, and here I should like to refer to a programme on BBC 2 on Wednesday night, "Man Alive", which dealt with this problem, but which I was not able to see myself. Two cases particularly were brought out in that programme—Sarah Way and Kevin Barnes. It was also brought out in that programme that boys and girls in this age group, 14 to 17, cause the most difficulty, because they can so easily be taken to be older people and in most instances are capable of keeping themselves by casual employment and of making a life of their own.

However, I should like to dispel the impression, which may have been given to some people who saw that programme, that there is little police action in such cases. In these two instances the children are now listed in the missing persons index at Scotland Yard, where records are kept of all persons missing in the Metropolitan area and people who have left home elsewhere where the forces think that they may be out of the area.

Particulars of the children have been circulated in the Police Gazette, which goes to every force in the country, with a photograph of Sarah Way and a photo-kit impression of Kevin Barnes, for whom a recent good photograph was not available. Both the local and the national Press have been informed. The children's disappearance was reported, and articles about Kevin appeared in at least two national and two local newspapers, while articles about Sarah Way appeared in three national and one local newspaper.

The third individual mentioned in the programme was Susan Manning. I understand that she has now been traced and that her whereabouts in the Notting Hill Gate area are known. I should like to put straight the picture given in that programme, for it was distorted and unduly alarming.

The hon. Member made much of the statistics, implying that they were inadequate. He accused us almost of issuing misleading statistics, and I should like to deal with what he said about London. He understimates the difficulties. There are difficulties of definition and of timing—at what point should one record someone as missing? Is someone missing who has strayed round the corner? Is a child missing if it has been distracted at the local playground or has called unexpectedly on the way home?

It is easy to use the expression "missing persons" to cover a wide range, but it is not easy to define when a person shall be regarded as missing. The definition in Metropolitan police area usage is that people under 18 years of age, or old people, or physically or mentally handicapped people, or people whose disappearance gives rise to fear for their safety are always accepted as missing for the purpose of police inquiries in the Metropolitan area.

I shall deal with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about statistics, and I shall give an explanation, not an apology, for he made far too much of this. He drew attention to the different figures for people missing in the Metropolitan area during 1972, a figure which we said was 3,815, whereas the number actually reported at local stations was 19,702. There is no mystery about this, and I am glad of the opportunity to make the matter clear.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman was told in reply to his Question, the number recorded as missing in the missing persons index applies to those whom official inquiries have not traced. Obviously it is a matter of opinion and judgment whether every reported case should at once be considered as a missing person for statistical purposes. I do not think it is unreasonable to ignore a large number of cases; for example, when a child has gone off to play for a short time with a friend without telling its parents or when an old person has dozed off for a while on a park bench. We should surely regard these people as temporarily out of touch rather than missing. Including them in the missing persons statistics would indicate that there was a much greater problem than there is. Having said that, I am not at all complacent.

What we should regard as the test is not so much the absolute completeness of statistics or the precise details of them but the success in finding the people who are missing and improving our methods, if we can, to see that they are found, as I said earlier, sooner rather than later. Of course we shall consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said but I reject the rather lurid charges that we are in some way trying to conceal or deceive. That is not the case. When we can see reasonable ways of improvement we will adopt them.

It is perfectly fair to say, as my right hon. Friend has said, that we must keep a sense of proportion about the additional work we ask police forces to do. That is all I can say. We will think over very carefully the arguments and criticisms made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I believe that we will have a chance of returning to this at Question Time on 14th June when the hon. and learned Gentleman has a Question down to be answered by my right hon. Friend.

The other important topic raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was that of homelessness. I join him in paying tribute to the various organisations which deal with this harrowing problem, mainly in urban society. If the police have any reason to think that a vagrant is listed as a missing person they do all that they can to reassure his relatives about his safety and whereabouts. I do not accept that there is a direct correlation, as implied by the hon. and learned Gentleman, between the number of missing people and the number of homeless people who wander the streets of our large cities. It is true that some people who leave their homes are unable to cope with normal life and may, tragically, end up on the streets.

It is surely equally likely that people living on the streets do so because they have no homes and no one to care for them. If the police find young people among the homeless they do all they can to trace their relatives and return these young people to them. It is not primarily the job of the police to do the same for adults. If an adult has left his home of his own free will and does not want to get in touch with his relatives, this is a matter for him. It would not be right to ask the police to put pressure on him.

I have tried to put this in perspective in relation to the police work on missing persons. I accept that there is a need for more work in various directions by the agencies dealing with the homeless, and the Government are trying to develop this all the time under the leadership of my right hon. Friend. We recognise that there is an important problem here. I do not necessarily accept that it is as lurid as the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

We realise the enormous human misery that these cases cause to individuals and their families. I am in no way implying that this is not a matter with which the police ought to be concerned. I maintain that the details which have been sent to the hon. and learned Gentleman show that the majority of police forces keep their own individual statistics and that the annual report of chief constables leaves no doubt in my mind that individual forces keep a close check on missing persons in their area. Had I the time, I would have been able to give some examples. I mention particularly the Hertfordshire Force and the Bedfordshire and Luton Force. Those areas are examples of how thoroughly the police try to do their job. They deserve our support. Let us remember that their primary task is the prevention and detection of crime. Their other work must be seen in proportion to this.