I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about empty office buildings.

My predecessor announced on 26th June last year that he was considering measures including, if necessary, appropriate legislation to deal with the problem of large office buildings built several years ago which still remained empty at a time when office accommodation was in great demand.

I now propose, in the context of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent tax proposals, to take powers in the Housing and Planning Bill to be introduced early in the new year, to enable the Secretary of State to take compulsory powers of management when such buildings have been substantially empty for two years or more.

I will also be tabling amendments to the Local Government Bill enabling local authorities to impose a penal surcharge over and above full rating on empty commercial properties rising at the rate of an extra 100 per cent. for every year the buildings remain unoccupied.

I thank the Minister for that statement. I must begin by pointing out to the Minister that the reason I am at the Dispatch Box is that my right hon. Friends were given no advance notice of the statement, otherwise they would have been here to interrogate the Minister as closely as the statement deserves. However, I shall content myself by putting two questions and an observation to the Minister.

On the principle that one does not shoot Santa Claus, I suppose that I had better give a cautious welcome to this announcement. However, I invite the Minister's agreement to the statement that in this case, as his statement makes clear, there has been a shocking and scandalous delay in the time that has elapsed between the time his predecessor announced on 26th June 1972 that urgent action would be taken and today, towards the end of December 1973.

May I ask the Minister whether he will press forward the legislative measures which will be required to give substance to the proposed course of action announced in the statement? Am I right in believing that if measures are to be made effective the two Bills involved will have to be effective during the next year and that the Bill which is currently in Committee will need amendment?

I understand the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. As the House will appreciate, it is the normal practice for notice of statements to be given on the morning that the statement is to be made. At this time that raised peculiar difficulties, and I apologise for that. However, it was felt that as the statement is of some importance it was right that it should be made to the House.

The details will have to be brought forward in the Housing and Planning Bill which will, I trust, be introduced at the end of next month. That will deal with the authority that is required to give the Secretary of State the powers of compulsory management. The amendments to the Local Government Bill which will deal with the rating surcharge will be laid before the House as soon as possible. The Bill is now at Report stage.

These measures have to be considered in the context as I say, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent tax proposals. I have long taken the view that the right way of dealing with the situation which has arisen in recent years is by way of taxation. I have also hesitated to get the Government into a situation in which they may take over and manage property at public expense while maintaining the capital value intact.

Regarding the delay, my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he made his statement, said that he would consider what action was required if the situation was not remedied within a few months. It is correct that quite a number of months have passed. On the other hand, the fact that so much notice has been given justifies the element of retrospection which will be in the legislation. The legislation will apply to premises which have been substantially empty for two years or more. The legislation will be pushed forward with, I am sure, the cooperation of Opposition right hon. and hon. Members.

Though I welcome the Minister's statement, will he give an assurance that there will be no change in the Government's policy of encouraging industry, banks and other organisations to send their offices from London and the South-East to places such as Teesside?

I have considerable sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I think that more will emerge on that front when the Hardman proposals are finally implemented.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us further details or have the proposals been brought forward so quickly that he has not yet worked out the details? What does he mean when he says that management may be at public expense? What will be the responsibilities of the management on such matters as return on capital? Will it be the original capital or capital as increased by inflation scarcity? The House should have a great many more details than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given.

The House will need many more details. First, the legislation will be laid before the House and then amendments may be made to it. It might be helpful if I make it clear—that is why I have said that this action is to be taken in the context of the Chancellor's measures—that provision will be made to ensure that the letting of office premises which are managed by the Secretary of State under the proposals will constitute a possible charge to capital gains tax under the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on Monday, 17th December. When the Secretary of State takes powers of compulsory management the costs of that management will no doubt fall in an appropriate way upon the owners of the building who is responsible for it being substantially empty.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that this provision does not apply to Scotland and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making an announcement on the Scottish position? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the situation in Scotland is different from that pertaining to the London area? As the Secretary of State has indicated, Scotland is anxiously awaiting decisions relating to the Hardman Committee report. Will the Minister try to explain to the House a little further exactly what he means by "take over"? Is that an extension of public ownership by the Government and control by the Secretary of State's office? Is this provision an indication of the paucity of the Chancellor's tax penalties on this area of entrepreneurship ?

Scotland's position does not, I am sure, affect either the Hardman proposals or present legislation. The powers will apply to England and Wales. They will apply to office premises which have been substantially empty for two years or more. This is a measure to deal with a particular mischief which has caused a good deal of public concern in recent years. I will not go further than that.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what he means by "substantially empty"? Does that apply to a block such as Centre Point which has been partly let and is partly vacant? Will those premises be affected? Does the Minister consider that two years or more is rather a long time to wait? Some hon. Members may have thought that one year was ample time for letting unless there were reasons to the contrary.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say on what basis the penal surcharge will be levied? Will it depend on the value which has materialised since the building was built and has been unlet? Does the Minister recognise that millions of people will wonder why the Government have not moved on this measure at the same speed as they have moved on the industrial front against trade unionists and other people?

The justification of the two years or more is the retrospective effect of the provisions. In other words, those who have offices which have been substantially unlet for a long time have been on notice that the Government would consider bringing forward suitable measures.

It would be wrong to try to indicate how a general measure might apply in certain circumstances. I will not be drawn along that line. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement on Monday, the proposed new charge on first lettings, for example, does not apply to residential development. If residential development associated with offices had been let on or before 17th December and the office premises had not been let, that would not prevent a charge being made on the first letting of the office accommodation. That is the sort of matter which will be made clear when the details of the legislation are brought forward.

The penal surcharge follows the discussion which has taken place in Committee on the Local Government Bill. It was felt that there might be circumstances in which 100 per cent. rating would be inadequate. A penal surcharge might be justified when premises have been substantially empty and when the owner has not taken all reasonable steps to secure a letting. The surcharge and the rating will be on the rateable value as assessed in the usual way. Rateable values have regard to the value of the premises and the value of any letting which may be assessed.

Does the proposal mean that the Government will take over the management of these properties and then return the profit to the owner and preserve intact the capital value of the building? The owner will lose only 30 per cent. in capital gains tax and he will avoid all the burdens of administering the property. The owner will take 70 per cent. of the profit and 70 per cent. of the inflated capital gains for the 10 or more years that some of the buildings have been empty.

It is not necessarily 30 per cent., but that will be considered in the context of the detailed provisions which will be made in the Finance Bill 1974 on the lines which my right hon. Friend indicated on Monday. As I said earlier the management and the maintenance of the capital value of the building while the management powers are exercised is one of the matters which has exercised my mind. That is why I think it is much more reasonable that the powers should be taken in the context of the Chancellor's proposals. But for my right hon. Friend's proposals, it might be argued that the sort of criticism which the hon. Gentleman has just made would be justified.

I give a warm welcome to my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. They seem to deal in a satisfactory way with a problem which has perplexed both sides of the House for a long time. Will the penal surcharge definitely not be retrospective? If the penal surcharge were placed retrospectively on existing empty office blocks that would introduce an unfair element.

The penal surcharge will not be retrospective.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise from preceding questions and answers that he has raised as many new questions as the questions which he managed to answer. Will he assure the House that it is his intention to use these compulsory powers against such national scandals as Centre Point, which has been empty and appreciating in value for so long? In that context, will he assure us that if he takes compulsory powers of management, as we hope he will, he will not feel himself circumscribed and find it necessary to continue to operate the properties on the basis of their existing use? Will he be prepared to use them to meet the needs of the areas in which they are situated?

Obviously there will be detailed questions which will arise when the detailed proposals are put before the House. It would be better to leave the matter there.

I wish to raise the case of Mr. Philip Jones who lives in Meols, Wirral, Cheshire, in Mr. Speaker's constituency. The solicitors who act for him have their office in my constituency, and obviously I am raising the matter with Mr. Speaker's knowledge and consent.

It is a case involving injustice to an individual which the law seems incapable of disentangling and in which the Home Secretary refuses to use his power to intervene. I raise the case here because of the Home Secretary's refusal to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy to set aside the conviction of Mr. Jones for a motoring offence—a conviction which, in the light of evidence now available though not made available at the trial, is, at the very least, unsafe.

The facts are simply stated. On 2nd August 1972 Mr. Jones was driving his car, a Toledo, along the A59 from Liverpool in the direction of Preston. His car was in collision with the rear of another car. The driver and one passenger in that car were injured. Mr. Jones suffered extensive head injuries, had to undergo brain surgery and to this day remembers nothing of the circumstances of the accident.

Mr. Jones was summoned for driving his car without due care and attention contrary to Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1960.

The driver of the car which Mr. Jones had hit made a statement to the police to the effect that her car was stationary at the time it was hit. The statement of facts sent by the police to Mr. Jones in support of the summons indicated further that there was an independent witness. This witness was the driver of a tanker coming in the opposite direction to Mr. Jones's car. This witness stated that

"There seemed to be plenty of room for him to overtake … but he did not pull out except for a couple of feet".

It appeared, therefore, that Mr. Jones had carelessly struck a stationary car on his own side of the road and that the only independent witness supported the prosecution case. Certainly neither Mr. Jones nor his solicitor knew of any other witness. Indeed Mr. Jones, because of his amnesia, was unable to instruct his solicitor, Mr. Berkson, of Berkson & Berkson, Birkenhead. Mr. Berkson's managing clerk telephoned the police and a police officer repeated the case against Mr. Jones.

In those circumstances Mr. Jones was advised to plead guilty. He did so. At Ormskirk Magistrates' Court on 8th December 1972 he was fined £15 and his licence was endorsed. The Minister will agree that the size of the penalty in no way affects the principle with which we are here concerned.

About three weeks later, when Mr. Jones's insurers received an abstract of the police report of the collison, it was discovered that there had in fact been another independent witness and that this witness also had made a written statement to the police before the trial. This witness was the driver of a coach following Mr. Jones at the time of the collison. One may think that the driver of a coach following behind would have a particularly good view of the accident. This statement said that as Mr. Jones's car was on top of the pale blue car—that is, the car hit by Mr. Jones—that car appeared to move off at an angle across the roadway. Again I quote the statement:

"The driver of the Toledo was forced to brake hard as the gap had closed through which he intended to go".

A further fact emerged. The driver of the pale blue car had said that she had stopped while two of her passengers had alighted to purchase some tomatoes at a nearby farm. But when her car was struck there were three passengers in it. It appeared likely, therefore, that the passengers who had alighted had returned to the car by the time it was struck.

It is easy to see, arising out of these further facts, a rather different interpretation of the incident than that believed by the magistrates—and, indeed, by the defence—at the time of the trial. Is it perhaps the case that this accident was of the type that so easily occurs when a stationary car suddenly moves off into the path of overtaking traffic?

Certainly if the facts known to the police at the time of the trial and discovered from the abstract of the police report sent to the insurers had been known to the defence, Mr. Jones would not have pleaded guilty, nor would he have been advised to plead guilty. But the police, the Lancashire police, contrary to what would appear to have been their duty, did not inform the defence of the existence of an independent witness whose testimony conflicted with that on which they intended to rely in bringing the prosecution.

The problem for Mr. Jones now was how to reopen a case in which he had not just been convicted but in which he had mistakenly pleaded guilty when, unbeknown to him at the time, there was a strong defence.

An attempt was made to apply for an order of certiorari setting aside the conviction. This was ruled out by the Divisional Court on the ground that Mr. Jones had not been denied natural justice in the sense in which that term had hitherto been understood by the courts. This was a technical legal decision which I do not here need, nor have I the competence, to discuss. But I may say that, whatever the legal connotation of the term "natural justice", it will seem odd to a layman—and I speak as a layman—that the denial to a defendant of evidence tending to acquit him should not be regarded by the courts as a denial of natural justice.

I can only hope—I should like the Minister to give me an assurance on the point—that the decision of the Lord Chief Justice sitting in the Divisional Court that in this highly technical sense Mr. Jones had not been denied natural justice did not influence the Home Secretary in the decision he eventually made. It is, as I say, quite clear to me that in any ordinary, if not the legal, sense of the term Mr. Jones was denied natural justice. The trial was quite simply unfair.

The first attempt to rectify the injustice having failed, an application was made to the Crown Court for leave to appeal out of time. But this too failed. Leave was refused by a judge, whose clerk prefers him to remain anonymous, and for reasons which have not been supplied. Once more I do not here comment on the anonymity of the judge or on the absence of reasons. Except as part of the story which climaxes by bringing me and the Home Secretary into the case, they are not directly germane to my argument. They are matters which perhaps high legal authorities will now consider. Perhaps today the Minister himself, greatly daring, will tell us who the judge was and whether he has learnt anything of the reasons. But I shall quite understand if he does not do so. I would not wish to place the hon. and learned Gentleman in peril of a justice not merely blindfolded but in this case invisible.

It was at this point, as a third attempt to secure justice for Mr. Jones, that I was brought into the case and made my approach to the Home Secretary.

It is not for me to assert here that Mr. Jones was certainly innocent. There is a conflict of evidence. My own feeling is that, in face of such a conflict of evidence, the magistrates could hardly have convicted. But what is certain is that it was known to the Lancashire police before the trial that there was a conflict of evidence; that they nevertheless failed to inform the defence about this second independent witness who could testify in Mr. Jones's favour; that the testimony of this second independent witness would have been highly relevant; and that, therefore, the conviction must be regarded as unsafe in itself and unjustly arrived at.

It is clear that an injustice has been done. Whether intentionally or not, by denying Mr. Jones the evidence in his favour the police effectively pre-empted the trial. They decided that he should be prosecuted and then concealed evidence which might suggest that he was innocent of the charge. Despite all this there seems to be no way of correcting the injustice, and the Home Secretary has now refused to intervene.

There are several aspects of the case which need clarification but which have not been clarified. Why did the Lancashire police fail to inform the defence about the second independent witness? There is surely no doubt that they should have done so. There seems to be some suggestion that the police authority would have informed the defence had they realised that Mr. Jones was suffering from amnesia. But there is evidence that they were aware of that fact. They were told so by Mr. Berkson's managing clerk, and a policeman who visited Mr. Jones to take a statement about the accident was also told. In any case why should evidence helpful to the defence only be supplied if the defendant has amnesia?

Lord Denning has made it clear that the existence of a witness whom the prosecution does not intend to call because it does not accept his evidence should be made known to the defence so that it can call him if it wishes. Lord Denning did not say that this rule applied only if the defendant was suffering from amnesia. A Law Society paper has argued that a defendant should not be denied access to "reasonable and relevant information". The Law Society paper does not say that this axiom applies only to defendants suffering from amnesia. The police, whether or not they knew of the defendant's state of health, were under a duty to him and to the cause of justice which they did not fulfil.

Why, then, did not the Lancashire police inform the defence? On 28th August 1973 I wrote to Mr. Stanley Parr, Chief Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary. In my letter I said specifically:

"I would be grateful if you would let me know why evidence favourable to Mr. Jones, which was known to your Police Force, was not supplied to the defence."

On 3rd September 1973, Mr. Parr replied as follows:

"I am in the process of obtaining full details of the incident. I shall be happy to let you know the result in due course."

So on 3rd September Mr. Parr, knowing already of the Home Secretary's interest in the case, nevertheless told me that he, Mr. Parr, would himself let me know the result of his inquiry. However, on 11th October 1973 Mr. Parr wrote to me that

"… the results of our inquiries have been sent to the House Office and will no doubt be passed on to you in due course."

In other words, Mr. Parr had retreated from his earlier assurance. He now evidently relied on the Home Office to inform me of the results of his inquiry. But when, on 27th November, the Home Secretary at last wrote to me, he made no mention at all of the results of Mr. Parr's inquiry into why the Lancashire police had concealed evidence from the defence. So, despite Mr. Parr's willingness on 3rd September to tell me himself once he knew, despite his willingness on 11th October that I should be told, I remain in ignorance of this important answer; and so does Mr. Jones.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that the failure was unintentional. Mistakes can happen even in well-regulated organisations. But the truth should be told, even though the truth would still leave the problem of what to do about Mr. Jones's conviction. What is intolerable is that we should not be told. The Minister has an opportunity today, which I hope he intends to take, to tell the House why the police did not inform the defence. He has the chief constable's authority to do so if he needs it.

In his letter of 27th November the Home Secretary turned down my submission on behalf of Mr. Jones. He apologise for the long delay of three months since I wrote to him on 28th August. The reason for the delay, he said, was that he had been—

"awaiting a report from the Chief Constable of Lancashire."

But that report had been passed to him seven weeks before, by 11th October. What happened in all that time? Was the Home Office dissatisfied with the chief constable's report? Did it ask for further information? Or is it simply that it could not bring itself to think about the question for six weeks after receiving the chief constable's report? Certainly it was not occupying the time formulating persuasive arguments for turning Mr. Jones down.

The Home Secretary's letter is hardly persuasive. There is no attempt at argument at all. There is not even an attempt at an apology for the police's failure. Two paragraphs are devoted to reciting the facts of the case. We then come to the decisive paragraph. It reads as follows:

"I have the power, as Home Secretary, to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to set aside a conviction. However, it would not be right for me to use this power in circumstances such as this in the absence of new evidence which clearly established that a defendant had not committed the offence of which he had been convicted, which is not the position here. I have carefully considered Mr. Jones' representations in the light of the inquiries which I have made, but I am sorry to have to tell you that I can find no sufficient grounds to justify my recommending an exercise of the Royal Prerogative in his case ".

That is not an argument. It is a reversal which the Home Secretary does not pretend to defend, in its relation to this case, of a central doctrine of British justice. What the Home Secretary is saying is that, because it is not clearly established that Mr. Jones is innocent, he will not set aside the conviction. In other words, the presumption of innocence to which Mr. Jones would have been entitled at the trial had he pleaded not guilty is replaced by a presumption of guilt when it comes to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. It is not enough that Mr. Jones was denied a fair trial. He must now be denied the setting aside of his conviction because it cannot be clearly established that he was innocent. The police secured his conviction at the trial by concealing a conflict of evidence; and the fact that there is a conflict of evidence is now used by the Home Secretary as an excuse for not setting aside a conviction so improperly obtained.

Surely to the meanest observer it must be apparent that the question in this case is not whether it can be "clearly established" that Mr. Jones is innocent but whether the trial was fair and whether there is substantial doubt about the conviction. The Royal Prerogative to set aside a conviction presumably exists to relieve victims of legal injustice which the law itself cannot unravel. It is perfectly "clearly established", to use the Home Secretary's phraseology, that the trial was unfair and that the conviction is unsafe. The Home Secretary should back away from his legal advisers and use his common sense.

Or are we to be asked to recall that hard cases make bad law or such other dicta, obiter and otherwise, that may so easily spill forth on occasions such as this? Is it perhaps feared that, if the conditions that determine the setting aside of a conviction by use of the Royal Prerogative are once shifted, the sea wall will be down and the Home Secretary will be awash with appeals to his sense of fair play? One needs strong reasons for denying justice, and I am perfectly clear on these facts that Mr. Jones has been denied justice. The Home Secretary should respond to my appeal or show better reason than he has yet done why he should not.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has rightly drawn to the attention of the House the case of Mr. Philip Jones who, as he says, is a constituent of Mr. Speaker. This is a case in which both Mr. Speaker and the right hon. Gentleman have made representations to the Home Office.

Before I answer the various points which have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, may I deal with one almost peripheral matter to which the right hon Gentleman referred? He implied that in some way it was the fault of the chief constable, whereas I hope that he will accept my explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said that, although the chief constable had written to him on 3rd September of this year, as I understand it, saying that he would be writing to him, he received a letter on 11th October saying that the chief constable had sent his report to the Home Office.

It is my experience in the Home Office that it is, and always has been, accepted as the normal practice of the police when, as in this case, two right hon. Members write to the Home Secretary and the chief constable is aware of this after a letter to him direct from a right hon. Gentleman, for the chief constable's reply to be sent through the Home Secretary. It certainly was not meant to be any form of discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I have looked at the file. There is a letter from the chief constable to the Home Office saying that he had done that and that as a result, as the police knew that the right hon. Gentleman had written direct to the Home Office, the police did not write direct to him although they had indicated earlier that they would be so doing.

Let us consider the facts of the case. I am aware that it is a case which has caused the right hon. Gentleman a considerable degree of concern. It is one which has been taken up by Mr. Speaker. It is also one which, I am aware, has caused a degree of concern in certain other quarters as well as from Members of the House. Therefore, I am glad of the opportunity to explain the reasons for the Home Office decision in this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman has contended that this is a case in which, as he put it, there has been injustice to an individual. He also contended that as there is no way, apparently, in which this case can be reopened before a court—I think we are both in agreement about that—and as he believes that it is a case of injustice to an individual, the right course is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to remove the conviction by recommending a free pardon.

My right hon. Friend considered this course very carefully when the case was earlier brought to his attention. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was happening between 11th October when, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the report of the Lancashire police was sent to the Home Office, and 27th November when the letter was sent to the right hon. Gentleman. Part of that time was taken up in giving consideration by officials to the question whether the Home Secretary would be justified in recommending that the Royal Prerogative be exercised and in consideration of that matter by the Home Secretary himself.

After careful inquiry my right hon. Friend felt bound to conclude that this was not a case in which it would be right or proper for him to intervene. The reason is that the exercise of the Prerogative is rightly regarded as an exceptional remedy to be used only in very special circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, the administration of justice is a matter for the courts, and it is well recognised that an executive power which clearly exists should not be used to alter the outcome of judicial proceedings unless there are compelling grounds for doing so. In accordance with that view it has been the practice for many years for the Home Secretary to intervene to recommend a Royal Pardon only if it has clearly been established that the person concerned did not commit the offence of which he was convicted.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not here to assert that Mr. Jones was certainly innocent. At one stage he said that the lowest he would put it was that the conviction was unsafe. The standard that has always been accepted as appropriate for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of a free pardon and over-ruling a decision of the court is that the Home Secretary is satisfied that the person concerned was not guilty of the offence of which he was convicted.

I understand the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, but, with the best will in the world, it is impossible in this case to say that one can be satisfied that Mr. Jones was innocent. In considering cases such as this, that is the test which Home Secretaries always have set themselves in deciding whether to exercise the Royal Pardon.

It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that because of what happened the court did not hear evidence in this case. It did not hear the full facts and, in particular, it was not aware of the evidence of the witness Mr. Clare, who was favourable to Mr. Jones. But one cannot overlook the fact that there were two other witnesses. There was the driver of the car, Miss Buchanan, who claimed that her care was stationary at the side of the road, and there was the driver of a lorry coming the other way, who, one must assume, had an excellent view of what was happening. They both say that Mr. Jones ran into the back of this car while it was stationary at the side of the road. One cannot disregard that evidence and say that because there is another witness whose evidence is contrary, one is satisfied that Mr. Jones was wrongly convicted.

I shall not go through all the facts which the right hon. Gentleman set out so adequately. I accept what he says, that Mr. Jones received serious head injuries, that he was taken to hospital and that the police then took three statements—one from Miss Buchanan who was sitting in her car when it was hit, one from the driver of a tanker approaching from the opposite direction, Mr. Richardson, and one from the driver of the coach, Mr. Clare.

Miss Buchanan claimed that her car was stationary. Mr. Richardson said that the car was stationary. Mr. Clare said that the car pulled out suddenly just before the accident occurred. If the evidence of Miss Buchanan and Mr. Richardson were accepted, I do not think anybody could deny that there was at least a clear prima facie case of careless driving.

When Mr. Jones was interviewed by a police officer on 17th September and asked to make a statement, he admitted being the driver of a Triumph car but declined to make a statement. Although the right hon. Gentleman said today that it was made clear to the police at that stage that Mr. Jones was suffering from amnesia, my information is that nothing was said by Mr. Jones at that time about his loss of memory of the accident. He merely declined, as he is entitled, to make a statement.

Faced with those three statements, the police decided—and it is a matter for their judgment—that the circumstances justified a prosecution for careless driving. A summons was therefore issued and a letter sent to Mr. Jones explaining the procedure for pleading guilty by post, and in accordance with that procedure a statement of facts was also enclosed.

It is true that the statement of facts ended with the phrase

"There is an independent witness."

Perhaps I may read the statement:

"At 3.40 on Wednesday 2nd August the witness Buchanan parked her motor car on the nearside of Moss Lane. This vehicle had been stopped for approximately five minutes when the defendant driving a motor car along Moss Lane collided with the rear of the witness's car. As a result of the collision both vehicles were damaged and three people sustained injuries. At the time of the accident the weather was fine, the road surface dry and visibility good. There is an independent witness."

Excluding that last line for a moment, what is said in the statement of facts represents the facts upon which the prosecution relied, their case being that a vehicle had been stopped for approximately five minutes when Mr. Jones's vehicle collided with it from the rear.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the purpose of the statement of facts is to give to the defendant a concise statement of the case against him. It is, to use the words of the Act,

"to give a concise statement of such facts relating to the charge as will be placed before the court by or on behalf of the prosecution if the accused pleads guilty when appearing before the court."

The police were relying upon the evidence of Miss Buchanan and Mr. Richardson, and the case they were making was based on the evidence of those two witnesses. The fact on which they were relying was that the car was stationary at the time. I do not think it is fair to say that there was anything wrong with the statement of facts that was sent to Mr. Jones.

On 6th December, Mr. Jones's solicitors wrote to the police informing them that it was their client's intention to plead guilty and they were arranging to have someone to speak for him. On 8th December, Mr. Jones was not present but he was represented by counsel at Ormskirk Magistrates' Court, and having pleaded guilty he was fined.

After those proceedings, Mr. Jones's insurance company, as is normal in these cases, wrote asking the police for an abstract of their file on the accident, and that included the names and copies of the statements of all the witnesses, including Mr. Clare.

I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's instructions are different from mine, but mine are that the insurance company wrote on 29th August, that is, well before the proceedings, but did not receive a reply until 28th December, about three weeks after the proceedings.

That may be so. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that it is recognised procedure throughout all police forces that they do not provide the abstract until after any criminal proceedings have been completed. The letter may have been sent at an earlier stage, but the insurance company would be aware that it would not receive a reply until after the proceedings had been completed. That abstract contained the names of the witnesses.

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is recognised to be a duty on the prosecution, certainly in the higher court, to supply to the defence the names and addresses of any witnesses from whom they have taken statements but whom they do not propose to call. The difficulty here was that no witnesses were called. No evidence was given because the solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Jones, having seen the statement of facts, wrote informing the police that their client would be pleading guilty.

I am told by the Lancashire police that had the case been put down for trial they would in the normal way have supplied to the defence the names of all the witnesses from whom they took statements, including Mr. Clare. One must make a distinction between a statement of fact meant to be a concise statement of the prosecution's case and a responsibility which rests on the prosecution to provide the defence at a trial with the names of any witnesses from whom it has taken statements but upon whom the prosecution itself does not rely. Here the prosecution was certainly not relying on Mr. Clare. That is not to say that the police suggested that Mr. Clare was dishonest; it was merely that his explanation was not accepted, while the explanations of Miss Buchanan and Mr. Richardson formed the basis of the statement of facts of the case which the prosecution proposed to put.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has enormous experience in the courts, while I have none. Surely what he says implies a great difficulty. I understand that one of the principal objects of presenting a statement of facts is to prevent unnecessary defence of bad cases; in other words, to get people to plead guilty in appropriate cases and so not clog up the courts. On the basis of the facts as known to Mr. Jones and his solicitor, following the statement from the police, this appeared to be such a case. But if the police are then to say that because somebody pleads guilty in ignorance of the fact that there is an important additional independent witness they will not provide the name of that independent witness, all this does is to encourage people not to plead guilty in case it turns out that the police have some evidence which they have not supplied.

I am not saying that the police will not provide a name because a defendant pleads guilty. The statement of facts does not normally include names of witnesses, and the police were never invited to give the defence the names of witnesses.

There is an area of disputed fact between the solicitors and the police to which I should like to refer. I understand that the solicitors claim that they telephoned the police force at some stage. I am told that the chief constable, having held an inquiry, is unable to trace any record of such a conversation which the solicitors say they had with the police at Southport about the strength of the case against Mr. Jones. I am not necessarily suggesting that there was no such telephone call, because the police get hundreds of calls about cases which are pending and do not necessarily record them all. But the chief constable has been unable, as a result of the inquiry, to find any record of such a call, and none of the officers who might have been thought to have been concerned has any recollection of such a call.

I am sure that had the solicitors asked for the names of the witnesses from whom the police had taken statements they would in these circumstances have supplied the names of those on whom the prosecution did not intend to rely. But, having received the statement of facts, the defence made the decision to plead guilty and informed the prosecution of that.

The only place in which one might say that the statement of facts was in any way misleading is that at the bottom of the statement there is the phrase "There is an independent witness". But that was not a fact on which the police relied. They relied on the fact that the vehicle was stationary and that Mr. Jones ran into it from the back.

The right hon. Gentleman raised certain other questions about the case. As he knows, there was an application to the Divisional Court for an order to quash the conviction. As I understand it, the basis on which the application failed was that the court said there had been no denial of natural justice in that it could not be suggested that there was anything wrong about the hearing before the lower court. It was accepted that Mr. Jones had pleaded guilty, that the facts had been given, that he had been represented, and the court took the view that the order of certiorari ran only where there was some failure in the judicial system. It was accepted on Mr. Jones' behalf, I think, that there had been no failure in the judicial system in this case.

He then made application to appeal out of time to the Lancaster Crown Court. I am not in a position to give the name of the judge who declined to grant the application. I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman had been refused that knowledge. All I can say, from my own general experience, is that an appeal cannot be made against a finding of guilt where a person has pleaded guilty unless it can be shown that there was something which had been said in court which made that plea equivocal.

As I understand it, because Mr. Jones had pleaded guilty, and the defence realised its difficulty in attempting to raise an appeal, it chose first to try to get an order to quash the case by certiorari. I cannot comment on what may have been the reason for the decision which the judge took in this case, but in general an appeal cannot be made to a higher court against a conviction unless it can be shown that the plea of guilty was in itself equivocal.

I accept that the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no appeal through the courts available to Mr. Jones. I also accept, and understand, Mr. Jones' feeling that he has a grievance in that he was unaware that there was a witness whose evidence was contrary to that of other witnesses and who may or may not, depending on the hearing, have influenced the court in deciding whether the case against him was proved.

I repeat that there were two witnesses who clearly raised a substantial prima facie case of careless driving against Mr. Jones and that against them there was one witness whose evidence would appear to exonerate him. I cannot say what influence that witness would have had on the hearing in Ormskirk Magistrates' Court. I appreciate Mr. Jones's feeling and understand why he says he has been hard done by.

I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman giving way again. He will accept that had Mr. Clare's statement been available to the defence and there had been a trial Miss Buchanan would presumably have been asked about her statement that her car was stationary. I assume that the police, after getting Mr. Clare's statement, asked Miss Buchanan to confirm that she had not suddenly driven out. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the police asked her that question and, if so, what was her reply?

I cannot without notice say the order in which the statements were taken. I have seen Miss Buchanan's statement, and if my recollection is correct, she claimed she had been stationary for about five minutes sitting in her car when she felt a tremendous bang at the back of the car. That is contrary to the evidence of Mr. Clare. I assume that all three statements were taken from the witnesses in the vicinity of the accident. The evidence of Mr. Richardson, coming the other way, with a full view, confirmed, as I have said, that the car was stationary when it was hit.

However, as I say, I can understand how Mr. Jones feels a sense of grievance, having incurred a conviction without an opportunity to offer a defence of which he was not at that time aware. But I must repeat that the question for my right hon. Friend is whether there is any action that he can properly take. It is, I am afraid, over the essential question of what happened at the time of the accident: can one now be satisfied, on the evidence put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Jones was innocent of the charge which was brought against him? With the best will in the world, and looking at this matter as sympathetically as possible, one was bound to conclude that the case did not add up to the strict standards which Home Secretaries set themselves for granting a Royal Pardon. Therefore, regrettably, the Home Secretary felt himself unable to intervene.

I dare say that today a family with four children would be considered large and that a family blessed with six or more children would be considered very large. A hundred years ago a family of six children was probably considered normal. But a family of 12 children, which is the size of the family which I have particularly in mind in this debate on the housing problems of very large families, would be considered to be exceptionally large by any standards.

This short debate is particularly concerned with a specific family, that of Mr. and Mrs. Boneham. There are many other large families in the country, but I know of only perhaps one or two others which are blessed with as many as 12 children, which is an exceptionally large family. The case about which I am talking today is very rare indeed. Therefore, it is probably understandable that, with all the other occupations of a Government today, the very exceptional cases which exist are not, perhaps, examined with the care that they would be if they were more numerous.

As far as I am aware, no special attention has been paid by the departments of housing and local government or, indeed, by any other Government Department in recent years to the problems which are associated with these exceptionally large families. The sort of thing which I should have liked to see introduced and considered for the housing problems of exceptionally large families is a form of directive issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister to local authorities indicating how they should handle their housing needs. It is simply because these cases are so exceptionally rare that, in the hustle and bustle of ministerial affairs today, such a directive has not been issued.

Many of us who have the problems of very large families on our hands in our constituencies feel that not only their housing problems should receive special attention but also their educational and health problems.

I should like to make it clear that I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for being present to answer the debate, because the basic problem of the particular family that I have in mind, that of Mr. and Mrs. Bone-ham, concerns their 12 children and the three-bedroomed council house in which they exist. Knowing well how generous and helpful he is in these matters, I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend can do what he can to help them.

I visited Mr. and Mrs. Boneham's council house at No. 5 Turnville Road, Gilmorton, Lutterworth. Frankly, the conditions under which they exist are such that no Member of Parliament can ever rest until some form of satisfaction is obtained and the matter put right. It may help the House if I give a short description of the conditions under which this very large family live. They have three upstairs bedrooms in this semidetached council house. They are occupied respectively by four children, three children and three children. Mr. and Mrs. Boneham sleep in the living-room downstairs with their two youngest children. The house is well decorated inside and as clean as it possibly can be in view of the stress under which the whole family is living. There is a television set in the living room which may be viewed only by sitting on the bed of one of the four people who sleep in that room.

Mr. Boneham works for English Electric, near Rugby. He has entered into an arrangement with Lutterworth Rural District Council to buy his council house, a course which I am sure my hon. Friend will applaud, as, indeed, do I. I should explain to my hon. Friend that this council house which Mr. Boneham is buying is a semi-detached house, being one of a pair. An opportunity to solve this problem arose for the housing authority, Lutterworth Rural District Council, last year when the other house of the pair fell vacant. At that time Mr. Boneham applied to rent the house next door from the council, with the intention of providing his family with another three bedrooms and extra downstairs accommodation via a new access which would have had to be constructed through the dividing wall. Very unfortunately, however, the Lutterworth Rural District Council decided against that course of action and let the house to another family. Despite continued efforts on my part, the council has not been able to respond and to meet this problem.

I mentioned a little earlier my wish that there had been a departmental directive issued to local authorities on the subject of housing problems of exceptionally large families. If the Department of the Environment had issued such a directive and if that directive had indicated the desirability of local authorities letting a pair of houses to one tenant in these circumstances, the local council would have solved this problem. If such a directive had been issued and if the local authority had taken the advice which it would have given, the need for this debate would not have arisen.

Mr. Boneham was quite prepared to pay the normal rent for the additional council house in addition to the payments for the house which he is now buying. With 14 people in the family, the average number in each of the houses would then have been seven, which is equivalent to a family of two parents and five children, that is, still far larger than the size of the average family in occupation of council houses.

I have raised this matter today to call attention to this particularly exasperating case. I can safely say that I have omitted no channel of investigation. I have approached the Medical Officer of Health for Leicestershire and the social services director, both of whom have tried to their utmost to find a solution to this problem. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services calling attention to the overcrowding in Mr. Boneham's house in the hope that he would be able to interest himself specifically in this problem but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, he passed the file to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who on 23rd November wrote to me to say, in the nicest possible way, that he did not see how he could help.

It is very difficult to enjoy Christmas and all that it means when one is aware of families in 20th-century England living in such circumstances. Discounting the large immigrant families, some of whom are perhaps recently arrived in this country and may have relations living with them only temporarily, I believe the case of the Boneham family to be unique. I know of no other example in the country of 12 children living with their parents in a three-bedroom council house.

I hope that my hon. Friend will use the full weight of his Department in the new year to achieve a solution to this unhappy problem, which is urgently desired.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is a most diligent champion of the rights of his constituents.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important question of housing for very large families. In overall terms they do not represent a large proportion of the population, and that proportion is declining. A recent sample survey shows that less than 1½ per cent. of all households have five or more children. At the same time the stock of large houses available is also decreasing. Slum clearance is removing many; others are being converted for use by smaller households. In many areas this decline in the number of larger old houses has gone so far as to make it difficult for large families to obtain the accommodation they need.

The Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services commented in its report in 1968 that the large families were among those which were at greater risk than others of becoming homeless or grossly ill-housed. They can be particularly vulnerable, however strong the family unit is. Sometimes income plays a part in this. Another factor is the tendency of the family to be mobile and to gravitate to areas where the pressure on housing is already great.

Housing law has recognised the vulnerability and the need of such families for a long time. There is little detailed provision about the way in which local authorities choose their tenants and allocate their houses. My hon. Friend will understand that the duties in that respect must rest with the local auhorities, which have a detailed knowledge of the local circumstances. One requirement, however, is made quite clear. This is that local authorities shall ensure that a reasonable preference is given to people who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses, have large families or are living under unsatisfactory housing conditions.

Local authorities had their attention drawn to the special needs of large families at the end of 1969, when a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee looked at many aspects of local authority housing management. In its report "Council Housing: Purposes, Procedures and Priorities" the committee made it clear that an important need existed which was in danger of being overlooked and suggested that all local authorities should consider providing a number of large houses in every major housing development. That chapter of the report, which dealt with a number of important needs, was particularly commended to local authorities when they were sent a copy of a report with an accompanying circular, No. 91/69. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that and will note it particularly in regard to his comments about directives.

In discussing this problem in detail, the report drew on the evidence of local authorities which were alive to the need and had found ways of adapting existing houses, for example by joining two together, by building a side addition to an end-terrace or semi-detached house or by acquiring and improving larger older houses. The committee commended these practices, and I should like to take this opportunity of making clear to local authorities the need to use their ingenuity in these or similar ways.

My hon. Friend referred in particular to the case of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Boneham and their family. The Boneham family present a particularly difficult problem. They are a very large family—14 in all—and are at present living in a three-bedroom non-parlour-type house which they are buying from Lutterworth Rural District Council. But I think we have to accept that it would not be reasonable to expect any authority to have immediately available the size of house that the Bonehams obviously need. It is particularly unfortunate that they live in an area where there are very few council-owned dwellings and that they are reluctant to move. Gilmorton is their home, and that is where they want to stay. But the total housing stock of the Lutterworth RDC in the village is only 37 houses, and it is a rare occurrence for a family to move out.

The council will consider the Bonehams' claim for any vacancy that occurs but points out that it cannot forecast when the next house will become available or even that another family, for example one that has no room at all, might not have an even better claim, or that the next vacancy will be in any way suitable to the Bonehams' needs. But in any case the allocation of council houses to tenants is a matter that is entirely the responsibility of the local authority.

Whether a local authority should use its powers to buy an existing house to suit a particular family is also for the authority to decide in the light of financial and other considerations. In the case of the Lutterworth Rural District Council, one of the problems it must weigh is what happens should the Bonehams decide to leave the area or when the children leave home. A house suitable for 14 people, even if one can be acquired in the Gilmorton area, may well not be suitable for other families on the housing list and may also be difficult to sell. These are all matters in which it would be quite wrong for my Department to intervene.

I understand my hon. Friend's feelings, but in all the variety of circumstances of cases throughout the country it would not be possible for a Department such as mine to issue directives to local authorites on the specific way in which they are to discharge their responsibilities.

On the general issues, the acquisition and improvement of existing houses for large families by local authorities and housing associations attract Government assistance through the medium of improvement contributions and additionally, in the case of local authorities, through subsidies payable under the Housing Finance Act 1972, provided those authorities are in deficit on their housing revenue account.

In view of the higher costs in Greater London, increased limits on the Government's contribution apply both to local authorities and housing associations under a special determination. Outside London the limit on the amount of the contribution for housing associations acquiring and improving houses was also increased recently and was weighted in favour of large units to take account of the higher cost of providing them. And in the current review of the grants and subsidies available to housing associations we are bearing in mind the need to ensure that the system does not operate against the interests of large families.

I am pleased to inform hon. Members that the availability of Exchequer help in these respects will not be affected by the measures which were announced last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Since the war, local authorities have concentrated on meeting by new building the overriding need for average-size family homes. Many local authorities are now beginning to look more carefully at the balance of their housing stock and its suitability for the needs of their areas. They are trying to ensure that they know where the deficiencies are and to cater accordingly.

In the last five years the proportion of homes with four or more bedrooms which local authorities have been building has gradually increased from just over 4½ per cent. to just over 7 per cent. At the other end of the scale, the proportion of one- and two-bedroomed dwellings has increased. That is a welcome trend and one which we shall continue to encourage. It makes for a better balance of stock and introduces a greater all-round flexibility of which local authorities can take advantage in developing sensible policies for building, allocation and transfer to meet the needs of their areas. It will work to the benefit of the large family in cramped conditions and, for example, the elderly single person or couple in a dwelling which is too large and which a growing family could put to better use.

Our two White Papers on housing make it clear that we expect local authorities, much more consciously than ever before, to tailor their programmes, both new building and conversion and improvement, to suit the needs which they have discovered and which have shown themselves. When those needs include larger housing units, their programmes should reflect that need.

We shall strongly support councils and housing associations which get on with the job of providing the housing which is needed. Under the present Government there has been no restriction on the numbers and the types of dwelling which a local authority may build in the light of its assessment of the housing needs of its area. The exemption of housing from the reductions in public expenditure announced on 17th December maintains that position.

The introduction of the first national schemes of rent rebates for council tenants and rent allowances for private tenants by the Housing Finance Act 1972 now helps all tenants who are unable to afford the rent of accommodation suited to their needs. The provisions of these schemes have been up-rated twice this year to make them even more generous and to contain rent increases for those receiving this help. The help is matched carefully to the family circumstances of tenants, being most generous for families with dependent children. Each dependent child enhances the eligibility for a rebate or allowance. The adequacy of the provisions of these schemes for all classes of tenants is the main responsibility of the Advisory Committee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances set up by the 1972 Act. The committee is ready to receive representations on any difficulties or inadequacies.

I hope that my hon. Friend and hon. Members will agree that the range of housing measures which have been taken or are proposed, although essentially designed to benefit the whole community, will make a considerable contribution to alleviating the housing problems of large families.

I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Bearing in mind that the new district councils will take effect on 1st April 1974, will he ensure that the new district council of Market Harborough, which will include the Lutterworth Rural District Council, is aware of and will have a copy of the regulations and the directives issued in 1969 to which he has referred?

I shall be glad to help my hon. Friend in that respect.

Before I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful to receive your advice. Have you been notified as to the Minister who will reply to this debate?

As long as there is a Minister here, that is all that is the concern of the Chair. I understand that a Minister is here now.

Yes. There are several Ministers present.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Tuesday, as reported at column 1275 of HANSARD, quoted some remarks which I made on 5th February 1973. He quoted my remarks completely out of context. I sought to point out that the ostensible pace of development in the North Sea has made it difficult for United Kingdom industry to break into the new market for offshore products.

The Secretary of State sought to indicate on Tuesday that the Government had planned the pace of development. If they had done so, they were deficient. In fact, Governments of both political complexion have been deficient in trying to ensure that United Kingdom industry is fortified and organised to take advantage of the new market. I do not condemn industry. I acknowledge that the technology of the North Sea, especially in the northern sector, was new to everyone. An off-handed approach to the problem by a United Kingdom Government of whatever political complexion is not appropriate.

The BP Forties field was allocated in the second grant for 1964–65, but it took over three years for suitable drilling rigs to come forward to cater for the depth of water in that block. Mr. Matthew Linning, who is in charge of the project for BP, and whom I respect because he is a Scot and a proficient engineer, is reported to have said in Aberdeen this week that it may be 1976 before the Forties field oil comes ashore. That is disappointing. That will mean that 11 years will have passed between the granting of the block by the discretionary system and the oil coming ashore. Is that the Government's idea of moving at speed? The Minister had better comment on that in his concluding remarks.

There is little evidence that the Government saw fit to give the necessary assistance in terms of design or financial back-up to get into the market for equipment such as production platforms and drilling rigs. Although some semi-submersible rigs have been built in the United Kingdom, there is not one semi-submersible rig being built on a United Kingdom site. I have said before that there are approximately 60 such devices being built in the world and that not one is being built in the United Kingdom.

This is too big a subject to spend much time on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall move on quickly to the key issue which I wish to raise. First, there is the need to design and to obtain orders for key items of equipment—for example, production platforms both of a concrete, steel and composite variety, and drilling rigs. Secondly, there is a need to provide suitable sites on which to build such structures competitively. Thirdly, there is a need to awaken the whole of the industry of the United Kingdom, both management and unions, to the nature of overseas competition and the penalties for failure.

Why should there be a need to obtain orders for the big structures? The International Management and Engineering Group's report put the total market for offshore Britain at about £350 million a year to 1985. Page 8 of its report says:

"The greater part of the oil companies' offshore expenditures comprises expenditures on big items of equipment such as drilling and production platforms, pipelines, semi-submersibles, drilling rigs, etc., and on the contracting services to fabricate, build and install these items. Immediately, therefore, if British enterprise can get established in these activities, a direct increase of significance will have been achieved in the percentage share of British firms in offshore work."

The immediacy was announced by IMEG in September 1972. That is the date when the report was completed. Can the Minister tell the House how many of these large items have been ordered in the United Kingdom since that date and what was their value? We know that no drilling rig has been ordered, but what about production platforms? What we do know is that several companies have placed orders in Norway for such platforms of the concrete variety to be used in the North Sea, some of them in the British sector. These platforms are at present built in Stavangar.

How does the placing of such orders in Norway affect the Government's targets of obtaining 70 per cent. of supplies from the United Kingdom sources by the late 1970s? If Norway is obtaining orders for production platforms at a cost—not an installed cost—of about £15 million to £30 million a time—and the installed cost is probably about £40 million each—presumably a large proportion of the materials and equipment used in these platforms will be Norwegian.

The Government's own estimate in the paper issued to the Drumbuie inquiry indicates that if orders are placed, the best that the United Kingdom could get would be 10 to 15 per cent. in terms of equipment. If these orders are placed in Norway, how is the Government's target affected—or is this another target of the present Government which has to go by the board? Have they abandoned this target for the United Kingdom industry?

I take the view that, because of the variety of seabed conditions, we have to present to operators a variety of designs and a number of construction sites. We are relatively well placed for the making of steel production platforms, and it may be that we are well placed for the making of composite designs. Companies such as Motherwell Bridge and John Brown, and Foster Wheeler, to name two, are active in the production of the deck modules for these devices and may be active in the production of the deck modules for composite designs or concrete designs.

It is, however, in the availability of sites for concrete production platforms, which are necessary as we move into the deeper waters of the northern sector, and as we encounter seabed conditions which are suitable for such devices, that we are deficient. Out of seven designs known to the DTI for concrete production platforms, only three are British. Of these three designs, Ove Arup's is of a specific nature which is geared to be built in Norway. We have one United Kingdom design which is specifically designed to be built not in the United Kingdom but in Norway. Taylor Wood-row, the second United Kingdom company, seems to have little confidence in its own design, and, as I understand it, it seeks to team up and operate with Mowlem in the construction of the Norwegian Condeep design.

The United Kingdom industry has come forward with designs which suit the availability of sites not in the United Kingdom but in other countries, mainly Norway, with its deep-water sites. Such sites are scarce in the United Kingdom, and, as I said, at the present inquiry concerning Drumbuie and the availability of a deep-water site at Loch Carron, the Department of Trade and Industry and others have indicated that if this site and perhaps one or two others are not available, the Condeep design will not be built in the United Kingdom.

This inquiry—I do not expect the Minister to respond to this point now—highlights considerable deficiencies in our planning procedures. I declare an interest here, and it is my sole interest in connection with this industry. I am a member of the Council of the National Trust for Scotland, which is a party to the inquiry. The National Trust for Scotland has pleaded with the Government to institute a planning inquiry commission under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. We need even greater urgency in instituting such an inquiry in view of the fact that another company, John Howard and Co., has submitted an application for another site in this area. If the Government do not call a halt to this by using legislation which is at present available, we shall have a proliferation of planning inquiries which will be costly, time consuming and of no long-term advantage to the United Kingdom industry. They may be of advantage to the lawyers but not to our industry.

Here I agree wholeheartedly with the view expressed by Sir Andrew Gilchrist. It is not often that I agree with Sir Andrew, who is Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, but I should like to quote from a letter which he wrote to The Times on Thursday 20th December. He was referring to means of accelerating the United Kingdom contribution to North Sea oil developments, and he said:

"Fourth, by streamlining our planning procedures so that if specific areas are to be denied to fabricators of essential oil-related equipment (and sometimes it may be perfectly right so to deny them), the process of decision-making should not take such an intolerable time";—

and, I might add, not be at such an intolerable cost. It is absolutely ridiculous that the National Trust for Scotland should be paying about £15,000 of money which it should be devoting to other activities to protect this area or to elicit the Government's views or the intentions of the fabricators in relation to the site.

There has been no evident pressure on the part of the Government to bring together the operators, designers, contractors and surveyors, the people who will eventually give their approval of the worthiness of particular designs. We have no indication how the Government will approach the matter of ensuring that the designs which eventually go into the North Sea are capable of standing up to the conditions there. The Government have not brought these bodies together to produce a design to meet the operators' and surveyors' requirements, and which can be produced in areas of labour availability in Central Scotland.

The problem in the North-West is not just availability of site in physical environmental terms but, as the Sphere Consultants' Report put it, the danger is that a whole community is disrupted for 10 to 15 years, and then one moves away leaving the site derelict. One has destroyed the sociological framework of a community, and nobody has the responsibility to restore the site. We are incapable of restoring the community in sociological terms.

Therefore, pressure ought to be exerted on these operators to produce a design which can be built in central Scotland. I do not believe that this is an impossible task. I urge the Government to bring the groups together in order to back such a design study. I do not believe that it is beyond the capabilities of our engineering and designing industry to produce such a design.

It may be that in the short run it will be a little more costly, but in the long run the benefits are there for United Kingdom industry. Assuming that I am wrong and that in the national interest we have to build Norwegian or other type designs at Drumbuie and other places in North-West Scotland, I believe that the National Trust for Scotland should not lose this land. It should be allowed to lease the land to the State, or a State agency such as the Highlands and Islands Board, to be restored to the trust after the site is vacated in a period of, say, 15 to 20 years. I have already mentioned the consultants' view that we should be disrupting the community in sociological terms if a population came into the area, and that other facilities must be made available. Cuts in public expenditure, recently announced, will not make it easy for local authorities in such areas to cope.

I turn to the awakening of United Kingdom industry. I have on previous occasions indicated that the administrative structure that the Government are devoting to this sphere of activity is completely wrong. We should have a Minister of Fuel and Power of Cabinet rank and certainly that Minister should be in this House. I have no personal criticism of Lord Polwarth, but he is operating outside and his responsibilities, such as local government and industry, are outside this special task, which needs a special Minister.

I reiterate that we should create a petroleum supplies industry board or an oil development agency. The sense of urgency that the Government seek to generate has no engine to respond. Shortages of materials and labour disputes have already delayed existing orders for production platforms. Perhaps the Minister would indicate the estimated delay for the Forties field and the Auk production platform at Methven. I understand that for the latter a delay of two years is likely. These delays will be exacerbated by the energy crisis and the three-day week.

Will the Minister give an assurance that everything will be done to assist the operators and the constructors of North Sea equipment? The danger in the present desperate situation is that while trying to hurry on activities to bring North Sea oil ashore, the Government will be met with the response that the only way in which to achieve their objective is to buy abroad. I do not believe that that is necessary or desirable, and I renew the call that the Government should bring together not only the operators and the designers but both sides of industry to ensure that the maximum advantage comes to the United Kingdom from these indigenous oil finds.

Those hon. Members from both sides of the House who recently, rightly, probed the Government about fears that the European Economic Commission might gain control over this country's indigenous natural resources—and I welcome the statement yesterday by M. Simonels indicating that the Commission has no intention of embarking on such a project and that the resources are indigenous, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that—would do well to spend a little more time seeking ways to bring oil ashore by the use of United Kingdom equipment in order to avoid the domination of our industry by others and to give us a chance of speedily taking the lead in providing a European Economic Community energy policy.

I should like to raise one matter which concerns the Scottish Office rather than to underscore everything so adequately and clearly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). It is the matter of planning procedures, which have been adopted with the consent of both political parties.

It was the 1963 Planning Advisory Group, set up by the present Secretary of State for Social Services and the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) that in 1965 gave us the report, put into practice by the 1969 Scottish Planning Act which is consolidated in the 1972 Act, Civil servants can do no more than observe the Act laid down by Parliament, although they may wish with changing circumstances to do many other things.

I readily accept that as Scotland's planning Minister the Secretary of State for Scotland, often in a quasi-judicial capacity, as he now is over Drumbuie, cannot say anything about these matters, but I want to discuss whether the actual procedures are adequate and expeditious.

For instance, the Financial Times today says that Sir John Howard, Chairman of the British company which is part of the Anglo-French group, has suddenly come out with proposals to seek a site near the Drumbue site. Sir John was reported as saying that

"it was in the national interest that United Kingdom sites should be made available in carefully selected areas. After a six-month search for suitable deep-water locations in North Scotland, the Outer Isles and in Northern Ireland, the consortium had chosen a site north of Bergen for its Frigg contract, because planning consent there was available' within two weeks."

We all know that the Norwegians are not careless about their environment. Norway has always been a well-governed country and as far as I know not subject to such strictures as being neglectful or allowing pollution of its beautiful coastline. Perhaps Sir John Howard was exaggerating and it is longer than two weeks, but I cannot understand why there should be this difference between the Norwegian procedures, which seem to be effective, and the British procedures which seem so dilatory.

The Secretary of State is now at Drumbuie in a terrible dilemma. Objections are being made by the Council of the National Trust, for instance, which is saying that the Drumbuie inquiry should be turned into one by a planning inquiry commission. But if the Secretary of State were to set up such a commission, the planning not only for Drambuie but for the whole of North-West Scotland would have to start all over again, more time would be lost and the position would be somewhat prejudiced by what has happened so far.

I appreciate the view that we should have had a planning inquiry commission set up a long time ago. The civil servants did a good job when they coaxed Ministers to take a step forward in planning by having the consultative survey on potential fabrication sites. This is a step towards comprehensive positive planning rather than the kind of passive system that we now have by which the Secretary of State has to sit back and await applications. It would be better if he could say, as the consultative study suggested, "Here you may develop a proposal; here you may not". Industry would know where it was and would not waste its time because it would find out whether an application was likely to be turned down in the first instance.

We are all pleased that the Minister for Industrial Development is here, for this is a matter of great importance. He and the Secretary of State for Scotland should not be satisfied—none of us will be satisfied—with the present planning procedures. Even if the Drambuie inquiry is resumed and sanction is later given, there may still be a new application, and many of us fear that each of these great developments will have to go agonisingly through the same extended and tedious procedure. If we are to deal with the North Sea oil situation, which is an explosion in planning terms, we must consider present procedures. If a short Bill is needed, let us have it so that we can get the procedures right and running as well as they are apparently running in Norway.

The decision letter issued by the present Secretary of State on the Chevron application, processed when the Labour Party was in power, concluded the longest planning inquiry in Scottish history. I do not blame anybody in particular—lawyers, the reporter, the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office—but it was a disgrace that cumulatively we took so long to make up our minds.

I realise that the argument at Hunter-ston was contentious, although it seems now to have resolved itself, albeit 3½ years late. But that sort of time is not available to us. The Department of Trade and Industry has told us that it is estimated that there are about £400 million worth of orders for concrete platforms. The Department should be saying to the Scottish Office, "Get ahead with your planning procedures but get a move on so that we can obtain the largest part of this market", because if it does not the Government's aim of obtaining 10 per cent. of the market will certainly not be realised.

I end with a constituency but important point. In order to carry out a comprehensive exercise in a positive planning sense, we should be paying attention to possible sites near West Central Scotland. If these are to be temporary exercises of, say 10 or 15 years' duration, we should be able to use the existing reservoir of labour in West Central Scotland to service sites on the coast of Scotland nearer Glasgow than the sites mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire.

We lose a certain sense of stability in Scotland in seeking to get the whole or nearly whole, so it seems, of our population trekking north to isolated Highland communities or to Aberdeenshire. This must disrupt people's lives. Would it not be better if we were to adopt a more positive approach and created some of the sites on the West Coast of Scotland nearer the heavily populated areas which, alas, still suffer from some unemployment? There is still a reservoir of skilled and semi-skilled labour there which could be used.

I urge the Minister, even though he cannot say much today about this matter, to talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to persuade him to review and revise the planning procedures urgently, even if that means legislation.

There can be no argument that recent international oil developments have created a new urgency in the work being carried out to bring North Sea oil ashore. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in concluding Tuesday's debate on the energy situation and the economy, dwelt on the arguments which have been adduced about the rate at Which we should bring the oil ashore. A number of hon. Members, including myself, have argued that, in order to maximise British participation, there was a case for considering the rate at which we were conducting this operation.

I accept—and I think that here I speak for everyone in the House—that, given the present situation, the policy of bringing the oil ashore in significant quantities as quickly as possible is right. But, once we have started to get the oil ashore in significant quantities, that still leaves open the question of how quickly it should continue to flow and to what extent we should speed up or slow down the flow.

The Opposition have repeatedly criticised the Government for not intervening in the question of maximising British industry's contribution in this matter. We have said on numerous occasions that the Government's response to the IMEG report was inadequate. I still believe that the Offshore Supplies Office is not large enough and is not based in the right place to do the job which we should like it to do. However, I do not wish to concentrate on general issues. We have discussed them time and again and we are well aware of the Government's position.

People have criticised British industry many times for seeming cautious in the way in which it has gone about the North Sea oil business. I realise there has been a change, and there is no question but that in recent months more British firms have involved themselves in this matter. I have no doubt that the share of the market coming to British industry is rising substantially. But everything should be done to make the share even greater. The market is huge and we want a high level of investment in it. We also want a large number of jobs created in this country as a consequence.

The debate is specifically on the question of production platforms. May I say in passing that in the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am a member and which is considering the subject of underwater engineering, the point has been made from time to time that it is perhaps too late for us to go full out in relation to the present demands of the oil companies and that we should be looking ahead and perhaps concentrating on the new techniques which will be required to win oil in deeper water. As I have said on many occasions, the Government should be doing much more in terms of supporting research and development and co-operating with companies or one company and considering how best we can put British industry in the forefront of these new techniques.

There is no doubt that we shall need production platforms for some considerable time. No one in industry thinks that in two or three years new sub-sea techniques will be such that the demand for production platforms will no longer exist. We must do everything possible to get into this business in a much bigger way. There can be no argument about the demand for production platforms. It has been suggested that by 1980 between 30 and 50 are likely to be required.

There is general acceptance in the oil industry that there will be a movement towards gravity-based structures as opposed to conventional piled platforms. I understand that the primary reason for this is that it is much easier to install a gravity-based structure as there are no difficulties about assembling the platform offshore. There are substantial facilities for storage and treatment. There is less danger of corrosion. It is also accepted that it is easier to train people to work on concrete platforms and that, given the pressure on our steel supplies and the sophisticated steel required for conventional platforms, we are more likely to make speed using concrete gravity-based structures.

A great deal has been said about the first platforms having been ordered from Norway. The Government had far-reaching discussions with the oil companies before the platforms were ordered, and considerable pressure was put on the companies to meet the requirement from within this country. Although the platforms are being built in Norway, much of the sophisticated engineering equipment such as pumps, compressors and so on, is being manufactured in this country. Norway's capacity to produce the platforms is severely limited, particularly in terms of its labour force. The oil companies will be forced to go elsewhere, but that does not mean that they will come here. They are looking around the world. There can be no question that that market is ours for the taking and, if we can provide what the companies require, we shall get into the platform market in a big way.

I want to concentrate on what the Government should do to increase our chances and make it easier for British industry to enter this market and to acquire resources and skills so that it can provide the vast majority of the platforms which will be ordered not just for the British sector but also for the Norwegian sector.

I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's remarks about the Norwegian sector. How does he justify what he says in view of the Norwegian Government's policy that nothing will be set up in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea unless Norwegian bases, men, equipment and materials have preferential treatment?

Norway is doing everything possible to maximise Norwegian participation, but there is a limit, and the Norwegian Government will have to recognise that. According to discussions I have had with oil companies, given the demand for oil and the likely rate at which the Norwegian sector will be developed, it is extremely unlikely that Norway will be able to provide the resources—particularly the labour resources—to enable all those platforms to be assembled in Norway.

The basic issues are design, the urgent need for sites and the capacity to construct the platforms. I want to address myself to the question of what the Government can do to help.

I will take sites first. In May 1973 the Scottish Office published its guide to the companies on sites which were likely to be suitable for the building of production platforms, but since then other studies have been carried out. On 10th December the Minister for Industrial Development referred to a study that had been commissioned with a view to locating areas in the United Kingdom where concrete sites might be constructed. He went on to say that the consultants were also looking into the related question of platform design.

It would be helpful if the Minister would say a little more about what the Government are doing. We know that the Offshore Supplies Office is looking at platform design, but it would be useful to have a clear statement about what is on the go at present.

I accept that the Government are not likely to be forthcoming on the question of Drumbuie. As the Under-Secretary of State said this week, the Government have not yet made any judgment of the economic, social and environmental issues involved in this proposal. I accept that. This is a difficult decision because at the present stage of the evolution of platform design a tremendous premium is put on a deep-water site. The monolithic designs—such as the Condeep design—require deep water, and the companies see great advantages in a platform which can be constructed completely before it is towed offshore.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) stated that the Drumbuie argument rests solely on the question of platform design. It is right, therefore, that we should urgently look at alternative suitable designs which could lead to platforms being built in more appropriate places. There would be immense advantages to our economy if we could build platforms in places which already have the infrastructure, the labour force and unemployment.

We must look to the hybrid designs that are available. The oil companies' main concern about the hybrid structure is that there are three separate parts which have to be assembled offshore. When the consultants are looking at potential sites, I hope that they will consider an arrangement of three yards producing three separate pieces of equipment situated on the coast where there is sheltered deeper water where the assembly could be done. The requirements for deeper water are much less stringent than with the Condeep design. We must look for a site where the hybrid type design can be assembled in yards which are suitable from an economic and employment point of view. This would get over the disadvantage of the assembly having to be done offshore.

The third area in which the Government can help is in providing construction facilities. Once we have a site the Government should do everything possible to provide the necessary infrastructure. The Government might also make clear in advance that they will ensure that the adverse impact of development on local environment is minimal. The Government must be prepared to spend public money and to use their powers to ensure that the infrastructure is provided quickly and that the adverse impact on the local environment is minimal.

On the question of training labour forces, a great deal more must be done to provide more men who are skilled workers in concrete and steel. I am the first to recognise that the British Steel Corporation is doing a great deal and has responded to the IMEG Report, but, at the same time, there will be a shortage of steel. Industry feels that the British Steel Corporation should do a great deal more and should look at the possibility of establishing a tubular steel mill for North Sea purposes. There is an enormous demand for steel in that respect—and I am not talking about a 10-year period but much longer.

The Government must do everything they can to prevent bottlenecks. I am glad that a Government reply yesterday shows that the Government are seeking to make sure that even in the current emergency situation and in face of short-time working, the companies involved in the production of equipment for North Sea operations will be exempt from restrictions. I hope that the Minister will make clear that all companies providing equipment for services in the North Sea will be exempt and will be able to apply to regional offices for licences. Even as late as yesterday complaints were made to me that local DTI offices had not been able to give very much help in this respect. I hope that the Minister will insist that these companies will be exempt.

In conclusion, I wish to summarise the areas in which I believe Government action is required. First, they must do a great deal more—and act a great deal more quickly—about sites. I take the point already made that we have to get over the delays in planning applications. Secondly, the Government have a rôle to play in platform design in recognising that different fields require different designs. One field will require one type of design and another a quite different type of design. The Forties field, for example, is not suitable for any type of gravity design.

There can be no argument about the urgency of the situation and the Government must make every effort to reduce the delay. There need be no conflict between doing everything to reduce the delay and maximising British participation provided that, wherever possible, the Government are prepared to intervene to achieve this end.

I accept that many decisions can be taken only by industry, but it is also true to say that there are many areas where the Government can intervene, spend money on research and development, and expedite planning decisions so that we can get oil ashore quickly. At the same time we must maximise British industry's participation, for we want to see the maximum benefit for the British economy in terms of new jobs and fresh investment.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on raising this subject today and indeed on the way in which he introduced it. We have up to this point had a useful debate, and I recognise that there is a value in being able to tackle at some length the subject of concrete production platforms. It is difficult in exchanges during Question Time to get to the bottom of such a technically complex issue.

It is probably appropriate that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry should be dealing with North Sea oil on the last parliamentary day of 1973, because a major feature of the past year has been the efforts made to bring to bear the full weight of the Department to tackle the problems of offshore oil.

The implications of these discoveries for British trade and industry go so wide that most industrial sections of the Department have necessarily been involved—those dealing not only with oil but also with the very wide range of industries which are, or could be, offshore oil suppliers, with research and development on a broad front, with trade and credit questions and with industry in most regions.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has from the beginning been determined that this task must range over the whole Department and he has been insistent that the resources of the Department as a whole should be mobilised. He and other departmental Ministers, including myself, have in 1973 fulfilled over 50 visits, conference speeches or other engagements to do with offshore oil. This is one small indication of the degree of priority we have given this subject.

At the centre of this activity is the Offshore Supplies Office. I do not want to deal at length with the wider issues and I recognise, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, that there is still a difference of opinion between us as to the best way to organise matters. They believe—I think wrongly—that there would be advantage in trusting the larger part of this responsibility to some kind of hived-off agency or commission. In view of the spread of the importance of North Sea oil, it is essential that all the resources of the Department should be engaged.

The Offshore Oil Office has been working closely with the Scottish Office and there is no doubt that the OSO, with a staff recruited from industry as well as from the Civil Service, is beginning to have a major impact. British firms are being given an opportunity as never before to compete for offshore orders. Millions of pounds of business has already come to the United Kingdom as a result of OSO's insistence, not on any beggar-my-neighbour protectionist policy, but on the fact that British firms must be given a fair opportunity to compete. If anyone believes that this sort of pressure from the Government does not exist, they have only to talk to the oil companies to be disabused.

We have introduced interest relief grants to help with the problem of credit terms; we have acted in both education and training. An enormous amount of hard slogging work has gone into the encouragement of new ventures, identifying new opportunities and bringing together new partnerships. At the moment, moreover, every effort is being made— and I give this assurance to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—to ensure that essential North Sea work is licensed for a full working week. Any firm that believes it is in difficulty should contact the local DTI office. I believe that it will get a quick response.

The present situation has imposed tremendous burdens on a number of officials in my Department, some of whom have been working a 16- or 17-hour day, to get out authorisations, and many of whom will be working on Christmas Eve and until very late on Boxing Day. We are in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that these firms to the greatest possible extent are insulated from difficulties. We are also trying to ensure that they get the necessary priority for fuel and for steel supplies. I receive a great number of unsolicited testimonials from firms, large and small, to the energy and enterprise being shown by the Offshore Supplies Office.

In tackling the problems associated with platform construction, as with offshore oil supplies, we have a threefold concern. First, we must speed the flow of oil; secondly, we must help to build a competitive British supply industry; and, thirdly, we must try to minimise damage to the environment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East fairly recognised that there can now be little argument about the supreme importance of speed. We must all recognise that there is some difference in balance between the objectives we have had before us.

I do not accept, though, that the necessity of achieving speed necessarily means that there has to be a greater reliance upon overseas producers. There may be occasions when, because it is necessary to get materials in time, we should go abroad and give up the opportunity of a contract going to a British supplier. But there will be other occasions when it will be very much in the interests of speed that we should be giving additional encouragement to British suppliers.

All four of the main United Kingdom platform builders were called to a joint meeting at my Department early in November and asked to let us know of any problems which might hinder production on which the Government could help. I shall be visiting Redpath Dorman Long at Methil next Thursday, and having talks with other North Sea suppliers in Scotland to ensure that we are doing everything possible to enable this work to go ahead as fast as possible.

The speed of production of platforms is extremely important because of the size of the market. Leaving aside the large amount of equipment on them, the platforms themselves are the biggest single purchases by the operating companies in the development of offshore fields, and their value will amount to hundreds of millions of pounds. This presents British firms with a double opportunity—no one in the world before has built platforms on this scale and of the strength needed to cope with the deep waters and stormy weathers of the North Sea. The North Sea provides us with a chance to be first in the field and to prove ourselves capable of tackling markets throughout the world.

Until now the practice has been to build platforms in steel. The first six platforms for the United Kingdom sector of the northern North Sea are all-steel platforms, and they are being built in the United Kingdom, in the north of Scotland. These have represented major business for United Kingdom firms. A further one is being built mainly in Scotland and partly in France. Two have gone overseas. This is a welcome change from the position in the Southern Basin gas fields, where all the platforms came from overseas. The oil platform business, therefore, already means many millions of pounds worth of business, thousands of jobs in areas where they are needed, and savings in foreign exchange.

Of course there have been problems over their construction, but I do not accept that the major part of the delays which have occurred in supplies for the North Sea has been due to labour disputes. A study which we carried out some weeks ago suggested strongly to us that the major single cause was probably changes in design on the part of the oil companies necessitated by the fact that in the North Sea they are dealing with a totally unprecedented situation.

The problems referred to today by hon. Members are relatively recent, and concern a type of platform ordered for the first time only this summer—platforms built in concrete. The deeper the water in which the oil field is found, the more likely concrete is to be the cheaper and more reliable alternative. After our initial success in securing the orders for steel platforms, two orders for concrete platforms were placed in quick succession, both of the same design, and subsequently a further one of a different design. A characteristic of the successful designs is that they need very deep water at the place where they are constructed. All three ordered so far are being built in Norway, because no firms have suitable sites approved for building in the United Kingdom. Such sites as exist are in a small area of North-West Scotland of very considerable beauty. A public inquiry is now being held into a joint application by two firms—Taylor Woodrow and Mowlem—to develop a site on land belonging to the National Trust for Scotland at Drambuie on Loch Carron. Only yesterday another application relating to a site six miles across the water from Drambuie was made by John Howard.

Hon. Members have expressed their concern about this situation. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire argued with some skill that we should call together the constructors and designers to ensure that the platforms were built in areas where development is generally to be welcomed and if possible to avoid the risk of intrusion into places of natural beauty. It is an idea which at first sight seems an attractive way round the dilemma. But I am afraid that the attractions are more apparent than real and that the practical objections at present are overwhelming——

Why?

I will try to explain to the hon. Gentleman the nature of the problem that we face. First, there is no question that one design of platform can be suitable for all the locations in the North Sea where oil is found. A great variety of factors are involved, all of which affect the final decision on the type of platform for which to go. The depth of water is critical. The conditions on the seabed can rule out some types of platform. Different sizes are needed, depending on the function that the platform is to serve. We should be chasing a dream if we tried to search, by bringing all these people together, for one, two or even three types of platform.

Then the engineers in the different oil companies will have different views about the merits of different designs. That is not necessarily a matter of bias or prejudice. It is simply the fact that judgment has to be exercised in decisions of this kind, and genuine differences of opinion are bound to exist amongst the experts. In the end, it is the companies which have to take responsibility for the platforms, and therefore they must be free to make the final choice on the type or types of platform that they will use.

Then again, ideas about designs are developing and changing all the time. Even if it were possible to get general agreement that on today's evidence one or two designs were the best, there is no guarantee that that judgment would be the same in, say, six months. Redpath Dorman Long has recently come forward with a hybrid design using both concrete and steel which the company hopes will prove to be a winner. A few months ago it was not possible to consider that design, and it is only one of many approaches being taken. I do not think that it is practicable to expect to get the best answer simply by fastening on to what seems to be the best available design at any one time.

If there seemed to be any unjustified block in the thinking of the companies concerned on all sides, cramping the development of ideas, there could be a case for an initiative from the centre to promote the development of new designs and approaches. But manifestly that is not the case today. There are about 15 companies building or wishing to build these platforms in the United Kingdom and others overseas, with about as many different designs, some in steel, some concrete and some hybrid. Platforms are being built at four sites and another six have been approved, all but one without the need for a public inquiry. There is no question but that the opportunity exists for a wide variety of types of platform to be built at sites where industrial development is shown by the planning decisions to be generally welcomed, and the incentive is there for companies to build in such places, not least because it is easier to get planning permission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the Government's target in relation to IMEG? Secondly, how is it that, although we have a variety of seabed conditions, the three platforms at present are all of the one design? Is not that an unusual occurrence?

No. As I have explained the majority of the steel platforms which we have were built in this country. As to concrete platforms, the hon. Gentleman will find considerable differences of view as to the kind of platforms which will be required in future——

rose——

Order. The Minister has already had more than his time and, in the interests of those who are to follow, I must ask him to allow this debate to be concluded.

I will attempt to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before leaving that point, I would simply say that I believe that it must be accepted that different conditions will require different designs. I would not contest the view that at this moment in time it would seem that the concrete platform, requiring very deep water, will have a substantial future. Whilst talking to oil companies yesterday I was left in no doubt about that.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has an important and, as the hon. Gentleman said, a very difficult decision to take about Drambuie. I will relay to my right hon. Friend the points which have been made about planning and the importance of speeding up planning provisions. I do not believe that many people in this country would be prepared to see a situation in which an answer was given on a question like this within a fortnight. Indeed, I am ready to believe what I read in the newspapers—that there may be second thoughts in Norway about some of these matters. Incidentally, it is not the case that Norway pursues a protectionist policy. Of the five steel platforms for the Ekofisk field, none has been built in Norway.

To conclude on the question of the Drumbuie inquiry, I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's fears, though I hope that those who are interested will take the trouble to examine all the evidence available, particularly through the public inquiry and the impact study that my right hon. Friend has commissioned. Among other things, people want the fullest possible assurance that, if my right hon. Friend finds it possible to give planning permission, any development would be responsibly handled, that there would be no unnecessary damage to the environment, and that to avoid unnecessary proliferation of sites the fullest possible use should be made of any that are approved. This is an area where I realise that the Government might be able to help, by themselves clearing the site concerned and so taking overall responsibility for the handling of developments. This is something that we are certainly considering in case it could help to promote the proper development of the site and to assuage some of the fears which have been expressed by objectors to the planning application. I stress that nothing that I have said today should be taken as in any way pre-judging the decision that is to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for these matters.

We are anxious to ensure as large a participation for British industry as possible in the 1970s. I assure the House and the hon. Member that that remains our objective and one that we shall pursue with all vigour.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are about six or seven hon. Members on this side of the House whose constituency interests are likely to be affected by any suggestion in relation to helicopters. We are here to participate in the debate. May I ask whether it is your intention that we should be called.

It is my intention to call as many hon. Members as possible. Unfortunately, the last debate over-ran by 20 minutes.

But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is taking up the time of those who are to participate in the next debate, including himself.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are, as I have already pointed out, six or seven hon. Members on this side of the House wishing to take part in the debate. There are, subject to your guidance, only 40 minutes allowed for that to happen. I am asking what your intentions are.

My intentions are to call as many speakers as possible within the time allotted. The time has been allotted by Mr. Speaker on behalf of the House, and it is the wish of the House that is distilled into this programme. I must try to keep to it as much as possible.

If it is of any assistance to the hon. Member for Shoredith and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), I will certainly speak as rapidly as possible and sit down as promptly as I can.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the undoubted lack of helicopter landing facilities in London. Helicopters are of crucial importance as winning oil from the North Sea, which the last debate was about.

It is a matter of national importance that facilities should be adequate. This is the reason for my concern and I am pleased to see present the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) and other hon. Members with constituency and local interests, which I have no doubt they will wish to pursue. I repeat that I will do my best to be as quick as possible to make my point.

Mobility is essential in business and in public life. One reflects that time is the most precious commodity in human existence. Like others. I have lately found the helicopter to be an ideal form of transport. Those who know of its use for police, military, ambulance and life-saving purposes will naturally speak even more strongly than I can in its favour. I am sure the Government would endorse the view that the helicopter is an immensely useful and important modern form of transport.

In the current fuel crisis I have largely eliminated my own use of the helicopter as a method of convenient travel, but I look forward to the day when I can again fly freely in this way. Temporary problems in no way invalidate the point I wish to make.

I am sure that this is the right juncture at which to examine the whole picture of helicopter landing facilities in this capital city. The growth rate of civil helicopter activity in the United Kingdom has been increasing rapidly over the last three years. I will give the House the figures. The number of helicopters on the British Civil Register was 120 in 1965, 167 in 1970, 208 in 1972. It showed a dramatic rise to 320 in 1973. This makes the United Kingdom the third-ranking user of civil helicopters in the world behind the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Much of this must be associated with Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, which has given progressive companies an urgent need for a quick and reliable line of communication at home and abroad.

The main concentration of helicopter activity in the United Kingdom remains in the London area. This is where landing facilities, instead of matching the increase in helicopter activity, are, incredible as it may seem, threatened with possible extinction. If this happens, it will mean that authority in this country is saying that, irrespective of progress in other countries, irrespective of need, irrespective perhaps of the substantial export potential of the only British manufacturer of helicopters, we are content to see this industry and its facility languish and perhaps die.

I cannot believe that this would be the policy or the wish of the Government, nor of a local authority of the general competence of the Greater London Council. I do not believe that either can afford to take that view in the national interest. But I believe that it could happen through inertia, or indifference, perhaps aided a little by prejudice. It is my purpose in raising the matter to see that it does not.

I said that I am talking nationally, but I will advert for a while to the heliport in Battersea. London has only one heliport. Is is owned by the West-land Company located in the London Borough of Wandsworth on the South Bank. Westland's brought it into operation in 1969, there being at that time no official plan for a heliport. There had been plenty of committees, but no action. I remember so well the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition saying—this is one of the several things that I have agreed with him about—"committees which write minutes and waste years". Certainly this was true at that time. There being no official plan, Westland's acted and started this facility in Battersea.

Since 1966 helicopter movements at Battersea have been increasing at an average annual rate of 21 per cent. Even so, Westlands say that the heliport is operating at a financial loss. As right hon. and hon. Members opposite know, it has only temporary planning permission, which expires on 30th June 1975. According to the newspapers—it surprised me to read this in the newspapers because the operators have not received a formal reply to their application for it—the Greater London Council has announced that permanent planning permission will be refused. The inference is that in a year's time there may be no heliport at all in London or, if there is one because temporary permission is renewed, there may be a heliport with what I would refer to in the circumstances, having regard to the potential and actual user, as an impractically limited user.

I have two immediate questions to put to my hon. Friend. Incidentally, I may say that I am grateful to him for attending to answer this debate. Does he share my anxiety, does he think it right that London, alone of the capital cities in the world, should have no facilities, or inadequate facilities? What is the Government's policy with regard to the provision of adequate facilities either at Battersea, if that is a suitable place—I do not argue that it is—or anywhere else in London?

It has long been clear that facilities at Battersea are limited. An increase is possible—I do not argue for it; I merely say that it is possible—but, apart from that, Battersea is not in the vicinity of an underground or near a railway station. Right hon. and hon. Members must know that, operationally, it frequently becomes congested.

The British Helicopter Advisory Board—that is to say, the industry and those interested in using helicopters—with that in mind attempted to bring additional sites into operation. Shadwell was its first choice, that was supported by the GLC but not by the local authority. A public inquiry in 1971 lasted for 16 days, and planning permission was refused. The whole process took many months, and a search for a more suitable site was then started.

The use of a floating platform in the Thames seemed ideal. When a suitable vessel was found, the City corporation supported a planning application for an experimental period of a year. Thirteen months later—and I ask the House to note the time these matters seem to have taken—the GLC refused planning permission. I believe that a serious mistake was made, and I shall tell the House why. To do so I must dwell for a moment on the reasons for that refusal. I did not think that any one of them was convincing.

The first, in effect, was that the nature of the user would not have been sufficient to justify the disturbance of persons working or living nearby. At first hearing, that sounds reasonable enough. In the main, movements from the proposed platform would have involved executive and commercial charter flights, but the facility would also have been available for police, fire brigade, ambulance work, and so on, although there was no mention of public services in the Press release issued by the GLC on 25th October 1973—that was just before the formal refusal. That document stated:

"We cannot accept the principle that because the time of a few people is regarded as very valuable, this should mean that a very larger number of people can be inconvenienced".

I think, in general, that if the point were reasonable I might be ready to agree with it, but I am not sure at all that it was right in this case.

Noise is the inconvenience referred to. On that basis, I suppose, in logic, eventually we should ban police sirens, ambulance bells or Big Ben. I hope I am wrong, but the logic of the statement seems to be that the GLC does not hold much brief for business executives, nor does it equate their time with their productivity, which in turn must contribute positively to the country's economy.

It is interesting to note the totally different view taken in the United States, where there are at least 25 heliports in the New York metropolitan area. Los Angeles has 150 landing places and a small town—I picked one at random from a map of the United States—such as Forth Worth has 15, I am told, and is planning to increase the number to 56. London has one, and it soon may have none.

I know the area of the City site. Employees working nearby are few, perhaps 30 in all, excepting the London Fire Brigade, which would presumably be well pleased to have so convenient a site. So far as I know, there are no local residents. Thus there is no evidence of potential inconvenience to numbers of people.

The site was selected by the City corporation from a number proposed by the British Helicopter Advisory Board in consultation with the Port of London Authority. The selection was made after a trial series of landings during which the City corporation, PLA and GLC officials were present and noise measurements were taken. These showed that the noise levels were within the GLC criteria and were likely to be less noticeable—this must be so—at a site where the background noise of six-lane traffic on London Bridge would almost certainly submerge the helicopter noise.

The matter was put to practical test. In May 1973 the actual floating platform was moored for 14 days on the South Bank adjacent to the Festival Hall. It was much used because it coincided with the Air Show. Noise tests were conducted at the specific request of the Festival Hall director, who got his own independent noise consultants to take noise measurements. Their report showed that the level of noise recorded within the hall would interfere neither with the musical events nor the public use of the restaurant and foyer. Altogether, 100 helicopter movements were flown from the platform in 10 days without one complaint.

I know that noise can be a worry. It is to us all, not least to me, living, as I do, in London during the week, but in this case it is apparently more of a worry than it need be. Helicopter noise attracts attention chiefly because it is an unusual noise, but there are ways in which the problem could be mitigated.

Pilot technique is one method, obviously. More important, however, are the two practical suggestions that I have to make. First, I hope that the Government will press the CAA to allow helicopters to fly higher than 1,000 feet—say 1,500 feet. That would make a substantial difference. Discussions are taking place on this matter. I hope that they will be successful and that my hon. Friend will lend them his support. Second, I hope that military training flights through the London control zone will be reduced, if not eliminated, as military helicopters are usually the noisiest types in use.

To sum up what I have been trying to say in this section of my speech, the second reason for refusal was in my view over-stated: to the extent that it has validity, it can be mitigated.

The third reason, I thought, was ludicrous. It was suggested that motorists on London Bridge would be frightened. That is demonstrable nonsense. We have the irrefutable evidence of the trials at the Festival Hall, to which I have already referred. The site was virtually identical in position to the proposed City site and the same distance from Waterloo Bridge as the proposed City site is from the new London Bridge.

Of the 100 movements to which I have referred flown from the Festival Hall steps, about 60 crossed Waterloo Bridge without any disturbance to motorists and with no complaints. It is no unusual thing in this country—I wish it were—for aircraft landing and take-off paths to cross main roads, for example, Heathrow, Gatwick, Exeter, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh and so on, The House knows the story. The noise of a Boeing 707 whistling overhead at 150 mph is more sudden and more explosive than a helicopter ambling over at 50 mph. There is no reason why the standard road signs for such a situation should not be placed at both ends of London Bridge. I think that the third reason had little if any validity.

What surprised me was that the GLC stated no facts or figures to substantiate the reasons for its refusal. It was surprising, too, that it apparently had disregarded the trials done in 1972 and 1973 which provided the very evidence needed for a decision on the application. Most surprising of all was its refusal to permit an experimental period of one year which would have provided invaluable operating data under closely controlled conditions on which to base future decisions on heliports.

I do not know why, but we seem to be frightened of what public reaction may be in these matters. An agenda paper prepared for the GLC at the time of the discussion about the Shadwell site put the matter very fairly:

"The objections raised on the grounds of noise and nuisance undoubtedly reflect genuine fears"

—I know that is true—

"but in all the time that the Battersea Heliport has been operating with a continuous growth in the number of flights, not one complaint as to noise or nuisance has been received, although large housing schemes have been completed nearby and there are several schools in the area."

I am sure that the House will regard that as reassuring. Even more constructive, if I may pull the legs of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, was a Labour Party policy paper which was published—which I read with much interest—which said that so far as our existing experience of Battersea heliport was concerned, there had been no complaints of noise nuisance, and it went on to say that it is extraordinary that this modern form of transport hides itself behind derelict and crumbling factories and wharves. It concludes by asking.

"Why not a replanned environment for this modern user?".

I support warmly what is put forward there.

I refer lastly to another quotation, from the GLC south area board planning committee, which I believe is relevant. This is more recent, in November 1973—

"There can be no doubt that there should be helicopter landing facilities to serve central London."

That is exactly my point.

London is the capital of the third greatest civil helicopter operating country, refusing apparently to acknowledge a rapidly expanding growth rate in this transport sector, which is indicative of the country's potential economic growth rate. Instead of providing increased heliport facilities to lead this growth it threatens to eliminate them.

Unless the Government give a lead no one else will follow. The Government have that duty, which I am sure my hon. Friend recognises. The industry has done its best to provide a site, and to ask for planning permission for additional heliports in spite of great discouragement. I suggest that the Government and the GLC—and perhaps the CAA—take a fresh look at the whole matter. Sites could be found and I suggest that there are at least three needed.

Whether we have Battersea or not in future is not for me but for Ministers and the GLC to say. But Battersea is the one that exists, and if it is to continue, let us encourage it and develop it. We certainly want a heliport at that end of London, one in the City, and one other.

My hon. Friend will expect me to say what I think, and in my view it presently looks as though there has been a total lack of coherent forward planning on the part of the Government and the GLC. but I hope I am wrong about that and that my hon. Friend can reassure me.

I hope above all that my having raised this matter will be useful in the general context and in the general national interest.

I hate to contradict the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr du Cann), but I fear that he and apparently the writer of the GLC paper are wrong in saying that there are no complaints from local residents about the Battersea helicopter site. I have received complaints which I have forwarded to the GLC and I have requested the GLC, as a result, not to continue with the Battersea helicopter station. The Wandsworth council has received complaints, and it has let the GLC know its opinion, which is the opinion which I share. I do not think that we need be in any doubt about that.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, other things being equal, it is desirable that we should have helicopters—we certainly shall in the future—and it is desirable that there should be some sites in London which they may use. But, confining myself for brevity's sake to the question of the station in my constituency, the objection is that it is too close to residential areas, there being several council estates both old and new very close to the site, and complaints of noise, especially at night, have been numerous even though they seem not to have percolated through to whoever wrote that paper for the GLC.

If there were more time, I might suggest other parts of London which would be more suitable. If they have to be adjoining the river, it should not be impossible to find them. In my view, the solution lies in finding a site which is on the river but which is reasonably far from residential areas, and especially from large and populous estates. I should not have thought that impossible.

Is it not possible by further research and technical effort to render helicopters rather less noisy? In the Maplin debates we have had a great deal of discussion about this, and we know that progress is being made—indeed, it was going on at the time when I was at the Board of Trade—in making jet engines generally less noisy. Perhaps it is technically more difficult to make helicopters much quieter, but I should have thought that if some small proportion of the moneys which it is intended to spend on Maplin were devoted to research and development on quieter helicopters, we might find a solution which would be happier for my constituents and which would at the same time enable the right hon. Gentleman and the business executives whom he has in mind to move about the country more quickly.

A solution ought to lie in that direction. But on the immediate issue I wish to leave neither the Minister nor the right hon. Member for Taunton in any doubt about the great opposition in my constituency to the continuance of these services in Battersea after 1975.

It was extremely difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) because he tried to compress so much interesting information into only a few minutes. All I say at the outset is that our debate today is another indication of the failure of the House of Commons to give adequate attention to the problems of London. The problem of helicopter sites and of aircraft noise in London is of paramount importance, and I go along with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to raise the matter in the Chamber today. It is of urgent importance, and I am glad that he raised it.

For my part, I confess that, from 1959 until 1971, as a member of the old Battersea Borough Council, I supported the existence of the Westland helicopter airport down in York Road on the River Thames, and to some extent I still support it today. What we are worried about in South London is aircraft noise—and when I say "South London" I mean especially the area of Wandsworth and beyond, dominated by Richmond, Twickenham and all those other parts represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the increase in the number of helicopters using the Westland heliport has gone to nearly 320. This is an indication of the problem which I want to bring home to the House. Not only have we had that noise—I frankly admit that the advent of a helicopter is an exciting event for children, and they like to see it—but we have had an enormous increase in the number of aircraft using a flight path which takes them over our part of London.

In the few moments at my disposal, I must emphasise that not only do we have the increase in helicopter traffic—with which, to some extent, I agree—but we have at the same time the enormous increase in the amount of noise emitted from aircraft using both Gatwick and London airport on flight paths right over South London.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that no aircraft making for Gatwick should fly over his head.

I can only say that there have been several occasions when I have been flying into Gatwick and I have seen the River Thames. However, I stand to be corrected on that if the Minister assures me that aircraft going into Gatwick could not use our particular flight path and give themselves proper time and opportunity to land at Gatwick. Nevertheless, we have a great problem of noise and pollution in South London, and it arises from both the Westland heliport in Battersea and from Heathrow traffic.

The right hon. Gentleman, discussing the question of noise, mentioned the number of heliports in Los Angeles and New York. It seemed to me that those were the worst examples he could use for the sake of analogy, for those two towns have been bedevilled by this sort of problem. Their experience alone should convince us that we ought not to take the same path.

I go along with the right hon. Member for Taunton when he says that this traffic needs to be developed, but it must be developed in areas which are not concentrated in West London. At present there are eight scheduled routes flying into the Westland heliport in Battersea. Some are flying from near the Minister's constituency of Woking. Every so often there is a scheduled flight from Woking into Battersea. These services come into Battersea every few minutes. In addition to that we have the noise of normal aircraft.

That is why I want the Minister to realise that this is a London problem. We want more time to discuss the matter. I am thankful that the right hon. Gentleman has brought this question into the open. We in South London are concerned about aircraft noise and we want something done to reduce it.

I view with considerable apprehension any idea of increasing helicopter facilities in the London area. Who are the people who want to travel into and out of London by helicopter? None of my constituents wants to do that. The same probably applies to constituents of my hon. Friends who represent parts of Wandsworth.

If there is to be a development of helicopter services, we have the right to insist that much more scientific thought be applied to rendering helicopters less noisy. We have a long way to go in that respect. What has been said about Battersea applies to Lambeth, the part of London which I have the honour to represent. Those of us who live in London are being subjected to an in-creasing bombardment of noise from helicopters, aeroplanes, juggernauts and all kinds of things, which tends to make life in London very difficult and disagreeable.

I hope that the Minister will view with considerable scepticism any idea of developing helicopter services in London much beyond what they are. In any event, there are other sites which could be considered. If the people who want to use helicopters want to use them to facilitate the undertaking of lucrative business enterprises in the City of London but live in the country, let us have the helicopter site somewhere on the river near the Mansion House in order that we have less disturbance to ordinary people.

Having chosen his site, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) might have given thought to the fact that helicopters using it would be flying directly over my constituency. I am not sure that my constituents would necessarily agree that the Mansion House area was the right area for a site.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for his friendliness and the restraint of his remarks. This is an important matter for those of us who represent London constituencies. The GLC, as I understand it, has powers only to authorise or not to authorise helicopters on the aspects of land use, ground traffic generation and the effects of a heliport upon the amenities upon the immediate surroundings. It is not allowed to take into account the very much wider aspects. On researching this matter I discovered that the regulation and control of aircraft in flight to and from the heliports, and the control of the design, construction and usage of helicopters are the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and not of the GLC. It seems impossible to make a decision on a planning application unless one is able to take into account those factors as well as the former factors.

The right hon. Member for Taunton referred to the unusual noise. It is so unusual that those who live in built-up areas—whilst they get used to the general conglomeration and cacophony of noise—feel that this high-pitched whine is so different that it has effects upon them which other noises do not.

I want to cover the point of the GLC's refusal to give a permanent site to Batter-sea. The explanation for that was reasonable. The GLC said:

"The location is considered to be unsuitable for the establishment of a permanent heliport because of the detrimental effect of increased traffic on the surrounding area and its geographical relationship to Central London. The present temporary facilities and intensity of use should not be continued beyond the time in which a suitable alternative site can be found to serve Central London …"

They further indicated that

"the Council is willing to consider in due course an application for continuation of the present temporary use which expires on 30th June 1975."

Therefore, the council was not saying, with a head in the sand attitude, that the matter was finished in June 1975 and that other arrangements must be made. It was saying that it is not prepared to give approval for the permanency of the site and that the matter must be looked at again in 1975 should it be wished to continue the use temporarily until some other site can be found.

I want to end with a constituency point. I received on 16th November a letter from a constituent, a Mr. Penn, a night worker, complaining bitterly about a helicopter that has apparently been operated by the police. It has been flying low day after day, turning him and his colleagues out of bed, with the result that they cannot get any sleep. He has tried to find out about it, but has been thwarted. It was even suggested that for him to make any inquiries of Scotland Yard about the helicopter is tantamount to interfering, and almost treason. That is an example of someone suffering from the flights of just one helicopter, apparently being used by the police each day for surveillance.

I hope that before a decision is made to introduce any more heliports into London there will be a far deeper investigation. [Interruption.] It is all right for the Minister to wave his hand at me and tell me to sit down. He does not live in London, and his constituency is not in London. Those of us who represent London have a right to state our case on behalf of our constituents, even at this hour. I hope that the House will have an opportunity to consider the matter further.

I, too, am grateful to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for raising the matter.

I wish to take part in the debate because I represent a constituency, probably the only one represented in this debate, which has managed to beat off a proposal to impose a heliport. The proposal was for a heliport in Shadwell in the Wapping area of the London Dock.

I want to put to the Minister two principles which seem to me to arise from our experience of fighting off the proposal. First, if a heliport is to be put anywhere in London, it must be in a place where the people who will use its services work and live. That excludes virtually all the working-class areas of the East End, South London and the West.

Secondly, it is no good going ahead with heliport services, it is no good adopting anything other than the most restrictive attitude, until the noise problem is solved. That problem, which was fairly raised by the right hon. Gentleman, is not limited to the time when the helicopter lands but is experienced above all when it flies over great areas of industrial parts of London where pepole live.

I hope that the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) understands that the reason why I was anxious to get him to sit down was to give his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) an opportunity to speak. I was anxious that all London Members present should have a chance to say their piece. I share their desire that we might have had more time for the debate.

I have not had details of the hon. Gentleman's constituency point. I have not heard of it before. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details, I shall look into the matter.

The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) is wrong to imagine that there are scheduled services from my constituency or any other constituency to Battersea heliport. There are routes which helicopters fly, corresponding with the railway line in my case. Helicopters frequently fly over my house. I am sure that they do so more often than they fly over the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stepney.

In the time at my disposal I should like briefly to state the situation in the round and not become involved in detailed matters affecting individual constituencies, because in many cases, as planning procedures are involved, those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I do not want anything I say to infringe on his position or to prejudge the merits of applications, some of which have not necessarily exhausted their capacity to be taken to appeal and so on. Nothing I say will, I hope, have any bearing upon the particular. I shall try to keep to the general.

The general situation is that the heliport at Battersea was set up after a planning consent in 1958 orginally given for seven years, which has been extended more than once. It is true that the planning consent expires in 1975 but, contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tauton (Mr. du Cann) says, I understand that the Greater London Council has formally notified Westlands of its decision on the application for a permanent planning consent. I hope that this is simply a misunderstanding. [Interruption.] There must be a misunderstanding, because I understood the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury to be quoting from a decision letter.

In any case, the fact is that the site is limited to 8,000 movements a year, a total which was reached in 1972. Of that total, 55 per cent. were executive or private, 24 were military, 20 were commercial charter, and others, which might include police, accounted for a mere 1 per cent.

Schemes for other heliports in London have been advanced by various parties. The British Helicopter Advisory Board has been taking a lead. It has seen my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping, and I have had talks with the board about the possibilities as it envisages them. It was for some time concentrating on a site below Tower Bridge. It used a temporary site at St. Katherine's Dock in 1970 before redevelopment took place. As the right hon. Member for Stepney has said, it was defeated by the mass forces of Tower Hamlets when it sought to get permission to use the Shadwell Basin site. There was also a planning application for a site at Swan Lane, which is above London Bridge. Application was refused by the GLC last October.

Another consortium—Air Associates Limited—made an application for a site in the Surrey Docks, but the GLC refused permission. Application was refused mainly on grounds of noise. When the GLC has refused permission, I do not think that there have been appeals against its decision.

The question is whether a demand exists. Perhaps the House will agree that the number of movements of which we have evidence and the interest in establishing other heliports shows that there is a significant demand. The Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority believes that London needs at least two heliports. He believes that one should be near the City and that the other should be close to the West End. That is a view which he has formed in advance of the final decision of a working party which the authority has set up to consider the matter. I see no reason to suppose that its views will be inconsistent with the situation as it is seen by the authority.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was right when he said that there is a chicken-and-egg situation. That is how the chairman of the authority sees the matter. He says, and I agree, that potential operators are unlikely to make a firm decision to acquire and operate helicopters until they know what use they will be able to make of them. Their main use will probably be from the centre of London to prominent parts of the United Kingdom, to the nearest parts of the European continent or to airports from which quick transfers can be made to fixed-wing aircraft for longer flights.

The potential demand is likely to be large once heliports are provided. There can be no doubt that the demand will grow. It is also true, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has said, that there are obstacles to be overcome. The principal obstacle is noise. I am slightly surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the number of complaints which he has received about night flights, According to the figures with which I have been supplied, there have been 40 night movements in the past five years through Battersea heliport. I should be surprised if they have generated a large number of complaints. The number of complaints which we receive about the night flights of aircraft over London bound for Heathrow is a great deal larger than the number of complaints received about the movement of helicopters. Many complaints are concerned with the alleged failure of pilots to keep to the correct routes rather than the noise they create.

There is some ground for hope. Helicopter noise arises much more from the rotors than from the engine. There are difficulties in finding ways of reducing the noise. Research work is being carried out by Westlands and at Southampton University to try to identify the sources of rotor noise. In the meantime, pilots are under instruction to maintain the maximum altitude compatible with air traffic control requirements. In view of the progress which has been made in the silencing of engines for much larger aircraft, it is fair to suggest that we may be able to look forward to progress being made in reducing the rotor noise of helicopters. It would be a mistake to conclude that progress is in sight or to write off the possibility of achieving something. We must bridge the gap.

We must also take safety into account. It is worth noting that the safety record of helicopters operating to and from Battersea is notable. In the past three years there must, by my calculations, have been at least 20,000 movements. During that time there have been only two accidents. Both accidents involved helicopters preparing for take-off. That is not a bad safety record. It is true that safety must be a prime consideration. I take the point that we must consider safety in terms of the height at which helicopters fly over London. That is a matter on which we must have the advice of the Chairman of the CAA and his experts. I shall ensure that the point is put to him and I shall reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North.

The Government's policy on the provision and development of airports is set out in the White Paper on Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigation Services published in 1961, which states the view that local authorities and other local interests are the best people to decide the needs and circumstances of their areas. This is a policy which has been followed by successive Governments. It has involved familiar planning procedures, and it places the onus on the Civil Aviation Authority—it appears in the White Paper on Civil Aviation Policy Guidance, Cmnd 4899 of 1972—to tell us what should be done. It would be premature for the Government to intervene unless and until that there is deadlock which justifies our doing so. All I can say is that this stage has not yet been reached.

I recognise that we need to get a move on in matters of this kind. We have the expectation of the report from the Civil Aviation Authority, which is due early next year, and I have meanwhile put it to the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority that we should have the opportunity, on the submission of that report, to clarify two points which seem to me to be important. The first is whether there is any objection in principle on the part of the GLC to the location of one or more heliports in the central London area. It is difficult to believe that there could be any objection. I am sure that the quotation from the agenda papers, of which we have been reminded, represents an attitude of the GLC which commands general support in this House: that the helicopter is here, that it provides a service, and that room must be found for it in the nexus of facilities which a great city like London needs. It is well to establish that the GLC and the CAA see eye to eye on this matter.

Another point to clear up is to ask the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority whether he will examine the criteria which the authority has applied to the provision of heliports. It seems to me that these criteria have been employed in such a way that people have inevitably looked along the banks of the Thames for heliport sites and that these are not necessarily the best places, because the fact that they are bounded by the Thames on one side means that for a radius of 180 degrees access is not of the best or fastest kind.

If it turns out that there are railway station sites or something of the kind which offer greater space and could be used as an alternative, this would widen the range of choice and would restore the position which existed previously when the Government were safeguarding part of the Nine Elms site as a possible heliport station—although that has been superseded by the allocation of the site to the Covent Garden Authority.

I have had to be brief as I have no wish to encroach further into the time allotted for the next debate, although we came under starter's orders rather late. I hope that from the studies which are being undertaken we shall get further information which will enable us to resolve what I regard as a matter of national importance. I recognise that there are legitimate claims of amenity on the part of local residents which cannot be overlooked or ignored, but I do not believe that it is impossible to find a way in which we can accommodate the legitimate interests of all concerned. I am certain that none of us would contemplate with indifference a situation in which Britain's capital city was denied helicopter facilities, and I certainly have no wish to see that situation come about.

In drawing attention to the Oldham Study and the new Strategic Plan for the North-West I wish to make clear that I do not propose to engage merely in an exercise of special pleading. I recognise that other regions besides the North-West, and other towns within the North-West besides Oldham, have as much right, and sometimes more right, to extra resources. What I am asserting is that the present system for allocating expenditure aids to the region is patently unsatisfactory, and that within a restricted system for giving aid, whatever form it might take, much more attention should be paid to the rather specialised problems of the North-West arising from its once crucial rôle as the cradle of the Industrial Revolution.

Both the reports which were commissioned by the Government, whilst they recommend certain procedural and organisational improvements, which I know have been noted locally, also make certain radical proposals for changing the balance and the pattern of expenditure on a major scale in order to achieve a regional revival. It is to probe the Government's attitude and intentions towards these proposals that I have sought this debate.

The basic justification for seeking a revamp of regional policy is that, after having been operated for a decade or more, it has achieved relatively little in mitigating the huge and indefensible inequalities between the regions that cost such a slur on the face of our society. There are several reasons. One is that attention has been focused almost exclusively on one criterion, albeit an important criterion—unemployment. Another is that the size of the expenditure devoted to regional aid has never been pitched at a level at which it might seriously be expected to redress this degree of imbalance. It has always been a matter merely of patching up the blackest defects.

The third reason is that Governments—one has to say both Governments—have clung tenaciously to the fallacy that merely topping up the main system of what is a virtually non-redistributive local authority rate support was sufficient to redress gross inequalities, and patently it is not.

What is refreshing about the strategic plan for the North-West is that all of this offers a breakthrough to new and better techniques, and I hope that the Government will respond imaginatively and constructively. The strategic plan argues that the criteria for overall regional allocation of resources should be not only employment opportunities but the need to improve the quality of life, particularly housing, the eradication of pollution, and the quality of the health, medical and social services, education and recreational and cultural facilities.

I am convinced this is the right approach. But if it is accepted, as I hope it will be, it has enormous implications, because the North-West turns out to be the worst off of all the regions in terms of air pollution, derelict land, the general mortality rate and the infant mortality rate. It is also revealed to have the poorest availability of doctors, the worst pupil-teacher ratio, the least open country recreation and the greatest river pollution. The North-West is also near the bottom of the league in terms of black areas not subject to smoke control orders. It has the smallest number of pupils remaining at school beyond the age of 16 and the smallest number of pupils in full-time further education. It is the lowest in urban open space provision and it lacks various recreational features.

That is a remarkable list of needs. The entire set of indices together demonstrate that there is no other region in Britain, with the possible exception in some respects of the Northern Region, that overall is in such bad shape. The point of the debate is that nowhere is that reflected in the degree of aid.

For that reason it is all the more important, with that degree of environmental, social, medical and recreational problems, that the North-West is nevertheless shown for the first time by the report to be comprehensively a long way from receiving due recognition of these factors in public expenditure terms. In 1964 it had the lowest per capita receipt of capital expenditure in the country and the third lowest per capita receipt of current expenditure. By 1970, admittedly, that had risen and in terms of per capita public investment in new construction it had risen to the average position, according to an Answer I received from the Department of the Environment on 26th January last year. But that is still a far cry from relating public expenditure closely to need. That is what the objective should be.

The strategic plan states:

"It has to be recognised that some of the resources which might be directed to remedying the ills of the North-West are being transferred to other regions where the indications are that the quality of life is already better."

Despite the velvet glove language, it would be difficult to find a more direct and straightforward indictment of regional policy than that.

The main reason why the North-West has so signally failed to obtain help in proportion to need is that the rate support grant suffers from a number of defects as a means of distributing subsidies to local authorities. It is only mildly redistributive and tends to trap local authorities in their own poverty. The latter is because any potential extra rate revenue which might accrue from new industrial development is offset, pound for pound, by reductions in the rate support grant; and it is only when an authority is above the national average in terms of the resources element that it begins to obtain a net financial gain from attracting additional rate revenue to its area.

Because it is the poorest authorities, many of which are in the North-West, which often have the severest problems, to use the average as the cut-off point for the resources payment merely ensures that there will never be more than partial progress towards establishing common standards of provision and services throughout the country. I hope that the Minister agrees that this is an unfair and discriminatory system which is bound to penalise local authorities which, like many in the North-West, are burdened by an accumulation of serious and expensive problems.

I ask the Minister, first, to what extent he accepts the proposals in the strategic plan for achieving greater equity. In particular, does he agree that we should be aiming at formulae which would equalise rate payments per house for each authority and for equalising the non-domestic rate poundage given standard expenditure? What is his response to the Oldham study recommendations set out on page 50 of the report:

"The Department of the Environment should consider making adjustments to the rate support grant formula to take greater account of urban obsolescence and the need to compensate for a low level of private investment.

The report goes on to suggest that the needs element in the rate support grant might also include the percentage of unfit houses and the lack of sanitary facilities and that the resources element might take into account low incomes and low rates of commercial floor space construction per head of the population.

Does the Minister agree with those formulae, or does he prefer alternative formulations directed towards the same end; or what guarantee can he give that in future expenditure will be proportional to needs as they are more comprehensively defined in the report? That is the key question. The essential point is that it is not enough merely to top up a virtually non-redistributive local authority grant with specific projects, as Governments of both parties have done, such as community development projects, educational priority areas and the urban aid programme. Welcome though these are in our area—and I should be the first to admit that the Oldham area has gained from them—they are on a relatively miniscule financial scale and are not even aimed at securing the across-the-board uplift in the regional quality of life which must be the objective.

The third and most essential part of the strategic plan concerns the estimate of expenditure which might be required over the next decade to transform the environment in all its manifold aspects. On the question of environmental pollution, in respect of which the North-West is assessed as being worse off than any other region, the plan estimates that

"to secure significant improvement in this decade"

will cost £300 million to £450 million, over three-quarters of which should go towards improving the quality of the region's rivers.

On current trends—and this is taken from the report which pre-dates the last public expenditure cuts—likely expenditure will be only £185 million. That is scarcely more than half of what is needed. Perhaps the most important single question that emerges from this debate is what proposals the Government have towards doubling the present target expenditure in the North-West in the light of this report which they commissioned.

The importance of this question lies in the dramatic effect which it has on the time-span of improvement that the North-West can look forward to. In respect of reclaiming derelict land, for example, it is a particularly vital factor. As the North-West plan says:

"If reclamation were maintained at a rate of 800 acres a year"

as it stands at the moment—

"existing dereliction would not be cleared until 1994."

Surely, that is not acceptable, quite apart from the fact that it takes no account of accumulated obsolescence in the meantime.

With regard to urban environment and all its interconnected social aspects—and one of the most distressing and difficult things is the way they interconnect—the strategic plan makes several important recommendations, and I urge the Minister to make clear the Government's reaction on each of these main points which I will detail.

First, there has been quite a sharp rise, which is very creditable, in the level of uptake of improvement grants. At this level it is estimated that it should be possible to secure within a decade—that is, the time-span of the report—the upgrading of all the 432,000 improvable private houses that were located by the Circular 50/72 survey. But, if such a rate of improvement is accepted as the long-term objective of regional policy, it will require, as the plan rightly puts it, the extension beyond June 1974 of the present temporary 75 per cent improvement grant. Although I am well aware that the Government have already turned this down, will they not now reconsider their decision rather than sacrifice a desirable objective that is probably considered now to be within our grasp?

Secondly, the strategic plan recommends, as a means of breaking the self-perpetuating cycle of educational deprivation, that the educational priority areas should be extended not only within the inner city areas but also to new housing on the peripheral estates where there are social problems. I am sure that is right, but do the Government accept that view?

Thirdly, the plan notes that the Northwest is badly provided for in terms of urban open space and recommends minimum aims for both urban parks and playing fields of three acres per 1,000 population. Oldham and Tameside, the new metropolitan districts, both have considerably less than half this at present. What is needed here are specific grants, with, I hope, flexibility for local authorities to deploy Exchequer aid within these areas as they see fit. Will the Government extend the countryside grants on the scale that is necessary to renew the environment in the way that is proposed in the report?

Fourthly, the plan suggests that in the past decade the availability of cheap industrial buildings, especially where they are no longer required by the textile industry, has slightly helped new enterprises to get a foothold in the region, especially in those areas that were formerly used by the textile industry. But the plan also takes the view that this advantage is generally outweighed by the environmental disfigurement which these buildings present and recommends that they should be progressively cleared.

I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will sanction the use of compulsory powers in respect of old and derelict buildings, even in those cases where there is no intention to engage in housing redevelopment. This change, although a relatively small one, could greatly improve the face of the Northwest.

Fifthly, in terms of employment opportunities the plan recommends that a labour subsidy, possibly an improved form of regional employment premium, is required to maintain a better balance between capital and labour incentives. This matter has been debated many times in the House, but in view of the clear evidence that capital investment is so often job contracting rather than job expanding, I hope that the Government might still be prevailed upon to think again on this issue.

Sixthly, the plan points out that while the North-West has a fair share of office employment, it is still weak with regard to higher-grade work, especially the headquarter or regional office component of manufacturing and service industries. It suggests that there are important multiplier effects to be reaped from the introduction of "higher order" type of office employment into areas with economic difficulties. What proposals have the Government to secure a better spread of this type of employment with such valuable side effects?

Lastly, the plan draws attention to the importance of the regional rail link. I quote from page 217 of the report:

"Achievement of the recommended land-use pattern is particularly dependent on improved access across the conurbations, especially in Greater Manchester. Here we think it most important that uninterrupted cross-conurbation connections should be provided on the north-south axis so that the present imbalance in economic and social fields should be minimised…. Hence we support the Piccadilly-Victoria network in general and the Piccadilly-Victoria link in particular."

It is particularly relevant that the Minister for Transport Industries in a Written Answer yesterday stated on the Piccadilly-Victoria project:

"I told the Chairman of the Selnec PTA last August that the project could in no circumstances start before 1975–76",

although it must be said that the Government have now relented on the principle of the project by making it subject to the new transport grant under the proposed local government legislation. There must, especially in present circumstances, be an overall ceiling on expenditure, but I still hope that, in view of the high strategic importance attached to this conurbation underground rail link, the Government might still deem it a waste of time to change these priorities in the meantime.

I believe that the strategic plan is a document of explosive significance. It is the first time that an official Government report has undertaken systematic interregional comparisons on a comprehensive set of indices. It lays a foundation, in a far more detailed manner than ever before, for a more rational channelling of resources into areas of greatest deprivation.

On the balanced assembly of all this evidence, the North-West is revealed for the first time as the worst-off region in the country, yet it is subject to a net loss of resources under current grant-aid policies. The plan in paragraph 292 comments on the need for

"… a massive injection of additional resources and consequently recommendations on revision of rate support grant, for reorganisation of specific grants, and for an additional regional fund for work outside other programmes ".

I hope the Government will respond to this report in an equally constructive and positive spirit since it is a report commissioned by the Government.

Perhaps I may respond first to the last remark made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I appreciate that the Government commissioned the report. We would not have done so had we not realised the problems of the North-West.

However, it is misleading of the hon. Gentleman to say that the North-West Region is the worst off in the country. He chose certain items which were tested in the strategy and said that in these respects the North-West was bottom of the league table or, at any rate, near the bottom. I shall come back to that again. I say only that to take a number of matters in which one region is worse off than others, even though there may be a considerable number especially, as in this case, does not service to the region when they are grouped together and given publicity in the Press to show that the North-West Region is the worst off in the country. I shall come back in a moment to why I deny the value of that sort of analysis, and I shall try to give some figures about it.

I compliment the hon. Member for Oldham, West on bringing to the attention of the House the two documents, the Oldham Study and the Strategic Plan for the North-West. However, I must disappoint him with regard to the second and the series of questions which he put to me on it.

A few prints of the Strategic Plan for the North-West were commissioned so that those whose comments we especially desired should have copies. I fear that the document itself, which is a massive one, needs very careful study. At this stage however, it is a discussion document, and it was only a few days ago that I directed that a copy of it be provided to right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies in the North-West, the report being their particular concern.

On a discussion document which still has to be considered by all the local authorities concerned and others and from whom the Government will look for comments which they will then consider in great detail and very carefully, I am unable at this stage to give Government decisions. It would be wrong for me to do so before hearing the comments of those who are interested in it, taking all those into account and giving them careful study.

This has been the practice in the preparation of regional strategies throughout the country. The previous Government set in hand the Regional Study for the South-East. They did it by getting together the Economic Planning Council for the South-East and the Standing Conference of Local Planning Authorities in the South-East. My right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, approved that Regional Study for the South-East after fully considering it, and after discussing it with all the authorities concerned.

Because of the success of that document we decided that each region should proceed with a regional strategy. The West Midlands was already dealing with a strategy for that area by means of the local planning authorities. But what I was eager to do was to get the regional economic planning council together with the standing conference of local planning authorities for a region to sponsor an expert team. That was what was done in the North-West Region.

I recollect well the meeting when this study was commissioned. It was a meeting held at Wigan between the Standing Conference of Local Planning Authorities and the North-West Economic Planning Council, and the Secretary of State took the chair. We set this in motion and it has been successful in producing a document for study, for discussion, for consultation and finally for decision as a framework for future planning in the area.

If we could have proceeded neatly and in order, it was my hope that we could have regional stategies for each region, that we could then proceed to have structure plans drawn by the counties and that we could then proceed to local plans drawn by the districts. But things cannot be done in that nice, neat order, otherwise we should take generations to complete them. Many studies have to go on concurrently. When we decide upon the regional strategy as a result of this report, the structure plans will have a framework in which to fit.

I say again that this is at the moment a consultation document, and I do not propose to give any Government decisions upon it.

I return for a few months to the Oldham Study, to compare the two documents. The Oldham Study was one of three studies—Sunderland and Rother-ham were the other two—set up in an effort to obtain guidelines on which to redevelop, to revitalise, our cities, which are often dependent on obsolescent industries. Where the industries on which a town has relied are changing and becoming obsolescent, new industries need to be attracted there. We wanted to see the right way to manage those towns and to attract the right kind of industry and to work out the change in the pattern—industrial, commercial and social—within the town.

We set up the study of these three towns so that this should be, not merely an academic study, but a study on the ground in real towns of real problems. The three reports are of very great value. I hope that we shall be consolidating our thoughts on these by means of a seminar of all those interested one weekend in the near future, to see how we can progress on the matters we can learn from the studies.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two points which were brought out by the Oldham Study. Each of these studies has brought out different aspects of the same problem. The problem is how to get a total approach to all the problems of a town—not merely physical planning, but the social, educational and employment aspects. We want to get a total approach to planning and management by local government in respect of those problems.

The Oldham Study and the North-West Regional Strategy call attention to the financial side of matters—the grants made by the central Government. The hon. Gentleman put some questions to me about the distribution of the rate support grant. I assure him that he was urging a willing horse, or knocking on an open door. In the formula for distribution of the rate support grant for 1974–75 we have already taken into account many of the matters which appear in these studies. The hon. Gentleman will find, if he refers to the present formula for distribution, which has been published in one way or the other in discussions with local authorities, that our great problem in working out the formula for 1974–75 has been that it has given such a lot to what might be called the deprived cities—the cities which need redevelopment so much—that it has put the whole distribution out of balance for the counties and we have had to feed in other formulae to get the spread a little more even.

The whole object of the new formula was to make exactly the sort of provision for which the hon. Gentleman was asking and which the Oldham Study and the North-West Regional Strategy called for. They both asked that we should give consideration to the towns which suffer most because of the derelict state of the town centres, due generally to a change in the industries there.

Oldham is the best example because, with changes in the textile industry, it has been left with many unused mills which clearly cannot be used for any other type of industry. As the hon. Gentleman said, the only thing to do is to get rid of them and redevelop. Considerable assistance has been provided by the central Government for coping with that sort of development by means of capital grants, and the new distribution of the rate support grant will be of great advantage.

The distribution of the rate support grant is not the only way in which these cities can be helped, and it was wrong of the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that very little help has been given to the North-West. The area has had considerable help from the Government in the last few years. The figures which the hon. Gentleman chose to give from the North-West Regional Strategy were based in some cases on a 1966 census and in other cases on 1971.

Since then, there have been significant developments. Because the North-West got off the mark quickly with Operation Eyesore, it derived greater benefit from it than any other region in the country. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right in saying that the North-West had more than one-quarter of the total finance laid out on Operation Eyesore.

The North-West has benefited enormously from the 75 per cent. improvement grant over the last few years and will continue to benefit in future, even though that 75 per cent. in general over the country will return to 50 per cent. because we are now to concentrate on properties and dwellings where improvements are so necessary—in the twilight parts of the greater cities. By concentrating on that rather than giving 75 per cent. improvement grants right across development areas, we shall serve the public much better.

I think I am again right in saying that more general improvement areas have been set up in the North-West than in any other region. It has benefited accordingly. In March 1972 intermediate area status was granted to parts of the North-West, and that was later extended throughout the area. The whole region became eligible for development grants for building, and it took advantage of them. Selective financial assistance under the Industry Act was also made available for modernisation schemes where previously loans and grants had been limited to schemes providing additional employment. Again the North-West was an area which particularly needed that kind of assistance, and it has taken advantage of the offers.

While recognising the need to modernise the industrial structure of the North-West, we have devolved a considerable amount of authority to the regions so that decisions can be made there quickly for those who want the help which they can get from selective assistance. The process of modernising industrial buildings is necessarily long, and there is still much to be done in the North-West. Nevertheless, our policies of national growth and regional aids have created the confidence necessary to industry to invest.

If we look at the fall in unemployment in the region, we see that there was a drop from 147,000—5·2 per cent.—in April 1972 to 82,000—2·9 per cent.—in November 1973. That was a fall of about 44 per cent. in unemployment.

I acknowledge that aid has been given in this patchwork form to which the Minister has referred. But is he not missing the whole point of the strategy plan, which is to draw attention to certain target levels of achievement on an across-the-board basis which should be achieved within 10 years; and the level of expenditure should be geared to achieve the common standards of provision and services which prevail in other parts of the country?

That is exactly the reason for regional strategies, to take an overall picture and to set targets for the future. In answering the hon. Gentleman, I was showing the aid which has been given up to the present. He cannot say that we have not in the past recognised the needs of the North-West Region. We have recognised those needs with some success, indicated by the figures which I gave on reduction of unemployment between 1972 and the present. The success is shown also by the fact that notified vacancies have risen almost two and a half times, from 16,400 in November 1972 to 40,800 in November 1973. Taking Oldham alone, unemployment has been almost halved over the past year from 3·1 per cent. in November 1972 to 1·6 per cent. in November 1973, which is well below the national average.

This is not piecemeal assistance. It may be assistance in a number of forms, but surely flexibility is needed in the forms of assistance to be given to an area. The same encouraging picture emerges from figures for selective financial assistance. Under the Industry Act up to the end of October last the offers of assistance totalling £7·5 million had been made in respect of 106 applications which were expected to result in creating or safeguarding over 8,000 jobs in the Northwest.

There is a similar story on industrial development certificates. In the year ended November 1973, 266 IDCs were granted for an area of 13½ million sq. ft., with estimated additional employment of nearly 18,000. That was about 3½ million sq. ft. more than in 1972. Also in the past year there have been 815 inquiries about industrial locations in the region, an increase of over 400 on the previous year. This shows an increasing interest in the region among industrialists. There has been help to service industries, provided that their move there would create at least 10 new jobs in the area. This has been a great help both in the south of the region, on Merseyside and in Manchester, as well as in the north. By these various means, which the hon. Gentleman calls piecemeal and which I say are flexible means of assisting an area, we have given real assistance to the North-West. To select for test those items which do not relate to all the factors affecting the quality of life, and merely to restrict oneself to narrow subjects, totting them up in order to say that the North-West is top or bottom of the league, or to say that the North-West is the worst served region, is not to make a true analysis of the position.

I take, for example, the suggestion that the North-West is worst in dereliction. The amount spent in the North-West on clearing up derelict land is greater than that spent in any other region. It starts off with a larger problem, and so the expenditure on it should be greater.

I have almost run over my time because there are so many points on which I would wish to answer the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he has put forward and categorised the points on which he wants answers. Essentially, however, he has asked me to answer the question whether I accept a document which has just been published as a discussion document upon which the Government will make up their minds in due course, when they have consulted and discussed the contents of it with the appropriate authorities, and studied those contents carefully, over the next few months. It is a little disappointing when my Department has had the courtesy to provide hon. Members from North-West constituencies with copies of this document then to find it said in the Press that Labour Members have discovered a secret weapon in an unpublished document. That remark appeared in The Guardian today. It is not a secret weapon. It is an unpublished document. It was provided for hon. Members—they did not discover it—so that they might assist in the discussions and consultations on the document.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity of answering those points. I shall certainly take into account all the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It may well be that we shall have an opportunity to discuss them further when the hon. Gentleman brings to me a deputation from Oldham during the next few days.

The object of this, the last of the Adjournment debates today, is to record the facts regarding the long-standing dispute between the East Riding Local Education Authority and the Governors of Beverley Grammar School and to ask my hon. Friend some questions.

This dispute has lasted for 10 years, during which time the position of the grammar school has been continually and deliberately eroded. It was only the recent and direct intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who will, I believe, be remembered as one of the great Ministers of Education of our day, that has enabled the position to be restored and the rights of parents to be vindicated.

The story starts right back in 1963, when public anxiety was expressed about the allocation of grammar school places to Beverley children, the lack of attention paid to parental wishes and the whole question of zoning. I had an Adjournment debate on these matters in July 1964. The then chief education officer of the East Riding, commenting on letters which appeared in the Press at that time, remarked that correspondents were erroneous, stupid, misinformed and educationally subnormal. These remarks set the tone for the subsequent relations between the parents and the governors on the one side and the LEA on the other.

In 1965 the LEA published its proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the East Riding. These proposed that the grammar school should become a second comprehensive school alongside Longcroft School. On this occasion the chief education officer remarked that, if the grammar school governors did not co-operate, either undesirable pressure would have to be brought upon them or other solutions, perhaps in the long run less suitable to them, would have to be sought.

I should point out that the grammar school is a voluntary aided school and its status cannot be changed without the governors' agreement. However, in order to effect a compromise which would preserve the high standard of this school, which incidentally is the third oldest grammar school in England and was founded in 700 A.D. by St. John of Beverley, the governors suggested that it should become a sixth form college and asked for consultation and discussions with the LEA. That was refused, in spite of the fact that Government Circular No. 10/65 said that it should take place.

At that time the chairman of the LEA stated that when proposals were definite parents would

"be informed fully and authoritatively".

In other words, there was to be no consultation; the parents were merely to be informed when the LEA had decided what should be done.

That led to a well-attended and indignant public meeting in 1966. The matter was finally referred to the then Secretary of State, who decided in the following year that a sixth-form college was unsuitable as there would not be enough potential sixth formers to make it worth while. The governors accepted that decision, and decided to carry on as a maintained grammar school.

The next stage in this saga was a request to the LEA for more secondary school places so as to make adequate preparations for the raising of the school leaving age. It asked for 300 places, all at Longcroft School. At the same time it cut the catchment area of the grammar school, removing the well-populated areas of Willerby, Anlaby and Kirk Ella, all in my constituency, and refused repeated requests to meet the governors to discuss the whole question.

In 1971 my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State approved 350 secondary school places, but allocated 290 of them to Longcroft and 60 to the grammar school. She also decided that Longcroft should become a fully comprehensive school with a six form.

At about that time I presented a petition to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the grammar school. That petition contained about 7,000 signatures, gathered in two weeks. It apparently had little effect on the LEA, and the catchment area was again cut by the LEA, Leven and Bransbarton being removed in 1970 and Market Weighton being removed in 1972.

In 1973 my right hon. Friend approved Cottingham's becoming a fully comprehensive school, a proposal which I supported. But I again pointed out to the Department, as I had on many occasions, the inevitable consequences of that decision on the future intake to the grammar school. For two years I had been urging the Department to take action over the grammar school's catchment area, which was being reduced year by year, but there was little result, except for a growing overcrowding at Longcroft School and some spare places at the grammar school.

However, the matter came to a head this year, when the normal intake of 60 at the beginning of the school year in September was reduced to seven out of 55 who sat for the examination in Beverley and one out of 24 in Cottingham, a total of eight instead of the normal 60. All other areas of the rest of my constituency and adjacent constituencies, except the towns of Beverley and Cottingham, had been excluded by the LEA.

As I had had a vast correspondence with the Department for years, I felt that there was now no alternative but to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State direct. She immediately took action. Having examined the position, she directed that the selection examination be retaken not only by those who had sat the examination in Beverley and Cottingham but also by boys of parents who had applied throughout the whole area, covering not only my constituency but the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), whom I am glad to see here this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). Thus the parents' rights under the law, which had been continuously whittled away by the LEA, were restored and safeguarded.

Unfortunately, that came very late in the day. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the tests are taken as soon as possible, that the normal and acceptable standards will be required, and that parents will receive adequate notification of their rights, as only the LEA has access to the addresses of parents of boys now at primary school of the right age to sit the examination. In this respect, will he bear in mind that the East Riding LEA goes out of existence at the end of March next year, when the new Humberside County Council takes over? It has already procrastinated for so long that at least one term's intake, and possibly two, for the grammar school have been lost. It may well intend to continue the process of procrastination until the last moment—namely, until it disappears at the end of March of next year.

It has been said that my right hon. Friend's decision will reintroduce selectivity. That has been said by some schoolteachers and it has been represented in the Press. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is not so and that selection must remain in respect of Beverley Grammar School? That does not necessarily mean the continuation of what is known as the 11-plus examination. That is the existing method of selection. The governors have suggested many other methods of selection to the LEA. The LEA has so far turned down those suggestions and has refused to discuss the matter with the governors.

I regret to say that there has been a certain amount of party political bickering on this matter in my constituency. That is regrettable. It casts doubt on the existing comprehensive schools being able to carry on alongside the grammar school. I believe that the comprehensive schools in my constituency, with possibly one exception, are excellent. I do not believe that they would suffer from a grammar intake provided that it was spread over a large area. That, of course, is my right hon. Friend's intention.

I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that, until and unless the law is altered, the grammar school will continue, if the governors so decide, and that selectivity will also continue. There are a number of different methods of selection which can be decided by agreement between the governors and the local education authority. This debate is in no way critical of comprehensive schools. I believe that such schools have an important part to play in our educational system, and certainly in my constituency. This matter illustrates only too clearly how the Secretary of State's intervention was required to preserve the rights of parents and their children, which the LEA has been resisting until the last moment.

I express my thanks, and the thanks of many of my constituents, to the Secretary of State. I remind my hon. Friend that time is now very short for my right hon. Friend's directive to be made effective. I hope that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to ensure that the directive is put into effect so that Beverley Grammar School will have its normal intake of boys in the coming January term.

I admire the vigour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) has pursued this case over the years. I sympathise very much with his concern for Beverley Grammar School. It has an incredibly long history and it has had excellent results. I confirm straight away that as it is a voluntary-aided school, only the governors may make proposals to change the character of the school. If they do not choose to do so, the school will remain as it is.

The position is—as it has always been in respect of grammar schools—that there is selection. There will continue to be selection. It is right that there is no one method of selection laid down from on high. Selection varies from one part of the country to the other.

It is not necessary to have what I assume my hon. Friend means when he talks about the 11-plus. One does not necessarily have to have that form of selection. It would be fair to point out that the schools of the local authority are held in high regard as, I believe, my hon. Friend acknowledges. It is possible that their success in offering a full range of courses for all shades of ability has had something to do with the fall in the number of people seeking and finding admission to Beverley Grammar School.

It has clearly been my right hon. Friend's policy that parents must have the right to choose, and in this case to choose education at Beverley Grammar School. My hon. Friend has summarised the long and rather tangled history. I shall not cover all the ground again which he covered, except to recap briefly. After my right hon. Friend's latest approval this summer of a comprehensive reorganisation proposal for schools at Beverley and nearby Cottingham, the authority was reminded that it did not remove the right of parents to choose a selective school, such as Beverley Grammar School, if it was suitable for their children and if places were available.

This was done because it had been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice by my hon. Friend and others that the authority had been refusing admission to selection tests to boys living outside the immediate vicinity of the school. The authority was warned that an unreasonable refusal to admit boys to the school could result in a direction under Section 68 of the 1944 Act being given by my right hon. Friend to the authority.

Towards the end of the summer holiday a number of parents complained on these grounds, and other parents whose sons had sat the selection test but failed complained about the conduct of the tests themselves which the authority was responsible for running. My right hon. Friend invited the East Riding Education Authority to give its observations on these complaints and took professional advice on the conduct of the tests. It was in the light of this and of the evidence before her that she concluded that the authority had acted unreasonably. She directed the authority to rerun the tests, to admit to further tests all candidates normally resident in the authority's area whose parents expressed or might express a wish to attend the Beverley Grammar School, and to spread out the tests over a period so as to avoid excessive fatigue in the candidates.

Following the issue of the direction on 24th October, the authority was sent a further explanatory letter enclosing the names and addresses of parents who had appealed to my right hon. Friend so that the authority could notify them of arrangements for further tests. It was pointed out that others might apply for admission to the tests as a result of learning of the direction, and that it was my right hon. Friend's intention that all who did apply within a reasonable period should be allowed to take these further tests.

The authority wrote on 5th November in response to the direction, claiming that the original tests were not unfairly administered and offering new information which again was carefully considered with the benefit of professional advice. In the light of this, my right hon. Friend concluded that there were no grounds for modifying the direction which had been issued.

While the authority's letter was under consideration my hon. Friend, as he will recall, wrote several times bringing to my right hon. Friend's attention further information about the conduct of intelligence tests and about the manner in which the authority was proposing to implement the direction. My officers wrote to the authority on 14th December, after considering the matter very carefully, because I think there were a number of important points to look at, and my officers reiterated the requirements of the direction and reminded the authority that it was not open to it to refuse entry to the tests to any boy solely on the ground that his parents had not previously asked for him to be tested. The letter did not ask the authority to write individually to parents other than those whose addresses had already been forwarded. Nor did it suggest that the tests should be invigilated by one of Her Majesty's inspectors, for reasons to which I will come later.

My hon. Friend has asked a number of reasonable questions. I hope that I have answered one or two of them about the future of the grammar school as a whole. On his further specific points I would say this. First of all, on the question of when the tests can be taken, my hon. Friend asked that they should be taken as soon as possible. At the present stage I must leave this to the authority. My right hon. Friend has made her wishes very clear and it is now for the authority to implement them as soon as possible. The authority has to be allowed adequate time to receive applications for the tests and to make arrangements for them.

In view of the questions raised since the issue of the direction by the authority, by the school governors and by my hon. Friend, and of the requirement that tests be spread over a period, the authority could not have been expected to complete the further tests in time for an additional intake for the school for January, but I should expect the authority to run the tests early in the new year and I can assure my hon. Friend that I am watching the situation very closely.

On the question whether adequate notice was given to parents of their rights, I feel that in the light of the widespread publicity that my right hon. Friend's direction has received in the local and national Press, and, I understand, on local radio, and the publication by local head teachers of resolutions concerning the actions of the authority and of my right hon. Friend, notice of the new tests can hardly have been missed by any parent who is really interested in securing a place at the school. In other words, I feel that it has been well publicised and I should be surprised if there were parents who were not aware of what was happening, and I am sure that this debate will add further publicity.

The authority's failure to do as my hon. Friend has suggested could not be regarded as unreasonable, and my right hon. Friend therefore feels that she would not be justified in giving a further direction in this matter. It has been suggested that she might appoint one of Her Majesty's inspectors to invigilate these further tests. I must emphasise that the local education authority is entirely responsible under the articles of government of the school, which of course are approved by my right hon. Friend, for deciding which candidates are qualified for admission to the school by reason of ability. My right hon. Friend therefore has no power to intervene in the supervision of the tests unless they have been or are clearly going to be improperly administered.

But these are in fact standard tests administered by a standard method and their invigilation as such has never been in question. In practical terms, moreover, invigilation by one of Her Majesty's inspectors would not achieve the result that my hon. Friend desires. He referred earlier to the loss of public confidence in the area, and we feel that the substitution of one of Her Majesty's inspectors for the authority's invigilator could only lower confidence in the authority still further. If the running of the tests leads my right hon. Friend to conclude that the authority has acted unreasonably, she will, of course, consider what appropriate action she should take, but she cannot deduce from the results of the earlier tests that the new tests will be improperly run.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall watch this matter closely, but I should like to conclude by saying that we have to remember that education is designed fundamentally as a local authority service. Powers of direction exist under the 1944 Act, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that they are powers to be taken up only in exceptional circumstances, and we should be reluctant to extend them still further. They are essentially powers to be taken after careful consideration and as a last resort. However, again I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to keep a close watch in this matter. I hope that all will go well and that the Beverley Grammar School will continue to serve the community as notably as it has for so many years.

Before my hon. Friend sits down, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you a very happy Christmas.