With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the mayors, aldermen and burgesses of the London boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Southwark. My hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) wish to be associated with me in presenting this petition.

The petition sheweth

That these authorities wish to express their concern at the continuing decline of industry in London, in part brought about by successive Governments through the implementation of office location and industrial development certificate policies; at pockets of unemployment in South London masked by the generally favourable conditions of South-East England; at the discrimination against London in certain investment policies; at the possibility of a reduction in the exemption limits for Industrial Development Certificates from 10,000 to 5,000 square feet; at the seeming indifference of successive Governments to the effects of their policies on employment prospects in London.

The petition is under the common seal of the respective councils and signed by their mayors, leaders and chief executive officers.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition, signed by 1,524 citizens of the town of Market Weighton in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Their grievance is the growing flow of heavy lorries which pour into and through the busy narrow main street. The danger to shoppers is evident from the number of accidents which have occurred. Parents are increasingly anxious for the safety of school children. Those who live in the main street are afflicted by intolerable and increasing noise. The opening of the Humber Bridge will release an additional stream of traffic into the already overburdened main street.

The petition reads

"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled."

The petition sheweth

"That the centre of the town of Market Weighton is rendered intolerably noisy and dangerous by the passage of heavy traffic. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that a By-Pass to Market Weighton be constructed without delay, and that the By-Pass be completed before the opening of the Humber Bridge. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray."

Before I call upon the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) to ask his Private Notice Question, I would point out that this is a private Member's day. Because of that, I had certain misgivings about allowing it. There has been an increasing encroachment on private Members' time recently.

(By Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about his recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

I spent three days in Riyadh between 9th December and 12th December. I was received by His Majesty King Faisal and the Second Deputy Prime Minister Prince Fahd. I met leading members of the Council of Ministers. I had a number of meetings at the Ministry of Finance with Prince Musa'id, the Minister of Finance; the Minister of State for Finance and National Economy, the Governor of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency and officials of the Ministry of Finance were present.

We discussed international economic questions of common interest. I had an opportunity to tell the Minister of Finance about the initiative I took at the annual meeting of the IMF for an enlarged recycling facility; and about developments on this since. I found him very receptive.

There was very positive interest in the development of closer economic and industrial co-operation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. It was agreed that a committee of officials from the two countries should meet in Riyadh in February to discuss in detail plans for increasing cooperation and the means by which they should be implemented—including the possibility of a Joint Commission.

The discussions were very friendly and constructive.

Are we then to take it from the Chancellor that his discussions were exploratory and long term rather than about any specific and immediate problems? Have there been no new developments in the way in which Saudi Arabia will put its money in this country, either in the manner or term of putting it here? In particular cannot the Chancellor say something about the concern which was caused while he was away by the decision of Saudi Arabia, which, I think, followed a decision by Kuwait, that it would in future expect to have payment for oil entirely in dollars? While what matters in the end is what they do with the money when they have it, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has caused a grave disturbance to confidence? If the reasons are purely technical, it is important that he should explain exactly what they are.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the discussions we had on the International Monetary Fund facility were most urgent. They were about a plan which is to be discussed at the Interim Committee of the IMF in Washington in a few weeks' time. I was gratified to find that the Saudi authorities are in principle in favour of the plan, although they want to see the details before they decide to what extent and on what scale they co-operate.

On the question of bilateral relations with Britain, I can tell the House that the development of a medium-term programme for increasing trade will begin with the meeting of a joint working party drawn from officials from the two coun- tries in February. I also arranged for Lord Ashby to visit Saudi Arabia in a few weeks' time to discuss with the Saudi authorities the development of university education in Saudi Arabia—something on which they wish to have the closest co-operation with the United Kingdom. They wish the two Governments to draw up a general agreement on co-operation in education.

On the question of investment in Britain, the Saudi Ministers made it clear that they intend not only to maintain but to increase their holdings of currency in this country and to develop investment in many fields.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's final question, the Saudi Ministers I met were as surprised and dismayed as I was by the reports which reached the capital on Wednesday that companies were selling sterling to meet tax and royalty payments in dollars. I was told that, as I think Sheik Yamani said in Vienna this morning, the decision was purely in order to simplify matters. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the arrangements by which American companies pay some sterling for their oil dates back for many years.

The important thing is that the Saudi authorities plan to maintain and increase their investment in this country. The difficulty this week arose from the accident that Aramco was not given notice of the decision until it had already bought sterling simply for the purpose of paying these royalties. The result was that the company unloaded the sterling in a hurry when it received the information, and that led to the flurry we had earlier in the week.

But I am glad to tell the House that the knowledge that the Saudi Government intend to increase rather than reduce their holdings in this country has already led to an improvement in sterling on the exchange markets this morning.

Does the Chancellor agree that in the jittery state of world markets for all currencies, in so far as the Aramco suggestion can now be denied, it would have been helpful, and will be helpful in the future, if denials could be made more quickly than they were on this occasion, when we had to wait for some days, and the right hon. Gentleman's return, before the position was put right?

Secondly, in the light of his talks with the Ministers in Saudi Arabia, does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that the case is strengthened for a meeting between the Ministers of the oil-marketing countries and the oil-exporting countries?

It would always be convenient if things happened with proper notice and rumours did not spread, but it is beyond the power of any Government or collection of Governments to ensure that things always happen in the best possible way. However, it was fortunate that I happened to be in the Saudi capital at the time, because I was able to obtain the assurances to which I have referred about the increase in Saudi investments in this country.

With regard to meetings between the oil producers and the oil consumers, I believe that if the Interim Committee of the IMF adopts the plan for recycling which I proposed, and on which its staff have been working, that will be by far the best way of starting this type of dialogue, since both producers and consumers recognise a common interest in establishing a secure location for part of the petro-dollar surpluses, from which they can be recycled to countries which will inevitably have oil deficits for the time being.

There are differences of opinion between the United States Government and some European Governments on the question how discussion between the producers and consumers should be achieved. But I hope that President Giscard d'Estaing's forthcoming meeting with President Ford in Martinique will achieve a meeting of minds and a programme in this matter.

On the vexed question of recycling the petro-dollars, does my right hon. Friend agree that Dr. Kissinger's proposals for a mutual arrangement through OECD has much to recommend it?

I think that there is a place for a proposal along those lines, although many Governments, not least the Governments of the oil-producing countries, have felt that the way in which the proposal was initially made smacked too much of confrontation rather than dialogue between consumers and producers. Provided the IMF facility is launched in January, it should be possible to reach agreement on a plan for a common trust fund of the type that Dr. Kissinger has adumbrated. But I suspect that it will be some time before detailed agreement can be reached on that proposal.

Is the Chancellor aware that whatever method may be selected— whether the Healey proposal as it is understood or Dr. Kissinger's proposals for the recycling of oil funds—it seems as if the country will be burdened with ever-increasing debt expressed in foreign currencies? Is he aware that that prospect is not one that appeals to the people of our country? Does he not now think that further measures are required, considering the trade figures announced yesterday, to put our house in order? When will he announce such measures?

On the question of debt, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the last Conservative Government who started borrowing money on a large scale from the oil producers to finance a non-oil deficit. We have continued the arrangements they made in order to finance an oil deficit, from which nearly all countries are suffering. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner we can dispense with the need for that type of borrowing, the better. One of the advantages of the agreement I reached in Riyadh is the prospect of a big increase in British trade with Saudi Arabia, which will reduce the size of the deficit requiring to be financed.

Is the Chancellor aware that what he said about increasing trade is welcome? It is an important part of a solution, although not the most important part. But does he agree that British exporters have been very slow to get into the new market in the Middle East? Japan has increased its exports to the Middle East by four times in the past year. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the matter is treated as one of great urgency?

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, although it is a creditable fact that we have maintained our share of Saudi trade in the past year. But we have not increased our share as we should have been expected to increase it in view of our experience in the Middle East. Many British companies are achieving great success in their efforts to export to Saudi Arabia, but I think that many companies are not making the efforts they should be making. I hope that the establishment of an inter-governmental framework for encouraging and monitoring trade between our countries may be of some assistance.

On the very important question of investment, is there not likely to be an increasing investment in real estate and industrial equity in this country? In view of the implications of that, will the Chancellor seriously consider taking action to prevent a majority shareholding by foreigners in major British companies? Will he at the very least make such moves subject to parliamentary approval?

I am well aware of the point the hon. Gentleman makes. I think he would agree that it is desirable that the funds of the oil producers should be invested not only in monetary instruments but in productive enterprise. At the same time, it is the responsibility of any British Government to ensure that industries of strategic or economic importance do not fall under foreign control. It is not possible under the existing regulations for a foreign body to acquire more than a 10 per cent. share in a British firm without specific authority from the Government. I recognise the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. The Government intend to ensure that the matter is kept under review. I do not think that Parliament would wish me to consult it on every matter in which something over 10 per cent. was in issue. If there were any question of the Government's wishing to endorse a very large investment they would, of course, consider bringing the matter to the House.

rose—

Was the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in the Chamber when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his original answer?

I had problems with my taxi, Mr. Speaker.

I have made it a strict rule not to call hon. Members if they have not heard the original answer.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that to some of us who visited the Middle East in recent months his statement sounds a little like too little too late? Is he aware that he is the first Minister to have visited the Arab countries since the Labour Government came to power in March? Further, is he aware that the French Government, for example, have had Ministers scouring the Middle East countries and that as a result the French have announced in the past year a series of deals of selling exports forward worth more than £5,000 million? We welcome the fact that an inter-Government framework has been set up. Will the Chancellor take this opportunity of implementing a crash programme to restructure the Development of Trade Overseas Projects Group and other institutions connected with exports to the Middle East so that we can catch up with other European countries?

As I have pointed out, we have more than maintained our share of trade with Saudi Arabia. I think that the complaint made by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) is unjustified. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, now that the inability of the private banking system to receive very much more than short-term money is being demonstrated the scope for more comprehensive agreements with the oil-producing countries, both on trade and on finance, is open. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the present Government intend to maintain a programme of visits of the nature of the visit that I have just carried out.

You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that on 4th July the House resolved to make a gift of a mace to the legislative assembly of Western Samoa. On 30th October the House gave leave of absence to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and myself to go to Western Samoa for that purpose. We were accompanied by Mr. John Sweetman, one of the Deputy Principal Clerks of the House. I pay tribute to him and record appreciation of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West. The success of our mission was in no small measure due to the splendid teamwork which we enjoyed.

We travelled half way round the globs. We spent more time travelling than that which we spent in Western Samoa. The travelling which we undertook caused us to lose a Friday in one week and to put two Sundays into the following week as a result of the complications that arose by crossing the international date line.

We arrived in Western Samoa on 9th November. We immediately had the honour of calling on Mr. Speaker, The Hon. Toleafoa Talitima, to whom we conveyed your personal message, Mr. Speaker, which you had entrusted in my care.

I am pleased to report to the House that on 12th November the mace was presented in the lovely new circular Chamber now enjoyed by the legislative assembly of the beautiful country of Western Samoa. The ceremony was dignified and moving. It had a sense of quiet beauty which I shall never forget. The mace itself was a thing of beauty, a work of art that was the essence of British craftsmanship

In my speech I explained the symbolism of the mace. I explained that it linked the traditions of Western Samoans of the past who had created so much of community values throughout the whole of Polynesia with the forward-looking and modern attitudes of their country today. I emphasised that the House made this gift in no patronising manner. I explained that it was given in a fraternal spirit, as one brother to another, as equals, and that the mace can well be dedicated to the brotherhood of man.

After the ceremony the Prime Minister moved a motion of thanks in these terms:

"We, the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Independent State of Western Samoa in Parliament assembled, express our sincere thanks to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom for the Mace, which, by direction of Her Majesty the Queen, it has presented to this House. We accept this generous gift as a token of the friendship and goodwill of the House of Commons towards the Legislative Assembly and the people of Western Samoa. This Mace will ever serve to remind us of the great tradition of Parliamentary Government which we. as Members of the Commonwealth, have inherited from the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

The motion was carried unanimously and I respectfully ask that it be recorded in the Journal of the House.

It may interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair in the Chamber of Western Samoa can, by the pressure of one finger, curtail any hon. Member whose speech may be too long-winded. We have much to learn from Western Samoa.

Finally, I wish to record the warmth of friendship with which the people of Western Samoa surrounded us at every stage of our visit. We found ourselves made to feel "at home" on an island in which unaffected smiles and happy faces are the norm. The tensions, pressures and anxieties which accompany so many of the industrialised nations seem completely absent.

In its march towards progress the islands will need technical assistance. I am confident that the United Kingdom will play its full part in filling that need.

I record our thanks to our hosts in Western Samoa for innumerable kindnesses and for their hospitality. I thank the high commissioner for his complete devotion to ensuring that all went well with our mission. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the privilege you gave us of being part of an historic occasion and for entrusting us with so pleasant and satisfying a mission.

I add a few words to confirm what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has said. I cannot call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend, but he has become a friend. We had a very happy trip.

I have only one word of criticism. The House spent a large sum in sending the three of us half way round the world, yet we spent only three and a half days in Samoa. We saw the capital town of only one of the four inhabited islands of Samoa. A further three days at infinitesimal cost would have brought great benefits. We would have had the opportunity of offering our good will to the whole country. An extra three days would have enabled us to see something of the country itself. Apart from that, I have no words of criticism.

I should like to add that we received great help from our high commissioners both in Fiji and in Samoa. Mr. Arthington Davis of Samoa was particularly energetic. He obviously knew the country extremely well. He was by our side all the time. To me the day of great interest was the one day we spent out of the capital going inland into the plantations. To my great surprise—the House will realise my great interest—I saw 800 beautiful Hereford cattle on the hills.

My memory of the visit is of lovely, dignified, happy people. I only hope that civilisation will not spoil them.

The House will want me to thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) for the way in which they carried out their mission on behalf of the House. This I gladly do. I have noted with interest the "button" idea and perhaps that may be considered further for the House itself. I shall ensure that the resolution passed at the ceremony of the presentation of the mace is entered in the Journal of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the motion which we are about to discuss reference is made to the Windsor free pop festival. The motion suggests that the festival is an example of the disregard for the observance of law. I understand that police proceedings are still pending against the promoter of the festival. I suggest that any reference to it in the course of the debate may be in breach of the sub judice rule.

The implementation of the sub judice rule is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. We shall have to see how we get on.

I beg to move,

That this House expresses its concern at the increasing disregard for the observance of law, of which the so-called Windsor free pop festival is but one example; regards the present escalation of acts of vandalism, violent crime, hi-jacking and terrorism as a threat to our way of life; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary measures, such as increasing the size of the police force and special constabulary and reviewing penalties both for acts of terrorism and other crimes, to restore the rule of law.

I am grateful for this opportunity, even on Friday 13th. I am also grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for standing up for the right of back benchers to have a full debate on a Friday. I have also noted what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said about the length of speeches and I assure the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) that I am fully cognisant of the sub judice rule and will be careful not to infringe any of the attendant restrictions.

It is always an honour to speak in this House and to have the first innings. I have always thought that if an hon. Member puts down an Early-Day Motion, he should discuss it. I have two motions down. The first refers to the restriction of length of speeches and has fortunately, by kind permission of the Leader of the House, been referred to the Procedure Committee. It is drawn so as not to apply to the opening and closing speeches, so it would not apply to mine this morning. The second motion relates to terrorism. This has already been debated this week, but there is no restriction on its being discussed today as well. My motion today is widely drawn to give hon. Members the opportunity to discuss these important matters on a wide scale. It was also drawn before the business of the House, relating to so many matters of law and order, had been announced.

My theme is the disregard for law in this country, which emanates first from control in home and school. I then want to deal, subject to the strictures of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, with a specific case of law breaking in my own constituency which has been witnessed for three years at the Windsor pop festival. I shall then deal with some of the more violent and worrying crimes like vandalism and terrorism and how they can be reduced.

We face two grave problems—inflation, of which the papers warned us again today, and the breach of law and order. I do not suggest that inflation is the cause of crime, because that was already on the increase before the present inflationary spiral, but the general lack of confidence in the security of our currency and economic affairs does not help the general regard for law and order.

In the last 10 days, reflecting the public will, Parliament has had a number of chances to debate specific aspects of law and order. I hope that the country realises that, whatever the decision on Wednesday, the House is fully aware of the real dangers which face us.

We must separate ordinary breaches of law and order, which we all deplore, from the quite different crime of terrorism, which threatens the pattern of our society. Where do these trends start? A prosperous society should have brought a fall in the crime rate, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said in a debate on 25th July, that has not happened. In a more prosperous society, crime is increasing.

The fundamental failure lies in children's formative years at school. School and parents both have a duty. Our society has a high rate of divorce, and large numbers of one-parent families and of what we call "latch-key children". Truancy is not always the child's fault. Perhaps school discipline has been lax for many years, but parents often fail to back up the authorities. The situation was not helped by the 1969 Act, which passed authority from the courts to the local authorities.

First, I believe that it is incumbent on the parent to ensure that his child attends school and that failure to do so should be recorded so that when an unreasonable level is reached the parent can be prosecuted to make him realise his duty not only to society but to his own child, to ensure that he gets proper discipline and an orderly education.

Second, parents should be made vicariously liable for the misdeeds of their children. I know that this is possible in a very limited number of cases, but parents should have a further liability to make them control their children better. The root of the trouble is discipline in school and home. There is a tendency for parents to blame the school but there is a joint responsibility of schools and parents. Third, we should be trying to ensure by studying these two aspects of our life that we build a foundation of law and order.

I turn now to a technical subject which I do not expect many hon. Members to understand. I refer to a deliberate breach of the park regulations passed by resolution of this House. This relates to the holding of the Windsor free pop festival. Although this is a local issue at the moment, it is becoming so widespread that it will soon be a national problem. I am not against pop festivals. If people wish to enjoy themselves in this way, that is their business, but the cardinal rules are that those festivals should be properly organised, should be legal and, more important than anything else, should not interfere with the peace and quiet and ordinary lives of other citizens.

The situation is complicated, because such activities at Windsor are controlled by a number of Acts of Parliament dating from 1872—an Act that was re-enacted in 1973—so we consider this problem in the context not just of pop festivals but of the law.

Two pop festivals were held with the local authority's consent in 1966 and 1967. They were held in an area called the Balloon Meadow, which is far too small even if it could be used now, and I understand that in any case the owners are not prepared for it to be so used. Those two festivals gave rise to a certain amount of trouble. Local residents were worried about noise, nuisance and all the things that accompany pop festivals—but those festivals were not to be compared with the festival which occurred in 1972.

In 1972 the whole situation changed completely, because, without so much as anyone's leave, Windsor Great Park was used. In 1972, 1973 and 1974 the festivals were illegal. Such a festival is contrary to park regulations and is clearly outside the law. Over 7,000 people attended. They were there illegally. They caused considerable trouble to local residents and made a mess of the area.

It was called a free pop festival, but it was not free, because it cost the ratepayers about £75,000 and involved the exercise of 700 police over the bank holiday. Police, like anybody else, like to have their bank holidays free. Police had to be called in from the whole of the Thames Valley.

I pay tribute to the police. I am certain that they did their best in the most difficult circumstances. They were faced with a problem which was far too great for them to tackle under the existing circumstances.

The second objection is that Windsor Great Park is enjoyed by thousands of people every day. People walk through it and enjoy its amenities. The holding of this pop festival denied many thousands of people the opportunity of using the park. The laws of the park specifically lay down that people may enjoy the amenities of the park.

The principal legal offences were the lighting of fires, which caused the destruction of a large number of trees and caused a great deal of damage, the playing of music, and camping. These are clearly against the law.

I may be asked why these people were not cleared off when they there were only 500 there on the Friday but were allowed to build their numbers up to 7,000, when the whole exercise became completely out of control. I believe that the answer is that mob rule prevailed and the police did not feel able to move these people on on the first day because even with the numbers of policemen there, they could not carry out the exercise.

The Windsor pop festival, which is advertised extensively all over the Continent, consists of three entirely different elements. The first element is the genuine family man who thinks the pop festival is fun and who does not realise it is illegal. Unfortunately, intermixed with those people are the drug pushers. I shall not cite the number of convictions, for I know that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central will pull me up sharply if I say anything about that. However, I can say that last year—this is not sub judice—there were a large number of convictions for drug pushing. This was very serious for the citizens of Windsor.

There is another danger, in that the festival is held on what is known as the cavalry exercise ground, and is close to the Long Walk and the approaches to Windsor Castle. So far, we have had no trouble in that regard, but it is a matter to be considered.

People will ask, why cannot an alternative site be found? We have tried, but without success. It may be that one can be found in Chobham or elsewhere. People may well say, "You do not want the festival on your own doorstep, so you want to push it off on to somebody else's." There is an element of truth in that. The local authorities have tried to find a suitable site where offence will not be caused. There is no site near to Windsor Great Park which is not close to houses or to crops and which would not cause offence.

If an alternative site were to be found, the right thing would be to move these people, who arc breaking the law. However, if an alternative site cannot be found, we must face the facts. The offence occurs not when people arrive but when they spend the night there, light a fire, or erect a tent.

Many of us have looked carefully into the legal aspects of this matter. It is my understanding that the police have the authority to move these people on as trespassers providing that the Crown Commissioner's give them instructions. It would be no use the commissioner's not giving adequate warning. The proper method would be for the commissioners to take every step to warn people that they were indulging in illegal activities. The commissioners could erect notices at the railway station and wherever they thought fit.

The commissioners have a duty to society to tell the chief constable, "If this happens again we shall call upon you to use all your authority to clear the site. It is up to you to judge how many policemen you need. If you need more police, you will have to call on other authorities." It would be cheaper and far more effective if the festival were stopped on the first day. It would stop the offence to local people and stop breaches of the law. The House has passed laws and they should be observed. It is our duty to ensure that they are observed.

The primary aim must be to prevent trespass. I pay special tribute to the Home Secretary. He has been very sympathetic, helpful and understanding. A petition has been organised among the local residents, objecting to the festival. Seven thousand names have been appended to it and it will be submitted to me soon. The Home Secretary said in answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled by me:

"The primary aim must now be to avoid a recurrence of a similar situation in future years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 195.]

I therefore believe that we should use the police. This is not an operation in which the military should be involved. Military installations such as barracks can easily be used. It would save a lot of money. There was a slight misunderstanding last year at the last minute, but I do not think this will happen again. I do not think anyone will argue that military installations—free accommodation—should be denied to the police. So long as the Army is not involved in the operation and the police are merely using the accommodation and the facilities, there can be no objection, because this reduces the expense to the ratepayers and makes the task of the police much easier.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will endorse my view that it should be the duty of the Crown Commissioners to use their powers to instruct the chief constable of the Thames Valley Police that they do not wish such a festival to take place and that it is his job to take sufficient measures to ensure that it does not occur, on the grounds of trespass.

This pop festival has illustrated the state of recruitment in the police force. Obviously we need more police. I believe that we should be looking for a great increase in the strength of the special constabulary, because this is a force which can stand by and help. This is the right argument to use to such misguided people as the Stirlings and the Walkers, who want private armies to be set up. Let us have sufficient regular police and special constables and say, "We do not need your private armies. We are quite capable of carrying out this duty ourselves." The Home Secretary has stressed this recently. Economies must be effected in public expenditure, but not in external or internal defence, which is so vital to our survival as a civilised nation.

It is well known that I have far more sympathy with the victim than with the criminal. I believe that we should ensure that when in prison convicted persons do active and useful work and that, on their release, they should continue to pay for the damage they have done to others, by paying something each week.

We have already had a short debate on terrorism. Hon. Members appreciate that every effort was made to ensure that as many took part in that debate as was possible. I have deliberately included this subject in the terms of my motion because I realise that many hon. Members may like to raise the subject. This is one of the most terrible features which society has seen for a long time. It is not only the IRA which is involved. There may well be other forces determined to destroy our society.

Terrorism, whether committed on land, sea or air, should be in a special criminal category. I shall not go into the question whether it should come under the law of treason, but this is an offence quite separate from others. It has now been defined in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is a determined drive to break up our orderly society. It is a premeditated, planned act. I do not believe that the death sentence is a deterrent for the person who plants the bomb. Organisations can find plenty of lunatics to do that. What I do suggest is that everyone who is involved in this offence should be liable to the death penalty.

I am glad to point out that there are at least 81 other hon. Members who agree with me about this. The man who makes the fuse for the bomb and the man who lends his car should be made to realise that it is not just the person who commits the act of planting the bomb who would be liable to the death penalty. We have rehearsed all the arguments about Northern Ireland and organised terrorism. I am impressed by the result of a survey which shows that 75 per cent. of the people think that some form of death penalty should be reintroduced for terrorism. We have to be sensible about this. We are looking not for reprisals or recrimination but for a deterrent.

The Home Secretary was absolutely right when he said that the greatest deterrent was that the police should catch those responsible for these crimes. We all pay tribute to the police for what they have done recently. But each of us has to decide whether the present penalty is sufficient to deter people from committing this ghastly crime.

If we want to preserve our society there is a duty on us to play our part, whether as parents or citizens. All members of society must do all that they can—so many fail—to back up the rule of law and rebuild the standards of life in this country which have been so highly prized throughout the centures. We must make sure that the citizen plays his part in the orderly and happy society which we all want to see.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) on the way in which he has introduced his motion. He spoke with great responsibility and restraint. I did not find myself in complete agreement with him, particularly during his references to capital punishment. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised about that. Since we have recently debated capital punishment I do not intend to refer to it today.

In the present climate of opinion this motion is highly timely. The hon. Member mentioned other initiatives by General Walker and Colonel Stirling in forming bodies of people whom they claim have come forward voluntarily because of what they consider to be the serious law and order situation. I do not believe that the idea of law and order is a cliché. Without law and order, rights cannot be asserted or obligation exacted. Nor can a moral order of things arise in which man can transcend the dictates of greed or passion. It is an extremely important subject. There are indications that some people are tending to underestimate the problem just as there are others who are exaggerating it.

I wish to address myself to those who tend to underestimate this problem. There has been an increase in crimes of violence and disorder. The Chairman of London Transport recently saw the Home Secretary to discuss the issue of violence on the Underground, particularly on the Northern and District lines, the latter of which affects my constituency. There are certain problems arising on Saturdays as a result of the exodus of football supporters. There are also problems connected with night buses. I know that other areas have similar problems. There is a grave concern about this and I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to it in replying.

There is also concern about the spread of violence and a certain amount of intimidation in our schools. Here again I am addressing myself to those who underestimate rather than those who exaggerate this issue. There are those who exaggerate it and say that it has something to do with the method of schooling. I do not believe that to be the case, although I do believe that it has something to do with the size of the school. That is another argument, however.

I do not believe that it is in any way related to comprehensive schools. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that a member of the Royal Family was recently involved in some sort of schoolboy prank. Sometimes these things can be exaggerated. The Press picks them up and gives an impression of general violence. While I am not necessarily saying that this applies in my constituency, although it is not immune, teachers in a number of London schools have recently become deeply concerned about the school atmosphere. This is a subject which can be dealt with in a responsible way. Ultimately it is something which can be resolved only in the home. This is not something with which policemen or headmasters alone can deal.

The much more general problem concerns respect for the law. I do not shirk mentioning the subject of picketing and the problems arising from that. Much of the criticism of a rather famous case, about which we can now talk because it has gone through all stages of appeal, arises partly because of the particular part of the law which was used to prosecute the people involved. No one would deny that violent picketing is a direct threat to law and order and must be challenged. I would not be soft on anyone who in any sort of picket situation used violence. We must assert that strongly. In the present climate there is an automatic feeling that almost anything can go. I do not share that view. My reservation in this case has more to do with the law which was used than the behaviour of the men concerned. I have no sentiment over that and I condemn the use of violence. Whether the matter was prosecuted in the right way is a subject for debate.

The motion refers to the strengthening of the police force and, in particular, the special constabulary. The role of the special constabulary has, for a number of years, been greatly underestimated. It plays a vital rôle in supplementing the work of the regular police force. The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) mentioned this recently in a debate on the police, and I found myself in general agreement with his comments.

I should like to propose that if the present trends continue—we hope they will not—and there are signs that the regular police force is unable to cope with the situation of petty and senseless violence, the Home Secretary might consider the reintroduction of a police reserve similar to the old War Reserve, which was a part-time force containing the elements of the former special constabulary and which also attracted retired policemen and other people having relevant experience.

I do not say that in any dramatic way as if the situation is so serious that such a force must be formed tomorrow. However, if the situation continues to deteriorate and the work of the regular police is therefore made more difficult, particularly in respect of the recent IRA and anti-terrorist legislation, the Government might consider the setting-up of a reserve police force based on the experience of the old War Reserve. That is something which might be considered.

The recent speech of the Lord Chancellor on sentencing policy has been extremely helpful. The rôle of the courts is extremely important. There are too many people found guilty of violence and petty crime who get away with it. The sentences are trivial compared with the offences. A much tougher policy followed by the courts would be very helpful in backing up the police.

The great issues which are thrown up with regard to the question of law and order must not be allowed to escape the attention of serious-minded people simply because the General Walkers and the Colonel Stirlings enter the scene and frighten off more responsible people from speaking about the subject.

General Walker is a distinguished soldier and a quixotic and independent man. One admires those qualities. I do not understand his course of action in forming his private group. He says it is not a private army, which I fully accept. However, by using the language which he uses he is helping to create a situation which should be avoided. He recently put out a statement in which he said that a law and order crisis would arise before Christmas. I do not believe that that kind of language is justified. It greatly exaggerates the situation and frightens many innocent citizens. I think he is misguided.

It would be far better if the volunteers whom he has managed to attract could be persuaded to join the special constabulary or ultimately, if it is felt necessary, the reserve police force which I have mentioned.

The difficulties we face must be seen within the wider context not only of this country but of the other countries of Western Europe which face the same problem. We shall successfully get through this difficult period only if there is respect for law and order. The only way in which we can ensure that justice is done, particularly during the present situation of economic difficulty, is to respect and uphold the law.

This short debate has already shown us some vivid illustrations of the breakdown in law and order. There are a variety of causes for that, and I think it will be only honest for the House to admit that many of those causes are quite beyond the control of the Government.

It is sometimes difficult to admit that there are things about which we can do nothing, but underlying social trends may well not be within the reach of Government to affect. There arc other matters upon which the Government can have an influence but only very gradually and over a very long period of time. The Government can and must at all times give the fullest support to the law as it stands. If the law requires to be change, we must by all means be responsive to the requests for change, but while the law stands we must give it the fullest support.

Many people regret that this Government have not always shown that respect for the law which we are entitled to expect. The attitude of the Government to the Clay Cross situation is one example of a most disturbing trend. By agreeing to take steps to remove some part of the penalty imposed by the law, the Government are on a slippery slope, but that decision, which we regret, has already been taken.

I urge the Government not to commit the same error in another situation, where they are under considerable pressure, in relation to the Shrewsbury pickets. While greatly regretting the present indisposition of the Prime Minister, I hope that it will at least have the side effect of enabling him to reconsider his ill-advised decision to meet the TUC to discuss the matter. The two men concerned were lawfully charged with serious offences and have been found guilty of conspiracy to intimidate and of unlawful assembly. Those are not empty phrases. Instead of exercising the lawful right to picket in the normal way, they were in part responsible for the trouble on the site in question where large numbers of people, the jury found, were put in fear as a result of the activities of the convicted men, quite apart from the side effect of considerable damage to property.

Their cases were considered by a jury. Susequently there was an appeal against sentence as well as conviction and the men were released on bail during the appeal. It has been dismissed. There has been a further hearing before the Court of Appeal in which they sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Their application has been rejected. Every possible legal means has been used in this case. Every court possible has been approached or application made to approach it. To respond to political pressure now and to release these men prematurely would knock another nail in the coffin of the rule of law.

Freedom is safe only if no one is above the law. If a convicted person can have a reasonable expectation that one of the greatest States of the Realm, such as the trade union movement, will rise in arms and secure his release, that is the end of freedom for us all. The day may come when there is another party in power which will be responsive to political pressure of a different kind and when other people may hope to escape the consequences of their law breaking. I would condemn that situation just as much as I condemn the situation threatening us at the moment. The only protection for us all is to have a Government of laws which is above a Government of men and a Government which ensures that the law is carried out and is not respited by the action of the Home Secretary intervening under political pressure. That is the only safe course. If the law is out of date it should be changed.

The Home Secretary should not intervene in the Shrewsbury case. To do so would be to set a most dangerous precedent. The Home Secretary faces pressure from people who support him in the country and in the House. I hope that we shall play our part by begging him firmly to resist that pressure. If he does, he will play his part in enforcing and securing respect for the law. To do that would be to do no more than his duty. I am sure that the House can expect him to do just that.

We are indebted to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) for enabling us to discuss the question of the enforcement of law, because clearly it is vital to our existence.

However, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) took the opportunity of this debate to attack the Labour Government. His criticism was utterly and completely wrong. If anything, the Labour Government are far more effective in enforcing the law than were the Tory Government or any other Government. For the hon. Gentleman to cite in support of his argument the Clay Cross and Shrewsbury cases is absurd. There was no question of the Government wishing the law not to be enforced in the Clay Cross case. The Minister made that perfectly clear in his statement. It was utterly wrong for the hon. Gentleman, in a debate of this kind, to attack the Government in that way.

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's criticism about the Shrewsbury case. The courts convicted the men concerned and the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. Nobody suggested that, from a legal point of view, the law was being attacked. There has been a petition and representations have been made citing certain matters which must be considered by a humane Home Secretary.

The procedure followed in the Shrewsbury case was the same as that followed in all criminal cases. Surely the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby knows that. When a person is sentenced to imprisonment or is fined, it is always possible to make representations to the Home Secretary to consider the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and it would be utterly wrong of the Home Secretary not to consider them. That is not acting in a political way. I seriously deprecate the hon. Gentleman trying to make a false point of that sort in a debate such as this.

I have not criticised the Government, because their decision has not yet been taken. I sought to give the Government strength and support in the action which I hope they will take, namely, to resist the pressures imposed on them to release on political grounds the men involved in the Shrewsbury case. It is open to anyone to make representations to the Home Secretary. As the Court of Appeal has carefully considered the appeals against conviction and sentence, it would be wrong to respond to political pressures. I am hopeful that the Home Secretary will act in such a way that no criticism is called for, but it is better to express our views before rather than after the event.

I am glad that I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make another speech. It is very kind of him to give advice to the Government, and I am sure that the Ministers and everyone else concerned will appreciate his great kindness. I note what he says, but he has missed the point entirely. If he pays attention, I will repeat it.

When a court imposes a sentence, whether monetary or imprisonment, no one suggests that the legislature or the executive will interfere with it. But in every case in which a person has been sentenced, representations can be made to the Home Secretary to use his discretion in dealing with it in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That is not a political matter. No one suggests that political motives will enter into it. I repeat that I deprecate the hon. Gentlemen making a false point in a debate of this kind.

I have already said that the enforcement of law is vital to our existence. It is often said that because in the view of certain people a law is bad, it can be disobeyed, and it is on occasions disobeyed on that ground. If that view were upheld, we could all take our decisions about what we should obey. We on this side of the House often resist legislation introduced by Conservative Governments and they in turn resist our legislation. But once legislation has been passed and has become law, it must be obeyed and enforced, however opposed to it we may be. That is the view which we and the Government take. The remedy is to try, by constitutional means, to reverse the legislation.

The motion refers to

"the present escalation of acts of vandalism. violent crime, hijacking and terrorism".

Hijacking and international terrorism arc the modern counterparts of piracy on the seas. They are terrible crimes. But they can be dealt with only by effective international means. They have grown with the development of air travel and, to some extent, with the sale of arms.

The Irish problem is a special one. I take it that the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead desires to draw attention to the ordinary crime—mugging, the danger of walking in the streets, particularly at night, bank robberies, rape and attacks which are often accompanied by the use of firearms. One must not exaggerate the state of affairs. In the old days there was piracy on the seas, attacks by highwaymen and many lawless acts of different kinds. In those days the Press did not report these matters to the same extent as it does today and our police and police methods were not so effective in bringing criminals to trial. Nevertheless, there has been an increase in crime.

One wonders how much responsibility television bears, with its constant reproduction of criminal scenes. These programmes are seen by impressionable youth and must put ideas into the heads of young people. On the one hand, it is often said that criminals are the product of poor homes and unsatisfactory upbringing. Often in criminal cases those facts are urged in mitigation of sentence. On the other hand, the Welfare State is blamed for our having had it "too good". Probably both play their part in producing the criminal.

The answer is, surely, for us to do all we can to improve housing conditions, to make conditions of employment as satisfactory as possible and to keep down unemployment so that idleness will not breed criminals. Above all—and I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead said—we must develop our educational system. The hon. Gentleman suggested some methods by which that could be done, and there are a great many others.

We seem to have lost the old family life, the family atmosphere. There are so many distractions in the modern world that take people away from the home and what it means, and that presents us with problems that are difficult to tackle. The looseness of the marriage tie and the easiness with which divorce can be obtained have been no small factors in this.

The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead spoke of the necessity to enforce proper sentences for any breach. I believe that the penalties enacted by our laws for any crime are on the whole sufficient for the purpose for which they are intended. There are maximum sentences and, in imposing those sentences, our judges have a discretion to have regard to all the circumstances. In reading a short report of a case the layman may not have all the facts before him. Our judges are men of experience. They often consult together on the principles that should be applied in imposing sentences. I think everyone will agree that our judiciary is an excellent one upon which we can place full reliance.

Most of our magistrates are lay, unpaid magistrates, and they deal with the bulk of our criminal cases. They carry out their duties as a rule in an effective way, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for the service which they render to the community. No doubt sometimes one may see a degree of leniency and criticise it, but again one must remember that the reader of an account of the proceedings has not always all the facts before him. Above all, we must not lose sight of the fact that, although the punitive element must be there, we must have the reformative element as well. That is most important and must not be discounted.

I summarise the position shortly in this way. No one denies that a problem exists. How do we tackle it? I agree that we should increase the police force and add to it through the Special Constabulary. But the problem is a social one, the answer to which lies in the betterment of our society, in the increase in family ties, in better conditions in our homes and in employment and, above all, in education.

I should like to take the opportunity afforded by the motion to intervene briefly on a specific matter on which I have already written to the Secretary of State.

On 1st February this year a constituent of mine, Mrs. Alexander of Bletchley, had her car stolen. On 17th February a man was apprehended by the police and charged with that offence. Because of various adjournments the case was not heard until October, and on 21st October the man concerned was sentenced for the offence.

Because the car in question was a material piece of evidence, the police were advised by the counsel who was prosecuting the case for them that that car must be kept impounded until the case was heard. My constituent, therefore, was deprived of the use of that car for nearly six months and she suffered considerable financial hardship. When the man was eventually convicted it became apparent that she was not entitled to any compensation.

Events have played into my hands to a certain extent. Hon. Members will have read the account of the taxi driver who pursued the people who threw a bomb into the Naval and Military Club on Wednesday night. The taxi was fired on, the windscreen and the radiator were shattered and a considerable amount of damage was done to the vehicle. Because no injury is involved, there is no possibility of the taxi driver being compensated for the loss he suffered through carrying out that gallant act.

I hope that the Secretary of State will look into this matter carefully. There is an easy way out. I do not know anything about the major courts of the country, but I have been a magistrate for several years. At the end of a case in a magistrates' court the police always say to the magistrates that there are witnesses' expenses of so much to be paid. Those are normally added to the fine that is imposed on the convicted person. It would appear to be easy to amend the Criminal Justice Acts and the Magistrates' Courts Acts to allow the judge or magistrate, as the case may be, on a conviction to award compensation where a person who has helped in the detection and conviction of the criminal has been put to expense.

We all pay lip-service to the idea that it is the duty of the citizen to assist the police in the detection and conviction of criminals. The absence of compensation for any loss incurred in so doing is a grave deterrent to that end. Whereas we should all carry out our duty as citizens, we should not be put to expense or incur penalties in so doing.

I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution—a contribution which may be somewhat more controversial than earlier speeches from the Labour benches in this debate.

It is perhaps in one respect a little unfortunate that the motion has been set down for discussion today. It seems to me that over a period of nine or 10 days on four separate occasions we have been debating law and order to a point at which many of us feel that the arguments are dinning in our minds. There is a great danger of our failing to distinguish between the significant and enormously serious threats to our society and other matters which are no less serious but which touch the general problem of social welfare.

There are dangers in suggesting that the total problem facing our society at present is that of law enforcement. I do not draw back from the important problem which is represented by terrorism in our society and the disasters which we have witnessed in recent months. I was one of the hon. Members who sat through the all-night sitting on the recent anti-terrorism legislation and I hold no brief whatever for terrorists. On the other hand, I believe that it is important that we should distinguish problems which are defined as criminal actions but which have a somewhat different social context from that which affects the situation of the ordinary criminal.

Mention has been made of the problem of the Shrewsbury pickets, and the motion refers to the Windsor pop festival. The clear view has been advanced in our discussions on these matters—and I think particularly of the contribution to the debate on capital punishment made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary —that certainty of apprehension is more significant than savagery of punishment. Disservice can be done to respect for the law if punishment seems to be inappropriate. There is a distinction to be made between criminals who for their own narrow personal interests commit crimes of theft or crimes against the person and people who are involved in actions which are certainly criminal and not to be condoned but which involve issues in a wider social context.

I maintain that the problem represented by the Shrewsbury pickets points to the fact that the social context was somewhat misunderstood in the charges brought against the pickets and that there was a certain inevitability of punishment, with the feeling that an example should be made of these men. But what is being suggested to the Home Secretary in respect of the exercise of clemency may be a recognition that it is essential to defend the sanctity of the law. In other words, if a large number of people believe that men such as these have suffered an excessive punishment—a savagery of sentence that appears unjust in the light of the crime—to exercise a degree of clemency may be the best protection of law and order.

We should recognise that before we abolished capital punishment successive Home Secretaries exercised clemency. Their actions took precedence over the decision of Parliament because they were interpreting the operation of their function in a social context.

In following the argument on executive clemency, for which there is clearly a rôle in our society and our legal system, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in the case of the Shrewsbury pickets, with the present pressures, the situation is different from the usual form of executive clemency? Whereas in all previous instances executive clemency was granted by the Home Secretary, what worries many hon. Members is that in the case of the Shrewsbury pickets pressure is coming from the TUC to the Prime Minister. That is a different form of approach compared with the other kind of executive clemency by an approach to the Home Secretary.

The present situation clearly shows that the exercise of executive clemency is not an automatic operation of the law but involves a social and political judgment. It involves the mechanisms through which a Home Secretary may be approached and the sources from which such approaches should be made. There are no clear precedents on the situation. If the Trades Union Congress is in a position—and I can think of no body which is in a better position—to identify that failure to exercise clemency in this area, which may cause a degree of disrespect for the law among trade unionists, it is only right and proper that the TUC should make such representations. I have no doubt that the representations eventually will go to the proper source for final decision—which obviously is the Home Secretary. I do not want to spend the whole of my time dealing with the Shrewsbury pickets. I was using them as an illustration of the social context in which certain criminal acts and punishments are enforced.

One part of the motion makes particular reference to the Windsor pop festival. I wish to emphasise that we must increasingly recognise that within the diversity and plurality of our society there are deep social strains which find themselves expressed in a youth culture. It has expressed itself in certain social groupings which this nation has not experienced in the past. We must recognise that our society gives greater emphasis to youth and more opportunity for youth to express itself, and yet we must remember that on the whole our laws are passed by bodies composed of rather older men. There is a problem of the difference in cultures and indeed in generations.

Sometimes I feel that senior police officers are rather more responsive to this situation than are Conservative Members. When thousands of people gather together, as happened at the Windsor pop festival, and break what can only be regarded as limited and minimal laws concerning the operation of Windsor Great Park, one cannot identify this as the forerunner of a social revolution which seeks to challenge the whole forces of law and order.

There are aspects of our pop culture which show themselves in hippy festivals, which are gestures of defiance or contempt for authority. But because of that fact I do not hold the youth of Britain in any disrespect. It is in the nature of youth to demonstrate radical forms and, provided that these are within a reasonably peaceful context, I can see nothing to condemn.

Had the law been enforced against the organisers at the very beginning of the Windsor pop festival, it might be said that there was a flagrant breaking of the law; but clearly the law had not been enforced at that early stage. Therefore, once the young people were gathered together at Windsor, that gathering should not be regarded as cocking a snook at the law. They did not represent a mass movement of people wanting to challenge the fundamental laws of Britain or to undermine the liberties of the people of Windsor. They were gathered there for a social purpose and I am sure that the vast majority possessed a basic respect for the law, and no doubt the festival was an enjoyable pursuit. Of course, the festival infringed other liberties and no doubt the din of the pop music, of which I am not a great lover, tends to interefere with the liberties of others who prefer on such occasions to be deaf. I do not regard this infringement as being of the magnitude suggested by the interpolation in the motion of the reference to the Windsor pop festival or of having some connection with the general breakdown of law and order.

What worries me is that we are developing a society which, if we are not careful, will develop the culture of the "Clockwork Orange", because it is essentially a clockwork society. It is important that we recognise that people require to be treated as human beings, rather than as machines, and that men require job satisfaction, rather than to be mere clock watchers. Development in these terms must mean greater participation and greater job satisfaction on the part of willing people. Young people will not accept a situation in which they come out of our extended educational system to earn their living in a society in which their liberties are crushed. They will not accept a situation in which decisions are made continually on their behalf and in which their ability to participate is at a low level.

This attitude clearly applies in the general movement and demand for greater respect for working people at their place of work, which develops also from a school culture which is rapidly changing. Hon. Members of the Opposition appear to have severe limitations when it comes to considering the development of education in our State schools. I am sometimes upbraided by members of the Opposition—in private rather than in public—who suggest that we on this side of the House are too soft in our attitude towards the discipline of young people. But many members of the Opposition, brought up in rather rigid school regimes, in which the sparing of the rod has not manifestly spoiled the child, ask whether it would not be better if our State educational system adhered to those principles. My response to that is that I feel that it is not the rod which makes Opposition Members such advocates of the virtues and values of our society but rather that many of them look forward from their early days to enjoying many of the major benefits of society.

It is not discipline which ensures that people have respect for the values of society, but rather the inherent quality of the values. But if, in the State school system—in relation to which many of us on this side of the House have greater knowledge, through having experienced its facilities—there is a problem of values and youngsters are not sufficiently respectful towards their teachers, in terms of discipline, there may be good reasons for that. I doubt whether those reasons lie in the quality of teaching or in the values of the teachers. I have great respect for the values which the teaching profession upholds.

It is increasingly the case that teachers have had to engage in militancy and to take part in demonstrations to get any recognition of the rôle they play in our society. If we see that in society greater values have been put, for instance, on those people who care for children's teeth than on those who care for children's minds, is it surprising that children have little respect, in a materialist society, for those who teach them and who are clearly under-valued by society itself?

We must always look at the problems of discipline within the context of the inherent values of our society. If out of this debate comes a belief that we can inculcate such deeper respect for our society only by ensuring that our educational facilities are enhanced and our educational provision is better supported, the motion will have served a good purpose.

I end with a point on the motion that is not contentious. The House owes its origins and its basis to the defence of people's liberties. We are the bulwark of freedom. In recent days we have had to face the horrors of terrorism, and to take action which many of us have regretted, not because we thought that they were not necessary—they were; what we regretted was that they had become necessary, and thus the liberties of our people were being infringed.

Let us ensure as lawmakers that we protect our liberties by making sure that our laws are respected. This is the essence of the respect for Parliament and for authority, and the basis of a good society. I hope that in debating the motion we shall show ourselves to be worthy of the rôle of protecting the liberties of the individual.

I am pleased to be speaking immediately after the extremely interesting and thought-provoking speech from the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies). I disagree with many of the things he said, and I shall deal with some of them shortly. But I agree with him when he said that some people whose duty it is to enforce the law—such as senior police officers—are sometimes much more flexible in their response to the social problems surrounding the whole question of law and order in our society than is Parliament. That is a fair criticism, but perhaps one which is a little undermined by the events of this week, because it has been law and order week in the House of Commons. We have had three debates on this subject—one dealing with juvenile crime, one on the police and one concerned with capital punishment.

I warmly welcome the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) because it enables us today, in the cool and reflective atmosphere in which the debate is taking place, to have a broad sweep at all the problems, and to consider some of the matters raised by hon. Members. When we discuss enforcement of the law there is a tendency for everyone to say, "They ought to do something about it. They ought to catch more criminals. They ought to give more severe sentences." But enforcement of the law is far too serious a matter to be shifted on to the shoulders of one group, whether that group consists of policemen, school teachers, or judges, because the responsibility for enforcing the law is something that we all share. The approach needed is that we are all involved, we all have a rôle to play, and we must take part in moulding the values which underline law and order and the enforcement of it.

In his excellent opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead rightly expressed the importance of the home and the school in laying the foundations of individual discipline, which is the basis of law and order. Whatever view the hon. Member for Enfield, North may take about discipline and schools, he will surely accept that there have to be some rules and disciplines. One can argue the values surrounding these disciplines, but somebody has to make the rules and the disciplines, and the first responsibility is for the parent. St Ignatius Loyola said, I think, "Give me a child until he is six years old and I will make him a good Jesuit for the rest of his life". The same should be true of a good parent in relation to discipline in the early years. Inculcating the right values can make a good child a law-abiding citizen for the rest of his life.

As a student in Borstal—I hasten to say that I was there as an assistant to a housemaster—I was in charge of a dormitory of 18 boys, and I discovered in long conversations with them that they had all come from broken homes, or from socially deprived backgrounds. One realises that the causes of crime and breakdown in law and order often stem from the earliest stages in a child's life. One must therefore stress the point—as it has been stressed—that schools and parents have a great deal to do with the problems confronting society today.

I think that the chief constable of Birmingham said last week that most of the increase in shoplifting in his city today came from young boys playing truant from school. Here is another problem which needs to be tackled by both parents and school teachers, with a little more help from the courts, perhaps, at the earliest possible age, in an effort to inculcate disciplines stemming from rules of some kind. I am sure that attendance at school is a valuable discipline which even the hon. Member for Enfield, North will acknowledge.

The police have featured a good deal in today's debate. Since I spoke in the debate last Monday, I shall not go into that side of the matter at length, but I was extremely pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) support the proposal that the special constabulary should be strengthened and expanded. I know from her excellent winding-up speech last Monday that the Under-Secretary of State also supports that proposal, and I hope that we shall now see some firm Government action and really constructive thinking on the whole rôle of the special constabulary.

Only by drawing on this reserve can we find the extra manpower needed to prevent outbreaks of terrorism. In my view, the Police Advisory Board, which is to start meeting in February, should have its terms of reference widened to this end. I do not know the details of its terms of reference—I am not sure that they have been published—but they should, in my view, include such questions as whether the special constabulary could be put on the same footing as the Territorial Army so that, for example, a small bounty could be paid to those who give regular service and go off to training camps for a certain period every year.

On occasions when, for instance, it is necessary to flood 400 extra men into the London railway terminals because there has been a tip-off that a bomb is to be planted within the next few hours, the only way to draw in that amount of manpower without completely disrupting the rest of the police service lies in boosting the special constabulary. I know that the Minister is sympathetic, and I look forward to seeing action on that front.

In particular, I hope that we can sweep away the present prickliness, or even hostility, between the Police Federation and the special constabulary. This is a political matter which must be tackled. It should be stressed that there is no hostility whatever from the special constabulary's side in the matter. The special constable should strengthen and support the police and in no way be in competition with them.

As for the regular police, our debate on Monday made clear how much the House feels that we owe a great debt of gratitude to them for the way they are carrying out an extremely difficult task at present. Any further measures one can devise to encourage the recruiting of more police officers, such as concessionary mortgages, for instance, ought now to be receiving the Government's full attention.

I turn to the position of the courts. The police are able to improve, and are in fact improving, I believe, the certainty of detection of crime and the bringing of criminals to justice. That is a most important part of law enforcement. But there is a gap which needs to be filled in the activities of the courts themselves to improve the certainty of conviction of the guilty.

On this question, I refer to the controversial views of Sir Robert Mark, which were originally expressed, I think, in his famous Dimbleby Lecture about jury trials in 1973, when he questioned how satisfactory such trials were in contributing to the essential conviction of the guilty. Sir Robert Mark pointed out— the statistics have confirmed it—that of all the people in England and Wales who plead not guilty and are tried by jury some 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. are acquitted.

Sir Robert Mark has argued that there are too many rules designed to give every advantage to the defence, which are too easily exploited by some less-than-scrupulous lawyers, and this is contributing to the unacceptably high acquittal rate.

Perhaps I can shed a little more personal illumination on this matter. As some hon. Members know, I had the experience of being tried at the Old Bailey. It is a very strange experience to be tried at the Old Bailey. I do not think that I shall ever forget the day when I heard the shout "Put up the prisoners" and I walked up the steps into the dock accompanied by a warder trying to be cheerful and telling me, "Court No. 1, the famous court, the one where Crippen, Haig and the Kray Brothers were tried, and where only last week we had the Hoseins. That is where you are going".

I took part as defendant there in a trial to which I need make no reference, since it has no relevance to this debate. Our law on official secrets and its application to journalists is so unique a matter that it has no relevance to the generality of crime. Perhaps I may add that I was acquitted, so that I am now happily able to sit on these benches rather than on the less comfortable benches of Wormwood Scrubs.

I saw a good deal of what went on both during my own trial and during my period of waiting to be tried. There was a long wait. Most people on bail awaiting criminal trial now have to wait six or nine months, and in my case it was 14 months. I had the opportunity then, as a layman, to watch a number of trials and to see how prosecutions and defences were handled.

From that experience, watching a number of trials and participating as defendant in my own, I formed a view which is roughly equivalent to that of Sir Robert Mark, namely, that, thanks to the exploitation of rules designed in the nineteenth century when defendants and their lawyers were a good deal more ignorant and in need of more protection than they require today, a great number of defendants who should have been convicted were cleverly getting away with it. Without going into individual details, which I have no wish to do, it is difficult to give specific examples, but that was the general impression which I gained.

One clear example of what I mean is the accused's right to silence. This should not be exploited so easily as it is today. I watched trials at which the prosecution's case plainly called for an answer, but the accused, sometimes an astute and intelligent man, simply said, "I have a right to silence, I shall not answer any of your difficult questions", so that the trial had to fold up although it was almost certain that if the man had gone into the witness box and been cross-examined a very different impression would have been created. I am sure that our, so to speak, sacred attitude to the right to silence should be changed in present conditions.

Many questions on the rules of evidence and other matters have been looked into by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and, on the whole, its suggested changes have been supported. They should now be looked at again by Parliament. I am aware that there is some controversy here. Sir Robert Mark's views have been criticised by Mr. Zander, and Mr. Zander's views have in turn been rebutted by Professors Baldwin and McConville in Modern Law Review. It is a continuing controversy, but I hope that the Government will at an early date look again at the possibility of introducing certain reforms in our court procedure.

I come to the High Court of Parliament. I think that it was Burke who said, "We sit here on a conspicuous stage and the whole world marks our demeanour". We must realise that our approach here to the problem of law enforcement and law and order has a great impact in the country at large. Undoubtedly, events such as Clay Cross council and Shrewsbury pickets affairs make an impact in the country at large. It is no use pretending otherwise. Whatever one's political view of such cases, they undoubtedly have an effect.

It is essential that justice shall be seen to be done and not be subject to any kind of political pressure. Once people have the idea that it is possible to say that the politicians can pull so-and-so out of prison or that by political influence a penalty can be changed, we reach a disastrous situation.

I felt that the hon. Member for En-field, North was treading dangerous ground in his references to executive clemency and the suggestion that it would be quite normal for the Prime Minister in such a case to accept representations from the TUC and pass them on to the Home Secretary. As far as I am aware executive clemency has never been handled in such a way. Appeals for it have come from such people as probation officers and social workers and never from a major political movement suddenly exerting pressure.

It is a most dangerous precedent, and I entirely support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) who pointed out that the case of the Shrewsbury pickets had been through the whole gamut of the legal apparatus—the Court of Appeal and so on—and that it now seems that we are getting into a Watergate situation when the President or Prime Minister can start putting on pressure for executive clemency. I hope that the Government will draw the line where they now stand and will not interfere with this case.

I have detained the House for too long and I hope that I have not been too egotistical in making personal references to illuminate general points. After three and a half debates this week, I hope the House has become more flexible in its approach to these problems. They have had a very good hearing of the kind they have not had for a long time. On the whole, I believe that the debates have shown that Parliament and the public are deeply concerned, that they are taking the necessary measures and that they are strengthening their attitudes in two key respects. I hope that the House will feel that this week's debates on law and order have been very much worth while. I certainly do.

The motion covers a very wide catalogue of problems or lawlessness, and if I had been asked to prepare a list of the issues which actually threatened the fabric of society and our democratic way of life I do not think I would have put the so-called Windsor free pop festival very high on that list. I declare my interest in the debate, in that for four years I have been a magistrate in the East End of London. That, in a sense, is an education in itself. Serving in a magistrates' court in East London one recalls the slogan of a Sunday newspaper that, "All human life is there." Certainly, in the East End all human frailty is there.

I detected in earlier contributions from both sides of the House a suggestion that when we speak of respect for the law it should be a sort of blind, unthinking acceptance of the law, irrespective of the law's merits or the degree to which it is worthy of respect. In some senses that argument is as dangerous as the problem of lawlessness and the people who so easily flout the law.

Since Clay Cross has been mentioned, it is right to say that for some of us on the Government side of the House the problem of the Housing Finance Act created some very agonising decisions. At the time in question I, no doubt like many other hon. Members, was a magistrate and a leader of a borough council. I found great difficulty in resolving the differing calls on my conscience, coming from both directions. As a magistrate I had taken an oath to

"do right by all manner of persons"

and I do not think that the Act did right by all manner of persons. It discriminated heavily against a section of society which was incapable of looking after itself. In a sense, the Government of this country govern by consent. The people consent to Government on the basis that they are doing a reasonable job, and are governing sensibly and in the interests of the people. If we want, as many of us do, to create a genuine participatory democracy in which people think for themselves, we shall have increasingly to expect them to reach their own judgments on the laws that we pass.

I am not suggesting that everybody has the right to pick and choose the laws he will obey and those he will not, but surely we recognise that there must be an acceptance of the fact that some people, quietly, sincerely and on grounds of conscience, will say, "This is a bad law, and one which I cannot personally accept." The social history of this country shows that it is only because brave men and women over the years have taken that attitude that we have today some of the freedoms we so much take for granted.

I want to comment in detail about one of the issues raised in the motion. It is a mundane issue, but it is of great concern to many people, certainly in the urban areas. I refer to the problem of vandalism and hooliganism.

Our great cities are being engulfed in a rising tide of senseless, mindless, purposeless destruction—which worries a great many people. This is a genuine threat to the whole quality of life in our cities. It includes stupid scrawling on every spare piece of wall, and in this respect the inventor of the aerosol paint spray bears a substantial degree of guilt for the pollution that we are now suffering from this vandalism. It covers the destruction of street trees and street lights. Any house left empty for move than a few days will probably have its windows smashed, and if the vandals can get inside, all kinds of other damage will be done. It covers telephone boxes and public conveniences. Public buildings of any sort seem to be fair game for the vandals who are attacking many of our major cities.

The cost to the ratepayers in my local authority area is phenomenal. It runs into thousands of pounds. Over the nation it must amount to millions of pounds of wasted money which has to be spent putting right the work of the vandals.

The other aspect of the matter is hooliganism. Hon. Members have mentioned football hooliganism. I spend every other Saturday afternoon at football matches and I am appalled at the extent to which young people go not to watch the game but simply to look for trouble. They place themselves and conduct themselves in such a way as to look for trouble and for fights, and I find that very hard to understand and accept. I have been going to football matches since I was a small boy—since the last war and the early post-war years. I do not recall wanting, at that age to attack people and to take knives and other offensive weapons to football matches. I do not recall wanting to smash shop windows and terrorise people on the way to the game. This aspect of hooliganism I find extremely difficult to understand.

There have been references to hooliganism on public transport. This is an increasing London problem, which worries both management and workers on London Transport.

The motion refers to penalties. Most hon. Members seem to understand that reference to mean harsher penalties. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies), I am not sure whether that is the best way round the problem. Detection is certainly a much better deterrent than are severe penalties. In considering penalties for vandalism and hooliganism I believe that we should be looking to the greater use of things such as community service orders. The vandal has no respect for his fellow man or for society, and he commits crimes against society by destroying public property. In these cases it is reasonable to give him something useful to do on behalf of his fellow man. This has been started. The first community service order scheme began in inner London and we have seen the first results. They have certainly been encouraging. The scheme has not been a total success, but it is encouraging enough to enable us to feel that it is an avenue along which we should go in dealing with the problems of vandalism and hooliganism.

First, however, we must catch the hooligans and the vandals, and here we are up against considerable difficulties. I join with other hon. Members in paying tribute to the Metropolitan Police. Bearing mind the extent to which the force is under strength, it does a very good job. I am not convinced that we use the manpower resources of the Metropolitan Police to the best effect. My time on the bench leads me to believe that we waste a lot of police time keeping policemen hanging around for hour after hour at magistrates' courts, waiting to give evidence, sometimes in very trivial cases. I am not convinced that we could not go still further towards relieving the police of the daily problems of traffic offences and traffic management, and things of that sort.

Because of the amount of serious crime, the police have less time to concentrate on the problems of vandalism and the more petty issues which worry so many ordinary people. I should be happier if we could see more police patrols in our cities—not just the panda patrols, which whizz through at top speed, but ordinary policemen on the beat, who are one of the major deterrents to the problems that I am talking about.

It is right to say something about the public's attitude. I am becoming increasingly worried about the extent to which the public seem to turn a blind eye. I can well understand that a person will not be keen to deal with a gang of louts on an underground train late at night. But in cities such as London, ordinary people are beginning to accept hooliganism and vandalism as a way of life, and just to shrug their shoulders and ask "What can you do?" If that sort of attitude persists, there will be a continuation of the deterioration in the quality of life in our cities.

When talking about respect for law in this context, one is talking about respect for society and one's fellow man. It is sad to find the extent to which young people feel themselves alienated from the rest of society. They feel that it is legitimate to smash public property, because it belongs to some anonymous "them", who do not understand, who do not know. This lack of involvement of young people in our society is worrying, as is the attitude of parents. Too many parents take no interest in what their children do, and do not accept responsibility for the things their children get up to. This flows to some extent from the break-up of family life as we have known it.

There is an erosion of the cement which holds together the fabric of our society. That is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the problem of lawlessness. It poses a challenge to our education system and to the mass media, particularly television, which has a tremendous impact on the life style of many people. It also poses a challenge for all of us in public life.

Like other hon. Members, I think that we must give as much attention to the causes of the breakdown of respect for law and of the breakdown of the acceptance of standards in our society, as we give to their effects.

The motion covers a whole world of violence and law-breaking. Some of the aspects set out by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) are singularly far apart from each other. To talk in the same breath of the international hijackings and terrorism, which distress and disturb the whole world, and of the vandalism in our city centres, requires a great leap of the imagination.

I welcome the opportunity to speak immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), because our experiences are parallel. There are many ways in which I can confirm what he said. I, too, must admit that I have been through the heart-searchings of placing myself in the position of being on the wrong side of the law, which in the end I felt I was bound to do on moral issues. I was subsequently upheld by the opinion of no less a person than Lord Justice Denning. He agreed that there was ground for people to take stands against laws such as the Housing Finance Act and the Industrial Relations Act on matters of conscience. But those are quite separate issues from those which we face today.

The introduction of similar matters by the Opposition does not help us to consider the implications of the two entirely disparate types of violence referred to in the motion. International hijacking and terrorism demand international co-operation of the highest order. They demand a serious attempt by all countries to bring a halt to this kind of violence, which is so sickening to every civilised country.

But we cannot divorce the more localised effects of anti-social behaviour, as we can loosely call it—the vandalism that my hon. Friend talked about, the destruction in city streets and centres—from the history of the war-time and post-war years. Those of us who have been involved in local authorities, fighting over the years to improve housing conditions and working with all our might to get better city centres, have been party, in a way, to the break-up of family life.

We have seen the uprooting of societies —the studies in Bethnal Green were proof of this, if anything ever was—the tearing apart of parents, children and grandparents, with one sent to the outer county estates, leaving the other stranded behind in the city centre; the removal of families with established ways of life and employment from our inner city areas, leaving behind the casualties of our social system. The unfortunate, the unemployed, the sick, the elderly, the immigrant, are the people who now inhabit many of our city centres, whereas the established families have had the good fortune already to be moved out to the more pleasant suburban areas where, perhaps, better housing conditions have prevailed.

The tragedy is that in our enthusiasm to increase the supply of housing we in local government have often permitted a style of housing to replace the old which was entirely unsuited for family living. It is small wonder that young people use the aerosol can to daub the walls of new estates when there is nothing in those estates to occupy them, nothing to give them any sense of belonging to the estate, to the borough, which, by a process in which the House has also had a hand, a process of enlargement, of extension of boundaries, means less to the people who live in it.

There is a variety of ways in which we in the House and our predecessors have accelerated the breakdown of established settlements in different parts of the country. We should give a great deal of thought to the future development of housing. It was very sad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say, only this week, that local authorities will have to pay less out of their funds for maintaining housing, when already so much of the accommodation in the city centres is dilapidated and miserable, a disgrace to the local authorities that own the properties, and no incentive to the spirit of civic pride in the young people at whom we always point the finger of blame for vandalism.

Having operated in the courts in London, as my hon. Friend has, I feel that we must not overlook the fact that in the city centre the penalties imposed by the courts are often imposed on the inadequate, the casualties of our society, whether they be the young people from broken homes who have no guiding light and no standards given to them by which they can judge how they should behave.

or the people who have been shaped by the schools we have given them in inner areas—schools that are a disgrace to our education system.

When we allocate our expenditure in a way which cuts down on the cost of improving the environment we should take a share in the blame when people arc left feeling isolated and perhaps less highly regarded than we might wish.

Housing plays a major part in family life, but housing alone is not enough. Accompanying housing there must be the right kind of community centres, in which young people can express themselves. Very often we are far too critical of the young people of today. I know only too well from my own experience in some of the most deprived areas of inner London and from the experience of some of those with the most deprived family backgrounds that young people go out to help the elderly and the disabled and to raise funds for a variety of good causes. We must not overlook the majority of young people in our society, who are of that kind and not of the kind who indulge in blind violence.

We could do a great deal by showing understanding and by considering, in the passing of our laws, that we should not impose penalties over and over again on the people who feel so unprotected. In recent years there has been a tendency to consider that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. If we can overcome that feeling we shall be making a step in the right direction.

I received a periodical today that illustrates the point. Perhaps we would overcome the feeling of inequality if it were not profitable to spend £40 a head in attending a seminar on how to avoid income tax. If that were not profitable there might be a little more encouragement for people to pay their taxes happily. They would then know that everyone else was doing the same. Perhaps they would be encouraged properly to look after their own property and communal property. They would realise that they would be considered to be acting against the interests of the society if they overstepped the mark in any way.

It is right that we should discuss these matters even at the end of a week of ceaseless discussion. However, although 1 should hate to get matters out of pers- pective, there is one aspect of life in London that should be mentioned, namely, the problems of London Transport and the extreme distress which is being caused by a minority of people to the men who are trying against great odds to provide a satisfactory service. I think that every London Member should be behind the request from the Chairman of London Transport to help in ensuring that hooliganism on our public transport does not have the effect of providing the whole of our society with an even further reduced standard of transport.

I now return to my previous thought. We must not get our life out of perspective. We must not be panicked into thinking that the way out of our present dilemma can be found only by more and more imprisonment and higher and higher fines. There are other ways. These are the ways which we must help to encourage. We must offer greater humanity to those who have not had the benefits that some hon. Members have had. If we can play our part in upgrading life for those who are at present underprivileged we shall go a long way towards helping to erase the problems that the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead raised.

We spend too much time in dealing with symptoms rather than with root causes. Many of the speeches that have been delivered during the debate have dealt with symptoms. That is the accusation I make of the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). He included in his motion reference to the pop festival in Windsor Great Park. From his point of view it may have been the most important event in the past few years or in the life of the people that he represents. As far as I am concerned it was only a passing phase.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) was right to draw attention to one of the root causes of the unease which afflicts society—namely, the desperate housing situation. How can we expect children to be brought up in a normal way of life or expect parents to be abie to do so if they are living in filthy, deplorable and disgusting conditions for years on end? That is a situation that applies to many areas of London. It is disgusting that such a state of affairs should be allowed to continue a moment longer than necessary.

I would make housing the top priority in the Government's social policy. I would give it preference over anything else. Unless we provide ordinary people with proper homes we can expect all the ills to which the motion makes reference. Vandalism, lawlessness, hijacking and terrorism all spring to a large extent from the inadequate and unsatisfactory conditions in which people are condemned to live.

The local authorities have a responsibility. Some authorities have reached a stage in which they are pulling down more houses than they are putting up. By means of compulsory purchase orders they are pulling down houses which have many years of life left in them. They are thus causing a blight over many neighbourhoods. That is a matter to which I hope the Government will pay serious attention. It so happens that I also have a copy of the excellent publication to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North referred. I draw the attention of Conservative Members to the excellent publication entitled Labour Weekly. It comes out every week and costs only 5p. It contains a large amount of valuable information.

It also happens that the copy of Labour Weekly which reached me this morning has a good article on London's housing entitled "London's Housing Horror", written by Sir Reg Goodwin, the leader of the Labour GLC. It reads:

"London has over half the total number of homeless people in the United Kingdom—and many Londoners who do have homes are living in appalling conditions.… In a major speech at the weekend he said: 'In recent years, cases of actual homelessness in London are running at 1,200 per year or 30 cases a day—which constitutes between 50 and 60 per cent. of total homelessness in the United Kingdom.'"

I am convinced that that is an unfortunate contributory factor to the present lawlessness and dissatisfaction which prevails. Sir Reg Goodwin later said:

"In the 1971 census, 1,130,885 Londoners were living at a density of one person per room and over, and 363,000 chronically overcrowded at 1·5 persons per room or over."

Everybody must condemn that situation as unsatisfactory. I shall not try to make a party point out of it. It is the responsibility of all Governments. I hope that serious attention will be paid to the effect of deplorable housing conditions on the crime wave and truancy and all these other evils.

I am sure that the promotion manager of Labour Weekly will be grateful to the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton). We also take his serious point.

The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) for giving us the opportunity of this debate. I take the point of the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies), but those who are interested in law enforcement are lucky, normally, to have one debate in three months ; it is going to the other extreme to have four in five days. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that his subject matter was so important and fresh.

A number of hon. Members have taken advantage of my hon. Friend's generously drawing the motion wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) made an important point, and I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said about the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the point of Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police—that the certainty of conviction is as important as the certainty of detection. A number of us have considerable sympathy with that. Several hon. Members opposite also mentioned London Transport.

Obviously, the Minister will want to deal with the detailed points about the Windsor pop festival, but I want to deal with the general problems that such festivals present to the police. The Windsor festival was known to be unlawful, and eventually the police had to clear the site—an action which was given enormous coverage by the media. This kind of work is repugnant to the police. The last role they seek is that of clearing people from an area—a task which can clearly be portrayed as repressive. This kind of work is alien to their tradition.

The police role is to ensure that demonstrations proceed peacefully and to control them rather than prevent them. That is because we recognise the right of peaceful demonstration. Our law also has a practical advantage for the police. Other countries pursue different policies, trying to ban demonstrations. It is sometimes suggested that we should do the same, but if only a small number of demonstrators turned up, confrontation with the police would become inevitable in those circumstances. We arrange things better. There is a rapport between police and public which is the envy of many other countries. It is sometimes inevitable that the police have to act firmly if greater public disorder is to be prevented, but many policemen find it difficult to accept being put into such a situation unnecessarily—at football matches and pop festivals for example.

The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central may have underrated the seriousness of pop festivals, especially to the police. It is exactly in this area that problems have arisen in other countries. Governments are tempted to leave these matters to the police, but that is only shifting the responsibility. We do not want the kind of repercussions that we saw at Windsor this summer. What measures do the Government have in mind to prevent this kind of disorder, not only at Windsor but at other pop festivals?

The standards of our police are very high, but they will sometimes make mistakes and even more often mistakes will be alleged against them, so it is in their interest as well as that of the public that such complaints are investigated and settled fairly. We should be fair to the complainant and to the policeman. What reaction has the Minister received from the police to the Home Office proposals? The principle of the new scheme, which I have always supported, must be supported not only by the public but by the police. Policemen should not be put at unnecessary risk. Many already feel that they are vulnerable to malicious or unjustified complaint.

May not the Government's proposals be too complex? Have they not put the emphasis in the wrong place—on the check? Would it not be better, simpler and faster to emphasise the investigation? I do not want to mislead the House. I do not believe in an outside body of inspectors. The police are the only people with the experience to investigate complaints, but it is possible to follow Sir Robert Mark's example in his formation of a separate complaints branch—the A10 Branch—directly answerable to the deputy commissioner responsible for handling complaints. Those policemen are divorced from normal duties and their independence is assured. Such a scheme could work effectively outside London as well. Even with the checks, which most observers would conclude are full and fair, only 7 per cent. of complaints are substantiated, which shows the high standards of the police.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead said, one of the unhappiest statistics is that, as prosperity has increased, so has the crime rate. In 1950, there were 1,000 crimes per 100,000 of the population, whereas in 1970 there were over 3,200. The particular concern of magistrates, social workers and probation officers is about the incidence of juvenile crime, which is particularly acute in some of the big cities, especially London and Birmingham. In London last year, five out of 10 burglaries and four out of 10 robberies and thefts were committed by juveniles. They are alarming figures, which no Government can expect to reverse overnight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead raised the interesting question of the vicarious responsibility of parents. We are all agreed that parents have great responsibility in this respect. This point was made by the Society of Conservative Lawyers under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). The society's view was that the power to order a parent or guardian to pay a fine was so hedged with qualifications as to be ineffective, and it suggested that the doctrine of the vicarious responsibility of parents for fines arising from their children's behaviour should be extended.

No one claims that the present situation has been created by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The situation was not ideal before that, and it would be a grave error to suggest that it was. We are concerned with whether the Act is effective to deal with it.

During Monday's debate the Minister of State, Home Office, said that he

"wanted to go on to show where we accept criticism of the provisions of the Act and the respects in which we think criticisms are misplaced."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December 1974 ; Vol. 883, c. 103.]

Unhappily, at that point the hon. Gentleman immediately sat down. I wonder whether the hon. Lady will pick up from where the hon. Gentleman left off and indicate those parts of the Act which she accepts are open to reform.

My last point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), and by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitz-man). In this debate we are concerned essentially with the rule of law. The present Home Secretary once used the phrase "the civilised society" to indicate the type of society that he wanted to see in Britain. The badge of the civilised society is the rule of law. We are all concerned with the ways in which the rule of law has been challenged by terrorists and other groups. However, we should not ignore the fact that the vast majority of people not only respect the law but automatically obey it. This respect should not be underrated, particularly at times like these when there are economic problems—at least threatened problems—in society.

Conservative and Labour Governments have been able to rely upon that respect for the law. In some cases the Government have even used the law to set a standard. I shall not argue about the merits of such action. It can be debated either way. I simply state that this has happened. For example, in their race relations legislation the last Labour Government used the law to set a standard which they hoped would be observed. They relied upon the overwhelming respect of the British public for the law.

I therefore believe that we should be on a very slippery slope if that respect for the law were ever to disappear, or even substantially to be diminished. If it were ever to be evident that individuals or groups were able to avoid the law, clearly that respect would automatically be diminished, for it is the proudest boast of our law that all people are equal before it, that the law recognises no special interests whatsoever.

I have said that, because it is important to put the point in its context. It is particularly important when we come to a case like the Shrewsbury pickets. The pickets were found guilty by a jury. They were represented. They have taken advantage of their legal rights to appeal, and those appeals have been dismissed. In other words, I think that the trial process will be seen by everyone to have been scrupulously fair.

It is now suggested that at this point, all appeal procedure in the normal legal sense having been exhausted, the Home Secretary should exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy. We on this side would oppose that on the grounds that the Home Secretary gave in his reply on 13th November, namely that

"the Home Secretary cannot usurp the functions of the courts ".

He can

"recommend interference with sentences passed by the courts only on the basis of considerations which the courts have not been able to take into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 144.]

I do not believe that it can be said in this case that that can be the situation.

I ask the hon. Lady to confirm that this remains the Home Secretary's attitude. It is a question which we have raised and to which the Leader of the House has replied, quite properly, that it is a matter entirely for the Home Secretary. On that we agree. That being so, we find it strange that the Prime Minister is seeing the Trades Union Congress on the question. Is the purpose of that to explain the legal position to the TUC, or is it to receive representations? If it is to receive representations, I cannot see how this can be justified and I certainly cannot see how it can be reconciled with the statement that it is a question entirely for the Home Secretary.

The Government should realise just how seriously the Opposition and the public in general take this case. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity provided by the debate on the motion clearly to state the Government's position on this case.

The motion which the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) has brought before the House today invites us to express a general view on the increase in disregard for the observance of law and on the measures which should be taken to counter that trend. This is a vitally important subject, and one to which the House has given a good deal of attention over the past few weeks.

Much of the ground has been covered in our recent debates on the subjects of juvenile crime, the police, penalties for terrorism, and capital punishment.

The motion is very wide ranging and comprehensive. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a variety of problems and to possible counter measures. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of some of the points that he intended to raise.

I recognise that, because it is the task of the police to enforce the criminal law as a whole, whatever is done to strengthen the police will have a generally beneficial effect on the extent to which law is observed. I recognise that the behaviour of any one section of our society inevitably has its influences for better or for worse on the behaviour of others.

Crime and social conflict have always made news. With modern means of communication, such news travels far and fast and in a form which presents it more vividly than was known in the past. But the existence of trends and fashions in law-breaking and their mutual influence are not sufficient to enable us to think in terms of one single problem of disregard for the law which has one factor or set of factors as its cause.

Some hon. Members have tried to define the factors. My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) and Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) suggested that housing is a key factor. It is equally hard to suggest one set of measures to remedy disregard for the law. It is impossible to arrive at general conclusions of practical value about the causes and remedies for lawlessness with a scope wide enough to take in, for example, both the hijacking of aircraft by terrorists and the holding of the Windsor free festival.

As the motion speaks of an escalation in certain types of criminal offence, the House may like to be reminded of the crime rate. The latest figures available are those for the first six months of this year. During that period the number of indictable offences recorded in England and Wales was 794,458. This, I regret to say, represented a rise of 20 per cent. over the figure for the corresponding period in 1973—an increase which is all the more disappointing because this 1973 figure showed a decrease of 5 per cent. as compared with the first half of 1972.

The offence in respect of which the highest rate of increase was recorded was criminal damage, which rose by 28 per cent. over the corresponding period last year. This underlines the concern expressed in the motion about the growth of vandalism, a point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams), Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) and Ilford, North. I have spoken earlier about fashions in lawlessness, and there is reason to think that damage to property is at the moment a fashionable offence among certain groups of young people. Certainly it seems to thrive on publicity. Hon. Members may like to know that the Home Office Standing Committee on Crime Prevention is at present considering the report of a working party on the extent of vandalism and on measures which could be taken to prevent it. This will, I hope, enable us to offer some useful advice to people and organisations, for example, London Transport, whose property is most at risk.

As regards crimes of violence, there was also an increase in the first half of this year over the first half of 1973 but it was of a much smaller order—only 3 per cent. I am glad to say that in sexual offences, which are counted as a separate category in our criminal statistics, there was a decrease of 6 per cent. It was in offences against property that the larger increases occurred. Apart from criminal damage, which I have already mentioned, there were increases of 23 per cent. in offences of theft or handling stolen goods, and 22 per cent. in burglary.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the increase in juvenile crime. The facts about this were given to the House on Monday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. There is a serious increase, and there are signs that offences committed by children are increasing in seriousness.

and that the peak age of criminality is falling. It appears now to be 15 for boys and 14 for girls.

It is nevertheless important not to exaggerate the proportion of the total amount of detected crime which is committed by juvenile offenders. Last year they were responsible for 24·6 per cent. of the total number of indictable offences resulting in findings of guilt as compared with 23·7 per cent. in 1970. That is a sizeable proportion, but not one that is rapidly increasing. Nevertheless, the situation leaves no room for complacency over the adequacy of what we are doing at present to prevent children from falling into crime.

Many hon. Members have put forward suggestions why children are increasingly falling into crime. They have asked whether it is the fault of the parents, of the teachers or of society. This is clearly a subject which we could debate for a long time. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead suggested that, because of the parental responsibility aspect, there should be an extra duty upon parents. He said that because of the difficulty of enforcing fines or other sums ordered by the courts to be paid by juveniles found guilty of criminal offences, their parents should be made absolutely liable to pay on their behalf.

Parliament has already gone some way in that direction by providing that where a fine or compensation has been ordered to be paid in criminal proceedings against the juvenile, the parent or guardian may be ordered to pay unless the court is satisfied that the parent cannot be found, or that he has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care or control.

If we go further than that we would, in effect, be placing an absolute liability on parents for all criminal actions committed by their children, even if those parents had done their conscientious utmost to prevent the commission of the offence or indeed even if it would have been physically impossible for them to prevent it. The House would, I think, hesitate before going that far. In the meantime, it may be felt that the level of fines and the means of enforcing them against juveniles should be strengthened. The points that have been made will certainly be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend.

We are aware of the criticisms which have been made of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. As was made clear in Monday's debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the whole of the Act and its effect under review, with particular reference to the part played by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). In looking at the workings of the Act, the Government to some extent accept criticism of it, particularly regarding such points of law, procedure and facilities, as the level and enforcement of fines in juvenile cases and the remand of young persons between 14 and 17 to Prison Department establishments. We fully accept the desirability of phasing cut such remands as soon as the community home system can develop sufficient secure assessment and observation places. We shall also want to hear the views of the Magistrates' Association— which is sending a deputation to see my right hon Friend in the near future— and of others, on the legal framework of the supervision order.

As for criticisms which are perhaps less easy to accept, I cannot prejudge the consideration now being given to the Act, but I should say that many people criticise it in one way or another when the real problem is one of resources. There are no fewer resources because of the Act. It is simply that the growth in their quantity and quality since its passage has not kept pace with the growing problem of juvenile offenders. Nor was this problem set off by the Act. As my hon. Friend told the House on Monday, the trends in offending were there before the Act and have continued since. Criticism which should justly be aimed at the scarcity of resources may be misplaced if it is aimed at the law itself. Still more important, no legal change on its own can increase the supply of resources.

I come now specifically to the Windsor free pop festival. I invite the House to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said about this festival being but one example of increasing disregard for the observance of law. I noted the interesting remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) on the philosophy of life of people who attend these festivals.

The festival was held this year, as in the two previous years, in Windsor Great Park, without the permission of the Crown Estate Commissioners. It entailed activities such as camping and the playing of music which, if done without the commissioners' permission, constitute breaches of the Windsor Great Park Regulations. I certainly in no way condone the illegality involved, and I am sure that we all sympathise with the feelings of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who suffered annoyance and inconvenience. I can assure the House that important lessons have been learnt by the police, by the Home Office, and by local authorities about the repercussions of this festival.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all these festivals should be properly organised and should be enjoyable, peaceful events, combining freedom of the individual with law and order. I cannot comment on the motives and actions of those who organised the festival, since criminal proceedings are pending against one of the leading figures involved. I would point out that by all accounts— and this is contrary to what the hon. Gentleman led the House to believe—a large proportion of the young people taking part in the festival were either unaware of the illegality or at least were attracted to the festival by motives quite other than a desire deliberately to break the law.

The events of the festival have been amply documented in the report published by the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley, which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman has carefully studied. The chief constable's decision to clear the festival site on 9lh August 1974 was the subject of much controversy, nationally as well as locally. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was urged at the time to set up a public inquiry into this and other aspects of police action during the festival. However, after careful consideration, he concluded that in this instance the holding of such an inquiry would serve no clear or constructive purpose and in particular would not help to resolve the controversy which had arisen over the way in which the chief constable exercised his judgment. An inquiry would have held out little prospect of a reconciliation of different points of view or of any advance towards the avoidance of a similar confrontation next year.

Today the hon. Gentleman has made valuable suggestions, all of which have been carefully noted, as to how to avoid a repetition of similar trouble next year. The need to devise more acceptable arrangements for future years, wherever a pop festival might occur, is a matter which I know is receiving very serious consideration from the local authorities in the area. The Home Office is keeping in close touch with those discussions, and I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage to say more than that, although I can assure the House that there is the closest co-operation between the police and the Crown Estate Commissioners about the future maintenance of law and order.

I am grateful for the full reply which has been given, and I do not ask for an immediate answer to this point. The question whether the law of trespass should be invoked by the Crown Estate Commissioners is one to which we should give very serious consideration if we are to avoid a situation whereby 30,000 or 40,000 people may descend on Windsor next year. I make no apology for raising this matter in the debate since I have given hon. Members ample opportunity of widening the debate.

The law of trespass is very much in the minds of those participating in the talks between the police and the Crown Estate Commissioners. I am sure that matter is being given careful consideration by them.

Turning to the need to increase the size of the police force and the special constabulary, the points raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) have been noted. The figures concerning the strength of the police and the special constabulary, and the intake of police cadets which, I am pleased to say, has reached a new record level, were given to the House recently. The position is certainly serious, but I am confident that some small progress is being made in recruitment. In 1973 the Metropolitan Police loss in strength was 522. but we can draw some slight comfort from the fact that so far this year the figure has been just under 200.

I have said before that the Government fully intend to support chief officers in their efforts to maintain an active and efficient special constabulary. We believe that the special constabulary is a vitally important part of the police manpower service. We are continuing to support the advertising efforts and the campaign of national publicity for the recruitment of police and members of the special constabulary.

I listened carefully to the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field concerning complaints against the police. There is now little or no dissent in the House as a whole regarding the need for a review of, and a change in, the procedure. There is a basic choice which has to be made when one compares the merits of the various possible schemes. They lie between an arrangement under which the independent element may be invoked ex post facto, and one under which the independent element intervenes at an earlier stage, so that the scrutiny of the complaint and the result of the police investigation can affect the final decision on the outcome. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's views will be noted in the discussions.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put forward not a cut-and-dried scheme but one that was intended as a basis for consultations with the police service and the police authorities. Those consultations are now proceeding. There have so far been separate meetings between Home Office officials and the three police representative bodies—the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents' Association, and the Police Federation. We are now seeking to arrange a joint meeting with all those bodies and the local authority associations early in the new year for the purpose of a general exchange of views. The local authority associations concerned are the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They are not yet ready for discussions at member level, but we hope to arrange such discussions in the new year before the joint meeting. We shall need a few months in which to complete the consultations and to prepare the legislation. After that we want to introduce the legislation as quickly as possible.

I now come to the question of the Shrewsbury pickets. This matter has been raised by almost every hon. Member, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). I know that many hon. Members have strong feelings on this subject. I shall not go into all the details of the case now, but I think it is important that I should make quite clear the Home Secretary's general position in regard to his responsibility for advising on the exercise of the prerogative.

The facts of the Shrewsbury case and the relevant law have been fully argued in lengthy proceedings before the Court of Appeal, which were concluded on 3rd December 1974. The merits of the case have been judicially considered with great care and the decision of the courts must be accepted and respected. At the same time, it must be recognised that every citizen or body of citizens has the right to petition for clemency on behalf of a convicted prisoner, and my right hon. Friend must therefore always be ready to receive and to consider representations for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. In doing so, he must and will have regard to the constitutional constraints upon interference by executive action with the decisions of the courts.

As the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field reminded the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his reply on 13th November, told the House that

"the Home Secretary cannot usurp the functions of the courts, and should recommend interference with sentences passed by the courts only on the basis of considerations which the courts have not been able to take into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 144.]

His attitude today is still the same. My right hon. Friend will be replying to further Questions on the case on 19th December, and I cannot anticipate now what he will say then.

The Prime Minister's meeting with the TUC certainly does not have the very grave constitutional implications which some hon. Members seem to suggest. Its purpose will be to receive the views of the TUC on various general matters arising from the case, but it is very well understood that any advice on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in individual cases remains the sole responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

The hon. Lady has made an important statement, the first part of which we very much welcome, particularly her remark that the Home Secretary stands by what he said on 13th November. However, on the question of the Prime Minister's meeting with the TUC, am I to understand that all that the Prime Minister will do will be to discuss with the TUC the general implications of this case for future policy and not the question of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy?

Discussions take different forms. My right hon. Friend's discussions with the TUC have not yet taken place, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an accurate account of what will be said. The general remit of the meeting is to discuss various general matters arising from the case.

I come to the question of penalties. I assure the House that the Home Secretary and the Government in general accept the duty to ensure that the courts are armed with adequate powers of sentence to deal with those who come before them. The maximum sentences available to the courts are kept under continuing review and from time to time changes are made where necessary. It is a great mistake to suppose, on the one hand, that judges and magistrates have inadequate powers of sentence and, on the other hand, that raising the maximum penalty has any effective power to deter.

The powers of sentence already available to the courts are much greater than many people suppose. The motion refers to vandalism. I remind hon. Members who have raised this problem that the maximum sentence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for the offence of destroying or damaging property is 10 years imprisonment. Where such damage involves arson, or where there is the intent to endanger life, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Murder and manslaughter are subject to a maximum penalty, mandatory in the case of murder, of life imprisonment. But so is wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Even the lesser offence of malicious wounding carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, as does an assault in which actual body harm is occasioned.

I am sure that no hon. Member will argue that this House should seek to interfere with the discretion of the judiciary in the exercise of its powers of sentence in any individual case or class of case. Any attempt to do that would tend to bring the machinery of criminal justice into disrepute.

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) raised a specific constituency case. He also raised a point of principle where he would like to see changes made. I will look into this and write to him about it.

Insofar as the motion describes the increase in crime as a serious problem, calls for an increase in police manpower, and asks that the penalties for crime should be reviewed from time to time, I am sure that none of us would wish to take exception to it. It is clear from the debate that the House is united in the view that law and order must be upheld.

The House has already come to a decision on the measures immediately needed to deal with IRA terrorism and on the restoration of the death penalty. On the wider issues raised by the motion, the great value of such a wide-ranging debate as we have had today might, to some extent, be lost or obscured if at the end of it hon. Members were asked to express either an unqualified assent to or an unqualified dissent from the form of words which the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has proposed.

I welcome the broad measure of agreement which underlies the views of all hon. Members who have spoken. May I therefore respectfully suggest to the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead that, having given the House the opportunity to discuss at length the important matters referred to in the motion, he might consider seeking leave to withdraw it rather than asking the House to adopt it as a full and adequate expression of all its collective views.

I beg to move,

That this House views with alarm the threat to the arts from Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals for capital transfer and wealth taxes; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to safeguard access to public and private art collections of national importance by exemption of works of art from such taxes to avoid their dispersal or sale abroad and the discouragement of patronage of living artists, to take adequate measures to preserve historic houses and their collections of works of art, to provide support and sufficient financial assistance to university and provincial museums, galleries and exhibitions and preserve for public enjoyment art treasures which are the country's heritage and which, if such taxes were imposed, would be lost to future generations in the United Kingdom.

I ask the House to support the principle of the motion. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who is an expert in these matters, cannot be present to take part in the debate. He is absent because of illness in his family, which illness we much regret.

The grim prospects for our standard of living should never deter us from taking what steps we can to preserve our artistic heritage. I hope that that will meet with general agreement. The motion indicates that I wish to concentrate on art collections, public and private, and the protection of living artists, historic houses, museums and galleries from ill-conceived taxation. It is a big subject, which I hope to deal with as quickly as I can.

I should declare an interest in historic houses, in the sense that my brother-in-law is the owner of an historic house in Staffordshire in respect of which a grant is received from the Historic Buildings Council.

We are approaching a state of economic siege, when everyone will have to make some sacrifices. The siege may last for several years. Despite the hardships that ordinary people may suffer, it is still our duty to see that our art treasures are preserved for the people and not to accelerate their loss to the nation by panic measures that history may never forgive. We have a duty to future generations in that regard.

In this debate I shall often turn for aid to remarks made by Lord Goodman. He said at the annual meeting of the Historic Houses Association on 23rd October:

"We live in a society with very uncertain sets of values.… Almost everyone believes that a greater measure of opportunity and of resources should be encouraged. Unhappily, this seems only capable of being achieved at the expense of the destruction of a great many things that are of total importance in a civilised world."

I very much agree with that statement.

It would be out of order for me to anticipate the legislation on capital transfer tax which we are to discuss on Wednesday. I do not believe that to be the biggest threat to the arts. The wealth tax is what we should be discussing today, in terms of its effect upon the arts. The tax, as we know, has a political objective, and the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see in his place, is on record as supporting it. I do not wish to debate the tax as a whole ; I wish to refer only to its relevance to the arts. I do not think that it has much relevance to the financial storm which is gathering around us every hour. I am concerned only with the provisions under the title of "The National Heritage" in the Green Paper. I hope that the Select Committee on the Wealth Tax, when it starts work, will take note of what is said in this debate. I fear that if the Government do not express a firm intention to widen the exemptions for art collections in this country many irreplaceable works of art will be lost in the few months before the Select Committee reports to the House. It will take the Select Committee some months to do its job.

The people who own works of art are not all rich. Some own only one picture. Others exist, hanging on by the skin of their teeth, in the smaller country houses and manor houses, with their precious possessions which have been in the family for centuries. During the last 30 years sensible legislation by both Conservative and Labour Governments has enabled such people to carry on, with an occasional grant from the Historic Buildings Council. The people want it this way. Roughly 43 million people a year visit the historic buildings of Great Britain. Without historic country houses, vulnerable as they are, the best pictures cannot be preserved at the best temperature. Those houses are the best setting for pictures and furniture of historic importance.

There is no doubt that if the wealth tax were implemented in the form suggested in the Green Paper, allowing for the studiously vague suggestions for exemption, it would amount to an annual rental paid on works of art, and it would cause owners to sell. If the museums cannot buy them—the purchase grants are totally inadequate—many of our art treasures and the houses in which they are kept will be sold to sheikhs, or exported to Hamburg, New York and Yokohama.

Throughout this century there has been a steady destruction of country houses. Some of us have seen the recent exhibition. There has been a drain of works of art away from their original setting, which is tragic. Instead of waiting for their doom, the art world, especially the living artist and collector, should vigorously campaign against such desecration. They should anticipate the worst. In the Peterborough column in the Daily Telegraph today a note appears of an advertisement in a Cheshire restaurant in which the proprietors announce that "due to pressure of business one month's notice must be given for all funeral parties." That is certainly anticipation.

Artists who depend for their existence on private patronage are also in danger. They should show fight and not surrender to the resulting decline of the private collection. The past importance of the private collector cannot be exaggerated. The great collections of Leningrad, for which so many sacrifices were made in the grim battles against the Nazis between 1941 and 1944 were, after all, built up in that way. In our country 1,185 out of 2,040 pictures in the National Gallery were acquired by gift or bequest. More than three-quarters of the Tate Gallery collection was acquired through private collections.

My hon. Friend will of course observe that most of the Hermi tage Collection came from Charles I.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. We should remember the tremendous risks which were taken by ordinary people in Leningrad to preserve the art treasures which were built up in this way through collections by monarchs, both British and Russian. In that way treasures such as early books and manuscripts in the British Museum become the property of the people. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would applaud that.

It is, therefore, no use waiting until the axe falls on the private collector. As Lord Goodman said on 26th June:

"Where Governments are concerned it is ex tremely wise to cry long before you are hurt"

In this connection we should all pay tribute to the indefatigable Mr. Hugh Leggatt and Mr. John Cornforth of Country Life who have already warned the country, as have many noble Lords in another place, of the danger that is coming. Ordinary people must be alerted through the House, which is the proper forum, and through the Press. I fervently hope that good sense will prevail and that no Government of this country will be so Philistine and retrograde as to cause a dispersal of more great art collections.

Recently, the control of exports and exemption from capital gains tax and estate duty of important works of art have brought great benefit to public collections, but in this debate we have to consider the total burden of taxation imposed on owners of country houses and collectors of art. That is the main matter which I wish to stress. I do not forget the rates, which will be increased next year, and the high cost of insurance on works of art. All these costs are a tremendous burden on those who own works of artistic merit. If the Chancellor charges, in addition, an annual rental on a valuation of an art collection, that will be the last straw for many. I repeat, many art collectors are modest people and are not in the position of rich tycoons, as is sometimes suggested.

It is, as Mr. John Scott-Taggart writes,

" as if the purely spiritual dividend from art were like the monetary dividend from stocks and shares."

I do not think that one can make a proper comparison betwen investment in Stock Exchange securities and investment in works of art.

Recent high prices have led some to say that it is more or less obscene for the rich to put money into pictures which may carry some relief from estate duty. It is better that a few—and they would be a few—vulgar tycoons should own beautiful works of art than that the small army of modest collectors should be wiped out. That would be the greatest tragedy of all. The small collectors would be the first to suffer. It is not the rich tycoon who would be the first to go.

As for the suggestion that valuable art treasures are "unnecessary" at a time of crisis, I remind the House that the nation spends £1,500 million a year on gambling and equally huge sums on food and drink. I believe that we are in danger of getting our values wrong, even at a time of economic stringency. We are in danger of losing the private collector altogether and of making it impossible to build up new collections for the future. Who would wish to bequeath or loan his pictures to the State or to a local authority if he were to be fined annually for having a collection? This is what the wealth tax will amount to—a fine for collecting. Contemporary artists should be aware that 90 per cent. of purchases are made by private collectors, and the destruction of the private collection would be very serious for the living artist.

Again, Lord Goodman comes to my aid against the ignoble doctrine of the wealth tax. He says:

"I think that we should not make the Philistine assumption that because a man has a picture he has something which is to be regarded as realisable wealth. I think this is a horrible Philistine proposition and should be rejected out of hand."

I agree with the noble Lord.

I remind the House that it is the total burden of taxation which must be considered. Would this not be a suitable moment for the Minister to state his policy in regard to taxation of works of art and the imposition of VAT on them, and to say whether he has yet persuaded his Treasury colleagues—one of whom, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is sitting beside him on the Government bench—to give some relief?

What effect will the capital transfer tax have on historic houses if the 45 per cent. relief for agricultural land on the estate duty scale is abolished? I shall not go further into that matter lest I am out of order, but I hope that the Minister will say as much as he can about it. It docs not sound as though, in terms of wealth tax, historic houses will be exempt —or, for that matter, works of art which are not on view to the public. The exemption provisions in the last few years seem to be narrowing, but perhaps I am wrong.

Will the Minister explain paragraphs 36 to 39 of the Green Paper? I regard it as extremely important that people should understand the situation. I have already said that it will be some months before the Select Committee reports to the House. It is extremely important for art collectors and for the art world in general to know something about the position and not to remain too long in a state of uncertainty. How will our heritage— here I refer to paragraph 39 of the Green Paper—be more readily available to the public if owners are forced to sell their works of art? I should like the Minister to answer that question. The Government in the same paragraph admit that

"the wealth tax could lead to the dispersal of the national heritage".

They say that they intend to ensure that this does not happen. Will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that it does not happen?

The Minister is reported as saying that the effect of wealth tax has been exaggerated. If that is so, I am sure we should like to know in what way. The Minister should do all he can to calm the fears of many people who are hanging on waiting to hear what the policy is. The Minister is also reported as saying that

"it is the Government's intention to cushion those owners of artistic objects who are pre pared to make them available to be seen by members of the public."

I do not think people would object to that, but how is this to be done? There are big practical difficulties.

I have been in correspondence with many museums about the future, and I do not believe they will be able to take over and acquire on loan or by sale a large inflow of works of art. I have corresponded with the City Museum of Bristol, Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent Museum, Mr. Michael Jaff'é of the Fitzwillian, Cam bridge, and with the Standing Commission on Museum and Galleries. They all confirm that grants for purchase at present could not possibly meet a big rush of important work of arts for sale or for loan. It is not only a question of their lacking the finance to acquire fine art treasures, but of their having little space. Birmingham, for example, has had no substantial increase in its space since 1919. That is one of the practical difficulties which has to be faced in saying that wealth tax on works of art is justified.

Is it not a fact that the Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery, which I know fairly well, has only seven of its 16 painting galleries open, because of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention?

It is a very serious problem indeed, involving the difficulty of staff, insurance and high costs—all of which contribute to the closing down of galleries and parts of museums. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining my point.

To return to the subject of finance, the Victoria and Albert's allocation of £139,000 went within four weeks of the start of the current year. That is an example of the very serious nature of the deteriorating position of our museums and galleries, which are on their beam ends at present. The National Portrait Gallery, operating on £40,000 a year, is virtually in the same position. When it needed to raise another £3,000 in the third month of this year, the money went within three weeks of the start of the current financial year. A grave position faces the galleries, and there are large practical problems. All this talk about the availability of art increasing with the wealth tax is quite unrealistic. It cannot be done.

I should also like to refer to the position of overworked museum staff who might become involved with the new army of Inland Revenue officials who are supposed to conduct valuations for wealth tax. The problems are complicated. Perhaps the Minister will say what will be the basis of valuation. Will it be on purchase price, as Lord Clark suggested in another place?

This brings me back to the subject of the historic house. Professor Nield asserts in the New Statesman that the present system creates private museums. He appears to advocate that historic country houses should become State museums, as in the Soviet Union and China. Where will the money come from to do all this? How could the Government take over all the historic houses in the United Kingdom, of which there are about 600 which are of great importance?

I hope that the Minister, in reply, will answer these questions. He is the man who should take the lead in the battle for works of art against the Treasury and so save treasures that might otherwise be lost to generations in the United Kingdom.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the capital transfer tax will be discussed by the House next week. Therefore, I hope that other hon. Members will, like the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), avoid going into depth on that subject—other wise they will be out of order.

We do not get many opportunities in the House to discuss arts matters and I had therefore intended to make a major intervention today, giving my views on what I regard as a number of issues on which present Government policy is failing the country in artistic matters. However, I am prevented from doing so—and I pro test publicly about this—because I must leave the Chamber shortly, due to the appalling lack of proper secretarial facilities in this place, to attend to the filing of my own correspondence so that, at the end of this week, I may write a few replies to constituents' letters which have come in since last weekend. I shall not stay during the debate. I have duties which I intend to fulfil within a week of receiving their letters. I must therefore go off to sort out my files and do the damn thing myself. But I hope to return to listen to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), whom I still regard as the best arts Minister we ever had, now sadly departed, but we have instead the benefit of a Labour Government, which I suppose is some consolation.

When I was Opposition spokesman for the arts I fought, with the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many ardent supporters out side, to try to persuade an obstinate Tory Cabinet, led by an extraordinarily obstinate gentleman, to abandon its petty policy of imposing museum charges. It took over three years to win that but win it we did. We won it because we kept on till we wore the opposition into the ground.

Those of us who love the arts are now engaged in two further battles. It is tragic that while we are able to agree across party lines on arts matters we have had to battle with successive Ministers for the Arts to try to preserve the importance of our national artistic heritage. We have been engaged in the present battle for some months.

The first part of this battle is to try to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to zcro-rate for VAT the work of all creative people. I recall that when we were in Opposition, my hon. Friend the Under secretary passionately denounced this philistine policy when it was first mooted, and we supported one another whole-heartedly in the denunciation of this mean-minded measure. It is to the shame of all of us in the House, of all parties, that we cannot persuade the Government to change their mind and acknowledge the mistake—they did not make it, the Tories did—not only of imposing the tax at all but also of continuing to levy it on the works of creative people for even a single day longer. I hope that this battle will not last as long as the battle against the museum charges, but I must warn my right hon. Friend that those of us who favour fiscal aid rather than fiscal oppression on the arts will not surrender in our struggle.

The second part of the fight in which we are now engaged is against the wealth tax on works of art. Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary not yet accepted any of the reasoned and so far—apart from occasional petulant outbursts—unans wered criticisms of the threat that this tax poses not only to our past heritage but also to the very livelihood of living British artists?

Does my hon. Friend not care—or is his political muscle not enough—that there are many of us who want to encourage the patronage of the arts by private as well as by public bodies? Does he believe that there will be a flight from equities into works of art if they are exempted? He knows, or he should know—somebody in his Department should have told him—that this has not occurred in any single country where a wealth tax is already in operation and where works of art are excluded from its scope. Why, therefore, should it hap pen here? Why has he made such irresponsible remarks on this issue which can only damage the very heritage that we are seeking to protect?

There has been a failure on the part of successive Governments to make local authorities carry out their responsibilities towards the arts. There has been appal ling neglect by most local authorities. Under present policies few provincial museums and art galleries will be able —as the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) pointed out—to receive a succession of works of art removed from private collections as a result of the wealth tax. Such museums and galleries lack any proper financial support, and arc, sadly, inadequately staffed to undertake their responsibilities of display, preser vation and conservation.

There are some hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not give a damn about such matters, and the appalling emptiness of this place today under lines this. I appreciate that it is Friday, but it is pretty inexcusable that out of 635 Members so few can bother to turn up to discuss these matters. Most hon. Members may not give a damn, but I for one do, and I am not entirely alone. I hope that my words find support from both sides.

I trust that my hon. Friend will persuade the Chancellor to exclude works of art, museum objects and books from the scope of the wealth tax for the sake of our long-cherished cultural tradition.

Ministers for the Arts, of varying qualities, come and go, but our national heritage is in danger, and it is the duty of the present incumbent to play a more active and successful role than he has so far played in ensuring that these treasures and this enormous range of things in our cultural heritage remain in this island of ours.

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on his extremely lucid presentation of a very important case. He has done a great service not only to the House but also to the country by bringing this matter before Parliament following his success in the Ballot. His speech ought to be read and studied with great care by those who have jurisdiction over these matters.

We understand the secretarial pressures that will cause the temporary absence of my hon. Friend—I deliberately call him that—the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) from the Chamber. His contributions to these debates are always forceful and welcome. He has done a tremendous amount for the arts in this country, and deserves recognition for this.

While the hon. Gentleman is making those pleasing observations, would he also stress publicly how damn ably incompetent are the secretarial arrangements in this place, because I feel very strongly on this matter?

I must not be provoked too much on that score, Mr. Deputy Speaker or you might rule me out of order, but I appreciate the hon. Gentle man's remarks in relation to this and I also agree with much else that he has said. It is a shame that Members of Parliament are not given adequate secretarial facilities, or adequate secretarial remuneration to do their jobs as they ought to be able to do them, and so devote to this Chamber and to debates the amount of time that they ought to be able to devote.

Having said that, I come to the subject of the debate and I ask the question which needs asking on an occasion such as this. Where does the wealth of the nation lie? Where is the richness, where is the opulence? I answer that by saying that the wealth of the nation lies, first, obviously, in its people and its institutions, but second, as much as in anything else it lies in its history, and the history of a nation is most clearly marked and enshrined in its buildings and works of art.

I do not believe that anyone with a soul could possibly pass more than a few weeks in this place without being moved every time he walked not just into this Chamber, which is relatively modern, but into the great Westminster Hall in which so much of English history has been encompassed.

In thinking of our nation and its sense of history, all of us recall periods of shame which we try to gloss over—the period when the great monastic buildings were pulled down, the period when, with an excess of zeal, the supporters of Cromwell defaced and disfigured so many of our finest churches. Today, too, we face a threat to our heritage which is on a parallel with the dissolution of the monasteries and the activities of the iconoclasts, for if Government policy as at present outlined is implemented, the heritage of our nation will be dealt a deadly blow.

I shall concentrate my remarks upon our country houses and collections, and I shall urge the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench—I pay tribute to them both, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for attending the debate—to think again before they act precipitately.

It is an old adage, but it bears repetition, that one can do much in haste that generations hereafter will repent at leasure, and a pretty poor leisure at that if the present proposals are carried through. I cannot believe that a man with the knowledge of the performing arts which the Under-Secretary of State has, or that a man with the intellectual qualities and sensitivity of the Financial Secretary, could conceivably be willing parties to an act of wanton destruction. I like to acquit them, therefore, of any thoughts of malice, and I say to them only that, perhaps through ignorance or perhaps through some other cause, they are embarking on a course which, if only they would consider it, they would greatly regret.

We had from my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon a very good resume of the position of the country house, but I wish to expand a little on what he said. Naturally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall obey your injunction with regard to the capital transfer tax, save to say that I feel that my hon. Friend was wrong on only one point, that is, when he underestimated, as I see it, the effect which that tax and the wealth tax cumulatively would have. In my view, it would be disastrous.

It is a tragedy that the party of Sir Stafford Cripps, who was responsible for the Gowers Report, should now be embarking on its proposed course of action. It is even more tragic that the party which derived so much of its inspiration from the works of Ruskin should be embarking on that course. Here, if I may, since I think it deserves repetition, I shall quote a short passage from Ruskin:

"To my farther great benefit, as I grew older, I thus saw nearly all the noblemen's houses in England; in reverent and healthy delight of uncovetous admiration—perceiving, as soon as I could perceive any political truth at all, that it was probably much happier to live in a small house, and have Warwick Castle to be astonished at, than to live in Warwick Castle and have nothing to be astonished at ; but that, at all events, it would not make Brunswick Square in the least more pleasantly habitable to pull Warwick Castle down. And at this day, though I have kind invitations enough to visit America, I could not, even for a couple of months, live in a country so miserable as to possess no castles."

Brave words, felicitously expressed by one of the greatest masters of English prose, but words which should mean so much to hon. Ladies and Gentlemen opposite because, if anyone could claim to be the cultural forefather of the Labour Party it would be Ruskin.

Although he used the word "castle", Ruskin was speaking of our English country houses, which are unique and special. France has its chateaux, Italy its great villas, and Germany its somewhat daunting castles, but in England it is in our parish churches and in our country houses that the very spirit of our history breathes.

Today, we are accustomed to devoting a great deal of time and thought in Government circles, and sometimes in the House, to conservation of the countryside. There is not a Member of Parliament who does not with delight get out of London and into the countryside, luxuriating and relaxing in it, and thanking God for it. Yet the countryside is a living thing ; it is not merely a park. It is a living thing, and our pastoral country-side depends, more than anything else, upon working farmers and working foresters often within country estates, It is a countryside which has buildings as its focal points in the glorious landscape which almost all our counties afford, and those buildings, by and large, fall into two groups—the country churches, to which I am particularly devoted, and the country houses. There is an indivisibility in the English countryside, and the buildings which form those focal points none of us should ignore.

I am not speaking just of the great houses, the Longleats, the Woburns and the Chatsworths, great and glorious though they are. I am talking about many a smaller house or manor, with a long history, part and parcel of the community, and often the focal point of the community through generations.

Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me? I go to do my secretary's work.

I almost feel that the House should stand in silence [An HON. MEMBER: "Or cheer."] No, the House should never cheer the exit of one of its great parliamentary characters. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman soon makes another entrance.

I was observing that we are thinking here not of the great country houses but of many a smaller place. I shall give three examples from my own constituency which graphically illustrates the problem with which we are dealing. 1 have in my constituency Weston Park, the great house of the Earls of Bradford which is open to the public every day for about eight months of the year. Thou sands of people from the Midlands flock to it to enjoy its gardens and its park and to go into the house and look at the treasures. It is in the top league of country houses, and it deserves to be so.

Weston has a special place, but I also have in mind in my constituency a house to which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon referred, Chillington. The house was designed by Soane and it is an architectural achievement of great importance. It has a glorious Capability Brown landscaped park and is open to the public on a fairly regular basis. It is not a great house in the way that Weston is. It is not stuffed with the sort of treasures that Weston possesses, but it is at the centre of an estate of great importance to the whole fabric of our countryside on the doorstep of the industrial Midlands.

There is another house which is much smaller—still a large house by most of our standards—but which cannot be opened to the public very easily because the facilities do not exist. It does not have the concentration of treasures, pictures and works of art that would attract vast numbers of people to go there. Yet it would be a tragedy if that house had to close. Each of these houses in its individual way is threatened. None of them is owned by a truly rich man. In these days if a man lives in a great country house and he is rich, it is in spite of his possessions and not because of them.

As the Christmas Recess draws near, and since the Financial Secretary has a constituency close to mine, may I extend to him an invitation to come to look at some of these houses and see some of the problems to which I am referring? I shall write to him after the debate and I hope that he will accept my invitation.

These are the places which are threatened. It is not as if any of them could be replaced or changed in their use. I would quote from "The English Country House" by Victoria Sackville-West, a book which was loved by people of all political parties. She says:

"If these English houses of ours were all to be turned into institutional buildings, schools, asylums, hotels and the like, some thing of our national heritage of pride and beauty would be gone. Museums? A museum is a dead thing ; a house which is still a home of men and women is a living thing which has not lost its soul. The soul of a house, the atmosphere of a house, are as much a part of the house as the architecture of that house or as the furnishings within it. Divorced from its life, it dies "

These houses are part of the countryside and they are open to people who at least may enjoy their grounds. They cannot be transformed into museums and their collections kept intact without prodigious expenditure and in our present economic situation we cannot begin to contemplate that. That would be the best alternative use even though it would deprive the building of life. But that is not feasible.

Some hon. Members ask, "What of the National Trust?" I yield to no one in my admiration of the National Trust, and it has made some of the most force ful representations against the wealth tax. It says that it cannot take on more houses unless they are very well endowed. It does not want to take on empty houses whose collections have been sold and dispersed, because that is not its function. That does not provide a solution nor is there any solution in local authorities taking the buildings over. The thought of their being transformed into head quarters for this that and the other, becoming outposts of bureaucracy, is enough to make the spirit freeze within one. One has only to think of how liberating and delightful it is to be able to wander round the fine rooms of Somerset House to realise how much a building can be ruined by being used for the wrong purpose. So these houses which enshrine and enclose so many of our greatest collections are truly part and parcel, and a very important part, of our national heritage.

From those houses has come so much to enrich our public heritage. My hon. Friend referred to our great public collections. Nearly half the pictures in the National Gallery came there as a result of private benefaction from collections acquired through the discernment and patronage of generations. Three-quarters of the pictures in the Tate Gallery, just along the Embankment, came there as a result of private patronage.

It is a fact, perhaps the one that should above all else convince us of the validity of the facts presented by my hon. Friend, that living artists are almost entirely de pendent on the private patron, the private collector, for their existence. Take that away, and the arts will be dealt a death blow.

But there are practicalities which must also be considered. Imagine, for the purpose of argument, that the paintings are realisable lumps of wealth—but what a cold way to think of them! Imagine that they can be valued, though that in itself would be a difficult exercise. Where will the people be found to do the valuations? There are not sufficient people with expertise in this country to go around the hundreds and hundreds of houses and value collections, let alone the houses themselves, for taxation pur poses. It would become a bizarre combination of an inquisition and a soulless bureacracy. It drives one almost to distraction just to think of it.

It would be a supreme and tragic irony if, as we entered the European Architectural Heritage Year of 1975, we enacted measures which would have the effect of putting up the shutters all over England on some of our finest buildings, and dispersing from those buildings over a generation some of the finest collections of art ever collected together in one country. We must resist this. It would be an abdication of Parliamentary duty—Parliament, after all, is the custodian of what is best in this country—if we were to allow it to happen.

I am not attacking the concept of the wealth tax or even the capital transfer tax. I accept that Labour Members now form the Government, and that they have ideas which they wish to translate into legislative action. I accept that they will not be deflected from their basic intention, which is to introduce those two taxes. But I pray and beseech them to listen to the arguments which we are trying to advance, with feeling and passion, on behalf of the national heritage.

If words of mine cannot move the Government, and if the eloquent sub mission of my hon. Friend cannot touch them, let them think for a moment of the financial implications. Let them listen to the Director-General of the British Tourist Authority. Let them think of the millions of tourists who flock to this country, upon whom we are increasingly dependent for foreign earnings. They come to see a country that is historic, a country with traditions and beautiful countryside. According to some questionnaires, they come more than any thing else to visit our famous buildings. Let us not do anything that will take away that magnet from the tourists.

Let us not do anything that would deprive our young people, the future generations, of the joy and glory that has been ours. We must not allow that frightening exhibition, graphic in its simplicity, held recently at the Victoria and Albert Museum, to become a reality. Let not our generation say "Ours was the Parliament that encompassed the destruction of the English country house ",

I listened with great care to both the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). The hon. Member for Abingdon moved his motion with great care and with attention to the facts of the situation. I listened to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West with growing astonishment and with a degree of alienation. There has been a great deal wrong with the arts policies of successive Governments. I hope on another occasion to be able to debate the matter in considerable detail. To hear emotional claptrap being used as an argument for trying to protect a narrow aspect of our cultural heritage seems to be putting a large and inadequate cart before a small horse.

Whichever way we consider the matter, pictures and the maintenance of some of our architectural beauties are of considerable importance. It is unrealistic to imagine that the wealth tax will immediately produce a dramatic result. We should be considering other means of raising money to assist our museums to make more purchases throughout the year. A hint has been given. We are spending millions of pounds on gambling. What is to stop an imaginative Treasury Minister—it seems that God forbids such a creature to exist—introducing a national lottery which would allow us to raise money for the arts and the National Health Service? We could begin at long last to benefit from innocent enjoyment in a way which would provide better facilities not only for the sick but those who want to enjoy the real and magnificent heritage which we have in paintings and books.

I believe strongly that VAT must be removed from the arts in general. I disagree with many of my hon. Friends, in that I would define the creative arts much wider. There is in the House a cultural snobbishness, in that many hon. Members believe that the theatre is cultural and films are not. It is widely believed that country houses should be protected and that architectural sites should not be given the same sort of assistance. It seems that the view is held that archaeological sites should not be given such assistance.

It is time that as a House we realised that we have a responsibility that covers a much wider area than we normally demonstrate. That will not be done if we continue to believe that we should protect only country houses, some of which, in my view, are not open enough to the public.

I think that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) would agree that in the context of art collections and the housing of pictures the preservation of historic houses is important. It is in that context that I was putting my case.

I understand that and I totally agree. It has always been my view that by giving the public constant access to private collections we should be keeping collections together and helping to preserve them in the best possible conditions. However, there are some country houses—to name them would be invidious—in which it appears that gene ration after generation has had astonishingly bad taste and has managed to pre serve second-rate artists throughout the ages. I suppose that that is a highly personalised view and not necessarily a good argument for doing away with the wealth tax.

I believe that VAT on any form of art—for example, writing, painting and film making—is a retrograde step. It should not be allowed to continue. The Conservative Party was absolutely wrong when it introduced it when in Government.

There is a slight degree of hypocrisy in Conservative Members now suggesting that my hon. Friend has not moved fast enough to preserve the arts from depredation. My hon. Friend will find on the benches behind him a great deal of sym pathy for the world of the arts and any thing that he can do to help to preserve it. However, he will find no uncritical acceptance of the sort of argument that we have heard this afternoon.

In my constituency there are many houses which are so sub-standard as to be despicable. I am ashamed to have people living in them. I regard my job as being that of a legislator who must decide priorities in the spending of money, in the context that my responsibility must be to those families, to ensure that they are properly housed, clothed and employed. I do not want to do that at the expense of paintings or of works of art in general, but it is unrealistic to assume that any section of the community can escape the real, stringent and difficult financial measures which will be experienced by the rest of the community. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he concludes the debate.

We are debating this motion— which was so carefully and compre hensively drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and so beautifully read out by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a manner of which the late Sir Henry Irving would not have been ashamed—in the context of the gravest crisis that the arts in Britain have faced since the war.

The motion refers to threats, and there are three which we have to consider. The first is the threat that the work of the Arts Council which has been built up over a quarter of a century is liable to be destroyed. The second concerns the future of the historic houses of Britain, the nation's heritage over the centuries, which are threatened by the proposed wealth and capital transfer taxes. The third is the threat to the great collections of pictures and other works of art which are liable to be dispersed and lost to this country if these taxation proposals are implemented.

It is right that at a moment of such great peril for the arts the House should debate the matter and draw the attention of the country to the dangers facing our heritage. In default of the Government providing an opportunity for debate we are indeed grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given us the opportunity to debate the whole subject and who introduced it in what I hope he will allow me to say was a profound, thoughtful and economical speech.

The Under-Secretary today has the opportunity, if he wishes, to clear up the destructive doubts which are gathering about the Government's arts policy. The first question that we wish to have answered is: do the Government intend to support the arts on the same scale as the Conservative Government did? When we came to office we found that a certain sum of money was being devoted to the arts. By the time that we left office, that amount had been doubled, and until the emergency of November 1973 the real growth rate in the arts budget had been about 10 per cent. a year. Even when facing that emergency, even when the cuts in the rate of growth—there were no absolute cuts—had been allowed for, there was still a growth rate of 4 per cent. at the prices then prevailing. Of course, those figures were later rendered out of date by the remorseless advance of inflation.

Never has there been such demoralisation and concern about the future as there is in the arts world today. For this a heavy responsibility rests upon the Minister himself, because there is such a lack of knowledge about the Government's intentions. Under the previous Government, the Arts Council knew in about June of the previous year roughly what it might expect for the next financial year. It is essential to have this advance know ledge so that there can be forward planning for arts projects. Here we are, in December, still with no idea of what the budget for the arts is likely to be next year.

On Tuesday 10th December The Gardian carried the headline—

" Jenkins wins £6 million for the arts."

In the text the arts reporter of The Guardian said:

"Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Minister for the Arts, is reliably believed to have won his long battle for an extra £6 million in 1975–76 for the 900 organisations supported by the Arts Council."

Where did that story come from? The words "reliably believed" are a term of art which normally indicates some degree of prompting, if not of inspiration. There could be only one official source for that figure, and that would have to be the Minister or his Department, whereas this information should have been given to the House of Commons. The Minister is not responsible for newspaper reports, but this report has cause widespread speculation throughout the arts world and I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear to the House what role, if any, he played in this.

Although I hope to deal with the matter in greater detail if I catch your eye a little later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be as well if I say straight away that whatever source that speculation came from it certainly did not emerge from my office, or from anybody in my office.

I am grateful for that assurance, which I accept entirely. The hon. Gentleman must agree that it was an unprecedented piece of reporting and that it would be interesting to know exactly on what it was based. I suppose that neither the Minister nor myself is in a position to establish that with any degree of certainty.

However, the Minister will be able to clear up my next point. He has announced an emergency grant of £1·75 mil lion to the Arts Council. What is the status of that grant? Is it a payment on account of the £5·5 million the Arts Council has said it needs if its existing work is to survive, or is it a recurrent grant which will raise the basic level of the grant to the Arts Council to £21·3 million? It is very important that we know that.

I hope that the Minister will tell the House two other things. First, is the grant for 1975–76 to be increased to make good the ravages of inflation? That is the question that is being asked so insistently. Secondly, what growth rate in expenditure for the arts can we expect for the future? Under a Conservative Government it reached, in real terms, a rate of 10 per cent. We had from the Secretary of State for Education and Science an indication of the growth figure for the education budget. The right hon. Gentleman told us that that budget will grow, in real terms, by 10 per cent. over the next two years.

Surely it is right that the arts should have the same growth rate as education. After all, the arts are treated as an in trinsic part of the Department of Education and Science. That has certain disadvantages, as the Under-Secretary will know. If there are disadvantages, the advantages should be enjoyed as a sort of compensation. What we are asking is that the arts should be given equal treatment with education. We say that the depredations of inflation should not only be made good, but that there should be a 5 per cent. growth rate as well. If that is so, the arts grant the country would expect to see in 1975–76 would be about £28 million and in 1976–77 about £37 million, if that growth rate were to be maintained.

Our first accusation against the Minister is that he has left undone those things which he ought to have done. Not con tent with that, he has also done those things which he ought not to have done. He has given his personal commitment and support to the new taxes proposed by the Government. What the Minister has done is to put forward and adhere to his well-known Left-wing views. I am sure that he will not take "Left-wing" as a term of abuse but rather as a compliment. His Left-wing philosophy and economics have been given priority over his duty to the arts. That is why he has supported in public the proposals for the wealth tax and the capital transfer tax without care or concern for their effect on the future of our national heritage. Yet of that national heritage he is the titular custodian.

Another accusation which I must put forward is that the Minister has spurned the initiative of the Opposition, who have pledged their full support to the proposal of the European Commission that the arts should be zero rated for the purposes of VAT. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was forthright in her views of VAT this afternoon and I hope that the Minister will be urged on by what she has said. I agree with the hon. Lady that it was a mistake not to zero rate the arts from the beginning. I am afraid that I had no responsibility for that. [Interruption.] We have seen the error of our ways.

Too late.

Not too late to urge upon the Government that they should profit from our mistakes. I hope that we shall have a pledge from the Minister that the Government intend to give their active support to this proposal of the European Commission, and that in the reasonably near future we shall see that works of art, particularly of the living artist, are zero rated for VAT purposes.

I turn now to the wealth tax. What we as an Opposition, supporting the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), ask for is an exemption from this tax for all works of art. That is the only way to protect the country houses and the private collections which are an intrinsic part of the national heritage.

Will the hon. Gentle man say whether, in that case, it is his party's attitude that furniture should come within the official definition of an antique and thus be excluded from VAT? If this is what he proposes he should spell it out now.

I see no objection to that proposal. A work of art should be broadly defined. There can be works of art in furniture, just as in pictures. It is quite practicable. The hon. Lady is looking sceptical.

rose—

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to deal with the hon. Lady's scepticism first.

The proposal is practical because the majority of European countries exempt works of art from tax.

There are in existence internationally agreed conventions which list these items.

I am grateful for that supporting note.

I interrupt my discourse to welcome the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) back from his struggles with his correspondents—struggles which apparently have been successful and mercifully brief. He is his own best secretary.

Sadly, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? My struggles were not with my correspondents but with my correspondence. His enunciation needs to be improved. I have totally failed, having answered only four letters.

Order. I think the distress of the hon. Member should be restrained from now until the end of the debate, which is just half an hour away.

I am grateful for your guidance to us all, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Warley, East for his kindly references to myself, saying that I was the best Minister for the arts we have ever had. I reciprocate, and say that he was the best Minister for the arts we never had. But all hope is not lost. When I form my national Government I shall see to it that this unaccountable omission is put right.

Returning to the subject of the wealth tax, I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with the important question of valuation. How is an effective valuation to be carried out, and who will carry it out when there is such a shortage of valuers?

What steps does the Under-Secretary propose to take to prevent the flight of the fine arts market to other countries? That market follows freedom. If extra taxes are imposed in the United Kingdom, we shall lose this market. I need hardly stress, at this point in our history —and in view of the statistics published yesterday—the importance of invisible earnings to our future. The Green Paper offers an impractical palliative instead of a firm commitment of exception. It espouses the vague principle that those works of art which are on view to the public will receive special treatment. However, it is impractical for many owners to allow people into their houses to see their small but important collections. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon made the point that most provincial museums lack the space and the staff to accommodate the flood of works of art from those who, seeking to avoid the tax, might well want to put their art objects on public view.

All those dangers have been highlighted by the society, Heritage in Danger, which commands widespread support from all parties. That society is supported in particular by Mr. Hugh Leggatt, who has been indefatigable in putting forward the dangers to our heritage from these ill-thought-out and untimely proposals. The ineluctable result of putting these proposals into operation will be that many owners will be forced to sell. There will be no—or very few—British buyers coming forward, and works of art which are part of our heritage will be snapped up by foreign buyers and lost to this country for ever. That is the danger to our national heritage. All those people interested in the arts are now looking to the Minister as an ally. But what do we find? We find that he has gone over to the enemy.

The Labour administration of 1964, thanks to the efforts of the incomparable Baroness Lee, enjoyed a high reputation for concern for the arts. If the Minister continues as he has started the Labour administration of 1974 will go down in history as one of the most Philistine administrations we have ever had. I hope that he will remove that impression today. If so, no one will be more delighted than I and other Opposition Members. Moreover, we shall fully co-operate with him in so far as he takes steps to protect our heritage and the arts. But if he continues along the path which he seems to be taking we shall continue to harry him, because he will be failing in his first duty as Minister responsible for the arts, which is to protect our heritage. If he will not discharge that duty, it devolves on the Opposition so to do in default, and we shall do it with all the energy and persistence at our command.

Before I reply to the debate which was so ably opened by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), I should like to express my warm appreciation of the presence, even if it be in a mute capacity, of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I doubt whether the House realises what an enormous sacrifice it is for my hon. Friend. He spends far more time in my company than I believe he would wish. Day in, day out he is bombarded, not only by myself, but by other Ministers, and I am reliably informed that some Ministers believe that I have his ear more effectively than they do. However, that is entirely untrue. He is completely impartial in the ear which he gives all of us. That he should volunteer to be present today—and it is extremely courteous of him; he is under no compulsion to be present— speaks highly of his sense of duty.

In general, the debate has been informative, interesting and invaluable. That is particularly true, with perhaps one exception which it would be invidious to name, of the speeches made from the back benches. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who leads for the Opposition in these matters, tends to spoil his case by over-exaggeration. Someone, a Conservative, was so unkind on one occasion to say to me, "I cannot understand what is wrong with my party. At least your party keeps its lunatic fringes on the back benches". I would not take the matter as far as that. However, there was a certain immoderation in the hon. Gentleman's approach. He would have done well to emulate the example of those on the benches behind him a little more than he did. I shall learn from this debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will learn something, too. Let us live in hope.

I listened with interest particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon. The motion refers primarily to objects of art which could be affected by the Government's proposals for a wealth tax and a capital transfer tax as set out, respectively, in the Green Paper and in the White Paper of August 1974. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have drawn attention to the fact that the proposals for a capital transfer tax are covered in the Finance Bill, which was published this week and which is to be debated next week. Therefore, I shall not trespass far on that ground. However, I have consulted my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on the matter and if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will permit me to do so, I should like to refer briefly to a specific aspect of the Bill which has particular relevance to our discussion.

However, before doing that, perhaps the hon. Member for Abingdon will forgive me if I point out that parts of the motion are not necessarily connected with each other. Therefore, I shall address my reply mainly to the capital transfer tax and wealth tax aspects of the motion, as I think the hon. Gentleman would wish me to do. But, if I have time, I should like to make some points at the end of my remarks about the Government's general policy on encouraging access to and enjoyment of the national treasures. If I do that, I shall succeed in making a limited reply to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack).

Do not forget the Arts Council.

I shall refer to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Even though I felt that some of his remarks were immoderately phrased, that does not mean that they do not deserve a reply.

I refer the House to paragraph 16 of the White Paper on the capital transfer tax proposals. The first part of the paragraph explains the present arrangements for gifts to National Heritage bodies listed in Schedule 25 of the Finance Act 1972. These will, in effect, be continued under the Finance Bill which will be before us next week, and they are embodied in Schedule 6 of the Bill. There is no intention of making any change, except for one beneficent change to which I shall refer in a moment. It would probably be inappropriate for me to detail all the bodies listed in Schedule 6, but in summary they comprise the national collections, local authorities, university collections, the National Trust, the National Trust of Scotland and the National Art Collections Fund. All those bodies are in the position of accepting exhibits, and gifts given to them are excluded.

In the Finance Bill the Friends of the National Libraries have been included for the first time. Here, therefore, there is a possibility of valuable treasures becoming available to the public through acquisition by such bodies.

Paragraph 16 also refers to the Government's consideration of the possibility of tax relief based broadly on existing estate duty provisions in respect of works of art, and so on. Our intention is that the transfer from estate duty to capital transfer tax will make no difference to works of art, and in some respects there may be a minor advantage. The Finance Bill provides for the continuation of those transfer arrangements.

In addition, I should remind the House that present estate duty arrangements, which provide for pre-eminent items to be accepted in satisfaction of estate duty, have the effect of enriching the collections of museums and galleries to which they are allocated. The Government's intention is that that arrangement will continue with the proposed capital transfer tax, and that is also provided for in the Finance Bill. There is no threat here. On the contrary, there appears to be a minor but significant gain.

All these aspects of the capital transfer tax will no doubt be discussed when the Finance Bill is debated in the House. Perhaps it will be discussed then by Ministers who are more equipped than I am to do so.

I turn to the Government's proposals for the wealth tax which, not surprisingly, has been the subject of most comment. Hon. Members have referred frequently to the details in Chapter 3 of the Green Paper. Paragraph 26 lays down the general principle that the tax should be levied equally on the value of all the realisable assets mentioned in that paragraph.

The question that must concern the House is how the Government propose to ensure that the fears which understandably have been expressed will not be realised. The first thing I should point out is that in the illustrations provided the tax will not begin until the sum of £100,000 is reached. At that level it is proposed to begin at a rate of 1 per cent. Therefore, we should get the matter in proportion. Listening to some Conservative Members, one might also get the idea that anybody with a pennyworth of assets will be in danger of losing them. The situation is not like that. I repeat that the tax starts at £100,000 and at that level the figure of tax is 1 per cent. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will go into these matters in greater detail on another occasion.

There are obvious problems of possible market distortion, the creation of tax havens and injustice to other taxpayers if some types of possessions are excluded from the liability to wealth tax. Therefore the Government cannot go so far as to meet the claim or suggestion made on both sides of the House that objects of all kinds of artistic value, possessions, historic houses, and so forth, should be altogether excluded from the application of the tax.

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of exemption, will he say what will be the basis of valuation in respect of the wealth tax on works of art?

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer on that point. These are difficult matters to which the Select. Committee will give much time. I should only be hazarding a guess if I were to go any further in answering that matter. The Select Committee will represent the views of all sides of the House and it would be improper if I were to suggest that the Committee should conduct its work in a particular way, or if I were to take anything for granted. We certainly cannot attempt to condition the Committee before the event.

Assuming that the Select Committee makes recommendations about the impracticality of this move, is the Minister saying that the Government have decided that, whatever the Select Committee says, the tax will be applied to these objects?

I am saying that the Government's intentions on wealth tax are much the same as were their predecessor's intentions on VAT. I must confess that I felt as unenthusiatic about VAT as Conservative Members do about the wealth tax. I objected to VAT because it impinged on the poorer people in the country, whereas the wealth tax will affect the wealthier people. I have endeavoured so far to avoid party points, but it is true that Conservative Members generally become more exercised about the impact on the wealthier people in the country. We on the Labour benches by and large tend to be more concerned about the poorer people.

At any rate the Select Committee has been set up—and here I have some hard news to give the House—and will consist of 21 Members from all parties. I am not in a position to say when its first meeting will be held. Some hon. Members appear to be asking me to say that the Government reject their own Green Paper. That is not the case. But the Select Committee will be entirely within its rights if it chooses to come forward with proposals for fundamental changes in what has been put forward in the Green Paper.

It is our hope that the Select Committee, will, in general, go along with our proposals in the Green Paper, and advise us on those detailed matters which, without a Select Committee, we could not deal with ourselves.

Surely the point is that the Government will give evidence of their views before the Select Committee, and the Select Committee will assess the Government's views as well as many other views. But what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) is seeking to have elucidated from the Under-Secretary is whether he has said that whatever are the views of the Select Committee on exemption of objects of art, the Government will reject those views in advance.

I am not saying that. I am talking about the Government's present views of the principle of the matter. The views are in the Green Paper, and I point out that it is a Green Paper—and therefore intended as a basis for discussion—rather than a White Paper. I also express absolute readiness to consider all the arguments put before me by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the detailed matters which hon. Gentlemen hold dear, and which some of us on this side claim to hold no less dear.

I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West say that he spends a considerable amount of time visiting country houses, stately homes, including the lesser stately homes, and country churches. This is one of my favourite occupations and therefore it seems that in spite of our political differences we have some things in common. One is an appreciation of the enormous wealth which resides in this country in historic houses, museums and art collections. We are sick in this respect and it is not our intention as a Government to see that wealth destroyed, or go abroad.

I must now get on with the main part of my speech. I will not succeed in answering points that have been raised in the debate if I allow myself to be sidetracked, as I have done up to now. We have said in the Green Paper that we are determined to protect the national heritage. We have said that we are sympathetic to easing the difficulties that the tax proposals might cause, although the variety of objects and historic houses affected would obviously require different solutions. This would be one of the main tasks of the Select Committee.

Some suggestions on how to ease the difficulties, including the possibility of greater public access as a condition of special arrangements, have already been referred to in paragraph 39 of the Green Paper in relation to both historic houses and to works of art generally. I wonder whether hon. Members' recollection of the Green Paper, which they have undoubtedly read, is clear. If they re-read paragraph 39 they will be considerably reassured. Let me read the first sentence of that paragraph:

"The Government recognise the danger that the wealth tax could lead to the dispersal of the national heritage: they intend to ensure that this does not happen and that instead our heritage becomes more readily available to the public generally."

This is the object of the Government's policy. I readily recognise the Opposition's right to assist us in carrying out that policy, but I do not recognise their right to say that it is not our policy. We are the declarants of our policy. It is our policy, and I assert it here and now. It is right that the House should ensure as fully as it can that we stick as closely as possible to what we have set out—

rose—

I am afraid that I cannot give way at the moment.

Paragraph 39 of the Green Paper is particularly relevant to the motion, which calls for continuing access and public enjoyment of these treasures. Hon. Members will note from the end of paragraph 39 that arrangements might be made to take works of art into public ownership in satisfaction of wealth tax liabilities, and these would be allocated to public collections where they would be constantly available for viewing by the public.

How can paragraph 39 be carried out without the museums and galleries being able to acquire pictures or buy them, if people have had to sell their pictures to pay the tax and are no longer able to lend them?

There are several ways in which it can be carried out, and I am pretty sure that the Select Committee will explore all of them. Lending already takes place to a substantial extent. There are all kinds of ways in which it can be done. However, it would prevent my replying to the rest of the debate if I were to try to explore them in detail now.

What about the Arts Council?

If the hon. Gentleman will contain his soul in patience. I shall endeavour to satisfy him at the end of my speech.

There was a useful debate on historic houses and art collections in the other place on 26th June, and I recommend those hon. Members who wish to concentrate on the question of historic houses to read that debate, in which there were not only very good critical speeches but some very adequate—if I may put it as low as that—replies on behalf of the Government by my noble Friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Strabolgi.

They were not all that adequate.

That is a matter of opinion. I may be a little prejudiced, though not too much, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is prejudiced in the opposite direction.

I think that hon. Members will note from paragraph 39 that we are moving a long way in the direction which they wish. My noble Friends made clear that the points made by my noble Lords would be taken into consideration in assessing our proposals.

It is recognised in the Green Paper that it may be necessary for special arrangements to be made for historic houses which can be opened to the public.

Works of art over 100 years old and worth £4,000 or more cannot be exported without a specific export licence from the Department of Trade. The same applies to documents and old photographs over 70 years of whatever value, except that certain dealers are authorised to export documents of a value up to £100 at their discretion. This means that there is a great deal of protection, and I am sure that some of the fears voiced by hon. Members have been a little overstated.

For items which are regarded by the Government's expert advisers and the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art as of national importance on grounds of close association with British history and traditions, aesthetic importance or importance for study, export licences are withheld for a period. The precise criteria on which national importance is judged are, I think, well know to the House.

I should have liked to say more on the main subject of the debate, but in the time available to me, having given way to hon. Members opposite whenever possible, I think that I have said as much as I can, and I come now to the interesting question regarding the Arts Council which the hon. Member for Chelmsford raised.

The hon. Gentleman asked me why on this occasion a journalist was able, apparently, to forecast what the Government intend to do next January. I have no means of telling him, but I hazard the guess that, as for the first time in its history, the Arts Council put into its report this year a statement of what it was asking of the Government—this has never happened before—

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

On no previous occasion has the Arts Council put into its report, before the Government had given a reply, the sum of money for which it was asking. In my guess, what the journalist did was to take the correct figure, which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is about £20 million, and the figure which the Arts Council put in its report, and then made an assumption, upon his own responsibility, that the Arts Council would get what it was asking for. That is my guess—it was his assumption—but I am not in a position to confirm it to the House this afternoon.

I must say that, as a matter of personal opinion, I am inclined to hope that the Arts Council will learn its lesson from these events and will not repeat the practice of putting in its own report the claims which it is making on the Government in advance—

In 1971 Southampton City Council, as it then was, put forward a proposal for an urban motorway which would have bisected the city. That proposal would also have required the acquisition and destruction of about 700 houses, to say nothing of many hundreds more houses which would have been blighted by the motorway and the impact the scheme would have had on the community as a whole. In response to the proposal a number of residents' associations were formed. They eventually formed themselves into a federation with the precise object of opposing the city councils proposal.

The public inquiry, which was eventually held in 1972, spent more than half its time in hearing objections put forward by the federation. It was therefore a major objector at the inquiry. It was successful in two quite separate respects. First, long before the inspector's report was published the city council withdrew its proposal in the face of local opposition. Secondly, when the inspector's report was finally published—a matter of only a month or so ago—the inspector upheld the objection and recommended that the proposal should not be proceeded with.

In the course of making its objection the federation incurred costs of over £900. I have two comments to make on that. First, the figure is not a true reflection of the cost of mounting such an objection, because in this case many of the people who helped with the preparation and presentation of the objection—the economists, architects and lawyers, for example —were sympathetic to the objection and gave their services either free or at a much reduced fee. Secondly, although £900 is a considerable amount for the federation it is a mere fleabite compared to what the local authority had to spend on the public inquiry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will need no elaboration of this point since he will know how expensive expert witnesses and leading counsel can be in these matters.

The federation, having incurred these costs and succeeded in its objection, naturally applied for an award of costs to be made in its favour. However, it was met by the Government's present policy—a policy which dates back to the 1960s. The Government rely basically on a report by the Council on Tribunals, which was published as Cmnd. 2471. The council was specifically asked to look at the problem. The report began by making a distinction which most people would accept. It distinguished, on the one hand, between planning applications and appeals where the applicant himself initiates the proposal and, on the other, a significant category of compulsory purchase orders and analogous cases, where the authority itself initiates the proposal.

The council recommended that in the first case there should, except in exceptional circumstances, be no award of costs to objectors. In the second case, however, it recommended that successful objectors should be awarded costs. In both cases the Council on Tribunals recommended that third-party objectors should not be awarded costs. This recommendation was taken up by the Government, who issued Circular 73/65 to local authorities in which they made a distinction between third party objectors on the one hand and what they called qualified objectors on the other—qualified objectors being people who own, lease or occupy property which is the subject of a compulsory purchase order.

The result of the circular is that while the Minister for the time being has statutory power under Section 250(5) of the 1972 Local Government Act to award costs in appropriate cases, in effect, third-party objectors will not as a general rule be awarded such costs.

The extraordinary thing for the federation in the Southampton case was that when it made its application it was told that it was a third-party objector and was therefore excluded by the Government's circular from the possibility of being awarded costs. I say that it was extraordinary, because by applying that distinction in such a rigid way, the Government and the local authorities are ignoring, if not obstructing, the realities of the situation.

Here we have a group of people, the majority of whom, perhaps, were qualified objectors, in that their properties were threatened, who formed themselves into an association for the purpose of fighting the proposal. It happens that they formed themselves into an association with people who were affected in other ways, some of whom had statutory rights under, for example, the Land Compensation Act 1973.

They banded together because they could see at least two separate advantages in doing so, not just for themselves but for the local authority, the inspector who held the inquiry, and everyone concerned. The first advantage was that by bringing a representative action the members of the association were able to avoid a multiplicity of objections. Instead of individual objectors having to chase up their own solicitors, instruct their own counsel, get their own expert witnesses, and so on, they were able to avoid that time, trouble and expense by bringing just the one unified objection.

The second advantage, which has particular relevance to the Southampton case but also has much wider relevance, is that by bringing the objection in that way the objectors were able to simplify matters for the inspector. He was able to look at the proposal as a whole and was not troubled with a disjointed series of fragmented objections relating to individual properties. He was able to ask, "What is the effect of this motorway proposal on the community—on the qualified objectors?

Those are two substantial advantages. The difficulty is that they will be thrown away in this case and in others if people who follow this commonsense course are to be penalised in terms of costs.

The policy being applied here ignores two fairly recent developments. First, I do not believe that the Council on Tribunals in 1964, or the Government when they issued their circular in 1965, had in mind the position of action groups and amenity associations which did not fit into the categories described in the circular. The second point is that the catalogue of qualified objectors may be deficient, because statutory changes are introduced all the time. I refer particularly to the Land Compensation Act 1973, which gives householders statutory rights in respect of their property when it is blighted by planning proposals.

The Government could adopt one of two ways of solving the problem. They could say that an association of the type I am describing is, in effect, acting as an agent for qualified objectors, in the same way as a solicitor or some other professional person would act as an agent at an inquiry. I understand that that is the solution which the Welsh Office— which, in respect of Wales, has responsibilities similar to those of my right hon. Friend's Department in respect of England—was prevailed upon to accept in relation to a similar issue in Wales last year, after a protracted correspondence.

But the second possible solution is preferable. It is that the special position and special advantages of action groups of the type I have described should be recognised by widening the category of qualified objectors. At the very least, it must be recognised that they are not third parties. They must be regarded at the least as sui generis. I should have thought that the circular could well be amended either to enlarge the category of qualified objectors or to make special provision for that type of objective.

I know that there are arguments advanced against that sort of proposal. It is said that it would be unfair for the local authority to be at risk for the costs of its adversaries when the adversaries are not at risk in the same way. That is an argument which also applies to qualified objectors. It does not prevail against qualified objectors and it ignores the great disparity in resources between the local authority and the individual objector, whether associated with others or not. It also obscures the fact that the local authority is spending ratepayers' money when it appears at public inquiries. It may therefore be found that the objectors are contributing as ratepayers to the costs of the local authority.

The second major argument is that to extend the award of costs to such bodies would be to encourage busybodies. I hope that I have said sufficient to assure the House and my right hon. Friend that the action group of which I speak in particular, and action groups in general, are not busybodies. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that unless something is done we shall lose the substantial advantages of the type of representative action that I have described. Unless that change is made the moral is clear for individual objectors—namely, to go ahead by themselves and instruct their own counsel, obtain their own witnesses and make their individual objection. All that can be done at great cost to the local authority.

If one thing is clear it is that if objectors follow that course they will in most cases be entitled to an award of costs as individuals. There also seems to be a general point at issue, namely, that there is little point in establishing elaborate machinery for public inquiries if, at the same time, through the policy on costs, a substantial financial barrier is to be erected. We know that at public inquiries a quasi-judicial procedure is followed. The proceedings are adversary in nature. That means that a premium is placed on professional expertise in presenting the case and on the sort of expert witness who can be obtained to support it.

As I have already said, a disparity in financial resources means that unless some action is taken on costs in the way that I have suggested the individual or the private objector will be placed at a tremendous disadvantage.

There is one fundamental reform which we can consider in that context. Legal aid is not at present available for tribunals or inquiries. They are two methods of proceeding which affect the ordinary citizen much more frequently than the courts of law. Legal aid should be extended to such forms of proceeding. I recognise that that is not at this moment a matter for my right hon. Friend and that it involves a considerable rethinking of the whole legal aid scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend to take a much more limited step. Bearing in mind his name, he will understand more about these matters than anyone else in the House. He will appreciate that planning legislation is a post-war development. He will realise that between the end of the war and 1964 nothing was done about objectors' costs. The present position was established in 1964.

Very few areas of proceeding are expanding more rapidly and more substantially than planning matters. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Department to review its policy from time to time and to take into account developments such as the emergence of action groups of the kind which raised this matter with me from Southampton. I urge my right boo. Friend not only to make it possible for an award of costs to be made in the precise case of which I speak but to issue a new circular or to at least update the present one so that other groups in exactly the same position will be able in future to derive some comfort from it.

I should like to start by expressing my admiration for the fair and lucid way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) has put forward the case for his constituents and gave us a valuable insight into a much wider point. I hope that the House will forgive me if I start by dealing with that wider point and by describing a little of the basis of the award of costs in inquiries of this sort.

Present Government policy, which dates back to 1965, provides that qualified objectors—that is owners, lessees or occupiers of land who are successful following a local inquiry in defending their own property from the threat of a compulsory purchase order, or an analogous proposal—are normally awarded their costs against the local authority or Government Department initiating the order or proposal.

Prior to 1965, costs were awarded only in cases in which there had been the grossest misuse of an inquiry by unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous behaviour. The more generous policy was introduced in the light of two reports: the Franks Report on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries in 1957 and the 1964 Report of the Council on Tribunals on the Award of Costs at Statutory Inquiries. Both these reports dealt primarily with inquiries into compulsory purchase and analogous orders, and inquiries into planning appeals, since these were considered to be

"the most important in consequence and frequency, and made up the bulk of Inquiries held by or on behalf of a Minister ".

They recommended that the power to award costs should be used more widely in England and Wales.

Both the Franks Committee and the Council on Tribunals recommended that successful objectors should get their costs on the grounds that, whatever the reason for the Minister's refusal to confirm a CPO, the refusal showed that the proposed interference with the rights of private ownership was not justified in that particular case. Therefore, in the Council on Tribunals' view, there would be an injustice if an individual who successfully defended his property did not also get his costs. This argument was accepted by the then Government, and a circular was sent out in December 1965 which stated that successful qualified objectors —qualified in the way I stated—to CPOs should normally be reimbursed their reasonable costs. This is the policy that has been endorsed by successive Governments. Unsuccessful objectors, however, are awarded costs only in exceptional circumstances, where there has been "unreasonable behaviour" on the part of the initiating authority.

The Council on Tribunals did not, however, go so far as to say that costs should follow the event, as they normally do in courts of law. They were concerned not to deter interested people from lodging a "bona fide" appeal or objection by making them liable for the authority's costs should the appeal or objection be unsuccessful. If we followed the court procedure, then where an objector's case was not accepted it would follow that that person would be liable for the costs.

The position of third party objectors— that is, people who have no direct interest in the land which is the subject of the local inquiry and who are therefore not legally entitled to appear, but do so at the discretion of the inspector—was considered also by the Council on Tribunals at some length. Here again, it was considered undesirable to inhibit third parties from putting forward objections by making them liable to pay costs when their case was unreasonable. So does it not follow, in logic, that they should not be entitled to receive costs when the eventual decision favours them or the party they have been supporting—even where another party has behaved unreasonably? The Council on Tribunals considered it, and concluded that, as a general principle, third parties should neither be eligible to receive costs nor be liable to pay them.

It was, however, considered that in very exceptional circumstances, when a third party was put to extra expense, say because an inquiry was adjourned, through the fault of another party, he might be eligible for an award in respect of those extra costs against the party at fault. Similarly, a third party could be liable for costs if an adjournment of an inquiry was made necesary through his fault. These recommendations were also accepted, and they remain the basis of the present policy for third party costs.

That is the general position. I turn to the Southampton, Portswood Link Motorway, CPO, with which my hon. Friend is particularly concerned and on which he eloquently stated the views of his constituents. The position is that the proposed Portswood Link was to be a local authority special road for which Southampton City Council was the highway authority. In April 1972 the city council submitted for the Secretary of State's confirmation schemes for stages I and II of the Portswood Link, and section 13 and CPOs for stage I. There were a substantial number of objections to both the city council's and the Department's proposals which concerned the motorway strategy for the vicinity, and concurrent public inquiries into all the proposals were held from 14th June to 27th July 1972.

The inspector recommended that the scheme and orders for the Portswood Link should not be confirmed. Although he considered that the council had made a good case for the road, he had some doubts about whether a second motorway was needed through the city as Southampton council had suggested. He also thought that much more should be known about the policies and proposals likely to be approved in the structure plan before such a significant road project was approved. However, before his report was published or the Secretary of State's decision issued, the town clerk informed the Department that

"on Wednesday, 12th September 1973, the Southampton City Council passed the following resolution: That the proposal of the City Council to construct the Portswood Link Motorway be abandoned …'

The council subsequently wrote to interests scheduled in the CPO on 29th November 1973, notifying them of the decision. Accordingly, the Department then wrote to objectors to the council's schemes and orders on 18th December 1973 advising them that the Secretary of State would take no further action on the council's proposals, which were regarded as having been withdrawn by reason of the resolution.

Because the city council abandoned its road proposals after a local inquiry had been held, but before a decision had been taken by the Secretary of State, it was considered right to treat all the qualified objectors as successful for the purpose of costs, in the same way as if the proposals had been formally rejected by the Secretary of State. Accordingly, these objectors will be reimbursed their reasonable costs by the Southampton council.

My hon. Friend has argued that bodies like the Southampton Federation of Residents and Allied Associations are within the spirit of the Council on Tribunals' recommendations and are effectively qualified objectors. But the federation, as such, was a third party, since it did not have a direct interest in the land proposed for compulsory purchase.

I appreciate that the federation, too, might be considered to have been successful in its objections to the council's proposals. But in accordance with the policy I have described it is not eligible for reimbursement of its costs. In the same way, it would not have been awarded its costs if the compulsory purchase order had not been abandoned by the council but had been rejected by the Secretary of State.

I realise that some members of the federation may be qualified objectors in their own right—that is, as owners, lessees or occupiers of land included in the CPO who chose to have their opposition to Southampton's proposals put by the spokesman for the federation—and, accordingly, those individuals will be entitled to reimbursement of the costs which they themselves incurred in pursuing their objections to the council's proposals. The solicitors for the federation have been advised accordingly.

But to award the federation all its costs in this case because it represented a number of qualified objectors as well as people who had no direct interest in the land selected for compulsory purchase would put it in a more favourable position than other residents' associations and third party groups who may object to development proposals.

I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's argument that it is sometimes better for all concerned if objectors to an inquiry can get together to present a joint case. This can clearly help the objectors on the one hand, while on the other it makes the inquiry procedure more efficient.

Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn from the Southampton case is that those whose land is directly affected and who wish to object jointly should limit the membership of their association accordingly. In such a case it may well be possible, in appropriate circumstances, for the award of costs to be considered collectively. In this way the rules on the award of costs can be complied with. Where they are already members of a larger association they should make sure that their contributions are separately identifiable.

Generally, I appreciate the contribution which third parties, such as residents' associations and amenity societies, can make to inquiry proceedings. They help to ensure that a proposal is thoroughly examined. During the last year or two a number of such bodies have made representations that they should be financially assisted in some way. But I think I should make it clear that it is not essential for objectors to go to great expense to obtain an effective hearing. My hon. Friend talked about the expertise necessary for such hearings. The inspectors holding inquiries are concerned to see that anyone who wishes to speak may do so if he has something relevant to say, and that he gets a fair hearing.

While it is reasonable that objectors should be given the opportunity of expressing their views about development affecting the community to which they belong, it is also reasonable that, as their own legal rights or interests are not at stake, they should meet the expense of employing experts to present their case—if they consider this desirable. As I tried to point out, it is not always so.

There has to be a balance between the rights of those affected by development proposals to put forward their views, and the cost to the community in terms of money, time, and professional expertise. In the planning area, Mr. George Dobry, QC, is at present carrying out a review of the development control system on behalf of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Wales, and he will no doubt have regard to the role of third parties in planning appeals and at inquiries, and the use of orders for costs. Mr. Dobry's final report is expected early next year. It will be interesting to read his comments.

In the meantime, I end as I started, by thanking my hon. Friend for raising a matter which is of considerable importance and which has a much wider impact than that in his own constituency. For that, as well as for the clear, courteous and reasonable way in which he has put his propositions, I am sure the House will be grateful.

Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I put one question to him? What is to happen in a case such as that of the London motorways, when at the time of the public inquiry there is no precise knowledge of which individuals' property may be compulsorily purchased, but when the general strategy is under discussion? In those circumstances it is not possible for people immediately affected to get together. It surely has to be done generally. On my right hon. Friend's argument, as I understand it, there would be no possibility of any reimbursement of costs.

This is a slightly hypothetical question because it very much depends on which area is affected and which group of people may feel themselves to be affected. This is part of a wider planning aspect at which Mr. Dobry is looking. I rather hinted, I hope, that it would be at least interesting to see those comments. I cannot promise what the result will be. We are aware of the position even though at the moment I do not think it would be proper for me to comment.