Lords Sitting of 21 April 1983

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Rates: Scotland
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any report has yet been received from the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council regarding the heavy burden of rates levied upon racecourses, football grounds and caravan sites in Scotland as compared with their counterparts in England and Wales; and if not when this report is expected and what action will follow.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I understand that the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council have looked at possible changes to the valuation system in Scotland with regard to these and related matters. My right honourable friend is considering their advice and will decide what action should be taken.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, arising out of that reply, for which I thank my noble friend, may I ask whether he is aware that Scottish racecourses in particular are being so heavily rated as compared to English racecourses that they cannot balance their accounts? Is my noble friend aware that the burden of rates carried by Scottish racecourses is three or four times as heavy as that carried by comparable English racecourses? Is my noble friend aware that unless something is done about it, and done very soon, horse racing in Scotland will be killed stone dead?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the Government are very well aware of the difficulties, and indeed my right honourable friend met representatives of Scottish racecourses only yesterday. He is considering urgently what measures can be taken, and I understand he assured the representatives that if legislation is requried it will be pursued as quickly as possible.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Treasury derives very considerable benefit from both football and racing, directly and indirectly, will the Minister remember that this is endangered as well as the stability of football clubs by the present unfair system of valuation in Scotland? Will he further explain to the House that valuation in Scotland is not done, as in England, by the Inland Revenue—it is fairly cheap in this part of the world? It is done by local assessors, locally elected, locally selected, locally appointed and locally paid. Has the Scottish Valuation Committee looked into the question of different interpretations on both sides of the Border? This is
636
certainly true in respect of the other matter that is in the Question—caravan parks.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that there are anomalies and they extend beyond racecourses. Sports grounds, including football grounds, caravan sites, sporting rights, reed beds, hotels and solar heating systems immediately spring to mind. I am not sure that anything is wrong with the method of assessment as such, and certainly not regarding the valuers. But there are anomalies, as I have said, which have sprung up particularly in the last few years. The Government are considering urgently how, if these anomalies bear unfairly on the particular subjects, we can try to ameliorate the position.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as regards caravan sites there are extraordinary anomalies as between Scotland and England, and that I supplied his right honourable friend with comparative figures some months ago showing that two sites, only a short distance apart but on each side of the Border, were treated very differently? Does he recognise that this is a serious handicap to the tourist industry in Scotland?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the answer is, Yes. As I have said, the Government have become increasingly aware that there are these anomalies which bear very heavily on the particular industries concerned, and that is what we are now considering as a matter of urgency.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the Minister promise to act as sympathetically and speedily as the Government did in respect of the oil installations last year?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I can only repeat to the House that, in a matter which is complex in law, and not easy to solve so far as fairness is concerned in respect of every class of rateable subject, we are doing our best to be as quick as we can.

Juveniles on Remand
3.5 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to reduce the period for which juveniles accused of serious crimes are kept in care on remand before trial.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, court staff already give priority to cases involving juveniles, particularly if they are informed that a child is being held in care pending trial.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that quite reassuring reply. I wonder

637
whether he can tell the House if there is any limit on excessive delays caused by defence counsel, and whether there is any consideration of changing the law to a restrictive period of 110 days, as I gather obtains in Scotland?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to my noble friend's second supplementary point, the 110-day rule in Scotland does not apply to delays which arise other than from delays by the prosecution. I understand that his concern is for delays arising at the instigation of the defence. If courts are not aware that a juvenile is held in residential care in a secure unit, they cannot accord special priority to his case as they would otherwise do. It follows that the legal representatives of such juveniles should inform the courts of the circumstances in which they are held, and the Department of Health and Social Security is therefore asking social services departments to remind legal representatives of juveniles held on remand of the desirability of so doing.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, supposing there are no legal representatives, is it not possible to ensure that the court staff are nevertheless made aware that children are being kept in care?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of your Lordships' and others' anxiety about this matter. He is bringing it to the attention of the directors of social services, who, of course, would be the proper people in the case mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say how many children are now presently being kept in care on remand before trial?
Lord Elton: No, my Lords, not without notice.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that complaints are unevenly made from different parts of the country? Some Crown Courts in the South of England and some in the North seem to be unable to deal very quickly with children in care on remand. Others are very good. Can he inform the House why it is that there is this uneven service?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can only surmise; but in the cases to which my attention has been directed following my noble friend's Question it appears that delays have arisen due either to the desire of the defence to prepare a complicated case or simply to a lack of awareness on the part of the court that the child was held in that situation, which meant it could not embark on a structured régime towards rehabilitation; and we are taking such steps as we can to see that the courts are so informed.

Cruelty to Animals Legislation
3.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 to
638
provide for stricter control of experiments on live animals.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government intend to introduce legislation to amend and update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 as soon as parliamentary time permits. Detailed proposals will be published shortly.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is an extremely welcome and encouraging Answer for which I am grateful? I am glad that I put down the Question to give him the opportunity to give the Answer. Would he not further agree that the recent paper published by the British Veterinary Association would make a sound basis for the amendments that are required to that ancient Act?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome that he gave to my Answer. I have seen the paper to which he refers, which is jointly produced by the British Veterinary Association and the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. The Home Secretary was most grateful to the group for sending him their proposals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, took a large part in that. They were published last week and are being carefully studied.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that many of the experiments now taking place on live animals are completely out of date owing to new processes, especially those regarding tissue, where new techniques can now be used in many cases? Furthermore, regarding cosmetics—and by "cosmetics" I am referring to those concoctions which are manufactured for the beautifying of women—although I am all for the beautifying of women, is it moral to cause suffering to animals for the beautifying of women? I do not agree with that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the use of such substitutes as tissue cultures, these are being increasingly used, but it is, I regret, necessary in many cases finally to test the effect of substances upon living animals. As to the tests on cosmetics and toiletries, they amounted to about half of 1 per cent. of all the tests made in 1981. We hope that they are kept to a minimum but they are still sometimes necessary and I believe that there is a wide understanding of this.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the term "cosmetics" used in my noble friend's previous supplementary question can be very loosely used? Baby powder is a cosmetic and in many cases people who have suffered very severe burns use most deeply researched cosmetics in order to hide their unhappy scars. Would my noble friend agree that it is too easy to dismiss them as just a matter of vanity in women and not to realise their much wider implications for people who really require such products for dermatological complaints or otherwise?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am sure that my other noble friend intended no discourtesy to those who do have these very serious needs.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that on eight previous occasions Government spokesmen have assured us that we have only to wait upon a favourable wind from Europe? Does his assurance that we now wait only upon favourable parliamentary opportunities make any difference to the situation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we hope that the convention will be ready for submission to the Committee of Ministers by next month. Ratification by the United Kingdom will be possible only when we have a new Act on the statute book, but we are very close to the starting gate now.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, that is the ninth assurance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that it was given in rather more precise terms and I hope that the noble Earl will afford me an even greater degree of credibility than he has given to my noble friends.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I underline two points very quickly to the noble Lord? Is he aware that one of the primary concerns of the veterinary surgeons is that the places where animals are kept—and not just the laboratories—should also be subject to veterinary inspection? My last point is that there is also the concern of ordinary folk who lose pets, who know full well that they have been stolen, that there seems to be reasonable evidence as to why they have been stolen. I believe that this aspect, too, should receive consideration.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Theft Act 1968 already provides severe penalties for the handling of stolen animals and the Dogs Act 1906 prohibits the police from handing over strays to laboratories. Nevertheless, the noble Lord may take further assurance from the fact that controls over the supply of animals for laboratories will be introduced in our legislation.

Cruise Missiles: Dual Control Cost
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the cost to the United Kingdom of a small British double-key force, whose active participation, on the orders of the Prime Minister, would be required for the launching of any United States cruise missiles from this country, and without whose participation such launchings would be physically impossible, either within their bases or outside them; and whether if Her Majesty's Government have not yet calculated this cost, they will now do so and inform Parliament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a dual key system for the United States cruise missiles to be based in this country was considered at the time of NATO's decision in December 1979 to modernise its intermediate-range nuclear weapons. Such a system would have involved the United Kingdom in buying and operating the cruise missiles. In these circumstances, the sort of force envisaged by the noble Lord was clearly not appropriate, and the requirement to establish its cost did not therefore arise. The Government are satisfied with existing arrangements for joint decision-making about any use of United States nuclear weapons based in this country.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Minister of State not agree that curiosity on the part of the British people and Parliament about the cost of such a force as is outlined in the Question would also be a valid requirement for the information—not only the conditions that he laid down himself for a valid requirement for information but also a simple wish to know on the part of our own people and our own Parliament how much it would cost?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may be so, but it is not the way in which the United States provides its allies with a dual key for particular nuclear systems. With a dual key come the obligations and responsibilities of ownership.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement that in order for this country to control, or have key of, American weapons placed here involves their not being American weapons because we have bought them is the kind of nonsense which convinces nobody at all?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Paget. We have a system of joint decision. That means, in effect, that the weapons could not be used without the joint decision of the President and Prime Minister.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if there is a dual key system for cruise missiles, would it not in logic be necessary to have a similar system in respect of the airfields where there are based American aircraft with a nuclear capability?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may be so; but there is not going to be a dual key system for cruise missiles.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, whatever may have happened in 1979 or since then, can we not have a firm declaration from Her Majesty's Government that if the cruise missiles which have been provided by the United States, an ally of this country, are to be launched from the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government must have accord and consent before that happens?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let me repeat the assurance which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Paget. Under the existing arrangements for joint political control—which is what we have—the weapons concerned cannot be used without a joint political

641
decision by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister. This was a matter which was reviewed by both the President and the Prime Minister when both came into office, and the Government are satisfied that this is satisfactory.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that political decision is one thing but that operational control is another? If effective British operational controls cannot be established over cruise missiles except at inordinate expense, is this not an added reason for not having them at all?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are dealing here with deterrence and that the people who must be convinced that these weapons are under joint control are not those in this country or Her Majesty's Government, but the Russians? If the Russians do not think they are under joint control but are under American control they may very well take them out by a nuclear attack on us before they are used. That is the danger of not having a clearly-established operational control here.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the danger is entirely in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Paget. These are arrangements which have been in existence for over 30 years, running over a period which has seen successive Labour and Conservative Governments. I repeat: the arrangements are effective and the Government believe they are perfectly satisfactory.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is it not the fact that it is the practice of the Americans to have two independent officers, each of whom must have physical control of the launch of their own weapons, so that there is a dual key control at the moment, both parts of which are in the hands of the Americans? What would be so inherently unreasonable about requesting that one of those officers should be British?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, because, I repeat, a full dual key control, as it is called, rests upon the obligations and responsibilities of ownership.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how dual control can possibly apply to the American Reserve Command, not only for this country but for Europe, established at High Wycombe? How can dual control apply to it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is going over some very old ground now. The question of joint political decision refers to the use of the bases: that is what requires the joint political decision, which is the present system that we have. I repeat for the fourth time that joint political control means, in effect, that the weapons could not be used without the joint political decision of the President and the Prime Minister.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether he knows of any evidence that the Warsaw Pact countries have asked the Soviet Union for joint
642
political control over the 320 SS20s which are deployed and targeted against this country; and, if not, why not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reason why the question has not been put is because I think we know the answer. My noble friend has put his finger on the right point. Almost certainly the answer to my noble friend's question is, "No".
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the answer because they are satellites and we are not?
Lord Balogh: My Lords, it would seem—
Lord Belstead: I am sorry, my Lords: perhaps it is because we have been going on for rather a long time, but I did not hear the noble Lord's question.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, the Minister has declared that the Government are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made, but would the Government care to take a vote of this House to ascertain whether or not the situation is satisfactory?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the decision has not just been taken; it goes right back to 1950—not quite as old as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but quite a long time ago. For the noble Lord to suggest that the present Government have in some way made a new arrangement is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, my question was that it is naïve, is it not, to think that dual political control can be established under nuclear attack?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I will not again repeat the provisions of the joint political decisions which we have with the United States. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, will look at the Hansard record and make up his own mind from that.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government tell the House whether they have, in so many words, asked the Americans to agree to the system of dual control described in the Question now before the House, and whether the American Government have, in so many words, refused to do so? If not, why are the Government so reluctant to give the cost?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have not put the question in the way that the noble Lord puts the question to me, and the reason is contained in my original Answer.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his series of answers this afternoon will give great comfort to many who have been confused by the ignorant talk about the dual key system?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. We need these terrible weapons in order to pursue NATO's strategy of peace by deterrence, which has kept the peace of Europe for nearly 40 years; and the system of joint political decision, I do assure

643
the House, is one which was gone through by the President and the Prime Minister when each came into office. It is satisfactory, as it has been satisfactory for the last 35 years.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Council of Agriculture Ministers, 18th to 20th April.

Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The object of this Motion is to enable the Select Committee, which will consider this Bill and also the Instruction which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and agreed to last Wednesday, to hear evidence if they so wish, from witnesses other than those called by the promoters of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Select Committee to whom the bill is committed may hear evidence other than that tendered by the promoters.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing and Building Control Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 6,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 7 and 8,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 9 to 14,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 15 to 33,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 34 to 43,

Schedule 7,

Clause 44,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 45 to 49,

Schedule 9.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Litter Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Level Crossings Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Water Bill
3.27 p.m.
Read a third time with the amendments.
Clause 5 [Overseas activities of water authorities and statutory water companies]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("from time to time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. We added subsection (5) to clause 5 of the Bill at the Report stage. The effect of subsection (5) is to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance as to the criteria by reference to which he will grant consents for overseas work by water authorities and companies. In moving this amendment, I emphasised that we did not envisage frequent revisions of the guidance. I undertook that any proposed changes to the guidance would, as a matter of course, be preceded by full consultation with the interests concerned, and in particular with the water authorities and the consultant engineers. I also said that we would make a small amendment to our amendment to underline this point.
There was concern that the words "from time to time" implied a frequent process. We wish to respond sympathetically to that concern. Without the words in question it will still be possible to make changes to the guidance, but we certainly do not wish to imply that this will be a regular or frequent event. So we are happy to improve the Bill by bringing forward this small amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this amendment. The words "from time to time", which were originally put forward by the Government, were attacked by me at earlier stages of the Bill as indicating that the Government might be amending the guidance notices rather frequently. But the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has given the House an assurance that, if any amendments of the guidance notices which have been recently agreed are necessary, there will be full consultation with the water authorities, with the departments and with the public and private sectors.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Arrangements for carrying out Sewerage Functions.]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 18, line 18, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the Water Act 1983").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which corrects a small mistake in the Bill. Schedule 3 takes the form of a new schedule to the Water Act 1973. Where it refers, therefore, to "this Act" it refers to the Water Act 1973. The reference in paragraph 8, however, should be to the present Bill, not the 1973 Act, and that is the effect of the amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is not a long Bill, but I think it can fairly be said that it has received the usual thorough and careful consideration from your Lordships. We have tried, as always, to present the Bill with an open mind and to respond positively to the points that have been put to us in debate. In turn, I should like to express my appreciation for the constructive spirit in which your Lordships have handled the Bill. We have been able to take on board many of the comments and suggestions which your Lordships have made, and I am sure that, in consequence, the Bill will leave your Lordships' House a better measure than when I first introduced it.
The overall objectives and the overall shape of this Bill remain as the Government always intended. Our object, as I said at Second Reading, is to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the water authorities. That is why we are introducing the new small boards and the new consumer arrangements; that is why we are dissolving the National Water Council and the Water/Space Amenity Commission; and that is why we are introducing new arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions. On the last of these, it was an amendment made at Report stage last week which gave effect to the Government's intentions following a period of consultation and subsequent discussion with interested parties, including Members of your Lordships' House, to refine our proposals and to make sure that they were right. I am, indeed, grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford, to the noble Baroness, Lady White, to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and to others of your Lordships for the detailed attention which they gave to this matter, and I am confident that, in this respect, we send the Bill back to the other place in the knowledge that it will lead to more efficient sewerage arrangements and to arrangements which take proper account of the interests of various parties.
We were convinced by the arguments we heard that it was not right to end any part of the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman over water authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, put this case most convincingly, and it was widely supported by the House. I am pleased that we were able to meet the wishes of your Lordships in this respect. The protection of the consumers' interests is a vital part of our approach in this Bill, and we felt on further consideration
646
that it would not be right to limit the ombudsman's powers in any way.
We were not able to accept a number of the other changes which some of your Lordships would have had us make to Clause 1. In particular, we could not agree to writing into the Bill the provision for local authority members; nor could we agree to the proposal for conservation and recreation members, or that the press and public should have the right to attend water authority meetings. All of those proposals would, in our view, have undermined the Bill in significant respects. Nevertheless, we did provide assurances on each of these points.
In particular, we agreed that there should be members from local government; we accepted that conservation and recreation were matters relevant to the functions of water authorities, and said that experience in these areas would be taken into account when we make appointments; and we undertook that there should be press conferences after water authority meetings and that the new consumer consultative committees should be open to press and public. Prompted by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, we were able to clarify through an amendment to Clause 1 the appointment of land drainage and fishery members to the Welsh water authority, and I am grateful to him.
On the consumer arrangements, Clause 7, we have agreed to a number of changes to the guidelines to meet concern expressed by the public, in the other place and by your Lordships. As these have been debated so recently, I will not go over them again, but I would express my thanks once more to my noble friend Lord Sandford; to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who was so tenacious on this as on so many other matters; and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for the help which they have given us in the understanding of these issues and the clarification which we have sought to put before your Lordships.
I must also add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for the important amendment which he brought forward, providing that the guidelines should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. We accepted that this provided an important strengthening of the guidelines, and an amendment has now been incorporated in the Bill, which I think is a significant improvement. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his usual knowledgeable and constructive contributions on conservation aspects.
We are also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Howie of Troon, for the debates which we had on Clause 5—the overseas activities of water authorities and companies. It was as a result of those debates that we have written into Clause 5 a specific reference to the revised guidance we have drawn up in agreement with representatives of the consulting engineers and the water authorities. This guidance will indicate the way the Secretary of State will exercise his consent powers under Clause 5, and in the course of our debates I think we were able to allay the fears of your Lordships that we were enabling the water authorities to set up in competition with the private sector. The key to our approach is co-operation between public and private sectors. That is the purpose of Clause 5, and we believe that it will lead

647
to a significant improvement in our export performance in this most important field.
We had an important debate about arbitration procedures over terms and conditions of employment in the water industry. That debate took place shortly after a most tragic and, many would feel, unnecessary industrial dispute. My noble friend Lord Nugent spoke so effectively on the effects of this dispute, and in moving his own amendment provoked one of the most interesting debates on the whole Bill. May I also pay particular tribute to the other contributions made by my noble friend Lord Nugent on many other points which arose during the course of the Bill. His own experience makes him uniquely qualified to comment on water industry affairs, and I say again that we are deeply grateful to him.
I do not want to delay the Bill's passage a moment longer. I would, therefore, conclude by thanking my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for his great help and support to me throughout the various stages of the Bill. He has dealt with substantial parts of it, and has done so in a most able and effective manner. Finally, I thank your Lordships once more for the careful and constructive way in which you have dealt with the Bill over recent weeks. I now formally move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, if I remember correctly, the Bill had its Second Reading in this House without any support for the Government. I do not think there was a noble Lord or Baroness in this House who stood up and gave any support to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. But it is true to say that, as we went through the Committee stage, we were able, as the noble Lord said, to make some very substantial amendments to the Bill. It was very pleasing to hear the noble Lord's thanks to my noble friend Lady Serota, who raised a most important point about the ombudsman. We can also congratulate ourselves that guidelines are being laid down for the consumer consultative councils. As this is the only democratic part of the Bill which is left, we welcome these guidelines.
Although we began with no supporters, I should not like the Government to believe that the Bill has been readily accepted by all sides of the House. During the past week there have been two very close votes. The Division on one amendment was lost by only about six votes. The Division on the other amendment was lost by, I believe, two votes. Therefore, during the last stages of the Bill before it goes back to the other place the House has shown its disapproval of some of the measures contained in it.
The Bill changes completely the central body of the water industry. We understand that it will be a very much smaller body. As the Bill leaves us, it is not perfectly clear where the many statutory responsibilities of the water council will finally rest. The new water authorities will quickly have to resolve the uncertainty about the future of the employees of the water council. Several hundred employees are in limbo; they do not know where their future lies. I
648
would ask the Government to make quite sure that their future becomes a priority issue.
In our discussions we have heard about local government representation. Assurances and pledges have been given to us. I believe that on one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that he would stick to his assurance that there would be local government representation on the new water authorities. We are very disappointed that the Government will not write this into the Bill. Therefore, we hope that these pledges and assurances will be honoured. There is only a Government assurance. It has no standing in law because it is not written into the Bill. It is important, therefore, that when assurances and pledges are given they are honoured.
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks regarding me and my noble friends. We did not welcome the Bill. We are not sending it back to the Commons with any great enthusiasm. We shall watch carefully how the new water authorities live up to their image of super-efficient bodies. They will have to demonstrate that they will be able to give much better value for money than was given in the past by the old water authorities. Their greater efficiency has got to be proved to us. Greater efficiency is very difficult to prove in times of drought.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion to spend a great deal of time on speeches. We have discussed very thoroughly the details of the Bill and we have made some notable improvements. We on these Benches have not changed our view that this is a misconceived Bill and that a system which operates as part of the rating system, without democratic representation, is bad in principle. However, we in your Lordships' House have made the best of it. With the help of the Government we have reinstated the power of the ombudsman. We look forward with a great deal of interest, and maybe with a little doubt, to what the consumer consultative councils will do. There is absolutely no doubt that, apart from the major point of the principle of the Bill, the Government have been as helpful as they could be. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for meeting us on a number of matters. I wish that they could have met us on more, but undoubtedly they went as far as they could without betraying the unfortunately misconceived basic principle of the Bill. It is a pity that we could not do more, but what we have done has been worth doing.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

British Shipbuilders Bill
3.47 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved the following amendment:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("General duties of Secretary of State.
. The Secretary of State shall exercise the functions assigned to him by section 2 of this Act, and shall act generally, in the manner he considers is best calculated:—

649

(a) to enable United Kingdom shipbuilders to establish and maintain a predominant position in the field of shipbuilding and ship repair;

(b) to encourage United Kingdom and foreign ship owners or customers to use the services provided by United Kingdom shipbuilders and ship repairers; and

(c) to ensure that United Kingdom shipbuilders are properly protected against unreasonable competition from foreign shipbuilders and ship repairers.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been put down in consequence of the failure of the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, to assign to themselves anything other than powers in connection with British Shipbuilders. Your Lordships will recall that the original Act of 1977 imposed some duties on British Shipbuilders. These duties were specified. The Bill which we have been considering during the past few weeks takes away those duties and substitutes powers by British Shipbuilders, to be exercised, subject to regulation and direction, by the Secretary of State.
We on this side of the House believe that this is an unsatisfactory situation. A responsible public corporation was set up in 1977 to rescue the whole of the shipbuilding industry from the abysmal state into which it had fallen by that time, when it was getting only 4½ per cent. of the world market. That corporation was formed to take over a number of firms—most of which were ailing, apart from the warships section—and to bring succour to the entire industry. This Bill takes away any general duty, on anybody at all, to promote the interests of British Shipbuilders.
There are two principles on which this amendment is moved. The first is a general principle that one might have thought would be acceptable to the party opposite. It is the principle that those who have powers should also have responsibilities and duties. Indeed, the country at large is lectured at very great length from time to time on the necessity of, for example, the working population realising the duty it has either to its employers or to the country as a whole. It therefore comes a little odd that the Secretary of State should be relieved of any duty. This would seem contrary to the whole philosophy of the party opposite. So far as this House is concerned, I would have thought that such a situation would be unacceptable.
From time to time, doubts are expressed across the whole of the party spectrum as to the usefulness of the House of Lords. Some, I am given to understand, would like to abolish this House, while others would like to reform it. There is one point on which I believe all of your Lordships will agree—there may be a variety of views as to the whole spectrum of activity covered by your Lordships' House—and that is that this House does serve as a partial check on the Executive. This is an instance where I would appeal to all your Lordships to give the amendment before you very careful consideration.
This amendment would impose no onerous responsibility upon the Secretary of State. Indeed, one might almost have thought that the Government would accept the amendment with immediate alacrity, because its objectives are beyond any kind of party argument. The other reason for putting down this amendment is that at possibly no time since the
650
industry was rescued by the Government setting up a public corporation in 1977 has the industry been in such a parlous state. At no time since then has there been a situation in the shipbuilding industry when the firm support of the Government—and I do not mean merely financial support—is required in order that the industry may continue.
I can put this point in no better words than those set out in last Sunday's issue of the Sunday Times, which stated:
"Productivity in British yards has been raised, 23,000 jobs have been shed, and tender prices screwed down so far that all merchant ships are built at a loss. Indeed, the more ships built, the more money lost. No longer can the loss of a contract, like that for the 'Cunard Countess', be dismissed by Mrs. Thatcher with 'win some, lose some' shrug of a football manager whose team has suffered a humiliating reverse. The very future of the team is now at stake."
The article continued:
"In effect, the Government must now decide: does it or does it not want a shipbuilding and ship repairing industry? It"—
that is, the Government—
"has, after all, a responsibility to preserve a core industry capable of safeguarding the nation's security and independence of action—factors whose importance was underlined during the Falklands War, when the merchant fleet and shipbuilding yards made such a huge contribution".
In my view, those words encapsulate the current situation; a situation in which the results of the industry—according to the best information at my disposal (and I have not yet seen the latest accounts which go into early 1983), and despite the more favourable result in the year ended 31st March 1982—have not been so promising. Indeed, according to the Sunday Times on, I think it was, 13th February, losses for the current year soared to £70 million.
That is the situation in which the Government have brought forward this particular Bill, the main purpose of which seems to be the facility to enable the Government to dispose of the warship companies. I shall not refer to that aspect any more except to say—and I believe the Government will agree—that that is the Bill's main purpose. But it does provide an opportunity now to lay upon the Government, and to persuade the Government to think about, the policy that they will adopt towards the shipbuilding industry as a whole.
The industry's labour force has been severely depleted. A number of the yards are running at a loss. We are now in a position where only 44 per cent. of United Kingdom domestic orders are placed with British shipyards. This record is quite abysmal when one considers how other countries' shipowners consider their own shipyards. In Italy, for example, 95 per cent. of the Italian shipowners' orders to go Italian shipyards. In West Germany, some 82 per cent. of orders go to domestic shipyards—and in Japan, of course, 100 per cent. of the orders do.
The Government may argue that this is a very unusual clause to put into a Bill, laying as it does a duty on the Secretary of State. But if the noble Lord the Minister will refer to the Telecommunications Bill, he will find that Clause 3 lays down specific duties on the Secretary of State, so there is a good and more modern precedent for doing so. Why, therefore, should a duty not be laid on the Secretary of State in this matter?
It is all the more necessary because the present responsibilities of the Department of Industry in relation to shipbuilding are very sketchy. I have been all the way through the duties of the Department of Industry as officially published, and it seems that the matters which are put down in this amendment—to help United Kingdom shipbuilders, for this is not confined to the nationalised company British Shipbuilders but also includes private British shipyards—would enable the department to cover any of them.
If the noble Lord the Minister will carefully go through the structure of his own department and will examine its whole organisation, the functions of its regional policy and development grants division, its industrial and commercial policy section, and its industrial and commercial policy divisions (both "A" and "B"), and its industrial sponsorship—particularly in relation to the shipbuilding division—he will find that nowhere is there explicitly stated as a duty any of the items set out in this amendment.
It may be objected that these requirements of the amendment impose too great a liability. I cannot imagine the noble Lord disagreeing with the objectives of paragraphs (a) and (b) but I am putting some emphasis on (c), which would lay upon the Secretary of State a responsibility to act in the manner that he considers best,
"to ensure that United Kingdom shipbuilders are properly protected against unreasonable competition from foreign shipbuilders and ship repairers."
Nowhere in the whole of the Department of Industry's functions as published is there such a responsibility.
It is to the Department of Trade that we now turn. It has some limited responsibility, but only in regard to Europe. If one looks at the functions of the Department of Trade, as officially set out, it says it is responsible for general policy on trade with other countries and international negotiations on general trade, and the protection of United Kingdom commercial interests within the Community. It seems to me rather an odd limitation. There does not appear to be any requirement expressed in official terms in the published documents—and I have nothing other than the official documents—that lays on the Department of Trade any responsibility for the protection of British commercial interests outside the EEC.
This amendment would enable the Department of Industry to think again and to consider whether in the circumstances it would be proper for it to take on the responsibilities that are set out in the amendment. This becomes more particularly apposite in view of the recent contract which went from the Central Electricity Generating Board by a somewhat mysterious route to a company in Korea. I am within the recollection of your Lordships as having gone in some detail into the nature and extent of this transaction, and it is also within your Lordships' recollection that never at any point was a reply received from the Government to the very detailed points that I made in the course of that debate.
It was therefore with some dismay that I read the report of the proceedings in another place and the words of the Minister, which had some bearing—in
652
fact a very apposite bearing—on this Korean episode. The Minister said (and I quote from col. 249 of Hansard dated 19th April):
"Some hon. Members have this evening blamed the difficulties of our merchant shipbuilding industry on unfair competition for the Far East, and on many occasions the prime culprit has been identified as Korea. We should be wary of putting all the blame for our problems on unfair competition. The fact is that Korea, for example, has a substantial comparative advantage over the United Kingdom. It has come late to the business. Its industry is very new and has the benefit of considerable recent investment. Labour is cheaper and workers are prepared to accept working practices which would be unacceptable to their British counterparts."
The Minister declined in any way to intervene further.
I ask your Lordships to appreciate the enormity that is implicit in that statement. It means that in relation to countries where the wage levels are as low as 23 to 25 per cent. of European levels (I do not refer purely to those of Britain) where they live not under ordinary democratic conditions, as we do in this country, not under conditions where there are free trade unions, which there are so far in this country, but live under a military regime with a veneer of democracy, with pliant unions—which in the case of Poland are, quite justifiably, such anathema to the party opposite—where in effect you get forced labour, there is nothing that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do to prevent unfair competition.
Is that what the British Government really want? Is that the notice they are serving on British industry as a whole, that when they talk of the necessity for British industry to be more competitive—which I am sure we all agree within the context of the Western democratic world—it means they are prepared to stand idly by in the face of competition with newly industrialised states under conditions of virtual dictatorship, able to enforce wage levels which are a fraction of Western European levels and enforce working conditions and hours of work which were long extinguished before the end of the Victorian era? Is this the kind of competition that they are prepared to stand idly by, accept and support? We need an answer on this because if the reply is "This is the kind of competition we really mean and we are prepared to stand idly by and allow this," then the damage that will be done to British industry is going to be very much worse than the damage that has been inflicted on it in the past.
I repeat that nobody objects to competition on what we would call a fair and reasonable basis. I know "fair and reasonable" is sometimes an ambiguous phrase to put into legislation, although the lawyers tell me that the term "reasonable" is sometimes very good to have in a legal clause because it implies that it is a conclusion or an expression that all reasonable men would accept. But is that the policy that the Government are prepared to follow? If they are, then the country should be on notice that this is the case.
In the meantime the shipbuilding industry and the shipbuilding towns in this country are facing very considerable distress indeed. Already the streets of our shipbuilding towns are filled with people who have to go to the labour exchange to draw benefit. These are the realities of the situation. A great cloud hangs over the shipbuilding industry.
It is my hope that the Government will accept the amendment in its present form, but, if they do not, then the onus lies upon them quickly to produce a plan

653
for the British shipbuilding industry which shows a Government determination to translate it into actions, rather than merely expressing words, to ensure that the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom does not go down the drain.
It is a matter of vital concern to the whole prosperity of the country. It is a matter of vital importance so far as the ordinary defence aspects of the situation are concerned, as we have seen from the Falklands Islands episode, in which the whole of the shipbuilding industry devoted every conceivable effort to support of the campaign that was then waged.
We should like an answer from the Government but we hope that within reasonable parameters of the clause laid down in the amendment they will not have any hesitation in accepting it. I beg to move.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
4.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervened to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers held in Luxembourg on 18th-20th April. I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my right honourable friend the Minister of State.
"The meeting continued the negotiations for the 1983–84 price fixing. It started with a statement by the Commission on current trends in the 1983–84 expenditure.
"The Commission informed the Council that an increase on the budgeted figure would be required in 1983. This contrasted with the position in 1982 when the out-turn was less than budgeted, and resulted from a combination of factors including the monetary changes of 21st March, substantial increases in the production of major products, and trends in world prices.
"They also informed the Council that their previous estimate of the budget provision likely to be required for 1984 had to be revised upwards by 6 per cent. The Commission stated that their price proposals for 1983–84, which had been criticised by the majority of member states as being inadequate and substantially below current rates of inflation in Europe, would need to be adhered to. In discussion, seven of the 10 member states argued strongly that there was a need to improve upon the price proposals of the Commission. Only one other member state argued, with us, that there should be no increases in the Commission's price proposals. The majority of member states strongly opposed the Commission proposal to reduce their original price increase for milk to an increase of only 2·3 per cent.
"The meeting was adjourned to enable the Commission to consider their position. Following a meeting of the Commission held on Wednesday
654
they came forward with a revised package of measures upon which they hoped to complete the price fixing. The Commission reported that they had decided that they would not put forward any proposals for any further price increases on any of the major commodities. They further declared that they had unanimously decided that, irrespective of what the Council of Ministers themselves should suggest, the Commission would not be making any proposals for further increases on the major commodities during this price fixing. I welcomed this statement.
"In discussion of the package proposed by the Commission, while many member states still expressed a desire for further price increases, it was clear that the majority would, albeit reluctantly, come to a conclusion on the basis of the Commission's paper.
"A major difficulty remained for Germany. The proposals made by the Commission for the revaluation of the German green currency would mean an increase in prices for Germany of the order of only 1 per cent. overall and no increase on the major commodities, milk and cereals. The German Minister could not accept this.
"Primarily to allow further consideration to be given to this issue, the meeting of the Council was adjourned until next Wednesday, when an attempt will be made to conclude the price fixing on the basis of the Commission's current proposals.
"The proposals, if accepted, would result in an increase of prices for the agricultural marketing year 1983–84 for the United Kingdom of 2·3 per cent. on milk, 3 per cent. on cereals and 3·8 per cent. over all products. For the Community, the overall increase would be 4 per cent., substantially below the anticipated inflation rate for the Community of 9 per cent.
"In the United Kingdom, the effect on food prices would, over a full year, add one half of 1 per cent. to the food price index and one tenth of 1 per cent. to the retail price index.
"We would retain the beef premium scheme and the sheep premium scheme. There would be a small improvement in the butter subsidy. These consumer subsidies would be worth between £200–£300 million.
"The school milk subsidy would be improved from 10·9 pence per pint to 12·4 pence per pint. The scheme would last for five years and the total benefit next year is likely to be of the order of £16 million.
"For Northern Ireland, the various schemes assisting the beef producers would be extended and are anticipated to be of £11–12 million benefit to the Northern Ireland producers. The Commission have also proposed to move around 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland.
"The proposals include a number of measures of benefit to our pig and poultry producers. Firstly, these sectors would benefit from low cereals price increases. Second, the Commission would undertake to take account of regional difficulties in its management of the pigmeat market; this would for example mean that, if market conditions warranted it, the advantages of private storage facilities

655
financed by the Community could be continued in the United Kingdom even if there were no need for such facilities in other parts of the Community. And thirdly, following the strong representations we have made, the Commission propose to press ahead with a scheme to make available from intervention stocks cereals for use in animal feed. This could involve 2 to 3 million tonnes.
"I hope that negotiations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I, personally, am grateful for the absence of my noble kinsman because the last time a Statement was made on the Common Market he accused me of an ungracious reception of what the Minister had said. I am afraid that I am going to be a little ungracious again in one sense, in that I think that, if the press reports are right—and I see no reason why The Times and the Telegraph should not be—Mr. Walker claims a farm price triumph. The Telegraph said:
"A triumphant Mr. Walker said Britain had virtually been given control over her Common Market partners by a Commission ruling that any change in the recommended prices required a unanimous vote by EEC Ministers".
The Times stated:
"This has given Mr. Walker total control over the outcome".
That seems an extraordinary thing. There were another two Ministers by his side in the negotiations and if any one Minister can have a veto then they all can have it. I cannot see why Mr. Walker, for whom I have great respect because he is a good Minister of Agriculture, should say that, but we all know that there is an election in the offing and anything that helps a little the Government are glad to pick up. But it cannot help unity in the Community if a Minister claims a triumph of this description.
In any case, if he has all this power that is claimed for him, why did he not go further? In the debate on 3rd March in the other place he demanded no increases at all. Why did he not use the power to get what he wanted, which he had stated firmly in the debate in March?
As regards the Statement itself, the last sentence seems to be an interim one. The Minister says that he hopes that,
"negotiations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible".
No doubt after the week's grace that has been given we shall be having another final Statement. I wonder whether that will be the case.
Naturally we welcome the Statement. I, and I am sure the consumers, hope that the figures quoted, showing how little will be the increase in the price of food, are correct. If that is so, the consumers will certainly welcome it, too. I wonder whether the noble Earl would care to make a guess as to whether the reduction in the corn prices will redress the balance between corn and horn. That is the one thing that would help the agricultural situation—if we could have a better balance in that way. I have mentioned this before, and I wonder what the Minister thinks.
656
Referring to page 2 of the Statement regarding the difficulty with Germany over the green currency situation, if a settlement is made, is it likely to affect this country or will it purely be between France and Germany? I see that the German Minister refuses to accept the proposals. I wonder whether, if a change is made, it will make any difference to this country. The school milk subsidy is to be improved by nearly 2p. I wonder whether this will encourage the Government to get local authorities to extend the present milk schemes, and also to take up more of the present ones. I am sure that that would help and encourage a lot of people in this country.
The Commission has proposed to move 75,000 tonnes of cereals from intervention into Northern Ireland. What exactly does that mean? Is that to be at a cheaper rate? Are there no cereals available from British stocks to go into Northern Ireland? What is the reason for that? I wonder whether the Minister can answer that question. The low cereal increases are mentioned in the last paragraph as helping the stock sectors. Does the Minister think that that is really an opportunity? It is a very small increase, even taking inflation into account. I doubt whether it will help the pigmeat and poultry people as much as they would like, or even whether it will make any difference at all.
What exactly does the last part of the Statement mean, about moving 2 million to 3 million tonnes from intervention to animal feed? Is this what I read about in Agra-Europe about a week or 10 days ago, which was a scheme to subsidise this amount? It does not say so in the Statement. I should be interested to know whether that will be subsidised. That would certainly help stockmen to a great extent. I hope that the Minister can answer these questions. As I say, we welcome the Statement in general.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we on these Benches want to welcome the Statement of the noble Earl the Minister, and briefly ask perhaps two questions. First, is this a Statement at all? It would appear from the way that it is written that it is a statement of intent, subject to satisfactory negotiations confirming the figures in it. I should say that my noble friend who would normally be putting the questions on this Statement is not in the House today. I feel that the figures included in the Statement will have to be clarified and confirmed when the negotiations have been completed. I would ask the noble Earl to confirm that.
I also detect a slight change in the Commission's thinking towards the "fat cats" of the European farming community, who have been for far too long the beneficiaries of the CAP. I think that the Minister of Agriculture should be congratulated on supporting and assisting in the change of heart in this area. Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I, too, should like clarification of the last paragraph of the Statement—whether the intervention in stock cereals means assistance for the use of cereals in animal feeding, especially in the hill farming areas of this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may, I would answer the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, first. He asked whether this was a Statement. It is a Statement. He asked whether it was a statement of intent. He is of course quite

657
correct that it is a statement of intent. The Statement really showed what has happened so far. It indicated that if the proposals which were put on the table are in fact agreed to—which at the moment they are not—then this is to be the likely outcome. But the noble Lord was perfectly correct when he said that there would in fact be a further Statement when the outcome is final. It is not final yet, of course, although it is hoped that it will be next week. The noble Lord is quite correct when he says that that will have to be clarified, as indeed will a number of the points to which I have referred. I have been asked some detailed questions which I would prefer not to answer in total yet because the position itself is not clear. I appreciate the noble Lord's congratulations to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for having tried to encourage a reduction in the claims for higher increases of prices.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that he was grateful for the Statement and then proceeded to castigate the Government, not for what was said in the Statement but for what a newspaper had said or what two newspapers had said. If a newspaper says that somebody thinks that this is a triumph, that is what the newspaper says; it is not what the Statement says. I hate to say the most elementary of things to the noble Lord, but he really should not believe all that he reads in the newspapers. One newspaper will say one thing and another will say another. I do not think that it was very helpful to castigate my right honourable friend by saying that it does not help unity when a paper has said that this was a triumph.
If the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, were to read the Statement a little more thoroughly he would see in the fullness of time that it was not my right honourable friend but the Commission who reported that they had decided that they would not put forward proposals for further price increases of any major commodities. The Commission further declared that they had unanimously decided that, irrespective of what the Council of Ministers themselves should suggest, the Commission would not be making any proposals for further increases in major commodities during this price-fixing. That was the Commission's move and that was the Commission's proposal. My right honourable friend warmly welcomed that, and that is the position as it is.
The noble Lord asked me to speculate on whether the reduction in the price of cereals would repair the balance between corn and horn. I would for clarity and for correctness remind the noble Lord that it is not a reduction in price; it is a reduction in the increase in the price. In so far as this increase is lower than it might have been and lower than the rate of inflation, one hopes that that will make its effect felt on the balance between corn and horn, as he puts it.
The noble Lord also asked what effect the alteration of the German currency rates would have upon the United Kingdom. I am bound to tell him that I would not speculate on that because I do not know what changes will be made. When the noble Lord referred to school milk he said that he was glad that this would result in an increased subsidy of school milk. I quite agree that this is encouraging. It ought to encourage the use of more milk in schools. We would hope that
658
it would do so. It is quite encouraging to know that this is going on for the next five years.
With regard to the point about cereals to which the noble Lord referred, he will be aware that when stocks are taken into intervention they are taken in at a price which is inevitably lower than that which is used when they are on the open market. Very often the criticism has been that there have been these stocks of cereals in intervention which cannot be used for feeding purposes. The purpose of this—and it is a very difficult situation to police properly, which has been one of the problems; it is difficult to operate the provision effectively—is to be able to use that which was in intervention for pig or other animal feeding by some method which will have to be approved and which will enable this to be done either by taking cereals out of intervention or by preventing them from going into intervention, possibly with a subsidy—but that has not yet been determined.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to point out to him that it is Mr. Walker who is claiming the triumph. He is quoted in The Times—and I look forward to seeing a denial in The Times tomorrow. It was Mr. Walker whom I quoted as saying—and I shall read it now—
"Although that increase is below the average and through the B quota …"—
I am sorry, my Lords—
"I … believe that a freeze on cereal prices this year would be far more sensible."—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/83; col. 388].
I was quoting Mr. Walker.
Earl Ferrers: I am so sorry, my Lords. I thought that the noble Lord was quoting a newspaper report. It may be a newspaper report of what the Minister said—but it is not what the Statement says. In so far as it is said that my right honourable friend was pleased, of course he was pleased, because he has been encouraging the Commission and the Council of Ministers not to increase their proposed prices at the price fixing. In so far as the Council has decided not to do that, of course my right honourable friend was perfectly pleased, as would have been the noble Lord had he been in my right honourable friend's position.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I should like to ask a very brief question. Is it correct to assume that the beef premium scheme has been saved?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, that is correct, my Lords.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is a most heartening move on the part of the Commission to have taken a firm line so differently from earlier years, whatever are the other implications, and that this is something that we should welcome with open arms?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. However, I must be careful not to be too much in agreement with him for fear that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, may say that I am being triumphant. I would say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend has over a great many years been trying to persuade the Commission

659
and the whole Council of Ministers to make such a move. The fact that it is beginning to take effect is I believe grounds for modest pleasure.
Lord Oram: My Lords, can the noble Earl make clear what was the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture in respect of milk? Do I understand the position to be that he supported the proposal of the Commission; namely, I believe an increase of 2.3 per cent., or did he advocate no increase—a freeze? When a few weeks ago we debated the matter, I understood that the Government were favouring a nil increase in those cases where surpluses were continuing to be produced, and I am wondering whether the Government have changed their attitude in that respect.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will know, the object of any negotiation is to be able to secure an agreement. It has always been our view that there should not be any increases in those commodities which are in structural surplus. That is our view. But when one knows that that is not likely to have the agreement of the other members of the Community, it is essential to try to find what is the position on which one can get agreement. When the Commission put forward the proposals which included an increase of 2.3 per cent. in the price of milk, my right honourable friend supported them because he knew they would be the kind of proposals which were most likely to attract agreement. Even though he supported those proposals, as was explained in the Statement, agreement has not yet been secured.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, further to my noble friend's supplementary question, is the noble Earl aware that we welcome the fact that the effect of the proposals on food prices will be small? Will he be good enough to "translate" that particular point in rather more detail? From what has been stated would we be right in inferring that there will be no increase in the price of milk or bread, but that there could be an increase in the price of beef? Is that how we should read that part of the Statement?
Secondly, while wishing to bear in mind the noble Earl's injunction that we should not believe everything we read in the newspapers, may I ask him to confirm what the Financial Times stated this morning: that a supplementary EEC budget of more than £1.2 billion is needed this year to finance farm support spending? That is 35 per cent. more than last year. I think that the point is made, or at least can be read between the lines, in the Statement, but are those the facts? Is the estimated cost of the current proposals £261 million this year, and a further £486 million next year? If those figures are true, are they not proof of the need for radical reform of the CAP?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are all conscious of the expenditure of the common agricultural policy. As the noble Lord, as an ex-Minister of Agriculture, and a greatly respected one, will know, all countries are trying to secure within the common agricultural policy a system which works properly and effectively. When the noble Lord says that the CAP needs drastic reform, I would point out that reform must be carried out in a
660
way that is acceptable to the parties involved. I agree with him that the percentage increases are unattractive, if I may so put it.
With regard to the 35 per cent., I want to make the position quite clear. One refers to the first five months of this year, even though only four months have passed. It is expected that for the first five months of this year the increase will be 35 per cent. over what it was for the first five months of last year. That does not mean to say that the cost of the common agricultural policy for this year is expected to be 35 per cent. more than it was last year. However, it is expected that there will be an increase, and the Commission has said that it will be putting forward a supplementary budget after the price fixing has been agreed. What that amount will be, I cannot yet tell the noble Lord.

British Shipbuilders Bill
4.36 p.m.
Debate on the amendment moved on Third Reading, resumed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I now return to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that, much as some might hope, it is just not possible to legislate against market forces, and though at first sight the amendment might seek to do that, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not say that in his opening remarks. As it appears, the amendment does no more than ask the Secretary of State to use what influence he has in a way which, in his judgment, promotes certain objectives.
These objectives are ones with which I am sure we would all agree. We might have different means of trying to achieve them, but I doubt whether anyone in the House would not subscribe to the wish to see United Kingdom shipbuilders in a stronger market position, to see United Kingdom and foreign owners encouraged to place their orders in this country, and to see United Kingdom shipbuilders protected against unreasonable competition; though what in this context constitutes "unreasonable" is, I suggest, open to debate.
Because the Government broadly share the underlying spirit of the objectives, we have taken, and shall continue to take, action designed to help British Shipbuilders and the other United Kingdom shipbuilders and repairers. Perhaps I may refer to some of the steps that we are taking. Our support for British Shipbuilders now amounts to over £600 million in the form of public dividend capital fund, the intervention fund, the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, and other aid. In 1981–82 alone, for example, we provided over £47 million-worth of price support through the intervention fund. We fully recognise that the industry faces a continuing period of acute difficulty, not least the kind of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, and which were referred to recently by my honourable friend in the other place. We accept that this must mean a

661
continuing measure of support for merchant shipbuilding for the foreseeable future.
United Kingdom aids to shipbuilding are set within a European framework. The problems of Far Eastern competition and a distorted world market have hit all European shipbuilding industries. The level of assistance over the past year has been determined by a balance between the need to overcome distortion in the market and that of avoiding a subsidy race which would be in no-one's interest. A subsidy race would be very costly, self-defeating and leave the United Kingdom industry no better off than before. We have to offer aid within an international framework if we are to avoid escalation. We shall be discussing proposals for further assistance to the shipbuilding industry with the Commission and our Community partners.
The Government provide support for the shipbuilding industry in a number of different ways: the intervention fund, as I have said, credit, shipbuilders' relief, et cetera. Noble Lords, especially the noble Lord. Lord Bruce, have suggested changes which would permit additional support to be given. I am not referring to what he said today but to what the House has heard on other occasions. Some changes are not practical. A scrap and build scheme is often mentioned as a possibility. In debate on the Bill my honourable friend the Minister of State explained at length why this would not help. In the end, it would benefit mainly the scrapyards; and at a time when most owners are heavily tonnaged and want to scrap ships without buying new ones, it is unlikely to be widely taken up and provide much help to the shipbuilding industry.
Improved credit is another suggestion heard from time to time. The Government are willing to consider proposals for improvements to the home credit scheme; but the scope for flexibility is limited by international commitments to ensure that the terms of the scheme comply with those permitted under the OECD understanding on export credit for ships. I know that other contries offer more advantageous credit terms than we do. Belgium and Denmark are examples. But they do not also give production subsidies. If both elements of support are considered together, the United Kingdom is about halfway up the league in terms of assistance.
The United Kingdom shipping industry is also criticised for placing a much smaller proportion of its orders in home yards than fleets in other countries. This was a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred. On average, about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet orders go to United Kingdom yards compared with over 80 or 90 per cent. in some other countries. But the United Kingdom fleet is very much bigger than others in Europe, apart of course from Greece—they have no shipbuilding industry to speak of—and is an important employer, with over 70,000 seagoing employees, as well as being an important export earner. It operates in a fiercely competitive international market. Its competitive freedom is vitally important.
United Kingdom shipowners have to be able to buy where they can get the best deal. If United Kingdom yards offer the best terms, they will certainly win the business. We cannot hope to tackle the problems of the
662
United Kingdom shipbuilding industry by damaging the commercial freedom and efficiency of United Kingdom shipping. Other Governments provide assistance but the amendment does not stipulate what action should be taken. For that reason, it is an unnecessary and, in my view, an inappropriate addition to the Bill.
Having said that, I was pleased to see in the amendment a reference in paragraph (a) to United Kingdom shipbuilders rather than simply to British Shipbuilders, the public corporation. There are some small private sector shipbuilders and private ship repairers. We have made no secret of our hope that the size of the private sector will increase. We have however repeatedly made it clear that the powers to direct British Shipbuilders to dispose of its property would be used only after consultation and for reasons related to the industry's interests—to build on the strengths of the industry. But our concern is that the whole of the industry, whether the public or private sector, should improve its competitive position and regain its markets. Whether it could improve its position to move from a 2 per cent. share of the world market for merchant ships to a predominant position, as envisaged by the amendment, is I believe a matter beyond even the industry's boldest dreams.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment seeks protection against unreasonable competition. The whole framework of European Community and OECD policies is designed to avoid unfair competition through regulation of subsidies—both production subsidies to the builder and subsidised credit to the buyer. The difficult question however is when is competition unreasonable or unfair? Comparative advantage through lower costs does not make competition unfair. But if there is evidence of hidden subsidy leading to depressed export prices we shall certainly pursue it with the countries concerned—as indeed I think would the Government of any country or any Government of this country.
This amendment, if accepted, would I fear not achieve anything. It would express generalised objectives without specifying how they are to be achieved. It makes it clear that it would be for the Secretary of State's judgment whether his actions were designed to achieve the objectives. The amendment would change nothing and would be an unnecessary addition to the statute. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have some sympathy with Lord Bruce's comments. My noble friend on the Front Bench asked: what is unfair competition? I consider that unfair competition arises where a country like Korea or other countries in the Far East pay wages that are about a quarter, or even less, of what we pay here. Many of the countries that compete with us in shipbuilding have what really amounts to forced labour. Some are dictatorships. I consider these factors as unfair competition. I agree that we in Europe have to stand on our own feet. However, when one considers the depressed wages in other countries, I believe that we should subsidise the British shipbuilding industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Yes, we do. But one has to remember that the shipbuilding industry used to be what I would call the heart of England. At one time we built half the tonnage of the world. Now, I understand, we build only 2 or 2½ per cent. That is an utter tragedy. We still have the skills. We are probably the most skilful shipbuilders in the world. I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that we cannot restrict shipowners as to where they have their ships built. They must have their ships built where they can obtain the cheapest quote. I was once interested in a small way as a shipowner. They contribute a great deal to the invisible exports of this country. We cannot restrict them.
There is, however, a need to try and combat the position under which some countries use forced labour. I should like to go back for a moment into the past. Several of your Lordships, including my noble friend on the Front Bench, will be too young to recall the flax trade. It was a great trade in the North of Ireland, and also in the Netherlands. However, owing to forced labour in other countries, especially Russia, the trade was completely destroyed in this country and in the Netherlands. By using forced labour, Russia was able to undercut every other producer of flax. Having done so, Russia had a complete monoply of flax and "upped" the price.
I do not wish to stray off the point, but forced labour in dictatorships poses a great danger. I do not know what the answer is; but of all the industries in Britain, the shipbuilding industry should, I believe, have the greatest help. I am on the whole opposed to heavy subsidies, but here is an exception.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, like the noble Lord the Minister I first read this amendment with a great deal of sympathy for the general theme behind the three subsections. I then reminded myself that my noble friend Lord Simon had spoken very strongly against this Bill on Second Reading. But I also reminded myself that it was the constitutional duty of this House as a revising Chamber to try to be helpful. Therefore, basically it seemed to me that it would be helpful to include a new clause headed:
"General duties of Secretary of State"
at this stage of the Bill. When we read those words particularly in the context of Clause 2, new Sections 4A and 4B, there is a strong case to be made out for saying that it would be helpful in the circumstances of this British Shipbuilders Bill to have some general duties of the Secretary of State set out in this way.
As far as subsections (a) and (b) are concerned, I would go a long way with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as regards the basic theme behind those two subsections. However, subsection (c) causes me considerable trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, emphasised this subsection as being a very important aspect of the amendment. I believe that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also appreciates the problem which is facing British shipbuilding operations in the light of what is loosely known as "unfair competition". If subsection (c) had dealt with competition in the context of Articles 85 and 86 of the
664
Treaty of Rome I would have supported it. But when it deals with,
"unreasonable competition"—
whatever that may mean—
"from foreign shipbuilders and ship repairers"
generally, then I ask myself: what is intended by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to prevent such so-called "unfair competition"? Does he mean that import restrictions would be imposed or that there might be some kind of levies? That of course would be a situation which we on these Benches would be very much against. Therefore, it is with considerable regret that I must say that I could not support the amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, proposes to divide the House.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I rise only to support what the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, have already said. Subsection (c) includes the word "unreasonable", which is a word about which enormous differences of opinion are held according to whether you are suffering from import competition or you want to export. Ever since the end of the war the problem of competition in international trade has exercised the world and that is particularly so in the period of a recession. But throughout that period GATT, and now the Community, have built up a complex structure to deal with this problem. It would be most unfortunate if we made any move suggesting that we wanted to weaken those institutions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I should like to make one additional point. There is really very little between the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I on the spirit of the amendment that he has put before your Lordships' House. The problem is that the world shipbuilding industry, of which the British shipbuilding industry is but a part, is facing the worst recession in its fortunes for half a century or more. That is why the situation is so difficult in the world shipbuilding industry, and of course the British shipbuilding industry is not immune to those difficulties.
Several noble Lords have pointed to the difficulty of defining the unfair competition which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has in mind, and I too share the misgivings on that point. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree that to put these sort of exhortations, which is really what they are, into the Bill, would not now be appropriate.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for the support he offered to what I believe to be the whole core of this matter—that is to say, whether our domestic industries, of which the shipbuilding industry is only one, but a very important one that goes right to the vitals of the nation, should be exposed without any demur to competition that emanates not from free democracies within which free trade unions operate, not within Europe, I would hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran, but from countries with military régimes where trade unions are the pliant servants of Government, as in Poland before Lech Walesa; and whether we are prepared to sit back and allow this to continue. We all

665
know that, since the abolition of exchange control in the United Kingdom, considerable sums of money have left the City of London for South Korea precisely to invest in shipyards there, where these low costs, these fractional wage costs and these very subnormal conditions of work apply. We know, too, that money has gone there from the United States and from West Germany. Sure enough, they are new industries which are well equipped, but they have been equipped very largely through British finance. In order to get a return on British finance in places like South Korea we are now in a situation where labour—I venture to put it in parenthesis, sweated labour—in such countries is now going to be permitted to strike at the vitals of our own industry here. That is the plain and simple issue and that is the way in which I am sure the country will understand it.
I am very grateful for the sympathy that has emanated from the noble Lord. He expressed himself most agreeably in favour of the broad trend of the amendment. The irony of it is that in the middle of the debate on this matter there was a Statement from another place on the CAP—a CAP which is about the most protectionist instrument of the lot for the whole of British farming. So we are applying one standard to our industries that are battling for our existence but we are prepared to pay out thousands of millions of pounds in deliberately protective measures in support of British farmers. This is not a time to debate agriculture, but the contrast is very stark and very ironic.
I did not mention the question of scrap and build. That was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite presumably in amplification of the concluding statement of his right honourable friend in another place. But since the noble Lord touched upon the matter, may I say that scrap and build was very much on my mind when this amendment was put down.
It is the duty of the British Government to take a very hard look at the position of the shipping industry when large numbers of floating coffins are abroad the high seas at present, sustained only by the fact that insurance companies will still continue to insure, at exorbitant rates, ships that are not really seaworthy. The noble Lord may ask how that affects the Government. The answer is very simple, and it was brought out very clearly at the conference on shipping over which I presided in Paris in 1978. If the Government themselves (not the Department of Industry, but the Department of Trade) really enforce standards of inspection on British ships—and I mean really enforce them—then that would result in a number of ships which are at the moment sailing the seas not being allowed to be there, and it would in fact necessitate their replacement.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I feel that I must intervene again, and I hope that I still have your Lordships' permission to do so. Is the noble Lord saying that there are ships on the British register now sailing which are unseaworthy?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, no. I am saying that there are ships owned by British shipowners which are scrupulous enough to fly under flags of convenience but which are still owned by British
666
shipowners, who avoid the regulations. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, this has been brought out. For example, he knows that 25 per cent. of the tankers in the ownership of British shipowners are registered under flags of convenience and do not fly under the British flag. Therefore, something that Her Majesty's Government could do would be to enforce standards. They may enforce them as regards ships under the British flag; but they could also take a far more active part in international conventions that seek to enforce these standards internationally.
In any event, the Government ought to take a more positive attitude towards the whole of the British shipbuilding industry. I suggest that the incorporation of this clause, which merely incorporates general duties—but sufficient duties for any Secretary of State to be mindful of them in the discharge of the functions of his office—ought to be included in the Bill, if only as a marker as to the real responsibilities of the Secretary of State in relation to the shipbuilding industry. I am sorry, but in view of the Government's refusal to accept the amendment, I must press this matter to a Division.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 124.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Molloy, L.

Birk, B.

Nicol, B.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Peart, L.

Brockway, L.

Phillips, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Collison, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rea, L.

Denington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Segal, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Soper, L.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Willis, L.

Longford, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Coleraine, L.

Amulree, L.

Colyton, L.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Aylestone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Banks, L.

Cox, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Belhaven of Stenton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bellwin, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Blake, L.

De Freyne, L.

Boardman, L.

De La Warr, E.

Caccia, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Derwent, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Diamond, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Cathcart, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

667

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Garner, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

George-Brown, L.

Porritt, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glanusk, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Roberthall, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rochester, L.

Gridley, L,

Romney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sainsbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hanworth, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Somers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Southborough, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Kennet, L.

Stamp, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kitchener, E.

Swansea, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Vickers, B.

Marley, L.

Vivian, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Moyola, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I now rise to move that this Bill do now pass. The Bill will give commercial freedom to British Shipbuilders. It will enable them to draw on the resources of the private sector and to open up new sources of finance. But it will also give the Government reserve powers to deal with unfair competition and to determine the borderline between public and private sectors of the industry. These powers are, as you Lordships will recall, subject to negative resolution of either House.
In our debates noble Lords opposite have perhaps not fully acknowledged the support that the Government have given to the industry and which I referred to again when we were considering the amendment just now. Our first actions on coming into office were to ensure the continuation of the Intervention Fund and of the Shipbuilding Redundancy Payment Scheme. Both these schemes were on the point of collapsing. More recently we have significantly increased the value of the redundancy benefits available. The taxpayer has also been called upon to assist the industry by providing well over £600 million since 1979.
668
The Labour Party, by contrast, has emphasised the support that it would give to shipbuilding, should it be returned to office. It has said that it would increase investment in the industry. But when it left office, capital investment in British Shipbuilders was at a very low level—a level which provided for little more than essential maintenance. In contrast, under the present Administration, capital investment has increased and new large capital projects have been started. We have approved an increased external financing limit for 1983–84 which accommodates capital expenditure of £90 million; that is, a fourfold increase on the levels of four years ago. That is a level of expenditure which compares favourably with the frequently quoted levels of investment undertaken in Japan.
We are of course fully aware of the current severe difficulties facing the industry. These problems are afflicting the industry worldwide whether it is publicly or privately owned, and the Government are sympathetically considering the request for assistance which the chairman of British Shipbuilders has put to us. This Bill is designed to help the industry. It will improve British Shipbuilders' ability to compete and survive. I therefore beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when I listened to the noble Lord's record of what had been done for British Shipbuilders under the present Administration, I suddenly realised that we were getting away from the Bill and must be getting near election time. However, he did say in the course of his remarks that the Bill gave the Government power to protect the British industry from unfair competition. Since the noble Lord, right from the beginning of the passage of the Bill through this House from the Second Reading onwards, has explicitly stated that it is impossible for the Government to protect British Shipbuilders against unfair competition, it is very interesting to see whereabouts in the Bill that power has been taken. In fact, the only power that would enable the Government to do it was comprised in sub-paragraph (c) of the amendment which the Government have just rejected.
I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time any further in the consideration of this Bill. It is a bad, squalid little Bill. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever, except to give the Government powers to flog off the profitable portions of the warship section, which operates on the cost-plus basis. This is the sole purpose of the Bill.
I ought to warn the noble Lord that on the return of a Labour Administration we shall undoubtedly repeal this Bill. Moreover, we shall make inquiries to exhume some of the rather queer transactions that have been referred to by me in the course of the Committee stage. I hope that none will be protected from that exhumation which will take place.
This is a completely unnecessary Bill, but there is nothing we can do within the conventions of the House to stop it going through. It would be an abuse of the conventions of this House, as we see them, to object to a Motion that the Bill do now pass. I suppose,

669
my Lords, that the best thing we can do with it is to let it pass, because it will soon pass out of human consciousness anyway.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, may I say just a few words about the Bill at this stage? For reasons that I shall not rehearse now, my noble friend Lord Simon on behalf of my noble friends opposed the Bill in principle at Second Reading, as your Lordships know. We sought to introduce one or two amendments, for one of which I was responsible, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will not be surprised to be reminded that I regret very much that the Government did not feel able to accept the amendment concerned with the subject of employee involvement.
I should however like to take this opportunity on behalf of my noble friends to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the way in which he has piloted the Bill through this House. Their general attitude to it must be the same as that to which expression has just been given by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I think we should leave it at that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed.

Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield The Lord Bishop of Wakefield rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this is the first occasion that I have had the honour to introduce to your Lordships' House legislative business proposed by the General Synod. The first of the Measures before the House this evening is the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure. Like its two predecessors, it is concerned with making minor amendments in the law on points of detail which are not contentious. We are seeking to ease and simplify the legal and administrative procedures of the Church at a number of specific points.
In brief, the purpose of this Measure is first to amend the new Parishes Measure 1943 in relation to the enlargement of existing sites of churches and church halls. The aim of the first four clauses of this Measure is to enable conveyancing of church property to be done more efficiently in certain specific transactions. The Measure also makes more comprehensive provision for the discharge of certain of a bishop's functions if he is ill or absent from his diocese. It amends, too, the constitution of appeals tribunals
670
for the compensation of the clergy by increasing the number of clergy and laymen from whom the members of the tribunal are chosen.
In Clause 12 it transfers a house and muniment room in the Lichfield Cathedral Close to the ownership of the Diocesan Board of Finance when the present diocesan registrar vacates his office. There are also other small amendments to the law in the Measure.
This Measure first came before General Synod in July 1981, when it received general approval. A revision committee then scrutinised it very carefully and considered a number of suggestions made by individual members of Synod. A number of valuable amendments were made, and they were agreed to by General Synod at revision stage in February last year. The Measure received final approval in July 1982 in all three houses of Synod with no dissentient vote. Subsequently, counsel to the Ecclesiastical Committee suggested two drafting amendments. So the Measure was amended by General Synod and given final approval in February of this year. Once more it received approval with no dissentient votes.
The Ecclesiastical Committee have met and considered the Measure. They have expressed their opinion that it is expedient. I very much doubt whether your Lordships will wish me to detain the House with a more detailed exposition of the clauses. I would stress that they are the outcome of a long process of preparation and scrutiny. As I have indicated, they are mostly of a minor and technical nature, but they are helpful for the smoother administration of the Church in a number of specific ways. So I beg to move that the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent,—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity briefly to contribute to the Motion moved by the right reverend Prelate in support of the Church of England General Synod Measure which is now before the House. As your Lordships may know, I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and also a Church Commissioner. I am pleased to support the Measure. The Measure, as the right reverend Prelate has said, does not effect major changes, but it would permit a number of detailed, uncontentious points to be resolved. This, it was thought, would help towards simplifying the Church's legal procedures. The Measure comes from the General Synod of the Church of England, has been considered to be expedient by the membership of Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee, and should receive our support. I give the Measure a welcome.
Lord Amulree: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the Motion that the right reverend Prelate has moved. I hope that it will be agreed to by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pastoral Measure
5.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield The Lord Bishop of Wakefield rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the second Measure for which I seek your Lordships' approval to present to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent is the Pastoral Measure. This is a substantial Measure which is of considerable importance, for it touches at so many points the life and ministry of the Church of England. This is a consolidation Measure and consolidates the Pastoral Measure of 1968, the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure of 1982, and other related enactments.
It is the outcome of a lengthy and very thorough process of consideration which began as far back as July 1973. It so happens that I was then appointed vice-chairman, and later became chairman, of a large and representative working party to review the operation of the 1968 Pastoral Measure. We consulted the dioceses, inviting bishops' councils to submit evidence from the diocesan bodies, such as the Board of Finance, the Pastoral Committee and the Advisory Committee—all the bodies most closely concerned with the working of the Measure. We also received oral and written evidence from the Church Commissioners, from the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, the Redundant Churches Fund, the Council for the Care of Churches and the amenity societies. All told, we examined more than 600 suggestions for amending the Pastoral Measure.
In July 1975 we reported to the General Synod that, broadly, the Pastoral Measure was functioning well but we believed it could be improved by a series of detailed suggestions—some of them far-reaching, others more technical. We also recommended a code of good practice to help those in the dioceses operate the provisions of the Measure with care and sensitivity. I believe that the code, which was authorised by the Standing Committee of General Synod, has been of very real assistance in this respect. After the Synod debate in 1975, the wheels were set in motion to prepare the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure. Those wheels turned more slowly than we had anticipated, but in due course the Measure was introduced and then very carefully revised by the Revision Committee of Synod. When I moved the final approval stage in February 1981, it was passed in all three Houses with no dissentient votes. The lengthy preparation and thorough discussion has, however, meant that we have been able to express the mind and will of Synod as a whole. The pastoral situation in our Church has changed considerably since the 1975 debate. There are, for instance, 2,000 fewer parochial clergy than there were eight years ago, and, of course, the whole financial balance of the Church has changed enormously as the living Church now provides substantially greater proportions for the stipends of the clergy.
The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure was carefully examined by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it was
672
debated in your Lordships' House on July 14th last year, on a Motion introduced by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. Your Lordships, I imagine, will not wish me to go once more over ground which was covered in that debate: for example, in regard to the modification of the right to appeal to the Privy Council, or the transfer to the Church Commissioners of the final decision in regard to the demolition of a church when it is to be replaced by a new one, let alone the finer points of the Measure (I speak at random) in regard to pastoral committees, pastoral orders and schemes, definitions of interested parties, the membership of team ministries, the changes in relation to pastoral accounts and so on.
The broad issues of policy have been debated already, and the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure has received the Royal Assent. But in their report last year on that Measure the Ecclesiastical Committee drew attention to a number of minor defects in the drafting. They recommended that these should be amended on consolidation. Indeed, they felt that because the Measure was so lengthy and complex, consolidation was highly desirable. In the General Synod we were of the same mind. It is obviously essential that practitioners in the dioceses, administrators in central Church bodies and perhaps, most of all, those people in the parishes whose interests may be affected by it should be able to have access to a text which is comprehensive and complete. The consolidation Measure received final approval in the February meeting of the General Synod in all three Houses by 298 votes to 3.
The Ecclesiastical Committee have deemed this Measure to be expedient. In their report they have stated that it makes a number of minor corrections and improvements for a more satisfactory consolidation, and these include amendments to cure the small defects in the amendment Measure that they had previously noted.
My Lords, those of us who have lived with this Measure over the past 10 years have tried to keep before our minds the words in the Long Title of the 1968 Pastoral Measure, which are retained in the Measure before us today. It is,
"designed to make better provision for the cure of souls".
That, in the beginning and at the end of the day, is what this Measure is for. Of course, we know that no legislation, no enactment by itself, can secure the effective ministry of clergy and laity, or provide loving pastoral care, sound teaching, reverent worship, a proper regard for buildings or a commitment to evangelism. We know that. But good legislation can help to provide a better and less cramping framework in which these desirable things can happen.
Just as it requires a good spirit to work the provisions of a Measure and a good code of practice (which is now in progress of preparation) to help people use it to best advantage, so in the end it requires pastors and lay people working as partners and animated by the Spirit of God to forward the ministry and mission of the Church. It is our hope that this Measure will provide a useful set of tools to help in that task, and it is in that hope that I beg to move that the Pastoral Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, again I am pleased to support the Measure before us and, as the right reverend Prelate has said, it has come from the General Synod of the Church of England and is a consolidation Measure, including the Pastoral Measure of 1968 and the Pastoral Measure of 1982, which, as your Lordships will recall, was debated last July. As we have been told, there are other statutory provisions set out in Schedule 9. As we have been told, this is a consolidating enactment and does not amend the existing law except in regard to some rather minor and insignificant matters.
I am sure the House is pleased to hear from the right reverend Prelate of the need to keep Measures up to date in respect of desirable changes and of the assurances of consultation. Not least, of course, we can be assured by knowing of the very painstaking examination and work which various church bodies at all levels devote to all such measures. The Measure has been before the Ecclesiastical Committee and will be very convenient to all concerned with its operation. I welcome the Measure and invite your Lordships' support.
Lord Amulree: My Lords, I should like to support what the right reverend Prelate has said, and to support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
5.31 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First of all, may I say that the fact that I am speaking from my usual place in this House does not mean that this Bill is in any sense a party measure. It is obviously a matter on which each individual should form his or her conscientious opinion. I am glad to see, so far as I can judge from the list of speakers and from what I have heard, that the Bill will have pretty full support from all parties.
First, what is female circumcision? Although it is in the Short Title of the Bill, I have to admit that it is a misnomer—a very common misnomer, which is now in such universal use that I think it would be pedantic to seek to upset it. The operation the Bill addresses itself to is something far worse than the misnomer suggests. It is nothing short of the cutting out of the clitoris, and a whole spectrum of other mutilations beyond that. I am going to leave the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is qualified to do so, to explain in more detail what it amounts to physically and in medical terms. The point to grasp, for the needs of the legislator, is that all these procedures are mutilations, and that the operation assaults, and attempts to cancel, the womanhood of a person.
674
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Articles 5 says:
"No one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".
I think that when the House has heard the full account from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, of what goes on no one will be able to doubt that this operation falls under those words.
Where is it done? It is done in an East-West belt across Africa between the Sahara and the Forest and just running into South-West Asia across the Red Sea. Within that belt it is done to babies, to little girls and to young women, who may belong to any of the tribes and religions found in that belt. That means it is done among Muslims, among Christians, among Jews, among polytheists and among animists. The point is that it is in many places a majority operation, and in some countries it is estimated that as many as 90 per cent. of girls and women have suffered this mutilation.
Why is it done? It is not required by any religion. It is custom, pure and simple, and that is all we really know. Anthropology and psychology are still groping for the deeper reasons; and theories about it are many and extremely interesting. However, this Bill has nothing to do with Africa. The reason for the Bill is that this operation has begun to appear in this country, among people who come from that belt in Africa and South-West Asia.
The evidence that it is being done is as follows. The BBC's Radio 4 programme, "The World Tonight", on 12th November last year, transmitted the voice of a GP. He said that he had referred—I now quote textually—
"about eight in the last four years. They were from the Third World. They had a removal of the clitoris".
A tape of the programme exists and the staff of the programme have assured me that the speaker was indeed a general practitioner in this country, and that his identity is known to them. I accept that, and I can say to the House that it should do so also.
Quite separately from that evidence, I have in my possession incontrovertible documentary evidence that the clitoris and labia minora of a woman were excised in a London clinic in 1981. Beyond those direct pieces of evidence, it is commonly believed, among serious people who have made inquiry into the situation in this country, that those pieces of evidence are the tip of the iceberg.
Why is it appropriate to legislate? Some say we should legislate because it will help those who are working against this practice where it is prevalent. That opinion is to be found among leaders of the movement against it in certain countries: I have evidence of that too, but I will not delay the House with it at the moment. Some people say that we should legislate here to stop this country becoming a haven to which well-off people come to have it done, as pressure against it mounts in their own countries. It is in fact already banned in Sudan and in Kenya, and has recently been banned in Sweden. Those practising the operation have been prosecuted in France. The new Swedish law provides for two years in prison.
I merely report these opinions. I do not myself urge these arguments upon the House as reasons for legislating. It is in any case doubtful whether we should

675
legislate for ourselves, solely or principally to help people in other countries: there is an interesting argument concealed there. What I do urge as a simple, sufficient, and indeed imperative, reason is that we will not have this mutilation done here. It is against all humanity, kindness, respect and love; and we will not have it.
Who backs this Bill? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
"gives full support to any measures which will help to eradicate what it regards as a repugnant and unnecessary procedure".
But the Royal College has reservations about the provisions for certification and notification which are in the Bill as it is drafted. I will come back to those reservations shortly. The British Medical Association supports the Bill; the Royal College of Midwives supports the Bill; the Royal College of Nursing supports the Bill, including an emergency resolution of their representative body last week; and I believe that we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that the Association of Health Visitors supports the Bill.
Going now outside the medical organisations, the following bodies also support the Bill—the National Council of Women, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Minority Rights Group, the Anti-Slavery Society, the Fawcett Society and the Josephine Butler Society. Even during this afternoon I have received—and I must mention this—a petition from 16 African women living in London, which says:
"We give our full support to your effort to legislate against the operation of female sexual mutilation in the United Kingdom".
Lastly, to come close to home, 110 Members of the House of Commons have signed an Early Day Motion which,
"calls on HMG to make it illegal for doctors practising in the UK to carry out female circumcision on girls living in the UK or brought to the UK from abroad".
I have heard also of a good many petitions destined for Members of the House of Commons.
Let us look at the Bill for a moment. It starts by defining the actual deeds which must not be done under the Bill, and it then goes on to prescribe the penalties for those who do them. Clause 2—and this is the most important part of the Bill—provides that, so long as these deeds are done for the physical health of the patient, no offence has been committed. This is here because about 8,000 or 9,000 operations in this country are done every year which include the cutting, sewing or cutting out of some relevant part, or parts, of girls or women. They are typically done for cancer and for pre-cancerous conditions, and there are a whole lot of minor conditions which it can be no part of this Bill to seek to prevent or to incommode, as part of the ordinary everyday life of the medical and surgical professions.
The Bill then stipulates that the operations must be done in a National Health Service hospital or a registered nursing home, and empowers the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments about various matters.
Here I come to the reservations of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They are directed to the procedure which is set out in the Bill, by which
676
the confirmation of two medical practitioners that the operation is indeed in the interests of the physical health of the patient is required before it may be done, and so on.
These reservations of the Royal College are obviously weighty and must be met if the Bill is to be good law. I never supposed that I would be able to get these provisions right the first time round, and I am glad to say that both the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the officers of the British Medical Association have agreed to meet me and discuss how we can improve these provisions. Perhaps we shall be able to meet at the same time with the Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister may be able to say a word about that when he comes to reply. After that, I will introduce amendments for the Committee stage of this Bill.
Lastly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' goodwill and shall listen carefully to points which will be made in this Second Reading debate. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—.(Lord Kennet.)
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Trefgarne replies on behalf of the Government, in view of what has been said I think that I ought to acquaint the House, at least, as Lord Chancellor, with my opinion as to the present legal position, because I think that anyone hearing the noble Lord would think that it was lawful to do this thing in this country at the present time.
Under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be liable to imprisonment for life. Under Section 20 of the same Act, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years.
I do not want to talk about this Bill at all, because my noble friend will do it far better than I, and he is the spokesman for the department concerned. But, at any rate, I really must make it plain to the House and to the public that it is my solemn opinion that anybody who participates in this country in the excision of a clitoris is guilty of one or both of the offences which I have just read out, and will render himself, and anyone participating in such a procedure will render himself, liable to prosecution for an offence for which a private prosecution is available. I must say this, because I believe that people are beginning to think that this is not against the criminal law. I can only say that I am quite sure that it is against the criminal law as matters stand. It may be an argument for the Bill; it may be an argument against the Bill. But I am simply stating what I believe to be the criminal law at the present time.

677
The second thing I must say is that, in the case of a minor under the age of 16, there is no possibility that consent is any defence at all. A minor under the age of 16 is not able to consent to the commission upon her of a criminal assault. Neither parental consent nor the consent of the minor would be any defence at all, and if the parents did such a thing, or instigated such a thing or participated in such a thing, it would only render them liable to criminal penalties, too. The doctor, the anaesthetist and the nurses involved would all be guilty. And I must add this. Of course, these matters are ultimately for the courts to decide—my opinion is worth nothing, unless backed by the opinion of a court and the verdict of a jury, because these are indictable offences—but I must utter the most solemn warning against members of the medical profession, or anyone else who thinks that this is lawful under the laws of England.
I must add this, too: that we know that in the best conducted operations death can sometimes ensue. If I am right in what I have said up to this point, the minimum charge in such a case would be manslaughter and if a properly directed jury found that the operation was carried out with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm—and in my opinion, for what it is worth, and speaking simply as a judge of fact, the excision of the clitoris is grievous bodily harm—then the more serious charge of murder would possibly lie. So that people had better be careful, whether this Bill is passed or not.
I must also add that I very much doubt whether the consent even of an adult is possible. There is a long, long history in English law, whereby the consent of an adult to a maim is not admissible as a defence, if a person inflicting the maim—which this certainly is—is charged with an offence against the person. It is, of course, in the end a matter for the courts; it is a matter for juries. But I do not think I should be doing my duty as Lord Chancellor if I did not say quite emphatically that, in the case of what is now being discussed, the excision of the clitoris, unless there is some very unusual reason and there are physical or medical indications—for instance, in certain kinds of cancer—to the contrary, people would be running the risk of prosecution and going to prison for a very long time. Having said that, I leave the debate in the hands of those more capable than I of discussing the merits of the Bill.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat, in order to clarify the position may I ask him one question? When he read the sections from the 19th century Acts, I think the word "unlawfully" appeared—"when any person unlawfully does grievously bodily harm", or words to that effect. This seems to limit the scope of those sections.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think not, although the point was raised in a very different connection in a case in which I sat judicially in your Lordships' House. Obviously a surgical operation inherently involves doing that which would prima facie be an assault. What I have been saying is that an assault without definite physical-medical indications is criminal and, therefore, unlawful under these sections. As I believe I have just said, if for some reason, which
678
I do not pretend to be qualified to speak on, there was a medical indication that an operation of this kind ought to be performed, that might be different. Then the word to which the noble Baroness has drawn my attention would have significance.
It fell to my lot when I was hearing an appeal in a murder case to point out that where a surgeon operates in order to save a patient's life, knowing that the chances are that the patient will die under the operation, it is not unlawful because he is performing that operation to save the patient's life. Then the word "unlawfully" does operate. In my opinion, for what it is worth—I do not claim to be infallible in these matters—I can think of nothing other than a physical condition of the kind I have indicated which would render an assault of this kind lawful, either upon a minor or upon an adult, subject to what I have already said.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, first may I say that the Government share with the noble Lord the repugnance with which he views these operations when they are carried out for customary or cultural reasons. This is not a part of our culture, and we would not wish it to become so among any part of our population here, whatever their ethnic origins. We cannot of course legislate for other countries, but through the World Health Organisation we have added our voice to encourage those who, through exhortation and education, are trying to eradicate these practices abroad.
The noble Lord is therefore to be congratulated on having brought forward this Bill. But, even if it were not the case that operations of this sort, without medical justification, could be classified, for example, as unlawful wounding, as my noble and learned friend has just explained, the Government would, I fear, be unable to accept the Bill in its present form. There are a number of medical conditions, some simple and some complex, which can necessitate operations such as those described in Clause 1(1). This is of course recognised in Clause 2(1) which provides exemption for operations necessary for the woman's physical health. But the requirement to obtain a second opinion when legitimate operations are to be performed, and to give notice of these operations, would in our view represent a serious interference with legitimate medical practice.
The certification and notification procedure would be a thoroughly unwelcome piece of additional bureaucracy, and one which might also create problems in relation to confidentiality. Most important, it could harm the interests of patients by delaying necessary and even life-saving treatment. I understand that the Bill, as presently drafted, might result in a need for at least 8,000 second opinions, including those for cancer, pre-cancer and possibly many more. Even minor biopsies in the defined areas might require a second opinion, and this would add to the total I have mentioned. Indeed, the Royal College of Gynaecologists—the noble Lord referred to this in his opening remarks—hold the view that this pertains even to episiotomy, which is a common procedure during childbirth. The Bill provides that the second opinion must be obtained from a doctor who is not in

679
the same "practice" as the doctor who proposes to perform the operation. While the term "practice" has some meaning in the context of a family practitioner, it is hard to see what would be meant in the case of a hospital doctor, and it is of course in hospitals that legitimate operations of this kind will mainly take place.
Without in any way lessening our repugnance at the idea of women being subjected to this sort of mutilation and degradation, we must retain a sense of proportion. Press reports talk of only a handful of these operations being carried out in this country, for cultural reasons, during recent years. But of course I accept that even one operation is too many. I accept also that there have been a number of rumours about the operations being more widespread. Were this Bill to be enacted in its present form, it is unlikely that anybody who is about to, or who has undertaken, a ritual "female circumcision" would issue a notice to that effect, or seek a second opinion. We feel therefore that notices and second opinions will only impinge upon legitimate medical practice, and will impose a time-consuming burden on doctors and on whoever, at public expense, has to monitor the notices.
The Government also have to consider the views of the medical profession. I understand that some parts of the profession may have reservations, both about the imposition of legislation into the doctor-patient relationship and with regard to the questions of notices and second opinions to which I have referred.
To summarise, therefore: the Government's view is now that these procedures, when carried out without medical justification, are already contrary to the law as it stands. My noble and learned friend described that. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, while commendable in its overall intention, would in its present form tend to impede the medical profession in its legitimate function, without helping the difficult problem of bringing a successful action against an offender in cases where an adult has given her consent to the operation.
But, having said all this, we do acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation which would put the illegality of the practice of female circumcision, in its ritual and cultural sense, beyond any possible doubt. It is not clear that the difficulty of definition and scope that I have referred to in the noble Lord's Bill can be satisfactorily overcome. However, the Government would not seek to oppose the Bill at this stage. Indeed, I would most certainly be prepared to participate in the discussions to which the noble Lord referred. I cannot, I fear, guarantee that time can be found for the Bill in another place; but, as I have said, I will most certainly participate in discussions with the noble Lord to see if it is possible to overcome the difficulties I have described.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, there must be very few people in the United Kingdom, whether they be men or women, who approve of the carrying out of this mutilating operation anywhere, let alone in this country. There is therefore widespread support for the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in introducing this Bill. He has described why it is particularly timely. I have listened with great interest to the
680
remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I should like to point out that so far there has been no prosecution against doctors or others who have carried out the operation in this country, which suggests to me that there is a need for a stiffening of the law, such as is suggested in the Bill.
It falls to me, with a medical background, to describe in more detail what is involved in so-called female circumcision. After describing the operation, I will say a little about its origins and its consequences. As has been pointed out, the term is in fact inaccurate because far more is involved than circumcision, which literally means "cutting around", as applied usually to the familiar operation on the male foreskin. In that operation, the male sexual organ (the penis) is left completely intact, apart from the hood known as the prepuce or foreskin, which covers the sensitive glans. After the wound of male circumcision has healed, the function of the penis as a sexual organ is in no way impaired. The sensitivity of the glans is slightly decreased, but some claim that this is an advantage since it decreases the chance of premature ejaculation.
In female "circumcision" the central part of the operation is the removal of the tip or the whole of the clitoris. This small organ is the female equivalent of the penis and, like the male organ, is highly sensitive, richly supplied with blood vessels and nerves, and when appropriately stimulated gives rise to pleasurable erotic sensations leading to sexual climax or orgasm. In other words, it is the core or focus for a woman's sexuality and ability to experience sexual pleasure.
There are other erotic areas which can sometimes give rise to sexual pleasure or orgasmic intensity but the clitoris is the main centre. To deprive a woman of her clitoris is thus to deprive her of her major source of sexual pleasure and satisfaction. Sexual arousal can still take place, however, but without the relief given by a climax or orgasm this can lead to tension and unhappiness.
The operation carried out traditionally in large parts of Africa, and sporadically in the Middle and Far East and in South America (and which, incidentally, was carried out in this country) is usually much more drastic than mere clitoridectomy. The removal of the surrounding hood of the clitoris is the only true female circumcision—the so called "Sunna" circumcision. It is only rarely performed; and the most common form, which is apparently undergone by 80 to 90 per cent. of the women in the Sudan, is the co-called "Pharaonic" circumcision, which involves not only total clitoridectomy but also the removal of the inner lips or labia minora and partial removal or paring of the inner parts of the "outer lips" or labia majora. The raw edges of the labia are then sutured together, apart from a small finger-sized opening towards the back to allow the passage or urine or menstrual flow. This part of the operation is known as infibulation. Thus, the woman is not only deprived of her main organ of erotic sensation but is effectively "sewn up" against normal sexual activity.
The fact that this operation is done at all is unknown to most people in this country, but it has been practised in one form or another for centuries—probably millennia—in many parts of the world. As suggested by the term "Pharaonic", it was practised in

681
ancient Egypt. The main areas where it is practised today (as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said) tend to be those where Islam has influenced the African cultures of the Southern Sahara. However, it does not appear to be a particularly Islamic practice—nor is it a formal initiation rite, like male circumcision in much of Africa, although there is often a local ceremony surrounding the practice.
Explanations given by those practising the operation are complex; that it promotes virginity before marriage, promotes fidelity within marriage, and protects against rape. But it is also held to be an ennobling procedure and has correlations with high social prestige. Whatever the reasons, sexual activity and a high birth rate clearly occur in countries where it is practised, despite the fact that after every birth the infibulation has to be cut or torn and subsequently restored.
Theories for the origin of the practice are numerous. One possibly over-simplistic view is that it is part of the tradition in which, in a male dominated society, women are regarded as the "property" of men. To decrease a woman's sexuality and effectively seal off her sexual availability might prevent her from being "taken" sexually by other men. Virginity in unmarried women is much prized in many countries—not only where female circumcision takes place. But in those countries clitoridectomy and infibulation are felt to ensure virginity.
More basic anthropological and psychological reasons are felt by some to be operating subconsciously—such as male fear of female sexuality; a belief that this is more powerful than the man's and will prove too demanding for the men to satisfy, so that women will gain power over them. In the Sudan (as sympathetically described by Anne Cloudsley in her book Women of Omdurman) the practice is very deeply ingrained. It is now carried out mainly by locally-trained midwives. It is accepted by most Sudanese women, who regard the operation as a mark of womanhood; non-infibulated women being regarded as outsiders or curiosities. There the practice is carried out on young girls, usually between the ages of five and seven, often without adequate hygiene or anaesthesia—as those who watched the recent very disturbing BBC documentary will have seen.
The adverse consequences of the operation can be very serious, especially when carried out in primitive circumstances. First, there is the psychic trauma associated with a very painful procedure involving the genitalia. This may give rise to inital if not permanent dread of the sexual act. Secondly, there is the danger of wound infection and subsequent scarring, or severe haemorrhage, at the time of the operation, followed by urinary or renal infection.
Thirdly, the sexual act after marriage is made extremely difficult, with a need to artificially widen the residual small orifice, causing pain and possible haemorrhage. Fourthly, every time that a delivery takes place there is the danger of a third degree tear into the rectum, or even of obstructed labour in badly scarred cases. This is only averted by an anterior as well as the usual posterior episiotomy—cutting of the skin and tissues around the vagina at delivery. After each delivery this need to be repaired, and the woman is "re-infibulated" or sealed up.
682
Despite all these difficulties associated with suffering, and at times death, the custom dies very hard where it is practised traditionally. The operation has been illegal since 1946 in the Sudan, and yet it is practised now as widely as ever before. However, other African countries—such as Kenya—have either banned the operation or are considering this. The practice in those countries will only die out when the women themselves realise that it is an unnecessary and cruel procedure. Throughout Africa, women are campaigning to end the practice. To me, it seems intolerable that the operation can take place in this country, when the countries in which it is a major problem are struggling to end it.
For these reasons I strongly support this Bill. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists find the provisions in the present Bill cumbersome, but I am sure that at Committee stage, a formula can be found which will meet the college's objections—especially if we can count, as we have been promised, on help from the Department of Health. I would therefore ask noble Lords of all parties to give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I will begin by expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. It draws our attention to a matter of great concern, which has both medical and social implications. I should like to speak in strong support of this Bill, as both a nurse and a sociologist.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already made clear, the term "female circumcision" is generic—covering a range of procedures involving varying degrees of mutilation. The least traumatic is termed "Sunna" circumcision, and the most radical form is called "Pharaonic" circumcision or infibulation. The wording of the Bill makes no distinction and effectively proscribes all forms of female circumcision. This, I suggest, is to be welcomed because all the evidence indicates that there are no physical benefits whatever to be gained from any of these practices—rather the reverse, because there are numerous attendant risks.
These risks are of many kinds, and although they may vary according to the type of circumcision, the health hazards associated with some or all of the procedures have been well documented by health care workers. They indicate a strong justification for their prohibition. If I may, I should like briefly to summarise some to these health risks. Immediate and short-term physical complications include haemorrhage, pain, shock, localised infection, septicaemia, difficulties with micturition, and damage to adjacent tissues and organs. Longer-term physical complications include the danger of chronic infection, development of abscesses, scar tissue, cysts and neuromas, dysmennorhoea, dyspareunia and obstetric complications. Many other secondary and long-term complications may also follow: for example, renal disease resulting from urinary tract infection.
In addition to such physical ill-effects, psychological, and especially psycho-sexual, problems may result. The research evidence is less substantial here,

683
partly because many of the women involved are reluctant to speak on the subject, and partly because many are naturally influenced by the norms and values of their culture, which may advocate circumcision as desirable. However, the physical mutilation resulting from circumcision in even its mildest form must be expected to have some adverse psycho-sexual effects. There are many accounts of women who have undergone infibulation who experience terror at the prospect of marriage and acute pain in the process of deinfibulation.
As we have heard, female circumcision is widely practised in many parts of the world. It is found in more than 20 countries in Africa, in Oman, South Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and among the Moslem populations of Indonesia and Malaysia. While it is impossible to estimate precisely the numbers of women involved, well-informed sources claim that the order of magnitude is at the level of tens of millions, and a small number of cases have recently been reported in Europe, in France and the United Kingdom. Hence the significance and the timeliness of this Bill.
Turning very briefly to the reasons for female circumcision, clearly a practice which is so widespread must have powerful social and cultural legitimation and be supported by many members of the communities involved. If it is hoped to achieve change, it is important to try to understand the socio-cultural reasons for this support. We have already heard of some of them. They include beliefs that circumcision is desirable because it is hygienic, because it prevents promiscuity, because it enhances the desirability and value of women, because it is in keeping with age-old tradition and because it symbolises a girl's transition to adulthood. And sometimes, especially in Moslem communities, it may be carried out in the sincere but erroneous belief that it is demanded by Islamic faith.
It is perhaps relevant to point out that many of these beliefs are inconsistent in so far as they bear no relation to empirical reality: for example, there is no correlation between female circumcision and hygiene—rather the reverse, as it is often associated with infection. With regard to the argument of the traditional association with the rite de passage into adulthood, this too is inaccurate, as circumcision is frequently performed on infants or girls who are so young that they cannot be seen as nearing adolescence. And finally the belief that it is a religious requirement is inconsisent with the facts because it is carried out by adherents of many faiths—Roman Catholics, Protestants, Copts and Animists, among others—which clearly do not require it.
Given these anomalies, it is important perhaps to explore other reasons for the perpetuation of this custom. The informative report on Female Circumcision by the Minority Rights Group suggests several other reasons, including the financial incentives for those who perform the operations, the influence of older women who have themselves been circumcised, the power of community pressure and a suspicion that Westerners are trying to eliminate traditional cultures.
If we turn now very briefly to the case for action and legislation, given the complexity of the situation,
684
attempts to bring about change must obviously be sensitive to the multiplicity of factors involved. Recent initiatives have consisted of two kinds of approach, legislative and educative, and several organisations have made strong recommendations designed to try to eliminate the practice of female circumcision. I will briefly refer to four such initiatives. First, the World Health Organisation Seminar in Khartoum in 1979 recommended:
" —adoption of a clear national policy for the abolition of female circumcision;
—establishment of national commissions to co-ordinate and follow up the activities of the bodies involved, including where appropriate the enactment of legislation prohibiting female circumcision;
—intensification of general education of the public, including health education at all levels, with special emphasis on the dangers and undesirability of female circumcision;
—intensification of educational programmes for traditional birth attendants, midwives, healers and other practitioners of traditional medicine, showing the harmful effects of female circumcision with a view to enlist their support along with general efforts to abolish this practice".
The second example is UNICEF's Position on Female Circumcision, May 1979, which concluded:
"The abolition of a widespread and deeply entrenched custom of such long standing, fraught as it is with cultural sensitivities, cannot of course be accomplished overnight. What should be emphasised is that the task is being undertaken carefully, but actively, on several fronts and that UNICEF is seriously committed to the effort to overcome the practice of female excision".
Thirdly, the Council of Representatives of the International Council of Nurses agreed the following Motion:
"That the international Council of Nurses:
—endorse the WHO/UNICEF position on the practice known as female excision, female circumcision and female mutilation;
—work actively with appropriate colleagues and community groups for the abolition of this custom, and,
—include this subject matter in all maternal and child health programmes and health education programmes of the international Council of Nurses as appropriate".
Finally, coming nearer home, the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom has followed suit by offering strong support for this Bill and by seeking evidence of the extent to which female circumcision is practised in this country. For example, the college has published a request in the Nursing Standard, which reaches about 43,000 nurses, for any nurses who come across cases to notify them to the college, so that some indication of the extent of the practice in this country may be gained. And as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, only last week at the Royal College of Nursing's Representative Body's Congress the following Motion was agreed unanimously and with acclaim:
"This meeting of the Representative Body recommends Council [of the Royal College of Nursing] to support current legislation to prohibit in the United Kingdom female circumcision and infibulation".
My Lords, before concluding, I should like very briefly to refer to two kinds of argument which I have heard in opposition to this Bill and in opposition to the idea of passing legislation designed to prohibit the practice of female circumcision in this country. First, there are those who argue that it is wrong to impose what they regard as "Western values" on people from other cultures. Secondly, others claim that if the practice is made illegal it will merely be driven

685
underground, be performed in insanitary conditions and be fraught with even more danger of complications.
I do not believe that these arguments constitute grounds for opposing this Bill. On the first point there are surely some cultural traditions which are so antithetical to human well-being that they cannot be regarded as sacrosanct. Cannibalism and the burning of widows are two such examples. I would argue that the mutilation inherent in female circumcision could be seen in a similar light, especially as it is all too frequently carried out on small girls who are not in a position to choose for themselves. On the second point, that there is a danger that the practice will be driven underground, this is clearly a possibility. However, one may hope that it will be outweighed by the deterrent effect of the law. I understand that, in other countries where female circumcision is widely practised, the symbolic effect of the passing of this law in this country would be welcomed as an example and as a precedent.
I therefore conclude as I began, by expressing my strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his endeavours to bring about the prohibition of female circumcision in this country.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, female circumcision is a totally heinous thing. It is impossible to find a single circumstance in which such a barbaric procedure could be justified, in a civilised society such as ours, for non-medical reasons. This is an opportunity for your Lordships to show the world how atrocious we think this practice is. I hope we can pass a Bill which simply says: "Any form of ritual or custom of female circumcision or infibulation is an offence punishable by a prison sentence and being struck off the medical register". Perhaps a fine could be imposed as well, at least to cover the court case; but to most of the doctors practising in Harley Street, for example, a fine would not make much impact. What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us today should be written into this Bill.
The television programme explaining female circumcision shocked many people. That female children and women can suffer so much and be treated in this debasing way, which is so much against nature, is a revelation to many. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that there already is legislation which makes it an offence to assault a child in this way. But if that is so, what of an appendicectomy or a tonsillectomy? Might these not fall into the same category? We must be totally clear.
This horrible, barbaric operation has taken place here in Britain, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. If there are three cases a year, it is three too many. I hope that we can find a way of showing how strongly we feel, so that other countries may feel guilty and tighten up their own legislation. There may be a spin-off and understanding that human kindness and women's dignity is needed throughout the world in this respect. There are some feelings that this Bill needs amending. They are well-intentioned, but they might give the impression that there just could be
686
circumstances in which female circumcision was justified. There is only justification for operations for medical reasons, and this must be made utterly clear.
There is also concern from some doctors about the way the Bill is drafted because occasionally the labia majora or minora or clitoris have to be removed because of (a) cancer; (b) suspected cancer; (c) skin changes which precede cancer, called leukoplakia (d) intractable itching and pain; and (e) genetic or congenital abnormalities. If the Bill becomes law as it stands, doctors wanting to treat vulva cancer surgically would, for example, be legally bound to seek the signed consent of a colleague from a different practice (which is a meaningless term in a hospital setting) or a special certificate, which will have to be preserved for possible inspection at a later date, by unspecified individuals. Would this not establish an unacceptable precedent?
This procedure might slow up cancer operations, which I am sure those who drafted the Bill will not have intended. When a cancer operation is performed there will be proof that it was done because of cancer, as the histology and pathology results will be written up in the notes and documented. In the case of genetic or congenital abnormalities in a child, several doctors will almost certainly be involved—the general practitioner, the paediatrician and the surgeon. There will be no such proof for female circumcision operations.
Most doctors are honourable men and women. I am sure they would deplore female circumcision on nonmedical grounds as much as your Lordships, perhaps even more so. It is just as likely, if dishonourable doctors want to perform female circumcision for money or custom, that two could be in league even if they are from different practices. But as I have already said, practices would not apply to hospital doctors.
Some doctors seem worried about Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, but surely most patients in this country will have at least two doctors involved in their case—the referring general practitioner, the surgeon, and, if a child, a paediatrician. But the Bill does need amending for the reason I have already stated—the hospital doctor. May I ask: would Clause 2(1)(a) apply to patients coming from abroad? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would clarify that point. Clause 3(1)(a) causes concern to some gynaecologists. Would it not be simpler, rather than having certificates and regulations, that any such opinions be referred to in the patient's clinical rcords?
The penalties for female circumcision must be so harsh that the risk of performing such an operation is just not worth even contemplating.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I cannot congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, enough on this issue. He is a very courageous man to have brought up this subject at a time when it really is becoming quite a common thing for Eastern and African women to come here to have an operation. I am entirely with the noble Lord except on one small point. Jewish women are not subject to any kind of circumcision; it is only the men. I am told that, on the whole, circumcision for men is a healthy thing rather than the opposite.

687
It is a tremendous thing at this time, but people have left out the psychological urges that make people come to this country to have the operation, and also the attitude towards sex of people from, let us say, India and Africa about this whole problem. No one has spoken about the men's attitude to women's sexuality. In some countries—I cannot, of course, name them—their attitudes are extremely mean. They want their women entirely for themselves. They will not suffer any kind of infidelity, and that is one reason why some of the operations have been done in this country. It is all wrong that they have been allowed to be performed.
What has been so satisfying this afternoon has been the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and of the Church. They have all been sympathetic to this Bill. I personally am very happy about that.
There are a great many speakers and I shall not make a long speech. The problem is that some men in other countries will not put up with any kind of infidelity. I know that this operation is undertaken to keep their women faithful to themselves. It is one of the strongest reasons for getting it performed. The fact that the women come here to have it done is simply shocking. It is terrible. It is the most cruel operation possible. One thing about it is particularly cruel. The clitoris is the organ which gives women pleasure. That is another reason for men being thoroughly chauvinistic and why some of them may not wish to support the Bill.
There is not a great deal that I wish to add. I cannot take the reservations of some doctors seriously at all. When the operation is performed properly it is perfectly all right, but when it is not done by qualified doctors of course things go wrong. It cannot be helped. I still feel that this idea of keeping women faithful by performing this absolutely savage operation is a great indictment against men in countries where it is done for that reason.
6.32 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: First of all I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. It will teach us a geat deal. I should especially like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his expert opinion at the beginning. He put our minds a great deal to rest about the state of the law. We shall have to discuss this more. What he said will also be a warning to the medical and legal professions about what are the rights at the present time. It may help us tremendously in getting the Bill—if we have it—correct. Anyhow, it will awaken people, particularly in the medical and legal professions, to what is the present situation. I should like to offer the noble and learned Lord my sincere thanks for coming in at the very beginning and giving us a lead.
I really enter this debate because I have, unfortunately, had the opportunity of seeing these operations take place. When I was the delegate to the United Nations I did bring this question up. In 1959 the matter was referred to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to ask whether they could persuade the World Health Organisation to take on this responsibility. WHO refused at that time
688
because they said that it was not within their powers or within the recognition of what they should do. It was not until the Khartoum conference, which has been mentioned, that the WHO acted. I think that it should take further action. It is necessary to educate the people in the countries in which the operation takes place.
I should like to suggest that we press home this business. It is not anything to do with religion; it is to do with customs. It is not so difficult to change a custom as to change beliefs and religion. If persuasion could be used to show the film in other countries, that would be very helpful. It was an excellent film. In many of the countries concerned people cannot read or write but they can see with their eyes what is happening. It would be of great use if this could be done and if we could have illustrated leaflets which could go to hospitals and clinics through UNICEF and UNESCO. It has to be done by tremendous propaganda and perhaps not so much by physical action. Young children should be taught about it. Children of the age of five can undergo this operation. If only they could protest against this themselves, it would be very helpful. As has been mentioned, one of the great difficulties is that many women earn their living in this way. It is women who do a great many of these operations.
I think it will have been helpful to have this debate today to arouse the interest of many people in this country who can be helpful overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the question of health visitors. They passed a resolution on the matter. I want to mention particularly the Commonwealth Countries League, which has not been mentioned. It is made up of 40 women of different nationalities throughout the Commonwealth. They meet regularly in this country. They have affiliated to them 25 other women's organisations. These are the type of women who can help people to understand this type of operation and can do the propaganda themselves.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The debate has brought out very many interesting points, particularly legal and medical points. I hope that we shall be able to get some satisfaction in getting a better understanding and eventually getting this very nasty type of operation stopped.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, first I apologise for speaking out of order. My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby was good enough to change places with me, because I thought at one point the debate would go on at great length and I would, sadly, have to leave for a very long-standing engagement before it ended.
Like other speakers, I, too, certainly would not like to make a long speech at this stage. After all, we have had the case for the Bill put very admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I, too, would like to congratulate him very much indeed on all the work that he did to bring this Bill forward. Then we have had the medical facts put again in an absolutely clear fashion by my noble friend Lord Rea. I do not think that anybody would like to draw on the emotive quality brought out by these facts. Then again the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given supportive evidence of those facts and also many ideas about why this practice exists.

689
I would merely like to make two points, having first expressed my very great support for the Bill. They relate to two possible objections which could be made to the presentation of such a Bill. The first one is that I suppose it could be said that the feelings of outrage which are certainly felt here towards this barbaric habit exist only in the Western countries and that women in the countries concerned not only accept that this happens but also want it. Of course, this argument could be true. These women, through deeply ingrained and entrenched traditions, and also through complete ignorance, feel that they are compelled to undergo this operation. Furthermore, mothers feel that it is their duty towards their small daughters to make them succumb to this mutilation, one of the reasons being that it will facilitate their marriage. I understand that it is very difficult to get married and to get a man to accept you if you have not undergone this operation in those countries.
It is quite undeniable that an increasing number of outstanding and prominent women in both Africa and the Arab countries are becoming fiercely opposed to this monstrous practice. It is they who support the introduction of the Bill. To suppress the practice would help enormously the work that they are doing in those countries. I should like to name a few of the organisations. One organisation in this country is called the Women's Action Group in Femal Excision. Another is the International Planned Parenthood Association. In Egypt there is the Cairo Women's Family Planning Association. In the Sudan there is the Nursing School of the Khartoum University Medical School. In Kenya there is the National Council of Women in Kenya, and in Somalia, the Somali Women's Democratic Federation.
So, as I have said, the members of all these organisations would welcome the Bill, since it would help them in their campaign of education. I do not think that there could possibly be made the objection that a Bill of this kind in this country would be regarded as an interference in the countries where the practice is commonplace.
My second point is with regard to the objection to legislating against a practice arising from which there has been only one proven case, or only a very few. Surely the point—I think that this point has been made, but I should like to put it again—is that once society has identified a particular practice as being inhuman and cruel, once that has been made unequivocally clear, then it must he the duty of that society to take action to prevent it happening; to take action indeed before there are further cases. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that with Kenya and the Sudan having brought in laws of their own to render the operation illegal in their countries, then the demand for the operation in England surely must grow. I feel that this is a very definite point that ought to be made.
As I am sure your Lordships know, both Sweden and France have made the practice illegal in their countries. We do not want to happen here what happened in France, where a little girl died undergoing the operation, before the French authorities had taken action.
690
So, in conclusion, I should like to say that I give my whole hearted support to the Bill, for I feel convinced that such legislation will render the position here unequivocally clear, notwithstanding the law as it stands, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made plain to us. It really ought to be made quite clear that we are totally opposed to the practice ever taking place in this country. The Bill would be a very great help to all those people who, through health education campaigns in the countries concerned, are trying to free women from this violation. There can be no doubt that they have a lengthy task ahead of them, because the custom is so deeply ingrained. Only the women of those countries can rid themselves of this terrible violation. But what we can do to help them, and at the same time to support the dignity of women everywhere, is extremely important. Therefore, I support the Bill unequivocally.
6.43 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have done so before me, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for, and congratulate him on, introducing the Bill. In a report of the World Health Organisation on female circumcision it is stated that at one time it was performed among various communities in all continents of the world, both old and new. Today it has long been abandoned in many places. Herodotus tells of female circumcision practised by the Phoenicians, Hittites, and Ethiopians, as well as by the Egyptians in the fifth century BC. Although its origins are obscure, it seems evident that circumcision was first performed on the male, and then on the female.
I think that one can readily understand the social pressures on women when one realises how long circumcision has been practised. The problem has worried me for many years. During some of that time I have lived in and visited a number of countries—in both sides of Africa and in North Africa—in which the various forms of mutilation commonly, but mistakenly, known as female circumcision prevail. In most of these countries Islam has been the prevailing religion, but neither female, nor for that matter, male circumcision is mentioned in the Koran.
There is however a traditional saying that the prophet Mohammed was born circumcised, and that Abraham, whom Moslems reckon as a prophet, was circumcised at the age of 80 years. So far as I can discover, there is no religious sanction whatsoever for either the circumcision or any other mutilation of women. There are however other forms of mutilation of different parts of the body, tattooing, and scarring of the face. However, these are no longer practised.
Over a long period I have met women who have suffered agonies of pain from this practice in one form or another. The Minority Rights Group Report No. 47 on female circumcision, excision, and infibulation, has confirmed what I learnt long ago. In Moshi Hospital, on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, in the present Tanzania, an African nurse told me of her fears for her small daughter. She lived with her mother, since her husband had left her, and was constantly pressed by her mother to have her daughter circumcised. She was

691
equally determined that it should not happen, having herself been circumcised and suffered many problems.
Precisely such a case as that is mentioned in the report. It relates to the mother of three daughters who had been born in France while she and her husband were there. They returned home to their own country. While the mother worked, her own mother used to have the children to stay with her. One weekend the mother returned to fetch them, only to find that they had been excised and infibulated, the grandmother having arranged it, knowing that it was against the parents' wishes.
While I was in Moshi a woman was brought down the mountain. She had been in labour for two days in great pain before it was decided to take her to the hospital. She died as she arrived, and the baby with her.
My husband and I lived in many parts of East Africa, and in West Africa. I encountered these problems not only on that continent, but in the United States as well. In New York State, where my husband was lecturing as professor of African history, one of his students came to us in great distress. She was a Somali girl, who had been infibulated. She did not realise that she was different from the majority of other women until she became unwell and had to visit a doctor, who had never before seen an infibulated woman. When he asked what on earth had been done to her, she realised that she could not explain, as she was only about 18. So she ran away and eventually came to us, since she was aware that we knew members of her family.
Only last year when we were in Nairobi, President Daniel Arap Moi announced his intention to legislate against female circumcision following the deaths of at least six young girls in the bush at the hands of unqualified practitioners.
The fact is that great changes are taking place in Africa as elsewhere—changes as great as the abolition of the slave trade in the last century, for which my noble ancestor Lord Grenville was responsible, when Prime Minister in 1807. The struggle against slavery was a struggle against ignorance on an international plain—to put it in the mildest terms. Slavery was an obsolete institution and a violation of the dignity of man. So, too, are the various forms of mutilation practised upon women, which this Bill is intended to prevent in this country. May it, with parallel legislation in Kenya, be an example to other countries.
My Lords, my fervent prayer is that the present young married women doctors and nurses in Africa and Arabia, who are against it, will be able to help future generations to forego this mutilation and so help to end it worldwide.
I have given these examples just to show what a distressing and damaging practice this is, not only physically but psychologically, too. In view of the recent publicity given to this subject, I hope that the Bill, when amended as necessary, will have a rapid passage through Parliament.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, to me, this is a somewhat bizarre experience. It is now nearly 21 years since I was declared a prohibited immigrant and
692
deported from Sierra Leone on account of an article that I had written in the New Statesman which stated the simple fact that female circumcision still took place in that country. I knew that it took place because it occurred in the women's secret society which met about 50 yards below the garden of the university campus where I was living. I never dreamt at that time that I would be standing here able to discuss this subject in open forum.
Frankly, at that time, only 20 years ago, female circumcision was a taboo subject in Africa. In this country, it was almost totally unknown. When people came to me and asked me why I had been deported from Sierra Leone and I explained to them, they did not know what female circumcision was. I have no doubt that a large percentage of our present population is equally ignorant. But for this reason and for this change in attitude of Parliament, I am deeply grateful. I shall lend every possible support to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has had the courage to draft and introduce this Bill.
It might be supposed that when this incident took place in Sierra Leone, which was widely publicised across the world, there would be a conspiracy of silence in that country. Not at all. In fact, one of the most encouraging outcomes of the incident was that there was an immediate public and national debate. The two leading African nationalists of the time, Wallace Johnson and Siaka Stevens, both came publicly to my support and attacked the then Government of Sir Milton Margai on the grounds that, if they could not answer my argument, they had no right to try to silence me. I regarded that as an extremely encouraginging sign, because there had previously been no discussion and no debate. The subject was taboo. Nevertheless, I would point out, as is only fair and honourable, that the Prime Minister, Sir Milton Margai, a medical doctor, had attempted, 10 years earlier, to stop the practice of female circumcision and had failed. He was therefore particularly sensitive but he had made an honourable attempt, as both a doctor and a politician to stop the practice in his own country. I wish President Moi well. I hope that his efforts will be more successful than those of Sir Milton Margai.
That was not my first encounter with the subject of female circumcision. Ten years earlier, I travelled down the East coast of Africa with a World Health Organisation team which had been sent out to investigate the practice of female circumcision. It was led by a Belgian doctor. That team finished its task as puzzled at the end as it was at the beginning. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts made in this debate by Baroness Cox and Lady Kinloss to investigate the origins and the concepts behind the practice of female circumcision. I do not believe, and I do not think that they would claim, that there is any simple answer or, indeed that there is any single answer. I tried to discuss this very subject with Jomo Kenyatta. Frankly, it was a dialogue with the deaf. Those of your Lordships who have read Jomo Kenyatta's book published in the mid-1930s Facing Mount Kenya, will recognise that one of the purposes of that book was to explain among other things the part that female circumcision had in Kikuyu tradition.
Where does this leave us in this country? I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing with, I think every

693
speaker, that we must say that this practice cannot be practised within our shores. I wish to add the hope that the message will also go from this House that this is not because we are attacking the customs of other people. It is very important that this should be emphasised. There are lots of customs and traditions in this country that people outside this country do not understand and that they disapprove of. You try explaining our practice of beating schoolchildren. There are many countries of the world whose people do not believe that this can be equated with a civilised society.
A good deal has been stated tonight about male dominated societies. It is less than 50 years ago that women were given political equality in this country. I do not accept that we are attacking in any way the traditions and customs of other societies in this Bill. We are saying that in this country female circumcision is regarded as of the utmost cruelty and that we will not tolerate it here. In doing so, as has been stated by previous speakers, we are lending support to the very brave people, particularly women, who are trying to undermine this practice in societies where, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, stated, it has been the custom for more than centuries, for millennia. We must understand this. We must not put blame on societies that continue their traditions.
The women who perform this vile operation are not sadists. They believe that they are contributing to the preservation of their traditional society and, in so doing to keeping the unity of their people. Of course, they are wrong. Of course, it is a cruel act that they are performing but they are certainly not performing it for the motive of sadism. Having said that and having added, as mentioned by a number of speakers, that it is mainly the women who are anxious to preserve this custom, I would take issue with those who have suggested that this is the outcome of a male dominated society. Those with knowledge of virtually every African society are aware that men and women have a different role from that which has been recent practice in this country. That does not mean that those societies are dominated by men. Indeed, there are many men who are assisting the women's leadership against the continuation of female circumcision. We shall be assisting them if we pass this Bill into law.
I sincerely hope that the words that were spoken by the Government spokesman at the beginning will be translated, first, into the consultative action which he promised but I hope he will be able to persuade his colleagues to go further and to find Government time and Government support so that this Bill is not lost during this Session but becomes law with, as I believe it will, the total support of Members of both Houses of our Parliament. Thus, we shall give our assistance to those who are trying to undermine this practice overseas and we shall make it quite clear that this violation of the basic human rights of a woman will not be allowed so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am glad to say on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches that we totally support the Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having brought it before us tonight. There are, of course, some criticisms, but I believe that a
694
Second Reading is not the time for detailed criticisms. I am sure that the points that have been raised by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and elsewhere can be taken care of by means of amendment. It is very important that the Bill should proceed to its Committee stage.
It is very significant to me that not one noble Lord has spoken against the principles of the Bill. I was very glad that the noble Lord the Minister said that the Government would not seek to oppose it. However, there are just one or two points that I want to make. I point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am trembling with fear as I try to understand and ask him a little more about the present legal situation. As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord made it clear that already the 1861 legislation dealing with malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm would cover these cases. But what I have not been able to find out is how many people have been brought to trial under the 1861 Act for committing the offence of female circumcision in this country.
I was even more confused when, doing some homework, I looked up references in the House of Commons. I must say that the junior Minister who replied to a similar question is nowhere near such a luminary in the knowledge of the law as our Lord Chancellor. I must ask the House to bear with me while I quote an extract, because it seems to me to be very important. On 9th November 1982, at col. 132 of the Official Report, for the House of Commons, Mr. William Hamilton asked the Secretary of State for Social Services,
"whether he will introduce legislation to make unlawful the practice known as female circumcision."
Mr. Kenneth Clarke replied:
"I fully share the abhorrence of this practice which has been expressed by a number of representatives of the medical profession. The report which appeared in The Observer newspaper on 10 October 1982 referred to female circumcisions being carried out by doctors working in private clinics in London. Unethical practices by doctors are a matter for the General Medical Council to consider, and we have written asking the council what action, if any, it proposes to take over these allegations. We shall consider urgently in the light of its reply whether any additional steps are needed.".
That seemed to me to throw the onus back on to the General Medical Council, which I understand has taken no action in the cases which were referred to in the Observer of 10th October and which were apparently correct allegations. The Minister in another place did not refer to the law at all. He did not mention the 1861 law. It is for that reason that I hope that the proposed legislation will go through, because it will strengthen the views which all of us share and will help to clarify what seems to be a rather confusing legal situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting, I do not want there to be the smallest doubt about this. I was speaking as Lord Chancellor, and I thought it my duty to tell the House what I thought the law to be. My belief is that in all circumstances except in fairly rare cases where there are medical indications—possibly of cancer—to save life, this practice is already against the criminal law. Anyone who participates in it is liable to prosecution and severe custodial punishment, whatever the General Medical Council or anybody

695
else may say. I thought it my duty to speak as Lord Chancellor. I was not speaking as a member of the Government at all; I was speaking as Lord Chancellor.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I very much appreciate the robust and clear reply that the noble and learned Lord has given. I very much hope that Mr. Kenneth Clarke will read in Hansard tomorrow what the noble and learned Lord has made so clear and which was not made clear in another place.
I shall not repeat the arguments in favour of this Bill and against this practice. In fact, I have only one quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and that is about the title of his Bill. The word "circumcision" is associated very much in the public mind with a far lesser procedure that is found among Jewish boys and men. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has pointed out from his clinical experience, we are dealing now with a form of mutilation which is totally and completely different in every way from the male procedure. I am sure that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will be helpful, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is to have discussions with them, because these are points which can be dealt with in Committee.
I saw a very interesting BBC film on this subject, and I was very impressed by an Arab woman doctor in a family planning clinic who is one of the brave women who is trying to end this practice. She put forward another reason. The mutilation is causing great difficulty in family planning. When a woman is not able to take the pill, as this doctor explained, it becomes almost impossible to have a coil inserted or to use a Dutch cap or other means of birth control, which are so desperately needed. Many of the women themselves, after five, six or seven babies, are all too anxious to get help from the family planning clinics. When a distinguished doctor from that part of the world herself explains on our television the difficulties with which she is confronted, I think we should take it seriously.
If I am correct, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to there being only a handful of cases. There may be only a handful of cases that we know about because it is very difficult to find out what is happening. Women to whom this has happened will not let down their families and their friends by making public the procedures that have happened to them in this country. There is, of course, a great deal of pressure on them, first, to have the operation carried out and, secondly, not to say anything that would get anyone into trouble as a result of the practice. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made clear, they would be in serious trouble. Even if only a few people are involved, surely we do not want to wait until this becomes a growth industry in this country. Let us rejoice at the "fewness", if that is the truth of the matter, and say at once, "This must stop in this country".
I have been very moved by what several speakers, with knowledge of other parts of the world, have said about the bravery of men and women who are trying to resist the pressures to continue this mutilation. If the noble Lord's Bill were not to go through, it would be a great discouragement to all those men and women
696
who are trying to put these practices behind them into the darkness of the past. Therefore, for all these reasons—and we have had a very good debate, especially with Members, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, speaking with professional wisdom and experience—I think your Lordships must agree that an unanswerable case has been put before us tonight.
I very much hope that the Government will find time for this measure to get on to the statute book before the next election, whenever that is. No noble Lord can say that this is a party point. I do not think that it is likely to be in anyone's election manifesto. I only hope that, because of the agreement on all sides of the House and taking into account the wisdom of our professional colleagues, we shall shortly hear good news from the Government, and that this Bill will go through all its necessary stages. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall detain the House only a minute longer, as I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said most of what I would have wished to say. As is very often the case, the House has brought forth a wealth of background knowledge and experience about this horrible matter—it does so whether or not the matter under discussion is horrible. But the amount of background that has been filled in today has been very marked.
Perhaps I may express my personal gratitude to all those who have spoken about the matter. I should like to make just one or two detailed points. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Jeger, referred to a recent television programme. I say this because I want it to go into Hansard. It was a recent BBC documentary in the "Forty Minutes" series on BBC2 and, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of most of those who saw it—it was just, accurate and harrowing, all three.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also referred to the matter of the Title of the Bill. I accept that it is not ideal, and I shall be more than happy to try to amend it at the Committee stage. Despite her kind words, I should like to say a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. If she looks at Hansard tomorrow she will see that the point I was making about Jewish women was not at all as she stated it. I did not say that Jewish women are, by custom or tradition, circumcised, as are Jewish men. The point was quite a different one.
Lastly, I should like to deal with the extremely clear intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He told us, with all the tremendous authority of his office, that under English law—and I repeat, English law—it was his opinion that these operations were already illegal. I emphasise "English" law because, of course, Section 20 of the 1861 Act does not apply to Scotland. The noble and learned Lord went on to say that this fact, which he stated from the Woolsack, may be an argument for the Bill or it may be an argument against it. He did not commit himself on that.
A minute or two afterwards I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation about these

697
operations. Of course it would be open to the House to decide not to go any further with the Bill at the moment, and to wait for a prosecution in England under existing law. But I should not recommend the House to do that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right in seeing a case for a firm statement in legislation.
Let me repeat the statement that I made earlier, that I and my friends in this matter will be more than willing to take all the Committee points and to advance all the amendments, which I feel sure can be found, in order to get rid of the worries, particularly those of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Problems of Unemployment
7.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to deal with the economic problems confronting the unemployed and their families and the effect of those problems on their morale.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The current incidence of unemployment in our nation is probably the most disgraceful episode in British history since the end of the war, for two reasons: first, that it exists and, secondly, that the disastrous high level that it has now reached need not have happened at all, and that is probably the greater disgrace.
My Motion talks about the economic problems and the morale of no fewer than 4 million of our fellow countrymen, and that probably means a couple of million of ordinary British families. It is perfectly true that this ogre of unemployment first peaked at around 1969. Under the Heath Government it was speeded up until it reached 1 million. In all fairness, I am bound to say that in the other place, where I served at that time, there was deep concern on all sides and a great deal of frustration. It continued into 1974 and it continued under the Callaghan Government until its last quarter, and then unemployment started to decrease.
Then came the general election. Within the first few months of the present Administration being in office unemployment continued to decrease, and then this Government's policy of monetarism—on which they are totally hooked—started to bite. When it started to bite we lost our competitiveness; when it started to bite we saw industry and commerce frustrated; when it started to bite we saw the loss of jobs, and the only thing that spread, in a vicious way, through this nation of ours was the unhappiness and tragedy of unemployment. Because it is a tragedy.
It is not merely a question of statistics. You cannot only say that 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of our people are unemployed. When one man has lost his job, he is 100 per cent. unemployed, and with it goes all the agony that accompanies this appalling curse; and, as I say, much of it need not have happened.
The Government have always sought excuses by looking elsewhere, gaining comfort from the fact that there are millions of Americans out of work, millions of German and French people out of work, and therefore believing that there is no reason why there should not be millions of Britons out of work. What an attitude! What an appalling, total lack of human compassion!
I want to say straight away that much of the data that I would like to give I shall not have time to deal with, but I have collated it from the media, from newspapers of all sorts of political opinions, 95 per cent. on the Conservative side and the remaining 5 per cent. on the Opposition Party side. All of them together have condemned and given instances of what unemployment really means and what the economic problems are facing unemployed families.
I also want to pay tribute to the massive researches of which I have read done by Dr. Fagan and Professor Brenner and also refer to my own contacts with unemployed people in areas where they have contributed so much to the wealth of this nation of ours. This is another part of the bitterness. We all know that if it had been some bigger fact than Galtieri that threatened us there would have been no closing of steelworks, no sacking of miners, no rendering of engineers redundant. The call would have been, "Your nation needs you". Well, that threat did not happen so the nation does not want them. That is what they think, and with some degree of justice.
I have to say this, too. Perhaps one of the most frightful episodes in this whole incident of unemployment is that it stretches from school-leavers right through to those attending technical colleges and universities. When they finish their studies to be engineers, doctors, quantity surveyors, bricklayers, electricians, even skilled labourers, when they have finished their training in school, hundreds of thousands of them are not required. Many live in homes that ought to have been pulled down years ago and yet we have tens of thousands of construction workers in the dole queues.
There are many other aspects. We have to acknowledge, in this measure of unemployment, the equally bitter example of small businessmen, little family firms who have made their contribution to the country, their little contribution to gainful employment in a variety of trades and professions, where they have crashed. If I may say so, speaking in parenthesis, many times in this Chamber I have pointed to the appalling figures of unemployment, the disastrous figures of small firms going bankrupt. They share the agony, the frustration; they are compelled to endure the bitterness of the men they have had to get rid of in their little factories.
When one realises what this means because of the economic conditions, there is the sudden realisation that the dole will not pay the mortgage; when they have been out of work for a few months and the last demand comes from the gas corporation or the electricity board, of from the local authority for rates, then people start arriving at the frontier of understanding. I say to everyone in the House this evening, supposing they were to go home and on Monday morning came a notice from the building society saying "If we don't have some contribution to

699
catch up on the repayments which you have failed to honour, we shall have to repossess".
I must now state the next awful, frightful element, the element of suicides which, as Professor Brenner has shown, is increasing; it is something that ought to make us dreadfully ashamed of what is happening. We go through another level of Professor Brenner's report—I hope I may have the attention of the Front Bench. I am shattered and shocked to discover that the suicide of some of our people may cause some amusement; I find that terribly hard to endure. Nevertheless, let us look at another example. In Professor Brenner's report it is shown that when he talked to schoolchildren of the unemployed families, in places where there is mass unemployment, he found a form of camaraderie. But in instances where the unemployment was only marginal, in interviews school children said that they felt ashamed that their daddy was not capable of holding a job; then they had to point out that their mother had to go to work to keep them all.
It is these things that I believe we must consider in depth. This is the aspect of the morale of many of the families in our country. When you realise, too, the crass absurdity of this abysmal monetarist policy, you realise also that once the family is out of work first of all the rent or the mortgage has to be secured and so there are no holidays this year. I hope this gets to the holiday firms because if there should be the disaster of another election and the present Prime Minister gets back, they can forget about their adverts over next Christmas; but that is the first thing. The unemployed have a system of priorities of what they have to do without, and what they have to do without immediately is the idea of holidays.
Then follows—I know, because I have experienced it—no more new coats or new frocks for the youngest or the middle children; they will have to do with the hand-downs from the elder children. That is economics for you, my Lords. When millions do that the reflection—as has been proved beyond all peradvanture—is immediate on the clothing industry and the clothing industry starts contracting. No new suit. Keep sending that one to the cleaners; patch it; sew it; tidy up the unravelled sleeves. These things in my judgment—and I ask your Lordships to consider this—show that it is not only an evil policy to create unemployment but a disastrous economic policy as well.
I believe that we might have found a way similar to the one that has been found on previous occasions. There has been much experience in the system under which we live of booms and slumps; and we find there always seems to be a level of the community which is immune. The level of the community which has been immune over the past few years has had larger salary increases than a family man gets in dole. That is one of the reasons. Ally this to the youth who no longer know they can get jobs; put these things together and one can see the vanishing of discipline within the home. The youngsters are on the streets and not merely is there vandalism but we experience the sort of things that we have seen in many of our major cities—in Liverpool, London and other great cities. It
700
is in the main all part of the effect on family discipline and morale of unemployment.
I believe that it is not too late, that we ought to try to do something positive. I hope I am not going to be regaled with some civil servant's brief, pregnant with statistics and not one word of understanding or sorrow or unhappiness, merely so-called facts and figures. I appeal to your Lordships, we cannot go on in this way. We can read every day in our newspapers, for example, that young couples are seeking medical methods which will ensure that they will not be burdened by giving birth to future Britons. Does that seem a good thing? It is not merely distasteful; it is disgraceful. I think one must also have a look at some of the activities of management, where they have been making absurd contributions and taking risks to create even more unemployment. One reads, for example, of the abysmally absurd attitude of some managements driving workers to desperation, so that we could have, as in the case of British Leyland, an absurd strike caused by a management that is not fit to run a whelk stall in the East End of London. They are irritating skilled craftsmen, and annoying them.
I have some sympathy with the working men, and I will tell you why. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will know this story. Pithead baths were not given. No kind employer hauling the coal of Britain came along and said, "I will provide nice baths so that you can go home all nice and clean to your dingy little cottage". I can remember the days when my grandfather would come home, strip to the waist under one tap outside the cottage and swish off the muck and filth before he went into the house.
Things have changed. To think that some bright managerial spark at British Leyland hit on the mummified idea that, "We can squeeze them a bit more by pinching the couple of minutes they need to wash before they go home". In the media, quite rightly, they have to show both sides. I ask for the sensible approach in this House, to see that the blame does not always lie on one side. If we can do so in this House, let our message go out. I am of the opinion that there is not an occupant of a Bench in this Chamber that has not got natural sympathy and deep compassion for those who now form the unemployed. I believe that each one of us individually would like to see it erased from our society.
We have had certain economic measures which they have said will do this. But we have been having them month in and month out. In the couple of years that I have been in your Lordships' House I have heard the stories from the Front Bench opposite. The great dream is that next month there will be an end of the recession. As we have been told of the great dream each month, it has turned out to be a horrid nightmare. Up and up has gone the unemployment figure, down and down has gone production; and then has come all the misery in those families that I have been talking about. I believe it can be changed, but I believe it can only be changed when good men everywhere, of all parties, come to the aid of the unemployed, because by coming to the aid of the unemployed we come to the aid of our nation.
I have asked your Lordships in previous debates to consider that when this ghastly incidence of

701
unemployment confronted Europe and the United States of America all the well-known economists throughout the world did not seem to have the answer. It seemed to me at that time, and it still does, that if you put all the economists in the world from end to end they would never arrive at a conclusion. But there were two men who are still scorned—Kenneth Galbraith, a Scottish-Canadian, and Keynes. When the President of the United States of America decided that these two had something different to proffer he launched, on the principle of "spend and prosper", the new deal. That new deal was emulated in this country, and we saw unemployment begin to fade away in the USA and begin to fade away in Great Britain.
I believe that we have got to have something like that. I want to see a new deal for the unemployed, which will mean a new deal for commerce and industry and for all the great services of our nation. These two great new deals could create a new society—a new society of Great Britain which could, I believe, command the admiration of the world.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has certainly raised an important subject in his Unstarred Question this evening. I think we are in danger of creating two nations: those with a job and those without a job. It is difficult for those of us who have a job to understand fully the situation of the three million unemployed—
A noble Lord: Four million!
Lord Banks: — the three million who have no job. We tend to forget that low-income families suffer from a higher inflation rate than the community as a whole. In February, the Low Pay Unit's index indicated that low-income families (among whom, of course, the unemployed are predominant) had a rate of inflation of 6·8 per cent., or 1·4 per cent. high than the rate for the rest of the community. Another worrying thing about the present situation as far as the unemployed are concerned is the degree to which the unemployed today rely upon means-tested supplementary benefit.
There are overall, including everybody, 6·5 million people on supplementary benefit today, which is a record. That figure has increased since 1979 by 1·75 million, which is also a record increase. Of the unemployed themselves, 63 per cent. now rely on supplementary benefit and 53 per cent. rely solely on supplementary benefit. They are not receiving national insurance at all because their national insurance has run out and they are now entirely on supplementary benefit.
I wonder what the Government's view is of that situation. Are the Government happy that so many people should be on supplementary benefit; and have they any plans to get the unemployed off supplementary benefit? One of the virtues of the tax credit scheme which my party supports (and to which there was some reference made in the press today) is that it would do just that. Some unemployed are on supplementary benefit because their unemployment benefit, their national insurance, is inadequate. At least the 5 per cent. abatement is to be restored, but they have to wait until November for that. But the present Government
702
abolished the earnings-related supplement which helped to cushion the fall from the rate of income that an individual had in work to what he received when he became unemployed.
I want to ask the Government whether they are opposed in principle to the concept of an earnings-related supplement or whether they abolished that merely as an economy measure. We know that it was part of an economy package. Was it solely because of that, or was it because they have an objection in principle to any attempt to relate the first stages of unemployment benefit to the income which an individual was earning before he came on to unemployment benefit? Incidentally, the supplementary benefit rates themselves are inadequate, which is a view just reiterated by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The child additions to unemployment benefit have been reduced, with no compensating increase in child benefit. That is a matter which we have debated in this House, and which is a matter of concern to many people.
The Government recently extended the long-term supplementary benefit to the over-sixties, including those who are unemployed, so that they could go on to the long-term rate straightaway. But the long-term rate is still not available for those who are unemployed and under 60. While we welcome the one improvement, I should like to ask whether there is any prospect of the other, because we feel that everybody who is unemployed long enough should go on to the long-term rate, like other people.
These are a few of the matters which it seems to me are raised by the Question the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has asked this evening, and I shall certainly listen with great interest to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is to make in order to find out what the Government have in mind to deal with these problems and to remove so far as possible the very real economic burden which is borne by the unemployed.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, there are two topics in your Lordships' House which I find irresistible, or nearly so. One is the question of war and peace and the other is the issue of unemployment. That is why I am presuming to take part in this debate tonight. These two issues have a number of things in common. They are both apocalyptic in one sense; they are unprecedented and there is no point is looking back as if to find in a history book the kind of evidence which can supply the answer to a contemporary problem.
These are unprecedented conditions promoted by our scientific capability, and in the matter of unemployment it does not seem to me that it is reasonable to anticipate that there ever will be a time again when what our fathers rather ambitiously called mass employment will be recoverable—and for a number of reasons. It is in that particular environment of thought that I am the more impressed by the form of words in which this particular debate is couched. We are to ask Her Majesty's Government,
"what action they propose to take to deal with the economic problems confronting the unemployed".
I would heartily wish to see the transformation of unemployment into creative leisure, and I think it is a

703
possibility. But I take it that the inner meaning of this particular debate is: what do you do with a situation which at the moment is irreversible or any rate at the moment cannot be fully answered? It is to that point that I wish to address what I have to say.
I will chide the Government, if I may, not for their innate hostility to compassion—I think that would be impudent—but for a lack of understanding of what really constitutes the problem that is promoted by an economic stricture and expressed by the word "unemployment" Your Lordships will allow me, as a social worker of sorts for the past 50 odd years, to make a comment here which has been beaten into my own experience in no uncertain fashion and which is that the personal sufferings of an unemployed family are particularly individual. You cannot add them up and say that the suffering is twenty times greater if 20 families are victims of unemployment problems. But one thing which is central to this whole argument is the quite devastating effect that unemployment has in as so many of the relationships which are necessary for the amenities and the well-being of a decent family life.
There is no doubt at all that dignity is one of the first things to suffer. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has pointed out, it is quite right that children can be unconsciously very cruel and can divide families by the kinds of comment they make and the imputations they suggest. These are not matters of irrelevance to the general question, for the over-arching problem is: what do you do in a society when you no longer require the manpower which made it possible, at least for all who had some technical achievement, to find a reputable job and where, in the higher echelons, the younger sons could go either into the Army or into the Church?
It is this problem that I find almost unanswerable unless we are prepared to limit, for the time being at least, our anticipations of what can be done. It is the intention of the Labour Party, so far as I understand it, so to promote a general increase in public spending as to remove from the register in the next year or two one million of those who are now on the register of the unemployed, which is another way of saying that there will be three million left. If we in your Lordships' House imagine that this problem is one capable of a speedy solution and a return to the mass employment which we cherish as a memory of past days—though it is an illusion, as I said before—we are deluding ourselves and contributing nothing to the practical outcome of a debate like this.
I would adduce two areas which I would suggest that probably the Government do not know very much about. One is an area in which I have been interested and, your Lordships might think, addicted to for a very long time now: namely, the consequences of unemployment in the field of alcohol. I would take it as generally to be regarded as credible at least that the "working classes", so called, are not so susceptible to the temptations of alcoholism when they are out of work as are those of what we are pleased to call the "upper middle classes" and the managerial class. I could give your Lordships evidence, if it were desired, of almost innumerable cases where the impact of unemployment has been to increase the tendency
704
towards alcoholism, which is running at an alarming rate today and, as I have said so many times before, when we begin to discover what is in the upstairs wardrobes in the nature of drink we shall have a better appreciation of the scourge that alcoholism represents today.
Nothing could be more practical for a government concerned to alleviate the evils of unemployment than to apply themselves with greater diligence and greater generosity to those measures which are now current and of which I have some knowledge and experience, in which it might be possible to reduce the impact of unemployment in relation to these alcoholic influences, which are more destructive than almost any other of the particular addictions to which I refer.
It so happens that earlier today I had the opportunity and the privilege of launching a handbook under the title Unleash, which is designed as a comprehensive reference work, covering all aspects of pastoral work being undertaken by the Christian churches and other voluntary organisations. This is primarily directed towards the homeless young and the single homeless. Unfortunately the vast majority of the single homeless are indeed unemployed, and I think that is relevant to the discussion in this House tonight.
What is the way in which those who are under the stress of unemployment can to some extent find some kind of relief and some kind of usefulness? The answer is that there is now a proliferation, very largely sponsored by the Christian Churches, of intentions at least to do something in this field. Those intentions have now been collated. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that he looks at Chapter 7 in this particular document, in which he will find to what extent there are already remedial processes whereby those who are unemployed can find something to do in an atmosphere which does not reproach them but understands them. Here is a marriage, again, of statutory and voluntary obligation which does not relieve us of the problem of unemployment as such, but does direct our attention not so much to the far-off day when this problem will be solved but to the fact that you cannot wait for next year's harvest of grain when people are hungry today.
The personal application of concern which is so often the intention of good-hearted people has been frustrated by their inability to know where to turn and what to do. I could relate to your Lordships many occasions on which unemployed people have come to me with their problems and, had I known what is now in this handbook, I should have been much better equipped to do something about it. I quite realise that these are very much measures that belong to an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff, rather than a fence at the top. Therefore, I shall turn for a moment to what is implied and what has been stated in the speech of my noble friend Lord Molloy.
I entirely disagree with the proposition that a vast infusion of public money into necessary and desirable public works would be disastrous. Nobody knows whether it would be disastrous, but there is at least one concept in which I believe it would be fruitful. What we are now doing, by preventing 4 million people from becoming contributors, is denying ourselves the creative capacity that they could, in their turn,

705
produce, and, in producing it, add to the sum total of general wealth. I am not a competent statistical diagnostician in these economic matters, and I have an increasing suspicion of those who attain what they assume to be that omniscience.
I take the view that I find recorded in the conversation which Mr. Schacht is supposed to have had with Mr. Hitler in his early days. He is supposed to have gone to Hitler and said,
"We are in a desperate position and there is nothing we can do about it, except to recognise the desperation in which we find ourselves."
Hitler is supposed to have said:
"You go home, Mr. Schacht, and write out a statement that we arc in a very much happier position. Tell me next week that we are doing very well and we will go on from there."
That may be a little naìve and simplistic, but I wonder whether it is true. In fact, I am sure that it is true.
The one asset we have is the creative capacity of human beings. When we utilise that creative capacity, we create wealth. It may be that in the short term inflation will increase, but I infinitely prefer to see an inflationary spiral with many more people at work, than a reduction of inflation and the condemnation of 4 million of my fellow creatures to the kind of idleness which I so much deplore. I do not believe that it would be a financial or a social disaster. In any case, such is the desperation of the situation which has been so eloquently put to this House by my noble friend Lord Molloy, that I believe it would be infinitely worth while to try it.
Let me finish by saying this. The curse of unemployment is not that you have nothing to get. It is that nobody wants you to give anything. That is the curse of unemployment. We must create the sense of community which is the very opposite of privatisation, and bring into the family and the group the warmth of a social conscience. This is not a piece of last Sunday's sermon, although it might well have been. It is a part of what I firmly believe and would offer to your Lordships' House tonight. Here is the opportunity for a moral transformation which in its turn, because it is morally right, could never be politically or economically wrong.
7.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, it is late and I shall be very brief, but I should like to say one word about the subject of the implications of the knowledge and understanding of the things we are talking about tonight—the effects of unemployment on people—for industrial relations. That may sound rather strange, but what I mean is this. I think it is clear that bad industrial relations are a factor in the crippled state of our economy, and that better industrial relations would contribute to our economic health. But one of the problems about improving industrial relations is that, so often, the motive is not there, because the sides concerned are so bound up in the mistrust that has been created between them that the motive does not get through to achieving something better.
It seems to me that the realities of what is happening to the people who are not in work are something very new to our generation, and something very terrible, as has been talked about tonight. They should be brought home, wherever possible, to those who have to do with
706
finding better relationships and therefore better ways of doing their business in industry, in terms of what the combination of bad industrial relations and a bad economy is doing to 4 million or 5 million people.
This is a new sort of humanitarian motive, a motive which could settle on to people's consciences—and people have consciences—in their general business of trying to get better understanding together about making our industry and our economy work better. I suppose that there are departments of the Government which have to do with industrial relations, and it is not fanciful to think that that might be an aspect of things which they could impress upon people, and which those of us who have contact with people in industrial concerns at a local level could also do.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be indebted to my noble friend Lord Molloy for having put down this Unstarred Question tonight. We shall be looking forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has to say in reply. But, first, we on this side of the House should like to express our appreciation of the noble Lord, who has been engaged today on the British Shipbuilders Bill, then had another session and is now going to reply to this Unstarred Question. We should not like the occasion to pass without paying some tribute to the noble Lord's hard work which started at the beginning of this afternoon.
I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, does not merely set out a catalogue of the various things which the Government have done in amelioration of the economic situation as it now exists. We are all very well aware of them—the small business schemes, the efforts to reinforce regional funds, aids and so on—and are deeply grateful for them. So if the noble Lord intends to read out a lot of the Government's actions that have already been taken, may I at once say that they have no real impact on the main problem, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has envisaged circumstances where even the current astronomical level of unemployment is still due to increase. It is the actions that the Government propose to take in relief of the basic situation that really concern us.
The right to work is surely one of the basic rights and liberties within a free society. The right to work, to create things for consumption or for the service of one's fellow human beings, under conditions of dignity and freedom, is surely an aim to which any society or any Government should direct itself. It should be the first priority. Indeed, it is a matter of common sense, in one way, for my noble friend Lord Soper to say that, although he himself is not an economist and views economists with the deepest suspicion, with which I entirely sympathise, it does not make any sense for people to be paid to be out of work and doing nothing, when they are fully capable of producing goods and services which can be used by their fellow citizens. Whatever the economists may say, this is the plain common sense of the matter. It is irrefutable.
We want to know what fundamental steps the Government are going to take, bearing in mind their own commitment. I do not want to reproach the noble Lord in party terms too much, because he has been so assiduous today in the application of his labours, but

707
he will undoubtedly recall the election call of Mrs. Thatcher, stigmatising the Labour Party as the party of unemployment: "We are the party of employment". The noble Lord will recall the poster, with which he may possibly be reproached in June or October, which showed exactly what that meant.
One is well aware—it would be wrong to say otherwise—that in the main the members of the party opposite are quite compassionate, in their own minds, about the unemployed. One would not say, with certain exceptions, that the party opposite or the Government are composed of people who are deliberately cruel. But surely one has to examine not only the things they are doing but the motives which inspire them. The Government themselves eschew any formal economic philosophy other than monetarism, and they are beginning to abandon monetarism. In fact, their stance in front of the country is that this is quite the natural order of things: there is a world depression and, sooner or later, automatically, for some reason or , we shall all get out of it; as long as we are all competitive (I do not know what will happen if everybody is equally competitive throughout the world, for that produces another situation) everything will be all right.
So what is the motive behind what the Government have done, what they are doing and where they propose to go? I thought it was rather revealing when the Prime Minister enunciated the other day her Victorian values. She announced them with some pride. They were incorporated in the Standard of 15th April, under the banner headline "The Good Old Days". I put it to the noble Lord, I put it to the House and, if I have the chance, I will put it to the country, that the main, compelling drive behind what the Government are doing lies in their nostalgic regard for the old values, for the Victorian values. Mrs. Thatcher said:
"I was brought up by a Victorian grandmother. We were taught to work jolly hard. We were taught to prove yourself. We were taught self-reliance. We were taught to live within our income. You were taught that cleanliness is next to godliness. You were taught self-respect. You were taught always to give a hand to your neighbour. You were taught tremendous pride in your country. All of these things are Victorian values. They are also perennial values".
I do not think I am being unfair to the party opposite when I say that among their serried ranks, particularly in the higher income levels, these values strike a chord. These are values which they would like to get back to, if they could. It is therefore necessary for us to remind ourselves of the consequences of the adoption of these Victorian values.
In Victorian times and, indeed, until the middle of the 1930s, one in every six individuals in the United Kingdom was employed in domestic service. In the Victorian era there was sweated labour. The Victorian era was the era of the Poor Law. The Victorian values of those days considered it to be morally wrong that when husband and wife went to the workhouse they should live together. They were segregated. These are part of the Victorian values.
I am not saying that the party opposite apprehends that it could ever get back to those precise circumstances, but those are the values, the selfish values and their expression, to which the party opposite would
708
like to hark back. It would suit them to have the restoration of privilege and power. I personally believe that nostalgia for the adoption of these values lies at the base of the Government's policies. They would like not a total restoration, because they could not get it, but a partial restoration of the kind of life they used to lead. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough to inform the House two years ago that the Prime Minister was the daughter of a grocer. Perhaps one ought to remind the Prime Minister that in Victorian days grocers had to use the tradesmen's entrance. These are all salutary matters to which one ought to address oneself, because those who will the means are at the same time willing the ends.
I was particularly glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln took part in this debate because I was educated in a little town in his diocese. The motto of my grammar school was, "Delight to be just". That motto has sustained me throughout my life and very largely lies at the root of my being a member of the party which I have the honour to represent in this House. The main trouble to which the right reverend Prelate referred, perhaps indirectly, in the course of his speech was that if 4 million people are going to be condemned indefinitely to unemployment, the Government will build up such a bitterness and hatred that it will poison industrial relations for another half a century, with all the disastrous consequences which the right reverend Prelate and upon which he touched.
This is not a situation which one can contemplate with any complacency, however much one may appreciate the various ameliorative items and steps which one likes to feel were introduced by the Government as a deliberate act of policy rather than as a response to public pressure and which no doubt the noble Lord will recite in the course of his reply to the debate. A much more radical approach which goes to the root of the whole matter is required. Unless an effort is made by the Government to go to the root of the matter and to take action of real significance, I myself—I say this with a sense of due responsibility—am fearful for the preservation of social cohesion within the democratic society in which we live and within a country of which we ought to be very proud.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for the kind remarks he addressed to me at the outset of his speech. I shall endeavour to return them by saying that every time I rise to this Dispatch Box it seems to be in reply to a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I hope that that at least is for your Lordships' edification.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, during the course of his remarks, implored me not to recite a list of all that the Government have done. But in replying to this debate I must address myself to the Question on the Order Paper and to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, when he asked his Question. I am sure that noble Lords in every part of this House are deeply concerned about the distressing level of unemployment. Where we disagree is, of

709
course, on the policies required to bring about the reduction in unemployment for which we all hope.
This Government's policies continue to be directed towards achieving a sustainable increase in output and employment through the creation of the right financial conditions to bring down and keep down the rate of inflation, and from measures to promote enterprise and iniative and to improve the performance of our economy. I know that a number of noble Lords tell us to try to follow the example of Governments of the 1950s and 1960s (and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred to the American Governments of the 1930s) and expand demand at home by spending substantially more and taxing substantiallly less. I am afraid that it would not work. It would not work because there is no shortage of demand. On the contrary, it is up by 4½ per cent. since the spring of 1981. The trouble is that too much of it is still being satisfied from imports; and that would happen all the more were we to set the printing presses working overtime. As we discovered in the 1970s more than 90p of every extra pound of "pump-priming" public expenditure primed prices and imports, not domestic output. The response would be as bad, or worse, today.
The continuity and firmness of our policies has already made a major contribution to reducing inflation—now down to an annual rate of just over 5 per cent.—and to bringing down interest rates. Bank base rates are currently six points below their peak in October 1981. The 1983 Budget, like its predecessors, was formulated within a stable medium-term financial framework for our public spending and borrowing plans. It brought positive help to individuals and businesses, including a further cut in the National Insurance Surcharge—the so-called "jobs tax".
We have also scrapped many of the regulations which stifled enterprise and initiative under our predecessors. Price controls, pay controls, dividend controls, hire-purchase controls, foreign exchange controls, industrial development certificates and office development permits have all gone; and we are pressing ahead with our plans to restore public sector industries, wherever possible, to private ownership, and to reduce the size of the public sector.
This Government have, therefore, already done a great deal to create the conditions for economic growth and a reduction in unemployment. But industry must recognise that it, too, has an important role to play if the recovery, already under way again, is to flourish and sustainable job opportunities are to be increased. We need to go on reducing the size of the pay increases we award ourselves if we are to improve our trading performance and secure a reduction in unemployment. Industry also needs to improve on quality, design and delivery dates, and all the other non-price factors of competitiveness, so that British goods are world-beaters, whether sold at home or abroad.
The latest statistics indicate that the United Kingdom recovery, after faltering early in 1982, as the impact of the world recession was felt, is now gathering momentum. Real domestic demand is increasing strongly—by some 4½ per cent. between the spring of 1981 and the fourth quarter of 1982. Consumers' expenditure increased by around 3½ per cent. during 1982 and continues buoyant as inflation and interest
710
rates remain at low levels. Industrial output in the three months to February was around 3 per cent. above its trough in 1981. In manufacturing industry, too, there are signs of recovery; the latest three months have seen an increase of over 1 per cent. on the previous three. And the CBI's March inquiry points to continued recovery in industry over the coming months.
An essential part of the strategy I have outlined has been a need to restrain the growth in public expenditure and, regrettably, social security benefits could not be excluded from this because the social security programme forms 29 per cent. of all public expenditure. But we have taken care to make savings in such a way as to protect, and indeed sometimes to improve, the lot of the poorest among unemployed people. Thus it is that supplementary benefit—the safety net—has been fully price-protected throughout the Government's term of office. More than that, it has been improved for many families with children by the changes in scale rates which we introduced in 1980 when we merged the rate for a child under five with that for a child under 11, at the higher rate, and did the same for children between 11 and 13 and those aged 14 to 16. Further help has been given to those families with children under five during our term of office, by our giving them automatic heating additions, now worth £1·90 a week.
Noble Lords will know that last year we changed the rules to enable unemployed people over 60 to qualify for the long-term scale-rate after one year in receipt of supplementary benefit. Some 40,000 claimants have gained from that change. This year we shall do better, by extending this higher rate to all claimants over 60, without their needing to serve a year's qualifying period, and this will give increased payments to a further 42,000.
Another significant improvement, which I explained to your Lordships in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on Tuesday, is that we have increased the capital limit for supplementary benefit from £2,000 to £2,500 and this will go up again to £3,000 from November—a 50 per cent. increase since November 1980. This will be a particular help to unemployed people who have received redundancy payments. At the same time, we will introduce a disregard of insurance policies with a value of up to £1,500, and increase the capital limit for single payments for supplementary benefit to £500.
We have, of course, made some changes which have helped unemployed people who are not receiving supplementary benefit. I have referred on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House to the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit, but your Lordships will know that that is to be made good this year; the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to this in his speech. Child benefit has maintained its value, and will increase in real terms this year and this is a gain for those unemployed who receive unemployment benefit without supplementary benefit. We have further helped people in this category by increasing the amount of earnings which they may receive before it affects their unemployment benefit, from 75p a day (a level which had obtained since 1972) to £2 a day. The new housing benefit scheme which came into full operation this month will also be of benefit to the

711
unemployed. Those on supplementary benefit will be passported to receive 100 per cent. rebates and those on unemployment benefit will receive rebates, depending upon what other income they may have.
A common complaint from the unemployed used to be that they were prevented from doing voluntary work or otherwise using their time to be of value in society because of the strict rules on availability which applied to benefits. We have relaxed these rules, making it much easier for unemployed people to take part in these activities, which are so good for morale. These changes include extending benefit to people who go on work camps for up to a fortnight.
We used to get complaints from time to time from people aged over 60 who had to sign at an unemployment benefit office in order to get credits to preserve their pension rights. As from this current financial year, we are awarding credits automatically to such people so that they no longer need to sign on for this purpose and their pension rights will be fully protected.
Benefit paid to unemployed people costs a lot of money. The overall cost of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit to unemployed people is £4,910 millions in the financial year just ended, representing 17·2 per cent. of all spending on social security benefits or 4·7 per cent. of public expenditure as a whole. I have only to quote such a figure to indicate why it is difficult to do more, given the constraints of which we are all aware.
One question often raised is whether we will pay the long-term scale rate of supplementary benefit to all of the unemployed. Lord Banks referred to that. I have already explained how we have done more than any previous Administration by paying this higher rate to the over-60s. To extend the rate to all unemployed people who had been receiving benefit for a year or more would cost £395 million, while to pay it after that time on benefit to families with children would cost £190 million in a year. The Government have made it clear that we accept in principle the case for this extension but the resources simply are not available at the present to enable this to be done.
While talking about costs, perhaps I may say a few words about the new version of the tax credits scheme about which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has spoken, and with whose name it was associated in the newspapers this morning. We will, of course, very carefully examine the new scheme. I am sure noble Lords would not expect me to respond in detail now, but even the Liberals themselves admit that their new scheme will involve substantial redistribution, with many losers, and indeed, for many, a marginal tax rate significantly higher than it is now. This new Liberal scheme, which is claimed to take the edge off the poverty trap, I must say seems to sit a little oddly with the SDP's scheme in their paper.
I have talked so far about the benefits received by unemployed people, but I think I should close by mentioning some of the special schemes which the Department of Employment have brought in and which help unemployed people in other ways. I would draw attention especially to two projects. The first is the Youth Training Scheme. This will guarantee
712
places to 16 year-old school-leavers who cannot find work, providing useful training which should stand them in good stead during their working lives, when, as we all hope, jobs become more readily available for them. The other is the Community Programme, providing 130,000 places for the long-term unemployed, enabling them to do worthwhile work and to be paid for it—perhaps not as much as we would wish, but no one will be worse off than on benefit and most will be better off. In all, the Government will be spending some £2 billion in 1983–84—despite the necessary curbs on public expenditure—on a wide range of employment and training schemes which bring direct help to some three-quarters of a million people.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred in his speech to a document which I think he said he had helped to launch today. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to have a copy of that; I would certainly very much like to study it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referred to the difficulties of industrial relations. Perhaps there is no better example of the effects of bad industrial relations—and I make no assignation of blame in this case—than the current situation at British Leyland, where, clearly, employment is threatened by the industrial action taking place there.
I want to end principally by refuting the suggestion which I think was implicit in some of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that we somehow did not care about the substantial number of unemployed people that there are at the present time. I do assure your Lordships that we do care. I certainly care. At one or two moments in my life I, too, have been unemployed. I can remember going to the Department of Employment in the town where I live and claiming unemployment benefit. It is something I hope I shall never have to do again. But the way to stop that is to get the economy really going again. I think we would be doing the unemployed people of this country a grave disservice if we were to follow some of the suggestions put to us tonight.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.