Sitting of 4 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Pay Beds
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what was the total amount received by the National Health Service in the most recent 12- month period for which figures are avail able in respect of fees for pay beds.
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her latest estimate of the total sum which will be paid to the National Health Service during the current year in respect of fees for pay beds in NHS hospitals.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Income from pay bed charges in England in 1973–74 was £14·3 million. On the basis of a similar use of pay beds, the estimate for 1975–76 is £26 million.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that this contribution to the health service is on top of taxes paid by those using the beds and that they have a right to use National Health Service hospitals? May I remind her that she has still not yet indicated how this revenue is to be replaced? Does she agree that it is not right for her to seek to offset other charges, as has been her habit in the past?
    Mrs. Castle: I have told the House previously that funds will be made available so that the revenue allocation to health authorities will not be affected as a consequence of the phasing out of pay beds. Of course, we all contribute to the National Health Service and we all
    202
    have access to it. We are only prohibiting access to the service by the payment of a fee.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Can my right hon. Friend give some estimate of the contribution made by NHS workers, including doctors, nurses, medical ancillaries and laboratory technicians, to pay beds? Can she confirm that these contributions are not included in the calculations?
    Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is quite right. No one other than the consultant servicing a pay bed gets any additional remuneration for it. The phasing out of pay beds will mean that manpower resources at present used on these beds will be available for NHS patients.
    Mr. Gow: At a time when the health service is desperately short of resources, does the right hon. Lady think she is right to deprive it of £26 million revenue from pay beds? Will she reconsider her decision and bear in mind that many users of the National Health Service would readily pay a charge if they thought the service would be improved?
    Mrs. Castle: I think I am right, for the simple reason that I believe we are getting a very good bargain. As I told the House in a recent debate, the phasing out of pay beds will mean the equivalent of between 2,500 and 3,000 more beds being made available for National Health Service use. The capital cost of providing these beds afresh today would be between £60 million and £70 million.
    Dr. Vaughan: Will the right hon. Lady tell us how many pay beds she has already phased out? Her recent figure suggested that about 1,000 beds had been phased out in recent months. Can she confirm that?
    Mrs. Castle: No doubt the hon. Member is referring to the under-occupancy exercise carried out by one of my predecessors, Mr. Kenneth Robinson. We have reviewed that, because these private beds are very under-occupied. In many cases the occupancy rate is as low as 50 per cent. I announced to the House that I was carrying out another exercise to reduce authorisations in cases where the occupancy rate was so low as not to justify the continuance of private beds. I cannot give the hon. Member any figures at the moment, but if he tables

    203
    a Question or writes to me, I shall let him have the information.

    Supplementary Benefit (Hostel Wardens)
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what conclusions she has reached on the payment of supplementary benefit to hostel wardens on behalf of young people in their care.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Micheal Meacher): The question of payment of benefit to young people in hostels, including the use of vouchers for accommodation, is being looked at by the interdepartmental working group on the needs of homeless young people.
    Mr. Sims: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this matter is being looked into. Will he confirm that under Section 17 of the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, it is possible for payment for board and lodging to be made direct to a third party, such as a hostel warden? This is exactly what was happening in the notorious Gleaves case, and will the hon. Gentleman take some rapid action on this matter?
    Mr. Meacher: I can confirm that under the Act, payment may be made to a third party—for example, the warden of a hostel. He is given a board and lodging voucher. But the point is that the voucher is awarded to an individual claimant only after an interview by the supplementary benefits officer, and it is in operation for only one week. It therefore does not constitute a block system for a hostel or organisation on the presentation of a list.
    Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind the recent conviction of Roger Gleaves and the fact that one of my constituents, Billy McPhee from Bannockburn, was brutally murdered by a gang of unscrupulous people who were operating a vicious hostel racket in London whereby they exploited young people, sexually assaulted them and deprived them of their social security benefits, will the Minister take every step to ensure that such crimes do not recur? He could do this by having regular inspections of such hostels and by closer scrutiny of the credentials of the people who run them.
    Mr. Meacher: I certainly deplore the appalling murder of one of my hon. Friend's constituents by members of the Gleaves organisation. In setting up the working group it was our intention to examine the needs of homeless young persons in the inner city areas to prevent the recurrence of any such terrible crime. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that this matter is being pursued urgently. The group has on it not only civil servants but members of the local authority associations and three representatives of leading voluntary organisations concerned with this work. I am very hopeful that they will soon be able to report and provide us with the basis for a policy to prevent any such recurrence.

    Rehabilitation Services
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what expansion is envisaged of rehabilitation services in the National Health Service.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): It is for individual health authorities to decide on the development of these services in their areas, within the limits of the resources available to them. But they are aware of the importance which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches to such development. Substantial amounts of central departmental funds have been provided to establish 19 demonstration centres in medical rehabilitation to demonstrate good practice.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is an adverse distribution of these experimental centres from the point of view of services in the North? Does he agree that more central funds should be made available to allow families to participate in rehabilitation and therefore relieve the pressure on the health service? Will he look again at the general situation of severely disabled children who are denied rehabilitation and educational opportunities because of the delays in providing equipment?
    Dr. Owen: I am prepared to consider whether the Northern Region has a fair allocation of such centres. I shall ask the regional health authorities. I know that in the North-West particularly—but in other areas, too—the authorities have investigated this matter. The use of families is a most important aspect of

    205
    reinforcing rehabilitation, and the family is one of the most readily accessible of all the volunteer forces in the country.

    Ministerial Engagements
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will detail her official engagements for 4th November.
    Mrs. Castle: This morning I met the Lord President of the Council and held various internal departmental discussions. I shall spend the remainder of the afternoon in a Cabinet Committee and other official meetings.
    Mr. Adley: Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that first as Minister of Transport, then as Minister of Labour, and now in her present job, she has soured and disrupted, first, the transport industry—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Question about the right hon. Lady's engagements for today. All this business about the transport industry has nothing to do with that.
    Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her present activities—
    Mr. Tomlinson: What a nasty little man.
    Mr. Adley: —have soured and disrupted the medical services of this country? To use her own words, does she really think that the country still needs her.
    Mrs. Castle: The answer to the first part of the question is "No."

    Political Advisers
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many political advisers she now has in her Department paid out of public funds.
    Mrs. Castle: Currently, four people are employed as special advisers in my Department, of whom two work on a part-time basis.
    Mr. Goodhew: My Question concerns political advisers. How many of these are erstwhile student agitators, like Mr. Jack Straw, and to what extent is the advice of these persons responsible for the right hon. Lady's damaging and
    206
    dangerous confrontation with consultants and doctors in the hospital service?
    Mrs. Castle: Of the four special advisers, one is a distinguished expert, a professor in social administration, Professor Abel Smith—
    Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must be allowed a chance to reply.
    Mrs. Castle: —and two support him in his work. Mr. Straw is a barrister who was in practice at the Bar before he accepted his present post as special adviser. I have found his advice always excellent.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Has my right hon. Friend noticed how rapidly erstwhile student agitators mature?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes. I was one myself.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of administration of the National Health Service; and what proportion of total spending on the National Health Service this represents.
    Mrs. Castle: Final accounts for 1974–75 are not yet available, but the cost of administration of the National Health Service for that year is estimated at £235 million, equivalent to about 7½ per cent. of the total budget. Nearly half of this relates to costs in operational units and services that have not previously been classified as administration.
    Mr. Freud: In view of the right hon. Lady's proposals to cut the salaries of junior doctors and agency nurses, will she propose spreading these cuts evenly among administrators in the health service, which appears to be the only growth industry at the moment? Will she confirm that the Royal Commission will look into the setting up of the administrative system?
    Mrs. Castle: I am sorry that the hon. Member is so badly out of touch with what has been happening in the health service. If he were in touch he would have appreciated that, far from having cut the salaries of junior hospital doctors, this Government gave them an increase of 30 per cent. up to April, and

    207
    are currently introducing a new contract, for which they have long asked. On the second part of the question, it will be possible for the Royal Commission to consider the use of manpower in the National Health Service, as that is part of its terms of reference.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Snape—I apologise, I meant to say Mr. Garrett.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is almost certainly one level too many in the National Health Service hierarchy, and that that is probably the region? Is she happy with the situation whereby her Department's finance division supervises the work of finance officers in the regions, who in turn supervise the work of finance officers in the regions, who in turn super-vice the work of finance officers in areas, who in turn supervise the work of district treasurers?
    Mrs. Castle: We on the Labour side of the House have never hidden our dislike of the overstructured, over-tiered reorganisation introduced by our Conservative predecessors. We disliked it at the time, and I am sure that if we had been in a position to start the reorganisation from scratch we would never have introduced such a top-heavy managerial structure. I see that that goes, too, for hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who, unfortunately, supported it at the time that it was going through the House. But we have to realise that the structure has been in operation for only just over a year. People are only just in post. They are only just settling down after the trauma of reorganisation. It would be contrary to the needs of patient care if we were to turn it all upside down again.
    Mr. Evelyn King: What the right hon. Lady has said is interesting, and I hope that she will bear that in mind and act upon it. Is it not a fact that administrators are being paid almost as much, in total, as doctors? How many administrators are now being paid more than £10,000 a year? Does that number run into hundreds, as I am informed? I am being non-party on this matter. Will the right hon. Lady give up her time and attention to investigate the question whether or not administration is inefficient?
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman says that he is being non-party. I am glad to see that Labour Party policy on the matter is now accepted, and that we have converted the Opposition, which carried out the reorganisation of which they now complain. It is impossible to turn the structure upside down before people are in post. We must give them some continuing stability.
    The Royal Commission has the right to examine the use of manpower in the service, but what I am concerned about now is helping those who were put in their jobs by the previous Government to do a good job. That must be my priority at present.
    As for the details for which the hon. Gentleman asked, if he cares to table a Question I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Speaker: I should apologise to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). I wish that hon. Members would give me notice of facial changes.

    Watford General Hospital
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she can give some assurance as to when phase 3 or a modified phase 3 of the development of the Watford General Hospital will proceed.
    Dr. Owen: The North West Thames Regional Health Authority is reassessing its priorities for 1976–77 and beyond, following the recent reduction in capital available to the National Health Service. It is not yet known when a further major development at Watford will be fitted into a revised programme.
    Mr. Tuck: Phase 3 is not new. It is about 15 years old. Is my hon. Friend aware of the large waiting lists for both operations and X-rays, the shortage of medical beds, and the need for improved out-patient facilities, all of which are causing great concern in Watford? Can he give me any advice on the matter? Have we not got our priorities wrong? I was delighted to see Her Majesty pressing the button to start oil flowing from the North Sea yesterday, but did it have to cost £500,000 for that to be done, as was said on television? Would not the money have been better used if it had been spent on Watford Hospital?
    Dr. Owen: Everyone has his own expenditure priorities. The health authorities know their present allocations and the allocations that they can expect. They are bound to look for cost-saving redesigns and means of dividing developments into small stages in reviewing the whole of their present capital programme.

    Hospitals (Admissions)
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are currently awaiting an operation in National Health Service hospitals; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Owen: Because of considerable variations between specialties and in types and urgency of patients' conditions, an average waiting time for admission would not have any meaning.
    On 31st December 1974, the latest date for which national figures are available, there were 517,424 patients on waiting lists in all specialties in England, including 492,362 in the surgical specialties.
    Mr. Penhaligon: I am sure that the Minister recognises that that is a matter for great concern. Does he agree that the present junior doctors' dispute is not improving the situation for the 500,000 people involved? What negotiations have taken place with the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association? It appears to some that the BMA's lack of credibility within its own profession is at least one of the root causes of the problems being experienced.
    Dr. Owen: The total number on waiting lists has hovered around the 500,000 mark for many years. Industrial disputes in the service in the past few years have undoubtedly contributed to the size of the waiting lists, and there is no question but that the present industrial dispute will aggravate the situation further.
    As to the question of whom the Department negotiates with, it is bound to negotiate with those who are recognised as forming the major negotiating body, and currently those are the people with whom we are negotiating.
    Mr. Loyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that a decision as to priorities between patients should normally be based
    210
    on the need for medical attention at the time? Therefore, will he investigate the practice of consultants who write letters for patients to take to hospital in order that they can claim priority over other patients who are waiting? That practice is causing some of the delays and cancellations for patients who have waited a long time for entry into hospital.
    Dr. Owen: The whole question of waiting lists and queue-jumping is very complex. In the joint working party well over a year ago we put to the medical profession proposals for a common waiting list and proposals together to examine the difficulties that might result from such a list, which would have covered some of the points my hon. Friend mentioned. We very much regret that the medical profession later decided not to agree to common waiting lists.
    Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the Minister aware that although it is ludicrous to blame the junior doctors' dispute for the long waiting lists, it is our strongly held view that the junior doctors should cease their action, pending the ballot which is to take place? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that what the National Health Service desperately needs now is leadership, and that the Secretary of State should stop behaving like a party politician and start acting like a Minister?
    Dr. Owen: No one would pretend that the waiting lists are solely the responsibility of the present industrial action. We do not have the figures, but it is undoubtedly contributing.
    We all welcome the hon. Gentleman's advice to the junior hospital doctors to await the ballot. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to go one stage further and tell them that they are not being discriminated against, and that it is a central matter of the Government's overall pay policy, which has been voluntarily agreed. One and a half million other workers are prepared to abide by the pay policy, and about 200,000 have actually renegotiated downwards their recent awards to make them compatible with the policy. If the junior hospital doctors recognise that they cannot have extra money under the terms of the pay policy, they should seriously consider the recent option being discussed with their leaders and my right hon. Friend.

    Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will now take steps to amend the regulations so that the Attendance Allowance Board may pay attendance allowance to foster parents of handicapped children who satisfy the criteria.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): Payment of attendance allowance has not been considered appropriate where a local authority has assumed responsibility for the care of a severely disabled child, whether in one of its own homes or by boarding out.
    Mr. Hannam: Is the Minister aware that a recent survey shows that the local authorities' allowances do not reach the level of the attendance allowance? Does he agree that everything possible should be done to help the handicapped children concerned—only 300 or so—to be taken into private homes and families by foster parents? Will he consider applying the same principle as is being applied to the mobility allowance?
    Mr. O'Malley: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. If the attendance allowance became payable for the small number of children that he describes in his Question, many of the foster parents concerned would be no better off, because the local authorities would clearly reflect the receipt of that allowance in the payment made to the foster parents.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem is very serious, and that his Department has not treated it with as much care as it should? Genuine hardship is caused for severely handicapped children going into foster care, because insufficient money is made available to them. The remedy proposed in the Question would help relieve the financial hardship. Will my right hon. Friend please consider it again?
    Mr. O'Malley: The attendance allowance is seen primarily as a way to help families who, out of their own resources, look after a severely disabled child of their own in their own home, or where private arrangements are made for the
    212
    child to be cared for by someone else. It is inappropriate for my hon. Friend to criticise my Department on this matter. The costs of bringing up a foster child by foster parents or local authorities is properly a charge on the local authorities concerned.

    Pensioners (Residence Overseas)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals she has to assist United Kingdom pensioners living abroad in countries where there are no reciprocal arrangements and where the country of residence does not provide them with pension entitlement.
    Mr. O'Malley: We have no proposals for modifying the existing policy which has been continued under successive Governments and under which retirement and widows' pensions are already payable in such countries at the rate in force when the pensioner left this country or when he first qualified if he was then living abroad. We are always willing, where possible, to consider appropriate reciprocal arrangements with these countries.
    Mr. Mawby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had a sympathetic letter from his hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State regarding two retired persons in Canada? Is he further aware that it is still the position that only one-third of the pensioners living abroad come within the reciprocal arrangement? The people in Canada about who I am concerned are still not within the reciprocal arrangement. As Canada is a member of the old Commonwealth, will steps be taken to speed up the negotiations which I understand are in progress at least to ensure that we get a reciprocal arrangement with old Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. O'Malley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that where it is possible to establish appropriate reciprocal arrangements the Government are prepared to do so. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that there have been continuing discussions on an intermittent basis, since 1972, between the Canadian Government and Her Majesty's Government. I must point out that this is a complex matter, and I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that I would assume an early conclusion to the discussions. I must also point out that to make payments abroad on the lines that are sometimes suggested, including

    213
    reciprocal arrangements, would involve an extra £35 million a year in public expenditure. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I am not making a sharp remark to him, because I appreciate the nature of his question—we are expecting, any day, a letter from his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that will tell us where public expenditure cuts are to be made rather than where increases might be made.
    Mrs. Knight: What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the number of persons in this category? Is he aware that some of them have had to move to foreign countries for health reasons, among other reasons? As he has given us an estimate of the amount involved, has he any idea of the numbers involved?
    Mr. O'Malley: We have about 172,000 pensioners abroad, and 108,000 do not receive increases. On the other hand, 52,000 in Australia and 17,000 in New Zealand may be helped by the reciprocal arrangements which enable residents in this country to be treated as residents in those countries as regards entitlement to the Australian and New Zealand residence-based pensions.

    Age Addition Payments (Over-80s)
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she has any proposals for maintaining in real value the age addition paid to retirement pensioners 80 years of age and over.
    Mr. O'Malley: This matter will be kept under review in the light of competing priorities within overall provision for retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the over-80s are probably suffering more than any other population group because of the Government's hopeless inability to deal with the rate of inflation or to control the value of savings? Has he anything to say to give an assurance to the over-80s that their present standard of living will be maintained, as opposed to being diminished over the months and years to come?
    Mr. O'Malley: If I may say so, that was a very silly supplementary question. I can tell the hon. Gentleman about the hope that I shall give to old-age pensioners
    214
    —namely, that for a long time in future a Labour Government will continue in office to further the already substantial improvements which have been made by this Government, which we were told in the last weeks of a Conservative Government were extravagant and unrealistic. In fact, we introduced those improvements. The present Government have done more for retirement pensioners than any other Government since the inception of the national insurance system.

    Community Hospitals
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will define the rôle and functions of small cottage and general practitioner hospitals in the future development of the hospital service; if she will confirm that it is her intention progressively to reduce the number of these smaller hospitals; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Castle: A memorandum of guidance has been issued to health authorities describing the rôle and function of a new type of local hospital called a community hospital, which is to provide care nearer their homes for patients who do not need the specialised services of a district general hospital. The medical staff in these hospitals will mainly be general practitioners. Most community hospitals will be provided by adapting existing local hospitals but some small hospitals will need to be closed as the service develops.
    Mr. Hicks: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that before any decisions are made involving the closure of existing cottage hospitals, social considerations will be taken into account as well as purely economic criteria? Is the right hon. Lady aware that in rural areas, such as South-East Cornwall, the smaller hospitals fulfil an important function, and that their closure could mean that both patients and relatives will be a significant distance from hospitials?
    Mrs. Castle: I appreciate that much local affection builds up around some of the smaller local hospitals. I also accept that there is value in having smaller hospitals situated nearer to the homes of patients who do not need the care that can be provided by a district general

    215
    hospital. However, these matters have to be planned realistically within the resources available. It will be inevitable that some of the existing small hospitals will no be suitable for long-term use as community hospitals. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decision to close a hospital will be taken until there has been consultation with the community health council, which will be able to press the social factors to which he has referred.
    Dr. Vaughan: Will the right hon. Lady pay special regard to the effects on nurses of any changes in local hospitals? Will she tell the House how many nurses are likely to be unemployed as they come out of training schools in the near future, as a direct result of her policies?
    Mrs. Castle: Certainly no nurses will be unemployed as a result of our policies concerning community hospitals. As for the question of our wider policies, particularly our policy on pay beds, and our policy on nursing recruitment, the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I covered those matters fully in my speech in the recent debate.

    Psychopathic Patients
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take appropriate steps to provide properly secure units for psychopathic patients.
    Dr. Owen: We have already asked health authorities to set up regional security units for patients requiring treatment in conditions of security short of that provided by the special hospitals but greater than that normally available in ordinary psychiatric hospitals or units. Such patients may include psychopathic patients requiring hospital treatment.
    The recent Report of the Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders expresses the view that dangerous antisocial psychopaths should generally be dealt with in the penal system and that special prison units should be set up for this purpose. The Government are considering this and the other recommendations made by the Committee.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman say anything more definite about when the Butler Committee recommendations are likely to be implemented? Does he agree that escapes from mental hospitals
    216
    not equipped to contain dangerous persons are genuinely worrying to the public? Will he comment on the case in Bristol last week, when such a patient had to be sent to prison because the mental hospitals refused to have him?
    Dr. Owen: On the question of the implementation of the Butler Report, the Committee issued an interim report in which it drew attention to the need for regional security units. Action has already been taken on that matter. In its final report the Committee made a recommendation about revenue support as well as capital support. The Government's attitude on this complex and detailed report is that there are some aspects on which we would like to take action before we have considered the full report. We intend to consider these matters in conjunction with the Home Office—the other Department that is most closely involved—with a view to implementing as we can.
    As regards the Bristol case, the South-western Regional Health Authority is continuing its efforts to find a hospital place within the region for the man concerned.
    Mr. Moonman: Is it not appropriate that the consultative document which is to be produced in about three months' time should make some reference to the matter?
    Dr. Owen: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that there are two consultative documents on which we have made a commitment. One document is concerned with the whole question of resources, and with how we manage the question of priorities. We also have a commitment to consider the working of the Mental Health Act. That certainly bears on some of the aspects of the Butler Report, which makes recommendations for changes in the Act. The whole question of the definition of psychopathy is raised. There are some other aspects of the report which are not covered in the consultative paper.

    European Community (Reciprocity)
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reciprocal arrangements are made for contributors to the British National

    217
    Health Service requiring hospital treatment while in the EEC countries on business or on holiday.
    Dr. Owen: The EEC Social Security Regulations which cover employed persons and their families, provide for urgent medical treatment, including hospital treatment, during a visit to another EEC country, on the same terms as for insured citizens of that country. Bilateral agreements with Denmark and Gibraltar entitle all United Kingdom visitors to urgent medical treatment in those territories.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does that answer apply also to the self-employed?
    Dr. Owen: The self-employed and non-employed are not covered by the EEC regulations, because medical treatment at public expense in other EEC countries is normally available only to persons who contribute to sickness schemes. Not all the EEC countries have such schemes for self-employed and non-employed people. On the other hand, our National Health Service is available to all residents in the United Kingdom, whether or not they pay national insurance contributions. Her Majesty's Government have urged in the Council of Ministers in Brussels that EEC regulations should be extended, or that new regulations should be introduced to cover self-employed and non-employed persons. It has been agreed to set up a special Community working party to consider the question. It is due to meet in Brussels very shortly and will include officials from my Department. Our fellow-members of the Community are under no illusion about the fact that we believe that the system should be extended.
    Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the Minister aware that this matter is of burning concern to organisations in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom which have been set up to look to the needs of self-employed people? Will he be more specific and say what, precisely, he intends to do to bring home this matter to the EEC? Incidentally, what does he mean by "very shortly"?
    Dr. Owen: We have made clear in our discussions in the Community that although we recognise that there are differences in comparisons involving countries
    218
    of the Nine, we believe that at present the self-employed person from Britain travelling in a Community country is at a disadvantage when compared with other EEC nationals. We have made this clear and intend to pursue the matter first in the working party which will take place in the next few weeks and then in the Council of Ministers. We shall have to discuss the subject in that Council.

    Runaway Children
    Mr. Norman Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will set up an independent inquiry into the question of runaway children.
    Mr. Meacher: We are consulting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers concerned, and hope to be able to write to the hon. Member shortly.
    Mr. Fowler: Is the Minister aware that the Gleaves case featured in the "Johnny Go Home" programme caused widespread concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he recognise that part of this case concerns allegations of mismanagement against a Government Department? Would it not be more appropriate to have a fully independent inquiry, rather than an interdepartmental one?
    Mr. Meacher: I have already indicated that the working group that has been set up is not purely internal, because it contains three members of leading voluntary organisations. I have already said that I am hopeful that after consultations, which I accept have been lengthy, we shall shortly be able to write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister press his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to find time for a debate on the report on fostering, recently submitted to the House by the Employment and Social Services Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure, which many of us believe is an efficient and sound way of dealing with young runaway children?
    Mr. Meacher: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should put that question to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.

    Agency Nurses
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she has yet reviewed the effect of her circular on agency nurses and the NHS; and if she will make a statement about its effect.
    Mrs. Castle: I shall review the arrangements when I have received the detailed reports I requested from health authorities. I am glad to say that the implementation of the circular is proceeding smoothly.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her circular is causing a great deal of concern in areas in which it is believed that some hospital units will be forced to close or cut down their intake if this policy goes ahead? Is she further aware that in Glasgow a statement has been made by the health authorities that two units face closure as a result of the new policy? Therefore, is there not a case for an urgent review of particular cases of difficulty?
    Mrs. Castle: In respect of England, I have no evidence of any of the developments feared by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I am watching the situation. There is no evidence of the kind of closure to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he has in mind any specific incidents in Glasgow, I suggest that he puts them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who have chosen the National Health Service as their career—I refer to members of associations such as COHSE—believe that the Secretary of State's policy is on correct lines?
    Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right, Those who have dedicated their nursing lives to the National Health Service appreciate that, above all, the patient wants continuity of care and familiar faces round him. He also requires regular access to a familiar and stable nursing team.

  PAY POLICY
  Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for working out and negotiating the next
  220
  stage of the Government's pay policy to cover the period beyond August 1976.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): A number of Ministers will inevitably be involved, but the main responsibility rests with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment.
  Mr. Pardoe: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, taking the most optimistic view, the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom will still be higher than that of most of our industrial competitors after August 1976? Therefore, does he not now accept that an incomes policy is not a policy of short-term shifts and starts but a policy that will be with us until major restructuring and fundamental changes have been made in our industrial and economic society?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, made clear in an Answer last week, we are principally concerned—as is the whole House—with the fact that the initial success of the policy, its observance by negotiators and all involved, shall be maintained. That is the first priority. I have said in the House—the trade union leaders have also made this point—that early enough before the end of the period covered by the policy agreed by the House we shall need to get down to the task of examining the situation thereafter.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I recognise the need for incomes restraint, and bear in mind the problems involved in the level of unemployment, but will the Prime Minister investigate the possibility of including in public contracts made by national Government and by local government a clause requiring companies to have regard to the lengths of shifts worked and the amount of overtime worked, so that as a consequence, we do not have situations such as those that exist in the construction industry, in which relatively few people earn inflated incomes at the expense of many others who have no job at all?
  The Prime Minister: It might be difficult to import into contracts rigidities of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. It is an important suggestion. However,

  221
  I cannot answer it off the cuff, because the matter should be studied.

  NEDC AND TUC
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at NEDC.
  Mr. Jim Marshallasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.
  Mr. Welbelovedasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.
  Mr. Weetchasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC.
  The Prime Minister: At Chequers tomorrow, Sir.
  Mr. Ashley: Although the readiness of Opposition Members to abuse and attack the trade unions makes it difficult for Labour Members to make constructive suggestions, because they would be distorted, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that at tomorrow's meeting the need for increased investment is discussed, as also is the need for utilising that investment—which means some straight talking about overmanning?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have never found any of my hon. Friends to be inhibited, in parliamentary terms, by anything said by Opposition Members. My hon. Friends' questions are invariably constructive. What a number of us have said—this includes trade unions and others—is that, under successive Governments, there has been a policy of inadequate investment—a policy that has sometimes been misdirected, with a poor return on investment compared with other countries. We must also consider the urgent matter of overmanning, although it must be said that a period of world depression and of heavy unemployment in most advanced countries is not a period in which one starts to deal with that problem. But in our discussions with the unions and the NEDC we constantly stress the need to deal with overmanning problems at the right time, which may not be very long postponed.
  Mr. Baker: Since the car industry is so important to our economy and will feature strongly in the discussions tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the nature of his discussions with the management of Chrysler last night?
  The Prime Minister: As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I, with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, had discussions with Mr. Riccardo and other representatives of the Chrysler Corporation at Chequers yesterday evening, about the grave situation facing the Corporation in the United Kingdom. They explained the reasons for this situation and its implications for their continued operations in the United Kingdom. Further discussions have been taking place at the Department of Industry, and in a few minutes my right hon. Friend will be meeting the representatives of Chrysler. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement to the House as soon as it is practicable to do so. As I told the House last Thursday, I would not want to underrate the gravity of the situation. Nothing I heard last night would cause me to do so. We are now in the process of discussing with the heads of the Chrysler Corporation the whole situation, and any ideas which they or anyone else may have for solving the problems.
  Mr. Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend see the misleading leading article in The Times yesterday, concerning import controls, presumably written by a failed Tory candidate? I wonder whether, at the meeting of the NEDC tomorrow, my right hon. Friend will refute these misleading, irrelevant and damaging allegations and, instead, put forward the case for selective import controls, as agreed by the recent TUC and Labour Party conferences.
  The Prime Minister: Tomorrow morning's meeting of very important and busy people will not have time to discuss leading articles in the Press—for which there is no ministerial responsibility whatsoever. At Question Time yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade dealt very fully with the subject of import controls. As he made clear, we do not rule out protective measures for particular industries suffering or

  223
  threatened with serious injury as a result of increased imports. We have made it clear that we do not believe that a generalised system of import controls on behalf of our balance of payments or anything else is right for Britain. It would have a serious effect on our exports. My right hon. Friend emphasised the Government's determination—as he did during his visits to the European countries last week—to continue to do our best to sustain world trade. But, as he pointed out;
  "We cannot stand idly by in a situation that would result in the destruction of a major British industrial capacity that we shall need in the future when the world depression gives place to recovery in this and other countries."
  Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Central Policy Review Staff's report on the motor industry is on the agenda for the next meeting of the NEDC? Since some of his hon. Friends have been discussing the contents of this report with newspaper reporters, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that after that meeting the report is published, so that we can all have a look at it?
  The Prime Minister: That report is not on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting. I think the House knows that we have on the agenda a very important paper on the approach to industrial strategy. After tomorrow's meeting we hope to be able to publish the documentation that we shall have been discussing at the NEDC meeting. It is my intention to publish the CPRS report on the motor car industry as soon as possible. Since a considerable amount of the information contained in it was supplied by British motor car firms on the basis of confidentiality, we must naturally get their agreement to its publication.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: While I accept the Prime Minister's comments about the dangers of blanket import controls, may I ask him to initiate, at the NEDC meeting tomorrow, a discussion on selective import controls? Is he aware that the deep and growing concern about unemployment in the textile, footwear and motor industries is not confined to those hon. Members who, by force of habit, oppose Government policy, but goes much wider on the benches behind him?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of that although I think that the list of industries about which there is deep
  224
  anxiety is not confined to those which my hon. Friend has mentioned. I have said that what we could not accept—and my right hon. Friend said this yesterday—is a situation in which, during a serious world depression, imports reached a level in individual cases—whether or not that level can be proved to be due to dumping, or unfair practices—that led to the disappearance of a British industry which has great prospects for the future when there is a recovery.
  Mr. Crawford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Scotland feel that the Government are welshing on their promises? Will the Prime Minister tell the House when the NEDC will next meet in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will know that he has used a word about which I have expressed criticism in the past, and I do so again today. I am sorry to find hon. Members so oblivious to the views of their Nationalist friends elsewhere. I do not accept the hon. Member's statement. There is no going back on important matters of this kind.
  Mr. McCrindle: Since a sizeable proportion of the jobs in this country continues to be provided by smaller firms, has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the more direct representation on NEDC of such firms?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter for the NEDC as a whole, and not for the Government. The CBI is represented, and if the hon. Member were ever to receive a report, as I have done many times, of one of the quarterly meetings of the CBI—the full-dress conference of its membership—he would find that small firms in all parts of the country were well represented there. I have never found the CBI to be in any way backward in expressing the anxieties of small firms, just as much as it expresses the anxieties of big firms. In some cases it gives more expression to the anxieties of the small firms than it does to those of the large firms.
  Mr. Weetch: So that my right hon. Friend can take part in a constructive discussion of the rôle of public expenditure in the economy, and since there has been a quite obvious absence of any public statement, will he say whether he has

  225
  had any communication from the Leader of the Opposition about her policies with regard to priorities in cuts in public expenditure?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have not had any such indication, and neither has the country. We do get from Conservative Members—I continue to receive them in my postbag—requests for increased expenditure in their constituencies. The Conservative Party is, of course, committed to vast increases in expenditure, which I have sometimes outlined for the House. I do not think that this is something on which to waste the time of the NEDC. If it will soothe the anxieties of my hon. Friend, if I get the opportunity I shall consider with the NEDC secretariat whether it would like this subject to be discussed.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Pattieasked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 4th November.
  The Prime Minister: I have held a number of meetings with my colleagues and others, including a meeting to receive a report on the discussion this morning at the Department of Industry with the Chrysler Corporation. I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen this evening.
  Mr. Pattie: Since the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be having various other informal meetings with his ministerial colleagues during the course of the day, will he say whether, during such conversations, the question of the level of current public expenditure is likely to crop up? Since an economic forecaster has described public expenditure as being out of control, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we have been blown off course, or whether there is no one on the bridge?
  The Prime Minister: I have made clear, in answering questions of this kind, which are a new and delightful development in our parliamentary institutions—that I answer questions only about meetings I am attending and not about meetings which some hon. Members wish me to attend. The House has seen yet again
  226
  this afternoon the singular unwillingness of those who make the most speeches about this matter to make any concrete proposals. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was referring to evidence, published this morning, which was given to a Select Committee of this House at an open meeting dealing with cash limits. We must await the report of that Select Committee. I have told the House, as has my right hon. Friend, that we intend to proceed at a very rapid rate to fix cash limits in important areas of public expenditure. Rapid progress is being made on this. A report will be made to the House by my right hon. Friends concerned.
  Mr. Les Huckfield: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative, but does he accept that, counting the employees of Chrysler, the component firms and the distributors, there are probably between 60,000 and 70,000 jobs at stake, or involved in the current talks? I accept the need for my right hon. Friend to make a statement as soon as possible, but will he use his good offices to ensure that at tomorrow's meeting between the company and the unions, the unions are given the fullest possible information about the talks which have been going on?
  The Prime Minister: I have suggested that while these important representatives of the Chrysler Corporation are in the country they should take this opportunity for discussion with the unions. At the meeting, which should be starting about now, the Secretary of State will suggest that it might be useful if one of those representatives were to meet hon. Members from all parts of the House representing the constituencies affected by the Chrysler problems. I do not want to go beyond what I said earlier. It is a grave situation, and I do not want to say anything which might make matters more difficult.
  Many people's livelihoods depend on the sales of these products. I have drawn the attention of the Chrysler Corporation representatives to what was said publicly by the sales organisation—it is an efficient body—about this matter. I pointed out the damage that could be done to Chrysler (UK) and to the Chrysler Corporation more widely, if it took action which made more difficult the jobs in its

  227
  efficient sales organisation here and in many other countries.

STEELWORKS, SCUNTHORPE (EXPLOSION)
Mr. John Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the explosion that occurred at the Appleby Frodingham Steelworks, Scunthorpe, in his constituency and if he will order a public inquiry to be held.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informed me that an explosion occurred at the Queen Victoria blast furnace of the Appleby Frodingham plant of the British Steel Corporation at about 3 a.m. today, when a large amount of molten metal was being poured into a torpedo ladle. Four workers were killed and some 15 more were injured, some very seriously, of whom two have since died. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our deep sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives and to those who have been injured.
It is, of course, too early to make any detailed statement about the cause of the explosion. One of the factory inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive commenced an investigation on the site at six o'clock this morning. He has now been joined by others. The Health and Safety Commission was meeting this morning, and the Commission's Chairman, Mr. Simpson, is travelling to the site this afternoon. The Commission instructed the Executive to investigate and to make a special report to it on the matter. The trade unions as well as management will be associated with the inquiry. The report will be published.
Mr. Ellis: May I associate myself with the condolences to the bereaved and injured expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of the Government and in which I am sure the whole House shares?
Can my hon. Friend say how the side of the operation conducted by the emergency services, the voluntary organisations and British Steel is proceeding? Will he confirm reports, which I have already received, that they are doing a magnificent
228
job in a situation similar to that at Flixborough, in respect of which the emergency services only recently received recognition?
Does the Minister realise that in view of the sad past history of my constituency there is great public concern that this tragedy should be investigated thoroughly? Will he say a little more about the inquiry procedures? Would not a public inquiry be more satisfactory? May I request that in any event the full report of the inquiry and its findings should be published?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend does well to remind the House that his constituents have suffered a double tragic blow in a short space of time. I feel for my hon. Friend in this situation because, as at Flixborough, some of my constituents are directly affected, one of them being critically injured. Although I have no direct information, I have no doubt that, as at Flixborough, the emergency services in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the surrounding areas are doing a splendid job.
I think that it may be too early at this stage to decide whether a public inquiry will be appropriate. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the special report procedure, which I outlined in my reply, will be a speedy way of getting at the facts of the matter. However, it would be equally wrong to rule out the possibility of a public inquiry if the facts suggest that that procedure would be appropriate and necessary.
Mr. Tinn: Although I accept what the Minister said about keeping an open mind on the subject of a public inquiry, may I ask whether he recognises that this disaster highlights the risks present in this industry, and especially the ever-present danger of running hot metal into containers which might accidentally contain a small amount of hot water—which hot metal contains—and thus producing an explosive reaction? That risk is ever-present in the steel and iron-making industry. Will the Minister take every opportunity to ensure that, whatever method of inquiry is employed, he takes every step to prevent a repetition of these all too frequently recurring episodes?
Mr. Walker: I doubt whether the House would want me to speculate on

229
the possible causes in advance of the report to which I have referred. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the grievous risks that are run, and often taken for granted by workers every day of their working lives. I recognise the interest of my hon. Friend because of his connection with one of the trade unions which has members involved.
My hon. Friend is right to point out the need to keep an open mind about what kind of inquiry may be necessary. That depends on what arises from the facts revealed by the report to which I have referred.
Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition associate themselves with the expressions of sympathy extended to those affected by this second disaster in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)? We agree with the statement made by the Minister and hope that the inquiry by the Health and Safety Commission will proceed as quickly as possible. We ask the hon. Gentleman to report back to the House when he has further information to give us.
Mr. Walker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I readily give that undertaking. When the report of the Health and Safety Executive is received we shall, with the permission of the House, make a further statement to the House.
Mr. David Watkins: Is the Minister satisfied with the extent to which the British Steel Corporation is applying loss control techniques at all its plants? Is he aware that proper loss control assessment can foresee many accidents and therefore render them avoidable?
Mr. Walker: I understand that that is one of the safety techniques in which the British Steel Corporation has taken a special interest.
Mr. Greville Janner: Without prejudging the outcome of whatever inquiry is held, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to emphasise that the penal provisions in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act apply for the protection of workers in both the public and the private sectors?
Mr. Walker: Of course, my hon. and learned Friend is right.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, if the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House is not disposed of by Ten o'clock, it shall not lapse at that hour and may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock, though opposed; provided that Mr. Speaker shall put the Question thereon not later than three hours after proceedings on the Motion have been entered upon.—[Mr. Coleman.]

TRANSPORT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
3.39 p.m.
Mr. David Steel: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Transport Act 1968 and the Road Traffic Acts 1960 and 1972.
I recognise that the Bill which I seek leave to introduce has no prospect at this late stage of the Session of becoming law. This is one of the opportunities open to a private Member to draw the Government's attention to important topics. I am glad to see that the appropriate Minister is present.
I seek leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Transport Act 1968 and the Road Traffic Acts 1960 and 1972 in three important respects. I do so against a background of the growing costs of transport, especially in the rural areas, concern about which has been expressed from all sides of the House on many occasions. I refer not only to an increase in public transport costs but also to the increase in the costs of running the private car, the reduction in the number of public transport services available, the growing pressure on the finances of local authorities, which are unable to afford to maintain subsidies on bus services, and the fact that in the last decade the number of bus journeys has been reduced by the staggering figure of 34 per cent. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has already drawn attention to the likelihood of further severe cutbacks in public transport road services.
The Road Traffic Act 1968 allows a discretion to the traffic commissioners to waive the need for a public service vehicle driving licence on vehicles carrying up to 12 passengers. The time has come to remove that discretion and, without

231
any application to the traffic commissioners, to allow persons to drive vehicles carrying up to 15 passengers, because that is now the standard size of manufacture, without the need for a PSV licence.
The traffic commissioners should be enjoined to allow any operator on to a route which is not already served by public transport. Great work has been done in recent years by, for example, the Post Office in introducing mini-bus services. I notice that the sixty-second such service was recently introduced in Scotland. A great deal of red tape has to be gone through and a great deal of paper work has to be done before the services can be introduced, and I believe that the time has come to remove some of these restrictions.
My Bill would also have a side effect on the operation of buses by local education authorities. The present law is unduly restrictive and anomalous in declaring that if a local authority owns a vehicle the driver does not have to have a PSV licence, whereas a subcontractor driver must have a PSV licence. A case was recently drawn to my attention in which the school bus operator died one weekend and, so that his daughter—who did not have a PSV licence—could continue the service for the benefit of the community, the local education authority had to buy a bus quickly on Sunday. The time has long since passed for sweeping away some of these restrictions so as to enable mini-bus services to operate more freely in rural areas which have no other services.
Some of the provisions in my Bill were contained in a Government Bill which was proceeding through the House of Lords in 1973 and fell with the General Election of February 1974.
The second provision in my Bill is to increase the use of the vehicle which is popularly known as the moped but which exists nowhere in our statute law. I would remove entirely the need for a driving licence or a vehicle excise licence for powered bicycles up to 50 cc and I would impose a 30-mph speed limit on
232
them. There would, of course, be a requirement for insurance. I suggest that the age at which these vehicles may be ridden should be reduced from 16 to 15 to assist those at the tail end of the school leaving age. That would merely be bringing our law into line with the practice adopted in several neighbouring European countries, and it would assist transport in both rural and urban areas. That provision would help to relieve traffic congestion and, last but not least, by encouraging the use of such vehicles, it would help to conserve fuel and energy.
Thirdly, my Bill seeks to require all bus operators to introduce no-smoking areas in buses. I know that this is an increasing and welcome practice on trains and aeroplanes. My constituents have complained to me that, for example, on the long-distance express buses between London and Scotland there is no such facility. Some people find it impossible to travel for that length of time in a bus filled with cigarette smoke. I have taken up this matter and the operators have refused to do anything about it. Therefore, the House must legislate to require such operators to provide at least one-third of the seats for those who wish to be free of polluted air on their journeys.
I ask leave to introduce my Bill so that the Government will know that the House hopes for action along these lines in the next Session of Parliament to the benefit of the travelling public.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Steel, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Pardoe, Mr. Beith, Mr. Penhaligon, Mr. Freud, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Hooson and Mr. Stephen Ross.

TRANSPORT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  TRANSPORT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Mr. David Steel accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Transport Act 1968 and the Road Traffic Acts 1960 to 1972; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
3.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1609), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th October, be approved.
I wish to make it clear that this is not a renewal of the Act. It is an amendment Order which was made by me on 3rd October under Section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, using the urgency procedure under Section 29 of that Act, and requiring confirmation by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. The effect is to add the Ulster Volunteer Force to the list of proscribed organisations.
The UVF was named as a proscribed organisation in 1973, but on 4th April 1974 I said that I intended to bring forward an Order to de-proscribe it. The reason for this was that there were clear signs that many of its members wished to find a way back to political activity, and I was anxious that this should be encouraged. For a time it seemed that this more constructive path would be followed, and a political wing—the Volunteer Political Party—was formed and entered the field in the October General Election.
Unfortunately, it became increasingly clear during 1975 that a number of members of the UVF were deeply involved in sectarian violence and that the organisation was departing from the path of political argument. I would remind the House, for example, that the UVF admitted the Miami Show Band murders and further indiscriminate killings of Catholics on 2nd October this year. It became abundantly clear that a large number of members of the UVF were once more wedded to violence. Actions of this kind are crimes of the worst sort and are totally offensive to society. It was for these reasons that I signed an Order proscribing the UVF from midnight on 3rd October 1975. It is this Order which I am now asking the House to affirm.
I hope that the UVF will once again turn back to political argument, and I
234
shall return to this later. What I want to do today is to put to the House some wider issues of law and order.
The year 1975 has faced us with a totally different set of security problems. In the previous two years the overwhelming feature was the campaign of virtually unrestricted violence of the Provisional IRA, though it was accompanied by an undercurrent of sectarian murder. This year there have been fewer bombs and fewer attacks on security forces, though in recent months these have been increasing, and the Provisional IRA must bear a large part of the guilt. The prime emphasis this year has been on sectarian and interfactional killings. The figures speak for themselves. In all, 207 people have been killed, of whom 188 were civilians, and of these 157 have been classed as sectarian or interfactional murders. The UVF has played a prominent part in them.
The past week illustrates some facets of the position even more sharply. There have been 74 shooting incidents, the vast majority of which were concerned with the feud between the Official and Provisional IRA. I am glad to say that a number of people have already been charged, and other inquiries are being followed up. There have also been some arms finds overnight; and another man has been murdered in this feud. This is in addition to the five people killed and 64 injured during the week. The dead include a six-year-old child and the injured three women who were shot in the knee. Indeed, during 1975 no fewer than 168 people have been knee-capped. This compares with the figure of 127 for the whole of 1974 and 74 for 1973.
This is gangsterism. There is no other word for it. It can and will be dealt with by effective policing with the full support of the Army. The people responsible must be arrested and brought before the courts. This is the very strong view that I put before the House.
The security forces have been remarkably successful. This year, as of today, more than 1,000 people have been charged with serious crimes. They include no fewer than 118 charged with murder and 77 charged with attempted murder, while 283 travelling gunmen—some at least of whom must be regarded as potential murderers—have been arrested and

235
charged. The net increase in the convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland has been no less than 35 per cent. during the last 10 months, due largely to the more serious crimes committed and the longer sentences which are in consequence awarded by the courts.
Despite the fact that the number of detainees has fallen from 545 to 175, the number of special category prisoners has increased from 1,092 to 1,465. The House will know that male special category prisoners are not in cells but live a collaborative life in compound conditions.
This gives the background to the situation with which we have to deal. The Army still provides the framework for security, but the problem is quite different from that which obtained last year and we need to use different methods. My aim is to deal with it through the police and through the courts. We are faced with crimes against society which cannot be justified on the grounds of any political cause.
It is the police who must be the principal guardians of law and order for Northern Ireland. It is the people of Northern Ireland who can make the essential contribution to ending violence by giving their help to the police—and let no one in this House, which includes hon. Members who live there, be unaware of how difficult it is for the police. As I said in the White Paper of July 1974, however, nothing would transform the situation more quickly than a determination by the whole community to support the police service and co-operate with it.
Here I again pay tribute to the outstanding part which the Army has played and continues to play in supporting the civil power in preserving law and order. A day or two ago I spent an afternoon in Newtownhamilton, Forkhill and Cross-maglen to see the conditions and problems which, on this occasion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has to face. I came away feeling extraordinarily glad that it is the British Army which is dealing with the situation that is faced out there.
It is only against this background of the Army supporting the civil power in the preservation of law and order that the present successes have been achieved. Nevertheless, as the security situation improves
236
and as the police grow yet more successful, so I would envisage the Army being able to make a planned, orderly and progressive reduction in accordance with my statement in the White Paper of July 1974. This has been my overriding aim. It is not a question of political disengagement but depends on the progress that is made in bringing gangsters to justice.
The police expansion programme which started in September last year has shown good results. The regular Royal Ulster Constabulary has grown, as I told the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) recently, by about 300 to about 4,800 during 1975, and the Reserve has almost doubled in size from 2,500 to not far short of 5,000.
Great praise is due to the Chief Constable, Sir Jamie Flanagan, and his senior officers for the leadership and dedication they have shown in meeting the demands made on them, which are far in excess of those made on any other police force. They have not been afraid to make innovations such as the "A" Squad, which was introduced in July 1975 and which has already achieved remarkable results. There have also been outstanding feats of personal courage. In the last fortnight, a young policeman with only a couple of years' service and armed only with a hand gun arrested three armed youths. It is a characteristic of the RUC that it is a new and young force, the overwhelming majority of which have only a few years' service. The whole of the force deserves praise.
The people are in the front line, but there are two points I should make clear, because it is important to be clear as we come to discuss the future in Northern Ireland. The first is the independence of the police. From the Chief Constable down to the newest recruit, their duty is to the law and to the law alone. It is not for me to give them operational directions. It is not for the Police Authority to give them operational control. It is concerned with the efficient administration of the force and with senior appointments. That is the way it should be, that is the way it is and that is the way it will continue to be. There must be no political control of a police force. The independence of the police must be complete in the sense in which I have expressed it.

237
Lawlessness must be defeated in Northern Ireland, and with their growing rate of success I am entirely confident that the police will be fully capable of doing just that. It is, of course, the police who must and do take the lead in the fight against crime. The Army, in its rôle of giving military assistance to the civil power, will continue to support the police in all parts of Northern Ireland as long as it is needed
In some areas, such as along the border and in South Armagh, the Army's rôle will remain of particular importance. As criminals are caught, brought before the courts and sentenced, then the need of the police for more widespread support from the Army will become less. That is the path we intend to follow. It is the path that I have set as a guide since I took office, and in particular since the July White Paper last year. I am convinced that it is the right path for Northern Ireland.
The House is aware of the processes leading to detention as laid down in the Emergency Provisions Act. I have not signed an interim custody order—the first step—since 9th February this year. The reason for this is that I am determined that criminals shall be brought to justice through the courts. The figures I have already given demonstrate the increasing capacity of the police to find and bring to justice those involved. This requires skilful and patient police work.
For example, at my security meetings once a week, time and again the police report to me that a man has been charged with a crime committed perhaps a year before. It hardly hits the headlines, but if I had issued an interim custody order on the man on the day after the crime, if that had been possible, it would have hit the headlines. It is sad that the slow, patient work of the police does not get the recognition that it should. I believe that the full processes of the law are a much more effective deterrent and are more acceptable to the community as a whole than any emergency procedures.
If this policy is to succeed, I must take a number of steps to deal with the unique problems of the prison system which are peculiar to Northern Ireland. I have already given the figures about the number of prisoners who claim and who are granted special category status.
238
It seems to me that nearly everyone who claims it is granted it.
Whatever was the validity at the time—and I understood and supported the action then—in the new situation I am sure that it is wrong. I want to end this system, but the hard fact of life is that it cannot be ended while so many prisoners have to serve their sentences in compounds. If I were to end it now it would mean that the people would go into the compounds, and I would have changed only the name and made no difference to the facts of life.
The key to making progress is to build new prison accommodation, and the necessary building programme has started in the Maze Prison, where 200 cells will be available this month and more will become available next year. As the House knows, work will start shortly on a major new prison at Maghaberry which will provide more cells, but in the longer term. Maghaberry plays no part in the immediate situation.
The programme at the Maze Prison will allow a start to be made in changing the present prison régime—a régime which is made worse by a prison population unnecessarily high because of the absence of a parole scheme in Northern Ireland. This has long been recognised by successive Governments. After a very detailed study, I am in no doubt that a parole scheme on the lines of that in Great Britain will not at present work in Northern Ireland. The reasons are that it is just not possible to do this kind of professional assessment work in compounds or to exercise the necessary degree of supervision when parole is granted.
Any new measure must take account of the realities of the prison situation in Northern Ireland. I propose, therefore, to ask the House early in the new Session to approve an Order in Council which will provide for the conditional release of all convicted prisoners, after one half sentence, whether or not they have special category status. Such releases will be subject to good behaviour in prison. The essential condition will be that any prisoner so released who commits a further serious offence before the full term of his original sentence has expired will be liable to serve the outstanding balance of his existing

239
sentence in addition to any other penalty the court may impose. This will be a matter exclusively for the courts. The new system will replace the present one in Northern Ireland, which gives unconditional release at the moment after two-thirds of a sentence has been served.
These new proposals will not apply to the 97 life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland, and there will be no change in the procedure under which their cases will continue to be reviewed in consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. It is not a matter for me. If we multiplied that figure of 97 by approximately 40 it would give the equivalent number of life sentences in Great Britain.
I propose to introduce the new conditional release scheme on a phased basis over a four-month period from 1st March 1976, so that it will be fully effective by 1st July 1976. The effect of this in terms of average monthly releases will be that the present average figure of about 90 a month being released through ending their sentences will rise. I add that people refer quite properly to the number being released from detention. Every month a substantial number of people who have been sentenced are being released. This figure of about 90 a month will rise to somewhat more than double that figure for that period and then return to about its present level. That is a four-month period next year.
This new scheme will have little practical effect for those serving very short sentences, and I intend shortly to amend prison rules to provide simply that, for sentences of one year or less, the amount of remission will be increased from one-third to one-half. There are about 250 prisoners at present serving one year or less. This represents some 14 per cent. of the total of convicted prisoners.
I should make it plain that the parole schemes in Great Britain do not mean automatic release after only one-third of the sentence has been served. I understand that at present only about 40 per cent. of prisoners in Great Britain are granted parole, and although prisoners are eligible for consideration after one-third of the sentence has been served, it
240
is rare in practice for parole to be granted as early as this.
My scheme is conditional. The emphasis is on individual responsibility to live within the law. If this does not happen, then the sanctions I have outlined will apply.
The effect of this scheme and the new prison building programme will enable me to begin to bring to an end special category status. The facilities are not there for me to deal with those who have already been admitted to special category status. They will not be affected. But those sentenced for offences committed after 1st March 1976 will be accommodated in cellular accommodation and will not be able to claim special category status. Special category status is to end—slowly, I admit.
I also propose to take the opportunity to include in the forthcoming Order a number of other measures. It will provide for community service orders on the lines of those already operating in England and Wales, suspended sentences, and bail hostels.
There is a widespread belief in Northern Ireland that an amnesty will come. Special category status is thought by some to reinforce this belief. There are those who think that the special category means that the prisoner is different. He may have murdered. After the murder he may have dealt with the face of the man—and some terrible things happen. It may be felt that doing this is political and that this makes it a special category, that such people are special, and that the day will come when there will be an amnesty. I wish now to make it clear beyond peradventure that there will be no amnesty. Those who purport to believe that if murder and bombing have a convenient political label it means that they will receive an amnesty tragically mislead themselves. Let there be no misunderstanding of this.
I turn to detention. Since 1971, including those detained more than once, a total of just over 2,000 have been interned or detained. There are parts of Belfast, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows, where in a community living close together there is a high proportion of people who have been in the Maze. The average lime they have

241
been held in custody has been 18 months.
I have already made clear my desire to bring detention to an end, both because of the present successes in bringing people before the courts—this is an important point—and because there is a price to be paid for detention. It undermines the law. It alienates part of the community. It is a fertile ground for recruitment to the paramilitaries.
Nevertheless, it played an important part in dealing with violence in 1972–74. But I must point out that it did not end it. If the security position were to develop in such a way that detention is the right and only course, I shall not hesitate to resort to it again, and I shall seek the approval of the House to extend the relevant provisions in the Emergency Provisions Act in due course so that the powers remain available to me. But I want to make it clear that the onus of reintroduction will rest clearly, for all to see, on those who seek to gain their ends through violence when the political path is wide open for them to take.
It is my strong belief that, in the present security situation, if someone has committed a serious crime, he should be sentenced by the courts. He should not be dealt with by an executive system on an indeterminate basis. The steps which I have announced today strengthen me in my resolve to release all remaining detainees by Christmas, unless there is a fundamental change in the situation. I must emphasise, however, that no release from detention carries any immunity in the courts against prosecution. I repeat that if I have to resort to detention again I shall do so only to protect society. My aim is to release all detainees.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: When the policy of detention commenced in 1971, to what extent were the then Secretary of State and Home Secretary consulted about it?
Mr. Rees: Whatever happened under the legislation of 1922, 1926 and so on happened under the previous administration. I do not want to dodge the question. However, in 1971 I had no responsibility. But that is not to wash my hands of it. It is simply a short answer to my hon. Friend's question.
242
The violence will not disappear overnight. The Government want to see a permanent end to it. It was to explain the Government's policy that talks were held between my officials and Provisional Sinn Fein and other legal organisations. It was to monitor the cease-fire that the incident centres were set up. They were there for a positive purpose. They have served a useful purpose. But the changed nature of violence, the existence of various splinter groups and the events of the past few weeks have brought this usefulness into question. The opportunity for usefulness is still there, but I must say that in practice it has diminished.
What I would make crystal clear is that the Government are not prepared to abrogate their responsibility for the rule of law and the maintenance of order. We are acting and will continue to act on an even-handed basis. Those who commit criminal offences will be brought to justice. The 1,000 to whom I referred as having been charged since the turn of the year include Provisionals, Officials, IRSP, Loyalists of various hues, including UVF, and other criminals. I shall not give the precise figure, but of about 1,500 special category prisoners—people who are self-classified and who themselves when sentenced say that they want to be classified to live in compounds with certain brands of Loyalists or with certain brands of Republicans—about 900 are Republican and about 600 are Loyalist.
I give those figures to illustrate that the fact that there is no signing of ICOs—the beginning of the detention process—does not mean that people belonging to paramilitary organisations are not being dealt with through the due processes of the courts. Almost daily in the newspapers of Belfast it is reported that there has been a trial that day and that someone belonging to a paramilitary organisation has been sentenced to gaol. It is not just through detention that those who purport to be acting politically by killing and murdering are dealt with.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for not having intervened a little earlier and, therefore, for asking the right hon. Gentleman to backtrack a few passages in his speech. He referred just now to the incident centres and expressed an opinion about their diminishing usefulness, with which most Northern Ireland Members would agree—indeed, I think

243
that they would regard it as an understatement. When he said that, did he mean that it was his intention, nevertheless, to maintain them, or will he bring them to an end?
Mr. Rees: I expressed the view that their usefulness was diminishing. I looked carefully at the reports this morning before leaving Northern Ireland. There has been some usefulness, in terms of information which has been of use to the security forces. I prefer to leave the final decision for a while in order to see how the situation develops. Their usefulness has diminished.
Violence will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It will only create more violence. The other day, I dealt with the case involving the transference of a prisoner. It concerned a young person just coming up to the age of 17. It does not matter for the moment which paramilitary group he wanted to join when he went into prison proper. But it was my job to read the details of the case, to discover whether his parents wanted it, and to give my approval or otherwise. He had been involved in six murders, and it was quite clear what had sparked him off. Some three or four years ago someone belonging to his family had been killed by the other side. Violence breeds violence and, as we have seen in the events of the past few days in West Belfast, even interfactional violence. It will breed more violence. The rule of law supported by the community, who can do a great deal to keep the peace, and the political will to work together over a period of years—not weeks—can and will result in progress, which is what we all want to see.
There is a political way forward and, when the Convention Report is received, every political avenue must be followed to find a solution with widespread acceptance through out the community.
I have lived and worked in Northern Ireland for 20 months. I understand in a way that I did not before why it is that political attitudes are polarised. But I have also realised that the vast majority of both communities reject the gangster-ism perpetrated in their name. I understand why it is that the minority community do not support the IRA but nevertheless reject detention. I want to
244
end detention, but that minority community must help and play their part.
I understand and totally share the feeling in the community as a whole that lawlessness must be dealt with. This is best done by the police and the rule of law. It is against this background that I present the Order before the House, which has the effect of re-proscribing the Ulster Volunteer Force. Once an organisation is proscribed under the Emergency Provisions Act 1973 it becomes an offence to belong to it, to profess to belong to it, to solicit financial or other support for it, or knowingly to make or receive any contribution to it. Under the Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Act 1975 it becomes an offence to solicit a person to become a member of the organisation or to carry out its instructions.
This Order will increase the possibilities of bringing people before the courts.
Mr. John Farr: Can the right hon Gentleman say whether this Order will also proscribe members of this force in Great Britain, or is it just applicable to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Rees: The Order is applicable just to Northern Ireland. It is not for me to say what happens here. I have no responsibility. My judgment with regard to the UVF is in the context of Northern Ireland. It is for others to make a judgment about whether the main problem arises in Great Britain.
This Order will increase the possibilities of bringing people before the courts. I am sure that the police and the courts, with no diminution of my praise for the Army—I learned it afresh down on the border last week—believe that this is the way to proceed and that this is the way to get the support of the community as a whole. The community as a whole have had enough of gangsterism. They can help in a major way. We can help by the direction of our policy, and one important part is to begin the end of the special category, and the kudos that it gives to the people involved.
4.18 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The Opposition agree with the purposes of the Order and with a great deal of what the Secretary of State said.

245
The UVF has admitted openly to serious crimes of violence, and this Order is the immediate result of its terrible 24-hour blitz of bomb and gun attacks on 2nd October which will not be forgotten for some time in most parts of Northern Ireland.
We agree also with a great deal of the other matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and we welcome the intention of the Government to end the special category. This is an essential step in making it clear that terrorists and murderers cannot be dignified with a political label. This is a very important move.
We also welcome the fact that there will be no amnesty. I hope that all concerned will take note of everything the Secretary of State has said about that. If he decides to reply to this debate, it will be interesting to know whether those who cease to belong to special categories and who are the subject of a conditional release scheme will have to give an undertaking not to engage in terrorist activities. I raised this point in Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember. Perhaps he will deal with it towards the end of the debate.
Although Conservative Members remain of the opinion that fundamental questions of policy should be treated on the bipartisan principle whenever possible, we have always reserved the right to probe and sometimes to disagree with the Government's security measures, as did the right hon. Gentleman when he was in opposition. Therefore, I want to raise a number of points.
We should not be prepared to become involved in any strategy of withdrawal of the Army at present. The Government have made this clear on several occasions. I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said as a tribute to the Services and the police. There are certainly areas in Northern Ireland where the Government need to toughen up their security measures. In the course of my remarks I shall mention them.
Proscription of terrorist organisations such as the UVF raises a number of important questions. Many people will ask why the Provisional Sinn Fein, as the political wing of the Provisional IRA, is not included in this Order. The Minister
246
of State may wish to explain this for the benefit of public opinion. The Secretary of State, as he described in his remarks, de-proscribed the UVF and the Provisional Sinn Fein last year, adding the hope that they would find their way back to political activity. We agreed with that at the time. Some members of the UVF tried to do this but they received a negligible percentage of votes. This has led to increasing militancy.
What is the distinction between the UVF and the Provisional Sinn Fein in this respect? The Sinn Fein has made no attempt to enter democratic politics. On the other hand, it does not claim responsibility for violence as the so-called political wing of the Provisional IRA. Some find the distinction difficult to understand, especially those who strongly dislike the idea of conversations between officials and the Provisional Sinn Fein. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with this point.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the 1973 Act the then Secretary of State arranged for the Sinn Fein—that is, both Official and Provisional Sinn Fein—to be proscribed. Last year I de-proscribed the Sinn Fein—again, both the Provisional Sinn Fein and the Official Sinn Fein. The distinction between the IRA and Sinn Fein is a meaningful one, certainly in West Belfast and with regard to the numbers involved.
Mr. Neave: It may be said that those two organisations were not directly at war at that time. Public opinion in Northern Ireland is exercised about this. It is a matter which the Government should consider. Proscription is a difficult measure in itself because it will not substantially alter the activities of any terrorist organisation. Proscription may end the affront to public opinion by the open soliciting of funds and Press statements which claim responsibility for what all hon. Members regard as the most despicable crimes.
We are also entitled to ask how the provisions of the principal Act relating to proscription are to be enforced. I am considerably worried about this, as are many others. Before the Summer Recess, hon. Members who were present at the Standing Committee when we discussed this will remember that Conservative Members moved amendments to enable

247
security forces more easily to secure convictions of members of proscribed organisations. However, these were difficult points and we did not succeed. Since then there has been some consternation in Northern Ireland and elsewhere about the non-arrest of individuals such as Seamus Twomey. Many believe that if the case for membership of an illegal organisation cannot be made out against him, it cannot be made out against anyone, because he is generally believed to be chief of staff of the Provisional IRA.
On a recent visit to the Province I discussed this matter with the legal authorities and others. Although there are difficulties, I suggest that the Secretary of State should reconsider the possibility of using the system which is now in use in the Republic of Ireland. The law in this respect has to be amended to make it more effective and to give more confidence to the people. In the Republic of Ireland a statement under oath by a senior police officer that he believes an accused to be a member of an illegal organisation is accepted as prima facie evidence. There is a division of opinon here. There are those in the police who believe that it cannot be done and there are those in the legal world who believe that it is possible. Perhaps the Government will tell hon. Members their thinking on this point. There is no purpose in this House passing a statute part of which it is admitted cannot be enforced. I am trying to put forward a constructive suggestion.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have considered this matter carefully and have rejected the system which applies in the South. If we wish to lock people up in a way which is outside the courts' jurisdiction, we should be clear—I am not talking about the South, because the South governs itself—about the matter and return to the system of detention. We would be moving away from the processes of law. I have considered it and I do not believe that it can be done. I do not interfere in what the police want to do. All I have said is that people will not be the subject of an ICO for the moment.
There must be evidence of membership to put before a court. It is not good enough to say that one believes or thinks
248
or that maybe such is the case. If I proceeded on the basis of "think" or "maybe" in Northern Ireland, I should be proceeding against the beliefs of a large number of people. There must be evidence of membership. I have with me my Labour Party membership card. However, I do not think that many people carry a membership card of the sort of organisations about which we are talking which could be used as proof.
Mr. Neave: No. However, there is a need to find means of enforcing the law. We have only just passed this statute. Just two or three months later we are saying that that part of the Act of Parliament which relates to membership of a proscribed organisation cannot readily be enforced in Northern Ireland. There should be some examination of this point. The Secretary of State has graphically illustrated the difficulties of producing evidence of membership. He should consider this matter seriously.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in 1971 when internment was first introduced it was on the word of the RUC. the police force, which advised the then Prime Minister in the Northern Ireland Parliament that it had grounds for believing that all those who were to be arrested and interned were members of illegal organisations? Subsequently it was found by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on investigating the papers, that there was no proof that those people were members of illegal organisations. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), the then Secretary of State, took a courageous step and released many hundreds who had been arrested on the say-so of the police.
Mr. Neave: I dare say that that is so if this is a question of strict proof. This is the view that many lawyers take. It is essential that we find a way of giving evidence to a court, perhaps by a police officer or someone else who knows that a particular person belongs to an illegal organisation. I hope that this matter will be dealt with in the winding-up speech. It is one which we have discussed a good deal in the past. Such proof requires to be according to law, but not, I believe, in such a way that it prevents police evidence being given in any circumstances.

249
There are too many violent organisations in Ulster, some illegal and some not. That is really why I am raising this point and why the Government must look at the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and others as to whether we ought not to review the entire matter again.
We regard the Order as necessary. However, on a wider point, I think that the Government must create an atmosphere of respect for the law in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said that that was the function of the Government, and I think that is true. The question is, how can this atmosphere be created more effectively?
I am sure that the House will be with me when I say that we shall not be intimidated by bombs, either in London or Belfast, as the very brave example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) has recently shown. Likewise, we should remember the ordeal of both Catholics and Protestants in ordinary homes in Ulster, hon. Members who represent Ulster constituencies, Members of the Constitutional Convention and all those in judicial office and the public services. There are also the members of the various security forces and the UDR who daily carry out their duties in a way which ought to command the respect of all civilised people.
I think that the House should know the present position with regard to the cease-fire with the IRA. The Secretary of State said in the House on 26th June:
"I want to go through the courts."
Perhaps I may say that, whatever my views about releases from detention, I agree with him that these matters should ideally be dealt with through the courts. However, he also said,
"But if there were a military campaign with the middle of Belfast burning in the way we have known in the past, we should not be able to stand back."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 819–20.]
During the bombing blitz, on 22nd September, this time by the IRA, not only was the centre of Belfast burning but so were the centres of other towns in the Province. After the UVF bombings on 2nd October, which I mentioned earlier, there were massive swoops in County Antrim and scores of people were brought before the courts—which is quite
250
right. But after the increased IRA activity there were stricter security measures, certainly—I pressed those on the right hon. Gentleman during the recess—but so far there do not seem to have been the same results. No doubt there are good reasons for this. It is perhaps due to the inability of the RUC to operate in certain IRA areas.
Like many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side of the House, during the recess I visited South Armagh. There was a massively publicised search operation during September, but it does not seem that a very large number of terrorists were actually caught. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that he still needs to restore confidence in the area in his determination to stamp out the threat in the area from the IRA. I am sure he could not disagree with that.
Effective policing, as the right hon. Gentleman has often said, is the only answer in an area where I have been told by the police that there are examples of children of 12 and 13 driving untaxed and uninsured vehicles on the road. It is in respect of the law as a whole, not only the law relating to murder but in the use of cars or indiscriminate terrorism, that order must be restored in Northern Ireland.
So far not all that amount of progress has been made in reintroducing the RUC, although it has done magnificently well by bringing people before the courts, into certain parts of Northern Ireland. I would instance South Armagh, Mid-Ulster, parts of West Belfast and parts of Londonderry. I hope that the security forces under the right hon. Gentleman's direction are concentrating in those areas, because the restoration of respect for the law, the ordinary law of the land with regard to domestic things rather than murder and terrorism alone, must be enforced. For a younger generation to grow up without any regard for the minor consequences of breaches of the law will bode very ill for the future. This must be done whatever constitutional solution we in this House agree upon in the future months for Ulster. The latest outbreak to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, interfactional IRA violence, is a symptom of the breakdown of civilised values, which the Government have a unique duty to uphold. In doing that,

251
although we should be ready to criticise the Government or disagree when we think they are wrong, we shall give them full support when they take measures which are essential.
The Order expresses our deep abhorrence of one violent organisation, and we therefore support the right hon. Gentleman in this matter.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I ought to begin by assuring the Secretary of State that my colleagues and I have no intention of moving an amendment to add the Labour Party to the list of proscribed organisations—so that he can continue to carry and exhibit the document to which he has recently referred.
Although we are very grateful to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the latitude given to us to discuss the wider statement of the Secretary of State, a matter which is not strictly within the terms of the order, we shall want to study the statement in detail, particularly the complicated passages about release and the ending of political status, the special category.
At first glance, however, we recognise that the Secretary of State has gone a long way towards meeting the requests which we have repeatedly put to him regarding the introduction of a parole system roughly on the lines of that obtaining in Great Britain. It may be that the conditional plan is the best we can get in the meantime. We are aware of the difficulties which would confront any Secretary of State trying to implement the English system with conditions as they are in Northern Ireland.
With regard to the special category, my hon. Friends and I disagreed with the practice of classifying some convicted prisoners as special category—entitled, as they were, to special treatment by reason of the supposedly political motive which prompted the offence for which they had been convicted. This practice, as I understand it, has no basis either in common law or in statute law, and I doubt very much whether it has any basis in any of the emergency regulations. Certainly, as the Secretary of State has said, it tends to glamorise the offenders and to
252
raise hopes of an early amnesty, thus reducing the deterrent. It should never have been adopted, and we support the Secretary of State's decision to phase it out.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the very worst feature of it is that the special category is self-selecting, because there is no judicial decision whether a person is in the special category? He comes to the camp and says, "I am so and so", and if he is accepted into the compound, in he goes.
Mr. Molyneaux: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and there are other aspects of the matter which we need not go into at present. However, I think that all of us agree that the idea of a special category was a highly undesirable exercise.
With regard to the Order, no one will disagree with the Secretary of State's decision to include the UVF on the list of proscribed organisations. Following its operations on 2nd October, I think he had very little option. But whether the mere act of proscription will make the organisation any more easily dealt with is a matter for doubt.
Presumably, if a member of the organisation is found guilty of an offence he will be dealt with accordingly and suffer a penalty. But if he is merely shown to be a member of the organisation, presumably nothing very much will happen to him and he will be allowed to go free. I doubt whether any hon. Member in the House really supposes that a proscription order by itself will make any significant difference to achieving the desired result, which is to defeat terrorism in its many forms.
For some time we have discussed murders and shootings in terms of tit for tat. I do not think we have ever clearly specified who is tit, and who is tat, and I suggest that tat is that element in the violence with which we ought to be concerned and which must first be eliminated, because that ruthless, guerrilla force which we know as the Provisional IRA is the root cause from which all the subsidiary and subordinate violence sprang. It has been the failure of successive Governments to deal firmly with that primary cause that has brought into being all

253
these do-it-yourself organisations that we all strongly condemn.
I agree that the Government cannot and should not relax their efforts until legal authority is restored and all wrongdoers are firmly dealt with. Their task in achieving that will be made very much easier once they have demonstrated their determination to ensure that terrorism in all its many forms will be defeated. Once the Government demonstrate their determination to restore the civil authority in all parts of Northern Ireland, the message will quickly get through to all levels of evil doers of every grade and they will be all the more easily dealt with, as dealt with they will have to be.
One form that that message of firmness might take is to end all contacts and talks with any terrorist body, because such talks encourage terrorists to believe that somehow or other, at some time or other, a deal will be done. We welcome the assurance of the Secretary of State that there will be no question of granting an amnesty. That will do much to reassure people in Northern Ireland, but convicted terrorists have a great capacity for deluding themselves and if we preserve in being the mechanism for doing a deal, that will make it that much easier for them to kid themselves that the mechanism will one day be activated and brought into use.
There is another part of the message that would be extremely effective. It has been referred to by the Secretary of State—and we understand his reasons for not wishing to press further ahead with it at present—and that is the question of the incident centres. This is not a strange demand for Ulster Members to make. We have said it before, and we do not apologise for repeating it, because our demand has become more relevant with every month that has passed and with every bomb that has been detonated. In our view, these incident centres can do nothing but harm and the sooner they are finally disposed of the better. However, in view of the remarks of the Secretary of State, my colleagues and I should not want to press him further on that matter now.
A major hazard lies ahead of us, and that is the Christmas season and all that goes with it, because prior to last Christmas there was a feeling—perhaps it was more than a feeling because it was based on fact and knowledge—that at long last
254
the security situation was beginning to stabilise and there were clear indications that the Provisional IRA and certain other terrorist organisations were seriously weakened and facing defeat. But then there came to their rescue various well-meaning but totally misguided persons, and no doubt their appearance was no mere accident. No doubt they received innocent, or seemingly innocent, invitations. No doubt there were hints, nods and winks, but the effect of it all was utterly disastrous.
The appearance of these people could only have the effect of weakening the Government's position, because my colleagues and I can think back to some of these television appearances and recall a well-meaning cleric appearing on the "box" and saying, "We have been talking to leaders of the IRA. We find them to be reasonable and sensible people. Tomorrow we shall talk to the Secretary of State, and if he will be equally reasonable we have no reason to believe that a truce cannot be arranged".
In all fairness, what else could the Government do but make some move in that direction and at least listen to what was being put to them? It was for that reason that my colleagues and I thought it right at that time, and in those early months of the year, to support the Secretary of State because we realised that he was having the rug pulled from underneath him by people Who we might charitably say did not really know what they were doing. Some of them ought to have known better.
I make this plea to them and to all those who might be tempted to repeat this kind of exercise. They and all Members in this House must recognise that responsibility must rest where the power lies, and that power lies here in this Parliament and with this Government. I have tried on various occasions to assure the Secretary of State—and I hope he will realise that I am sincere when I say this—that firm action by him and by the Government would be supported by all political parties in Northern Ireland—because what have any of them to gain from a continuation of violence?—and by all responsible and right-thinking citizens throughout Northern Ireland.
Finally, I beseech the Government to exploit to the full the support and good

255
will which they now have in Northern Ireland and to lead us in the crusade to rid this Province of ours of the plague of violence once and for all.
4.47 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: It is ironic that we should today be discussing the proscription of the Ulster Volunteer Force because of the brutal murder of a number of Catholics in the month of October when within the past few days we have witnessed the terrible spectacle of Catholics being murdered by Catholics and some of them in an even more atrocious manner than that used by the UVF.
I suggest that the UVF is not being singled out today because of the single series of killings early in October. Since last year, when the Secretary of State tried to involve this organisation in legitimate of political action, there have been a series of murders in what has become known as the murder triangle in the North Armagh area and openly claimed by the UVF. Many innocent people have been brutally murdered by the UVF and an associate force which has not been mentioned by the Secretary of State, the Protestant Action Force, which claims to have some association with the UVF, just as the UFF, Ulster Freedom Fighters as they were called, claimed an association with the UDA.
I wonder whether, at this stage, the proscription that has been announced by my right hon. Friend will also apply to the Protestant Action Force, which seems sometimes to contain members of the UVF but is the Protestant Action Force when its members are engaged in murder.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend has raised an important point which ties in with our discussions in Committee. The UVF is an old name going back to before the First World War. It is easy for people to change the name of an organisation from day to day. I forget whether it is 40 or 49 different organisations that one can find. As I say, it is easy to change a name, and one cannot make a change every day to allow for the various names of an organisation that is so ephemeral. That illustrates the nature of the problem.
Mr. Fitt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I have a newspaper cutting here stating that the UVF recently formed what it calls the Ulster Central Intelligence Agency, composed of the UVF, the Protestant Action Force and the Red Hand Commandos. I agree that these names spring up overnight, but if someone is to be charged now with an offence and claims to be a member of the PAF, what will be the legal position? Will the Secretary of State then say that he will bring in an Order to proscribe the PAF? I realise that there is tremendous difficulty here.
As for the UVF, in 1968, before there was an IRA as we know it now, it was the UVF which engaged in the first bombings of strategic areas in Northern Ireland, with the intention of bringing about the downfall of the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill. So it is well recognised in Northern Ireland as a force which is determined to use violence to achieve their political ends, whatever they may be. Speaking as a Catholic, I believe that the UVF would be the most feared of all the Loyalist organisations outside the UFF, which also has claimed responsibility for some of the most heinous crimes.
But will proscription have any effect? I remember that, on the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act as it applied to the United Kingdom, I tried to move an amendment to include the UVF and the UFF, which are not unknown in this part of the United Kingdom. Many of their members have been charged before the courts in Great Britain. I agree with the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that if they are proscribed in Northern Ireland they should also be proscribed in Great Britain. The Home Secretary should consider this.
In the early days of October, when so many Catholics were killed—I knew them all and attended every one of their funerals—they were killed by the UVF because they were Catholics. Within the past 72 hours or four days, an almost equal number of Catholics have been killed not by the UVF but by those who would claim to be the protectors of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. My condemnation is not selective against the UVF or extreme Loyalist forces. It is

257
levelled against anyone who uses violence, either of the bomb or of the bullet, and against the taking of innocent lives, as happens throughout my constituency.
In the past two or three days, five Catholics have been killed by the Provisional IRA. One Provisional IRA Catholice has been killed and it is suspected that another was killed by the Official IRA. There have been scores of instances of knee-capping. Only yesterday, we read in the Press that a 10-year-old girl was knee-capped—I suspect by the Provisional IRA—and it is possible that she will never walk again. My right hon. Friend was right to say that violence in Northern Ireland is not restricted to one section of the community. There are far too many people with guns.
When political category status was introduced, I thought that it was a recognition of the fact that there were people involved who honestly believed that they were engaged in a political battle to achieve their idealistic ends. I disagreed completely with it, but I know that there are people, probably on both sides, who are absolutely convinced that they are engaged in a political struggle. Many of them may be men of integrity and supreme honesty—I do not know. But I know that those responsible for the killing of a six-year old girl in my constituency last week and for shooting the kneecaps of an 18-year-old girl, those responsible for all the murders of recent weeks and days, have no right to political status because they are not engaged in political activities. They are engaged in mass murder, thuggery and gangsterism. From that point of view, I do not regret seeing the end of political status.
However, I am wholly convinced that there are people engaged in this struggle who honestly believe they have a right to act as they have acted. My right hon. Friend will have to separate those people who were legitimately caught up in what they regarded as political action and have been sentenced to imprisonment and who have not been engaged in vile murder and terrorism. There is a clear distinction to be made. I would lend myself to helping the Secretary of State in any way to differentiate those people.
But there will be difficulty about ending the special category. For example,
258
my right hon. Friend has said that he will end that status next March—
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): For new entrants.
Mr. Fitt: Yes, for new entrants. But my right hon. Friend also congratulated the police on their efforts to bring before the courts those engaged in violence. Next week, if a person is arrested by the police for a crime committed last year, he will still be able to claim political status. But will that end after March? If someone is apprehended after March, after the ending of political categories, for a crime that he committed when political categories existed, will be be able to claim that status or will it finish completely in March?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Could I get this right, because it is important that it should be clear in the prisons of Northern Ireland? Those sentenced for offences committed after 1st March 1976 will be accommodated in cellular accommodation and will not be able to claim special category status.
Mr. Fitt: With respect, that does not clarify it. My right hon. Friend refers to those sentenced for offences committed after 1st March. But if someone is arrested after 1st March next year for an offence committed this year, will he be afforded that status?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: This will apply for offences committed after 1st March.
Mr. Fitt: As I say, there will be reason to scrutinise closely those who have been afforded political status in Northern Ireland. I hope that those who are engaged in what they would regard as a political struggle—whether the Provisional IRA or the UVF or extreme Loyalist organisations—will recognise that they have no possibility of winning the battle in which they are engaged. That applies right across the board, to the UVF and to the Republican forces. My knowledge of the situation convinces me that they will not be the victors in the long term.
The whole Catholic community is standing back in fear, terror and revulsion at the happenings over the past four or five days. So many innocent people have been killed and maimed.

259
Those engaged in this action do not have the support of the Catholic community. Last year, when the UV and the UVA were engaged in an internecine war, the Catholic community was inclined to say, "Very good: let them go on murdering each other." In the same way, I suspect that the Protestant community is hoping that at the moment the Catholic community will rend itself asunder because of the activities of these paramilitary groups.
No one has listened to me in the past. However, I make an impassioned appeal to everyone, especially to all those on the Republican side in which I would be classed because I am a Catholic and come from that community, to desist from further action so as to ensure that there is some hope of bringing normality to Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a tribute to the police in Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland recognised that there was a problem with the RUC because of its political overtones, because it was under the political control of a Minister of Home Affairs and because it had never been accepted by the Catholics as their police force.
In Britain everyone of every political persuasion, whether he be Labour, Liberal, Conservative, National Front and so on, regards the police of this country as his police force. That was never so in Northern Ireland. The majority community always took the view that it was their police force and that it existed to implement laws which the majority regarded, rightly or wrongly, were aimed at oppressing the Catholic population. We have come a long way since then. There may be slight signs that the police force in Northern Ireland is not what it was in 1969, but more dramatic steps will have to be taken and many things done in the police force before it can be accepted by the whole community in Northern Ireland.
I unhesitatingly state that I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland police will be in full and complete control of law in Northern Ireland, because I do not believe that the British Army is the right weapon or the right
260
structure to use in Northern Ireland to try to enforce law and order.
Mr, Miscampbell: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. What steps have to be taken to make the police force now acceptable? That is one of the crunch issues in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Fitt: I do not want to anticipate a debate which we shall probably have in early December, but I believe that political steps have been taken, which have been obvious during the past few months, in which politicians, not of my persuasion, were involved, notably the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). Those political steps have made it clear that it is not impossible to create acceptable political structures in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. I believe that this can be done.
I shall dedicate myself on behalf of my party and the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland to that end. I hope that this will be met by a response from the representatives of the Loyalist community. I hope that we can get together and create acceptable political structures in Northern Ireland which will involve the whole community, because in that situation there will be absolutely nothing which will prevent wholehearted support from being given to the police.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: We have all listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State has said. He knows from the representations which I have made to him over recent weeks that there will be a ready welcome for his improvements to our penal system, especially concerning the phasing out of the special category status.
There are one or two matters on which I should like further clarification. The Secretary of State said that he proposed shortly to amend the Regulations and to increase remission for short-term prisoners to one-half. What is meant by "short-term prisoners"? I should also like clarification concerning the conditional release system which is to be proposed. What sort of sentence qualifies for that type of remission? Will short-term sentences be treated differently with 50 per cent. remission and no conditional release, while long-term sentences can

261
merit conditional release amounting to 50 per cent.?
Mr. Orme: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Under one year". The answer to the second part is "Over one year".
Mr. Craig: There was also a brief reference to the fact that the Order will make provision for community service orders, deferred sentences and bail hostels. All those involved in the legal processes in Northern Ireland will welcome such proposals.
However, there is one aspect of the whole procedure which is causing great concern, and that is the abnormal time that prisoners spend on remand. I have known cases to be remanded in custody for approximately 16 months. No one will welcome such a situation. As the Secretary of State is addressing his mind to the improvement of the operation of the law of Northern Ireland, I hope that he will give early attention to this matter.
I turn to the terrorist situation. I readily concede that considerable progress has been made in dealing with terrorist offences through the courts. The record is quite impressive. However, although there has been progress terrorism is still a real threat to our community. Indeed, some of us fear that it will not be long before we have to withstand another major onslaught. I was reassured to hear the Secretary of State say that in that event he would be prepared to reintroduce detention.
However, I should have been happier if there had been some indication that we were to have a special code of law to deal with terrorism, because it is most horrible when it is reduced to the level of indiscriminate murder. I believe that the penalties are far from adequate and that we should attach a heavier penalty, perhaps even thinking in terms of capital punishment. I should like the Goverment to think in terms of a special code of law that would apply to a terror situation bearing in mind whether one has to declare a state of emergency or whether the courts will decide that the offence was committed in a terrorist situation.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who has great experience,
262
will take the point further. Let us consider the position where someone robs a bank. Friday is bank-robbing day by paramilitary organisations, although this trend has decreased slightly in recent months. Let us assume that there is a straightforward classical robbery of a bank or a post office, that the offenders are caught and, when sentenced to two, three or four years' imprisonment, claim to belong to a paramilitary organisation. How would one decide, without the self-classification, that it was a terrorist offence? If the sentence was trebled for such an offence, it would be easy for the culprits not to claim that they belonged to such an organisation. I can see the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making concerning murder, but how would such a system work with a vast range of offences?
Mr. Craig: I was about to come to that point. I appreciate the difficulties, and that was why I was speculating that it might well be left to the courts to decide whether the offence was committed in a terrorist context. I was thinking particularly about bank robberies carried out by members of an illegal organisation.
We have proscribed another organisation today. If a member of that organisation commits a bank robbery, it is at least reasonable to assume that he has done so in pursuit of his membership of that organisation and, therefore, the onus of proof should perhaps switch to him.
I was a little unhappy that the Secretary of State should depart so quickly from the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) regarding membership laws as they exist in the Irish Republic. Those laws have been very valuable in the Irish Republic, and I prefer that system to executive detention. I hope that we shall be able to look at this situation again. I do not know how many organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed at the moment, but there are very few convictions for membership of illegal organisations. I ask the Secretary of State not to close his mind entirely to this type of legislation whereby the onus of proof can be switched to the accused in terms not only of membership

263
of an illegal organisation but of specific crimes which are being committed.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State that, apart from laws and detention procedures, the way to defeat terrorism is by the whole community co-operating with the police and security forces. I think we can honestly report that that is happening now. I was pleased at the revulsion felt by the whole community following that awful day of UVF terrorism. I know that a lot of information was given to the police following that terrible day.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) could not have been more forthcoming by making a call for assistance to be given to the RUC and the Army in their difficult task. Had he done so, I am sure that it would have helped the situation and would lead to a political settlement. I am not trying to score cheap political points. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties and welcome the steps that he has taken. I merely ask him to hurry the pace a little, because I detect a great willingness all over the Province to have a speedy decision and restoration of law and order. That will come from the lead that politicians can give, from the agreements that politicians can enter into and from the support that politicians can give to the forces of law and order.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the phasing out of detention by Christmas and his reiteration of what he has already said on this matter. However, there is one point on which I disagree about detention. My right hon. Friend seemed to think that in the years 1972 and 1973 it was conducive to cutting down a great deal of the violence. I suggest that much of the violence was caused by the creation of detention in 1971 and that that was the reason for rent strikes and people joining paramilitary organisations. The great lesson to be learned is that a precipitate and clumsy stroke like that can cause far more harm than the immediate good which it might at first appear to create. In this instance
264
internment created no good and brought long-term disruption to Northern Ireland.
Dealing with parole, my right hon. Friend said that in any case of conditional release, if the releasee were convicted of another serious offence, he would have to serve the remaining part of the sentence from which he was released. How is "serious offence" to be defined? Is it associated with terrorist activities? Would it come under the offence of terrorism under the present legislation, or under another offence outside that area? This is important.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I used the word "serious" because I was giving advance notice of the scheme. It will be defined in the Order that I will introduce. The difficulties of definition will be seen more clearly then. I used the word "serious" in the sense of "important".
Mr. McNamara: If a person kills somebody by drunken driving, that is important, but it has nothing to do with terrorism. That is why I am seeking to draw a distinction. It is a matter about which we should be very certain.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) spoke in glowing terms of the system in the Republic of Ireland of convicting people in special courts on the say-so of a senior police officer. One of the main difficulties in Northern Ireland has been the grave suspicion attached to the police force by not only the minority but parts of the majority community.
This situation was highlighted in the period leading up to detention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, by the poor information given to the executive, with the resultant difficulties. If we put the police in that situation, we might ruin the tremendously good work that they are doing. Conviction rates are now higher among people of both communities because both communities are coming forward with information about terrorism and other offences. To ruin all that by putting a policeman, albeit a special policeman, in the witness box on oath to say what he believes to be true without producing positive evidence would be counterproductive.

265
The only reason that system succeeds in the Republic is that the Garda is generally accepted by the whole population. All the good work being done in the furtherance of my right hon. Friend's policy, which is direct and correct, of bringing people to court, getting convictions and having them sentenced properly, could be put at risk. It could be as useless an expedient as detention in trying to deal with a very difficult situation.
The same argument applies to the proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East regarding a special system of law. My right hon. Friend said that he would get rid of political status. He says that if a man breaks the law, he is a criminal. We may not like the law and we may seek to change it by democratic methods. The paths to democracy in Northern Ireland are now open as they were not before. However, if we create a special law, we shall be going back to everything associated with the Special Powers Act. Everything that was evil within that Act, which was a cause of great concern, would come back again. If we introduce a system whereby we say "That man is guilty of that offence, but, bingo, we shall put him under another special law and bring him up before a special court", we shall be going back to the old system.
Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman has given reasons, which no doubt the House and the Government will consider, for rejecting what I suggested. However, I think that he will agree that the Government should consider how the law regarding membership of a proscribed organisation can be enforced. If the Southern Irish system is not suitable for Northern Ireland, has he any suggestion about how the law should be enforced?
Mr. McNamara: I believe that the law should be enforced by being administered impartially, by our giving every help and succour to the police force in times of difficulty, by ensuring that the police force is seen to be independent of political motivation and pressure, and by the police acting in the interests of the whole community. I believe my right hon. Friend's policy is beginning to bear fruit in just that way. The hon. Member is suggesting we should put the whole thing at risk once again.
266
In a sense, we are going through a charade in banning the UVF. As my right hon. Friend has admitted, his hand was forced by the events of 2nd October. I am not certain that banning any organisation is ever of any value, even in a political terrorist situation, but at least under this Order evidence will have to be produced of membership and involvement in the activities of a proscribed organisation. That is the difference between the situation in the North and that in the Republic where the same degree of evidence does not have to be produced for a person to get a six-month prison sentence. In the Republic the case is decided merely on the word of a senior police officer. A similar policy in Northern Ireland in the past has been disastrous.
Mr. Craig: I accept what the hon. Member says about putting the police in a difficult situation, but how is it more difficult for them than detention? The Secretary of State has said that if there is another major onslaught, he will detain again.
Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Member is asking me to answer for the sins of my right hon. Friend, who is well able to do that for himself, but I am prepared to absolve him. The difference is relatively simple. We are phasing out detention and hoping that it will never be reintroduced. If it is reintroduced, it will be in a completely different political climate. The grounds for introducing it in 1971 are gone—Stormont is gone, the alleged discrimination against one part of the community is gone and the roads towards political democracy and progress are open to everyone.
The police are gradually getting away from any involvement in politics and, because the situation has changed, our position is strengthened if it is necessary to reintroduce detention. There is a difference in attitude among both communities towards the police, who are seen to be becoming more impartial.
I hope that we shall not hear pleas from any part of the House for members of the SDLP to make speeches urging support for the police force. That would be counter-productive. They must do that in their own time and in their own way. The real test of acceptability is that people are giving the police information

267
and are helping them. It is not right to refer to a case which is sub judice, but if that case is proved, the fact that the police succeeded will be far more significant than any speeches that could be made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend quite properly raises the matter of evidence in relation to the existing law. This Government will never introduce a system, in the nature of the society in Northern Ireland, under which extraordinary methods of law are used on the say-so of the police. It would be fatal to the police. I would not want anybody to think I am considering such action. It is vital for the police to be accepted in the community. There is grave suspicion, wrong but understandable, in one part of the community. There must be no thought that I am considering such action. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in the way he has.
Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry to have excited the attention of so many hon. Members, because I wanted to keep my speech brief.
It is important that a criminal should be treated as a criminal and not given special status. It is important that we do not use detention again, and therefore my right hon. Friend's policy should have the support of the whole House. It is of great importance that there should be adequate schemes for the rehabilitation, retraining and accommodation of released prisoners so that they can play their rightful part in society and pursue legitimate political aims in a democracy which is free from terrorism and fear and in which every man can get up and say his piece.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I welcome the introduction of this Order. I suppose that the outlawing of the UVF is a step in the right direction, although such action tends to drive groups underground and make police surveillance more difficult. However, no doubt the decision has been carefully weighed.
Some people think that a change of emphasis is required in dealing with some of the ghastly crimes committed in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for
268
Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has made many pleas to the terrorists for humanity, peace and decency in the years that he has been in the House, and they have been repeatedly ignored. The Secretary of State told us that 207 people had been killed in Northern Ireland this year, and if one multiplies that figure by 40, it is the equivalent of more than 8,000 people killed by terrorism in mainland Great Britain. I wonder whether the penalties and deterrents are adequate and whether there is not a case for a more energetic form of action against terrorists from both communities who perform these ghastly crimes in which innocent people suffer and lose lives or limbs.
For years we have heard well-meant and well-intentioned pleas like those of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who has often said that he believed that we had turned the corner and that the end of terrorism was near. We must look at the facts. After seven years, the bloodshed and tyranny in Northern Ireland are as bad today as they have ever been.
Northern Ireland is rapidly becoming, if it is not already, synonymous with blood and despair. It is right to proscribe the UVF and a number of other organisations in Northern Ireland, but it is about time we considered the introduction of severe penalties for those who so wantonly kill and maim innocent people in the sort of incidents we have already heard described so graphically.
Innocent people who have no responsibility for the political state of Northern Ireland are murdered in the most terrible ways. Is it not about time that, instead of making these pious pleas, we considered the re-introduction of the death penalty for murders and crimes of this nature when innocent persons are killed, either through a bomb explosion, or because of a deliberate act of terrorism? Members of proscribed organisations, including the UVF, who are responsible for the death of an innocent person should run the risk of suffering the death penalty.
It has become apparent that these people live by the most bloody methods. They are completely ruthless, and six or seven years' of platitudes in this House have got us nowhere. I do not say that the approaches of successive Secretaries of State have not been absolutely right. Successive Ministers and Governments

269
have sought a political solution, and their efforts must be redoubled. Nevertheless, any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have his arm immeasurably strengthened if the Northern Ireland judiciary had the power to sentence a terrorist to death for causing the death of an innocent person.
When we discuss Northern Ireland, many strange ideas are inevitably put forward. One which emanated recently from the Conservative side of the House was for the imposition of martial law in Northern Ireland. Of course these ideas must be considered, but even if martial law were introduced and even if it had the effect, which I do not think it would, of clearing the Province of terrorists and terrorism and of restoring a state of security, it would be impossible to maintain that situation. The long and winding border between the North and the Republic would prevent that. No one who has suggested martial law has also suggested a fortified border. Without such an arrangement, it would be impossible to prevent continuing infiltration from the South.
The only course to follow is the present painstaking one adopted by the Secretary of State. In general, we fully support the Government's policy on Northern Ireland. I personally admire the way in which the Secretary of State has steadfastly maintained an attitude of complete impartiality and has striven as hard as possible to find some common political ground by which a sense of stability can be reintroduced into Northern Ireland. That task would be made much easier for him and for his successors if they had behind them the additional assistance of a law under which the thugs who live by bloodshed would know that they would receive the ultimate and just retribution of the death penalty. I support the Order.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Stan Thorne: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has suggested imposing the death penalty for acts of terrorism. I can think of no better way of creating an even worse situation than already exists. Whether it was Protestant or Catholic who was subjected to that penalty, the upsurge of terrorism that would follow would overshadow any good, if there be any, that might flow
270
from that penalty. I therefore hope that the Government will reject that suggestion.
I noticed some Opposition Members nodding in agreement with me as I was saying that, but I think that their nodding will cease as I develop my speech. What I am about to say will not be popular on that side of the Chamber. Indeed, certain of my hon. Friends will not be particularly happy with the points I shall make. Nevertheless, I believe that those who participate in Northern Ireland debates must show that they speak with a firm conviction. Whether their views are acceptable to their party is irrelevant.
I want to look at this issue in the long term. We repeatedly and inevitably discuss questions affecting security, the police force and the Army. It is, however, from the policy of the Government that all other things stem. Even proscription of an organisation is an act of policy.
I believe that the Government's attitude is fundamentally wrong, because it accepts the continuance of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. That is its basic premise. Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland and the perspective should be the establishment of a united Ireland. Those are my views and they have been the views of Labour Party conferences. Nothing has happened in recent years to suggest that the Labour Party has in any way changed that policy. I am therefore addressing myself to complete disengagement from Ireland.
Some people suggest that for Britain to make such a declaration at this time would result in a tremendous upsurge of Orange activity in Northern Ireland, to the detriment of the Catholic population. I cannot answer that sort of suggestion in detail. Certainly such a move would be most unpopular with the Protestants in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Michael Mates: The majority.
Mr. Thorne: The majority in Northern Ireland, but the minority in Ireland. The Catholics might be a 40 per cent. minority in Northern Ireland, but they represent a majority in Ireland as a whole.
Mr. Mates: On what basis does the hon. Gentleman say that the majority or otherwise of the people of Southern Ireland wish to see a change in the situation in the North? That has not been tested.

271
The opinion of the people of Northern Ireland has been tested.
Mr. Thorne: I did not say that the people wished for the change to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am addressing myself to what I see to be the solution. If you have evidence to establish that the majority of people in Ireland reject what I am suggesting, no doubt you will produce that evidence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair differently if he wishes to address the Chair.
Mr. Thorne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I addressed you as Mr. Speaker, but I looked at the hon. Gentleman because he raised the point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. He keeps saying "you" and obviously means the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates).
Mr. Thorne: These niceties of discussion in this Chamber become a trifle irksome at times. [Interruption.] I agree that the Irish question, too, is irksome at times.
The establishment of a united Ireland and our disengagement from Ireland constitute the perspective to which I address myself. In order to achieve those ends we must establish structures and institutions in the North that will encourage Catholics and Protestants to work together. There are those who will say straight away that that is what the Government have been in business for over several years, that they have not achieved it so far, and that it is not achievable. I do not accept that, but it seems to me that there are certain conditions for achieving it.
I am sure that the British Government are prepared to give positive encouragement based upon a clear and unmistake-able statement of our intention to disengage. The alternative in my view, irrespective of what may emerge from the Convention, is another patched-up job which retains Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and which will subsequently produce periodic outbursts of violence varying in length and intensity. We may have several years of relative peace, but inevitably there will yet again
272
be an upsurge of violence as long as Northern Ireland is seen and held to be a part of the United Kingdom.
Under partition the Catholic minority in the North of Ireland have been deemed to be people without the same rights as the majority here. There has been constant evidence of injustices arising from that. I used to travel to Belfast fairly frequently years ago, and I can remember being told again and again "If you are an Orangeman or a Mason you are 'in' in Northern Ireland. If you are a Catholic, you are in difficulty." That situation has continued over a long period, and has caused many of the present difficulties. Catholics have been denied civil rights and discriminated against.
We on the Labour Benches have many times urged the drawing-up of a Bill of Rights that would seek to protect minorities in Northern Ireland. The announcement of the introduction of a Bill of Rights as part of the statement that I seek from the Government of their intention to disengage is still relevant. It could still be drawn up. It would address itself to some of the difficulties experienced by minorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke this afternoon of certain improvements in the matter of internment, and they are to be welcomed.
I am certain that it will be necessary to retain troops in Northern Ireland for some time. At one stage I took the view that it was possible—in fact, necessary—for us to withdraw troops in the short term because of the continuing situation. However, I now see only too clearly that if they were withdrawn now, extreme Right-wing elements in Northern Ireland would take advantage of the situation to perpetuate the absence of the civil rights of defenceless minorities.
The basis of an agreement to constitutional changes providing for disengagement from Ireland can be worked out, with the participation of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, the Republican Government and our own Government. It might take a year or two, but over that period it would be possible to reach such an agreement on the basis of a clear declaration of the kind I have described. I recognise that there is no prospect of any eventual change without such a declaration. The

273
longer we put it off, the worse the situation will be. Only when we have made it can we begin to build the dialogue that can produce the necessary constitutional changes.
In the meantime, the troops' rôle in Northern Ireland would be to ensure that there is democracy, to protect the civil liberties of minorities, in a way that we have not seen hitherto. They would have behind them a Bill of Rights that we had agreed should apply until the Irish people themselves determined, in their own way, the form of government appropriate to their situation. It is not for me to speculate on what that form of government would be, but it seems to me that a federal type of government would be perfectly feasible in Ireland.
The problem of Northern Ireland is not merely a matter for those who reside there. It is very much one for the people of England as well. I represent a constituency with a 40 per cent. Catholic vote. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] In that constituency there are a variety of approaches to the problem of Northern Ireland. I tell those hon. Members who said "Ah" that when I speak of a 40 per cent. Catholic vote, that does not mean that those 40 per cent. who are Catholics have a monolithic view of the solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. They have several.
My belief is that Members of Parliament must take cognisance of the growing bodies of opinion throughout Britain with similar approaches to the problem. One section of the community says "We should withdraw from Northern Ireland because it has brought us nothing but trouble over the years and some of our lads are being called upon to die for reasons that we consider to be irrelevant." That is one shade of opinion that is often put forward in my constituency.
There is another body of opinion which says that we should withdraw from Ireland because Ireland belongs to the Irish people. It is said that the Irish people should determine the character of their political life and Ireland's social and economic circumstances. They say that those matters should not be subject to any control from London.
Mr. Powell: What about the Scottish nationalists?
Mr. Thorne: Does someone wish to intervene?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) finished?
Mr. Thorne: No, Mr. Speaker. It is a little confusing when one hears the mumblings that come from the benches opposite. I sincerely hope that the mumblers will get into the debate later.
Some people view the matter from the standpoint of the majority in Ireland. Whatever the motivation, there is a growing United Kingdom demand for our disengagement. The constitution of a new all-Ireland State, some may argue, should stem from the previous attitudes of British Governments. I reject that approach. I believe that we have to accept the same sort of criteria for Ireland that we seek to apply in other countries when we talk about the right of self-determination. I believe that the Irish have the right of self-determination.
Mr. Powell: And the Scots?
Mr. Thorne: And the Scots. I have never refuted the claim of the Scots.
Mrs. Jill Knight rose—
Mr. Thorne: I can only answer one point at a time, Madam. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for referring to you as "Madam". That clearly is not appropriate. The constitution which Northern Ireland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not mind the hon. Gentleman promoting the corporal to sergeant all the time, but I hope he will bear in mind that this is a short debate in which there are strong feelings to be expressed. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to express their feelings.
Mr. Thorne: That means that I shall have to cut my speech. I respect your views, as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I close by asking the Government to consider seriously that which they have been unwilling to consider for the best part of 20 or 30 years—namely, a complete disengagement from Ireland so that the Irish people can determine their own future.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. McCusker: The only comment I wish to make on the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) is that the hon. Gentleman has come so far from his marching support for the "troops out" movement to his present position that there must be hope for him yet.
I accept that the Secretary of State has no alternative but to bring forward the Order following the UVF's acceptance of responsibilities for various atrocities. However, I regret that the Order displays the same self-deception as was demonstrated by the de-proscription order of May 1974. It was then quite obvious that the Government wanted to legalise the Provisional Sinn Fein and perhaps, incidentally, the Official Sinn Fein. To prevent a Loyalist reaction the UVF was included. At that time the UVF was in a period of claimed cease-fire. It also claims to have a political voice to express. That made it easier for the Government.
However, I believe it has become increasingly clear why the Government wanted the Provisional Sinn Fein de-proscribed: namely, to enable them to talk to it. It enabled the Government to negotiate with the Provisional Sinn Fein. It enabled them to agree a ceasefire which defies description—based on what I know to be a cease-fire. Further, it enabled them to set up the incident centres.
I welcomed the view expressed by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) when he touched on the issue of self-deception. Of course, he will remember that the Government were able to move the 1974 Order at a late hour of the night in May with the collusion of one of his Front Bench colleagues. I intended to speak on that Order but because I was more innocent in the affairs of the House than I am today I was prevented from doing so. If I had spoken on that occasion I would have objected to the Order. I would have objected on the same basis as I object today. It is my contention that we must view these matters in an evenhanded fashion.
If we are to de-proscribe the UVF and to declare it an illegal organisation we are blinding ourselves to reality to suggest that the Provisional Sinn Fein is
276
not exactly the same thing. The 1974 Order was moved the day after the Prime Minister thought it sufficiently important to make a statement in the House concerning plans which had been found in a Belfast suburb outlining the IRA's proposals for escalating the violence and introducing a greater element of sectarian killings. It may well have been that some of the events in my constituency put into operation some of those long-term plans.
At that stage the Secretary of State chose blindly to pretend that the Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are two separate and distinct organisations. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and myself that they are inexplicably intertwined, and that to all intents and purposes they are the same thing. It was O'Brady and Drumm who led the Provisional IRA funerals this week and who delivered the orations. It was Joe Cahill a fortnight ago who sat at the top table of the Provisional Sinn Fein conference in Dublin, a conference that was addressed by the army leaders of the IRA. It must have offended the hon. Member for Belfast, West and his constituents just as much as my constituents and myself to hear Pronsias McAirt or Frank Card, in common English, apologising or putting forward the voice of apology on behalf of the Provisional IRA for the murder of a 6-year-old child. He put over the apology in such a way that made it obvious that he had probably written the statement himself.
That is the body we are supposed to accept as a legal political organisation. If the UVF needs to be declared an illegal organisation, then Provisional Sinn Fein also needs to be the subject of a similar declaration. It was the Provisional Sinn Fein which provided the propaganda battle. It manipulates the emotions in the Catholic ghetto areas. The incident centres are an invaluable part of the Republican terrorist campaign. When we consider the folly of the ceasefire and the fact that it is considered a cease-fire, we can appreciate the importance which can be attached to Provisional Sinn Fein spokesmen.
Reference has been made to the successes of the security forces. It would be wrong for the House to blind itself by

277
the statistics of the Secretary of State. Since the cease-fire, and in my constituency, Postmaster Elliot has been murdered at Silver Bridge. No one has been apprehended or charged. Three dog fanciers have been killed outside Newry and no one has been apprehended or charged. Four soldiers have been killed at Forkhill. Again, no one has been apprehended or charged. Detective Constable Anderson was murdered on 9th July at Lurgan. No one has been apprehended or charged. William Hanna was murdered on 26th July at Lurgan. No one has been apprehended or charged. George McCall was murdered on 16th August at Charlemont. No one has been apprehended or charged. Mr. Kerr was murdered on 17th August in Armagh city. No one has been apprehended or charged. William Meeklim was murdered on 18th August in Newton Hamilton, and again, no one has been apprehended or charged. Two Gaelic fans were murdered on 24th August at Newton Hamilton. No one has been apprehended or charged.
There was the case of William Frazer on 30th August at Whitecross, when again nobody was apprehended or charged. There was the case of Joe Reid on 31st August, with nobody apprehended or charged. Then on 1st September five Orangemen at Tullyvallen were killed, and yet again nobody was apprehended or charged. There was the case of Andrew Baird on 22nd September, at Portadown, again with nobody being apprehended or charged. Furthermore, two soldiers were killed in South Amagh, again with nobody being apprehended or charged.
Therefore, it is all very well to produce statistics to show success in the anti-terrorist campaign, but I have to look at these matters from the point of view of my constituency, and I see no such success.
Mr. Fitt: Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little selective in the names he has given? Is he not aware that in the Armagh constituency in the Portadown triangle 31 Catholics have been murdered as well?
Mr. McCusker: I am referring specifically to County Armagh. Most of the murders in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers were committed in
278
County Tyrone. I meant to go on to say that members of the Miami Showband were shot in County Down. Then there were incidents involving a darts club in County Down, and also Bingo players in the same county. I am referring to my own constituency. I included two Catholics when I mentioned the two Gaelic fans. Again, nobody has been apprehended or charged with murder. In view of all this, what success can I attribute to the drive by the security forces?
After some of the incidents at the beginning of September in County Armagh we were assured that certain action would be taken in the southern part of the county. A total of 1,500 troops were rushed into Crossmaglen, but in broad daylight, three miles from Crossmaglen, six armed masked Provisional IRA men mounted a road block and stopped a Press car whose occupants were on their way to Crossmaglen to report on the operation.
I took a Member of this House to County Armagh to show him the situation there, and I had to offer him a gun to protect himself, when we got to a certain area, because there is no guarantee that anybody else would protect him. He did not take it, but it was offered.
Mr. Orme: That is illegal.
Mr. McCusker: Nobody else could have protected him. He was being taken into an area where one has to rely on one's wits and ability to get oneself out again.
Cross-border roads have been closed and in the past fortnight they have been opened. If the Army intended to close those roads it should have kept them closed. If that was not its intention, it should not have been done in the first place. It will help nobody if the Army loses face in this way.
I had a telephone call on Sunday from a family in Tullyvallen two of whose members had been murdered, and I was told that the Provisional IRA was operating openly at a road block only 300 yards from their home.
I have to listen to the Secretary of State congratulating himself on the success he has had in certain areas. I ask the House to look at my constituency and to ask whether this has any relevance to the true situation. The right hon. Gentleman must decide whether he wants to defeat the

279
Provisional IRA. I hope that he is coming to the view that it can be defeated. It can and must be defeated. I hope that some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said today show that he is prepared to defeat the Provisional IRA.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. John Watkinson: I share the concern of many hon. Members about the basis of this Order, which adds the UVF to the list of proscribed political organisations.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) made some telling points about the manner in which the law can be enforced, and raised the question of whether it was being enforced. I do not sit for a Northern Ireland constituency, but I have no doubt that hon. Members from Northern Ireland could give a great deal of evidence about members of so-called proscribed organisations. I wonder to what extent the law is being brought into greater disrepute by the Order. It is to the subject of disrespect for the law that I wish to address my remarks, particularly the effects of detention.
I wholeheartedly support the Secretary of State's policy aimed at doing away with detention. I appeal to him not to give way to the temptation to reintroduce detention. It brings into disrespect the law that we are trying to maintain in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, we state that we want a society that respects law and order; on the other hand, we seek to impose on that society a system of law and order that people cannot respect.
Under the detention processes the laws of evidence are suspended. Under that system people can give evidence behind a screen and the defendant himself may be removed from the court and may not hear what is being said against him. Oral and written evidence may be introduced which would not be accepted in courts in other parts of the United Kingdom. We must ask ourselves to consider to what extent a person is given a fair trial in those circumstances.
I believe that the processes are wrong and that we must look at their effect on the system. I have a letter dealing with the case of somebody in Northern Ireland who has been wrongfully detained. The
280
net result has been that members of his family, previously not concerned with the IRA, have promptly joined it. That is one of the effects of detention, and it cannot be denied.
We must look at the effect of detention in a wider context. During the summer on behalf of an organisation I visited a Middle Eastern country to ask about political prisoners. Finally, I met an official in the Foreign Office there and mentioned the names of the prisoners in whom I was interested and I instanced the procedures and trials that they follow in his country. The retort from that official was "Just look at what is going on in your own country in Northern Ireland". We must bear these matters in mind when we seek to condemn the procedures elsewhere. These procedures are taking place on our own doorstep and we must answer for them.
I do not suggest that we live in a police State, or that there is such a situation in Northern Ireland, but I believe that it is the beginning of a police State when court procedures in Northern Ireland exist as they do at present. From that point of view alone we are running a risk in Northern Ireland.
We have heard a great deal about special categories of prisoners. I am not in favour of such procedures. If a man commits a crime, he is a criminal, but under the procedures in Northern Ireland, involving special categories of prisoners, people are tried without due process of law. Has this proved a deterrent? In face of the present serious problems, it does not appear to have done so. It may be that deterrence works in certain parts of the world—but only because those countries are prepared to embrace a system of punishment that is inconceivable to us in this country. I believe that detention should be done away with, and I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment in this respect.
The Secretary of State outlined details of a scheme whereby he would give remission of sentence to those who had been imprisoned. As I understand it, he said that these persons, if they committed a further offence, would have to serve out their remitted sentence. There appears to be some confusion here. It seems that this is simply carrying across to the Northern Ireland situation the suspended

281
sentence principle, whereby if a person commits an offence and is given a suspended sentence but subsequently reappears before the court, he has to serve the full amount of the suspended sentence.
A point which has been made repeatedly is that if we have so-called political prisoners, we must concern ourselves with the problems of rehabilitation. This point has not been adequately dealt with. I appreciate that we are faced with the problem of finding the money. I hope that money can be provided to give Northern Ireland suitable rehabilitation centres for those who come out of prison.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: There are many in the House who will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the information that one of the disastrous anomalies in the penal system of Northern Ireland is to be removed—that of special category status for certain prisoners. We are also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for widening the debate somewhat and thereby enabling us to deal with some law and order issues. We have heard a great deal about inter-faction conflict and internecine conflict, but it must be borne in mind that one of the grave problems facing Northern Ireland is the continual violence and destruction perpetrated by the Provisional IRA while a cease-fire or truce is in existence with that organisation.
Instances of the activities of the Provisional IRA are legion. As recently as September there were atrocities in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). In my constituency there has been the destruction of a police station. The Secretary of State will recall the earnest warning and the sincere advice given by hon. Members with regard to the advisability of creating incident centres and the warnings given about their rôle in the truce between the British Government and the Provisional IRA.
Regrettably, the Secretary of State seems to have fallen into the simple yet sinister trap of involvement with the Provisional IRA. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh rightly made the point that there was no distinction between Provision Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. Having fallen into the trap
282
of involvement with this destructive terrorist organisation the Secretary of State will find it impossible to extricate himself without exposing himself to the charge of harassment and suppression of the minority community should he seek seriously to deploy the troops in Northern Ireland against the Provisional IRA.
The brilliance of the IRA manoeuvre lies in its simplicity. If the British Government decide to act contrary to the "advice" given by the Republicans controlling the incident centres, once again the old rallying cry will erupt in the so-called minority sections of the community—"Unite to oppose British aggression." It is a war cry which is emotive, irrational and illogical, yet the awful consequence of that war cry would be that all the IRA atrocities, the death and murder due to the activities of the Provisionals—even the murder of a 6-year-old child recently—would be forgotten. Once again we should find the minority misled and misguided, yes, even by some politicians as well as by the murderous rabble with which the British Government have effected a more than formal relationship.
This kind of simple trap is deeply to be condemned. The IRA ploy is sinister in that any terrorist group can destroy or attempt to destroy with impunity, yet the cease-fire or truce continues so long as that group is not connected with those who are allegedly the signatories to the cease-fire, or the allegiants of that group which has agreed to the cease-fire. What do we find? We find that a growing number of maverick IRA groups continue to bomb, murder and maim. The level of anti-IRA activity remains at an inadequate level because of a commitment to one group of terrorists. What is to stop terrorists from taking action under another name when they know of the unwillingness of the British Government to grasp the nettle and defend part of the United Kingdom?
If the Secretary of State thinks that the cease-fire or truce and the incident centres determine the level of violence, he is naive in the extreme. The level of IRA violence and activity are determined by many other factors, perhaps including the progress or otherwise at the Convention. But the British Government's contact and pleadings with this illegal organisation is not a determining factor. I am

283
not one of those who divorce consent from authority. Therefore, I recognise the difficulty of re-introducing in full the police presence into areas in which residents have been brainwashed by thugs and irresponsible politicians to reject the RUC.
If I may reply to a statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I would point out that the police force is not acceptable in some parts of the minority community not because it has been brutal and discriminatory, but because there has been an unwillingness in those areas to support the police force since the inception of Northern Ireland. There has been rather an eagerness to oppose Northern Ireland, to show open hostility to the custodians of law and order and to lay the blame on a so-called sectarian police force for this kind of reaction.
The Secretary of State must take immediate steps to rob violent men and their passive office boys in incident centres of any credibility. He must do this by giving himself the opportunity to appeal direct to every decent citizen in Northern Ireland, Roman Catholic and Protestant, and encourage them to recognise the need for effective policing and for an effective security policy throughout the Province. For God's sake get rid of the silly centres and break any relationship with the Provisional IRA through the Provisional Sinn Fein! Do it now, for the sake of Ulster!
6.18 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: May I at the outset make clear to the House and particularly to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who is not now in the Chamber, that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) did not for one moment propose, either for himself or for the Opposition, that Northern Ireland should adopt the Southern Irish expedient of putting away members of illegal organisations on the say-so of an officer of the Garda Siochana not below the rank of chief superintendent. My hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary of State had given consideration to this as a possible alternative to detention which the Secretary of State, with the warm approval of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire,
284
West (Mr. Watkinson), means to bring to a speedy end. My hon. Friend did not advocate this as a matter of policy and I think that Hansard will bear that out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and I recently visited Dublin. There we were encouraged, as the House had been encouraged, by the courage and constancy of the Government in Dublin at grips—as are our own Government—with terrorism. Upon the defeat of terrorism hangs not only the safety and cohesion of the United Kingdom but the peace and, indeed, the existence of the Irish Republic.
On this side of the water we are watching the process of the criminal law jurisdiction legislation. Democratic institutions and civilised life throughout the British Isles are in peril. If there is any certainty in the politics of our neighbour, it is this. Responsible statesmen there are anxious that the forces of the United Kingdom should continue to soldier on in Northern Ireland in support of the civil power until normal policing is possible throughout the Province.
I do not think that the view expressed by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) would receive a warm welcome in Dublin. There is no burning desire there to assume the administration of Northern Ireland, where an overwhelming majority of the people, including many Catholics, voted in successive elections and in the border poll to remain citizens with us of the United Kingdom.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs of the Irish Republic, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, said recently on a BBC television programme that the main achievement of the IRA had been to widen the differences in Northern Ireland and to eliminate counter-organisations of extremists on what he called the Protestant side
"of equal brutality and greater numbers".
Of such is the Ulster Volunteer Force which has committed, and has gloried in, murder.
I do not think that any hon. Member would dissent from what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said about the UVF. We applaud his condemnation of all murder gangs, whatever flag they befoul. It takes courage to say

285
what the hon. Gentleman said. That is a virtue of which the hon. Gentleman has not been deficient—I am sorry that he is not present to hear me say this—although many members of the Opposition have often disagreed with him and will do so often again.
Nearly everyone will agree that on both sides of the Irish border and the Irish Sea there is need for reassurance that the Government mean to extirpate the IRA, which the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) described as the "root cause" of the troubles. The UDF has been properly proscribed.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) asked "What then of the Provisional Sinn Fein?" and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) referred scathingly to the incident centres. We do not hear very much from the Treasury Bench about them, but anyone visiting northern Ireland learns of the resentment which they have aroused, especially perhaps amongst Catholic people and Catholic politicians.
It is with the Provisional Sinn Fein that unnamed officials of the Northern Ireland Office have day-to-day, and perhaps night-to-night, contact, while members of the Constitutional Convention, elected by their constituents, complain that they are held at arm's length by the same set of civil servants.
I thought that the hon. Member for Antrim, South made a strong point when he said that these contacts, which suggest that everything is negotiable, weaken the assurances we heard today by the Secretary of State—which we accept—that there will be no amnesty for terrorists.
The hon. Member for Armagh spoke of the anarchy in that country. He spoke also of bitter resentment aroused by the toleration of illegal, but televised, paramilitary funerals. When such incidents occurred this side of the water there was much indignation. Action was taken in London under the Public Order Act 1963. We do not need much knowledge or imagination to grasp the fact that it is much more difficult to enforce a law of that kind in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, when uniformed IRA men parade in Belfast before the populace and cameras there is a deplorable effect on public morale. Few, if any, insurrectionary organisations have attuned their guerrilla
286
operations more closely to the mass media, and in this way the propaganda of the Irish Republican Army gains access to the screens of millions.
We await the report of the Constitutional Convention. The more constructive political approaches there are in Northern Ireland, the more likely there is to be a crescendo of bombs and bullets. There is nothing that terrorists detest more than a coming together of the law-abiding. We must, I fear, expect terrorism to sink to the lowest depths of indiscriminate atrocity. But no one, either here or abroad, should be deceived because the British are easy going, rather insular and slow to anger. We must steel ourselves and do our duty to our constituents.
Tribute has been paid to Her Majesty's Forces, whether the Regulars or the Ulster Defence Regiment. We owe much to those who, incredibly, carry on their businesses, farms and occupations by day and yet manage to patrol by night, month after month, year after year, and to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.
What are the security forces doing? Sometimes it is suggested that they are engaged in holding a ring between opposing factions until politicians contrive conciliation and compromise. That is a dangerous contention.
It is also dangerous to assert that terrorism cannot be beaten, as we sometimes hear stated. This country has experience of guerrilla war. Terrorism was defeated in more than one territory overseas. If that can be done amongst strangers, it can be done in this troubled part of the homeland.
The Secretary of State called for Catholic co-operation. He was right to do so. At the risk of being criticised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central for saying something counter-productive, I state that Councillor Connelly made a fine speech when he praised the RUC as a force to which Catholics might well be pround to belong. I have found great confidence amongst the ordinary people of Ulster, belonging to different parties and of different persuasions, in the Chief Constable, Sir Jamie Flanagan.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman misinterpreted what I said. I said that it was not for us to tell the politicians how,

287
when or why but that they should proceed in their own way and in their own time. Therefore, I was not criticising Counsellor Connelly.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that. Many members of the SDLP show great courage in difficult and dangerous circumstances. It is for them to choose their own time to make the statements which should be made.
Policing is the key. That has been said often by Front Bench speakers on both sides. We cannot expect co-operation unless we can give protection. What matters is the will to win.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), with the experience of a former Minister of Home Affairs, suggested that there should be a special code for the punishment of terrorists. The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) want the introduction of the death penalty for terrorists. The hon. Member for Preston, South put a contrary view. We know that many of our constituents want the restoration of the death penalty. That matter should be calmly considered without emotion by the Government.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West spoke of his visit to the Middle East. Israel has been one of the most successful States in grappling with terrorism. There is no death penalty in Israel. What is Israel's secret?
I conclude by offering Her Majesty's Government the backing of Her Majesty's Opposition for all the measures and all necessary expense to give the security forces the means and, above all, the intelligence to hunt down and bring to justice in courts of law the mafias of murder.
6.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): I am sure that the whole House will agree with the final words uttered by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government have turned their attention to emphasising the use of the law in the strictest sense.
The debate has been hard-hitting, but reasonably so considering the subject. It has also been constructive. I have known
288
debates on Northern Ireland over many years that have been far from constructive. We seem to have reached a stage when ideas can be examined. Those ideas may be accepted or rejected, but nevertheless a common thread has run through the debate.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) made some telling remarks about proscription. The developing aspects of policy which the Secretary of State laid before the House this afternoon deal with the difficult questions of special category, the release of convicted prisoners and the ending of detention. The Government are not spelling out their policy in a period of calm but are showing that they have a consistent and constructive policy. They recognise the rôle played by the RUC and the Army and, at the same time, look forward to more constructive political developments following the Convention's report.
The Government recognise that the proscription of an organisation probably raises more questions than it solves. If the Order is accepted there will remain seven proscribed organisations, but we want to get rid of all proscription.
As the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, we de-proscribed the Provisional Sinn Fein and the UVF last year to encourage political dialogue to take place within the Province. There are other political organisations in Northern Ireland which do not measure up in any way to the political parties in the rest of the United Kingdom. We hoped that the de-proscription of the UVF and Sinn Fein would lead to increased political activity. I spent some time talking to the people within the UVF when it was de-proscribed and trying to encourage them to go along political lines, to fight elections in the normal way and to advocate their own philosophy and policy. This appeared to be bearing fruit, but unfortunately, as we have seen over a period, the idea of political activity has been completely rejected. The people who had tried to pursue political activities were rejected and the law of the gun and gangesterdom took over. Faced with this situation, the Government felt that they had no alternative but to proscribe the UVF in the interests of the decent and ordinary people in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Members for Abingdon and Armagh and several other hon. Members

289
wanted to know why in proscribing the UVF we were not also proscribing Sinn Fein. I want to make clear that the IRA is proscribed. Reference was made to members of that military organisation operating in Northern Ireland. I should like to take this opportunity to make clear that there has never been and is never likely to be immunity for people such as Mr. Twomey.
The security forces are absolutely free to operate under their terms and not under the direction of the Secretary of State. All that the Secretary of State has said is that, in following his policy, he will not sign an interim custody order. Any person who is arrested will have to be proceeded against through the courts in the normal way.
Mr. Fitt: Will my right hon. Friend state clearly whether the Government's intention is that all the remaining detainees will be released by Christmas this year? If that is so, the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland—particularly the Catholic community land—will be glad to hear that news and will seek to ensure that those who are released will not again be involved in violence.
Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear to the House that that is his desire. He hopes to release all detainees before Christmas unless there are exceptional circumstances which prevent his doing so. That is certainly the Government's intention. That policy has been widely welcomed in all quarters. In the past, there have been differing views on this subject.
During the period when the Secretary of State has been releasing detainees, the prison population has increased by about 400. That is an indication of the success achieved by the security forces and the policy that is being pursued. According to the evidence of people who live in Northern Ireland in difficult areas and whom the Government respect, many of the people who commit atrocities are involved not in political activity but in sheer gangsterdom. It is almost impossible to attribute any motive to them for these deeds. That is why the Government and the Secretary of State want to unfold this policy.
290
When an organisation is proscribed, people who commit offences have to be charged. They have to be proceeded against in the normal way and proof has to be shown in the courts. Such prosecutions are not always successful. The action taken by the Secretary of State has been of assistance to the security forces in Northern Ireland. If it had not been, the Government would not have pursued this policy.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked whether the Government had considered introducing similar legislation to that which is in force in the Republic with regard to members of proscribed organisations. The Government have considered this matter and rejected it for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) so lucidly explained. If we are to gain the confidence of the minority community, this type of legislation in Northern Ireland could be extremely counter-productive. It would need only one bad case or one issue to destroy a great deal of the work that has been done to involve the minority, especially in policing.
Much has been said about the ceasefire, the incident centres and the action that the Government have taken. The statements on Government policy that have been made to the House have set out the position. Explanations have been given. The incident centres were for monitoring purposes only and have not been used for other purposes. The case that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made about amnesty is an indication of the Government's determination to ensure not only that there is justice but that their policy is operated fairly. My right hon. Friend is watching the situation but he believes that it should be left as it is at present.
I turn to the question of the IRA and Sinn Fein. If a member of the political wing of the IRA openly states that he is involved in or takes part in violence, he will be dealt with without hesitation. I am sure that assurance is unnecessary, but no guarantees have been given to any individual in Northern Ireland. The Government stand firm on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) raised some

291
interesting points, in particular the issue of capital punishment. Situations could be re-created in particular circumstances which would be absolutely disastrous. My views on capital punishment are well known, as are the views of most other hon. Members. I am opposed to capital punishment. However, in a Northern Ireland context it would be absolutely disastrous. My hon. Friend mentioned a declaration and said that the matter should be dealt with by Britain issuing a declaration and withdrawing. Mr. Lynch made a point about a declaration only last week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to this matter over the weekend and said that the question should not be posed to the British Government but should be put to a million people in Northern Ireland. When we receive an answer to that question, the Government can re-examine the issue.
These measures are short-term and interim ones for Northern Ireland. There is no simple, long-term answer. The questions of detention, special category and the UVF are all part of a continuing process. Our policy has a definite thread and is leading in the right direction. I believe that this has been generally accepted by hon. Members this afternoon.
I turn to the murders in South Armagh, in that triangle, not least the constituency of the hon. Member for Armagh. I am informed that of the 118 people charged with murder a large number have been Republicans who have been operating in these areas. They include those who have been involved in the Bayardo Bar bombing and in incidents elsewhere. The security forces, including the Army with the assistance of the RUC, are operating in every part of Northern Ireland, not least within the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We want to be successful in this matter.
Mr. Fitt: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to illustrate the number of people who have been detained, arrested and charged with murder. He mentioned the Bayardo Bar. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but in case someone takes the opportunity to sneer I should point out that that bar is not in South Armagh.
Mr. Orme: It was not a slip of the tongue because I did not go into detail. I know it was in Belfast. I was speaking
292
in shorthand, in effect, because I was dealing with South Armagh. I was also dealing with West Belfast and other areas. I believe that the hon. Member for Armagh fully understood the point.
The hon. Member for Abingdon asked whether there would be any undertaking when special category prisoners were released. The answer is "No". This has been tried in the past without success. It would not be successful in the future. The policy that my right hon. Friend has outlined, which deals with conditional discharge and with what would happen if those who are discharged become involved again in violence, is an indication of what the Government propose.
Mr. Powell: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the question of special category, but, if he is not, perhaps I might put to him a point for clarification now. It was in reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that the Secretary of State repeated that the special category would not be allowed for persons convicted of offences committed after 1st March next. Has there been some change of mind about this as, in the indication which he helpfully, in the light of this debate, gave to a number of hon. Members, the Secretary of State said that the admission of new prisoners to special category would come to an end at the earliest possible date, which at the moment he thought would be 1st March? Quite obviously "new prisoners" means persons convicted—becoming prisoners—for the first time. These, therefore, are two different dates of commencement.
If there has been a change of mind or if the Government still have this matter open, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is great advantage in adhering to the proposition of new prisoners as from 1st March, as it would surely be disadvantageous that after 1st March special category should still be considered on some historical basis, which would not seem to be reasonable as between one prisoner and another and which will serve only to perpetuate the system? Having taken the opportunity of the right hon. Gentleman giving way, I am asking only that this matter should be reconsidered if necessary and clarified in due course, if not this evening.
Mr. Orme: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Perhaps I may repeat that those sentenced

293
for offences committed after 1st March 1976 will be accommodated in cellular accommodation and will not be able to claim special category status. I can see the sort of points that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised a similar point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will obviously consider the points raised when the Order is laid, and there will be time for consideration of this matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept that as an assurance.
I was saying that in this regard no signed statements would be requested, because this would be counter-productive.
The Government feel that proscription is not only necessary but essential at this stage—not because we like it, but we see no alternative. We feel that the strands of policy that have been developed this afternoon are based on the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. They will be pursued by the Government during the coming weeks and months, which could be crucial for the development of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Miscampbell: Shall we be able to debate the Order? The point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is of great importance. Clearly we shall be faced with a situation in which, if the explanation now given by the Government as to the special category is adhered to, not only will there be no trials at least until this time next year at which people will not be eligible for the special category but, worse still, anyone coming to trial in, say, two or three years from now for an offence committed today could still be getting special category provision.
It would seem to be extremely sensible to impose a time limit, so that the crime had to have been committed after such and such a date. There ought to be a further date so that, no matter when the crime was committed, there would be a final date on which this is all finished, otherwise we shall have a farcical situation years from now with people still going into the special category.
Mr. Orme: We shall look at this matter. It is very complicated and difficult. The Government are faced with the
294
question of numbers and accommodation. We shall not get any absolutely perfect and smooth transition in which everyone fits into a firm package. Nevertheless we shall examine this point. Certainly it is useful to have had it raised this evening.
Mr. Wm. Ross: There is one other aspect of the special category of prisoners that seems to have got lost in the general melee of discussion about them. That is the problem of the long-term prisoner and the 97 life prisoners, of which no doubt there will eventually be more. At some stage I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will contend that the special category status of prisoners should disappear entirely. At what point is it intended that these long-term and life prisoners shall lose the special category status which they are allowed at present?
Mr. Orme: Because of what we have said this evening, these people cannot be affected. The House might as well face up to this difficult problem. There may be possibilities, as the numbers reduce and circumstances change, that the situation will change. However, we must say very clearly that the status of those people who have at present claimed political status will remain. The proposed legislation will deal with new prisoners on and from 1st March next year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1609), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th October, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the two motions on social security in the name of the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that it has been agreed that they should be taken formally so that we can come to the debate, on the Adjournment, when the House can have a wide debate on the position of the self-employed.
Resolved,
That the Social Security (Contributions, Re-Rating) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid

295
before this House on 23rd October, be approved.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
Resolved,
That the Social Security (Contributions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th August, be aproved.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Miss Boothroyd.]

SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: Regrettably, this will be an all too short debate. Nevertheless, we thought it right to suggest it. It is, of course, not the first time by any means that the subject of the position of the self-employed has been raised by the Opposition. We have raised it in debate after debate about the injustice of their national insurance position; and in March we raised it in a more general debate on small businesses. It is that sort of more general debate that we hope for tonight.
We make no apology for raising the subject of this group again, because it is part of our case that the interests of the self-employed and of small businesses can all too easily be overlooked as the big battalions clamour for attention. Yet I think that we ignore the position of the self-employed at our peril, because they occupy a vital part in our society, relying, as they do, on their individual effort and individual skill. They are the people between the TUC and the CBI—people in the professions, the shopkeepers, the farmers and small business men. I should like to pay particular attention to these small business men tonight.
The self-employed in small businesses are of crucial importance in our economy. A great deal will depend upon them over the next few years. According to the Bolton Committee there are about 1¼ million small businesses in the United Kingdom, and they employ about 6 million people—about one-quarter of the nation's work force. The Bolton Committee has set out compelling reasons why we should guard their interests. In many industries the small firm is the most efficient form of business organisation. It can supply large companies with goods at a lower cost than that at which large companies could supply them for themselves. But above all, of course, the small firms are the innovators. The men who run them back their own judgment and take their own risks. New industries can develop from the small firms sector, and small firms can grow to challenge the established leaders in their field. It is in this way that we help to ensure our future, for the small firms play an invaluable part in the process of national

297
wealth creation—and that, after all, is the overwhelming problem today.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security knows the position in relation to health and social services. He knows that the truth today is that we have glaring gaps in our social services provision, and that we have groups who are urgently in need, but for whom we can bring only limited help. He knows that we have, in relation to health, particularly in the hospital service, urgent needs which cannot be met. He also knows what the problem is. That problem is not one of caring. It is the problem of providing, and, most of all, of creating, the wealth which is necessary to meet this nation's undoubted social needs.
In creating and providing that wealth, the self-employed have a vital rôle. Let us in this debate agree on the importance of the self-employed, and let us now examine the Government's record in relation to them.
Perhaps the first question that we should ask is how the self-employed themselves regard the Government because, after all the claims and counterclaims, after the huffing and puffing of Ministers, that is the acid test. Do the self-employed feel that the Government are encouraging their effort? Do they feel that the Government are taking account of their legitimate interests? Over the past few months many hon. Members will have attended meetings organised by the National Federation of Self-Employed, and they must make their own judgment on how Government policy is regarded. My impression is that amongst the self-employed there is a feeling of widespread disillusionment, there is sometimes anger, and there is nearly always bitter disappointment.
Most self-employed people work hard. Many work very hard, putting in long hours not expected in the normal job. Many self-employed risk their capital on their ideas and their skill at work, which, again, is not expected in the normal job. Let us be clear, of course, that that is their choice. They choose to live and work in that way. They do not expect to be made a special case, but they do expect to be given a fair deal.
This, they believe, has been denied them over the past 18 months. They believe
298
that the Government have produced not just one policy that goes against their interests but a whole range of them. Above all, they charge the Government with having failed to tackle inflation early enough and having thus helped to create an economic climate that could hardly be worse for small firms.
It seems to me that amongst small firms and the self-employed there is the feeling "What is the use?" What is the use of building up a business? What is the use of putting in long hours of overtime?" We should remember that even at the time of the Bolton Report the birth rate of small businesses was far less than the death rate. How disastrous it would be if that trend should not only increase but accelerate, particularly when the country has proportionately fewer small businesses than many other comparable industrial nations.
Let us, therefore, look at some of the specific causes of anger and resentment amongst the self-employed. As the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security is to open the debate on behalf of the Government, let us look at the national insurance position. The matter has been debated in the House time and again, and our case has consistently been that we accept that extra benefits have to be paid for, including the relaxation of the earnings rule, and if the Government want to campaign in the country as defenders of the old rule they are welcome to do just that. We accept the principle of earnings-related contributions, as I believe does every other major party in the country. What we objected to was the discrimination in the Government's proposals. We said that the proportionate increase for the self-employed man compared with the employed man was, by any measure, out of line.
We fought the Government on that issue, and in the Lords we were supported by former Labour Ministers, such as Lord George-Brown. The right hon. Lady may laugh at that, but in the present Cabinet of political midgets someone of the stature of Lord George-Brown would not come amiss. If one thing was constant throughout that period it was the obdurate refusal of the Government to listen. According to them there was no discrimination, and some went as far as to suggest, at meetings that I have attended, that the opposite was the case.

299
It is, therefore, all the more surprising to find in the Department's Press release on the new national insurance contributions the claim that special steps are being taken to help the self-employed. It is all the more surprising because, up to now, the Government's case has been that the self-employed were not entitled to any extra help. The self-employed should take some heart from this development. Regrettably, however, they will hardly be jumping in the air with glee at their position.
It seems to me that the new contributions are an implicit admission by the Government that there is a balance to redress, but what the Government must remember is that these men have faced massive increases over the past 18 months. If one considers the £3,600 a year man one realises that he will still be paying £285 a year in national insurance contributions, while a man on the top rate will now be paying almost £400 a year in contributions. It is, at its mildest, doubtful whether the earnings of many self-employed have kept pace with the scale of this increase and it would have been indefensible had this gone up further at this stage for the lower-paid self-employed.
The Government make great play in their Press release of helping the lower-paid self-employed but, as the Minister realises, the threshold of £1,600 for earnings-related contributions remains the same. That has not gone up with inflation. The effect of this is that the self-employed man whose income has advanced through inflation, but whose real earnings have remained static, will now pay earnings-related contributions, and it will be interesting to know how many self-employed men that will bring into the net.
I think that the case with national insurance is symbolic, for the discontent with the Government's measures has gone much deeper than that, and as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is to wind up the debate I ask him to address his mind to two specific pieces of legislation that have been pushed through by the Government.
First, there is the question of the capital transfer tax, a measure that has caused widespread concern amongst the self-employed. It is a measure which they see as striking against the continuance of
300
their businesses. Let me give the House an example of how that tax affects a small family concern employing about 60 people and having assets of about £250,000. Before the start of the capital transfer tax, if a father transferred the business to a son during his, the father's, lifetime and lived for at least seven years thereafter, no liability in respect of this transfer arose on the father's death. The position now is that liability for capital gains tax, amounting to more than £76,000, will arise as soon as the transfer is effected. Admittedly the liability can be paid off over a period but that does not alter the fact that it is probably equivalent to about twice the average annual profit which such a concern might be expected to make.
The second policy of which we would like some explanation from the Chief Secretary is the higher 25 per cent. rate of VAT. This, again, is a matter of real concern to the self-employed and small business men. We all suffer from this charge, but no one suffers more than the trader who has to work out the absurdities of it all.
Let me give an example that has been raised with me. Let us consider a small electrical and television shop. If it sells a battery for a radio, VAT is at the 25 per cent. rate, but if that battery is sold for an electric clock it carries VAT at 8 per cent. The trader is left to sort out that kind of absurdity.
Perhaps I may refer the Chief Secretary to a report in Electronics Weekly, in which Peter Hawyard, a director of an electronics firm, describes a situation of undoubted confusion within one industry, with suppliers charging his firm VAT at 25 per cent. because of a total misunderstanding. The report adds:
"Mr. Hawyard attempted to invoice HM Customs and Excise for the extra work involved in multi-rate VAT collection, but he was told that there was no authority in law to pay such an invoice."
Some may think that is a small point, but I invite them to talk to the self-employed who feel themselves pressed down not only by financial measures but by administrative burdens, which are becoming unacceptable to the small man.
What words of comfort do we get from the Government on this issue? At the Labour Party conference at Blackpool,

301
the Secretary of State for Energy declared:
"We were not elected to nurse an unjust and ineffective society through yet another crisis so that it can recover its vitality and be handed back to the same people in whose interests it will aways operate…We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society."
I hope that the Government will define their intentions here with regard to small businesses. Views like that, expressed in that way, encourage councils like the West Midlands County Council, for example, to seek power to go beyond their scope and operate as traders. What a lunatic policy to pursue at a time like this!
Underlying our debate is a much bigger question. That is the problem of unemployment. This also underlies in part the massive increase in national insurance contributions. They are raising, after all, about £1,200 million. This, and the extension of unemployment, are points not mentioned in the Department's Press release on this issue, but the toll of unemployment not only adds to the cost of the fund but also decreases its income. I hope that the Government will show some humility on this issue at any rate.
We know that the Secretary of State for Social Services said at the last election that unemployment was levelling off. The Minister of State—I am glad that both he and his right hon. Friend are here—has also had something to say on the issue. In April 1973, in the debate on the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit Bill, he quoted from the Report of the Government Actuary and said:
"It is also alarming to read…
'I have been instructed to assume for purposes of illustration…that in both the years 1973–74 and 1974–75 the number of unemployed, excluding school leavers and adult students will average 600,000…'.
We are likely to see the tragedy of the long-term unemployed remain with us for as long as the present Government are in office."—[Official Report, 30th April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 821.]
I hope that we shall hear his views tonight. We shall certainly listen to his economic forecasts with some care.
The group whom we are discussing tonight have also suffered from unemployment. More and more men who were once self-employed are now unemployed.
302
They have suffered in the same way as everyone else from the Government's disastrous economic policies. The only difference is that they do not get unemployment benefit. Bankruptcies in small firms are increasing and some areas are particularly hard hit. Figures that I was supplied with yesterday by the National Federation of Building Employers show that, in the first half of the year, there were 800 bankruptcies in the building and construction industry. It is predominantly small firms that were going to the wall, at the rate of about 1,600 a year.
The issue to which the self-employed attach probably the most importance of all is inflation. Above all they blame this Government for their failure to tackle inflation, because it is this failure which has wreaked havoc among the self-employed. High taxes now hit them on the one hand and inflation on the other. Inflation has helped to send business rates soaring and has placed massive new burdens on virtually every self-employed person.
What is worst about the Government's attitude is not only their refusal to act or even to acknowledge the problem but also their wilful cover-up on this issue at the last two elections.
Mr. George Cunningham: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in a time of high inflation, it is a particularly great advantage to be able to pay one's tax a year after one has received the income—which is the position of the self-employed?
Mr. Fowler: If one can afford it, that may be right.
But to return to the point that I was making, at the last two elections this Government refused to acknowledge the problem that this country now faces and can be seen to face. The Chancellor's statement at the last election about an 8 per cent. inflation rate is well known. The Secretary of State for Social Set vices actually used a one-month figure, which led her to the conclusion in April 1974:
"While inflation in most Common Market countries"—
I thought that we would get that in somewhere—
"has been speeding up, we had the smallest rise for three years."

303
That was the message last October, and a year later the picture looks very different.
In October 1974 the Government pretended that there was no problem to face. Now we see that problem in all its clarity. Men are unemployed, small firms are going bankrupt. So we charge the Government on two counts: first for their specific policies like CTT and their VAT system; but second and above all for their delay in tackling the national problem of inflation. The self-employed are not the only group to have suffered, but beyond doubt they are among the worst casualties caused by this Government.
7.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I can agree with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on only one thing—the importance of the efforts which self-employed people put into building up their own livelihoods and businesses which provide employment for a substantial number of people. There was nothing else in his speech with which I can agree.
It behoves an Opposition Front Bench spokesman to know a little more about the detailed facts that he uses in his argument before he stands up at the Dispatch Box. It would have helped if the hon. Member had taken the trouble to read the proceedings in Committee on the 1973 Social Security Act, in which the Class 2 and Class 4 contributions structure was established by a Conservative Government. With all that is on the record, the hon. Member has the impudence, in the unctuous way that he has used this evening, to make the nauseating speech that we have just heard, condemning this Government for inflation and every other trouble we face, when he knows very well that the first inflationary movements from purely domestic reasons arose from the trigger mechanism in the incomes policy of the previous Government, for which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is present tonight, has a responsibility as a member of the then Cabinet.
When the hon. Member goes on to say that the self-employed are not getting a
304
fair deal from this Government—[Interruption.] I shall deal with that in a moment, if hon. Members will wait. Just let me get going. I have not said anything yet. I have not dealt with any of the detailed facts yet.
I am merely saying to the hon. Member that it is becoming for an Opposition spokesman to speak with reasonable integrity on any subject. This manifestly does not happen when it comes to the self-employed and the national insurance contributions system. It is also becoming to check one's facts on inflation and the reasons for it before making the kind of speech that we have just heard.
The present system of national insurance contributions and benefits for the self-employed was devised by the Conservative Government and put into legislation in the 1973 Social Security Act. No one would guess, on the basis of the hon. Member's behaviour or, indeed, that of his whole party in recent months in Opposition, that the Conservative Party has any responsibility for this matter at all. On the whole question of the national insurance structure as it affects the self-employed, the Opposition's approach has been mischievous, irresponsible and ignorant. If there are inaccuracies, misapprehensions and misunderstandings among the self-employed about the contributions system, which I was bound by the previous Government's Act to bring into operation in April 1975, they arise from the wilful and deliberate campaign of distortion which Tory Front Bench and Back-Bench Members have carried on throughout the country.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—
Mr. O'Malley: I shall give way later.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order, I hope that hon. Members will show some respect for the Chair. I took the Chair with the assurance that this was to be a peaceful debate.
Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. O'Malley: I had hoped so too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was provoked by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) later.

305
I do not expect the public at large, including the self-employed, to understand without explanation the reasons underlying the new contributions structure. However, I do expect, and I think that hon. Members when debating among themselves have a right to expect, that hon. Members and especially Opposition Front Bench spokesmen should explain their responsibility in the matter and the reasons why they introduced the Class 4 contribution which is the subject of controversy in the House tonight and which has been the subject of controversy throughout the country in recent months.
Mr. Ridley rose—
Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned that the self-employed do not receive unemployment benefit. He knows that this has been the situation under successive Governments. We all know that that is one of the things that self-employed people would like. However, a Conservative Government instigated a major review of the whole of the benefit structure before the introduction of the 1973 Act. They made no changes at that time. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the self-employed would like earnings-related benefits similar to those we are providing under the Social Security Pensions Act. However, again, under the 1973 Act there were no earnings-related benefits for the self-employed. They were confined under that Act to flat-rate benefits in return for their contributions.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. His promises to do so take a long time to be fulfilled. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives introduced income tax, but we introduced it at 5 per cent. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that it is our fault that the top rate is now 98 per cent. Has he addressed himself to the point that his Government have greatly increased their share of the self-employeds' income? That is the fault not of the people who introduced the Act but of those who put up the rates.
Mr. O'Malley: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has a deep understanding of the tax system. It must be due to the fact that he has spent so much time examining
306
the system of taxation that he has not had time to examine the national insurance system. The present Government have not loaded any financial burdens on to the self-employed additional to those which were inherent in the contributions structure set out in the 1973 Social Security Act, and I shall prove it.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: When the right hon. Gentleman has a weak and bad case, we know that he has to adopt the line of attacking my hon. Friend on a matter about which he pretends he does not know. Is it not true that the new structure was introduced with the full connivance and even congratulation of the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady during the Committee stage of the Bill? Is it not also true that whereas the whole of the change in the ratio of the contributions may not have been altered, it has been substantially altered in the case of higher incomes? That is what part of the trouble is all about.
Mr. O'Malley: I have said on more than one occasion in the House and in the country that when we were in opposition we did not try to seek short, cheap electoral popularity in this matter. I led for the Opposition in Committee on the Social Security Act 1973 and supported the Government in introducing the Class 4 contributions on the basis which I am now operating. Moreover, I have maintained the same ratio of contributions from the self-employed, compared with those of employers and employees, as was envisaged in that Act. Therefore, this Government have not changed the balance between Class 1 and Class 2/4 contributions.
I understood that four years ago when we first discussed this matter we all recognised at the outset that what we were producing with a Class 2/4 contribution structure was what I described in the House later as an "unsatisfactory hybrid". That was recognised in the White Paper "Strategy for Pensions" published by the Conservative Government in 1971. It was also recognised during the proceedings of Standing Committee E on the 1973 Act when the then Secretary of State said that:
"The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has asked me four questions. First, I assure him that Governments in their own

307
interests of administration and equity will continue to search for ways of raising earnings-related contributions from the self-employed, but I hold out no prospects of early discovery of a panacea."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25th January 1973; c. 249–50.]
Therefore, there was agreement between at least the two major political parties in 1973.
I thought that there was agreement on the general desirability of moving towards a fully earnings-related system of contributions and benefits. We have deliberately moved in that direction and, at the same time, attempted to help those of the self-employed with the lowest incomes. Last year we sought to move further towards the principle of earnings relation by holding the Class 2 contribution at £2·41, the level at which it had been put in August 1974. In order to maintain the balance as between the self-employed and Class 1 contributors, we increased the 5 per cent. rate to 8 per cent. This brought in exactly the same amount of money as would have been raised if we had increased the £2·41 to the higher figure which would have been inevitable had we accepted an unamended formula from the previous administration. The self-employed as a group paid no more.
The reasons why we chose that method were, first, to move towards earnings relation and, secondly, to prevent any increase for between one-third and one-half of the total number of people who were self-employed, whose Schedule D profits or gains were likely to be below £1,600 a year. We have again held the Class 2 contribution at £2·41. Had I carried out the formula which I inherited from the previous administration, the flat-rate contribution of £2·41 would have been increased to over £2·70 at the last uprating, and in April 1976 it would have had to be increased to £3·10. I make no apology for the fact that the Government decided, without changing the total balance between the self-employed and Class 1 people, to peg the £2·41 rather than to move to the higher figure first of £2·70 and then to £3·10.
The House must recognise that an integral part of an earnings-related contributions scheme is that the ceiling will rise as earnings and incomes rise. That was inherent and specified in the 1973 Social Security Act. Therefore, since
308
coming into office the present Government have tried to move towards what I believed was a common objective among the parties—namely, increasingly away from dependence on the Class 2 contribution, which imposes a heavy percentage burden on the self-employed with the lowest incomes. We did that first in April 1975 and we shall do so again in April 1976. However, we have also put in hand a detailed re-examination of the problems involved in establishing a system of earnings-related pensions with corresponding contribution rates for the self-employed.
But it is inevitably a major undertaking to try to overcome the practical difficulties which ruled out such a system under successive Governments. Meanwhile, the contribution changes for 1976–77 which increase the proportion of self-employed contributions, to be collected on an earnings-related basis, are consistent with the Government's objective. I should have thought and hoped, on the history of the affair, that that would be generally acceptable to the House. Surely we ought, if we can, to get rid of flat-rate contributions altogether and move to a completely new earnings-related system of both contributions and benefits for the self-employed. The Order, about which the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field complains, attempts to move in this direction. The increases were inevitable. Additional income was needed to pay inflation-proofed pensions and benefits.
If we compare the employed with the self-employed, we see that all employed persons throughout the range of their incomes will be paying an extra ¼ per cent. on their contributions since the contribution rate goes up from 5½ per cent. to 5¾ per cent. The costs of additional unemployment benefit, about which the hon. Gentleman made so much play, clearly could not be put on the shoulders of the self-employed, because they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Therefore, the levels of contributions set for the self-employed do not take any account of the higher levels and amounts of unemployment benefit. They are being asked to pay their share of the higher levels of the benefits to which they are entitled.
The employed man on a ceiling of £95 a week will be paying £1·67 a week extra as the result of this Order. The man

309
on £69 a week, whose earnings are at the previous ceiling, will have to pay 19p a week extra in contributions.
I ask the House to consider the changes we are proposing against the background of the increases which are having to come into operation for employed persons. We could have put the Class 2 contributions up to £3·10 and maintained the 5 per cent. rate or put it up to £2·76 and then had a band not of £1,600 to £4,900 but of £2,100 to £4,900 at 8 per cent. Instead, we have held the Class 2 contribution at £2·41 and left the bottom of the Class 4 band at £1,600.
I want to explain why we have done that. In general terms we see it as a move towards earnings relation, and it is designed to help the self-employed on lower incomes. It is estimated that in 1976–77 1·5 million self-employed people will be liable to pay a Class 2 flat-rate contribution. Of those 1·5 million, we estimate that 450,000—about one-third—will have Schedule D profits or gains below £1,600 a year. By pegging the £2·41 Class 2 contribution, there will be no increase for those 450,000 self-employed.
Secondly, as a result of this formula, a further 700,000 self-employed, whose Schedule D profits or gains are estimated to be between £1,600 and £3,600, because there will be no increase in the percentage payable on the Class 4 contribution and because the Class 2 contribution is frozen, will pay no increase as the result of the contributions in the Order which was agreed earlier.
Of the 1·5 million self-employed with liability to pay national insurance contributions, we estimate that about 1,150,000 will not be paying any additional contributions on the same earnings as the result of the changed arrangements in the Order. Of the remaining 350,000, about 150,000 have profits or gains of £4,900 or more. The House will see that if we had adopted an unamended Social Security Act 1973 formula, those 450,000 self-employed would have been paying substantially more. The 700,000 with incomes between £1,600 and £3,600 would have been subject to all kinds of variants and the people at the top of the Class 4 band would have been paying more under these arrangements because of the increased Class 4 contributions.
310
We justify these increases on the grounds that we are protecting the interests of the self-employed with the lowest incomes up to £3,600 a year and moving towards an earnings-related system of contributions. We hope that as a nation we shall eventually establish a completely new system of wholly earnings-related contributions and benefits.
Mr. John Gorst: If the Minister has more or less finished his argument, will he try to address himself to the wider question? It is difficult to follow whether he thinks that there is any justification for the discontent of the self-employed. Is he saying that this has been got up by the Opposition and that there is no justification whatsoever for the discontent of the self-employed?
Mr. O'Malley: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who was at one time connected with small businesses. I thought I had explained in considerable detail—it was necessary to explain in detail because of the Opposition's behaviour—that the charge made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has not been justified. The charge simply does not stand. We are dealing with an Opposion who, on this issue, are without either guts or integrity. They are prepared to renege even on their own decisions made in Government if they think there is short-term electoral popularity to be gained.
The House must recognise that better pensions have to be paid for and that the self-employed are by no stretch of the imagination being asked to pay more than their fair share. The Opposition are too craven to admit it. They demean themselves and the nation by this behaviour.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: If I got the Minister's message right, he is inviting the House to accept that, whatever the problems of the self-employed, they did not automatically arise at midnight on 28th February 1974. I suspect that, on reflection, the Conservative Opposition might be carried along with that view.
The Minister of State said that the Government accepted the principle of moving towards income-related benefits and contributions. That is to be welcomed. I hope that principle will receive wide support on both sides of the House.

311
I should like to refer to some issues on which the Government can act and help. Some are budgetary matters. Therefore, the Chief Secretary will no doubt say that he has noted them and will pass them on to his right hon. Friend, which means that he may or may not. I hope Shat he will.
Basically, the problems of the self-employed are inextricably linked with the problems of small businesses. There is a theory in this country that we have a mixed economy in which the private and public sectors each have a part to play. Unfortunately, under successive Governments the mix has been changed. The balance has swung in favour of the public sector against the private sector and in favour of the larger sections of the private sector against the smaller.
Although the Conservative Government gave lip service to free enterprise and competition, we must bear in mind that one of the major complaints from small traders and businesses concerned the way in which the previous Administration would hold down the prices of nationalised industries by pouring in immense sums of the taxpayers' money, thereby enabling many of them to compete unfairly with the private sector. One of the economic realities facing the present Government was that the nationalised industries must begin to pay and to charge the full economic price for their services. I support that view. Likewise, the imputation system of the corporation tax which the Conservative Government introduced in 1973 had a disastrous effect on those who wanted to retain profits and plough them back into their businesses.
The National Insurance Act 1974 was a refinement of the Social Security Act 1973, presented by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), under which the 5 per cent. levy on the self-employed would have been due on 5th April this year. It would have cost them about £72 per head more each year and they would have received no corresponding benefits. The Government are entitled to say that the problems of the self-employed did not start on 28th February, but they are continuing problems with which the Government could and should be dealing.
The Bolton Report on Small Businesses pointed out that the sector of the economy
312
represented by small businesses was going into a long-term decline and that not enough new firms were being set up to replace those going out of business. In the past five years, there have been 3,000 receiving orders a year in respect of small businesses. In the first three months of this year there have been 1,000 orders and, if I may use what might be called the Healey calculation system and multiply by four, that makes 4,000 for this year. Certainly the number is increasing.
There are about 2 million self-employed in this country and they employ another 4 million—totalling together 25 per cent. of the country's work force. They make up one-fifth of the nation's wealth and very many small firms service larger companies. Rolls-Royce, for instance, has 4,500 smaller suppliers. The fate of these large companies has a great effect on small businesses. We are justified in saying that the self-employed are a very important section of the community and although they cannot expect special treatment, they are entitled to be treated fairly.
Marks and Spencer, Pilkington and Sainsbury's all started as small family businesses and if such firms find it difficult to prosper and expand, we shall see the whole private sector of our economy atrophy. With one or two exceptions, I do not think that any hon. Member would want that. The self-employed feel that in the past Governments have tried to satisfy large sections of private business, or to satisfy the demands of trade unions—both courses of action being at the expense of the self-employed.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie) is responsible for small businesses, but when he was asked to address a meeting of the self-employed, he replied that he had no responsibility for the self-employed as such and therefore declined the invitation. No Minister has special responsibility for the self-employed. I asked the Prime Minister to consider appointing such a Minister. He was abroad at the time my Question appeared on the Order Paper, but the Leader of the House replied:
"The problem is that the self-employed are not a homogeneous group. They range, for example, from the small business man and shopkeeper to the professional person. The only common points are the way in which they are taxed and the way in which their national insurance contributions are computed, and here I think that a very fair balance is struck. The

313
great difficulty, therefore, is in regarding them as one coherent, homogeneous group."—[Official Report, 24th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 766.]
I beg to differ. I think that social security matters, taxation and the general climate are common in their application to the self-employed.
The national insurance leaflet put out before the 8 per cent. increase said honestly that there would be no entitlement to any additional benefit. We know that there are 19 or 20 benefits to which the self-employed are not entitled, including unemployment and redundancy pay, `graduated pensions, disablement benefit and special hardship allowance. Employers also get tax relief on their Class 1 contributions but the self-employed do not. The self-employed have to pay income tax on the extra earnings required to pay for the extra benefits.
The faults of the 1973 Act cannot be overturned overnight, but we want much more information from the Minister. The Secretary of State said in a Press handout:
"My proposals are paving the way towards our goal of a completely earnings-related system for the self-employed in which earnings-related pensions would be paid in return for corresponding contributions. If we can find a solution to this problem which I am urgently examining, this woud right one of their biggest grievances."
She is right. This is one of the greatest grievances felt by the self-employed at the present time. If the Government can speed up their review and work towards earnings-related benefits and contributions, it would be a tremendously beneficial development in our social security system.
Mr. George Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there are at least 19 national insurance benefits paid from the National Insurance Fund to which the self-employed are not entitled? If so, will he accept my assurance that if his claim turns out to be true, I shall contribute £10 to Liberal Party funds?
Mr. Thorpe: I said the figure was either 19 or 20 and I apologise if I did not speak with sufficient clarity. If the Minister wishes to correct that assertion, I shall be very happy to give way. I at least respect his knowledge of these matters.
314
I hope that the Government will also consider the possibility of a universal system of benefits along with a credit income tax system. Lord Barber started to introduce such a scheme, but it excluded the self-employed and low-paid. This would be one way of giving a guaranteed minimum income to everybody, including the self-employed.
It is ludicrous that we should have four rates of VAT. I appreciate that this matter can only be dealt with in a Budget, but some other countries have a far simpler form of VAT and I wonder whether Ministers have worked out how many man-hours are lost to the country by people having to work out VAT returns. I heard from a retail pharmacist recently who reckons to spend 40 hours a month filling in prescriptions at multi-rates of VAT.
Mr. John Mendelson: It is a bad tax.
Mr. Thorpe: This is not the occasion to enter into a debate on whether one agrees with VAT. I happen to agree with it. However, if we have multi-rates, we are piling on an appalling amount of administrative work and the self-employed are hardest hit. Firms and companies can employ accountants and write off the cost, but the self-employed cannot do that. I hope that this matter will be dealt with in the next Budget.
I believe that the captal transfer tax is preferable to death duties and has much to commend it, provided that it is paid by the donee and not the donor.
The Chief Secretary will know that there has been much argument about that in Standing Committee on the Finance Bill. The problem of the CTT is that it inhibits people from making gifts, because they know that they will have to pay tax on them.
The self-employed are likewise restricted by the rates position, which was invented in the reign of Elizabeth I and is still being amended as we go along. I hope that we shall have the Layfield Report on that matter very soon. The last Conservative Government not only reorganised local government wrongly, but failed to reorganise local government finance at the same time. That is why we are in the present appalling position.
Mr. John Ovenden: They did everything wrong.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful. His party would not have got in if it had had to do so on merit.
There is an enormous amount that the Government can and must do to rid the self-employed and others of bureaucracy. Simplification of the tax structure is one matter for their attention, and the multi-rate VAT a particular aspect of it. The rates position will depend on the Lay-field Report.
The tax exemption certificates are the latest refinement. Those who wish to get a certificate as a sub-contractor have to append a photograph to the application. No doubt fingerprints will be demanded next year.
Mr. Ridley: Would not another terrible impost on the self-employed be the system whereby extra national insurance contributions are levied upon those paid more than some Liberal norm in wage increases, which is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's party?
Mr. Thorpe: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had been a long time coming round to tackle inflation. It took us three years to persuade his former leader of the need for a prices and incomes policy, which was introduced in 1973. When this Government tried to introduce such a policy, the Conservatives were neither for nor against it: they abstained, like solemn eunuchs on the Front and Back Benches. A pay policy must be a permanent feature of our economy at least until we have overcome inflation. Those who go beyond a norm must be surcharged by an extra national insurance contribution.
What is much more important than a specific tax, a specific amount of bureaucracy, or a particular planning decision for the self-employed is the climate in which they are required to operate. The plans of successive Governments have militated against the small trader and the small business man, and that is damaging this country economically and is endangering its social fabric.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. Ted Graham: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Member
316
for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) indicated very quickly that we were not merely debating the Orders but that the subject had been widened. In his opening remarks he mentioned among the problems of the self-employed the Bolton Report, taxation, including VAT unemployment, bankruptcies and a great many other aspects. I think we shall benefit from our discussion on these matters tonight, but it is necessary for the House to keep the problems of the self-employed in perspective.
A self-employed person can be in business in a very small way, in which case the problems of inflation as as real for him as for any wage earner. On the other hand, he can be in a substantial way of business, either as a sole trader or in partnership with others, in which case he may not be relatively as badly off as the low-paid worker. Members of certain professions such as the law, medicine, and auditors are self-employed. This is sometimes because their professional charters specify that they must not be under a contract of service. I am not aware that there has been any demand by the professions for a transfer from self-employment to a salaried basis, even in the present inflationary conditions.
The reason is that, mainly for taxation purposes, it is still better to be self-employed than employed. The rules for deduction of tax liability are more generous under Schedule D than under Schedule E. There is also the attraction that the rewards for success go directly to the individual. In Britain we confer the privilege of limited liability both easily and cheaply. I maintain that the private company is the best form of organisation for the self-employed, and this structure should be considered by small family businesses which are still not bodies corporate. Once again the tax rules are more favourable for the private company than they are for wage or salary earners.
There has been more than one reference in the debate to the Report of the Bolton Committee on Small Firms. Perhaps I may quote briefly from the Report where, at page 85, it says:
"the small firm sector in this country…is also in a state of long term decline"—
this was in 1971—
"in terms of the number of small firms in existence…A similar decline is taking place

317
in all the other developed countries…but it has gone further here than elsewhere and is still proceeding rapidly than in some other countries."
Therefore, when the broad allusion is made that the problems of the self-employed and the small firms can be laid more at the door of the present Government than of any other, we have to look much further back than did the Leader of the Liberal Party, who went back to March 1974.
The Bolton Committee said that the reason for the diminution in small businesses was financial and due to bankruptcies, but that is not the only cause of small businesses continuing to go out of business. There is the problem of succession in a one-man business where the proprietor dearly wishes to pass on the business to a son or daughter who has declined to take it on. There is the problem of the small business which has decided to sell out to a bigger business.
I would not decry the fact that it is the right of any small business to take as big a profit as it can in selling out to a larger concern. There is the laudable action of the big business and the small business getting together to make arrangements for tied suppliers and tied outlets. The biggest danger to the small business continues to be the big business. It is in the nature of the jungle that the big business will continue to look for small businesses to eat up in order to make their big businesses even bigger and more efficient.
Small businesses are exempt from a number of legislative measures which large businesses must comply with, even though those larger companies have small units. There is the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act and the training board levies. Those are examples of exemptions enjoyed by small businesses and the self-employed. The exemptions may be small but in the present climate they are most important.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) about the frustrations concerned with VAT—the compilation and the returns. I disagree with having too many different rates of VAT. This is a big problem for both small and large businesses. I wonder whether there is some scope for a common VAT accounting service for the self-employed. I have in mind the possibility
318
of trade associations representing the self-employed and the small firms setting up a district or regional scheme on a non-profit-making basis to assist their members. Confidentiality must be assured.
Perhaps a feasibility study could be carried out and the interest of the Small Firms Information Centre could be enlisted. Perhaps the voluntary chains which now act as wholesalers—Spar, Vivo and Mace—could add another service to those which they give to their members, to include standardised accounting and mechanised systems run on a non-profit basis.
In the co-operative movement—here I declare an interest—we are well aware of the problems of keeping small units operating on a modest profit. We have the benefit of cross-subsidisation, which has always been necessary to maintain shops in rural areas and certain urban districts where special problems arise. I sympathise with the small trader, whether self-employed or part of a co-operative, who seeks to maintain a service to an isolated community in a rural area or to an urban area where the population continues to decline.
I would support suggestions that might emerge from the Government to give encouragement and financial assistance to organisations which will maintain a service to the community in such areas despite the fact that the usual norms and yardsticks of profitability make it imperative that they should get out. The 1971 Census of Distribution, the belated publication of which reflects no credit on the Department responsible, shows clearly—
Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask who wrote what the hon. Gentleman is reading out?
Mr. Graham: In order to make sure that some important points are made, I have read certain parts of my speech. [Interruption.] Though I have been here for 18 months, I have not known the hon. Gentleman for as long and I have not seen him before. What is his name?
The tenor of what I have to say is that the small business man and the individual self-employed person have many problems, which are well understood by the various Departments of Government. But

319
the self-employed and the small business men are not owed a living by other members of the business community or the country at large. They have been well treated by the country and the Government of the day.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to a West Midlands authority's consideration of going into some forms of municipal trading. I view such proposals with a great deal of care and caution. The temptation for municipalities to go in for that form of trading in less attractive locations can lead to many pitfalls, and I advise them against doing so. It is bad enough for the self-employed person to make a living in those circumstances. Firms which have to employ staff at trade union negotiated rates of pay and conditions will be hard put to it to break even in difficult circumstances of that kind.
The dilemma of the self-employed is no different to that facing the nation as a whole. On the one hand there is inflation, and on the other hand there are counter-inflationary measures and world conditions which are producing a recession.
Part of the attraction of being self-employed is that the self-employed are their own masters. It is still a good way of life, provided that a living can be earned. There are examples in certain European countries of persons who are basically self-employed co-operating with each other in a variety of ways.
There are problems of under-capitalisation and the under-utilisation of capital in small firms. Most of our craft and professional training is designed to produce vocational competence. I should like to see instruction on the ability to manage and to cost much more effectively introduced into the training of the self-employed.
It may be cold comfort to say this but, having had the training to assess problems, one is better off not becoming self-employed than facing the perils of bankruptcy.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: The problems of the self-employed are so many and so serious that one cannot do justice to them in a three-hour debate. I could not do it even if I were allowed to spend the whole time on my own speech,
320
which would not be acceptable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to the House.
The problems of the self-employed fall into two groups—the national insurance problems and the problems of the self-employed as small business men. I shall first examine the national insurance problems. The story must start a year ago, when the Government announced that they would increase the level of pensions and other national insurance benefits. I think that every hon. Member realised that that meant that the national insurance contribution had to go up. The question was how to share the burden fairly between the different groups of contributors—the self-employed, the employer and the employee.
The Government chose to impose a substantial increase on the employer to make a reduction for the average employee and to impose a savage increase on the self-employed. It was the unfairness of the treatment as between the average employee and the self-employed which aroused so much justifiable anger.
Mr. Ovenden: If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in fairness, he should examine the previous relationship between the contributions of the self-employed and the combined employee-employer contributions. Does he not accept that until the increases of last year the self-employed were not paying their fair share of the contributions?
Mr. Mitchell: I dispute that. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to claim that the self-employed were not paying their fair share, but one must view the matter against the background of the self-employed having been subjected in their small businesses—shops and the like—to the most rigorous price control. They were therefore unable to find the additional money required, at a time when inflation had been playing havoc with their ability even to finance their existing businesses.
Last year's increases were unfair because they put the burden disproportionately on the self-employed compared with the average employee, whose contribution was reduced when benefits were going up and he expected to have to pay an increased amount.
It is true that this year, as a result of Opposition pressure in Parliament and

321
pressure from such organisations as the National Chamber of Trade, the National Federation of Self-Employed and the Smaller Business Association, and a great welling-up of public opinion in protest, the Government have treated the self-employed less unfairly than they did last year. I believe that it is as a result of all that pressure that this time there is a much fairer sharing of the burden.
Let us take the example in the Government's own statement to see the mitigation of the burden. The Secretary of State chose a man earning £4,900 a year. The employee earning that amount will pay an extra £1·65 a week and the employer an extra £2·38. The self-employed man will pay an extra £2. That is not as good as it sounds, although we have achieved quite a lot.
I am glad that a Treasury Minister is present, because the nub of the problem here moves from national insurance to tax. First, the problem is that this year's increase is made on top of last year's unfair levy. Employers get tax relief on their contributions, the self-employed do not. Therefore, the self-employed must earn gross the pre-tax amount necessary, which I estimated at about £180 a year, taking the level of salary chosen by the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that the contribution of the self-employed to the National Insurance Fund is limited to £104 a year. That has been given as the maximum increase. The reality is that the amount which the self-employed pay in tax should be added to the amount of contribution that they are making—namely, a further £76.
Although the National Insurance Fund uses the contribution principle to decide who are the beneficiaries, it does not operate on an actuarial basis—namely, that the amount contributed provides the amount drawn in benefits. The Minister will know only too well that subventions from the Treasury are substantial. As the self-employed are paying in a considerable amount which varies according to their scale of income—in fact, they are putting this additional amount into Treasury funds—they are contributing towards the financing of the National Health Service and National Insurance Fund. I reckon that it is about £76 per self-employed person on £4,900 a year, and very much higher when we take into
322
consideration the higher levels of tax on earned income.
The other factor that has to be borne in mind in considering the degree of mitigation which we have in the proposed increase which has been passed by the House is that there are a substantial number of benefits which the self-employed do not enjoy. I am told by the National Association for the Self-Employed that they total about 20. I am not prepared to argue whether the number is 19 or 20, but it is of that order.
Mr. George Cunningham rose—
Mr. Mitchell: No, I wish to develop my argument. There are many benefits which do not go to the self-employed.
Mr. Cunningham: How many?
Mr. Mitchell: I illustrate the point by referring to a Question which I put to the Secretary of State today. I asked the right hon. Lady to indicate the reciprocal arrangements made for contributors to the British National Health Service requiring hospital treatment while in EEC countries on business or on holiday. The right hon. Lady replied that there is a wide range of reciprocal arrangements for people on business or on holiday who are taken ill while on the Continent. When I asked whether they applied to the self-employed, the right hon. Lady made it clear that the arrangements do not apply to the self-employed. No doubt the Government have undertaken discussions with our EEC partners to try to achieve a situation in which the self-employed will be able to benefit in that way as a result of that Question.
That is one further example of the way in which benefits are so different for the self-employed. It is an example which many of my constituents have drawn to my attention. It is a considerable shock to many people to find that there is a group of people to whom the reciprocal arrangements do not apply—namely, those who are self-employed.
Mr. George Cunningham: The question of how many national insurance benefits the self-employed are and are not entitled to is a simple matter of fact. For the benefit of those who have not done their homework, the answer is to be found in a Written Answer to me

323
dated 22nd January 1975. The reply makes it clear that the benefits to which the self-employed are not entitled include unemployment benefit, earnings-related supplement to sickness benefit and the widow's allowance. That makes three benefits so far. Also included are graduated retirement benefits and industrial injuries benefits. That makes five benefits so far. The number of benefits or parts of benefits paid out of the National Insurance Fund comes to approximately 12 in all. That fact can be obtained at the drop of a hat by anyone who is interested in doing his homework before he gets up and speaks, unlike the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Liberal Party.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's tongue may be dipped in acidity, but after the interesting answer to which he has just referred I hope he will haul his ministerial friend over the coals for failing to include a complete list. The answer to the Question which I put to his right hon. Friend this afternoon is not included in the list which he has read out. Therefore, his list is incomplete. Further, there are a number of other benefits that are missing from the list. When Ministers deceive their colleagues by giving them incomplete answers, we have a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Those who are self-employed are entitled, for example, to sickness benefit, but they draw a great deal less benefit than other contributors. We find that the self-employed person running his own business will work through influenza and perhaps half way through pneumonia. Many self-employed suffer from rheumatism and back ache but, unlike people who work in factories who go off sick, they continue to work. They cannot shut their shop doors and lose all their trade to their competitors down the road. That is a reality of life for the self-employed. It is so different from the theory and hot air of Labour Members. They have no idea of what running a small business is like.
I turn to the increases that have been announced. It is interesting that they have been announced by the Secretary of State by means of a Written Answer published on a Friday.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is an old trick.
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is an old trick, the result of which is that there is no opportunity for cross-examination. I would like to cross-examine the right hon. Lady now. I hope that we shall have a reply at the end of this debate. The right hon. Lady picked out two reasons for the substantial increases which she has had to make. One reason is the pensions increase and the other is the increase in the level of unemployment benefit.
The right hon. Lady's Written Answer states:
"It is also necessary to take into account the prevailing high level of unemployment, which reduces the income from contributions and increases the amount paid in benefit. These factors make substantial contribution increases for 1976–77 inescapable."
We should be told how many millions of pounds will be going out through unemployment benefit, a benefit which the self-employed do not enjoy. I think we should be told of the Government Actuary's estimate of the amount to be paid out in 1976–77 for which the contributions will be paid. What degree of unemployment has been calculated by the Government Actuary in advising the right hon. Lady on this matter? I hope we shall have an answer to that.
Mention is also made of the upper limit of earnings on which contributions are paid. The Written Answer reads:
"In view of the increase of about 30 per cent. in the general level of earnings in the period of 12 months up to April 1975".—[Official Report, 23rd October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 236.]
That is one of the factors which the right hon. Lady has taken into account in arriving at the distribution of cost to contributors, including the self-employed.
How much has the income of the self-employed increased during that period? As the right hon. Lady has been taking in money during the current period as regards the national insurance element, she must be able to tell us the increase that has taken place in the incomes of the self-employed. I suspect that the self-employed have not enjoyed anything like the 30 per cent. increase which has been the average for so many people.

325
I turn from the problems of the self-employed as national insurance contributors to the problems of the self-employed small business men. I am delighted to know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be replying to the debate But where is the Minister with responsibilities for small businesses—namely, the Minister of State, Department of Industry? The Government congratulated themselves on the fact that they had appointed a Minister with special responsibilities for looking after small businesses, but in this important debate on the self-employed why is that Minister not present? Will somebody send for him? Is not the House entitled to have him here during this debate? Cannot the Government Whips send for him? I can understand why he does not wish to be present. Obviously he knows that he is not able to achieve anything, because in his representations to the Treasury he gets no change at all.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that one cannot separate the business problems of the self-employed from their national insurance problems.
Mr. George Cunningham: The Conservative Party attaches great importance to this subject. Therefore, why is not the Opposition Shadow Minister present for the debate—or is the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) simply emitting a lot of hot air?
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should be aware not only that there is on the Opposition Benches a Shadow Minister for Industry with responsibilities at Shadow Cabinet level for the problems of small business men, but that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has shown great interest in the problems of small business men and the self-employed and has great experience in these matters.
Mr. Cunningham: Where is she, then?
Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps I can be allowed to develop my argument. I am dealing with the problem of the self-employed and their difficulties in relation to national insurance matters, especially the small business men who are most affected.
Since a Treasury Minister is due to reply to the debate, perhaps he can tell
326
the House what the Government are doing about the problem of rates. Does he appreciate that the rate increases will make many small business men bankrupt in the coming year? The Rating and Valuation Association—an authoritative but not a political source—calculates that last year the average domestic increase was 35 per cent. but that the average business increase was 55 per cent. The outlook for the coming year is about 40 per cent. If we add the 55 per cent. figure last year to the 40 per cent. estimate in the coming year, we can see clearly that the level of rate increases will bankrupt and close a large number of small shops and businesses run by self-employed people.
The National Chamber of Trade indicates that this item is the worst single complaint lodged by its members and it is the area that causes it the most worry. One example I give involves a rise in the rate burden from £157 to £866. That may be an extreme case but it indicates the range of increase. What do the Government intend to do about the situation and about the possibility of allowing small businesses to pay their rates by instalments?
The problem of the small business man in seeking to fight these increased costs against pegged and price-controlled selling prices may end in his being squeezed out of existence.
I turn to the problem of VAT—a killing burden for the small business man. I use the word "killing" advisedly because there are countless small business men whose wives sit up late at night ruining their health trying to understand the complexity of a VAT system that involves a 25 per cent., an 8 per cent. and a nil rate.
Mr. George Cunningham: Who voted for VAT?
Mr. Mitchell: Of course there are difficulties in having to administer a system involving rates ranging from 25 per cent. to 8 per cent. A dispensing chemist told me that he must cope with some 600 invoices a quarter in respect of his VAT returns. The calculation does not simply involved extracting the VAT from the invoices. For example, when the chemist sells an aspirin on prescription it is free of VAT, but when the aspirin is sold to a customer over the counter the chemist must calculate the VAT at 8 per cent.

327
Furthermore, when the chemist sells electrical goods, cameras and so on, the rate he then has to deal with is a 25 per cent. VAT rate. It is a nightmare for people to understand and it is even worse when they come to calculations of the end result. I do not think the Government have any idea of the complexity of these matters facing the small business man.
We demand that the Government should give the House an assurance that they will give no parliamentary time to any extension of municipal trading powers.
The major concern of the Treasury, of economists and of international experts relates to the low level of investment and, indeed, the utilisation of investment. On the latter, one can be sure that investment by the small business man involves the full and maximum use of that money. If we wish to become more competitive, to secure export orders and to provide jobs for our work force, we must increase the level of investment. Furthermore, the Government are paying £10,000 per job in the regions in terms of job creation, and they are paying even more to preserve jobs in the motor car industry. But they are giving nothing to the small business man. He is not asking for subsidies or money to be doled out to him. All he requires is for enough money to be left in his till at the end of the day to pay his increased costs.
We have been told that the NEDC is due to meet tomorrow, but there is no item on its agenda relating to the problems of small businesses. It must be borne in mind that such businesses comprise about 25 per cent. of our gross national product, but still the NEDC does not intend to discuss their problems. The situation should be rectified as soon as possible. Investment in the small business sector is being killed off by a combination of the Government's extra taxation in the form of corporation tax, the proposed wealth tax, the capital transfer tax and the capital gains tax—without any offset for inflation and similar burdens.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) referred to big business cannibalising the small business. I ask the
328
House to consider what will happen when those small businesses cease to exist and there is nothing for the cannibal to eat.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt is the duty and aim of the Chair to try to acommodate as many hon. Members as possible in this debate. I understand that 10 hon. Members are anxious to take part in these discussions. That means that speeches will have to be a great deal shorter. The hon. Member for Basing-stoke (Mr. Mitchell) took longer than both Front Bench speakers, and that does not help the situation.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: I have taken part in many debates with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) on various aspects of industrial relations legislation. I am accustomed to the hon. Gentleman's taking a long time to say his piece—but there is no harm in him. The hon. Gentleman indulged in a little propaganda, but he made one or two useful points. This was in marked contrast to the piffling propaganda contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). At least the hon. Member for Basingstoke sought to emphasise the difficulties of small business men and people in trade generally when they fall ill.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made an outstanding speech tonight which completely silenced the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I wish to support the hon. Member for Basingstoke in that I believe that there is a need to make provision for those people in business in a small way who are helped by their wife, a member of the family, or an assistant. When such people fall ill, the amount of income that they would lose through being away from business for four or five days could make such a difference to their total income that they are not prepared to face that loss.
It is within the responsibility of a State that rightly spends so much on social services—irrespective of what legislation we inherited—to take another look at the position and to bring forward amending regulations so as to bring small business men within the ambit of the social service legislation. It should be possible for them to receive free medical provision

329
and some small contribution. They ought to be entitled to that even though they do not pay the full amount of national insurance.
The House of Commons exists to look after the interests of such groups of individuals, to discuss them with Social Service Ministers and Treasury Ministers so that those who are not easily classified receive careful consideration. It is not beyond the considerable intellectual capacity of my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security and the Treasury to bring forward proposals to cover such people.
I shall not spend much time on the social services because I should be repeating the excellent case made by the Minister of State. It would be gilding the lily for me to try to add to his case. He silenced the Opposition and made certain that those who are usually so vociferous had nothing to say. I was waiting to hear from those who usually interrupt, but they had nothing to say. I want to concentrate on another feature affecting the interests of small business men and of equal importance. I refer to their investment possibilities and their chances of maintaining and developing trade.
Many hon. Members have known me for many years. I hope that they will not take it amiss when I say that it is dangerous for the well-being of the State, regardless of which party is in power, to create among small business men an atmosphere of Poujadist persecution. It is dangerous to set at the helm of such a movement people who are not well versed in political life, people who try to make quick political capital, heaping propaganda upon propaganda. If the small business man, who has traditionally and rightly regarded himself as an important section of the nation, becomes convinced that everything and everyone is against him, he may not turn to the middle class for a leader. He may look for a leader in a completely different area, one who does not have the avenue of politics in mind. I give this warning to those who lightheartedly believe in the kind of propaganda that we have heard tonight.
It is much more important to discuss the interests of those facing difficult economic and social problems than to
330
give them a persecution complex for which there is no justification. I hope that the Government will reprint the Minister of State's speech. I hope that what he had to say about the fairness of the case and the care with which these small business men are treated will be made widely known throughout the constituencies. These facts are more important than philosophical speeches on the high problems of politics. These are things people ought to know.
I come now to the problem of keeping a business and developing it. I wonder whether other hon. Members saw a television programme on BBC2 last week when a small business man met three representatives of investment houses and private banks. Although I do not always recommend the BBC, I thought that that programme was instructive. Although part of it was obviously staged, it could teach us a great deal.
Briefly, there was a small business man who wished to expand and who consulted three investment bankers and representatives of finance houses. He put his case to them and asked them for a loan. He opened his books. His financial adviser was with him. He made his case, which was turned down.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke asked about larger firms taking over smaller firms. The first finance man who spoke during the programme turned down the small manufacturer's request for a loan. He said "I do not think that you have a case for developing your business. I think that you are a case for a takeover." He used that word. It was not a Left-wing member of the Parliamentary Labour Party who used that blessed word. It was used by the representative of a finance house on television in front of 5 million viewers.
Mr. David Mitchell: That business might have been in a situation in which the bank would not lend money, as the bank would have been taking a share in the risk of running the business. If more than half the finance used in running a business comes from a bank and not from funds ploughed back into the business, or the money invested by shareholders, the bank must carry part of the risk of running the business. It would be wrong for the bank to do that. However, the business man would not be able to provide

331
further capital because of the taxation system.
Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has always been good at defending big business. We are accustomed to that.
Whatever the circumstances of any case, small firms face one great difficulty. This has nothing to do with the propaganda accusation of the Conservative Party about what happened in February 1974. This has occurred during the past 35 years. This problem is faced by the business which is situated between the giants of business and industry and the international market. Small firms face a considerable difficulty. They have good ideas, technical ability, courage and enterprise with which to develop their businesses, but they face the problem of finding capital.
I make this proposal to the Treasury. We are dedicated to the proposition that our future depends upon investment. It is clear that not all investment is best placed and most advantageously developed. A way must be found by the Government to come in where the private financial consortia and the banks refuse to provide comparatively small sums. I do not wish to make a propaganda comparison with the case of British Leyland. Nor shall I compare the large sums that might be necessary there with the smaller sums about which I am speaking.
These sums should not be provided to produce a temporary reduction, in one corner of the country, of the total number of unemployed, even though unemployment is already intolerably high. I refer to the time when the creation of future manufacturing processes will guarantee that money will not have to be spent on the artificial creation of jobs, but will be repaid twice over by smaller firms developing new processes, becoming slightly larger, and being allowed to make their additional contribution to British industrial life.
The appointment of another Minister to deal with small firms might be helpful although the creation of new Ministries alone solves nothing. The Government must set aside a considerable amount of capital and establish a small Department to be exclusively occupied with looking for opportunities and providing investment capital for smaller firms. Would that not be a sensible policy for a Labour
332
Government to pursue? The Government are not wedded by definition to big business. They are not in the pocket of big business and they do not owe any allegiance to it.
The small firms and the small business community face another difficulty. I refer to the large-scale publicity which is required if manufacturers want to make their products known. Often is is not the quality of the product that determines who is successful. It is the amount of money that can be spent on propaganda and publicity services. Coupled with that is the amount that can be bought in bulk, which can be justified only by an expectation of sales beyond that of the small man.
In the correspondence I receive from small traders, as distinct from small manufacturers, this plays a very large part. We all know of the sentimental complaint about the disappearance of the corner shop. Why is it disappearing? It is not disappearing because of the wickedness of the Labour Government. That is why it is so misguiding to stage this debate and start with 1st February 1974. To do that does not serve the interests of the self-employed, the small business man, or the small shop keeper. The problem arises because in the High Street the shop keepers who buy in bulk and look forward to bulk sales have the loss leader and the possibility of making propaganda and capturing the customer. The small man is defenceless against this.
I am convinced that there is a long-term future for the small shop keeper, as there is for the small manufacturer. I know of many communities abroad where in a changeover from one economic system to another economists and others thought that if there were big industrial manufacturing corporations on the one hand, large numbers of industrial work people on the other hand and, in between, socialised distribution, everything would run automatically. That was found to be not enough. Some of those communities invented small shops, small manufacturers and small traders to meet the more personal desires.
There has never been created in any country, as I hope there will be in this, a community based upon the idealism of Socialistic ideas under democratic conditions. We have no model. If it were done, it would be done for the first time

333
in this land. Under such conditions the small manufacturer and the small shop keeper would continue and have a secure and important place.
Meanwhile, the Government's task is to make the burden on the small shopkeeper deliberately easier by organising bulk buying opportunities for him and by helping small shop keepers to form associations among themselves. That has been done for the farmers in Scandinavia. Those possibilities are much more realistic than people who are wedded to the capitalist system will easily understand.
Conservative Members do not want small traders to be helped. They want to use them as propaganda to beat the Labour Government over the head. They are not concerned about the real interests of small traders and small manufacturers. That subject leaves them cold. They are hypocrites and humbugs on this subject, as they are on the National Health Service and every other subject.
However, there is a need to improve the credit facilities of the small shop keeper and to afford the possibility of buying in a large market. The small shop keeper must not always be beaten by companies such as Marks and Spencer and other big stores in the High Street.
Those are some of the problems and some of the needs of small shop keepers that the Government should consider. They are more realistic than some of the remarks made by Conservative Members. In relation to social security and taxation, the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State has convinced me that small traders and businesses have nothing to fear from the Government and that their interests are well looked after.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no power to limit the length of speeches. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said that he wanted to be brief. His idea of brevity differs entirely from mine. It is only fair to let other hon. Members speak. The hon. Member spoke for 22 minutes, and his was the second longest speech. The Chair has power to say that the debate will end at 10 o'clock and that the winding-up speeches will begin at 9.20 p.m.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I shall try to obey your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
334
It is important to consider the type of persons who make up the category of the self-employed. In occupation they vary from window cleaners, doctors, and lawyers through to farmers, fishermen and a host of other means of earning a living. They are a diverse, wide-ranging, multi-occupational and multi-skilled group of individuals who collectively contribute a great deal of skill, expertise and employment to our commerce and industry. In number they come to about 2 million, which when multiplied several times gives an indication of the number of people employed by the self-employed. Therefore, they are an extremely important group in our community.
This debate is a recognition of that importance. I hope that the Government will take the hint. Many European countries acknowledge the importance of the self-employed and have a Minister for self-employed affairs. I hope to see one in the United Kingdom and I certainly hope to see a Minister for self-employed affairs in the Scottish Assembly. In the meantime, as a short-term measure, I hope that the Government will consider setting up a Select Committee or a similar body to examine the problems which now face small businesses and the self-employed.
Rightly or wrongly, the small trader and shop keeper and the self-employed person believe that they are fighting for their economic life. They feel overburdened by red tape, bureaucracy and the immense amount of paper work that has been thrown on to them. VAT is a good example. VAT is a daft enough tax anyway, but when multi-rate tax is introduced it almost reaches the level of an obscenity. For example, the small trader faces a choice between nine different VAT systems in his daily operation. He now faces a bundle of solid type VAT regulations which is 2½ inches thick, which he must obey, otherwise he will bear the full stricture of the law.
One of my local traders estimates that on average he spends one hour per day during the trading period filling up forms and VAT returns, yet at the end of what was a particularly busy quarter he sent the Government a cheque for the mighty sum of 98p. All that effort, endeavour, time and work had been spent for such a small amount. It is no wonder that the

335
self-employed are complaining that they are acting as unpaid civil servants.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider some reform of the present VAT set-up. I hope they will consider a scheme whereby recompense can be given to the small trader in return for the work and effort that he puts in when filling up VAT returns.
Rightly or wrongly, small traders and the self-employed feel that the present taxation system is designed, in its amount and complexity, to handicap and frustrate their efforts. The self-employed levy, for example, is a particular bone of contention. My party, the SNP, has always opposed that levy. There has been a good deal of hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, because it was the Conservatives who introduced it, as the Minister rightly pointed out.
Nevertheless the self-employed should be given reasonable welfare benefits, which the rest of us take for granted. As an example of that, I take the reciprocal health agreement. If employed people fall ill abroad they can be looked after, and similarly if employed people come to this country they can be looked after. This applies to everyone except the self-employed and the unemployed. The Department of Health and Social Security's pamphlet No. A. 28 points out that the self-employed in this matter have fewer rights than refugees and Stateless persons. That is a disgraceful way to treat an important section of the community.
Rightly or wrongly, for self-employed people there is little enough incentive to work hard in their own businesses and the Government seem, by the taxation system, to make it worth a man's while not to go into business for himself. The logical conclusion to this trend is that eventually everyone will end up being employed either by the State or by some monopoly firm. The centralisation and depersonalisation that that system implies is something for which we shall pay dearly. At the very least we shall have lost the variety of choices and individual and personal service which is the hallmark of the present system at its best.
I would rather look for an alternative outlook and option in which individual enterprise is encouraged and in which the
336
myriad needs of society can be met in a flexible and complex number of ways. For example, a portion of Scottish oil revenues could be used as venture capital to allow an individual with an idea to put that idea into practice, to create the new growth industries of the future and to give our people employment. I should like to see family ownership encouraged—in farming, for example, where continuity and individual attention can be allied to essential efficiency.
That could be the strength of our economic system, yet the present Government's taxation policies are designed to achieve exactly the opposite effect. In my constituency there is a farm which has been held by one family for six generations. The present generation will be the last, thanks to the workings of capital transfer tax. The situation has been reached where a man cannot hand his land and livestock to his son, and either the land must go or the livestock must go merely to meet the needs of the Government's taxation.
I should like to make it plain that I am not talking about multi-millionaires, the idle rich or massive individual wealth. I am talking about small and medium farms, fishing boats and small businesses. All of the people who run these come into the self-employed category. It is this group of people to whom the Government have signally failed to respond. I hope that this debate will be a springboard for action by the Government to take into account the needs of this extremely important group in our community.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: I had not intended to take part in the debate, because I find that taking part in debates about the self-employed is very bad for my nerves. But I have been provoked by some of the remarks in the debate—not least those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, which showed that he was inadequately informed on some of the basic facts behind this debate. I am sorry to see that, of course, he has pushed off, though I hope that he has taken time to read the piece of paper that I gave him, which showed that his accusations that I had my facts wrong were untrue.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) suggested that there ought

337
to be a Select Committee to look into the problems of the self-employed or the small businessman. I certainly think that, given that in the past 18 months we have considered the matter of the tax and national insurance situation of the self-employed several times, any competent House of Commons that ran its affairs sensibly—as this House does not, of course—would have had one of its many Committees which could do this looking at the situation, so that the House might have the benefit of some impartial assessment of the problems before getting down to the sort of slanging match that too often takes place upon the Floor of the House.
The Leader of the Liberal Party announced that there were 19 or 20 national insurance benefits to which the self-employed were not entitled. In my rather lengthy intervention—as you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker—in the speech of the hon. Member for Basing-stoke (Mr. Mitchell), I was able to show that there were only five national insurance benefits to which the self-employed were not entitled. There are seven benefits to which they are entitled, but that ratio of being entitled to seven and not being entitled to five does not properly reflect the cost of the benefits, since it is the expensive benefits, on the whole, to which the self-employed are entitled equally with other contributors to the National Insurance Fund.
Over the past five years, from 1969 to 1974, the proportion of the National Insurance Fund being spent on benefits to which the self-employed are not entitled averaged 12·5 per cent. per year. The self-employed were, therefore, on average, over those five years receiving benefits accounting for 87½ per cent. of the outgoings of the Fund. In the final year in that series, 1974, the proportion to which they were not entitled had fallen to 10·6 per cent. I concede straight away that because of the current high level of unemployment that percentage of 10 to 12 must inevitably rise, and rise quite significantly in the coming year or two, and that in itself justifies the marginally preferential treatment that the self-employed are getting in the latest increase in contributions. But the self-employed cannot claim that there is a significant part of the benefits paid for by the fund to which they are not entitled.
338
There are other points, however, which members of the Conservative Party, if they would get round to thinking about them, ought to bring forward in support of the self-employed. One is the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) about the self-employed tending not to go sick as often as do people who are employed.
A far more important point in financial terms is the fact that on average the self-employed person retires later than does the employed person, because if he is working in a shop, he tends to go on working after the normal retirement age. This means that the amount of retirement pension that the average self-employed person draws out of the Fund must be less than the average drawn out by the employee. If that could be given some actuarial value, that would begin to justify the lower contribution to the Fund that the self-employed have always enjoyed from the beginning in 1948, but the factors so far adduced in the debate do not, I respectfully submit, justify that.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by the lower contribution. The contribution made by the employee is lower than that made by the self-employed person. The total of the contribution made by the employer of an employee and that made by the employee is higher than that made by a self-employed person. But let us be quite clear about this: the self-employed person pays much more than the employee.
Mr. Cunningham: We all know that. Time does not allow me, without incurring your annoyance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain fully the answer to that point, but I shall do my best.
Let us consider the position of two establishments, one a self-employed concern and the other not self-employed, both performing similar functions and next door to each other. In the case of the establishment that is not self-employed there will have to come out of profits or be added to prices the employee's and the employer's contributions. From the self-employed establishment next door there will have to come only the self-employed contribution.

339
Then one has to take into account, of course, the fact that the self-employed gets no tax relief on his contribution, whereas the employer gets full tax relief on his contribution. If the self-employed person were being made to pay the total of the employer and employee contribution minus the 12½ per cent. for the benefits that he does not enjoy, he should get tax relief on that part which is deemed to be equivalent to the employer's contribution. But as long as he is not paying anything like the total of those two parts, he cannot expect to have it both ways, and have the tax relief as well as paying a lower contribution than other people are paying for equivalent benefits.
The self-employed also have a huge advantage in being able under Schedule D to pay their taxation long after they receive the income to which it relates. It is a marvellous advantage to have a year of not paying tax when inflation is running at its present rate. There is not an hon. Member who would not pay his tax under Schedule D rather than Schedule E if he could get away with it.
There is another factor about the new increases in the contributions. It was the case, until these increases were made, that, up to a level of £1,600 a year, the self-employed were paying over 8 per cent. contributions and only those receiving over £1,600 a year were paying as low as 8 per cent. One effect of inflation is that it is the lower level in real terms—namely, £1,600—at today's values rather than at last year's values below which one is paying a contribution in excess of 8 per cent. So in that sense, inflation has operated to the benefit of the self-employed. I concede that there are other factors working in the opposite direction. but not all the factors have worked in the opposite direction.
For the first time in all the working of the National Insurance Scheme we have a Government who are working out a method—I think that they will successfully work it out, although they are not bound to succeed—of paying the self-employed earnings-related benefits. What is so irritating to Conservative Members is that they see the same thing happening on this as happened with the option mortgage scheme. They stand up and do all the shouting about owner-occupiers and
340
how they stand for the ownership of property, but it was a Labour Government who did the only thing in that sector that actually helped the person who could be persuaded to make the switch into owner-occupation rather than being outside it. Similarly, it will be a Labour Government who for the first time produce a scheme which gives earnings-related benefits to the self-employed. That is what is driving the Tories to distraction—that we are doing the practical thing while they only do all the shouting about it.
We tend in this country, in relation to small businesses or big, to say that, if they are not succeeding, it must be the fault of the Government. The Government never get the credit when they make a profit, but if they fail, it is always the Government's fault. Surely it is obvious to a blind man that there is happening at the moment a long-term secular decline in the state of efficiency and enterprise in this country. It is the case throughout our society, from top to bottom, from side to side, through and through, and it is illustrated in this incompetent House of Commons, in its administrative procedures, as much as anywhere.
When we see businesses failing, be they small or be they large, let us realise that the fault lies usually and principally with the entrepreneurs who are in charge of them. The managers of Rolls-Royce botched it, not the Government. The managers of Leyland botched it, not the Government. If some of the self-employed go to the wall, it is normally their fault and not the fault of the Government whose activities are, in the main, extremely marginal compared with the input of efficiency and enterprise, or otherwise, by the entrepreneurs of those institutions.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The pressures on the self-employed come from many quarters. They come from central Government, from local government and also, especially in the case of the small retail shops, from the chain stores, the huge multiples, the hypermarkets and huge international companies. Big business can be the most lethal enemy of small business, and it is the very small people who most need protection. It is they who suffer most

341
from what seems to be the iniquitous use made of them as unpaid tax collectors of VAT—work which in many cases takes them hours each week. This is a cause of deep and continuing resentment.
I should like to give one example from my own constituency of the way in which an international company can use the power of its near-monopoly of selling its products in order, I believe, deliberately in some rural areas to destroy small companies. It uses its wealth and its power in this way. I want to refer especially to the way in which Shell uses its power in its sale of petrol to small firms, shops, garages or petrol stations. It pursues an anti-social policy by insisting on payment for its petrol within three days of delivery, although a small rural shop or garage perhaps cannot sell that petrol within a month. In addition, if the little customer firm is only one day late in making its payment, thus taking four days instead of three, Shell from then on rigorously demands payment three days before delivery. That kind of commercial behaviour is not found in decent business circles.
Shell's attitude is that of a bully untouched by compassion. Shell represents modern Shylocks demanding their pound of flesh even at the cost of a little firm's life. In order to pay for the, let us say, £1,000 worth of petrol three days before delivery, the small firm has to have an extra £1,000 worth of capital. Where will that come from in three days? If this policy is followed persistently, the smallest people will be driven out of business—as so many of them are—for lack of capital. That is probably the object of the exercise, but it is a thoroughly anti-social practice. I wonder what the Government can do to protect the very small man against this clear example of capitalist oppression.
The same small businesses are oppressed by the weight of rates. I draw attention to the invidious situation of the small shopkeeper whose shop occupies the same premises as his home. There are many instances in my constituency of small business families suffering considerably from the fact that they have to pay the same rates for their domestic home premises as for their business premises without the rate reliefs
342
which are usually automatically granted to domestic premises. Will the Government look at this matter?
I am told that, because of the differential assessment according to size, the smallest shops pay more on average per square metre than their larger competitors. This is an anomaly which should be reviewed.
In Wales a major cause of the high rates has been the reorganisation of local government. The White Paper setting out plans for local government appeared first in 1968. It was issued by a Labour Government but its provisions were implemented by a Conservative Government. Plaid Cymru alone opposed the plans. It was a centralising measure designed to reduce the amount of local government. The result has been higher rates, higher costs and more inefficiency.
One contributory factor to the higher rates has been the water rate. The power to levy the water rate was taken out of the hands of the local authority and put into the hands of a national body, but that national body is not allowed to use its power to sell the water from Wales. If it had that power, our water rates, instead of being the highest in Europe, would be about the lowest. That would be of great help in reducing rates generally.
Lastly, on behalf of my constituents and ratepayers, I want to make a plea to the Government to do something to help them regarding the cost of the Cleddau Bridge in Pembrokeshire. I mention this point because Government intervention is responsible for the rise in the cost of this bridge from £3 million to £12 million, yet they are not prepared to pay a penny towards the cost of the bridge. The cost of the bridge is adding £1½ million a year to my local authority's rate demands. I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and help the local authority in Dyfed in a way which will enable it to look to its rural roads and other social services.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: It is true that the problems of the self-employed, the small employer, small business, farmer and craftsman did not start with the advent of the Labour Government. By themselves some of the severe problems faced by the self-employed

343
might have been just tolerable. The problem today is that so many grave disadvantages affecting the small man have come all at once. The national insurance contribution increase, without any increase in benefits, has been the last straw which has triggered off much of the anger and ill-feeling amongst the self-employed today.
I am glad that the Minister of State has returned. The Conservative Government realised that it was necessary to increase the share of the contribution paid by the self-employed when they introduced the new structure. It had been falling over the years. It had fallen from about 70 per cent. of a joint contribution rate of the employer and employee to about 33 per cent. when the Conservative Government took office. That was a substantial fall and something had to be done to put it right.
That situation had arisen largely because the self-employed had not been brought into the earnings-related contribution scheme of earlier years. It was right to tilt the balance towards the self-employed contributing a little more for the basic pension they were to receive. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends connived with us in agreeing the structure. They did not oppose it. They even congratulated the previous Government on finding a way of doing it.
The right hon. Gentleman today used his great knowledge about these matters to confuse the House. He said that the Labour Government had not altered the share of the contribution which the self-employed were paying towards their benefits. That may be true taking the whole self-employed as a class. The Conservative Government had increased the self-employed's contribution from about 33 per cent. to 55 per cent. of the joint contribution rate of the employer and employee. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that his Government are putting up contributions but are maintaining that share at about 55 per cent. I do not disbelieve him, but he failed to make clear that, while the lower levels of contributions are to remain the same, a very large slice of the cost is being transferred to the higher earners.
It is how this problem affects certain individuals and not the self-employed as
344
a class that is causing the trouble. The higher earners—those getting more than about £2,800—are being called upon to pay substantial increases, about 90 per cent. of the share of the joint contribution by employers and employees, while they do not receive the tax advantages which they would get if they paid corporation tax. It is the self-employed on higher earnings who are at a great disadvantage, and this is why they have such a considerable grievance.
The Government are using the social security system to redistribute income, within the self-employed, from the higher-paid to the lower-paid. That is the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the Secretary of State for Social Services. We should go back to the original idea of contributions being made towards the benefits received and a system which is at least fair between one contributor and another.
Mr. O'Malley: I am listening to the hon. Member with interest because he is making a knowledgeable and sensible contribution to the debate. With the Class 1 contributions under the formula of the 1973 Act, there is a redistributive element inherent in the earnings-related principle. Under today's Order, employed people pay 5·75 per cent. of their reckon-able earnings up to £95 a week to get the same flat-rate benefit. That is where the present Government disagree with the previous administration. If it was right under the previous administration's legislation that Class 1 contributors should be treated in that way, why does the hon. Member now argue that Class 2 contributors should not be treated in the same way in the interests of the self-employed who are lower paid?
Mr. Boscawen: It is quite simple. The Government are redistributinig from the higher level of earnings of a very small band—only the self-employed. If the redistribution was being made across the whole spectrum of employed people, that would be a different matter. The way the Government are proceeding is giving rise to substantial grievances, and I hope that my party will put this right when we get back into office. If this was the single problem, the self-employed would not be making such a fuss about their difficulties. The problem is the combination of the whole host of other problems

345
like rates, the capital transfer tax, multi-rate VAT and so on all coming at once, each one a straw breaking the camel's back several times over.
The self-employed have a case and it is high time that the Government paid a great deal more attention to them, not least because they are substantial employers. One of the problems today is that we are having to put up contributions in order to pay increased unemployment benefits which the self-employed do not get. If they are to be penalised in the way they have been in the last year or two, many of them will go out of business and will create even more unemployment by laying off the small number of workers each of them employs, contributing in total substantially to unemployment generally. By penalising the self-employed the Government will not make the position any better for employees, because more and more of them will be put out of work.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I wish to draw attention to the problems of the self-employed and the small businesses in the rural areas, particularly the small villages and towns. They have not been mentioned tonight and the Government should turn their attention to these problems. I do not blame the Government entirely for the position of the small shopkeepers, garages and post offices in the rural areas, though they are contributing greatly to the problems of these people. Economic pressures are squeezing them out, and the Government are adding to the burden.
Let me highlight the position of the rural post offices. These establishments are essential to rural areas. Not everyone can get into the town. Because of the high cost of petrol and the dwindling number of buses, it is getting increasingly difficult for pensioners and others living in rural areas to obtain their supplies, their postal requirements and all the other things they need. I urge the Government not to write off the rural areas in this way. Something must be done to help them.
I do not want any further depopulation of rural areas. The age levels in in villages are very high. People cannot move because they do not have the cars, the buses are not there, and the younger
346
people have gone away. It is vital for us to care for those who live in the remoter areas. In the past this country has owed much of its backbone to those who live in rural areas and small towns. I beg the Government not to forget them.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I feel very guilty speaking tonight when so many of my hon. Friends, having sat throughout the debate, have been unable to speak. We have had the pleasure of all the minority parties participating, and in a short debate that means that many of my hon. Friends do not get the chance to take part.
This is a subject on which the House has not had the pleasure of hearing my voice before. It is appropriate for the winding-up to be given by a Scots Member, because in these devolutionary days it is as well to remind ourselves that Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. Many of us are determined that that is how it will remain, in spite of the views expressed by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh). It is also appropriate since six out of every hundred people at work in Scotland are self-employed.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The vast majority of people in Scotland feel exactly the same way as the hon. Member. They also want to remain part of the United Kingdom, but they want authority to be devolved and to have more say in their own affairs.
Mr. Taylor: I do not want to enter that debate. Every piece of advice that I have heard from the hon. Gentleman in my 11 years in the House has been entirely wrong. If the Government took his advice, the country's position would be even more serious.
The self-employed in Scotland suffer in exactly the same way as the self-employed in the South because of the Government's anti-free-enterprise vendetta. They have the additional problem which many self-employed people and small businesses in England do not have of having mainly Socialist councils. It would be refreshing and enlightening for some of the more youthful Left-wing Members, such as the hon. Member for Islington. South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), to come to Glasgow, if the

347
hon. Gentleman thinks, as he obviously does, that the introduction of more Socialist measures would help industry and commerce.
We have heard some remarkable speeches. There was a speech of great common sense from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I was delighted to hear what he said about the dangers of unfair competition from municipal enterprises. I hope that the Government and Labour councils will listen to what he said. We had a speech of great wisdom from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who outlined some of the problems facing small firms and the self-employed.
But I thought that the highlight of the debate was the speech of astonishing complacency by the Minister of State, who gave the impression that the self-employed, instead of complaining as they have been, should be sending him a message of good will for his work for them. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of what has been happening. Is he not aware of the monstrous burdens and restrictions that the present Government have placed on the self-employed and small businesses? Has he not heard of the inequities of the dual VAT and the monstrous increase in taxation which has been inflicted on the self-employed and private business? Why does he think there is so much concern? Why does he think there have been so many bankruptcies? Are people just closing down businesses out of spite against the Government?
There was a speech of astonishing length by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), which we found enlightening. His basic message was that we should be wrong to create a feeling of persecution in the minds of small business people and the self-employed. There is a simple answer, which is for the Government to stop persecuting the self-employed and small businesses. That is precisely what the Government have been doing. It is why we have been complaining in debates, why so many small business men are giving up their work, closing up their businesses, and why we see so many empty shops in our streets.
The Minister said that his regulations were very helpful to the self-employed.
348
The extent to which they are not so adverse and objectionable as the previous regulations is undoubtedly due to the fearless opposition put up by the Conservative Party and the small-business fraternity.
I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will give a further explanation of some parts of the regulations. The Minister of State, in saying that there was no increase for those with lower incomes, assumed that people would have the same income next year as they have this year. But, with inflation at 25 per cent., a self-employed person with an income of £1,600 rising to about £2,000 will be worse off than an employee, not only as regards the absolute amount he pays, but as regards the amount of the increase. His payment will rise from £125 to £157, an increase of £32 compared with an additional £27 for an employed person. There will be a substantial increase for those in the higher income groups. For example, the amount paid by a self-employed person with an annual income of £4,900 will rise by £104, on top of the substantial rise that he has already had to pay.
Inflation is bringing more people into Class 4 contributions. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell us how many more people will be brought into the net. In this connection, it is interesting to see what has happened to the actuarial estimates. Whereas in last year's Government Actuary's Report Class 4 contributions for next year were estimated at £57 million, the new estimate is £93 million.
We must always remember that self-employed persons do not receive the full range of benefits available to others in the community. For example, they do not receive the earnings-related benefit. They are deprived of unemployment benefit and many other benefits. They get nothing like the range of benefits available to others. We also had an indication from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that they do not get what some people regard as the full advantages of the Common Market.
In the debate on 13th March we impressed on the Government that the situation facing the self-employed was serious and urgent. At a time when we have new regulations before us, it is right briefly to go over what has happened

349
since 13th March. The then Minister of State at the Treasury accepted that the situation was serious. He gave us an indication of the kind of steps he hoped might be taken. He gave a kind of assurance that he thought might be helpful to the self-employed and to small businesses. First, he said that most of the problem was the responsibility of the Tories. Perhaps it is better to ignore that and to go on to what was said thereafter.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that rates were a major problem. He indicated the action which would be taken. He said:
"pressure has been put on local authorities to restrict the growth in local authority expenditure. That, again, will be of value in the present situation."
Let us remember that that was only a few months ago. Is the Minister willing to go up to Scotland to make a statement that the Government have taken action to restrain rates? The Secretary of State has anticipated the decimal system by introducing something called a 10-month year. However, in Scotland we have had rate increases of up to 200 per cent., with an average of over 50 per cent. Rates are a crippling burden on small businesses. There is industrial derating but there is no derating for commerce.
The Minister also indicated that some action might be taken on tax relief for contributions made by the self-employed. That is desperately important. Although the employers' contribution of 8·5 per cent. is allowable for corporation tax, thus reducing the net expenditure to 4·08 per cent., there is no tax relief for the self-employed in the same situation. The Minister accepted that this was a serious situation and he hoped that something could be done. In fact, he said:
"I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be further examined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer."—[Official Report, 13th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 880.]
Unfortunately, instead of the Government's examination being successful, the only thing that emerged from the Budget was the introduction of the dual rate of VAT. That system has added enormously to the administrative burdens faced by the self-employed.
On looking back at the Minister's speech I am struck by the fact that his
350
only practical suggestion was in response to our bitter complaints about the effect of the capital transfer tax on small businesses and the self-employed. The hon. Gentleman tried to justify the situation by explaining that Labour's proposals would mean that businesses up to £100,000 or £200,000, under Labour's new plan for the small business man, would do reasonably well on death. That was not entirely a good answer. It perhaps justifies the interpretation of a new slogan—namely, "under Labour you will be better off dead than self-employed." The Prime Minister obviously noticed that, becauses shortly afterwards the hon. Gentleman was promoted.
We gained nothing from the debate on 13th March. The Minister made a pledge in a Press release a few days later that something else might be done for the self-employed. He accepted that there were problems concerning earnings-related benefits and he gave an assurance that something would be done. It seems that the Government were actively considering the matter. The words used were far more specific:
"We are in favour of earnings-related pensions for the self-employed."
There again, we have had the assurance today that the matter is still being reviewed. When we consider the monstrous burden placed on the self-employed and small businesses by the Government since the March debate, we can judge how the review has proceeded. Specific suggestions were put forward, but nothing positive has been done. The introduction of a dual rate of VAT has had a negative effect.
We might have expected something more from the present Government because they have introduced the concept—although I am sure that most hon. Members are not aware of it—of a Minister with special responsibilities for small businesses. It is surely an indication of the priority given to this matter by the Government that that Minister has not been able to be present for this discussion of the self-employed and the small business man. Many people are not aware that such a Minister exists, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman concerned is aware of his responsibilities—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] He is the Minister of State, Department of

351
Industry, the hon. Member for Ruther-glen (Mr. Mackenzie). After examining the Government's activities in respect of the self-employed and the small business, I believe that instead of his being the Minister for small businesses, he should be called the "Minister for Inactivity". We have certainly had no indication of any positive steps taken by that Minister to help the interests of small businesses.
I do not make a general criticism about inactivity on the part of Government Ministers. There are many Labour Ministers whom I would be happy to see doing nothing at all, instead of the monstrous activities in which they indulge. I should be happy, for example, if the Secretary of State for Education would do nothing, instead of entering into agreements with the Liberals to try to bring death to the grant-aided schools. I should be happy to see the Secretary of State for Energy doing nothing at all, instead of indulging his foolish plans to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on nationalisation. Furthermore, we should be happy to see the Secretary of State for Scotland doing nothing, because he was the person who said that once unemployment reached 100,000 the honourable course for him to take would be that of resignation. That figure in Scotland has now reached 140,000.
We are tonight examining a serious matter. The Labour Government have inflicted great damage on the self-employed and on small businesses. I repeat that the Minister who has been given special responsibilities for small businesses has not been present for one moment during this debate, and he has made no apparent contribution of any sort to further the interests of the self-employed. That is a wash-out and an affront to honest people who are working round the clock to earn an honest living despite the burdens inflicted upon them.
These small businesses cannot be isolated from the general economy. We must bear in mind the substantial increases in contributions that are to be paid by every class of contributor, and the burden of financing benefits would not have been so great and the mountain of unemployment so large if the Government had been honest, had shown integrity, and had acted in time, instead of
352
deliberately delaying economic measures, either through wishful thinking or because of what I suspect to have been downright deception before the General Election last October.
A year before that election the Minister of State, Department of Employment expressed himself to be outraged that an estimate of 600,000 unemployed had been made in 1975. He said that we were likely to see long-term unemployment remain as long as Conservatives were in office. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks now.
We then had the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services in the October election making the astonishing statement that unemployment was levelling off. She said that Labour was determined to create more jobs and not fewer. She went on to say that because the Conservative Government had failed to act in time, there was a monstrous problem of unemployment that had to be financed.
I believe that the Government have wholly under-estimated the seriousness of the problem facing the self-employed and the difficulties of small businesses. There are 2 million people self-employed in this country who work hard for the economy and make a great contribution. We have 1,250,000 small businesses employing 6 million people, and it cannot be denied that the Government have done a great deal of damage to the self-employed and to small businesses. They have imposed penal taxation, which has knocked the heart out of business men and destroyed enterprise. The Government have imposed an enormous bureaucracy, a multi-rate VAT, and capital transfer tax.
In March we issued a warning to the Government. [Interruption.] This is a short debate and it is monstrous that there should be so much laughter on the Government Benches. We should be concerned about unemployment and the hardship in this section of the community. I was saying that we issued a serious warning to the Government in March. We voted against the Government because of their extremely unfair policies aimed at the self-employed and the small business. We shall vote against those policies tonight—and we shall continue to do so until the Government recognise

353
the contribution made by the self-employed and give them the justice they so well deserve.
9.45 p.m.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): I can fairly say that some of my best friends are self-employed. If any self-employed friends of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) had heard his speech tonight, he would have lost a large number of them. There was not one jot of constructive thought throughout the whole of his speech. The same comment applies to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The only constructive points came from my hon. Friends. [Interruption.] Conservative Members who are now shouting were not even in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend spoke.
The Opposition have raised the issue of national insurance and various tax matters. On the insurance side my right hon. Friend the Minister of State utterly demolished every word the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke. My right hon. Friend exposed him as a humbug who had not even learned his facts. I have never seen a Shadow spokesman so utterly destroyed. I hope that the hon. Members who were not present at the time will read the speech to see the way it exposed the nonsense we heard from the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to hear the word "humbug" applied to an argument but not to an individual.
Mr. Barnett: I am happy to withdraw the word "humbug" in that sense and apply it to the whole of the Opposition. [Interruption.] I am sorry that they are so sensitive about these matters.
I turn to the tax matters that were raised. For the Opposition to pretend, as they have done, that in some way they would have changed the way the tax system works on the self-employed is dishonest and disreputable. I cannot use that other word again and I would not want to. I assume that they are not serious in suggesting that they would somehow or other provide special tax relief for the self-employed. I take it that even they would not suggest that. I assume that they would want to provide tax relief not only for the self-employed
354
but for the whole of the tax-paying public.
Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out that the self-employed already have a considerable advantage. They made the point that the self-employed pay their tax 12 months in arrear. My hon. Friends understate the case. It is anything from nine to 15 months, or twice as much depending on the year-end of the firm concerned. The Government have provided substantial tax relief through the stocks scheme introduced in the last Budget, plus a 5 per cent. bonus to compensate for the year's delay.
The suggestion that the self-employed and small business men have been hurt by the corporation tax system and its rates was exposed by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] He is the Leader of the real Opposition because the official Opposition never make a constructive point. The right hon. Gentleman was honest enough to concede that it was the imputation system, introduced by a Conservative Government, which hurt the small business men and small companies. The more serious members of the official Opposition—on the Back Benches—will concede that point. We do not hear that from the Opposition Front Bench. Instead we hear only the sort of rubbish we have heard today.
We heard a great deal about VAT. I should never have believed, listening to the contributions from the Opposition, that VAT was introduced by a Conservative Government. I have never made any bones about it. I do not like VAT. I do not pretend to like it. I should have preferred the purchase tax system, but we are stuck with VAT.
I am aware of the problems affecting the truly small business man. We are trying to help. We are meeting the National Federation of Self-Employed and we have promised to consider its representations. It has promised to resubmit its proposals, and my hon. Friends will be meeting its representatives shortly to consider them.
Further considerations were advanced about the capital gains tax. There were many complaints about the way in which capital gains tax affects small business men and the self-employed. Inflation

355
hits small business men and other people in business. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the Opposition are upset, but I must reply to points made about the capital gains tax. I accept that the capital gains tax hurts some small business men. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Bolton Committee and increased retirement relief from £10,000 to £20,000. The Conservative Government sat on that recommendation and did nothing about it for two years. That is what a Labour Government did for the truly small self-employed business men.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has answered two points which were not raised in the debate. Would it not be helpful if he addressed himself to those points which were raised in the debate?
Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman must control his impatience. I am sorry that I cannot agree with every word he uttered. The points which were raised require a reply. I agreed to limit my speech to 15 minutes.
The capital transfer tax limit was increased. Opposition Members who raised the question of the capital transfer tax did not do us the courtesy of reading the lengthy debates on that tax in Committee. However, I know the problem. I know what the Opposition mean by a small business man. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the £¼ million small business man. That is his idea of a small business man. The truly small business man does not have the opportunities that are available to the larger concerns for sophisticated tax avoidance. The small business man is considerably better off than he was under the system of estate duty.
Mr. Peter Rees rose—
Mr. Barnett: I have listened night after night to the nonsense of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Rees: I rise because the Minister referred to me.
Mr. Barnett: The Opposition are pursuing precisely the line indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). They are deliberately pandering to prejudice. The small
356
business man is helped by the capital transfer tax. Under the system we have introduced, a small business man—indeed, anyone—can leave his business to his wife and pay no tax, although tax would have been paid under the estate duty system. The truly small business man and the small farmer are not only not hurt by capital transfer tax but positively gain from it. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members really understood the capital transfer tax they would not try to make a case for going back to a system whereby the small business men of whom they speak avoided paying a single penny in estate duty. That was why we introduced capital transfer tax. I do not apologise for it. The small business man has no need to be worried about it.
We all know that the rating system is not fair. We also know that the Layfield Committee will report towards the end of the year. Then will be the time to consider the rates.
The Opposition's case has been exposed as a cynical attempt to show that they are helping the self-employed, but their speeches have been full of dishonest rubbish. Opposition Members who listened to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield must be ashamed of every word he spoke. The Opposition know that any major help in taxation is impossible at this time with the borrowing requirement running at its present level. They also know that without reducing public expenditure the borrowing requirement cannot be reduced. The Opposition have not proposed any way of reducing public expenditure. They have shown in the debate a shameful disregard of the national interest.
The Opposition's constant claim to speak for the self-employed is a fraud. If our society were run in the way they want it run, the result would be large monopoly capitalism. That concept is precisely opposed to the interests of the self-employed. The Opposition talk about wanting to help the self-employed and the small business man, but their policies would squeeze out the very people they seek to help. I hope that the self-employed will read the debate. If they do they will realise that what was said by the Opposition Front Bench would in no way help them—quite the contrary. The best speeches came from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my

357
hon. Friends on the Labour Benches. The Opposition can no more speak for the self-employed than they can speak for the country generally.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote to show their contempt for the fact that the Opposition even deign to vote and pretend to be spokesmen for the self-employed. I hope that the more responsible
Members who have listened to at least part of the debate will recognise that the way to deal with the problem is to vote for the Government and against the Opposition.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 267. Noes 286.

Division No. 382.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Alison, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawrence, Ivan

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lawson, Nigel

Arnold, Tom

Fox, Marcus

Le Marchant, Spencer

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Awdry, Daniel

Freud, Clement

Lloyd, Ian

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Fry, Peter

Loveridge, John

Baker, Kenneth

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Banks, Robert

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacCormick, lain

Beith, A. J.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

McCrindle, Robert

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Macfarlane, Neil

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Glyn, Dr Alan

MacGregor, John

Benyon, W.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Biffen, John

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Madel, David

Blaker, Peter

Gorst, John

Mates, Michael

Body, Richard

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mather, Carol

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maude, Angus

Bottomley, Peter

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Gray, Hamish

Mawby, Ray

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Grieve, Percy

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Braine, Sir Bernard

Griffiths, Eldon

Mayhew, Patrick

Brittan, Leon

Grist, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Grylls, Michael

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Brotherton, Michael

Hall, Sir John

Mills, Peter

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Miscampbell, Norman

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moate, Roger

Buck, Antony

Hannam, John

Monro, Hector

Budgen, Nick

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Montgomery, Fergus

Bulmer, Esmond

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Burden, F. A.

Hastings, Stephen

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Havers, Sir Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Carlisle, Mark

Hawkins, Paul

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hayhoe, Barney

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Channon, Paul

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Churchill, W. S.

Henderson, Douglas

Mudd, David

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Heseltine, Michael

Neave, Airey

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hicks, Robert

Nelson, Anthony

Cockcroft, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Neubert, Michael

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Holland, Philip

Newton, Tony

Cope, John

Hooson, Emlyn

Nott, John

Cordle, John H.

Hordern, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Cormack, Patrick

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Corrie, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Costain, A. P.

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Crawford, Douglas

Hunt, John

Pardoe, John

Critchley, Julian

Hurd, Douglas

Pattie, Geoffrey

Crouch, David

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Penhaligon, David

Crowder, F. P.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Percival, Ian

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

James, David

Pink, R. Bonner

Drayson, Burnaby

Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Durant, Tony

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Jopling, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Elliott, Sir William

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rathbone, Tim

Emery, Peter

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Eyre, Reginald

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rees-Davies. W. R.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Reid, George

Fairgrieve, Russell

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Farr, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Fell, Anthony

Knox, David

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lamont, Norman

Ridsdale, Julian

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Lane, David

Rifkind, Malcolm

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Sproat, lain

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Stainton, Keith

Viggers, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Stanley, John

Wakeham, John

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wall, Patrick

Royle, Sir Anthony

Stokes, John

Walters, Dennis

Sainsbury, Tim

Stradling Thomas, J.

Warren, Kenneth

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tapsell, Peter

Watt, Hamish

Scott, Nicholas

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Weatherill, Bernard

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Wells, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Tebbit, Norman

Welsh, Andrew

Shepherd, Colin

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Silvester, Fred

Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Sims, Roger

Thompson, George

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Sinclair, Sir George

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Younger, Hon George

Skeet, T. H. H.

Townsend, Cyril D.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Trotter, Neville

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Speed, Keith

Tugendhat, Christopher

Mr. Richard Luce and

Spence, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Anderson, Donald

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hunter, Adam

Archer, Peter

Delargy, Hugh

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Ashley, Jack

Dempsey, James

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Doig, Peter

Janner, Greville

Atkinson, Norman

Dormand, J. D.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Bates, Alf

Dunn, James A.

John, Brynmor

Bean, R. E.

Dunnett, Jack

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Eadie, Alex

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Edge, Geoff

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Bidwell, Sydney

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bishop, E. S.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Judd, Frank

Blenkinsop, Arthur

English, Michael

Kaufman, Gerald

Boardman, H.

Ennals, David

Kelley, Richard

Booth, Albert

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Kerr, Russell

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Evans, John (Newton)

Kinnock, Neil

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lambie, David

Bradley, Tom

Faulds, Andrew

Lamborn, Harry

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Lamond, James

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Fitt Gerard (Belfast W)

Leadbitter, Ted

Buchan, Norman

Flannery, Martin

Lee, John

Buchanan, Richard

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Forrester, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Campbell, Ian

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Lipton, Marcus

Canavan, Dennis

Freeson, Reginald

Litterick, Tom

Cant, R. B.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lomas, Kenneth

Carmichael, Neil

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Loyden, Eddie

Carter, Ray

George, Bruce

Luard, Evan

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Gilbert, Dr John

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Cartwright, John

Ginsburg, David

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Golding, John

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Clemitson, Ivor

Gould, Bryan

McCartney, Hugh

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Gourlay, Harry

McElhone, Frank

Cohen, Stanley

Graham, Ted

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Coleman, Donald

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Concannon, J. D.

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Conlan, Bernard

Grocott, Bruce

Mackintosh, John P.

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hardy, Peter

Maclennan, Robert

Corbett, Robin

Harper, Joseph

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McNamara, Kevin

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Madden, Max

Crawshaw, Richard

Hatton, Frank

Magee, Bryan

Cronin, John

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Mahon, Simon

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Cryer, Bob

Heffer, Eric S.

Marks, Kenneth

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Hooley, Frank

Marquand, David

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Horam, John

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Davidson, Arthur

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Huckfield, Les

Meacher, Michael

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mendelson. John

Mikardo, Ian

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Tomlinson, John

Millan, Bruce

Rooker, J. W.

Tomney. Frank

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Roper, John

Torney, Tom

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Rose, Paul B.

Tuck, Raphael

Molloy, William

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Urwin, T. W.

Moonman, Eric

Rowlands, Ted

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Sandelson, Neville

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Sedgemore, Brian

Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Selby, Harry

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Ward, Michael

Newens, Stanley

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Watkins, David

Noble, Mike

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Watkinson, John

Oakes, Gordon

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Weetch, Ken

O'Halloran, Michael

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Weitzman, David

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Wellbeloved, James

Orbach, Maurice

Sillars, James

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Skinner, Dennis

White, James (Pollok)

Ovenden, John

Small, William

Whitehead, Phillip

Owen, Dr David

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Whitlock, William

Padley, Walter

Snape, Peter

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Palmer, Arthur

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Park, George

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Parker, John

Stallard, A. W.

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Parry, Robert

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Stoddart, David

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Pendry, Tom

Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Stott, Roger

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Strang, Gavin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Price, William (Rugby)

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Woodall, Alec

Radice, Giles

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Woof, Robert

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Swain, Thomas

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Richardson, Miss Jo

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Roderick, Caerwyn

Tierney, Sydney

Miss Margaret Jacksoa.

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Tinn, James

Question accordingly negatived.

SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Jim Lester: I am sorry that this matter should need to be raised on the Adjournment, but the telecommunications industry is in a state of grave uncertainty. Although I intend to deal with the effect of the Post Office cuts on a factory in my constituency, I am not unmindful of the situation elsewhere, in Liverpool, Sunderland, Coventry and South Wales, and I shall understand if the Minister chooses to speak to a wider audience. But it is essential that he speaks, because it is now five weeks since the initial cuts were announced and during that time it appears to many in the industry that little has been heard.
First, we are talking not about a lame duck, out-dated or under-invested industry, but about an industry with enormous potential for exports and raising standards which is not fully understood. It cannot meet that potential and take the hammer blows from its principal customer that it has been required to take this year.
I am not trying to pour blame on the Post Office. One realises that it has a vast task and major problems—whether the pension fund or the borrowing requirement. I am trying to point to the effect of what I believe to be an ill-considered decision on an industry and a particular section of it, and to do so constructively and, I hope, with some suggestions for the future.
I know that much of the discussion has been concerned with the main exchanges but the Plessey factory in Beeston principally manufacturers what it calls "subs apparatus", or private communication systems, and there are 5,000 people employed on that site manufacturing these things. The result of what is said to be a commercial decision to raise prices in this area has been an overall cutback in orders in this section
364
of the business of 55 per cent. But in my constituency and this part of the factory it has meant a cutback of 72 per cent. of production on orders for the Post Office. That is a considerable cut and means over 40 per cent. of the total production in that area of the factory. This is a proposed order level decline from 18th September for deliveries from April 1976.
It is incredible that the results of this cut were not realised by the Post Office when it made this decision. In human terms, a cutback of 40 per cent. on 5,000 employees means 2,000. That is an unacceptable level to be threatened in so short a time. The social consequences are most serious, not only to those immediately affected, but to the surrounding community. Such a steep rundown in so short a time, when there are no other similar vacancies, without consultation or the ability to adjust, is a major matter.
There are also economic consequences on the site itself, because a cutback of this proportion affects the viability of the site and of the other productions. There is also the viability of the export production on this side.
What is equally important—I should like to emphasise this—is the effect of the decision on the Post Office. By the raising of the prices in one jump on 28th April not only was the market distorted—one has written to the Post Office and realises that it has not changed its prices since 1969—but its production line could be destroyed as well. I cannot believe that to be a good commercial decision.
Good telecommunications equipment is a vital part of any modern concern or business. No one can do without it for long. Eventually the market could readjust to the prices, but it might take a year or two years and by then new orders from the Post Office could be only at a much higher unit price if at all, because they would mean setting up new production lines to replace those dismantled. One cannot replace the dispersed skills of the people currently making this equipment.
I am advised that adjustment to a supply cut of this proportion is not possible. It is normal within the industry

365
at indicative levels to get variations—that is normal in any commercial enterprise—but a 20 per cent. cutback over 12 months is a major cutback needing a great deal of thought about adjustments. However, a cutback of over 40 per cent. in six months is not commercially viable. I do not believe that this cut was made with any ill-will but when one has a spending power of some £800 million, it is a question of not realising the consequences of one's action.
There is no question that the consequences have been realised now. I am satisfied that the management has communicated at every appropriate level with the Post Office and spelled out the true effects to both the Post Office and the industry. The joint union committee has campaigned vigorously and done a good job in contacting not only myself but other local Members of Parliament, including Ministers, and it has left no stone unturned to support the colleagues and employees of the firm.
After five weeks in this sector we are still waiting for some indication of whether there is to be any restitution of any form of support. It is with great disappointment that we have yet to hear of anything resulting from our efforts. Order reductions are critical to the future supplies of the Post Office. It is understandable that the union should request the cuts to be restored in full, but it may well be that that is not viable or possible. However, one would like to see the cuts restored sufficiently to continue balanced production in the interests of all.
I do not want to persuade the Post Office to buy out-dated equipment, nor to overstock to uneconomic levels. Could not the Post Office with the industry start a vigorous sales drive from 1st January to promote and sell the equipment that it has by offering rebates and three months' free rental if necessary? Surely it is better to get the equipment moving, installed and used than for it to remain in store and for the whole of the pipeline to disintegrate.
The Post Office has traditionally made its profit from telecommunications and calls. I hope that it will continue to do so. The Post Office's record on the telecommunications side is good in investment and productivity. I hope that it will be
366
good in the sale of private communications systems. If nothing is done and that decision proves to be wrong, who will carry the responsibility. There are many points that I should have liked to make, but I know that other hon. Members may wish to make a contribution.
Concerning exports, the Plessey Company has gone in for a vigorous sales drive and has more than doubled its sales overseas from 1973–74 to 1975–76. It has sold private systems worth millions of pounds. This drive has been based on a balanced production on the site. It is difficult, when there are already 3,000 men on short time, to persuade anyone to come in especially to do an export order at the weekend. That is understandable. Whatever the sales drive overseas, it cannot replace the cutback in the volume which is lost. One knows that in new markets in Ghana, Egypt, Kuwait and Syria there is no tolerance for default or poor performance on delivery.
The company has set higher targets still for its export drive and is setting on new staff to expand and sell still more. Therefore, a major home selling promotion effort by the Post Office would be of direct support to the energetic efforts made by the company in exports and would help to restore some sense of balance to the industry.
The third point concerns research and development generally. If the new System X exchange is to come in and has an export potential, the equipment designed to fit it will also have an added export potential. Therefore, now is the time, when there is a fallow period, for joint development contracts and for private and public investment in research and development to be made in these new areas. Surely it is possible to bring forward massive schemes of development, if the decision is to have the System X, to try to even out the design capability rather than to make redundant the managers and designers whom it is almost impossible to put on short time.
Research and development in the industry are difficult. With one major customer it is difficult, unless there is co-operation, to design what that customer wants and will buy. There is no future in designing anything in telecommunications that will not be required by the Post Office.

367
The last point concerns imports and import control. It seems incredible that only on 21st May, I got a letter from the Post Office indicating that, because there was such an upsurge in ordering of Plessey equipment, it was buying and putting in a Thorn Ericsson exchange costing £30 million. Yet by September we have a severe cutback.
Again, I can understand, though not necessarily agree with, the union's demand for some form of import restriction. The union wants me to make the point that there is a reasonable case for local authorities and public bodies spending either £250,000 or £500,000 on equipment from overseas getting clearance from the Department. I hope that the Minister will comment on and consider that matter.
I have tried in a short time to talk about sub-assemblies and private systems to try to make clear that I do not believe that the decision which has been taken is in any way commercial in the true sense. Its results are savage on people and skills. It harms future supplies to the Post Office and, through that, the industry's efficiency and our export potential. I am convinced that there are the brains, the will and the energy at all levels in the industry and that they can respond to the challenge of today's difficulties, given half the chance. There may be only a few here, but there are thousands outside who will be interested in the Minister's reply.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. William Whitlock: The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) has raised an important matter and put fairly and forcefully the view of the employees at the factory in his constituency. I am glad of the opportunity of supporting the hon. Gentleman, since many of those employees live in my constituency.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is reviewing the long-term relationship between the Post Office and the telecommunications industry. I hope that that means that there will be an inquiry into the industry. The Post Office is a monopoly concern, but its suppliers are also monopoly concerns, and the Post Office and consumers have suffered from the lack of enterprise in the telecommunications industry.
Employees at the factory feel that the Plessey management has taken advantage
368
of the present situation to indulge in what amounts to a cost reduction exercise and that it is now seeking to lay the blame for the consequences on the Government and the Post Office. Overseas orders in the telecommunications industry are few and far between because in the past the industry has evidently not considered exporting to be fun. It has been content to concentrate on Post Office equipment, for which there is no demand in other countries.
The position is changing with the new generation of equipment, for which there is likely to be considerable export potential once is has been fully developed. If we are not ready with that equipment at the right time, we shall lose out in important export markets and we shall be in danger of losing the specialised skills at the Beeston factory if the men are made redundant and drift into other industries.
The demands of the employees, as put to me, are that the development of System X should be brought forward, that the Government should invest capital in the telecommunications industry in specific products, and that there should be controls on the importing of equipment that can be made here. This is a very sore point with the workers in the industry.
10.32 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) for giving me the opportunity to comment on an issue that is of great concern to my hon. Friends and to myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) has voiced, with his usual eloquence, the concern felt by hon. Members on this side on this subject.
The hon. Member for Beeston talked about ill-considered decisions and questioned the basis of the policies being pursued. I have no wish to engage in recrimination, but it is appropriate in view of his remarks that I put the record straight. Essentially what we are discussing is one more example of the outcome of the mistaken policies towards the nationalised industries followed by the party opposite when last in office These are the root cause of the Post Office's current problems.

369
In the period from 1970 to 1974, the Conservative Government applied severe price restraints to the publicly-owned industries, and these were more stringent than those applied to companies in the private sector. In particular, Post Office tariffs were prevented from rising in line with costs. As a consequence, the demand for telecommunications services was artificially inflated. To make matters worse, when this inflated demand led to lengthening waiting lists and calls for better services, the hon. Member's colleagues, as part of their so-called "race for growth", pressed for an increased investment programme. Thus at one and the same time the Post Office was persuaded to invest more heavily in new plant but was prevented from operating it profitably under the price restraints which were applied to it. This situation had all the seeds of disaster and we have been reaping the harvest ever since.
The Post Office telecommunications business is a growth industry and is inherently well able to pay its way. But by the time we came into office in 1974 its financial state had become desperate. Tariffs were so far out of line with the costs of providing services that large subsides had become essential. These had to be provided at the expense of other more pressing calls on the public purse. Clearly, we could not allow this situation to continue, and we immediately instituted measures to bring prices more nearly into line with costs. But, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his Budget Speech in March last year, the situation in respect of many of the nationalised industries had gone too far to be corrected by a single round of price increases. This was true of the Post Office, and we have therefore encouraged it to increase its tariffs progressively since then to the point where now, with the latest rates just introduced, there is every prospect that the telecommunications business is back on an even keel. This is, of course, in line with our overall economic strategy, which requires that the nationalised industries should operate on an economic basis subject to normal market considerations, and that subsidies should be brought to an end just as soon as practicable.
370
The hon. Member for Beeston appeared to criticise the outcome of this policy, but it is a policy that has been repeatedly pressed upon us from the Opposition Front Bench. All Front Bench speakers during the recent Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill pressed for this economic pricing for the Post Office and elsewhere and praised us for instituting it. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would support the present line of his Front Bench on this and not advocate a return to the sterile policies that gave rise to such an uneconomic and imprudent use of national resources and removed financial disciplines from the nationalised corporations. In talking of the restoration of cuts the hon. Gentleman is calling for increased public expenditure.
Unfortunately, corrective measures of the kind we have had to apply are, in the short term, inevitably unpleasant, not only for the industries concerned, but for their customers and for their suppliers. In the case of the telecommunications business, the return to realistic rates of charging has had its effect on demand. This has occurred at a time when external economic factors have led to an unusual reduction in the normal pattern of traffic growth. To add to this, the Post Office has responded to our calls for greater efficiency by finding ways and means of using its existing plant more intensively. The production cycle for much of the equipment that the Post Office needs is of the order of two years or more. So it is still experiencing the effects of the inflated ordering put in hand under the previous Government. Taken with the downturn in demand resulting from the factors that I have just mentioned, it finds that it now has enough equipment in hand or on order to cater for two years' normal growth over and beyond the reserves it considers to be prudent.
Clearly, and especially in view of the repeated calls from the Conservatives for restraint in public expenditure and the utmost scrutiny of public expenditure, and recalling the remarks from the Opposition in the recent unsuccessful censure debate on the Post Office, it has had no option in these circumstances but to reduce the forward ordering programme. This it has been doing in stages over the past year or so as the situation has developed and become clear to it. For our part, we do not feel that we should

371
interfere with this process and seek to persuade it to buy more equipment than it judges it needs, equipment that would not earn revenue for it. Hon. Members opposite would surely accept that, if an industry is required to operate on a commercial basis, it cannot be expected to buy large stocks of equipment that it does not currently need.
It may be argued that the Post Office has over-reacted to the situation and has altered its ordering programme too drastically or at too frequent intervals. But the demand for its services is sensitive to the level of business activity in the country at large and to other factors outside its control. Because of the long ordering cycle, it is not easy to forecast accurately, particularly in the face of a rapidly changing economic situation such as we have experienced recently. In such circumstances, it is necessary to be flexible and to keep forecasts up to date with the latest available information. This is why there have been changes in its forecasts.
The reduced pattern of forward ordering by the Post Office comes at a time when it is beginning to change over from the traditional but obsolescent electromechanical designs to more modern part-electronic equipment—TXE 4. This new equipment requires relatively less labour to produce than the traditional designs, and the industry had hoped to be able to contain the resulting reduction in manpower requirements by natural wastage. But, in the light of the later Post Office estimates, this seems to be no longer possible, and redundancies have become inevitable.
The Government are deeply concerned about the redundancies, particularly since they bear so heavily on areas where there are at the moment few opportunities for alternative employment. In the past few weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have met a wide and representative selection of union delegates from the work forces affected, as well as from hon. Members and local councillors. We have also spoken to the Post Office and the managements concerned to establish the extent of the problem and to see what
372
could be done to help. Following these meetings, my right hon. Friend asked the Chairman of the Post Office to re-examine the estimates put to the manufacturers in September to consider whether they were in any way over-pessimistic, or if they could be re-arranged to alleviate any part of the problem.
As a result of this approach the Post Office was able to indicate to the manufacturers that the September figures represented the "worst case" situation, and gave revised estimates which showed the "best guess" at the likely outcome. The manufacturers are considering the implications of this latest forecast, but Post Office estimates are that they may preserve up to a thousand jobs as compared with the September figures. The implications of this for particular plants such as Beeston are of course for the companies to decide. We shall continue to keep in touch with all concerned.
The Government and the Post Office believe that the well-being of the industry and of its employees rests squarely on the early growth of more modern designs. The part-electronic equipment I have already mentioned is almost entirely unaffected by the downturn in the ordering programme; the main constraints on its more rapid introduction are the need for the manufacturers to convert their factories and retrain their staff to deal with the very different type of product involved. This part-electronic design leads in turn to an advanced design—system X—development of which is already under way as a co-operative exercise between the manufacturers and the Post Office. We intend that this equipment should not only be capable of meeting the needs of the Post Office in the 1980s and beyond, but that it should have major export potential, as has been demanded from both sides of the House in this debate. If we can build up a much greater share of the export market than we have at present in telecommunications, this will go a long way towards ensuring a prosperous future for the industry and those who work in it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHEQUERS MEETING)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (CHEQUERS MEETING)
  SAUDI ARABIA (PRINCE FAHD'S VISIT)
  SAUDI ARABIA (PRINCE FAHD'S VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)
  MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY (PRODUCTIVITY)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  EEC (SUMMIT MEETING)
  EEC (SUMMIT MEETING)
  NEDC and TUC
  NEDC and TUC
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PAY POLICY
  PAY POLICY
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Poverty Trap
  Poverty Trap
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Hospitals (Admissions)
  Hospitals (Admissions)
  Intensive Care Units
  Intensive Care Units
  Doctors' Memorandum
  Doctors' Memorandum
  Medicines
  Medicines
  National Health Service Staff
  National Health Service Staff
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Earnings-Related Benefits (Self-Employed Persons)
  Earnings-Related Benefits (Self-Employed Persons)
  Medical Insurance Schemes
  Medical Insurance Schemes
  Fostering
  Fostering
  Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
  Attendance Allowance (Handicapped Children)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Invalidity Pension (Disabled Housewives)
  Invalidity Pension (Disabled Housewives)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Fuel Prices (Elderly and Handicapped Persons)
  Fuel Prices (Elderly and Handicapped Persons)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Pensionable Age
  Pensionable Age
  Changes
  Changes
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Alcoholics
  Alcoholics
  Supplementary Pension (£1 Disregard)
  Supplementary Pension (£1 Disregard)
  Political Advisers
  Political Advisers
  Mental Hospitals (Land Development)
  Mental Hospitals (Land Development)
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Children Bill (Implementation Cost)
  Children Bill (Implementation Cost)
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  Medical Consultants
  Medical Consultants
  Social Work Staffs
  Social Work Staffs
  Retirement Pensioners (Hospitalisation)
  Retirement Pensioners (Hospitalisation)
  Rents
  Rents
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Health Centre (Ash Vale)
  Health Centre (Ash Vale)
  Departmental and Health Service Staffs
  Departmental and Health Service Staffs
  Maghull (Hospital)
  Maghull (Hospital)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nursing Agencies
  Nursing Agencies
EMPLOYMENT
  Blind Persons/Resettlement Officers
  Blind Persons/Resettlement Officers
  Opencast Mining (Accidents)
  Opencast Mining (Accidents)
  Quarries (Accidents)
  Quarries (Accidents)
  Scotland
  Scotland
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Rent Arrears (Addresses)
  Rent Arrears (Addresses)
  Health and Safety (Prosecutions)
  Health and Safety (Prosecutions)
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Public Services
  Public Services
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Quarries (Housing Developments)
  Quarries (Housing Developments)
  Container Depot, Perry Barr
  Container Depot, Perry Barr
  Paper Making (Scotland)
  Paper Making (Scotland)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Squatting
  Squatting
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Prisons
  Prisons
  PARLIAMENT (RELATIONS WITH EXECUTIVE)
  PARLIAMENT (RELATIONS WITH EXECUTIVE)
  POSTAL CHARGES (PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENTS)
  POSTAL CHARGES (PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENTS)
  VACCINE-DAMAGED CHILDREN
  VACCINE-DAMAGED CHILDREN
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Police Act 1970 (Complaints)
  Police Act 1970 (Complaints)
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Security Operations (South Armagh)
  Security Operations (South Armagh)
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Workers' Educational Association
  Workers' Educational Association
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Schoolchildren (Private Sector)
  Schoolchildren (Private Sector)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tuberculous Cattle
  Tuberculous Cattle
  Agricultural Wages Board
  Agricultural Wages Board
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Animals (Slaughter)
  Animals (Slaughter)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Barrington Court Hotel, Bournemouth
  Barrington Court Hotel, Bournemouth
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
  Government Offices (Dispersal)
ENERGY
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil Production Platforms
  House Insulation
  House Insulation
ENVIRONMENT
  Pedestrian Crossings (Schools)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Schools)
  Local Government Staffs (Pay)
  Local Government Staffs (Pay)
  Housing (Conversion and Improvement)
  Housing (Conversion and Improvement)
  Speed Limit (Ratby to Groby)
  Speed Limit (Ratby to Groby)
  South-East England
  South-East England
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Government Office Block (County Durham)
  Government Office Block (County Durham)
  School Minibuses
  School Minibuses
  Drowning
  Drowning
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Vehicle Licensing Office, Swansea
  Vehicle Licensing Office, Swansea
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  House of Commons
  House of Commons
  Norman Shaw North Building
  Norman Shaw North Building
  New Palace Yard
  New Palace Yard
INDUSTRY
  Staffordshire
  Staffordshire
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Posts and Telecommunications
  Posts and Telecommunications
TRADE
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Aviation
  Aviation
DEFENCE
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Desertion
  Desertion
  Courts Martial and Desertion
  Courts Martial and Desertion
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Spandau Prison (Guard Duties)
  Spandau Prison (Guard Duties)
  Personnel (Resettlement Training)
  Personnel (Resettlement Training)
  Army Air Corps
  Army Air Corps
  Fuses
  Fuses
  Reserves
  Reserves
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Headquarters Personnel
  Headquarters Personnel
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Discharge Purchases
  Discharge Purchases
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Community Membership
  European Community Membership
  Betting Tax (Collection)
  Betting Tax (Collection)
  Income Tax Allowances
  Income Tax Allowances
  Treasure Trove (Water Newton)
  Treasure Trove (Water Newton)
SCOTLAND
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Mary Erskine School
  Mary Erskine School
  Planning Procedures
  Planning Procedures
  Craigend Interchange Road
  Craigend Interchange Road
  M90
  M90
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Criminal Law Reform (Thomson Report)
  Criminal Law Reform (Thomson Report)
  Ballachulish Bridge
  Ballachulish Bridge
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
WALES
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  House Building
  House Building

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

ROYAL COMMISSION POWERS
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the powers of Royal Commissions.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, it is usual for the Warrant appointinga Royal Commission, which is issued by Command of the Queen, to give the Commissioners power to call witnesses, to call for information in writing and to call for, have access to and examine all such books, documents, registers and records as may assist them. The Commissioners may also be empowered to visit and personally inspect such places as they deem expedient.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, while the Minister's Answer is, of course, wholly in line with the reference in Todd's Parliamentary Government of England of 1869, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that a Royal Commission has no powers whatever to send for papers or persons, if those persons are not willing to attend? Is he also aware that any reference to the use of, "the usual powers"—aRoyal Commission has the usual powers as mentioned in connection with, for example, the Royal Commission on Gambling or, again, the Royal Commission of 1874—is wholly misleading, because all the authorities agree that a Royal Commission has no powers? Furthermore, is my noble friend aware that on the two occasions since the First World War when a Royal Commission has sought powers a change of name was required, because an Act of Parliament was needed to give it those powers?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without some research I cannot pretend to know what examples my noble friend has in mind, but he is quite right in saying that a Royal Commission does not have coercive powers. That is perfectly true and I think that it could be a quite formidable difficulty were it not for one fact; that is, that so far as the Home Office is aware there is no evidence that the lack of existence of such coercive powers has in any way inhibited the getting of the requisite amount of information from witnesses.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the two examples I quote relate to Section 84 of the Government of India Act and the Inquiry into the coalmining industry in 1919? On every occasion when an Inquiry was necessary it has been found that powers were required. Is my noble friend saying that coercive powers are not required? If so, why is it that in the case of a Select Committee those powers are expressly conferred by Parliament?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the latter point raised by my noble friend, he is quite right. All I am saying is that there is no evidence, so far as the Home Office is aware, that in recent years there have been any difficulties in obtaining the assistance of witnesses before a Royal Commission. That is the only point I am trying to make.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to take this on board? He is to have an Inquiry into the betting and gaming industry. Is he not aware that it is a fact that one family has amassed a fortune of not less than £600 million and has never on any occasion disclosed the facts on which the public could make up its mind? Unless that Royal Commission has powers, then the Royal Commission is a fraud.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if there were any such difficulties, then it would certainly be a matter of some concern to the Government. All I can do is repeat to my noble friend that in recent years there has been no evidence that the lack of existence of coercive powers has inhibited Royal Commissions from discharging their responsibilities.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend inclined to agree that in the

985
last 60 years, at any rate, successive Governments have appointed Royal Commisions as a device in order to shelve awkward questions?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am certainly well aware that that charge has been made on a number of occasions, and it may well be that it has been justified on a number of occasions. But I do not think it would be right for a Government to come forward with proposals to Parliament on the complex matters which are involved in betting and gaming legislation, without careful analysis by a body of the eminence of a Royal Commission.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in that case why did not the Minister, when I questioned him at the end of July, agree that, before a decision was taken that there should be a Royal Commission as against a Select Committee—and I readily agree that the argument is balanced—this House and another place should be consulted, because it is a matter of vital concern not only from a fiscal point of view, but from a social point of view.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I can well recall my noble friend raising the point before the Summer Recess and, certainly, the Government took this into account in the discussions which took place within the Government, as to whether we should proceed by way of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. As my noble friend fairly says, the argument is to some extent an evenly balanced one. We came down in favour of a Royal Commission and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has agreed to become Chairman of it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a fact that inquisitorial powers based on compulsion are not universally popular?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hesitate—
Lord WIGG: May I ask my noble friend—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I hesitate to enter this discussion and I do so to ask the Minister whether he is aware that there was at least one useful Royal Commission, which was set
986
up in 1946, entitled the Royal Commission Rewards to Inventors with powers to summon witnesses? Is he also aware that that Royal Commission was set up in order to deal with patents and trade mark matters, instead of the courts? Is the noble Lord further aware that that Royal Commission was headed by a former Member of this House, the late Lord Cohen of Walmer, and that that Royal Commission happened to have myself as its part-time secretary, which is my reason for presuming to interevene now? I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that certain Royal Commissions have powers to summon people to deal with matters that are not dealt with by the courts.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe the whole House would agree that the Commission was fortunate to have the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, as its secretary. I should add that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that it is surprising that one who upholds the rule of law should, when it suits him, describe the power to sub-poena as inquisitorial, whereas last night he was supporting the rule of law on all counts? Does the Minister not agree that that kind of dichotomy in thinking is very near to humbug?

COMMUNITY LAND BILL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES
2.45 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which local authorities have prepared their schemes under the Community Land Bill ready for presentation to the Secretary of State by 31st December 1975, having regard to the fact that information was given on 27th October that many local authorities, though not named, were ready.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, it would be premature before the Community Land

987
Bill receives Royal Assent to ask local authorities to report progress on their preparations for implementing the scheme.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware that it was stated in our debate the other day that a number of local authorities had already prepared their plans? Would it not be in the national interest for those local authorities which had prepared their plans to receive a little commendation? —for, though I do not agree with the Bill, I always like to commend people when they have done something good. Arising out of that question, may I ask the noble Baroness whether there is more than one local authority which has prepared its plans? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that I thought her very polite Answer rather eccentric?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I believe that, particularly in this House, we are all very much in favour of eccentrics and I take that as a compliment. In answer to the noble Baroness's question, the information was volunteered informally by local authorities and their associations and we have neither the statistics nor the names to give her. However, I will certainly pass on her commendations through my Department as the names of the local authorities come to our attention.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether it is not a little odd or indeed a little funny, that when we were opposing—as I certainly opposed it —the very short time given to us, she made so much of the fact that there were many local authorities which had been able to do it, whereas now she does not seem to know which they are? Is that not even more than eccentric?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall not be drawn about that. I admit that I am odd, funny and eccentric. Nevertheless, there are a number of local authorities which, according to the confidential information which we have, are in the process of making their plans. Until Royal Assent, we shall not be in a position
988
officially to announce that. It would be improper and we should not be able to give a comprehensive reply without being able to state any names or statistics. I do not see any contradiction in that at all and, if I may say so, it was not I who made a great deal of this but Members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness herself.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness cannot give my noble friend any information on that score, can she tell us whether there are any local authorities which have taken no steps whatever with regard to making plans and which have declared quite clearly that they have not the slightest intention of doing so?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be better informed than I. I have heard rumours—which I would hesitate to repeat except within this Chamber—that there have been some authorities which have been advised on political grounds not to go ahead with the plans, but I should not like to state that.

NATIONAL SAVINGS SCHEMES
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now intending to widen the issue of National Savings certificates.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, since taking Office, the Government have improved the terms of all National Savings securities. The latest examples of this are the introduction of two index-linked savings schemes. The Government have no further plans for indexation, but the position is under continuous review.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that, with regard to the invitation to subscribe to National Savings certificates—of which there are now understood to be over 2,000 million in circulation—that invitation contains adequate intimation to would-be subscribers that, during the life of the present Government, the debasement of the currency has resulted in savers losing 25

989
per cent. of what they put into the certificates? Furthermore, are they satisfied that the warning that is required in most other financial advertisements that the units can go down as well as up is, in the case of the Government securities, adequately given?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, on 1st January this year the amount contributed to National Savings certificates amounted in total to £1,941 million, excluding accrued interest. At the end of September, it was £2,067 million. I believe that that shows that, as a whole, National Savings are competitive.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, could the noble Lord elaborate on what exactly is meant by that absolutely original phrase "a continuous review"?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord ask the Government to reissue tax reserve certificates as a means whereby people can save for their taxes? These were withdrawn from sale to the general public, I believe by the last Labour Government.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is another question. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on that matter I will do my best to answer it.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, the Minister was good enough to explain that there has recently been that extension, in which it is a matter of age as to who can make use of it. Is it administrative difficulties which prevent the extension being made to other age groups? By comparison with Government undated bonds, on the basis of 15 per cent., the reward seems low and the hazard great.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I said, there are two schemes. First, there is the scheme which applies to people who have reached the age of retirement under the National Insurance scheme. There is also the Save-as-you-Earn scheme which applies to everybody aged 16 years or more.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the index-linked schemes are extremely good value for money, it would be a good idea—as inflation has been rather
990
rampant—to increase the maximum amount that can be invested in them?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government have two conflicting obligations. One is an obligation to the taxpayer to buy goods and services as economically as possible, and secondly there are certain social obligations. The Government believe that by the action they have taken they have got the right balance.

PARAQUAT: SALE AND USE PRECAUTIONS
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the banning of sale to the general public of the weed killer known as paraquat in view of the recent tragic accidents.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government look to the Advisory Committee on pesticides and other toxic chemicals for advice on safety precautions for this and other similar products. These precautions already include provision under which sales of the liquid formulation can be made only to those who require the supplies for the purpose of their trade or business. Within the last year the Advisory Committee has reviewed the use of paraquat. In the light of its findings the Government are not intending to alter the present provisions.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but could he say, first, how many accidents have occurred in the past two years as regards to weed killer; and, secondly, is there a known antidote?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have not got the figures for the past two years; they are not yet available. But over the last seven years for which figures are available—that is, 1966 to 1973—there have been 61 deaths of which, I regret to say, over half were suicides, and in regard to another 10 open verdicts were recorded. There is no known antidote, but the product is subject to the Act dealing with poisons, and the Advisory Committee is satisfied that Paraquat is perfectly

991
safe provided it is used in accordance with the recommendations on the label. I welcome this opportunity to urge all those who handle the product to observe the precautions printed on the label and, in particular, not to decant it into any other container.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us a little more about why the Committee refrained from taking any action with regard to these lethal weed killers?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is not the only product which is lethal if it is mishandled. But there is no known case where paraquat has killed anybody when the precautions have been observed. There are other products of this kind which are very necessary in agriculture; of course strychnine, for killing moles, comes immediately to mind.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say how it is proposed to protect children and people who are perhaps a little abnormal mentally, who have little difficulty in obtaining this product in tool sheds or wherever it is kept?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is subject to the Pharmacy and Poisons Act of 1933. Paraquat can be sold only by an authorised seller of poisons, that is a pharmacist, or by a listed seller who must be registered with the local authority. The seller must know the purchaser to be a person to whom paraquat may properly be sold.
Lord ALLERTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that paraquat is an essential form of pesticide for certain types of agriculture, and that for that reason its continuing use will be justified?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; of course the noble Lord is perfectly right. Paraquat has been of immense value in sustaining crop yields. In many situations—for example, for direct drilling which can avoid ploughing—there is no alternative to this product; and home food production would suffer if we were to restrict its use.
Lord BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that paraquat is
992
sold under a different name as a weed killer and that the print that is attached to its container is not very easy to read?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right, paraquat is sold under the name "Gramoxone", which is the name used by its manufacturer.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK rose to move, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4 and 25; and that Standing Order No. 44 be dispensed with to enable the Report to be taken on the same day as the Committee (on Recommitment).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I understand that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if on Recommitment we discuss only Amendment No. 31 in the Marshalled List to Clause 4, and all the Amendments to Clause 25, with the exception of Amendment No. 163. The other Amendments to these clauses will be taken on Report in the usual way.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4 and 25; and that Standing Order No. 44 be dispensed with to enable the Report to be taken on the same day as the Committee (on Recommitment).—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for what she has said, and to say that we entirely agree with her suggestion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
2.58 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clauses 4 and 25 on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment)

993
in respect of Clauses 4 and 25.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Expressions relating to land and planning law]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): I understand that it is not proposed to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 30 in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects I shall call Amendment No. 31.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 44, after ("1974") insert ("or any later date").
The right reverend Prelate said: I should like to associate myself with the expressions of gratitude that have been extended to the Government for agreeing that this Part of the Bill should be recommitted. As your Lordships will appreciate, this clause is of the greatest possible concern to the future work of the Churches and charities of this country. Therefore, it is very important indeed that these matters should be given the very fullest opportunity for debate, and I thank the Government for agreeing to this Recommitment. The Amendment which I am moving is the same as that which I moved on 22nd October and, after debate, withdrew. Its purpose is to remove, so far as the Churches and charities are concerned, the difference between pre- and post-White Paper day land, and to remove the 10-year period during which the Churches and the charities are protected from the operation of the Bill.
In the previous debate, there was very general acceptance of my Amendment throughout the Committee. Indeed, there was not a single speech made in opposition to it, except that which was made from the Government Front Bench. At the end of it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor undertook to do what he could to carry out the further consideration he had promised, and to bring before your Lordships the ancillary matters which have since flowed from the latest discussions with the Minister. We were very grateful to him for that assur
994
ance, and as a result of it I then agreed not to press my Amendment to a Division.
We now know, through the Amendments which they have tabled, what is in the mind of the Government and, alas!, only some very meagre and dry crumbs have fallen from the Minister's table. The lost year is recovered, so that we should have 11 rather than 10 years in which to put our affairs in order. But the rule remains, as does the rigid difference between pre- and post-White Paper day land; and, as we shall see when we come to Clause 25, the 10-year rule for the holding of charitable land continues, when we have asked for one year. So I have no alternative but to reintroduce my Amendment to Clause 4.
May I quite succinctly remind the Committee of what it attempts to do? Its purpose is to remove, so far as all charity land is concerned, the distinction between land owned by a charity on White Paper day and land acquired subsequently, so far as the acquisition duty of local authorities is concerned. This means that although they will still have power to acquire such land if necessary in the exercise of their ordinary statutory powers, local authorities will not be under a duty to do so. Accordingly, a charity will always be able to develop its land for its own use or otherwise, without the intervention of the local authority, and, if the provisions of the development land tax Bill follow the same pattern, be able to develop it or sell it free of tax. This will apply irrespective of when the land was acquired, either before or after White Paper day, and of whether the land is functional land or investment land. This Amendment, together with the corresponding Amendments to the compensation provisions of the Bill in Clause 25, will therefore ensure that, even after the lapse of the 10-year period, charities remain free to continue their operations unimpeded and to redeploy their assets in the form of land in the same way as they can those held in the form of stocks and shares so as best to meet the needs of the times and maintain the incoming capital which sustains the work which they do for the community.
I do not intend to deploy again all the arguments which I used previously in support of this Amendment. I want now to concentrate, simply and briefly, on the

995
one point which underlies the case put forward by all the Churches and charities of this land. So far as I know, Churches and charities have never disputed the basic principle underlying the philosophy of this Bill; that is, that land should be used well and in the best interests of the whole people. But they claim that the work that they do is, by definition, one of service to the community, so they assert that they should not be inhibited in the use of their resources for the benefit of the community.
The nub of disagreement is expressed in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this House on 21st October, which I quoted in my speech of 22nd October. On that occasion he said:
"It was never the intention of the Government that development by Churches and charities should be completely excluded from the land scheme, since such exemption would lead to the establishment of a particularly privileged class of land owners".—[Official Report, 21/10/75; col. 1380]
It is the conviction and contention of the Churches and charities that there is no claim to "the establishment of a particularly privileged class of land owners." We claim, on the contrary, that the Bill is depriving an area of national life of the means of doing its work. It is the Bill in its present state which is creating a new situation, not the Churches and charities which are claiming something new for themselves.
Let me elaborate this point. For four centuries charity land has been protected by law. In the past, charity land has been given or bought in order to make possible the purposes which are beneficial to society; and the object of charity law is to ensure that charities, whether they be ecclesiastical or secular, are protected in the possession of their land and that they use their assets for the purpose for which they were given, and for no other. The Charity Commissioners control transactions by charities with meticulous care, so that the assets are used only for the purpose for which they were intended. The Church Commissioners, a statutory body, are charged by law to use their assets only as the law permits for the benefit of the Church of England; and other religious bodies are equally strictly controlled by trust deeds or by Acts of Parliament.
This point is absolutely fundamental; and I quote from an expert in the administration of charities with whom I have had some communication. He has said to me:
"What the Bill does actually is to confiscate part of the value of land and apply it to public purposes chosen not by the donors but by central or local government. This is an entirely different proposition, and cuts at the constitutional position of charity whereby the State guarantees, as it has since the Tudor Parliaments, to enforce the purposes of charitable trusts against all corners".
This is no new argument. It was considered in 1950 when the Nathan Committee reaffirmed the traditional policy of Parliament towards charities; it was enshrined, with the agreement of all Parties, in the Charities Act 1960; and it was reaffirmed at the time of the Land Commission in 1964 and 1965, when the principle of exemption for ecclesiastical and charitable land, both functional and endowment, was once more established.
So that far from begging for privilege, the Churches and charities are by this Amendment asking the Government once more to affirm that they stand by the traditional policy towards them. They ask that their assets shall be protected, so that under the law they may continue to be employed for the purposes for which they were given. In our view, the Bill as it stands confounds that traditional policy and sets up in its place a system under which the assets of charitable land could be used in a way in which it was never envisaged they should be used.
I wonder whether the Government appreciate that, as regards charities, the Bill as it stands goes back on the settled policy as regards charitable land which has existed for 400 years, and which was reaffirmed as recently as 20 years ago. I hope that this is a matter of inadvertence, for, if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to alter the status of charitable land, this should be done openly and with opportunity for full debate, and not as an item in an extremely difficult and complicated Bill. My Amendment would redress the balance. I hope that even at this very late hour Her Majesty's Government will see the force of this argument and will restore to the Churches and charities the protection they need and look for if they are to do their work effectively and are to have the means to do it. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: (Lord Elwyn-Jones): I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate takes the view that the position into which the provisions of the Bill as proposed by the Government have put Churches and charities has resulted at the end of the day in the production of merely meagre and dry crumbs. I hope to indicate in the course of my observations that that, I think, does less than justice to the attempt the Government have very seriously and conscientiously made to be fair in this legislation to both the Churches and the charities, recognising the unique contribution that they make to the life of our society and to the personal lives of most if not all of us.
Towards the end of the debate which the House had when the right reverend Prelate moved the same Amendment, I promised that the Government would look at it carefully in the light of our discussion. This we have done most carefully and, knowing the seriousness that the right reverend Prelate and those for whom he speaks attach to this Amendment, I am sorry that the Government have not found it possible to meet his wishes in this respect for reasons (which, I submit, will be sound reasons) that I shall be indicating.
The effect of the Amendment which we are presently debating would be to make interests owned by charities into non-outstanding interests; that is, not subject to the duty imposed by Clause 18 of the Bill on the relevant authorities to bring development land into public ownership whenever those interests are acquired.
The Government still feel unable to accept that proposition. The Government indicated the reasons for this in detail when we last debated the matter and, like the right reverend Prelate, I do not know that it will be helpful to retraverse that ground in detail. The broad proposition is that if the integrity of the Community Land Scheme is to be maintained and its purpose accomplished we cannot go as far as the Amendment proposes. I submit that the Government, within the necessity of maintaining the effectiveness of the Community Land Scheme, have gone a long way to help the Churches and charities to adapt to the new system. The special benefits
998
they have already provided and those that are now tabled for your Lordships' consideration in Clause 25 (which we shall be discussing later) place them, at any rate, in a unique position. I withdraw the word "privileged" for I know that that has undertones which are unacceptable. But they place Churches and charities in a unique and favourable position compared with all other owners of land.
I think it right, in view of the broad criticism that has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate, that I should rehearse briefly those special provisions for the Churches and charities so that their full extent may be made clear. First, the acquisition duty and the consequential suspension of planning permission will not apply to land owned by any charity on White Paper Day for any kind of development. That is the effect of Clause 4(3)(b). It will cover a situation where a mixed development, for instance, is proposed; for example, a city centre site, and where the charity is dependant on realising the commercial value of the site in order to finance that part of the development which is intended for their use. Secondly, when the authorities acquire such charity land the valuation basis will continue to be market basis for 11 years or until the second appointed day, whichever period ends later. That is provided for in the new subsection (3)(b) in Amendment No. 167. I agree that it would be wrong to build that up into a great and important matter; but, at any rate, it will be an addition of convenience that, in the decade now ahead, will help the Churches and charities to meet the situation which the Bill presents them with.
Thirdly, after that time—the 10 years or 11 years since White Paper Day—they will get prevailing use value for land acquired. This will also apply to land that comes into their ownership after White Paper Day so long as it has been kept in continuous charity ownership and use for at least 10 years. This is the main effect of the tabled Government Amendments to Clause 25. They will give the Churches and charities the benefit of being able to relate the value of their land to values prevailing in the neighbourhood. Fourthly, development land tax will never be charged on any development or disposal of land owned by a

999
charity on White Paper Day and while this, as the right reverend Prelate said, in relation to past practice is not a novelty so far as the Churches and charities are concerned, in relation to and compared with the position of other owners of land it is an important concession.
Those are benefits of considerable assistance and value to the Churches and charities. There are others of rather less importance which we shall come to in the course of discussions on the Bill; but those four are the main benefits, if that is the right word, when one considers the context in which they have been made. I submit that they are both substantial and unique.
During the series of discussions the Government have had with Church and charity interests, they have repeatedly emphasised that any special provision made in the land legislation for charities must be consistent with the principles of the land scheme. As memories tend to fade during a long debate it might be timely to remind your Lordships of what the land scheme is all about. It is put clearly and succinctly in paragraph 16 of the White Paper which states that the Government objectives are:
"to establish a permaent means:

(a) to enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its needs and priorities; and

(b) to restore to the community the increase in value of land arising from its efforts."

The community attach major importance to the accomplishment of those two objectives.
The Government have gone far in helping with the problems that the Churches and charities believe they will be facing; fears which, with respect, are sometimes exaggerated. As I said in our previous debates, we are fully aware of the vital role of the Churches and charities in our community. For the land they owned on White Paper Day—over a year ago now —they have been well protected. This has been done in the ready recognition that at that time they could not foresee what exactly the Government's land policy held in store, and the Government have recognised this in the wide-ranging special provisions that they have introduced to make the transition from the present system to
1000
the time when the new system is in full operation as smooth and helpful as possible.
When it comes to land charities acquired since the White Paper was published, after White Paper Day, we are in an entirely different situation. By his Amendment, the right reverend Prelate seeks to abolish that difference and to abolish the distinction between what was known to all concerned before that date and what became known to them after that date. The Government have sought to make it as easy as is practicable within the purpose of the scheme to achieve the transition from total exclusion of Church and charity land from that time to a partial compliance with it. As I have said in my observations to the Committee, they will, if these measures acquire a force of law, be in a far more favoured position than other relevant sectors. For these reasons, I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
3.22 p.m.
Viscount GAGE: My Lords, on a previous occasion I said that I was a member of a housing association which is developing Church land chiefly for retired clergy and other worthy persons. I also stated that I thought it was wrong to stop this work. In view of the almost unanimous support which the right reverend Prelate received at the first discussion we had on this matter, and in view of the not altogether unsympathetic attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, we all expected a good deal more than we are now getting. I agree we are getting something and, as one would expect from such a skilled debater, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made the most of it.
On the vital question of the period of time, we have had this extended only from 10 to11 years. This leads me to wonder why the Church and these old charities have to be made the subject of any restriction. We have been told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the reason is that if the Churches were not put in this position they would not conform to the theory behind this Bill. But what is this theory? We do not belong to any group which attracts the odium of noble Lords opposite, such as the speculators. I think that we do what is generally accepted to be

1001
good work. As the right reverend Prelate said, everything we do is under the constant supervision of the Charity Commissioners who would immediately come down on us if we did anything irregular.
It has been made clear that we do not conform to this theory. But what is the theory? It seems a theory evolved entirely by the Labour Party. I do not think it has any wider appeal than that. There may be a certain number of Government supporters who think, as I think they do, that charity is now old hat; they may think that Christianity is old hat. I do not see why the slight authority which the Government have at the present moment should empower them to raid the assets of the Church and these old charities with this tremendous tradition behind them. What would happen if the land was taken over? That would be administered by a number of minor civil servants all on establishment, all on superannuation, and the administration would be far more expensive and less effective than it is today. I feel like a crusader fighting the infidels in this matter. I should be glad to follow the right reverend Prelate in any course of action he sees fit to take.
3.25 p.m.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, what is 10 years? With very great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what is 10 to 11 years when the right reverend Prelate was talking of 400 years? If we try in this country to "monkey about" with people's wills, we will get into the law courts and get into trouble. Wills are wills; if today people are considering giving land to the Church, for whatever purpose, they give it for posterity. If they feel that in 10 years' time it will be taken away, then, my Lords, you will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Land has been given to the Church for centuries; if we are now going to change the law and now give them the land for 10 years, then it is nothing short of robbing the dead.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I must repeat something of what I tried to say last time in support of the Amendment proposed by my right reverend friend, and for reasons which perhaps have been somewhat overlooked. I agree with what has appeared in various newspapers (though of course the noble and learned
1002
Lord Chancellor was far too courteous and gentlemanly to refer to them) regarding the way in which certain charities impose upon a credulous public, and such a process should be ended as quickly as possible. There has been no definition offered in your Lordships' House as to what properly constitutes a charity, and what is not a charity at all but an imposition. I would cordially agree there are many so-called "charities" which need far more scrutiny than they receive, and are entitled to much less money than they get. But that does not dispose of the problem of some charities with which I would presume to think I am not unengaged; one of them is the vastly changing condition under which charities have to operate today if they are to be relevant to the contemporary situation.
A charity is not a fixed mark enduring from century to century. As conditions change, so do the proper ends of the charities directed towards the amelioration of those conditions require to be changed as well. I speak from personal and direct acquaintance with a number of charities, some connected with the Church, others not connected with any form of the Christian Church, which, in order to continue, not only to require help which has been given to them before White Paper Day but require the ability to conduct and to conclude arrangements in the process of being made which are vital to their continuation. Without this they will become, if not completely derelict, certainly less valuable and less entitled to the support which I am sure the noble and learned Lord wishes to give them. It is because of this inability to continue—not to ask for any privileged condition—to render the service which we believe is apposite and right that this Amendment commends itself overwhelmingly to my mind, and to my conscience as well.
If it is true that there are continuing needs for charities of the kind which care for alcoholics, for boys out of Borstal, for one-parent families, then there is ample evidence—though I will not delay your Lordships by deploying it now—that there is an absolute need for those charities to have the ability to improve upon the things which they have been trying to do, unhindered by the pecuniary and. I believe, crippling weight which will

1003
be put upon them if, in the acquisition of further amenities and land needed in order to continue their work, they come under the obligation that they have not so conducted themselves as to acquire that land or those amenities before White Paper day. It is the continuation of the charities, not their acceptability as being some kind of peculiar or exceptional case to be regarded with some disfavour—though, as has been said with certain requirements that can be met by a Government which I am sure is anxious to do the right thing about them—which constantly require changes in their administration and settlement and in the whole environment in which they seek to do their work, which commends itself to me as the most imperative need for the support of this Amendment. I hope that that support will be forthcoming.
Lord ALPORT: I have not taken part in any of the discussions which have surrounded the mass of legislation which the Government are putting through Parliament at the present time. I intervene now only off the cuff, so to speak, because I might be able to give the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues an example of the effect which this piece of legislation will have upon one charity. I am chairman of the management committee of a home for elderly people. This was started by a lady 25 years ago, and she is still running it in the most marvellousway today, when she is well over 80. She has given the whole of a piece of property to this charity, and associated with the property in the early days was a small farm, run primarily to provide special diets for the elderly people who were living in the home, and also to provide a certain amount of money which was contributed to the maintenance of the charity. The farm was retained in her own name; she was still the proprietor of that land, although she had given the house and its surrounding garden to the charity.
In the middle of this year, after White Paper day, when I and others had only recently come to be associated with this, she decided that she would hand over this small farm to the charity. The object of the exercise was primarily to enable the management committee to take advantage of a scheme which had long been in her mind. This scheme
1004
involved selling part of the land for development by another charity which intended to provide a group of homes for elderly people which were to be associated with our house, our garden and the other amenities which we have there. The intention was that we should then use the money for the land which would be sold—and sold at the district valuer's valuation—to build a nursing wing for our elderly people's home. This is very important, because the problem which this lady has faced so often during the last 25 years has been that of having to send elderly people away, perhaps during the last few months of their lives, to a place which was some distance away from their friends and relations so that they could get the specialised and intensive type of nursing required by elderly people in those circumstances, and which is a different form of nursing from hospital nursing. The lady thought, and we agreed, that it would be marvellous to be able to use the money that we received for this property to build a nursing wing for our elderly residents.
As I understand it, unless the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate is passed, we shall not be able to take full advantage of the money which is received from the sale of the property to another charity, in order to provide us with some of the funds which we shall require for this form of development. This development, I would stress, is highly desirable, as all those who are familiar with the problems of old people will realise. So we shall not sell that land—we do not have to, so far as I know—and therefore the other charity involved will not build their old people's houses or flats there. We shall not build our nursing wing either, and thus the whole purpose of the benevolence and far-sightedness of a very elderly woman, who has given her life to a very important element in the life of a small community in my part of Essex, will be frustrated.
This cannot be the object of the Government; this cannot be the attitude of any Government in a country such as ours in regard to charities. I cannot understand why the Government and the noble and learned Lord should shy away from the word "privilege", so far as charities are concerned. It may well be that under the present law some charities do not deserve the special treatment they

1005
get. But surely those charities which do deserve it should not have it taken away from them, simply because a few charities have got through the net when they should not have done.
I have very often listened from the seat now occupied by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees to many of the debates which have taken place on much of the legislation over these last weeks. I can tell the noble and learned Lord, and noble Lords who sit on the opposite side of the Chamber, that much of this legislation will simply go by the board over the passage of time, because in due course, when those who have to deal with public affairs in this country—not on the grand scale that we have here, but on a small scale in the towns and villages of this country—realise the effect it is having on their lives, they will demand its change.
I would therefore ask the noble and learned Lord and the Government to realise that the mainspring of social life in this country is represented by the charitable instincts of the people, and anything that offends or frustrates them will become in the end a source of grievance and something which will succeed in undermining the other purposes of this piece of legislation. Therefore, I would say, from my own very small experience in the very small context of a very small charity which means a lot to a small number of people, that I hope the noble and learned Lord and his noble friends will reconsider the decision he has just announced to your Lordships.
3.39 p.m.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: I did not take part in this debate during Committee stage, because the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said so many of the things that I should have liked to say. But today I have been puzzled by a remark made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who said, if I understood him correctly, that the period of 10 or 11 years ought to give charities plenty of time to adapt to the new system. With respect, I do not think it is up to charities to adapt to the new system, because they are only filling the gaps and doing the jobs which cannot be done by the statutory services, who cannot perform many of the tasks because they have neither the personnel nor the
1006
funds and who, in any case work only for limited hours. Charities today must keep up with the changing needs of society. This may very well mean moving their premises in order to fill gaps which occur, and how can one tell now where gaps will be in 10 or 11 years' time? Unless the charities are assured of having sufficient funds and of being able to sell properties so that they have sufficient funds to embark on new premises and new ventures, I think the position for them will be very disappointing. So I support the right reverend Prelate in his Amendment.
Lord HAWKE: I would not want to add very much to what the right reverend Prelate has said; he said it so well. But there are two points I should like to make. First, if his Amendment is accepted charities will not stand out like a sore thumb. As I read it, the statutory undertakers are already exempt from this Bill. Everybody knows, for instance, that the railways own vast quantities of land which they say they use for operational purposes while in practice they do not. So charities would be merely another form of statutory undertaker, but operating under the Charities Act instead of the various railway and water Acts, et cetera.
Secondly, I believe that if the Bill is passed as it is, in spite of what the law may be, innumerable people, elderly people and so on, making their wills will not leave land to charities because they will believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Government are going to take it away from them. That will be a most inhibiting factor. They may be entirely wrong about the law, but that will be a psychological factor. It will stop them in future from leaving land to charities.
3.42 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: Although there is not much new to say, this is such an important matter that I should like once again to express my strong support for what the right reverend Prelate has said, and, particularly, for the way the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has expressed the case. I should like to express appreciation for the efforts the noble and learned Lord has made to improve matters. Particularly, I would express satisfaction that he has rather formally withdrawn the word "privileged". The expression, "privileged

1007
class of land-owners" has been prejudicial politically since 1917 and it is most unfortunate that it should ever have surfaced in this context.
I would make only one slightly technical point to add to the others. Perhaps I may put it metaphorically by saying that you do not get the Sword of Damocles free; you rent it In other words, once it is known that there is a time limit on certain things that can be done with property, the entire atmosphere in which people approach the necessity for doing business with owner-charities is changed and a premium is put on delay and an influence on prices obtainable by charities —there is waiting and then prices are lowered simply because there is a time limit.
The disappointing feature throughout the conciliatory, if obdurate, speech of the noble and learned Lord was that he expressed himself entirely in relative terms: that what is proposed is a "bit better", and that charities and Churches should do "somewhat better" than everybody else. Surely that contradicts what many noble Lords, including myself, said in the previous debate: that there is an absolute difference here, a difference of principle; that the Churches and charities are largely operated by people who do something they need not do, who do it for nothing and without material reward.
I feel that somewhere within the argument—I disagree with the noble Lord who made this a Party matter; I do not take it as that at all—is some false doctrine in what is preached to us by the Government. One sees traces of the doctrine, which has been quite seriously propounded—and I have heard people propounding it—that if things are not done by the State, well, that is too bad and people will have to wait, but they must not be done by other organisations. That is a very bad doctrine indeed. One does not need to be connected in any way with charity to realise what an anti-social doctrine it is. I hope that the absolute claim, which has existed since Tudor times, for these exemptions of which noble Lords have spoken will be maintained. I should greatly dislike to see this Government being the first Government since the Tudors to pass reactionary legislation on this subject.
Lord HYLTON: I supported the right reverend Prelate last week and am delighted to do so again this week. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to say that Churches and charities make a unique contribution to our society. Nevertheless, the position he outlined as a result of the Government's Amendments and concessions does not appear to Members of your Lordships' House on all Benches to be anything like unique enough. The Government may consider that they have a mandate to pass this Bill, but I would very much question what mandate they can possibly have to overthrow what has been settled public policy for many hundreds of years regarding Churches and charities.
Why are the Government going beyond the terms of the Land Commission Act 1965? And, if this Bill is to be taken as a precedent, what further taxes and imposts may we expect to be laid upon Churches and charities in future years? The whole Committee should support the right reverend Prelate if only because Churches and charities have over the centuries pioneered all the newest forms of social welfare and moral welfare and of health and education, and I am quite confident they will continue pioneering. I am quite confident, also, that they will continue to provide a choice for a person in need of service which he will not have if he has to rely solely upon statutory services.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I also should like to support the right reverend Prelate in this Amendment. There is one aspect which has not yet been mentioned. I may be wrong in this and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me if I am. I have been connected with many charities, as many noble Lords know, all my life. One of the things I have done is to be a member of charitable trusts that give money to charities. I have been nearly 50 years on one trust, and certainly 25 years on another. The grants we gave were always given to enable the charities to enlarge, to become more important, and to grow in strength and value to the community. We were guided in all the grants we gave by the fact that these organisations were charities. We did not

1009
give grants to any organisation of a commercial character or which did not meet the usual description of charities in Acts of Parliament.
If the status, so to speak, of the land which is acquired, or of the buildings which are acquired, or of the work which is done through grant-giving trusts for charities, is altered, what is to happen? Are the trusts then not going to be able to give their money, which is used and owned on a charitable basis, not a commercial basis? What will happen? Are we to be hampered by this situation or will we be able to go on, or what? It seems to me that this is another aspect which might be quite detrimental to the development of charities. By the word, "charity" I mean the word in a wider sense than the noble Lord, Lord Alport, does. There may be detriment to many other, different types of social work which is done by volunteers—whether, as the noble Baroness says, the Red Cross or another organisation. This work is done by volunteers, by people who are anxious to help the community.
In my long experience in this connection I have seen many permanent statutory services arising over experiments made by charitable organisations in the first instance. To mention one, there is the Youth Service, which in the days when I started running clubs (goodness knows how many years ago it was) was a very small organisation, but now is part and parcel of every local authority in the country. All local authorities have youth officers and youth work and different types of club work; and we all pay rates for this Service. When it started there was nothing of that kind at all. The Service was entirely voluntary and the money we gave from our charitable funds—I am speaking now of trusts —was given to develop this work.
I may be wrong but I believe that under this new legislation it will be very difficult to do what in the past was of enormous value to voluntary organisations and to the social work of the country—something which has now become part and parcel of a great deal of our ordinary social and community work. I realise that there are interests which noble Lords opposite are keen to support. Therefore, it would be a thousand pities if the kind of work that is done by Churches, charities and
1010
voluntary organisations, were to he hampered by legislation. Quite frankly, I think this would be a very great mistake.
The Earl of BALFOUR: While we are discussing Amendment No. 31, it is important to point out to your Lordships that if the Government's Amendment No. 30 which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is carried, Amendment No. 31 falls, even if we go into the Division Lobbies. Secondly, may I remind Her Majesty's Government that populations move. Many a church in a built-up area has subsequently been sold and become, say, a plumber's store. Alternatively, the population has moved away from an area and an old people's home has become a ware-house. In my own area I can think of a hospital which was specially built for tuberculosis patients after the 1914–18 War. It is now being used as an old people's home, but unfortunately it is miles away from anywhere. Populations are constantly moving. Churches desparately need to be able to acquire land at a price no higher than local authorities would pay for it in residential areas, particularly in areas where there is an increase in the population, so that they can then erect Churches. Charities need to be able to build amenities such as squash courts, or community halls, or some other form of recreational building and to acquire land at a reasonable price. They should not be subject to the type of land tax with which I understand we are likely to be faced soon, or with the penalties that the provisions of this Bill will impose.
If I may return to my first point, I feel that we are losing almost half of what we ever hoped to achieve by trying to move Amendment No. 31. If Amendment No. 30 is carried, it falls anyway.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, has been trying to catch the ear of the Committee, if that is the appropriate expression, for some time.
Lord CRAWSHAW: May I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his help in getting me launched. I wish I could reciprocate his kindness by affording him some support but I fear that I must join the battalions of those who are arraigned against him on this

1011
occasion and suggest that charities and the churches are themselves a vital part of our community and exist solely for the purpose of serving people in general. By subjecting them to this Bill I fear that the Government can only reduce their capacity. One must ask in what way local authorities will use the revenue accruing to them more valuably than the churches and charities themselves. They may well pass the money straight back to the Churches and charities—a cumbrous, bureaucratic and somewhat Irish procedure. Why not leave the Churches and charities to get on with the job they know so well?
I, like most noble Lords, must declare several interests in charities. One in particular concerns me at the moment. For the past 18 years I have served as a County Commissioner in the Scout Association and sit on the Committee of the Council in London. At present the Association has about 600,000 members. Concern is being expressed about how the effects of this Bill will impair the service that the Scout Association can give to the young people of this country. In times of financial stress—and all charities are feeling the pinch at the moment—the areas of the country most adversely affected invariably are the most deprived and the most remote rural areas. At the moment the Scout Association owns 1,100 acres of land, mainly camp sites.
The kind of situation that is causing concern is that of the Tolmers Camp site in Hertfordshire—a 100 acre site that is now within the Green Belt. It is very unlikely that the Association will want to sell this site within the next 10 years, but after that the situation is uncertain. As building ultimately encroaches it may well be advisable to sell, but the agricultural value price only will be obtained under this Bill. There is real concern as to whether this sum can ever be enough to find a replacement camp site in an accessible area, and I am sure the answer to that question is that it will not. Great things are being, done in the Scout world—by our local association in Birmingham following the sale of their camp site for £250,000. In the last few years, more professional help has been recruited and they have been able to reduce membership subscriptions. Also
1012
they have been able to provide many amenities which many other local associations have been unable to afford. Finally, the Girl Guides' Association also wish to be associated with the remarks I have made. I strongly support the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness GAITSKELL: As an Agnostic, may I express sympathy for the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I do so despite the fact that I am 100 per cent. in favour of the principle of this Bill. I do so because of my experience in the United Nations where for five separate years I have been the delegate to the Human Rights Committee. There I have defended people who wished to be religious against the Communist countries who were always attacking religion. I have always had to defend voluntary organisations. Therefore, it seems to me that in this instance it is logical that I should express at least sympathy for this Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. Since there are many religious people in this country who are concerned with charities that are usually run in a non-Governmental way, it seems to me that it is right that I should be allowed to express this sympathy.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I was in the North of England last weekend when a situation was disclosed to me about which I feel I ought to say a word or two today. First, may I say that I am supporting the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. Quite a long time ago in the place where I live a very generous family built a hospital for crippled children. Before I make my criticisms. I ought to say that, in general. I think that the present Government have done a great deal for the disabled. Therefore, I am putting this forward only because of the difficulty which has arisen. This hospital was specially built for crippled children, and was called the Sanderson Home. After some considerable time it was heavily endowed so that it could be kept running, but now, administratively, it has become involved in the National Health Service. I would have raised this on a later occasion, but this seems an opportunity to mention all the problems which will arise unless we accept this Amendment.

1013
Within the last two years, the friends of the Sanderson Home collected money to build a very special swimming pool, because anybody who knows anything about crippled children, as they used to be called, knows that they very often benefit by having exercises in swimming pools. Quite a large sum of money was spent by the friends of the Sanderson Home to provide this swimming pool. Suddenly, the Government have decided to close down the hospital and to send the children—children who have gone to that home year after year, and also children who have come freshly to it—to no one knows where. No-one knows what is to happen to the endowment which kept the hospital going. In the North of England, there is the greatest possible anxiety, because, after all, that hospital has been a great source of strength to what used to be called crippled children. When the administration was taken over by the National Health Service—which ran it with consultants and people who were specialists in the problems of these unfortunate children—no one thought for one moment that this would be a hospital selected for closure.
As I come from that part of the world, and have always been closely allied with all the things going on there, I was immediately contacted and was asked what would happen. I said, "Well, I really do not know. Nobody knows what is to happen to the money"—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, will permit me to intervene, I hope not impertinently, with the greatest respect to her the matter that she is raising, although of the greatest importance, has no relevance to what we are currently discussing.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should hate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I would point out that charitable money is involved, because of the fact that within the last two years this very good swimming pool was built with charitable money. I can assure the noble and learned Lord, although I am slightly out of order—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: —that it is a wonderful opportunity for explaining that charitable money is involved. Out of their own pockets, the friends of the Sanderson Home have collected money to build this pool, and that is charitable money. It is very important to know about this. This was a charitable undertaking and, although it has been administered by the National Health Service, there is still the private endowment which came as a charitable contribution when the hospital was built. I shall not go any further—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: —but I thought it was a wonderful example of what could happen to charitable undertakings. I hope to develop this subject later when we come to National Health Service closures. But I thought it was a good thing to raise now, because I was immediately asked by my friends, and by the friends of charitable undertakings in the North who look after crippled children, what would happen, and what was to be done with the endowments which had been made. Therefore, I shall certainly support this Amendment, and I hope that this angle will be taken into consideration.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to recommit this part of the Bill, which we did not have an opportunity to debate fully either in another place or in this House. May I also say that we appreciate the concessions which the Government are proposing to make. However, I hope that after listening to the debate this afternoon they will consider further representations.
It is my belief that the Government view the purposes and needs of charities in the same way as we all do. I was fortunate in taking part in the debate in this House on 25th June on voluntary organisations, and I recall—and, indeed, it may be useful for the Committee to recall—what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said on that occasion.

1015
When referring to voluntary organisations, he said:
"Of course, there are some…who would argue that we are all in some danger of making too much fuss about this problem;"—
that is to say, the problem of voluntary organisations—
"that with the development of the modern Welfare State there is now far less need for voluntary service. I am bound to say that I find this a singularly foolish view. First, it denies the existence of the splendid spirit of idealism that binds the voluntary movement together—a movement consisting of thousands of widely diverse organisations yet with one central objective of relieving the problems and anxieties, and sometimes the pain and anguish, of many millions of our fellow citizens.
"There is a second reason why those who sometimes mock the voluntary movement are wrong. There has not been a time—certainly not since the last war—when our statutory services have been under more intense pressure. If the lifeline provided by many dedicated volunteers were cut, many of our most under-privileged people would be the first to suffer."—[Official Report, 25/6/75; cols. 1410–1411.]
I think we would all agree with those sentiments expressed so well by a Member of the Government. It is because we agree with those sentiments that we very much hope that the Government will reconsider the views put forward this afternoon. They were put very forcibly by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, and I would very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said about new and developing organisations. Running like a thread throughout the debate in June, speakers from all sides of the House described particular charities which had arisen to meet new needs. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to alcoholics, but there are charities for the homeless young, for helping single and separated women, for helping discharged prisoners and for drug-takers. A number have recently arisen to help specific needs. All of them, if only the Amendments of the Government are carried, will be affected and I cannot believe, on whatever definition one has of the community, that it can be the intention of the Government that these people will suffer. It is for that reason, above all, that I hope very much that the Government will take the opportunity of the recommitment of this series of Amendments, and the opportunity afforded for reflection on Report, to consider these Amendments.
4.9 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, apparently was under the impression that I was going to support the Government, and that is why she intervened. Presumably the noble Baroness had the right to intervene; she is in an exalted position, unlike myself, because she sits on the Front Bench. I should like to offer a few observations, and I will give the reason why.
First of all, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may be aware that many Members of your Lordships' Committee have received a vast number of documents relating to this very intricate and somewhat complicated subject. I have received many myself, and I confess quite frankly that I could hardly understand a word of what I read. I have been listening to this debate, and sometimes one gains more from oral representation than from the written word. Therefore, I want to begin by asking two questions which have occurred to me. The first is this. If the Amendment were to be accepted by the Government, how much land would be involved? Would it be a vast amount or a percentage of the land in the United Kingdom which could hardly be said to impinge on the principle of the national ownership of land? I have made some discreet sotto voce inquiries about whether this matter has already been mentioned, and so far as I know, it has not. So may we be informed how much land would be involved if this Amendment were to be accepted? The second question is this. Is there anything particularly improper if we should impinge at some stage and for valid reasons on the principle of nationalisation? As I understand it, that is the case for the Government. The principle has been accepted. Ought there to be any exceptions?
Most of us have had some experience of nationalisation. I mention this only to illustrate my argument, not in order to convey the impression that I am an authority on the subject. But I happen to have been associated with piloting two important nationalisation Bills through another place; one the coal industry Bill and the other electricity supply Bill. Certainly in the case of the coal industry the principle has been impinged upon in

1017
this form: that although the vast majority of coal producing elements have been brought under public ownership and managed by what is alleged to be an independent corporation, some elements in coal production been been exempted and are still exempted.
The same applies to civil aviation. Although the State has exercised almost complete authority over civil aviation, there are some elements that are privately owned; so the principle has again been impinged upon. The same applies to the Bank of England. We nationalised the Bank of England, but the clearing banks were exempted and similarly the merchant banks. Here we are faced with a similar situation. We may agree about the nationalisation of land, the right of local authorities to acquire land as and when it is regarded as necessary. We accept the principle, at any rate on this side of your Lordships' House. Is there any valid reason why there should be no exceptions? I feel there should be.
I occupy the same theological position as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I should be the last person in your Lordships' House to seek to represent the theologians, although I am well aware of the history of the innumerable controversies which have taken place as between the State and the Churches in relation to the acquisition of land. I can remember what I read about Henry VIII and the monasteries. I am also aware of what happened in the county of Durham way back in the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, when the Government of the day was superseded by the theologians. The bishop exercised complete control, and it was not until Cromwell arrived that the authority of the bishops was superseded. I am well aware of these facts. I do not want to revive these controversies but nevertheless it seems to me, even as regards the Churches, that an exception might properly be made.
When it comes to the question of charities, I have no doubt at all in my mind—none at all. It seems to me to provide what is regarded as a breathing space. A matter of 10 or 11 years is so minimal, so minuscule, that I am surprised that the Government, with all their intelligence and acumen, have ventured to offer that as an argument against the Amendment. What is 10 or 11 years? It is the argument rather like that used
1018
by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that a week in politics is a long time, or some reference of that kind that he made several years ago. It seems to me that a case has been made out.
I come now to my conclusion. After all, the conclusion is the most important of my observations, and Members of your Lordships' House will understand the reason why in a moment. Unless I can be satisfied by my noble and learned friend that the amount of land involved is likely to destroy the principle of land acquisition by the State and local authorities because of the amount of land involved, and, secondly, that the principle involved in the Amendment does impinge upon the principle of nationalisation, I will vote for the Amendment. I say that with the utmost regret because of the effect it might have on the Government's future. I say that with the utmost seriousness.
I understand from letters that I receive and from observations made to me by people in the streets and on the highways that I still possess some influence. I was not aware of it until I was told about it. Therefore, I warn the Government to be exceedingly careful; they should not push their luck too far. So far they have got on remarkably well: they are getting an awful lot of their own way, and I am very glad to note it. But, as I say, just consider the situation; be a little, not emotional or sentimental about it, but paternalistic or something of the sort. Just regard this in a logical fashion, be reasonable about it; either review the situation, or accept the Amendment, or take the consequences; I shall vote against the Government.
4.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been called a number of things in a substantial period of my life in public affairs, but to be listed by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as among the infidel, is a new experience for me. It brought to my mind the observation of Lloyd George in the House of Commons on one occasion when my fellow countrymen were being abused. He said:
"When my forbears were a God-fearing people enjoying a high standard of culture and civilisation, the forbears of the right honourable gentleman were living on the barren shores of the North East coast on piracy, paganism, and periwinkles."

1019
Well, that is a diet that I have never enjoyed and do not propose to enjoy even in the cause of supporting Her Majesty's Government.
The debate has ranged over a wide area and it has exposed a number of serious misconceptions which may account for some of the prevailing anxiety which has been expressed. A number of the speakers in the debate seemed to be thinking that we are debating development land tax. We are not on this Amendment, and the Amendment would have no effect on development land tax. What we are here considering is whether local authorities should be under a duty to acquire development land owned by charities and bought by them after White Paper day if that land is needed by local authorities for relevant development. That is the issue that we are debating.
The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, spoke of the Churches having acquired land from the believers for over 400 years. Of course, any land that they have on White Paper day is immune, is sacrosanct, is protected; so there is no worry about that inheritance. There is no question of robbing the dead, assuming that their testamentary dispositions have been effective. Indeed, there is a provision in the Bill which will ease the problems relating to testamentary dispositions of land to charities if the relevant conveyance or transfer has not taken place at the appropriate time. The point that I wish to emphasise is that the proposals in the Bill certainly do not threaten the work of charities as such. The question that we are dealing with is acquisition of land for development by local authorities, and that is the nature and purpose of the scheme. The local authorities were dismissed in rather severe terms by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as embodying a facade of democracy. I am not sure that that is a very generous tribute to them. In their own sphere they perform in a democratic field a role as important as that of Members of the Houses of Parliament.
What we are concerned with then is the acquisition of land for development: development land. The vast majority of charities do not deal in development land, will not be affected by these proposals, and they will have no effect on their work. Therefore, in so far as this limited field
1020
causes anxiety, the field is very limited indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, referred to money given to support charities, by grants or otherwise. That again has no link with the development of land. Money so given can be invested, and there are numerous investments available which can be used to perpetuate income and which are entirely independent of development land.
Therefore, if one looks at the matter within the context of the Bill and the proposals in the Bill, I cannot help thinking that the fears that have been expressed ought to be considerably allayed. As I have said, the concessions made by the Government are very substantial concessions. The acquisition duty and the consequential suspension of planning permission will not apply to land owned by any charity on White Paper day for any kind of development upon that land. I have emphasised that when authorities acquire that charity land, the valuation basis will continue to be market value for 11 years; and then I have emphasised the important new provision embodied in the Amendments, that the charities and the Churches will get prevailing use value for land acquired. Those are very important concessions, which will diminish any loss to the Churches and charities embodied in these proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, asked me the definition of "charity". It is defined in the Bill in terms which may not be greatly illuminating, but it is the definition which is used in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the relevant section of which reads:
"In this section 'charity' means any body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only."
But I and the Government have not approached this problem in any sense on the basis that charities ought to be regarded as objects of suspicion. On the contrary, we have recognised the indispensible role of the charities in our life and in our society, and have attempted to meet their needs.
There were a number of case examples given in the course of the debate where one would have liked to have had time for further and better particulars of the precise nature of the transactions. So far as I was able to understand the case that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, mentioned,

1021
the Amendment would have no effect whatsoever on the transactions that he has described. If, at a later stage, he would like to take up any aspect of it with me, I shall be happy to discuss it with him. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised the position of statutory undertakers. They will not be exempt from development land tax; they will not get prevailing use value at the stage where it will become available as the basis of compensation for Churches and charities, nor will they enjoy any exemptions under Clause 25.
The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, asked a question about the boy scout camp site. My understanding is that that site would receive housing value if by the time it was acquired the land round about had been developed for housing, so that housing would then be the prevailing use and compensation would be on that basis. There again, if he would care to discuss the detail with me I should be happy to do so, but I understand that to be the position. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who I see has come back into the fray with the same enthusiasm which he has shown through the watches of the night, seems to be asking for something for which the Churches are not now and have never asked; namely, the ability to buy land on the same basis as the local authorities. In the future local authorities undoubtedly will benefit greatly from this scheme. They will be able to buy land in future net of development land tax, but no one else will benefit outside Government from those financial arrangements. My noble friend Lord Shinwell said when he began his speech that apparently the noble Baroness, Lady Young, must have thought that he was going to rise to defend the Government. I am sure that no such thought could possibly have entered her mind.
My noble friend asked me two specific questions, one being how much land would be involved in this category of development land in the possession of the Churches and charities at the material times. I am afraid I cannot at this stage answer that question; it depends on what the authorities consider is necessary by way of making and having available land for development and how much they acquire. I cannot say more, but what I can say is that we on the Government side believe that to make the further con
1022
cessions in relation to land acquired since White Paper day would disturb the whole principle on which the scheme will operate.
Secondly, my noble friend embarked on one of his current essays in scepticism on nationalisation which, if I may say so, I have heard before, though it is always given with a fresh and vigorous voice. However, this scheme is not nationalisation of land but is a scheme for community ownership of development land only—ownership by the local authorities of the country—and that is the extent of it; it is municipalisation of development land. Whether that bit of information will give any comfort to my noble friend and induce him on this occasion yet again to support the Government I know not, but I hope it will.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and especially am I grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for putting the issues so squarely before us and with such clarity and honesty. Of course, the Churches and charities are grateful for the concessions which the Government have been able to make, but those concessions do not touch the really basic problems with which the charities and Churches are faced. The first is this question of the 10- or11-year rule during which they must get their affairs in order and in line with the provisions of the Bill. One after another noble Lord has said that this is a quite impossible condition; it is impossible if one is negotiating for planning permission or if one is negotiating for loans, and this condition really would be impossibly inhibiting.
The other matter on which we have asked for relaxation is this rigid differentiation between pre- and post-White Paper land, and again we have pointed out that this will have a stifling and stultifying effect on the work of the Churches and charities. It is not merely a question that they have owned land which has been protected for 400 years but, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, pointed out, they are looking forward to the future and they will be very reluctant to get rid of land which is protected, because it is pre-White Paper day land when they know that land acquired after that date will be subject to the restrictions of this Bill. On neither of these two matters

1023
have her Majesty's Government been able to give us any kind of relaxation.
I am sorry, moreover, that the noble and learned Lord—and I speak with great respect—has not really dealt with the matter with which I concerned myself most fully in my speech on this Amendment. We, the Churches and charities, regard this as a change in the whole attitude of Government towards charities. These charities have been protected for 400 years. They have been protected by successive pieces of legislation, and here the charities will be subject to the conditions of this Bill under certain
circumstances. We believe that all the causes of our alarm and concern will arise in a year or two's time and we believe that Churches and charities are entitled to the traditional protection which they have had for so long from Parliament. In the light of the universal support which my Amendment has received on two occasions, I do not feel that it would be right for me to withdraw it.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Adeane, L.

Exeter, M.

Merrivale, L.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Mersey, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Middleton, L.

Allerton, L.

Feversham, L.

Monck, V.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E

Gage, V.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, B.

Amulree, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne,

Goschen, V.

Ogmore, L.

Atholl, D.

Granville of Eye, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Avebury, L.

Grenfell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Gridley, L.

Piercy, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Platt, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Banks, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barn by, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Barrington, V.

Hankey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rochester, Bp. [Teller.]

Berkeley, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sackville, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brock, L.

Hayter, L.

St. Helens, L.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Savile, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Sherfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton, L.

Snowdon, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Inchyra, L.

Soper, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Killearn, L.

Strang, L.

Croft, L.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathspey, L.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Freyne, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denham, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Thomas, L.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Trevelyan, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wigoder, L.

Elton, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mancroft, L.

York, Abp.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McLeavy, L.

Balogh, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Melchett, L.

Birk, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Brockway, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pannell, L.

Brown, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peddie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Cole, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Summerskill, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lee of Newton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to
4.48 p.m.
Clause 25 [Assumptions as to planning permission on or after second appointed day]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 24, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("this").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee for us to consider together with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 161, 164, 166 and 169, which are all drafting Amendments. They differ in one respect from the series of Amendments which previously appeared on the Marshalled List, and it may he an advantage if I mention what that difference is before we discuss the substantive part of the Amendments and those standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Since preparing the original Amendments, we have decided, for technical reasons which are completely unconnected with charities, to revert to the original wording in what now appears as the series of preliminary Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 164 and 166. In framing his Amendments Nos. 162 and 165 to Clause 25, the right reverend Prelate has adopted the framework of the original Government Amendments which are now replaced by Amendments Nos. 161 and 164 and has reproduced their terms up to the point where the substantive provisions which he seeks for charities diverge from those of the Government.
1026
He has also added his name to Government Amendments Nos. 160 and 166 in approval of their technical content and without prejudice to the matters which he challenges.
Whatever the outcome of our debate on Amendments Nos. 167 and 168, which contain the substantive provisions and which will follow the present drafting exercise, it will save time and trouble at a later stage if the preliminary Amendments are adopted in the form in which the Government have now expressed them. I assure the right reverend Prelate that there is no catch in this. There is nothing up my infidel sleeve. Indeed, had we been able to table the Amendments in this form earlier, I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate would have followed them in his own series. I therefore invite him, at the appropriate moment, to withdraw his Amendments Nos. 162 and 165 and I invite the Committee to accept the Government's Amendments Nos. 161 and 164 in their stead. As I have said, the substantive Amendments Nos. 167 and 168, which we shall next be debating, will remain completely unaffected and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we proceed in this way. Before I sit down, it may also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I mention now Amendment No. 169, which is consequential on this series of preliminary Amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: I am entirely happy about the course which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has suggested so far. I confess that I find it exceedingly complicated, and I am very surprised to find myself

1027
linked with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on some of these Amendments, but I understand that some of the points which I am suggesting are acceptable to the Government. Therefore, I am entirely happy about the procedure which the noble and learned Lord suggests.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 161.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 21 on page 25 and insert—
("(2) For the purpose of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed—

(a) subject to subsections (3), (3A) and (3C) below, that planning permission would not be granted for any development either on the land or on any other land, and

(b) subject to subsection (3C) below.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 164.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 27 and insert—
("(3) The assumption in subsection 2(a) above shall not be made as respects development of any class specified in Schedule 1 to this Act or in Schedule 8 to the Act of 1971 or Schedule 6 to the Scottish Act of 1972 (development which is not new development.)
(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) or (3) above no account shall be taken of—

(a)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 166.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 31, leave out ("(ii)") and insert ("(b)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.53 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert—
("(3B) Where during the whole of the period often years immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

(a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) the land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used other-
1028
wise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes.

then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, subject to subsection (3C) below, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
(3C) The assumption in subsections (2) and (3B) above shall not be made where—

(a) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974 and ending with the date mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above, the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) that period is a period of not more than eleven years.

(3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above, the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate, is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.")

The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to the substantive Amendments Nos. 167 and 168, and it may be convenient to your Lordships to discuss the two Amendments together. Amendment No. 167, which is a Government Amendment, gives effect to the third part of the package of special provisions for charities which were announced by my right honourable friend the Minister on 15th July. This sets out the conditions in which assessment of compensation at prevailing use value will apply after the second appointed day. Amendment No. 168, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, is on the same point. I address myself first to the Government Amendment. The first thing I wish to say is that its provisions go considerably further than was announced in the Minister's Statement in July, since there is now no requirement that there should be a building on the land in question before it can qualify for assessment of compensation at prevailing use value.
If I may remind your Lordships, "prevailing use value" is the term used to describe a method of valuation, originally conceived in the Planning Act 1947, in which it is assumed that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the

1029
land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the land round about. The Government's provisions will remedy the particular problem facing charities where they own land with a very low, or even nil, current use value—like a disused church—and where they would be dependent upon realising the value of such a site in order to finance their continuing activities. The reference in the Amendment to,
"land (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof)"
is intended to secure that compensation at prevailing use value shall be available only in respect of land which has been in the "operational use" of a charity, as distinct from land held for merely investment purposes; for example, offices leased out for rental income. As to those premises, charities, like everybody else, will receive the value of the land in its current use as offices, together with the value interest in the right to rebuild the offices.
The circumstances in which prevailing use value will apply are as follows. For land owned on White Paper day it will apply after the special market value provision has reached the end of its period —that is to say, after 11 years from White Paper day, or after the second appointed day, whichever ends later. For land acquired by charities after White Paper day, the prevailing use value basis will also be available so long as the land has been owned continuously by a charity—any charity—for 10 years from the date it came into its ownership. The importance of this 10-year qualifying period is simply to establish the bona fides of charitable ownership. As I have said, in my view these provisions are substantial and fair. They go beyond what the Minister originally promised, and should be of great value to all charities with interests in land.
I turn now to other benefits that Amendment No. 167 will confer. Your Lordships will notice that it is now provided that charities will be enabled, under subsection (3C)(b) of the Amendment, to receive compensation at market value for 11 years—not 10 years as hitherto—or until the second appointed day, whichever may be the later. This was a concession that I undertook to put forward when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion. As your Lordships will know, the
1030
extension of the 10 years, which was originally provided for, to 11 years is to take account of the year which has elapsed since the publication of the White Paper. The new subsection (3D)(b) will also ensure that land shall be treated as owned by a charity on White Paper day where a testator who had made a charitable bequest dies before then but the land had not actually been conveyed to the charity by that date.
Taken with the concessions introduced by virtue of the Amendments tabled earlier to Clause 4 of the Bill, these amount to substantial concessions for Churches and other charities. The Amendments that the right reverend Prelate seeks to move would go further. They would remove any distinction between pre- and post-White Paper day land, would perpetuate compensation at market value after the second appointed day, would reduce from 10 years to one year the qualifying period for establishing that charity land is in bona fide charitable use, and, finally, would ensure that after the second appointed day charities could elect to receive compensation either at market value or prevailing use value, whichever might be the higher, even where compensation to which they might be entitled under any other enactment would be a lesser amount.
I have already endeavoured to explain that the Government have drawn a distinction between charity land owned on White Paper day and land acquired by them after that date in full knowledge of what was proposed in the White Paper. They have always stressed that special provisions must be in accordance with the basic purpose of the land scheme. Amendment No. 168 to Clause 25, which will be moved by the right reverend Prelate, is not acceptable for that reason, and I must invite your Lordships to prefer Amendment No. 167, which I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: Perhaps I can speak to my Amendment No. 168, as it is applicable. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, the purpose is first to ensure that Churches and charities remain entitled to compensation on the basis of market value for their land whether or not that land was acquired by them before or after White Paper day

1031
and irrespective of whether they disposed of that land before or after 10 years or after the second appointed day. In other words, the Amendment prolongs indefinitely the concession which the Government have announced for land which Churches and charities have on White Paper day, and which was to last for 10 years from that day. Secondly, my Amendment would provide that where land has been used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes for at least one year the Church or charity is entitled to compensation on the basis of prevailing use value—that is, the use prevailing on adjacent or contiguous land, be it office or shop use, or whatever it may be—if that basis is better than compensation yielded on other bases: that is, market value or existing use value.
The Amendment tabled by the Government would allow that where land has been in charitable use for at least 10 years they will have this concession, and my Amendment seeks to reduce this to one year on the ground that 10 years is too long and does not meet the case where a piece of land or a building bought by a charity for a particular purpose is then found to be unsuitable for that purpose and has to be got rid of again. One year was the period accepted for the same purpose in the Land Commission Act 1967, which was itself a work of the Labour Government of the day. I do not want to have to divide the House on this matter, and, at any rate, I should like to be able to consider this carefully and move my Amendment at a later stage, but I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider some relaxation in this 10-year rule and would try to meet me over the Amendment I am moving, which requires one year.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support the right reverend Prelate in his Amendment because of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in a previous debate, when he made the point that charities are pioneering new spheres. I think we have to recognise that time and time again it has been the voluntary effort that has pioneered the new charity or service, which subsequently the Government have felt it necessary to provide themselves. These new charities are not easy to get off
1032
the ground. You get hold of some small premises to start in and then, as the charity becomes better known and as people seek your help—battered wives could be an example, or the unmarried mother—you seek larger headquarters. A charity can develop in its work very quickly, and very soon require new headquarters. The 10-year rule is, to me, far too limiting on premises which could, in a much shorter period, be outgrown. If a charity succeeds and is able to obtain better and larger premises, they would be deprived, because they were only a year or so old, from having the real compensation which would apply under the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, which provides for a 10-year period. If I read my Sunday papers correctly, the Government seem to regard with the greatest disfavour asset-stripping in another context. I think it quite deplorable that they regard it as a virtue when they apply it to charities.
The Earl of BALFOUR: I am sorry to come in rather late, but perhaps I may say a few words. May I please ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain to me what would be the position under Amendment No. 167, subsection (3D)(b), if a person dies in 12 years' time and leaves a large chunk of land to a charity or to the Church? I am not quite certain here whether the Church would be under a penalty in that case or whether they would be entitled to the benefit of that person's will in this respect. Even reading the drafting—I have not really had time to study this—I do not quite understand the position there, and I wonder whether that could perhaps be explained to me.
Lord SANDFORD: As your Lordships know, the Government have played the Churches along ever since the summer without, until just now, making clear their rather vague undertakings, and it is only now that we see clearly how inadequate and unacceptable the Government's proposals are to the Churches and the charities. There is only a week to go before Prorogation, and I would have thought that, although we are now seeing signs of repentance from the Government, they would be much encouraged along the right lines if the right reverend Prelate were to move and press his Amendments. We have two more stages, and if the Government are willing to come towards him to meet him they will

1033
have their opportunities then. But I would feel much happier if we had Amendment No. 168 made to the Bill as those remaining days tick by.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In relation to the right reverend Prelate's question as to whether any further concession would be made on the 10-year test to qualify as charity land, I am afraid that the answer I have to give is discouraging to him. Quite frankly, the answer is in the negative. As to the question that was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who has a genius for detecting the difficult question to answer, especially in the small watches of the night, as I understand it, in the case of the testator who leaves a will bequeathing land to a charity or a Church in 12 years' time, under the terms of the Bill the charity will be deemed to have owned the land from the date when the testator died, and if the charity kept it for 10 years it would attract prevailing use value. If that is not the right question or the answer is
not clear, perhaps the noble Earl will speak to me privately and we will have a session on it.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: Can the noble and learned Lord enlighten me about the procedure here? If Amendment No. 167 is carried, does Amendment No. 168 then fall; or am I entitled to move it?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps we had better see the outcome of the Division on Amendment No. 167. I would apprehend that Amendment No. 168 would fall. From the point of view of the right reverend Prelate, I think that that would be the brutal consequence.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 167) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 128.

CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Foot, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brown, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor, Gryfe, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Byers, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Dundee, E.

Allerton, L.

Carrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Amory, V.

Clwyd, L.

Eccles, V.

Amulree, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Atholl, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balerno, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cowley, E. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Exeter, M.

Banks, L.

Croft, L.

Falkland, V.

Barnby, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Barrington, V.

Daventry, V.

Gage, V.

Bathurst, E.

Davidson, V.

Gainford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Belstead, L.

Devonshire, D.

Glenkinglas, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Long, V.

Sackville, L.

Goschen, V.

Lonsdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Greenway, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Davids, V.

Grenfell, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandy, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Savile, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stamp, L.

Hankey, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Meston, L.

Strang, L.

Harcourt, V.

Middleton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Monck, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Strathspey. L.

Hayter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Henley, L.

Thomas, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Newall. L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hornsby-Smith. B.

Northchurch, B.

Tranmire, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vernon, L.

Inglewood, L.

Onslow. E.

Verulam, E.

Kemsley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Piercy, L.

Vivian, L.

Kindersley, L.

Porritt, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Redesdale, L.

Windlesham. L.

Lauderdale, E.

Reigate, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

London, Bp.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.21 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of LONDON: My Lords. I formally move Amendment 168, to which I have already spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 40, at end insert—
"(3A) The assumptions in subsection (2) above shall not be made where at the date mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) above, the interest in land is owned by a charity.
(3B) Where during the whole of the period of one year immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—

(a) the interest in land has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), and

(b) the land, (as distinct from the rents and profits thereof) has not been used otherwise than wholly or mainly for charitable purposes,

then, for the purposes of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed, if the charity entitled to the compensation so elects, notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) above, that planning permission would be granted for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails in the case of contiguous or adjacent land.
(3C) For the purposes of subsections (3A) and (3B) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) is or was indefeasibly entitled to it under the terms of a deceased person's will."

—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 168) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berkeley. B.

Dundonald, E.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Eccles, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carrington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Allerton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elles, B.

Amory, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amulree, L.

Cornwallis. L.

Elton, L.

Atholl, D.

Cottesloe. L.

Emmet of Amberley, B

Auckland, L.

Cowley, E.

Exeter, M.

Balerno, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Balfour, E.

Croft, L.

Ferrers. E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gage. V.

Balniel, L.

Daventry, V.

Gainford, L.

Banks, L.

Davidson, V.

Glenkinglass, L.

Barnby, L,

Denham, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Barrington, V.

Devonshire, D.

Goschen, V.

Bathurst, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Greenway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Grenfell, L.

Belstead, L.

Dundee, E.

Gridley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Hankey, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Savile, L.

Hanworth, V.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Harcourt, V.

Mancroft, L.

Somers, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stamp, L.

Harvington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hawke, L.

Middleton, L.

Strang, L.

Henley, L.

Monck, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathspey, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Newall, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Inglewood, L.

Northchurch, B.

Thomas, L.

Kemsley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Killearn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kindersley, L.

Onslow, E.

Vernon, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Verulam, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Piercy, L.

Vickers, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Porritt, L.

Vivian, L.

Lloyd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Reigate, L.

Wigoder, L.

London, Bp. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Sackville, L.

Wolverton, L.

Lonsdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Raglan, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brown, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Summerskill, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Pannell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment 169.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 44, leave out ("(41") and insert ("(2)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move Amendment 170.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 4, after ("section") insert ("other than subsection (3B) above").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments in respect of Clauses 4 and 25.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with: Report received.
5.32 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in the Marshalled List for this Report stage there are no less than 16 places where I have moved that the clause should be omitted. As that is a rather unusual procedure on Report, I feel that I owe it to your Lordships to offer an explanation and to assure the Government that I do not intend to press any of those Amendments. It is the normal practice, if I may quote from the Companion, that:
"An Amendment to leave out a clause or a Schedule is not desirable on Report if the purpose underlying the Amendment is to

1039
initiate a general debate, … Such an Amendment is not, however, out of order; it may, indeed, be appropriate when, for instance, a Lord wishes to learn the outcome of an undertaking given in Committee."
In the course of the Committee stage of this Bill we were given between 50 and 60 undertakings, and in the course of Friday night, at the last stage for tabling Amendments for incorporation into the Marshalled List, I had observed about a dozen points where Government Amendments seemed to me to have fulfilled undertakings given to reconsider matters which had been raised on this side, and elsewhere in the House. By last night some further undertakings had been met by letters from Ministers to various Members of your Lordships' House who had taken part in the proceedings on Committee stage; but some undertakings are still outstanding, and in any case I think the House as a whole would wish to know the outcome of many of the undertakings given in Committee. That is the purpose of these Amendments of mine.
Clause 1 [Definitions]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 13 to 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I have a long series of other Amendments (20 in all) I wish to speak to, and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I read out the list of numbers. With Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 39, 103, and 193. This series of Amendments will reorganise Part I of the Bill and it might be helpful if I start by making it clear how Part I will read if this series of Amendments is accepted. First, there would be authorities for the purposes of the Bill; Clause 1 would enumerate the authorities and Clause 2 would deal with joint boards. We should then have a series of clauses dealing with interpretation: Clause 3 deals with development land and relevant development; Clause 4 deals with outstanding material interests; Clause 5 deals with statutory undertakers; and Clause 6 deals with other interpretations. Finally, commencement would be dealt with in Clause 7, referring to the appointed days, and so on.
This reorganisation of the definitions in the Bill has been made as a result of the debate during Committee stage in your Lordships' House. It was felt to be unsatisfactory that some definitions were in the relevant clauses throughout the Bill rather than being gathered together at a central reference point in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, stressed the difficulties to a lay person reading the Bill, when Clause 1 was debated at the Committee stage and my noble friend Lady Birk undertook to consult the Parliamentary draftsmen about the regrouping of the definitions. This long series of Amendments has been brought forward as a result of that undertaking, and they merely achieve the regrouping of definitions without altering any of them. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his explanation of this sequence of Amendments. I believe it makes simpler the understanding of Part 1. As this was a point raised by us on this side during the Committee stage—that this complicated Bill was then arranged in a somewhat difficult order—we welcome these Amendments, because it now appears to be much simpler and more logical as regards Part 1. Perhaps I might mention just one point here. I wonder whether in the sequence of definitions the one for "development order" has been left out. If I am right, may I ask why this is so?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, I am not absolutely certain whether the definition of "development order" is included in the long string of Amendments, but perhaps I can reply more fully to the noble Baroness when I am dealing with a later consequential Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("within whose areas the land is situated") and insert ("whose areas include the land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and in doing so I should like to speak to a very much shorter list of other Amendments. Again, I think it might be for the convenience

1041
of the House if I read out the list. With Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 102, 139, 142, 158 and 159. These are all minor drafting Amendments which achieve consistency. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have no criticism of these Amendments which, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, in fact are consequential and minor drafting Amendments. Am I right in thinking that Amendment No. 139 should in fact read, "Page 32, line 34, leave out ('is situated')", not line 24 as the Amendment says?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, my understanding is that "24" is correct, but again maybe I could leave it until I come to move No. 139 and deal with the point then.
Clause 2 [Joint boards]:
5.42 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 30, after ("If") insert ("following representations from one or more of the authorities concerned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that when we were debating joint boards under Clause 2 we found a fair amount to disagree about, but I thought that one of the matters about which there was no disagreement was that it would be unthinkable for the Secretary of State to set about establishing a joint board if one or more of the local authorities involved had not first made representations to him. Inasmuch as the Government agreed with that, I should have thought that this Amendment was acceptable to them, and I hope that it is. I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, briefly, I should like very much to support this Amendment, particularly so far as local authorities in Scotland are concerned. May I again remind the House that, of course, regarding the Town and Country Planning Act. Part I and Schedules 1 and 2 were repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I feel that these few words will not in any way change the general meaning of
1042
the Bill but will be of considerable advantage, particularly in any matter dealing with Scotland.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on Committee stage, in the debate on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill? drew attention to this point. In replying to him and other noble Lords, I should have thought my noble friend Lord Melchett made it absolutely clear that the Government foresaw that a joint board would be set up only where the authorities concerned, or at least a majority of them, wanted it. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was concerned that this should be written into the Bill. However, the provisions of Clause 2 follow those of Section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (which in their turn go back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947) which allow the Secretary of State to set up joint planning boards.
Incidentally, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was quite wrong when, at col. 1306 of the Official Report, he said that this planning precedent is not applicable to matters of land acquisition. It has been made clear many times in the discussions on this Bill that the Bill is about land acquisition in the context of planning, and local planning authorities therefore have powers of land acquisition under the planning Act which could be exercised by a joint board established under that Act. I am sorry to bore your Lordships—that point has, I know, been made from this side of the House very many times.
The provisions in the planning Act have been in operation for 30 years and have caused no practical problems in operation. If they had done so, I should have thought the Opposition would have used the Local Government Act 1972 in order to make changes and to right anything they felt was wrong in the previous Act. The fact that they did not do so shows. I should have thought, not that they had missed out on this point but that they accepted also that it worked perfectly well. So there appears to be no justification at all for writing in this provision.
Any joint board set up under Clause 2 will certainly—and this is a point to be remembered—be more democratic than

1043
the present two National Park planning boards. This is because the provisions of Clause 2 follow those of the 1971 Act and provide for all members to be appointed by the constituent authorities. However, the Opposition amended these provisions as they apply to National Parks in the Local Government Act 1972, and therefore paragraph 11 of Schedule 17 provides for one-third of the members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, recognised this when it was pointed out to him by my noble friend on 27th October. But it is the presence of members not appointed by local authorities which has caused much of the resentment about the role of the National Park planning boards; and I feel from what he said before, knowing that this is an interest dear to his heart, that Lord Sandford has this very much in mind. This is a trap which Clause 2 of this Bill does not fall into. We consider that the whole question of consultation is very well covered in the clause and that it is quite unnecessary for this provision to be written into the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may say so, that was a rather elaborate response; I am grateful for it. My recollection of the Committee stage is that we were all entirely agreed that the Secretary of State would establish these boards only if representations were made to him, if they were wanted. I do not see that it would do any harm to have it in the Bill, but I will not press the matter. We have more important things to discuss. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Meaning of relevant development]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, at beginning insert ("In this Act "development land" means land which, in the opinion of the authority concerned, is needed for relevant development within ten years from the time at which they are acting
(1A)").—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (b) and insert ("and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the plot on which somebody wishes to build a single dwelling-house. It has a chequered history, and at the end of the discussion I think the House will have to decide as a matter of principle which is the right thing to do. I will try to explain as simply as possible what has happened, in the certain knowledge that the noble and learned Lord has very kindly written to me and if I were only to read out his letter I should probably get it a good deal more right than I shall by explaining it out of my head. Perhaps I can leave him to do that when he comes to reply.
In the White Paper, certain limited exemptions were provided—and I think "exemptions" is the right word—for plots of land owned on White Paper day upon which the owner intended to build a house for himself or a member of his family. Such plots were said to be exempt from this scheme of the whole of this legislation. "Exempt" meant not only that they were to be exempt from the duty after the second appointed day of a local authority to acquire them for the purpose of building the single dwelling-house for the member of the person's family who owned it on White Paper day; they were also to be exempt from the power of the local authority to acquire the plot for that purpose, or so I understand it. Effect was given to this promise in the Bill as it was originally introduced in another place by the very elaborate provisions of what were then Clauses 4 and 5. It was a complicated procedure and involved giving notices and registering the facts within a certain time, and then the exemption, I think, operated.
In the course of the lengthy discussions on this Bill it has been decided to reorganise the whole scheme of things. We have now in the text of the Bill, whereas previously it was not, the provisions for exempted development, which are those which appear in Schedule 1, and also provisions for excepted development, which is not the same and to which the powers of compulsory acquisition under Clause 15 will indeed apply. They will not apply to exempted development. The excepted development appears in Clause 3(1)(c.)
There is another category, the one which appears in Clause 3(1)(b) —our old friend the single dwelling-house. But it

1045
is no longer the same single dwelling-house as it was when the Bill was introduced. Instead of being a single dwelling-house to be developed on a plot owned by somebody on White Paper day which will be occupied by himself or by a member of his family, it is now to be all single dwelling houses, whenever owned, to be developed and lived in by whomsoever one may think. The result of this change has been that instead of a limited collection of single plots, which everybody was promised in the White Paper would be not only excepted but exempted so that the local authority could not acquire them under this Bill, we have now reached the situation where those plots are now capable of being the subject of compulsory acquisition under this Bill.
If the Government wish to legislate by White Paper and then take something like a year, or rather more, before the Bill which finally gives effect to the White Paper becomes an Act of Parliament—and, indeed, quite a long time before the Bill is introduced at all—they must expect people to rely upon their White Paper. Everybody knows that Socialist Governments do this; they did it last time and they are faithfully doing it again. Therefore, people organise their affairs upon the basis that what is in the White Paper is true and accurately represents the intentions of the Government. Accordingly, may I suggest to the House that in this case a considerable number of people relied upon the White Paper and thought to themselves, "This is very good. My plot, which I owned on White Paper day, upon which I intend to build a house for my mother or my daughter is exempted from the scheme of the Bill. No local authority will be able compulsorily to acquire it. If they want to acquire it they will have to do so under some other legislation. I am not part of the scheme of the Bill in respect of my plot". They will be grievously disappointed because the Government have changed their mind, and a year or so after the White Paper was published have reversed that decision. It is true that they have done so in order to be tidy and logical. Nevertheless, they have misled all those who for over a year have been relying on the White Paper. I do not think that this is right.
One could do various things about it. One could put back the elaborate procedures in what used to be Clauses 4 and
1046
5. I would not advocate doing so, because it seems to me to be a very complicated and difficult process. Alternatively, one could do what this Amendment and the next Amendment that appears as Amendment No. 15 would do; namely, make all the single dwelling-house plots into exempted development so that they could not be compulsorily acquired under this Bill. That is wider than what is contained in the White Paper. However, in a measure of this kind I should have thought it was not too bad to be a little less restrictive than one originally said one would be.
The noble and learned Lord defended the situation in the Bill as it now is when we discussed it during the previous stage of the Bill, by saying that in the case of the compulsory acquisition of a plot for a single dwelling-house it would be a great pity if the local authority had to promote its compulsory purchase order under two different powers, as for the rest of the land under the powers given by the Bill, but as for the single dwelling-house plot under some other powers because it had no powers under the Bill. If I may say so, that would be a very bad argument if it were to be reproduced today. By the original scheme in the Bill where the single dwelling-house plot that was owned on White Paper day and intended to be used to build a house for a member of the family was exempt, that is precisely what the local authority would have had to do then. They would have been unable to acquire that plot under the powers contained in the Bill. Therefore, if it formed part of a larger area of land that they desired to buy for a major housing or industrial development, they would have had to buy it under some other powers, whereas no doubt they could have bought the remainder of the land under the powers contained in the Bill.
It is no use saying that it is a bad thing to have to use two different powers in order to bring forward one's compulsory purchase. It was inherent in the Bill that the Government introduced. That seems to me to be more or less conclusive. I have no doubt that it is a matter of choice but I would choose, and I ask the House to agree with me in this, to stick to the promise that was made in the White Paper upon which people have been acting and relying for some

1047
time, even if it means going a little wider than that, rather than do away with the reassurance that was given in the White Paper and go back on the Government's word. I hope that in these two Amendments I have achieved this in a simple way and I beg to move the first one, Amendment No. 5.
The Earl of BALFOUR: May I support this Amendment and draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of paragraph 2 to Schedule 1 on page 51, Perhaps I ought to declare an interest here. It reads:
"The carrying out, on land which is used for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, of any building or other operations required for the purposes of that use, other than operations for the erection of dwelling-houses …"
There will be cases where a farmer or, for that matter, anybody else may wish to erect a house for his own use or in connection with farming, that may be miles away. If the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is not accepted, the ordinary house, which we have taken so much trouble to try to protect, will come within the provisions of Clause 15 of the Bill.
I ask your Lordships to consider that there are many occasions when a person may need to build a house either for himself or for a member of his family or perhaps even—I am sure your Lordships will understand this—for an employee who is necessary to that household. Let us suppose that a person who is very well off is disabled and that he wishes to build a house for use by a nurse or a gardener. I feel that this ought to come within the provisions relating to the single dwelling-house. The emphasis is upon the single dwelling-house and I entirely support my noble friend.
5.59 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Viscount. Lord Colville of Culross, has indicated, we discussed this matter during the Committee stage of the Bill. He made the point then that to the extent that it does—and I shall submit in a moment that the practical effect is minimal—the Bill detracts from the White Paper exemption providing for the building of a single house for a member of the owner's family on a plot that was owned on White Paper
1048
day. I venture to suggest that the practical effect of departing to the extent that the Bill does from that position during the interim period must indeed be minimal. Whether or not that be so, my first submission to the House, as indeed the noble Viscount has indicated, is that the exemption which he proposes by his Amendment No. 15 goes far beyond anything that was promised in the White Paper. As he has indicated, this was confined to a house for occupation by the owner of the land or by a member of his family. The proposed Amendment would remove entirely from the acquisition power development consisting of a single dwelling-house and although authorities will not normally be expected to acquire land for such development there might be circumstances in which it would be right for them to do so.
Even more important, inclusion of the building of a single house within Schedule 1 also has valuation implications, since by virtue of Clause 25(3) development within Schedule 1 is included within current use value after the second appointed day. The consequences of bringing single plot development exemption within current use value are considerable and not calculable. It could lead to landowners trying to break their land holdings up into single plots for dwelling-houses to get the value of the right to build a single house added to current use value. That would be unacceptable for a number of reasons.
Secondly, as the Bill now stands the intention is to treat virtually all the exemptions from the land scheme set out in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the White Paper by including them within "excepted development". The only exception to that is agricultural development, which is essentially different from the other categories in that it is the current use of most land. That has been generally accepted both by outside bodies and in another place and we see no reason to depart from this general approach in the case of building a single house for a relative. The only reason why this exemption was previously included in the Bill was because this was the only way to achieve statutory exemption before the creation of "excepted development" and we do not see that the change is significant from the point of view of this

1049
category of development since the Secretary of State would clearly be prepared to confirm a compulsory purchase order only if there was some quite exceptional circumstance justifying it. Indeed at present it is impossible to envisage any such circumstance in relation to the circumstances described in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the White Paper.
A further observation that might be relevant is that if the plot is going to be acquired anyway, would the owner care greatly whether it was under the powers of the Bill or some other power? Since the development is "excepted development", the procedure would be the same in both cases. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the authority could have acquired the plot under the Bill's powers so long as it was not to build a house for the owner or his relative and that limited class. I hope that in the circumstances of what I have endeavoured to give by way of explanation of this highly technical matter the noble Lord will feel disposed not to press his Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could answer one point raised on this Amendment? I think he said that the White Paper exempted only the owner of the plot or a member of his family and that my noble friend was wrong to have said that the single dwelling-house now in the Bill was in fact what was covered in the White Paper.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords; the noble Viscount conceded that in his speech.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that, but would the noble and learned Lord not agree that it was the Government who changed the whole basis of the single plot? Coming to the point of compensation which the noble and learned Lord made, I think he referred us to Clause 25(3) and I believe he said that this would change the basis of the valuation from existing use to, I presume, market value. Could the noble and learned Lord confirm that point?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can of course only speak again at Report stage by leave of the House. If I may say so, perhaps it would be fitting that I should remind noble Lords that we
1050
are at the Report stage and if we are to get on we must avoid the temptations of treating it as a Committee stage procedure.
I have endeavoured to explain that the inclusion of the building of a single house within Schedule 1 has valuation implications, since by reason of Clause 25(3) development within Schedule 1 is included within current use value after the second appointed day, and one of the consequences of bringing the single plot development exemption within current use value may be, as I have indicated, that it might lead landowners to break up their land holdings into single plots for dwelling-houses so that in addition to getting current use value they could get the value of the right to build a single house on the plot as an added factor. This is what I am told and I verily believe it to be true.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been verily misled by the procedure on recommitment this afternoon, and references that he made to Clause 25(3) ought, according to one view of the Bill —that is, the text that we have in front of us—to be to Clause 25(4)(b) or, according to another view of the Bill whereby we have inserted Amendment No. 168, to subsection (6) or (7). The difficulty of course is that we have not got a final text. Nevertheless, I take the point and I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that in order to get over that we should adopt the technique which is often used and which has been used in Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning Act where we are talking about compensation, and break up Schedule 1 to this Bill into two parts. I will then move a consequential Amendment (if I can find the right place) whereby we do not take account of my paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 for the purposes of compensation, but we deal with it only for the purposes of exempted development and compulsory purchase. I do not think there is any practical difficulty about doing that and that will meet the point on compulsory purchase made by the noble and learned Lord.
I think the noble and learned Lord made two points of substance. The second point that he mentioned was that the Secretary of State will be very chary about confirming the compulsory

1051
purchase order on the sort of plot which used to be covered by the old Clauses 4 and 5 and which was exempted under the White Paper. That is good for us to know, but I am very much afraid that a person who happens to be in the category originally exempted altogether from the scheme of the Bill will not have followed the somewhat mercurial course that this Bill has taken through Parliament. After all, these are bound to be people with small amounts of land and they are the sort of people who often deal with compulsory purchase orders themselves. They do not necessarily have advice. They may know that they were exempted in the White Paper. If they happen to look at the terms of the Bill they will find that their exemption has disappeared. They will not know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Report stage in the House of Lords made a pronouncement about what the Secretary of State would be likely to do on a compulsory purchase order. Therefore they may throw up their hands in despair and never take the point at all.
For this reason, among others, I would suggest to the House that it would be much better if we were to put this provision into the Bill. Then it is in an Act of Parliament which is, after all, the law of the land which applies to everybody. It is not an administrative concession which is contained in a speech
of a Minister, however sincere and however accurate it may be, made in one House of Parliament and which is available only to those who read Hansard or who happen to see it reported in a newspaper if it is so reported. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with these things. It is much better if it is in the Bill.
The other point is this—and this is the first point of substance made by the noble and learned Lord. He said that my Amendment would have a minimal practical effect. That may be so. Why, then, was it the subject of Clauses 4 and 5 in the legislation as originally introduced? What was the point of the Government making the promise in the White Paper, and then introducing it in the legislation when it came before Parliament, if the effect is of minimal practical importance. It must have been sufficiently important to warrant a promise, and to warrant a complicated procedure. Why now is it dismissed as being something we need not trouble about? I am not satisfied about that. I consider it would have been much better if we made this plain on the face of the Statute. As to the compensation point, I will see whether I can deal with that later.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118 Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Gowrie, E.

Allerton, L.

Croft, L.

Grenfell, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cross, V.

Gridley, L.

Amory, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Amulree, L.

Daventry, V.

Hanworth, V.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Balerno, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Balfour. E. [Teller.]

Devonshire, D.

Henley, L.

Balniel, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Banks, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Barnby, L.

Eccles, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barrington, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bathurst, E.

Elles, B.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kindersley, E.

Berkeley, B.

Elton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brecon, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Exeter, M.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Falkland. V.

Long, V.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Foot, L.

Loudoun, C.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Gage, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainford. L.

Luke, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Mancroft L.

Mansfield, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strang, L.

Marlborough, D.

Pender, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Platt, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Merrivale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tranmire, L.

Meston, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Middleton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vernon, L.

Monck, V.

St. Davids, V.

Verulam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Sandford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Northchurch, B.

Sandys, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Savile, L.

Windlesham, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wolverton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Somers, L.

Worcester, Bp.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Young, B.

Onslow, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, B.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rusholme, L.

Brown, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rendal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fulton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) development consisting of the replacement or alteration of an existing building where there has been no change in the ownership of the land.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to include as an excepted development in Clause 3 a,
"development consisting of the replacement or alteration of an existing building"—
I have tidied this up—
"where there is no change in the ownership of the land."
Buildings do wear out. I have in mind three particular categories. I am thinking of a case where somebody has in his possession a house which is sub-standard and wishes to develop it, or perhaps even rebuild it if it cannot satisfactorily be brought up to the proper building standards. Also, there is the very important case where industry is developing and may need to rebuild completely part of its works. It does not involve a change in the ownership of the land. I feel that it is
1054
something that should be excepted from relevant development within the meaning of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, there is no dispute over whether or not rebuilding or alteration coupled with an element of extension should fall within the category of excepted development. Annexe A in the Paper on The Scope of the Community Land Scheme made it clear that the Government's intentions cover re-building or alteration with an extension of up to a 10 per cent. increase in floor space. So, as I understand it, the only dispute between the Government and the noble Earl is in the mechanics of achieving this. This Amendment would write the exception into the Bill. I regret to say that we cannot accept this, because this is a matter that the Bill, with the special exception of the building of a single house, leaves entirely to regulations.
This use of regulations is justified on two grounds. First, regulations are more flexible, and, as my noble friend Lady Birk explained at Second Reading in October, make it possible for detailed definitions to be drawn up in consultation with interested parties. I think there were several points in the Committee stage when

1055
we saw the importance of consultations on the categories of excepted development, and when we saw that there was still a certain amount left for further discussion. If a lot of independent propositions are written into the Bill, they may overlap or clash. It is much more satisfactory, in our view, to look at the whole field of development and attempt to draft general classes to be included in the regulations. The results can then again be discussed with interested bodies before Parliament is asked to approve the regulations.
Secondly, putting some things in the Bill and others in regulations means that interested persons would have to look in two places, the Bill and the regulations, to find everything that is excepted. It is much simpler for them to look in one place, the regulations, for all the categories of excepted development. In view of the fact that we have accepted that there should be a 10 per cent. increase in floor space allowable on rebuilding or re-development, and in view of what I have said about the importance of leaving this to regulations so that consultations may take place, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am sure there will be many people who will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for having answered this; at least we have some record in Hansard to this effect. I must say that it still leaves very much open what will eventually appear in the regulations. I am not altogether happy. I trust that this will be provided for, as the noble Lord says, and even allow for a 10 per cent. extension to the building. The problem is that very often you have something like a sub-standard kitchen or bathroom which may involve an extension, in the case of a single dwelling-house, to a far greater extent than that. May I remind noble Lords that if industry is not expanding, time alone is leaving it behind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) development for the erection or alteration of any building, which when erected or altered would be eligible for a fifty per
1056
or more reduction in rates under sections 39 or 40 of the General Rate Act 1967, or in Scotland, sections 22 and 23 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is on an entirely different point. What I was thinking of in this case was the building of churches, the building of village halls, the erection of buildings to be used for general recreation or educational purposes, which, when erected or altered, would be eligible for a 50 per cent. or more reduction in rates under the relevant rating Acts. I am sure that where a building would be eligible for as great a reduction as 50 per cent. or more of rates—which, after all, is the local authorities'income—we should give it the benefit of being an exempted development within the provisions of this Bill. The sort of case I am thinking of is the building which is erected entirely for the benefit of the community, and which, if it were to be taxed to a great extent under any provisions, would probably not be built at all.
As noble Lords who are members of the Government have said on more than one occasion, this Bill is designed to be of benefit to the community. The buildings with which I am concerned are very definitely for the benefit of the community and not something out of which any profits can be made. I moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage, but I drafted it incorrectly; I had not allowed for the 50 per cent. or more reduction in rate able value. I beg to move.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, there is one thing that can be said; that is, that the noble Earl is not consistent. I was interested in his observations in regard to community halls. In areas like mine we had the closing down of mines. We had welfare halls which are now turned into community centres and have become the responsibility of local authorities. They work under management committees set up to raise the finance to keep these places going, and to give accommodation to the young people of the area who have nowhere else to go. If these places have to be kept up, if they have to receive grants afforded to them by the local authorities, then those authorities must receive rate poundage from somewhere.
The people who use the premises, opera societies and musical festivals and one

1057
thing and another—I do not know whether the noble Earl has seen this in his own area up in Scotland, but it is the case in my county of Durham—are doing a good job of work, but somebody has to carry the responsibility and find the money to keep them going. They need caretakers who have to be paid a wage. They receive grants through local authorities towards meeting their initial expenses, so as to keep these places open. Therefore, we must come down on the side of the local authorities in regard to this matter, because rate poundage has to be imposed upon a local welfare hall, or even a cricket ground or sports centre in the villages. I have much sympathy with the case presented by the noble Earl, knowing the full facts about how these places have to be kept going, but they can be kept going only by the good will of local authorities and other people who are prepared to assist them.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Earl pointed out, he moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and at that time my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained that the Amendment was unacceptable as it went far beyond the special provisions already announced for Churches and charities, and because effectively it would make special provision for the very large number of organisations coming under Sections 39 and 40 of the General Rate Act. On this particular point I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Slater, who showed the same sympathy I have for the motivation behind the Amendment, but I think also made an extremely valid point.
The noble Earl indicated that he intended to return to the matter on Report and would limit the number of organisations for whom he sought benefits. But in fact it has not quite worked out that way. As the Amendment is worded it could still include any of the bodies described in Section 40(5), as they may be entitled to an unlimited discretionary reduction in rates, so his Amendment would not make that matter sufficiently exclusive. In any case, the Amendment is certainly unacceptable even if limited only to the bodies listed in Section 39 and Section 40(1)(a) and (b.) as it is not
1058
the intention of the Government, as has been made clear, that any development carried out by a Church or a charity at any time shall not be held to be relevant development.
The Government have been quite prepared to give special treatment to land in respect of which Churches and charities had entered into commitments for development before they had any knowledge of the land scheme, but have made it quite clear that they would not be prepared to prejudice the operation of the scheme by excluding permanently from relevant development all developments carried out at any time not only by Churches and charities but also by any of the other organisations, and in that I include the village halls and places for general recreational purposes which the noble Earl mentioned when he moved his Amendment. The special provisions which are already included in the Bill, and which have been described so many times, together with those tabled for addition to Clause 25, ought, I feel, to be quite sufficient to enable charities to carry on their work effectively when the land scheme is in operation. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and hope that he will withdraw it.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I think that I must have the final say here, to establish that my concern was for the erection or alteration of very special buildings. They are non-profit-making, and they were for recreational or educational purposes. I am sorry that the Government feel that this sort of thing ought to be left entirely in the hands of the local authorities, being taken out of the hands of those who, on their own, wish to make this effort to provide something for the community. If that is their wish, then it is regrettable. However, I think I must leave the matter there. I warn the Government and everybody concerned with the Bill that the very fact that the Government are taking things away from private individuals and putting them in the hands of an authority which, in so many cases, can be cold and unfeeling, is something about which I have considerable regret. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. This might be a convenient moment for me to answer the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when I spoke to Amendment No. 1. She asked me about the definition of "development order". As I understand it, the definition of "development order" has not been removed, and it remains in Clause 4 on page 4 at lines 32 to 34. I hope that that answers the question she put to me. I beg to move.
6.36 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert—
("(4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section and any regulations made under the provisions of this Act, the term "exempt development" means development referred to in Schedule 1 of this Act and the term "excepted development" means development referred to in subsections (1)(b) and (c) of section 3.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 22 go together. The noble Baroness will be glad to know that these are helpful Amendments, or supposed to be. One of the criticisms of this Bill has been that it is so terribly complicated to understand. Indeed, we made this criticism on a number of occasions at Committee stage, and I am glad to see that the first thing that the Government did was to introduce Amendment No. 1 to reorganise the definitions because they were so complicated. This Amendment helps the ease of understanding.
We have in the Bill a number of expressions: "development"; "development land"; "development orders"; "development plans"; "relevant development"; "excepted development"; "exempt development". They can tie you up in knots. "Excepted development" and "exempt development "are so similar that they are extremely confusing to simpletons like myself, and indeed to other people. Even the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, got us tied up a little when he said:
1060
"We have made it perfectly clear that we should not expect local authorities to involve themselves in excepted development except in exceptional circumstances."
Even that modest phrase takes some five minutes to understand. I do not blame the noble Lord, because I have heard that kind of complication when we have been discussing the Bill outside the Chamber. The whole basis of the Bill rests on "relevant development", "excepted development" and "exempt development". But it is very complicated when you say, "What is excepted development and what is exempt development", and they are defined nowhere.
"Exempt development" is not defined anywhere other than Schedule 1, and then it is not a definition: it is merely a statement of fact. It says: "Schedule 1, Exempt Development". "Excepted development" is not defined at all, other than, we are told, in regulations which have not yet been formulated other than the curious document Annex A. Apparently, "excepted development" is defined there, but where is Annex A? Your Lordships might like to know that you can get it in the Printed Paper Office, but how anyone outside the House knows where to get such an Annex A I do not know. Maybe they should get it from the Department of the Environment, but they are not to know that it is available. Further to complicate it, Clause 3(1) defines "relevant development" as "any development except—" various things, but what it excepts is "exempt development" as well as "excepted development".
I have put down these Amendments in order to try to write into the Bill what is "excepted development" and what is "exempt development", so that we all know what we are talking about—at least in some measure. I hope that the noble Baroness will find that this is a constructive Amendment, and that she will have no hesitation in accepting it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not describe himself as a simpleton; even if he were to do so I am sure that noble Lords would not agree with him. I thought that at one point, as he was reciting some of the words in the Bill, he was about to break into song and I am tempted to feel that now, on Report, we have the same cast,

1061
almost the same script and the same scenario. I am sure that the noble Earl meant this to be a helpful Amendment—two Amendments in fact because with the leave of the House I will address my remarks at the same time to Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 9 is, as the noble Earl explained, intended as an avoidance of doubt provision, explaining the terms that are used, while Amendment No. 22 defines the development referred to in Clause 3(1)(b) and (c). Frankly, I think the result of these Amendments would be to cause almost total confusion because they would bring into the Bill terms which have been designed for administrative convenience but which, except for the title of Schedule 1—"Exempt development"—are not used in the Bill. In any case, I imagine that these Amendments are in the nature of a kite being flown, because if the approach were serious there would obviously have to be a number of consequential Amendments, and they have not been tabled.
Leaving aside the defects, which are a minor point, I cannot see that the Amendment would help by redrafting the Bill in this way. I am far from calling myself an expert on this subject, though day-by-day I learn more, but even to me Schedule 1 explains the position clearly. I was re-reading it while the noble Earl was speaking and it explains quite clearly what the position is. If, after reading that, we go on to Clause 3(1), we see, as the noble Earl pointed out, the reference to "relevant development" and the use of the phrase "development of any class"—and in Committee we went into why the single dwelling house has been included—and then we go on to read in subsection (1)(c):
"…development of such class or classes as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations".
Frankly, this makes it extremely clear and there seems to be little gained from adding more words to the Bill. If there is a problem, other than that in the mind of the noble Earl, this will readily be resolved when the regulations under Clause 3(1)(c) are made. There will, of course, be explanatory publicity issued by the Government and I cannot see the ordinary members of the public being concerned, even if I were to push Annex A under their noses. I do not
1062
think they will want to find Annex A. What they will want to know is how this will affect them, and even definitions further spelt out of, for example, "except" and "exempt" would not get the ordinary person very much further. They would need a far wider and far more simplified explanation than is to be found in any piece of legislation. Thus, although I accept the helpful intention behind the Amendment, I must ask the noble Earl to withdraw it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers because although the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that these proceedings reminded her of the same cast and the same scenario, this discussion proves that the players in this scene have still not mastered the plot. What my noble friend said in a pleasant and cavalier manner masked a serious point. The definition of this excepted development is not in the Bill. It is a major concession that the Government have made halfway through the Bill's passage through Parliament. It affects an enormous number of people; it affects every small builder, every industrialist up to 15,000 sq. ft. if he wishes to develop and it affects individuals, yet nowhere do we see this very special part of the Bill mentioned. The noble Baroness said—or I understood her to say—that she did not think that anybody who wished to examine this part of the Bill would be interested in Annex A. I think that people will be tremendously interested in it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl must have misunderstood me because I did not say that. I referred to the ordinary person or member of the public. I did not refer to anybody especially interested in the Bill. Anybody who is particularly interested in the Bill —or the Act as it will be—will, of course, be interested in that. I was making the point that when they had read that, they would find it sufficiently explanatory. I said that the ordinary person who wanted to know the effect of this legislation on him would not find the spelling out of this provision helpful because it would still be very technical.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right because it is technical. Nevertheless, to the ordinary person Annex A covers man

1063
subjects in which ordinary people are interested. It covers recreational buildings, small buildings, including churches and meeting halls and—this is made clear in Annex A—a wide range of extensions to buildings of all types. The noble Baroness is being rather unkind to the ordinary person. I speak as an ordinary person and I am interested in Annex A. I therefore ask why Annex A is not in the Bill. What effect does Annex A really have? It is not law and we are told that there will be regulations, but we are not told when the regulations will be published. My noble friend has raised a very serious point and I hope that he will consider most seriously what the noble Baroness has said.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am bitterly disappointed in the noble Baroness's reply, because I thought she would be bound to accept the Amendment. Indeed, I tried hard to word it so that she would accept it, but I thought that possibly her advisers would say that this would be a most intolerable intrusion into the Bill and that, for that reason, the noble Baroness should not accept it. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said it all went to show that the players had not yet mastered the plot. I tried hard to see how that could possibly be a compliment to myself, but I can only take it as being the greatest insult possible, which is of course absolutely justified, and it was in order to try to master the plot that I tabled this Amendment.
The noble Baroness really let the cat out of the bag when she said that the terms "exempt development" and "excepted development" were designed for administrative reasons. That is exactly the trouble. They are designed for administrative reasons and this is our complaint about the whole Bill; it is so designed for administrative reasons that the average person reading it cannot grasp what it is always all about. However, this is not a point over which I would ask your Lordships to take any exercise, either mental or physical, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, three undertakings were given on Clause 10. One—as reported at col. 1345 of Hansard—was given to my noble friend Lady Young about the length of leases for redevelopment by pension funds, which my noble friend does not wish to pursue at the moment. Another was given to my noble friend Lord Balfour and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross affecting compensation, which my noble friend Lord Balfour intends to raise again on Amendment No. 172 to Clause 27, and I hope it is helpful for the Government to have that notice. The third we were discussing in the course of our debates on Amendment No. 5, so there is no need for me to move Amendment No. 10, which was to leave out Clause 3.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
6.49 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Exempt development]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 51, line 4, after ("permission") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with the permission of the House, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. In Committee—as reported in Hansard at col. 1394 for 21st October—the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised the question whether Schedule 1(1) as drafted covered the case of development which would normally be permitted under a general development order where, for special reasons, an Article 4 direction had been made requiring expressed planning permission to be applied for in respect of that development, indeed, I think the noble Lord also raised the point at another stage in the Committee proceedings. I have since looked at the point. It was always intended that, in such cases, the development should remain within exempt development but the present drafting does not achieve that. The noble Lord has raised an important point. I am very grateful to him for drawing our attention to this. These three Amendments remedy the defect to which he has drawn attention.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having dealt with this, because I believe

1065
that it was not fully covered before. That having been achieved, I do not feel I have anything else to raise on Schedule 1.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 5, after ("force") insert—
("or
(b) would be so granted but for a direction given under the order.")—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 7, after ("is") insert ("or would be")—(Lord Melchett.)
6.53 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 51, line 8, at beginning insert ("in addition to any development falling within paragraph 1 above,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will be replying to this Amendment and I feel I should perhaps offer him an apology for a point which I have just found in looking back through our debates in Committee and which relates to my new friend, Section 132 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I am grateful to him for introducing me to that strange piece of the Statute, which I had not previously come upon. I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber before I had an opportunity of saying so on the occasion in question.
In relation to the present Amendment, I believe that there is on both sides of the House an agreement that a slightly curious overlap occurs. The provision of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule have been cobbled together from different sources. The first derives from the general development order which deals, in this case, with what is demed to have been granted planning permission under Part III of the 1971 Act, but paragraph 2 comes from somewhere else and the difficulty about it is that the two paragraphs
1066
deal to some extent with the same territory.
As we heard in Committee, under the general development order, planning permission is deemed to have been granted and, therefore, for the purposes of this Schedule, this is exempted development and can be taken into account for the purposes of compensation. One sort of agricultural development concerns agricultural buildings up to what used to be 5,000 square feet and what is now 4,465 square metres, though these are subject to other conditions as well. However, under paragraph 2 of the Schedule, we have agricultural buildings of unlimited size also exempted and allowed to be taken into account for the purposes of compensation.
I am moving the Amendment for two purposes. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that, for both purposes to which Schedule 1 relates one should take the larger of the two into account. I am sure that that is what is intended, in which case I suggest that, as we are combining two sets of words which have different derivations, it is as well to say so. I would add that, if by any chance the Government are minded, when the Bill goes back to another place, to suggest that the Amendment which we made at this point last time should be reversed, we shall then have a situation under which horticulture will be dealt with specially and there will be a special restriction on horticultural buildings under paragraph 2 which will not apply under paragraph 1. Therefore, at the point where the Amendment has been put down it will be necessary to say which of the two paragraphs is to prevail.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, told me last time that there was an overlap in the Bill as drafted when it was before us in Committee, and I believe that he will have to put words into the Bill at his point in order to tell people, for the purposes of compensation and of deciding what is exempted development, whether paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 prevails. Here it is a comparatively simple matter. In the hypothetical circumstances which I suggested in the second part of my remarks, I believe that it will be more important if it should ever occur. I therefore ask the noble Lord to look at this once more, so that we may avoid a lot of trouble and

1067
litigation in order to decide what the Bill is supposed to mean. However, for the purposes of this Amendment, I believe that it is sufficient that these words should go into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount said about the obscure section of the Town and Country Planning Act. In relation to the Amendment, it was always clear that the carrying out of building ancillary to agriculture or forestry was partly covered by the general development order exemption contained in paragraph 1. My advice is that the Amendment adds nothing of substance to the Bill and that it is unnecessary as a clarification. I am further advised that, while it is not for me to pre-empt what another place may decide to do with the Bill when we send it back, even if horticulture were to be put back in the Bill in the other place, the words would still not be necessary. The exception would cover only paragraph 2 and not paragraph 1. However, I believe that, so far as the second point is concerned, it is something which we ought to leave to the other place. If they feel that additional words are necessary when they look at the Amendments which have been made, that is a matter for them. But my advice is that, as the Bill stands, the Amendment is not necessary for clarification.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am convinced by that, but the only method by which I could draw attention to this point was by putting down an Amendment. The noble Lord is right that the words in question would not be correct, supposing the hypothesis which we are working on to occur in another place, but I believe the noble Lord will find other words to be necessary. It was in order to implore the noble Lord to look at this again and to avoid the difficulties which I feel will otherwise arise, that I put down the Amendment. I have now drawn the point to his attention and he has said he will look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 17, at end insert—
1068
("(4) Development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwelling-house.")— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8 o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1973 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1975.
6.59 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I rise to seek the approval of your Lordships' House to the Order reproscribing the Ulster Volunteer Force, I should like to take the opportunity of explaining—as my right honourable friend has done earlier today in another place—the way in which the Government see the security situation in Northern Ireland at present and the manner they consider best suited for dealing with it.
It has become clear that there has been a change in the nature of violence in Northern Ireland this year. The campaign to disrupt life through the bombing of Government and commercial premises has given way to a wave of murders. Gangsters and criminals arc acting without any facade of political backing or belief and terrorist organisations are engaged in gang warfare, seen particularly in the last few days in the feud between the Provisional and Official IRA. There is an atmosphere of lawlessness. The Government propose to crack down on this, using methods most appropriate for such a situation. In the forefront must be the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported, as necessary, by the Army and with the sanctions of the law and the machinery of the courts behind them to restore the rule of law.
The prime role of the police is the first of a four stage approach to the present situation. Already the RUC has shown how it can respond to the challenge. This year over 1,000 people have been charged with serious crimes, including 118 with murder and 77 with attempted murder. The formation of the "A" Squad to deal with sectarian murders has paid dividends, and there is increasing evidence of public support demonstrated by co-operation from the publicin providing information about crimes and criminals. I am pleased to report, moreover, that since my right honourable friend's Statement in September 1974 about policing, the RUC has increased its strength by 443 recruits to give a present total of 4,760, and the strength of the RUC Reserve has increased by 2,200 to bring it to a current strength of 4,894.
A key element in the Government's approach is reliance on the courts to deal with offenders rather than the detention process. Detention has played an important part in dealing with violence from 1972 to 1975, but there is a price to be paid for it. Detention has offended a large section of the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland, and particularly the minority community from the Cardinal downwards. It has caused widespread resentment on all sides, and although my Party did not oppose its introduction by our opponents, the time has come to reconsider it. We are convinced that so far as is humanly possible, the proper procedures henceforward for dealing with lawlessness are the traditional ones of arresting, charging and sentencing in the courts.
It is essential, however, if this policy is to succeed, to make improvements in the prison system. There are two main problems at present: the existence of special category status and the absence of a parole scheme. We all deplore special category, while appreciating the reason why it had to he introduced. But as I explained to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in the debates on the Emergency Provisions Act (Amendment) Bill, there would be no point in abolishing it without first having appropriate cellular accommodation for all new prisoners in place of compound conditions. I am pleased to report that 200 cells will be ready almost immediately
1070
and that others are in the course of construction.
My right honourable friend, therefore, has decided to end it for all offenders accused of crimes committed after 1st March 1976. Those in prison who already hold the status will not be deprived of it. But offenders sentenced for crimes committed after the due date will be treated like any other prisoner. The accommodation problems, although improving, are exacerbated by the fact that there is no parole scheme in Northern Ireland, and the greater the success of the Security Forces, the more pressure is put upon the system. We have given a great deal of consideration to the possibility of introducing a parole scheme, but have concluded that the special circumstances in Northern Ireland—particularly the problems of compound conditions and supervision after release—will not allow for a scheme comparable to that in Great Britain. Accordingly, my right honourable friend intends to introduce legislation to provide for the conditional release of prisoners after one-half of their sentence has been served. Once released, the prisoner will be liable to serve the outstanding balance of his sentence if he is convicted again during that period. Conditional release in this way will replace the existing procedure whereby unconditional release is granted after two-thirds of the sentence has been served but, as now, release will be subject to good behaviour in prison.
I must stress that this conditional release scheme is in no sense an amnesty, it is in lieu of a parole scheme. Up to date, people in Northern Ireland have been considerably worse off than their counterparts in Great Britain, in that every prisoner in Great Britain is entitled to be considered for parole after he has served one-third of his sentence, and 40 per cent. are actually given parole with supervision. At the moment, all prisoners in Northern Ireland serve a full two-thirds of their sentence, but are then unconditionally released. Under the new scheme they will be conditionally released after half their sentence. Those serving sentences of one year or less will be given remission of one-half of sentence without conditions, while those serving life sentences will continue to have their sentences reviewed as at present the new provisions will not apply to them.
The intention of the Government is that these penal reforms will start in March 1976 and take full effect by 1st July 1976. I have no doubt that they are highly desirable and much needed, and, as I have said, they will enable us, in conjunction with the new accommodation, to phase out special category status. People convicted of offences after the introduction of the new scheme will not be granted special category status. They will be treated as all other prisoners. In the new legislation there will also be provisions for community services orders, deferred sentences and bail hostels, other desirable reforms for Northern Ireland which already exist on the mainland.
My right honourable friend has also mentioned detention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made the point in his Report that
"Detention can only be tolerated in a democratic society in the most extreme circumstances".
The Secretary of State has signed no interim custody orders since February, and there are now only 172 detainees in custody, compared with over 500 at the beginning of the year. It is worth commenting that all these 172 who are left have been held for more than eight months, and some for up to three years. My right honourable friend has stated today that, in view of the measures that he has announced, he is strengthened in his resolve to release the remainder of the detainees by Christmas, unless, there is a fundamental change in the situation.
These proposals show the way in which the Government are looking to the future. However, the most important factor of all is that the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland should themselves take measures to support the police and the Government in restoring law and order and peace. Before I leave this subject I must point out that these measures will come before your Lordships in the form of an Order in Council in the new Session, when there will be ample scope for detailed discussion.
I apologise to your Lordships for spending so much time on the general security situation rather than the matter of the proscription of the UVF, which is the purpose of this debate. It seemed to me, however, that your Lordships would wish to know of the Government's
1072
proposals at the earliest possible moment and this debate provided that opportunity.
Coming now to the Order, your Lordships will recall that the Ulster Volunteer Force was originally proscribed in 1973 in the Emergency Provisions Act—thus continuing earlier proscription in the Special Powers Acts—but that in April 1974 the Secretary of State announced that he intended to remove both that organisation and the Sinn Fein from the list of proscribed organisations. He did so in the knowledge that many people in these organisations wished to engage in political activities, while at the same time there was no evidence of the organisations as such engaging in acts of a violent nature. Indeed, the Ulster Volunteer Force had announced a ceasefire in November 1973, and called for an end to sectarian killing and, through the Volunteer Party, contested the October General Election. Regrettably, the organisation turned its face once more towards violence. By the middle of this year they had admitted involvement in the appalling Miami Showband killing, and subsequently in the further indiscriminate killings on 2nd October. In view of this my right honourable friend took the decision to proscribe it.
The Order has been made by the urgency procedure, but in these circumstances it was only proper for the Government to act both quickly and decisively. While the Government's policy remains that of encouraging people in Northern Ireland to engage in political activities so long as these are lawful, there can be no protection for those who claim to be acting politically one moment but the next moment turn to violence. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th October, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Order for the proscription once again of the UVF is an almost inevitable consequence of the appalling violence about a month ago in which the Ulster Volunteer Force admitted its involvement, and I support the Government in the decision which they have taken. I am

1073
bound to say to the Government that I think this may well re-open questions about the position of the Provisional Sinn Fein, who have obvious and close liaison with the Provisional IRA; but that is not the matter which we are discussing this evening, and it does not alter the support which I am giving to this Order. I agree absolutely with the Government's view that, in the final analysis, it is the police and the courts which must be responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland; and may I emphasise that I very much welcome the Government's renewed undertaking, which I know was this afternoon given in another place, though I am not quite sure whether it was given by the noble Lord this evening, that while the security situation demands it the Army must remain in strength in Northern Ireland.
The figures which the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson, has given us this evening of people charged in the courts in Northern Ireland this year and of the increase in the numbers within the RUC are certainly very encouraging; but, of course, the test for the police in Northern Ireland is progress in areas where in the last few years their writ has simply not run. I confess I find it difficult to see any substantial progress on this front until in some way the Roman Catholic population is identified more closely with the police force. Some 18 months to two years ago there were, I think, plans for the setting up of local police committees. I wonder whether perhaps some initiative along these lines may be still at the planning stage, and whether it is possible to bring them forward in the foreseeable future.
I welcome also the announcement about the introduction of the new cellular accommodation at the Maze. On both sides of the House we know the reasons for the introduction of special category status, and on both sides of the House it is agreed that somehow or other this has to be ended. I certainly concede that. What I am not entirely clear about from what the noble Lord has said is whether the Government intend to deny special category status to any prisoner entering one of the new cells. If that is to be the policy—and it seemed from what the noble Lord said that that is
1074
the policy—I have a simple question. Are the Government confident that demand is not going to exceed supply? If special category status is to depend upon the availability of the new cells, it seems to me that in the event of demand exceeding supply there could be very real difficulties of a formidable nature.
I realise, of course, that the Government statement about conditional releases will relieve pressure on prison accommodation. These releases raise, I would have thought, one small question. I may be on the wrong track here, but it is the question of parity in practice in Great Britain. I realise from what the noble Lord said that in Great Britain parole can be offered after one-third of a sentence has been served. Presumably, however—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, would know very much more about this than I do—some prisoners do not qualify automatically for this, and I wonder whether, if parole in Great Britain for, let us say, a convicted bomber from Northern Ireland is to be withheld whereas a conditional release is to be offered as of right after half of the sentence has been served in Northern Ireland, that situation might not lead to pressure being brought on the Home Secretary for the transfer of convicted prisoners from Northern Ireland who are serving terms of imprisonment in Great Britain. I should be grateful for guidance on that point, and as to whether the statement has been made with the agreement of the Home Secretary.
Finally, I am interested to know the Government's thinking about the services needed to support the policy of conditional releases and the new moves towards community service orders, suspended sentences and bail hostels in Northern Ireland. Particularly at a time of high unemployment, it is surely essential for the Government to be as confident as they can that the probation and social services are numerous enough to make the success of their policy reasonably hopeful. It is perhaps a paradox that the Government are proscribing an organisation in the Order which we are considering and at the same time are introducing measures for prison reform; but a paradox is nothing new in Northern Ireland affairs, and I support the Government in the measures which they have announced to the House this evening.
7.17 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it might be helpful if I were to reply to the noble Lord before anybody else who wants to speak does so, just to clear the points he has raised. The question of police committees I think was a point which he raised. This idea was mooted in the White Paper preceding the Sunning dale talks. Afterwards, the Government supported the establishment of such committees, but the commitment lapsed with the disbanding of the Executive. Several unofficial committees have been set up and are operating without financial aid from the Government. But my impression is that the SDLP, who are crucial in this, were not really prepared to go heavily into support of such things until the overall committee which was visualised by Sunning dale was set up—and, of course, it never has been. So I think there is not a great deal to look for there at the moment. This is something as to which I think we need to make some political progress before we can really seriously revive it.
On the question of cells and cellular accommodation, the noble Lord asked whether everybody who was put in a cell would be deprived of special category status. The answer is that it is the other way round. Nobody who is tried for a crime committed after 1st March, and who is first kept in remand and subsequently sentenced, will be put anywhere except in a cell. He will not get special category status. He will be treated like an ordinary prisoner, and we have enough cells to deal with this situation, which I think is what the noble Lord really wanted to know about.
As to parity with Great Britain, the position is that, looking right across the board in Northern Ireland, our prisoners will be worse off than 40 per cent. and better off than 60 per cent. of the British prisoners. The position is that for the man in prison in Great Britain consideration for parole arises after one-third of his sentence, and 40 per cent. get it—not necessarily at one-third, but at or after one-third. Those people are better off than our people, who will be released under conditional release after half of their sentence. The 60 per cent. who do not get it are slightly worse off than ours, in that they have to wait for the expiry
1076
of two-thirds of the sentence before they get their normal unconditional release. That is the exact comparison.
The noble Lord asked whether this will create problems between men sent to prison in Great Britain for crimes connected with Northern Ireland—men with a reasonable excuse to ask to be sent back to Northern Ireland. The answer is that it may; but most of those convicted of the very serious crimes in Great Britain will have life sentences. The new arrangements do not affect life sentences at all. We might run into one or two anomalies if somebody gets a very long sentence; but when this happens the probability of parole after about halfway gets quite high. I doubt whether there will be a great deal of difference.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether we had Probation Service facilities for dealing with such new ideas as community service orders, bail hostels and so on. The answer is that we are short of probation officers but we are increasing our intake reasonably well. The probation officers are not being asked to deal with the conditional release people; they are not having placed upon them this very large burden which has been placed on the English Probation Service for people on parole. Our view is that as these things develop, the Probation Service will develop and we shall be able to deal with it. There is rather a shortage of suitable personnel, but we are working hard on this and, on the whole, we think we shall be able to deal with it.
7.22 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I welcome, as my Committee will, the statement made by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I am quite sure, as we are all aware, that the more serious crime can be brought before the courts where everybody can see that the case is proved against them as against detention in relation to which it can never be said that anything has been proved, the better. I am delighted to hear that, unless there is a serious change in the situation, it is proposed to phase out detention by Christmas. I think that everybody agrees that the special category was an unfortunate mistake. It was always clear to my Committee that it would be difficult to get rid of it. I am glad to hear that, at least for the future,

1077
it is anticipated that that course can be followed and I am equally glad to learn of the conditional release which is proposed as an alternative to parole.
My Lords, may I ask what are the Government's present plans for further cellular accommodation how large and when it is anticipated that that will be available? Secondly, in view of what has been said about the large number of releases by the end of the year, is any further step being taken on the welfare side?—because, as my noble friend knows, we are always rather concerned that prisoners against whom crimes have been proved in open court have a proper welfare service when they leave; whereas for reasons that I partly understand, detainees have nothing at all.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, as is my custom, I will not go into details other than to welcome the statement. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I have had the advantage of hearing a certain amount of the debate in the other place this afternoon. One of the things which gladdened my heart was to see the bipartisan policy was still fully in operation. Indeed, I had the advantage—which the Minister did not have owing to his responsibilities here—of hearing the winding-up speech by Mr. Stanley Orme. He thanked the House for their reasonable attitude—more reasonable than on some previous debates. This gave me great heart for the following reason. There have been two bipartisan policies in the last few years which have supported the policy which Her Majesty's Government have adopted towards Northern Ireland. One has been the bipartisan policy at Westminster and the other the bipartisan policy at the Dail in Dublin, unfortunately now shattered; with the Republic on the verge of an Election. Therefore, if we are not going to have a bipartisan policy between the two major parties, in Dublin it is heartening for an observer of the Northern Ireland scene to know that we are going to continue to have a bipartisan policy in London. I think that this is one of the most important things to emerge from this afternoon's debate in another place.
My Lords, it is hard, I know, for Ministers to get over to the people of Northern Ireland that what they say is true. I was therefore delighted that in
1078
the general announcements this afternoon, the Secretary of State stressed over and over again that there would be no amnesty. It is not because I am against an amnesty that I am so delighted; but that it is another way of saying that there will be no British withdrawal; because extreme Republicans, as the Minister knows only too well, have been pressing and pressing for a declaration of intent, as it is called in Belfast. It is this declaration of intent which, unfortunately, the Fianna Fail Party, a week ago, decided to back in opposition to the Government in Dublin. Therefore, the Secretary of State's remarks this afternoon in that context were to my mind extremely important.
One of the problems in dealing with Irish affairs—I think that this was said at least 50 or 60 years ago—is that when you make an attempt to settle the Irish question you never get very far because, halfway through, the question changes. I think that there is some truth in that little story with regard to Northern Irish affairs as well. I can recall only too clearly that two or three years ago people were saying in Belfast—and someone like the Rev. Ian Paisley springs to mind—that, "If only Britain will keep out of our affairs, we can settle everything among ourselves." My Lords, the previous Administrations, under Mr. White law, introduced legislation to make possible an Assembly, which was immediately broken up by these people who said, "We can settle our affairs if only the British keep out of it." The Convention was then set up by the present Administration and, if what we hear is true in Belfast, the majority report from the Convention will be totally unacceptable in London. Soonce again despite the obvious efforts of the present Administration to keep out of Northern Ireland affairs—some people even say that they are trying too much to do so—it still seems to be impossible for the local politicians to settle their own affairs.
My Lords, I think anybody who has tried to administer Northern Ireland understands only too well the appalling difficulties which this creates. I was, I must admit, a little surprised having myself proscribed UVF 10 years ago, when the Administration deproscribed them. Now they have had to reproscribe them. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord

1079
Belstead, said is true: that extreme Protestants will wonder why the Provisional Sinn Fein are still unproscribed. I am not raising that in any spirit of hostility; I can see the reasons. But I think this will probably be a question which will arise and I know that the Minister appreciates that.
My Lords, finally may I say how much I welcome the reforms announced today which I am sure come very dear to the heart of the Minister who himself, in a totally different English context, is interested in prisoners and prison reform.
7.30 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have not had the advantage of listening to the debate in another place, or of hearing the statement of the Secretary of State, and the statement made in this House this evening is of a complex and detailed character. I am not therefore going to enter into the details of it, but there are three points I want to make. The first is to welcome the decision to end detention without trial, and the release of all those who are now detained without trial before the end of the year. I am perfectly sure that that decision will change fundamentally the psychology in Northern Ireland; the psychology not only among the Catholics, but also the Protestants who, one must remember, have also been subject to detention. I think the figures which the Minister has given of those who have been detained without trial in the ordinary way by juries and judges, indicate to us that even in the extraordinary situation in Northern Ireland today it is possible and, indeed, better, to proceed by democratic judicial methods than by the methods of detention without trial. I welcome very deeply the decision of Her Majesty's Government in that respect, and believe it will contribute greatly to an improvement of the situation in Northern Ireland.
The second point I want to raise is this. I think that the Government have been right in allowing what would ordinarily be described as conditions for political prisoners—I believe it is called Special Category A—during these recent months. As the Home Secretary knows, nearly every week I get letters from young people who have been imprisoned for criminal offences and who are now enjoying
1080
the possibilities of Special Category A. This is what has impressed me: that those foolish young people who committed those crimes under the political circumstances in which they have been imprisoned, are now turning in constructive directions. From January they will be students of the Open University, and I believe that the Government have been absolutely right in giving those young people the opportunity while in prison to begin to think in constructive terms instead of feeling that they were repressed in such a way that their old convictions, their old repressions, their old frustrations, should dominate their lives in the future. I am a Humanist but, strange enough, I have almost found myself a spiritual adviser to some of those young people.
I shall refrain deliberately from entering into the broader political considerations in Northern Ireland. I will not even follow the noble Lord in that respect. It is recognised by all sides in Northern Ireland today that there can be no re-opening of the problem of the frontier except with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that is accepted, then surely the important contribution which those who believe in the ultimate union of Northern Ireland can make is not at this stage to create controversy about the Border, but to demonstrate in Northern Ireland itself that Catholic people and Protestant people can work together for their common aims. There is a trade union movement there, and a big ship-building works. Probably Catholic workers are treated with some discrimination; but take the social and economic demands of the workers in Harland and Wolff—they are exactly the same as the social and economic demands of the Catholic workers.
My great appeal to Northern Ireland today would be this: that the workers, both Catholic and Protestant, should put aside the division about the Border—because they both accept that there shall not be change without consent—and should concentrate on their social and economic demands uniting them. If they did that, they would prove by the unity of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland that finally it would be possible to have Catholic and Protestant unity in Ireland as a whole. I will not pretend to be able to analyse the statement which

1081
we have heard in detail tonight, but I greatly welcome the two proposals to which I have referred.
7.39 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the three speakers who, with one or two reservations here and there, have welcomed my right honourable friend's new proposals, which I believe are deeply fundamental and important. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner will feel that though the first response to his Report may have been less than total, the response now is really what he asked for. The undertakings about special categories, the undertakings about detention, the undertakings about something in lieu of a parole scheme, are three deep and important matters to which by noble and learned friend's Report referred. I am grateful for his support.
I should like to answer the question that he asked about further cellular accommodation. We have 200 cells ready now—or they will be ready in a couple of days. We shall have another 300 in 12 months' time; we can have a further 300, perhaps, between eight and 12 months after that. These are not yet commissioned, because we are not sure that we are going to need them. But we have the space so that we can take them. Meanwhile, the young offenders centre at Pardysburn—I think it is called Hyde bank —will have another 300 places by the middle of 1977. By 1980 there will be 400 more places in Maghaberry and a few years later there will be another 400 places there. In addition to this, we have, of course, a certain amount of cellular accommodation in Belfast Prison being used for remand prisoners. There is no intention of changing that, but if we became pressed arrangements could be made to use some of this accommodation for newly convicted prisoners. Therefore, my advice to the Secretary of State has been that we can do this. We have various margins in front of us; we hope it will be like this but if not it will be like that, and we can deal with it. So I do not think that my noble friend need worry.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, with his usual elegant pessimism has made one or two points to which I should like to refer. I am very glad
1082
to hear that he felt as I do about this afternoon's debate in another place; that is, that the bipartisan policy was not at risk and, as he pointed out, the fact that there is a slight risk across the Border makes it all the more important that there should not be here. He stressed the point of no amnesty, and this is very important. I think that one of the reasons why convicted criminals of crimes of a scheduled type are so anxious to claim special category is that they feel this will one day carry an amnesty. We have now given it all the amnesty it is ever going to get, which is the same as any other prisoner convicted of a crime in Northern Ireland. We have introduced something in lieu of a parole system—in some ways rather better and in others not quite so good—but this is the most that anybody will ever get. They will be treated like all the others and there is no advantage whatever from this point of view in trying to stick to special category.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, is an elegant pessimist, my noble friend Lord Brockway is an eloquent optimist. I am always accusing him of optimism in relation to Northern Ireland and I only hope that his optimism is justified. I am delighted at his reaction to the very firm comments of my right honourable friend about ending detention. Clearly, this could go wrong, but he has committed himself as far as any politician could at this stage.
As regards the young people my noble friend was talking about, there are very difficult problems involved here. We can look after the young people. We are introducing quite elaborate vocational training schemes and there are a good many facilities for them; but under the special category arrangements we are not at all sure they will come, because what a boy likes is to be with the men. As a fighting boy, as he thinks he is, he wants to be with the fighting men, and it is very difficult to get these boys—whose lives are going to be totally ruined by this association—to come away and be on their own and accept the facilities that we are offering. This is only just beginning.
We have only just got the vocational training facilities available and we are putting every effort into dealing with this. But if my noble friend, who has

1083
contacts with many people on the other side, would tell them that the best thing anybody can do is to get people under 21 out of the compounds and into training, this would be very helpful. I do not think there is anything more to add. I am most grateful for the reception which my right honourable friend's proposals have had here. I believe they are of absolutely fundamental importance and we shall have the opportunity to discuss their details when the Order in Council comes up either in December or January.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.46 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
Further considered on Report.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 17 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause—
Outstanding material interests
3A.—(1) A material interest in land shall be treated as outstanding for the purposes of this Act unless—

(a) it is owned by art authority, a local or new town authority, a parish or community council or, in Scotland, the council of a district within the area of a general planning authority, or

(b) during the whole of the period beginning with 12th September 1974and ending with the relevant time, it has been owned by a charity (but not necessarily the same charity throughout), or

(c)it is of a description specified in an order made under this subsection by the Secretary of State.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a material interest in land shall be treated as owned by any person mentioned in that subsection at any time if at that time that person—

(a) has or had entered into a binding contract for its acquisition, or

(b) subject only to completion of the administration of a deceased person's estate,
1084
is or was entitled to it under the terms of the deceased person's will.

(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—(Lord Melchett.)
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Shannon): My Lords, we also have a manuscript Amendment, No. 17A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert ("(b) it is owned by a charity or");
In line 16, leave out ("or had");
In line 19, leave out ("or was").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate I beg leave to move the manuscript Amendment. Perhaps I should start by explaining the purpose, which is that before we go on to consider the purport and content of the proposed Amendment we must make sure that it reflects the change in the Bill that we have effected by Amendment No. 31 to Clause 4. I beg to move the proposed manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 17.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: There has been proposed a manuscript Amendment to Amendment No. 17, Amendment No. 17A.
Line 8, after ("1974") insert ("or any later date").
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I accept that this manuscript Amendment is consequential on Amendments made during the recommittal proceedings on clauses earlier this afternoon.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether for the sake of good order we ought to get this straight. I think the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack has one version and I have another. I think the one I have is the one prepared after discussion with the Government's advisers and should be the right one, but I am quite happy to move the one that the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack has just suggested I move, if that is the best one. I think we ought to get it right.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may by leave speak twice on this manuscript Amendment, I am in agreement

1085
with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that his version is better and it may be for the convenience of the Chairman if someone passed him a copy of Lord Sandford's version.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House generally if the Amendment which we are discussing could be read out in full.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack is now in a position to do that.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am now in a position to do so. The proposed Amendment to Amendment No. 17 reads:
Leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert ("(b) is owned by a charity or");
In line 16, leave out ("or had");
In line 19, leave out ("or was").
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, that is the Amendment that I think we should now accept. I beg to move.
Clause 4 [Expressions relating to land and planning law]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc. I spoke to all these Amendments with Amendment No. 1.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
(" "charity" has the same meaning as in section 360 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and as respects Scotland "charitable" shall be construed as if it were contained in that Act")
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
(" "community council" means a community council in Wales")
leave out lines 30 and 31.
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
(" "enactment" includes an enactment in any local or private Act of Parliament, and an order, rule, regulation, byelaw or scheme made under an Act of Parliament")—(Lord Melchett.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we went over so many Amendments so rapidly at the beginning, that I did not ask all the
1086
questions I had it in mind to ask. I do not quite understand why the definition of "development land", which is what Amendment No. 20 relates to, has been removed. Is this going in the other clause or is this simply being taken now under Clause 17?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think the answer to the question of the noble Baroness is that "development land" has been inserted in the Bill by my Amendment No. 4 to Clause 3; she will see that we have agreed to insert the definition of "development land" at that stage. The noble Baroness can rest assured, unless we have made some ghastly mistake, that there is no substance in these Amendments. They just re-order the Bill.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I should like to ask a question in connection with Amendment No. 19. I am not familiar with English legislation in this field, but there are community councils in England and Wales. I am a little curious to know why in this case only Wales is concerned. Is it possible to have an answer to that question?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may by leave of the House speak three times on this series of drafting Amendments, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would allow me to answer that question at some later stage when I am moving one of the series of Amendments.
8.9 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("("excepted development" means the development to which section 3(1)(b) and (c) refers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers I beg to move this Amendment. It has in fac been spoken to already with Amendment No. 9 and I do not think it should be necessary to say very much, other than to bear out a point which my noble friend made earlier. So far as Clause 4 is concerned—that is, expressions relating to land and planning law—we believe that inclusion of a definition of the expression "excepted development" is needed. My noble friends have spoken to this Amendment already and I do not

1087
think it needs further amplification. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, withdrew No. 9 after a considerable debate. So I take it that this Amendment is being withdrawn as well, because it is consequential.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, there has been a misunderstanding. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 en bloc. I spoke to all of these Amendments with Amendment No. 1. It may be convenient if I tell the noble Earl that I understand that in this context community councils occur only in Wales and that this is quite deliberate. That was the point he raised on Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
(" "functions" includes powers and duties").
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
(" "government department" includes any Minister of the Crown").
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
(" "land acquisition and management scheme" has the meaning given by section 16 of this Act").
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
(" "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England the council of a county or district, the council of a London borough, the Common Council of the City of London and the Greater London Council,

(b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or district,

(c) in relation to Scotland, a regional, general or district planning authority within the meaning of Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973,

and this Act shall apply to the Isles of Scilly as if the Council of those Isles were the council of a county").
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
(" "Minister" means any Minister of the Crown or other government department").
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
(" "new town authority" means a development corporation as defined in section 2 of the New Towns Act 1965, or in section 2 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968").
Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
(" "parish council" includes a parish meeting and the parish trustees of a parish,
"planning permission" means permission granted (or to be deemed or treated as granted) under Part III of the Act of 1971 or of the Scottish Act of 1972, and in construing references to planning permission to develop or to carry out development of land, or to applications for such permission, regard shall be had to section 32(2) of the Act of 1971 or section 29(2) of the Scottish Act of 1972 (permission to retain development),
"prescribed", in relation to the form of any document, means prescribed by regulations under section 53 of this Act").
Page 5, line 36, leave out from beginnning to end of line 18 on page 6.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or for any other kind of development")
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("that kind of") and insert ("relevant")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for not moving Amendment No. 32. I hope that means he is content with Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which I should like to speak to now and which cover this point. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 clarify Clause 4(8). They have been put down as a result of the debate at col. 1470 during the Committee stage. The Amendments clarify the situation where there is a planning application or planning permission for development which includes both non-relevant and relevant development. In this kind of case, the application or permission is to be regarded as for relevant development. For example, if there was an application for planning permission for a development which included only some relevant development, the application would be subject to the procedure in Clause 20. I hope that these two Amendments make the situation clearer and meet the points which were raised in Committee. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has explained, the Government have honoured the undertaking that was given in Committee to look again at the wording of Clause 4(8)—in the amended Bill it is now Clause 4(7)—and, as the noble Lord has explained, have produced the

1089
new wording in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. I am not wholly convinced that that which I offered in Committee is not better, but one thing is certain: that any change to the original wording must be for the better, provided that it can be understood by those who will have to interpret this subsection. The new wording is now intelligible—just!
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(10) References in this Act to any enactment shall, except where the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended or extended by or under any other enactment, including this Act.")—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 36:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 36. Four undertakings were given on this clause and we have dealt with three of them. The last one relates to an exchange that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, when I asked him what exactly was in mind when provision was made in the Bill for—
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but if he is going to refer to the exchanges in Committee, could he give me the reference so that I may keep an eye on things?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I apologise. I have exchanged a note with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but we are moving fairly fast, so I can well understand that we may have missed it. I will not press the noble Lord if he is unable to answer this question off-the-cuff, but if he can I shall be grateful. At the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord for what purpose Clause 4(3)(c) had been provided and he said that it would cover bodies like the Welsh Land Authority but that he might be able to go further. I am wondering whether he may care to take this opportunity to go further. If he could, perhaps he would deal also with a similar question which was asked
1090
by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, when we were discussing Clause 5. The reference is col. 1479 of Hansard. These are not very important matters, but if the information is forthcoming it would be helpful to have it on the record.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I shall be happy to give noble Lords further examples. I am advised that the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies are two more examples, and also housing associations and new town commissions. I do not pretend for one moment that I am giving an exhaustive list to the noble Lord but I hope that those further examples are of some help.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, they are indeed. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 37 when I dealt with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 4 to after Clause 5.—(Lord Melchett.)
Clause 5 [Statutory undertakers]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. Three undertakings were given on this clause and we have just dealt with the first. We do not wish to pursue the second undertaking. The third led to a quite important letter from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. It may well be that they may care to have something on record in the Official Report relating to this matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, could advise the House of a letter which I found very helpful. The query which was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill related to the question of the surplus land that statutory authorities hold. The point that was made in Committee was whether

1091
the Government have any record of the surplus land that statutory authorities hold, what will be the future relationship that they will have with the authorities and whether they will be required by the Bill to dispose of any surplus land which they do not want. One of the points which was raised time and time again by many Members of this House was that it is known that statutory authorities are very loth to part with land for reasons which one can understand; they never know whether in years to come the land may prove to be useful. One sees that under the management scheme of this Bill the authorities themselves are subject to a five-year rolling programme. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether the statutory authorities would also be subject to a five-year rolling programme which they would have to report to the local authorities and which could be discussed by those who were interested in it.
I have two points to make. First, as regards statutory authorities, the public should be made aware of who owns what. May I cite to the noble Lord a case within my personal knowledge of a certain water company which, as a result of the reorganisation of the water authorities, now looks after sewage. This company now farms over 4,000 acres. It farms this enormous amount of land because it says—possibly rightly—that it has to have the land in order to spread the sewage, if it needs to do so. Here is a case where it could be argued that none of the ratepayers in this area knows that this water company owns this enormous amount of land, and I think that under this Bill there should be a relationship between the authorities concerned with the land and the statutory authorities. I hope the noble Lord will be able to advise us later as to this.
Another point I should like to raise with the noble Lord is on the correct definition of, "operational land". I think there has been some trouble in the past as to what is operational land with statutory authority, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to shed some light on that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I confess I am somewhat mystified by this
1092
procedure. I am not clear whether it is the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that I should read out in toto the letter that I sent to the noble Earl with copies for him to circulate to his noble friends, and it might be helpful if I had some guidance on that before I embark on a rather lengthy reading.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to expand a little on what I said at the beginning of the proceedings. Because of the pressure that has been put on us by the Government, we are in the position of not having time to consult people outside and although the procedure of the Ministers writing to us about undertakings is the best and the most normal way of proceeding, it hardly meets the case at the moment. We have to prepare for the next stage next Monday and there certainly is not time to exchange correspondence. Some of the points made in these letters are made by way of reassurance to those of us in this House and can be left at that, but in some cases they are points for consideration either by my noble friends who have asked the question or by Ministers who are responding, and it might be worth having at least some part of this correspondence on the Record. If the noble Lord feels that what he has put in his letter is important but that it would be tedious to read it all out, there is the device of including it in the Official Report. I do not think that applies in this case. There is the alternative of just acknowledging the fact that there has been correspondence and leaving it at that, and then people reading our Report know that there is a letter which can be looked at if they want to pursue the matter.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification and I take it that in this instance I shall not have to read the letter out from start to finish, because it is a long letter on a technical point which, although relevant to the Bill, does not arise directly from the provisions of the Bill which we are now discussing.
The noble Earl asked me about five-year rolling programmes. He will know that there is no provision in the Bill to make statutory undertakers submit five-year rolling programmes. I confess that

1093
I do not see any justification for statutory undertakers submitting five-year rolling programmes any more than private industry or property companies or many other people who own large amounts of land. The answer to the noble Earl is that there is no provision in the Bill to that effect.
The noble Earl also asked me about the definition of "operational land", and I take the point that there is some difficulty. He will know, as I said in my letter —and this might be a convenient paragraph to read out—that there has been difficulty sometimes in establishing whether or not land is surplus, and this is illustrated by the fact that there have been long-standing provisions in Statutes simply to resolve this question in doubtful or disputed cases. One of these is repeated in Clause 5(5) of the Bill, where there is a provision for the Minister responsible for nationalised industries to determine the question.
There is another which can operate in compulsory purchase cases, as in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Authorisation Procedure Act 1946. The definition of "operational land" is the same as in Section 222 of the 1971 Act. It has somewhat less relevance in the context of the acquisition of surplus land because of the abolition of special Parliamentary procedure. That was something which I mentioned in my letter to the noble Earl, but it was also dealt with at considerable length at the Committee stage and I do not think it would be helpful to go over that ground again.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I asked the noble Lord one other question which I think is relevant to this letter; that is, what is the future relationship between the Government and statutory authorities, and indeed whether the Government have records at the moment of the land being held by such authorities?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I said in my letter, the answer to that is that the Department do not in fact collect this information because their responsibilities do not call for it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before we leave this point, I should like to express my thanks for receiving a copy of the letter sent by the noble Lord to my noble
1094
friend Lord Kinnoull. There is one point I should like to raise. The noble Lord mentioned in his letter that he did not feel that periodic reports on the amounts of surplus land would be helpful. I think the Survey of Derelict and Despoiled Land in England, 1974—there were two volumes published—was a helpful one, and I should not like the noble Lord to leave this point with no appreciation of this survey. We attach great importance to it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Other interpretation]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Melchett.)
Clause 7 [The appointed days etc.]:
8.28 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("(1A) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than the first date when a draft of regulations under section 3 of this Act excepting one or more classes of development from relevant development has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to preclude the first appointed day when the transitional arrangements of the scheme come into force from being appointed before a draft of the relevant development regulations, which will be made under Clause 3, has been approved by Parliament. This Amendment is, in effect, a redrafting of a similar Amendment (No. 31) tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and as we made clear at that time the Government accept the validity of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The reference is Hansard, 22nd October 1975; columns 1496 to 1499. We have now tabled our own Amendment to deal with the matter. We have always accepted the necessity for the relevant development regulations to be available publicly before the first appointed day and would,

1095
in any case, have ensured that this was done, although we did not regard it as essential that such provisions should be written into the Bill. However, the Government took note of the concern expressed by the Opposition, and on consideration we are now prepared to give statutory force to those intentions. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful for another step along the road of repentance.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to ask one question on this issue, but first I wish to congratulate my noble friend on persuading the Government to move this Amendment. I should like to come back to the subject of the first appointed day. I do not know whether an announcement has been made as to the date of the first appointed day, or indeed the date of the regulations, but already this afternoon we have seen that the regulations are a matter of extreme importance. They represent a large chunk of the Bill and affect many people. I believe I am right in saying that no date has yet been given. I hope to draw the noble Baroness by asking her when these regulations are to be published. When is the first appointed day? We want to know this so that all persons affected by the Bill will be able to take the course of action that they wish to take. I would remind the noble Baroness that aspects of this Bill and various dates connected with it are very important for those outside this House who are concerned with land. I am thinking, in particular, of those who have to try to advise clients and, indeed, of the clients themselves who are worried by so many of the matters in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness can say when the first appointed day will be known.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not see this Amendment as a step on the way to repentance. I think the noble Lord should graciously accept it as an acceptance of something which he put forward. As regards the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I would refer again to what I said at column 1499 of Hansard, to which I
1096
have already referred, when I gave an assurance which I repeat today, that the first appointed day would not be before 1st April 1976. It is hoped that the regulations can be made available in draft for consultation before the end of the year, but we have promised consultation. It is not just a case of sitting down and writing out the regulations. Consultation must take place with other bodies before the regulations will be ready. We have already passed an Amendment which lays down that the regulations will be drafted before the first appointed day. Although we still consider it unnecessary to write the date into the legislation, I can give a firm assurance for the Record that the first appointed day will not be before 1st April 1976. It was along those lines that I wrote a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I speak with the leave of the House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has said, but I must stress that this is a very important point. The noble Baroness said that regulations are to be a matter for consultation. Can I take it from her that under Appendix A these will be the minimum regulations and that there will be no question of taking out some of them, but of simply adding to them after consultation?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. These are the regulations, which are not spelled out in the Bill, about which we had a debate earlier this evening and also in Committee. These will be in more detail—and there is a blanket cover in the Bill—and will then be discussed. It was for that reason that we discussed this subject in Committee. I myself made the point that in order for there to be flexibility and a width of possibility in drafting the regulations, consultation is necessary. The latest date I have is that they will be available for consultation before the end of the year, and we have already given an undertaking within the Bill—this Amendment has now been passed—that the regulations will be drafted before the first appointed day. I am now giving the House an assurance that the first appointed day will not be before1st April 1976.
8.34 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The first appointed day shall not be earlier than 1st April 1976").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am still going to move this Amendment briefly. May I at the same time take the opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her letter to me on this Amendment. In her letter, the noble Baroness stated:
"I am prepared to give a categorical assurance that the Secretary of State will not bring in the first appointed day before 1st April next, but I really do not feel it is either necessary or desirable to write this into the Bill."
I am quite prepared to accept that, but may I ask the noble Baroness to make certain that the local authorities, or any authorities functioning under this Bill, are aware of that fact so as to let developers know that in the case of, I think, Clause 19 they must have planning permission in before that date to take advantage of a development which would come outside the provisions of this Bill. This is something that needs the maximum amount of publicity. Once again, I am grateful that this sort of thing will be recorded in Hansard. I have raised the point with no desire to waste your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am grateful for the brevity and tolerance with which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, moved his Amendment. I can assure him that this matter will receive the maximum amount of publicity. In fact, the date and the assurance have now been written about and given so frequently that I am certain that this will get around. By all the administrative means at its disposal, the Department of the Environment will certainly make it quite clear to the local authorities, who will be quite cognisant of this.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say why it should not be written into the Bill? One must remember that the first appointed day brings in the new acquisition powers under Clause 17, and this is a major step in this Bill. I do not see why this first appointed day should not be written into the Bill, unless it is
1098
to be changed. Although the noble Baroness says that it is now widely known, I have not seen it. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who received that letter knew about it beforehand. I doubt whether any of my noble friends knew it. It is an important point. Can the noble Baroness say whether it has also been announced in another place?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it will be helpful if at this stage I may speak again by leave of the House, because it will both expedite matters and put them in a better pattern. However, I hesitated before getting up, because we do not want to keep bobbing up more often than we need on our Front Bench. I do not understand why the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, says that this is the first he has heard of it, because I remember him sitting faithfully through the whole of the Committee stage, when I gave an undertaking—quite apart from the letter I sent to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour —at column 1499 of Hansard for 22nd October 1975, that the first appointed day would not be before 1st April 1976.
One of the difficulties about writing it into the Bill is that onceit becomes a Statute it goes on and lays down everything for the Act. To write in something which, in a way, is almost a transitory thing by the time 1st April comes—we are not giving a date, but are saying, "Not before 1st April 1976"—does not fit in with the drafting of a piece of legislation of this kind. In any case, the wording of the Amendment of the noble Earl is defective. But there is nothing sinister about it. We are saying, "Not before 1st April". I should have thought the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would have been pleased, because once one starts to write in something rigidity is apt to set in. He at least knows the earliest date about which he was concerned; unless he was anxious that the first appointed day should be earlier than that, though I do not think that that was his intention.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for making that statement, and for making it so clearly at this stage. I am sure that the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, who has been so assiduous in watching this point, was following the debate when this point was raised before.

1099
But it has been a long and concentrated procedure, and if one's attention wanders occasionally, it is not because we are not listening to what the Government are saying. It is just that human frailty sometimes overtakes one at the end of a long day's proceedings. I do hope I have not missed the point. I wondered whether the noble Baroness could go further and say when the Government expect to be able to announce when the first appointed day will be.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think I can at this moment go any further, but if during the proceedings in this House I have any further information I shall not hesitate to make an announcement in the House.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am very grateful for this discussion, and I am sure it will be of tremendous value to the local authorities, in fact to every authority, and, for that matter, every developer. I sincerely hope that it will be as late a date as possible, and the fact that it is put off until not before the 1st April is very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Commencement dates, etc.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 52, line 4, after first ("Act") insert ("in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves as to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendment No. 41 and speak to Nos. 43, 45 and 46. These Amendments are all designed to give greater publicity to the relevant date orders which bring in the full duty or prohibition provisions of Clauses 18 and 21. Amendments Nos. 43 and 46 strengthen the provision governing the registers of such orders which the Secretary of State must keep by requiring them to be available at all reasonable hours, and to be kept in such a way as to enable the public to inform themselves of the details of the orders. Amendment No. 45 inserts a new provision requiring each of the authorities affected by an order to publish a notice of its effect in the Press and also to keep a copy of the order available for free
1100
public inspection at their main office at all reasonable hours. Amendment No. 42 is simply a drafting Amendment which puts the provisions affecting the Secretary of State and authorities respectively into separate paragraphs.
When Schedule 2 was debated in Committee the Opposition put down a number of Amendments which sought to ensure greater public knowledge of the making of relevant date orders. My noble friend Lord Melchett accepted the need to ensure this maximum publicity for such orders and for the public to have easy access to them. He undertook to reconsider the provisions, which, as your Lordships see, we have done. First, we have taken up the Amendment No. 33 moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which imports from the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the requirement that the register which the Secretary of State is required to keep is kept "in such a way as enables members of the public to inform themselves" as to the details of the orders. To this we have added the requirement that the register must be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal offices of the Secretaries of State. Secondly, we have met the points made by the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about local publicity, by requiring authorities to publish notices about the orders in local newspapers and to make copies available free for public inspection at their principal offices. These requirements, in addition to those already provided in the Bill, and the administrative arrangements which will be made for registers to be kept in the Department's regional offices, should provide all that is necessary to ensure that members of the public have all the information they need. I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for these Amendments. I am sure they are absolutely necessary. In particular, I am very pleased at Amendment No. 46, paragraph 2(b) of which says that the authorities:
"…shall deposit a copy of the order at their principal office and shall keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment."
I wonder whether I could take this opportunity, without wishing to delay the House

1101
at all, to ask the noble Baroness if she and her colleagues would investigate a complication that has cropped up from time to time. Somebody may wish to take an extract from these orders, and even though it is for his own use I understand that, strictly speaking, he may be contravening copyright regulations.
This is a complicated matter, and I am not necessarily asking for an answer at this moment. If it could be made possible for people to take copies of extracts for their own use, I am sure that is something that would be very much appreciated by a great many people. I have struck this complication in taking extracts from Ordnance Survey maps when applying for planning permission; I have been faced with the fact that I am supposed to buy a copy of the map or whatever it might be, which is extremely expensive and very often far more than I actually need when it is to be used purely and simply for the purpose of obtaining planning permission. If somebody does take extracts I hope they will not be faced with this complication of contravening copyright regulations.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a very interesting point. In my experience, when copying a plan one stamps the plan with a duty stamp. I very much welcome these Amendments, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the undertaking that he has given. I should like to ask about one point. Paragraph 2(a) of Amendment No. 46 reads:
"shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality, of which one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper, —".
When putting in this form of wording I think it is quite common to say that such notice shall be for two or three consecutive weeks. It is very helpful when advertising on a matter of this importance if it is not put in for just one insertion, because it may well be that this is a holiday period and the advertisement does not receive wide readership. I hope the noble Baroness will consider that point. Secondly, the sub-paragraph says "if practicable, …a local newspaper". I do not know what this implies, whether one looks at the circulation of local papers. I would hope that "local newspaper" would come at the beginning
1102
rather than putting it at the end; in other words,
"shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more local newspapers".
Baroness BIRK: With regard to the noble Earl's point about the extract, I am very sympathetic to the point and would like to check further this question of copyright. I can tell the noble Earl that people can certainly buy a copy at the Stationery Office, but that is a slightly different point.
So far as the newspapers are concerned, we have to say "where practicable" because there are not always local newspapers, and with the state of the industry at the moment, one does not know whether there will be local newspapers in the future. I think that the noble Earl will agree that we are quite right to emphasise the need for it to be in a local newspaper, or indeed perhaps more than one depending on the district and the number of papers. This can only happen if there is a paper circulating in the area, and also, I imagine, if it is considered that it has the sort of circulation which will make it worth while and will reach a sufficient number of readers.
As to how often this ought to be done, I imagine that would need to be considered as a question both of cost and of how many people one could reach, and on the particular practical problems. Notice will be taken of this because the whole object of these Amendments—and the object behind them will be made clear—is that the public should know and should have access, so that we shall adopt any way by which this can be promoted. There is no need to write into the Bill anything more about how many times. If in fact one did that and said "twice", one might find that those in some areas would be happy and would have done some deal with the local paper to insert an advertisement for, say, three or even four issues. Therefore, it is right to leave it in this way so that arrangements can be made. I have carefully noted all of these points, and the point about copyright I shall certainly look into.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, with the leave of the House—and this is an Amendment we have not discussed before—may I say that under planning legislation I think words are to be found to the effect that the planning application

1103
should not be published in less than two issues of the local Press. I have not got the wording right, but they put in a minimum figure rather than no figure at all.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before we conclude the discussion on this Amendment, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness because the point I raised in Committee on her Amendment No. 46 is met. I should like to say how grateful we are for this, and also for the assurances she has given to my noble friend Lord Kinnoullabout looking at this other point. I am sure I have seen written somewhere words as to the minimum number of issues in which a notice should be published. If the noble Baroness will look at that, we shall be grateful.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that. I cannot help feeling that there is probably some good reason behind it. It was probably thought that the way it is now worded is an improvement. However, I shall look into it and be in touch with the noble Earl and the noble Baroness.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 7, leave out ("2.—(1)") and insert ("(1A)").—(Baroness Birk.)
8.55 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 52, line 10, at end insert ("and registers covering the whole region or metropolitan county, as the case may be, shall be kept at some convenient and central office in Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to add my thanks to the Government for the arrangements they have made for the publication and advertisement of these important orders. What has been achieved by their Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 goes a long way to meet the points we were concerned about. May I revert to my particular concern, which is for the big cities. There will be developers, builders, others concerned with land and development in the
1104
big cities whose needs we need to consider. May I cite the example of Liverpool. Liverpool is a large metropolitan county area where there does not happen to be a regional office of the Department of the Environment, so people in Liverpool will not be able to find in the DOE regional office what the citizens of Manchester can find, or what the citizens of Leeds can find; nor will the citizens of Sheffield, because there is not a regional office there.
I want to ask for a reassurance that the point will be met, because the requirement contained in Amendment No. 46 only requires each authority to publicise and put on display at their principal office the order which applies to them, so that the Metropolitan County of Merseyside, strictly speaking, will be required by the Bill only to put out a copy of the order that refers to them. My feeling is that the metropolitan counties will probably not be exercising very many powers or duties under this Bill. The major part of them will be undertaken by the metropolitan districts; and there is no obligation on the metropolitan county to publish orders applying to the metropolitan districts in their area. Anybody who is just working within a single metropolitan district is covered; he can find all the information required. But almost certainly there are builders and developers and others working across the whole of the Merseyside metropolitan county whose needs will not, strictly speaking, be met unless my Amendment No. 44 is provided for in some way or another.
I do not think that it is necessary to move this into the Bill because it is rather a technical and administrative point, but it would be reassuring to know that the needs of people doing building and development work across the whole of the big metropolitan counties, and in Glasgow, the regional authority in Scotland, will have their needs met by comprehensive registers covering the whole of each of those respective areas. I do not want to press this Amendment, but it would be nice if the noble Baroness could give us some reassurance on this point.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is of course a similar Amendment to the one the noble Lord put down on Committee. As was explained then, the purpose of the

1105
central register provision is simply to provide a central reference point which will give an overall view of the progress of the scheme over the country. I think he will probably agree that in this case it is mainly for those engaged in development on a national scale. Therefore, this sort of register really only acts as an index. What developers and their professional advisers will need and want to see are the statutory instruments making the individual orders.
We took note of the noble Lord's point, and because it is very much more in the nature of an index we do not accept the need for the regional registers which the noble Lord's Amendment would provide. By bringing forward our own Amendments which, among other things, provide that all authorities shall keep copies of the orders affecting their areas available for free inspection at their offices, we have covered somewhat the same point. In addition, the Government Amendments would require authorities to give publicity to all such orders. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord's concern, for instance, about metropolitan counties, would be amply met by the fact that the metropolitan county council will have to conform with these requirements. I think he will agree that it would be better for local authorities to do it than to set up another set of regional organisations, or to put around another set of regional summaries. When he looks at our Amendments I think he will see that his points are covered as fully as he can possibly expect.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would do the same and look at my Amendment, which is different from the Amendment I moved at Committee, in the respect that it is now asking for the metropolitan counties to carry the registers rather than the DOE regional offices, I shall certainly look at her Amendments and see whether they meet my point. I am still left with the feeling that there will not be a single central place in each of the metropolitan counties and the Scottish region of Glasgow, unless something like my Amendment is accepted. I am quite content to leave it for the noble Baroness to see that it is done by some administrative means. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45, to which I have already spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 11, at end insert ("all")—(Baroness Birk.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46, to which I have already spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 12, at end insert—
"2. As soon as practicable after the making of an order under section 18 of this Act, each of the authorities whose areas include land to which the order applies—

(a) shall publish a notice of the effect of the order in two or more newspapers circulating, in the locality, of which one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper, and

(b) shall deposit a copy of the order at their principal office and shall keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment."—(Baroness Birk.)

Clause 8 [The Authority]:
9.1 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an opportunity to say something more about the undertaking which he gave to my noble friend Lord Aberdare about laying before Parliament directions to the Land Authority for Wales.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government gave consideration to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in relation to his Amendment at an earlier stage imposing a duty on the Secretary of State to lay copies of directions given to the Land Authority for Wales before both Houses of Parliament. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, butas he received the letter only today, it is not surprising, in the hurly burly of the legislation we are considering, that that news, which will not be regarded by the Opposition Front Bench as good news, has not seeped through to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.

1107
The matter was debated in Committee and I then put forward a number of difficulties in the way of what was proposed. I called in aid the fact that there were respectable precedents for not at once laying copies of directions before Parliament, in the Maplin Development Act 1973 and the Water Act 1973. It was also the case, as I submitted, that it was normal for copies of directions involving national security—there will not be many of those, I agree, but there will be a few—not to be notified to Parliament even in annual reports, though his then Amendment did not provide for this, and that otherwise the Land Authority was already required in the Bill to include directions in its annual reports which would, of course, be laid before Parliament. It is also the case that meetings of the Land Authority will be open to the Press and public so that information about directions which will be ventilated and discussed at those meetings, would become public knowledge as a result of that. I also indicated that the duty would place an additional burden on the Land Authority and, indeed, on Parliament itself, which would outweigh any benefits likely to arise.
The issue has been reconsidered since then, but I am afraid that we have come to the conclusion that the objections that we made earlier and the difficulties that we then indicated remain. In the case of directions given to the Land Authority under Clause 8(3), it is true that the burden of work involved in that would not in itself be likely to be heavy, but the difficulty is that if the principle were accepted, it could be argued that directions given to the Land Authority under other powers in the Bill and directions given under the Bill to local authorities in England and Scotland should similarly be laid, and then we should be faced with a very significant burden.
As I said, the precedents point the other way, in spite of the apparent departures in the Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Industry Bill, which were treated as exceptions to the general rule for very special reasons in that they involve the expenditure of public funds supporting private industrial undertakings or in undertaking new enterprises. The 28-day period allowed for laying copies of directions in those cases was directly
1108
related to issues of commercial confidentiality arising from new operations of that kind, and the further point should be made that meetings of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish Development Agency, unlike meetings of the Land Authority for Wales, are not required to be open to the Press and public. For all the reasons I have given, we still take the view that an Amendment on this point would be unacceptable; that the present arrangements provide sufficiently for these directions to become publicly known at a reasonable point of time and that the Bill should stand as it is.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The object in moving this Amendment, as I said at the outset, is not solely to inform myself about these matters but to get some of these things on the Record. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
9.6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, leave out lines 4 to 24 and insert—
"(2) Sections 154 to 166 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the Authority as if it was a local authority within the meaning of that Act."
The noble Baroness said: This and the subsequent Amendment, No. 49, deal with the same point but put two alternatives to the Government. On reflection, after the Committee stage, my noble friends and I felt that the position of individuals in Wales had not in any way been helped by the establishment of a Land Authority. Not only is it a non-electedbody—although I understand there will be four local authority members on it—it cannot in any sense be described as a democratic body. However, the fact is that the powers of local authorities in regard to planning have been taken away, and with those powers and rights of individuals has been taken away their right to question the accounts at a district audit.
In effect, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who replied to my noble friend Lord Colville at the Committee stage, gave three reasons why the Government had decided that it would be all right to do away with these rights for individuals.

1109
However, on reading over the account, I did not find any of those reasons very satisfactory. The first reason, so far as I could see, was that the Government will be keeping an eye on the Land Authority, so that there is no need for the individual to do so. Although I have faith in all Governments, even Socialist ones, and believe that they will act meticulously in these matters, I do not really feel that it is good enough in legislation to say that just because the Government are watching there is no need for anybody else to worry. It is always a system of checks and balances, and in this case it is equally arguable that the individual should have a say.
The second reason given was that local authorities are elected bodies and that it is therefore right that the public should have the chance to check up on the accounts at a district audit and to ask questions and make complaints if they wish to do so, whereas, as the Land Authority are an appointed body, the same need will not arise. That again assumes the argument that because the Land Authority are a Government organisation no individual need object at all. Finally, we are told that the whole process will be subject to scrutiny by the Government's own auditors and that therefore nobody need worry at all, but that if they did need to worry they could write to their Member of Parliament. I am still not satisfied that this is giving equal rights to people inWales, and as compared with England certainly not in this limbo before devolution—if devolution takes place. It seems to me that very real rights which will be enjoyed by people in England and Scotland have been taken away from people in Wales, and I feel that this is a matter which ought, in their interest, to be aired once again.
I do not feel that it is good enough to say that any question about the accounts can be raised either through a Member of Parliament or with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is hardly likely to devote much Parliamentary time to debating an audit in part of the Land Authority's accounts. Finally, I feel that it is a very long way round to appeal to the local Commissioner, though I agree that that is the ultimate long stop. I am not a person who feels that we should take all matters to a local Commissioner. I
1110
believe that there are other and far more straightforward ways. I should like to know more of the Government's justification for taking away these rights from the Welsh people. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not believe that it is a question of taking away rights. The position in Wales is different from that which will obtain in the rest of the country when the Bill becomes an Act because there is a Land Authority in Wales while there is no Land Authority in England or Scotland. So I cannot accept that any rights are being taken away by the Bill. There is one other point which I should like to make in beginning my reply to the noble Baroness. It is that I feel that she may inadvertently have said that the planning powers of Welsh local authorities were being taken away. Of course, the planning powers of Welsh local authorities will not be affected by the setting up of the Land Authority. Ifelt that the record should be put straight on that point.
It is true that the provisions in the Bill do not give the public at large the rights in relation to the Land Authority which they have in relation to transactions by local authorities. However, the Land Authority are a different organisation from a local authority. The provisions dealing with its accounts and audit are similar to those adopted for nationalised industries, Statutory undertakings and many other appointed bodies carrying out public functions, such as new town development corporations and the Civil Aviation Authority. Local authorities carry out a wide range of functions which are financed in many different ways including rates, Government grants, loans from private and Government sources, profits, rents and so on. The activities of the Land Authority, on the other hand, will be considerably more circumscribed (though the activities of local authorities will include those of the Land Authority). Its sources of finance will be more restricted. They will not include rates, so the Welsh public will not be concerned as ratepayers in the Land Authority's activities.
The Authority's activities will, moreover, be under strict control by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. Their annual reports and accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's

1111
reports on their accounts have to be laid before Parliament, which is not so in the case of local authorities. The Secretary of State has to keep an account of his loans to the Land Authority and Parliament sees these and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on them. Once again this is not so in the case of local authorities. In short, the arrangements set out in the Local Government Act 1972 are designed to cover a wide range of local authority activities, partly financed from ratepayers, and most of which have little or no relevance to activities under the community land scheme. It is convenient in England to apply the provisions en bloc to the community land scheme; that is because the authorities which will be operating the scheme in England and Scotland will, on the whole, be local authorities.
It does not follow, however, that the whole range of powers and provisions of the Local Government Act will provide the best method of dealing with the Land Authority. That is why I took some exception to the noble Baroness saying that rights were being taken away. The Bill confers rights on individuals in England and Scotland—and this is a point I made at the Committee stage—because the authorities operating the scheme in England will on the whole, be local authorities and Wales, where there is a Land Authority, is not in the same position.
The Welsh public who are concerned with particular transactions of the Land Authority will be protected. They will have the same rights as in England, for example, to object to compulsory purchase orders on their land. They will have the same rights to go to the Lands Tribunal on questions of compensation. They will also have the right to complain to the Secretary of State about the actions of the Land Authority, either directly, or through their Member of Parliament; and the Secretary of State has power to give the Land Authority general or limited directions.
Should anyone allege maladministration, as the noble Baroness said, he would be able to bring the matter to the attention of the Commissioner for Local Administration through any member of the Land Authority, in the same way as a complaint against a local authority can
1112
be brought through a councillor. In the event of criminal activity by a member or official of the Land Authority, legal proceedings could be taken under appropriate legislation, and there is nothing in the Bill to protect individuals from the penalties prescribed by law.
If there is any loss of rights in Wales it is, in effect, in relation to rights as ratepayers. Since, however, the finances of the community land scheme in England are separated completely from the finances of other local authority activities, and in Wales the Land Authority is also separately financed—so that in neither country will there be any call on the rates—we do not consider that in practice the public at large will be deprived of any significant rights. Since the interests of the Welsh public will be additionally safeguarded by the special role of the Secretary of State and of Parliament, I do not feel that either of the two Amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken—Nos. 48 and 49—are necessary. I hope that the reasons which I have set out at some length will assist the noble Baroness in feeling that she can withdraw the two Amendments.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke, I thought rather smugly, of the Land Authority being a different organisation from local authorities. Of course it is; that is perfectly true. But he omitted to refer to the great dissatisfaction in the country at the remote ways of behaviour frequently followed by the nationalised industries and the appointed bodies, of which we have an ever increasing number in this country. I should have thought that where we have had experience—not least in relation to the Northern Economic Planning Council—we ought to have some regard to this, especially in financial matters. Surely, after having heard—certainly in the days of the last Labour Government, if not this one—a good deal about participation in planning, and about bringing people ever closer to the authorities which have to make the decisions, the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord is most extraordinary.
If the noble Lord had ever been a Member of another place he would have appreciated the difficulties with which Members struggled week after week,

1113
month after month, trying to get, not necessarily satisfaction for their constituents, but at least an explanation. But, apparently, those things mean little to him. I hope that at least the noble Baroness who moved the Amendment will not be taken in by the noble Lord's reply.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I find great difficulty in reconciling the case put up by the noble Lord with what has been said about the Government considering seriously in what form they will provide for greater devolution in Wales. Here, at the same time, they are treating Wales quite differently. The noble Lord referred to the Land Authority and said that local authorities would have certain rights. But this nationalised body is very different from a local authority where there is a majority Party, one or two Opposition Parties and debates on issues in the council chamber, as well as a public gallery, and the local Press faithfully reporting the decisions of the local authority.
It is taking away so much which is provided for the local authorities in England and Scotland, that it seems to me quite incredible that Wales should be treated so differently, and it will have an even greater reason for saying how desperately remote is the Authority which will control the development land acquired under this Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not expect me to say that I am very happy with his reply, although I accept that he has given a very full one. I am bound to disagree with my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, in that I think the analogy with the nationalised industries was not the happiest of analogies to draw. Although it is not strictly a nationalised industry, I think there are plenty of people who would like to be able to question, for example, the accounts of the Post Office in considerable detail, considering what we have all had to put up with by way of increased postage. But that is another issue.
I am very glad that at the end of his argument the noble Lord accepted that individuals in England and Scotland will be able to exercise the right to question the accounts, and recognised that individuals in Wales will not have a similar
1114
advantage. This is an issue which deserved to be aired. This is a right which, in the course of time, when they see how the Land Authority is working, people will come to regret they have not got; and it is particularly unfortunate now, when so many constitutional arrangements are being discussed, that something which had formerly existed is to be taken away from the Welsh. I do not intend to press this Amendment this evening, but at least it is something to have it on the Record so that when we come to monitor the effects of the Bill we shall know how individuals have been affected by it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.22 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 159 and 165 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to the accounts of the Authority as if

(a) the Comptroller and Auditor General were a district auditor, and

(b) the Authority were a local authority whose area comprises the whole of Wales.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this concerns a very similar point but it is not a similar Amendment, and I should like to speak briefly to it. Again, it is obviously in the interest of the individual in Wales. As the powers under this Bill are to be exercised by a Land Authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, and therefore individuals cannot go to a district audit if they wish to question the accounts, I have suggested in this Amendment applying Sections 159 and 165 of the Local Government Act to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 159 says, in effect, that a person may inspect the accounts and make copies of them, that he may question the accounts and object to them, and, furthermore, that he may make representations to the Secretary of State asking for an extraordinary audit under Section 165, if he thinks that to be necessary. This is, in effect, taking a part of the Local Government Act and applying it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it seems to my noble friends and myself that this would be a way in which individuals in Wales could be put in the same position as individuals in England and Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. This seems to answer the point that arose on the last Amendment, which did not seem to be wholly satisfactorily answered by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I should like to ask the noble Lord—because in the discussion on the last Amendment he seemed not to accept this—this question. Does he accept that the individual in Wales will not have the same right as the individual in Scotland or in England, as regards questioning the accounts of the authorities under this Bill and, in particular, the Welsh Land Authority? It seems that if this is correct my noble friend's Amendment will be the only recourse that an individual in Wales will have, and for that reason I very much hope that it will be accepted.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I had thought that I had dealt with this point when replying to the previous Amendment, because the arguments are, by and large, exactly the same. The answer to the point which the noble Earl asked me is that of course the rights of individuals in Wales, so far as local authorities arc concerned, are totally unaffected by the Bill. It is true that the individual's rights so far as the Land Authority is concerned are not the same as the individual's rights so far as the local authority is concerned. I have already spelled out at some length the arguments for that.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend asked a specific question: whether the rights of the individual in Wales were the same as those of the individual elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replied by referring to an individual's rights as against his rights so far as a local authority is concerned. Surely the point that is raised is that of the rights of a Welshman as against the rights of an Englishman. It is as simple as that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord intervened after I had answered the question which he has now asked me, I have no doubt that after he studies the Official Report he will see that I answered the noble Earl's question fully. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to read what I have said, and will come back if he is not satisfied.
1116
The procedures for auditing or questioning the accounts of bodies like local authorities and water authorities which can raise revenue by rates or precepts have been different traditionally from those in relation to other public bodies without this right. This is the basic point that I made on a previous Amendment. It applies to this Amendment as well. The provisions in relation to the Land Authority are based on those of new town development corporations, the Civil Aviation Authority and other similar public bodies operating on a quasi-commercial basis. We are not depriving the public of any rights that they normally have in relation to statutory bodies established to meet public purposes. It must be unprecedented for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be subject to questioning by members of the public about the accounts of bodies whose accounts lie is auditing. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible to Parliament, and the accounts of the Land Authority are presented, like those of similar public bodies but unlike the accounts of local authorities, to Parliament. That was a point that I went into in detail in a previous Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord has not said when discussing these Welsh bodies that all the arguments he has put forward have the acceptance of the Secretary of State for Wales. Unless he has disappeared there is, in the other place, a Secretary of State for Wales; and presumably, before the noble Lord answered all the questions raised about Wales he must have had some consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales. Does the Secretary of State for Wales accept exactly what the noble Lord is saying about the position? If he is satisfied, then presumably the noble Lord is entitled to be satisfied; but surely the answer to the points which have arisen must come after discussion with the Secretary of State for Wales. There have been arguments put forward about Wales being different from England and Scotland. Has the noble Lord had any expression of support from the Secretary of State for Wales for the answer he has given?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend Lord Melchett will

1117
permit me to answer the question of the noble Baroness. I have been listening with rapt attention to the discussion in the last few minutes as to whether Welshmen are treated at least as well as Englishmen. That this question should have been raised on a day when my native team of Llanelli drew with Australia, 28 points each, is naturally a matter which rings a bell in my mind. I can assure the noble Baroness that there have been close consultations with the Secretary of State for Wales, who regards with enthusiasm and admiration the proposals of the setting up of a Land Authority for Wales. If he were here he would say in Welsh, "Clwych, clwych"—which, being translated, means, "I entirely agree."
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I cannot match the noble and learned Lord and say something in Welsh, though I may add as a postscript to this debate that although I do not normally take part in Welsh affairs, my mother's family all came from Pembrokeshire—Dyfed as I think it should be called—and as that was sometimes known as "Little England beyond Wales", I feel I have some connection with Wales. I am not at all surprised to hear that the Secretary of State is very pleased with these arrangements, because he is going to run Wales in this respect, so I should think he is very pleased indeed.
Turning to the argument about this proposal, the suggestion in my Amendment is unprecedented; but, as noble Lords on the Government Benches have told us on many occasions, this is a major reform Bill, so it probably calls for major reforming Amendments in order to redress the balance. We have had a very full discussion on this matter. I am sorry that the Government will not consider the points that we have made. As I said on the earlier Amendment, this is a matter that we shall watch, and it will be of interest to know how many people exercise these extraordinary and obscure rights that they will have via their Member of Parliament, or whether they will complain once more again of how out of touch Government are with what ordinary people are thinking and doing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Management, etc., of land held by the Authority]:
9.32 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 13, line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) As soon as practicable after the making of any arrangements under subsection (4) above for the discharge of any functions of the Authority by a local authority, the local authority shall—

(a) send a copy of the arrangements to every other local authority within whose area the functions are to be so discharged, and

(b) deposit a copy of the arrangements at their principal office and keep it available there at all reasonable hours for public inspection without payment.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would require every county council which has entered into an agency arrangement with the Land Authority for Wales to send a copy to every district council within the county and to make it available for public inspection without charge, and it would similarly require every district council to send a copy of any Agency arrangement to the county council (or to any neighbouring district council if the Agency were to be operated in their area) and to make it available for public inspection. In this way extra publicity will be achieved for Agency arrangements additional to the publicity which will in any case arise through the openness of the proceedings of the Land Authority and local authorities. The Amendment arises from a proposal of Lord Sandford's at Committee stage. The Government are, of course, at all times eager to encourage publicity and openness in Government, and they had proposed to achieve this for agency arrangements by requiring the Land Authority to keep and make available a register of agency arrangements into which they had entered. That was criticised as being remote, and I hope that while the earlier Opposition Amendment was deemed to be unsatisfactory, that which is now proposed will give full satisfaction to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, as we are so keen and eager to welcome this Amendment, may I do so in so many words. I feel that whatever else the

1119
vigilant and eager democrats in Wales may be deprived of, they will not be deprived here.
Lord INGLEWOOD: May I raise one small point on this Amendment? Wales is not an island surrounded by the sea and therefore there are certain counties in Wales which have a common Border with England. This is a point I have raised in this House on many occasions under many different Governments when we have been discussing separate arrangements for Scotland, England and Wales. I believe it says in the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the local authority shall:
"…send a copy of the arrangements to every other local authority within whose area th functions are to be so discharged, …".
Since planning—at least in an intelligent world such as I hope we are living in—does not stop at a county boundary, it can be just as important to an English authority to know what a Welsh county authority is doing as it is for a neighbouring Welsh county to know. There is no mention at all of England in this Amendment and therefore I assume that the obligation being imposed on the counties in Wales ceases with the border with England. I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord either that I am mistaken or, if I am not mistaken, that he thinks this Amendment is wrong.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment relates to Clause 14, which, in turn, refers to the duties and functions of the Land Authority for Wales. I am bound to say that it had not occurred to me that we should spread the gospel over the border into the adjoining English counties as well. I should have thought that was not really necessary, but I am certainly willing to look at the point. There is nothing insular about the Welsh, as the noble Lord will know well! However, I should have thought that in the context of a clause dealing with the duties and functions of the Land Authority for Wales, to require them in addition to deal with the impact of planning upon all neighbouring authorities would be imposing quite a burden. The planning aspect will in any event be the responsibility of local authorities. What mutual arrangements
1120
exist between authorities on the Welsh and English sides of the border. I know not. I imagine that they are on a basis of mutual exchange of information where there is any possibility of a development, as it were, overlapping two planning authorities; but in any event that will be the function of the local authorities. We are concerned in this Amendment with the Land Authority's duties and functions in respect of Wales.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will look at this again, and although I think, with him, that it would be a mistake—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we are in the Report stage—a matter to which I ventured to refer earlier.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 13 leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in dealing with Amendment No. 51, if I may I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 93, 109 and 110. Amendments Nos. 51 and 93 would delete two Amendments which were carried by noble Lords opposite at the Committee stage. In both cases I indicate that the Government supported the basic objectives behind the Amendments, but had reservations on specific points. Amendment No. 51 deals with the provision that would require the Land Authority, in respect of land which it has acquired but not yet developed, to manage the land in a way which would encourage its agricultural use, but to consult the Ministry of Agriculture on how this should be done.
I opposed the Amendment at Committee stage not because I opposed its spirit but because we considered that the provisions in the Bill already place the Land Authority under a duty to have regard to the interests of agriculture in managing their land and in considering its development. I also said that the specific obligation to consult the Ministry of Agriculture in every single case would be cumbersome, wasteful, unrealistic and

1121
unnecessary to achieve the purpose behind the Amendment. Finally, we felt it was wrong in principle to place duties, obligations or restraintson the Land Authority for Wales which did not apply to other authorities carrying out identical functions. Amendment No. 93 would delete paragraph 3(1)(dd), which added to the contents of the Land Acquisition and Management Scheme reference to arrangements for the management of land held by an authority pending development, with particular regard to the need to encourage the full and proper agricultural use of any farmland which has been acquired in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.
Again, I indicated that there was no real difference between us on this matter apart from the point on consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, which I indicated would be nonsensical if applied to every land purchase by authorities, and I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, took this point on board. However, on reflection there is another problem with paragraph 3(1)(dd) and that is that in our view it does not go far enough. It extends only to land acquisition and management schemes, yet authorities ought, in our view, to be thinking about land management not only when preparing their LAMS but, even more important, when they are operating the scheme. So some kind of wider requirement needs to be placed on authorities to manage land. This is the object of Amendments Nos. 109 and 110. These work by amending paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6 so that authorities must have regard for factors set out there, not only in disposing of land but also when managing land prior to disposal. So in this important respect we are attempting to go further in these two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 109 and 110, than noble Lords opposite did in their two Amendments which I am seeking to delete.
The particularly important factor in the context of the Amendments which were moved by noble Lords opposite is, of course, in paragraph (1)(c) of Schedule 6, which requires authorities to have regard to, "the needs of agriculture and forestry". This, taken together with the new Amendments, will mean that authorities in exercising their functions under the LAMS scheme must have regard to
1122
the management of agricultural land in their ownership. It seems to the Government that this approach will achieve the result which noble Lords opposite intended in their Committee stage Amendments, but without the undesirable features which I indicated at the time those contained. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough on both occasions at the Committee stage to say that these Amendments were put forward in a helpful spirit. May I say that the Amendments I am now moving and speaking to are put forward in an equally helpful spirit; I hope they will be acceptable to noble Lords opposite.
9.43 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must confess to being much surprised at the Amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for two reasons. One is due to an incompatibility we discerned between this Bill and the Welsh Development Agency Bill when we were reviewing Amendments from another place. Amendment 4 from another place said this:
"In exercising their functions the Agency shall have regard to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management"
Your Lordships accepted that as entirely necessary and beneficial, and there appears to be an inconsistency between what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said and that which was written into the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
Secondly, as Lord Melchett said, we attempted in Committee to make our Amendment in helpful manner. We believed that by placing squarely in the middle of Clause 14 the provisions for consultation for the proper agricultural use of any farmland, this was a means of emphasising the obvious, which is a very desirable thing to do in the case of setting out the requirements laid before an authority. We accept what the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, said in his reply at cols. 1550 and 1551 extending into col. 1552 of the Official Report of 22nd October, which we read in detail.
In his closing remarks at col. 1553 he said:
"A failure to keep the land in farming use would therefore reflect a serious failure of management by the authority and in that case it is our view that a directive from the Secretary of State would probably be needed rather

1123
than mere consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture."
We should pre-empt the possibility of failure by arguing once again before your Lordships that subsection (5) of Clause 14 of the Bill is eminently satisfactory and desirable. Although we shall not press the point at this stage, we believe that at a later stage it maybe desirable to return to it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for what he has said. When I first saw his Amendment on the Marshalled List, I thought that it was a "fast one" and that he was trying to reverse an Amendment which we had inserted at Committee stage. Unfortunately, while the noble Lord was giving his explanation, I was subjected to the kind of interruption to which one is periodically subjected and I missed the operative part. I shall certainly look at the report of what he said, as will my noble friend. I was interested to hear him say that the Amendment which he has moved not only accepts the same spirit as the one we had wished to be accepted, but goes further. If that is so we are grateful. Our immediate impression, as my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, was that something of a specific nature should be written into the middle of the Bill. However, we are grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
9.46 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. When they read the Schedule as amended by Amendments Nos. 109 and 110, they will see that it goes wider, that it achieves everything that is common ground between us and underlines the Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite without the slightly ludicrous idea that for every single piece of land consultations have to take place with the Ministry of Agriculture. There was a great deal of common ground. It is that which we have sought to meet in this series of Amendments and I am glad that they are accepted by noble Lords opposite.
Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 52:
1124
Page 14, line 8, leave out from ("any") to end of line 8 and insert ("development land").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment similar in nature to that which we moved at Committee stage. I recall saying then that we were concerned that this Amendment should be written into the Bill. The noble and learned Lord who spoke on that occasion gave us a fairly detailed explanation which required study. I said to him that we would return to this matter on Report, because one of the Amendments, that relating to single plot dwelling-houses which came later in the Committee stage, slightly muddied the waters of this Amendment. However, we dealt earlier with that matter.
In this Amendment and the following two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, we are concerned with the powers of acquisition which local authorities are given by this clause. The powers of acquisition are such that they can acquire any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development. We wish to see the words "development land "inserted instead of" "land suitable for development". If we look further down the page, subsection (3) says:
"Where an authority exercise their powers under subsection (1) above in relation to any land…".
We believe that those powers are very wide indeed. In every other clause of this Bill the reference is to "relevant development". This is the only clause where the reference is to "any development".
The Bill gives the authority power to acquire land which in their opinion is suitable for development. The words "development land" are defined in Amendment No. 4, and development land is land which is needed for relevant development. "Development" as opposed to "development land" is a much wider concept, and that is defined under Clause 4 and also under the Act of 1971. So we believe that if we were to put in the words "development land" the local authority's powers would be restricted to acquiring land which is needed for relevant development.
If your Lordships accept this Amendment it will restrict the powers to relevant development, but as it stands the Bill allows local authorities not only to buy any land, but any land which in their opinion is suitable for any development.

1125
Again we think this is too wide because it is in their opinion and their opinion only; in nobody's else's opinion: not the owner's opinion, not the opinion of the people in the locality, not the opinion of the people who might be affected. It is their opinion—the local authority's opinion—and they can acquire land which is suitable for development. It does not have to be shown that it is needed for development, or that it is required for development, or that it is desirable for development or that people would benefit from the development. It has only to be land which is suitable for development.
As was mentioned by a number of noble Lords on all sides during the Committee stage, these are very wide powers indeed, and I would ask noble Lords opposite quite seriously to consider this Amendment. If it is argued that by inserting the words,
"which in their opinion is suitable for development",
that includes not only relevant development but also exempt and excepted development, I would suggest that in time to come that might prove to be far wider because these powers are being given for any development of any nature whatsoever.
It is a curious thing that only in this clause do we get these very wide powers, and I respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate for those powers of acquisition to be restricted to relevant development, since the local authorities have all the powers necessary for acquisition of other types of land (which otherwise would be excluded were these words put into the Bill) under other measures. These are wide powers, and I hope the noble Baroness, if she is going to answer, will agree that they are too wide. I accept that she may find this Amendment slightly less helpful than some of the others which we have moved from this side of the House. Nevertheless I hope she will realise that they are moved in a spirit of sincerity, to try to make the Bill, when it becomes an Act, as workable as possible, and to prevent putting into the Bill powers which may appear to be appropriate now but which, in years to come, may prove to be far wider than was anticipated. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. I believe it to be a most important Amendment. I do not believe that the Government can claim that it follows in the direct and historic line of previous legislation. I think at one stage the noble Baroness suggested that the whole Bill followed closely the Uthwatt Committee recommendations. I do not believe that they contemplated wide powers, because we seriously believe that in Clause 15 powers of acquisition have been set out in such a manner that an authority can do what it likes.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has described, these phrases are disguised in terms which are somewhat difficult for an individual not particularly well versed in the law, to discern at first sight. Nevertheless, on closer examination it will be quite apparent that the use of the word "any in subsection (3) is a very important one to exclude. We believe that this Amendment should have the support of your Lordships. We believe that it is not appropriate to vest in an authority the powers set out in Clause 15. We adduced arguments to this end both on Second Reading and Committee stage.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friends in this Amendment. I have had a good long experience with local authorities. Local authorities with no restrictions as to what they think they would like to do, or sometimes at least with no idea of the importance of the land they want to get in relation to other interests such as agriculture, can be very —I was going to say "dangerous", which perhaps is not the right word, but can be very frustrating in any given area. I do not think we should give local authorities as much power as there is here.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, "any land which, in their opinion, is suitable for development" is a very wide power indeed, whereas the words "development land" which is more restricted and more under control in relation to other interests in the areas concerned, is a better definition. Of course, when talking about land, one is apt to think in terms of agriculture. In the course of life, on many occasions I have been written to by people in connection,

1127
for instance, with enormous new roads; people who have had to fight very hard in order to get a road line which does not damage very seriously indeed their agricultural developments. I know that probably here we are thinking in terms of land around towns for the development of either factories or housing. Nevertheless, it would be better, I think, not to give such a wide power to local authorities. Some may be very wise in these things, and some may be not so wise.
My Lords, even although I speak as someone who has had a great deal of experience in local government, I would be happier that the powers given to any local authority were more closely defined and more restricted than the powers given in this Bill. I hope the Government will think again about this, because it is something which frightens many people who think that their livelihood and the value of their land, and so on, are going to be seriously interfered with, not really to the benefit of the whole community.
9.59 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, at this time of night I shall try to be as brief as I can with what are really some quite complicated Amendments. First of all, in answer mainly to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—although the points were made in different ways by noble Lords opposite—authorities already have very wide powers to buy land by agreement. They can buy land for the benefit, improvement or development of their area. This derives from an Act of 1963. So far as compulsory powers are concerned—and if I may say so, unless I misheard, it sounded to me as though the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, rather missed the point—an authority can exercise these powers compulsorily only if the Secretary of State confirms the compulsory purchase order. This does not apply to exempt developments. I thought I would get that out of the way.
My Lords, the effect of the Amendments which have been moved would be two-fold: first, they would remove the powers for authorities to buy land for excepted development which would destroy the whole basis behind this category of development. For all types of development within this category there
1128
are circumstances where it could be right for an authority to acquire land for such development. I think there was also a certain amount of confusion which could be avoided if we used the phrase in the Bill, "relevant development", instead of "suitable development land", which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, used. If an authority could not do that, it would be at a serious disadvantage. To take two examples, it may be needed to facilitate the provision of recreational facilities—this has been raised many times during these discussions—where this can be achieved only by public acquisition; or for reasons of positive planning, which is one of the principles underlying the Bill, where the development proposed consists of rebuilding with a 10 per cent. enlargement; and here there may well be need for public acquisition in order to obtain the best result in planning terms. Any restriction of this sort must have an effect on these developments.
Secondly, the Amendment would remove in any circumstances the power for authorities to buy land for relevant development which was not needed for ten years. Generally, of course, this would not matter. But suppose that an owner wished to sell such land by agreement; then it could well make sense for the authority to acquire the land and allow it to continue in its existing use until required for development. In those circumstances, it may be socially and economically wise for the authority to acquire it, but the Amendment would remove the possibility of the authority doing so. Also it should not be assumed that buying this far in advance would necessarily be expensive. For example, an authority might buy a shop in a town centre that was due for redevelopment and be able to cover the costs of acquisition by letting it for use as a shop until the time for redevelopment arrived.
For these reasons alone, the Amendments are quite unacceptable in principle. On a further point, that new powers to acquire other than development land are unnecessary, which I think was mentioned by one noble Lord, since authorities can always rely on their existing powers, here again there are two flaws to this argument. First, there is the problem of fragmented compulsory purchase orders. Of course, related orders can be considered together at a

1129
single inquiry, but this is much more cumbersome, and while it may be unavoidable where an authority is buying for specific purposes, it does not seem sensible in the circumstances of a wide acquisition power such as is provided for in the Bill. Thus if an authority was buying, say, 50 acres of land with the intention of making 40 acres available for private housing and laying out ten acres as a recreation ground, it seems to me that it would be quite wrong that it should not be able to use the new acquisition power to buy the whole 50 acres.
The second point is even more fundamental. If authorities already have similar powers, then, it may be asked, what objection is there to restating those powers in the Bill? It is therefore necessary for the Opposition to justify withholding those powers. The whole concept is within the context of public ownership through the community and positive planning. These Amendments, which I can quite see would be favourably regarded by people who are against the principles underlying the Bill, nevertheless are quite contrary to what is being achieved within this Bill, and therefore they are quite unacceptable. It takes the level at which it is possible to go into relevant development far too low, and it completely stymies the whole objective of the Bill and turns it into something entirely different. Although the noble Lords putting forward the Amendment could argue that they consider that in their terms it might make a better Bill, it would certainly not be the Community Land Bill, based on the principles of public ownership and positive planning on which this Bill is based. I have been as brief as I can at this time of night, but I have made the fundamental points in order to establish why it is that these Amendments are quite unacceptable to the Government.
10.6 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, to sum up the argument of the noble Baroness, it runs like this: the acquisition power must extend not only to land for relevant development, it must cover and embrace land for excepted development as well. I think that is a summary of what she said, and it also repeats what was said in Committee in a slightly different
1130
way. The noble Baroness also produced what I might call the fragmented CPOs argument, which was also produced on Committee. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had disposed of that. If the acquiring authority wanted to take the land for development that would fall under the heading of development excepted by virtue of regulations to be made under Clause 3(1)(c), there is absolutely nothing to stop them. They can merely use powers given them by other legislation (these are many) just as they do now. Indeed, we have had Annex A, but also Annex B, which says:
"Normal compulsory purchase procedure, will apply in any case where an authority wish to use the new compulsory acquisition power to buy land for the purposes of excepted development."
I do not see that we have got any further by the noble Baroness's argument, and I am not convinced at all.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, could I say a few more words here? One of the important things that a local authority has to do before it acquires any land, even by agreement, is to make quite certain that that land is within a development plan and that it can be generally programmed satisfactorily. But I am sure that this should not be further than 10 years ahead. The noble Baroness mentioned buying a shop, but I argue that this is not development. I feel that her answer has been unsatisfactory.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for having given her reasons for finding these Amendments unsatisfactory. She said that if these Amendments were passed they would stymie the objective of the Bill. I do not believe that they would do that. She said that land which was suitable for development would stop the local authorities from buying in advance, and that there may be occasions when the local authorities would have to buy 10 years in advance, and if this Amendment were to be pressed that this would prevent them from doing this. She also said that if the local authority wished to make some areas recreation areas, they would need the authority given under this clause. With the greatest respect, the local authorities have huge powers of acquisition which would enable them to acquire such

1131
land as they required for recreation without the provisions which this clause has at present.
One comes back to two basic points on this clause: you are giving to the local authorities power of acquisition for any land whatsoever, and you are giving them powers to acquire any land which, in their opinion and nobody else's, is suitable. We believe that those powers are too wide to
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Ferrers.)
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("any") and insert ("development").—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be adjourned.
give and that they should be restricted somewhat; and that they should be restricted by this Amendment. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support us in the Lobby.
10.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Main, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Selkirk, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Vernon, L.

Digby, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Drogheda, E.

Luke, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

Elles, B.

Mansfield, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Hughes, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Collison, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hoy, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING AND DECIMAL CURRENCY
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING AND DECIMAL CURRENCY
  "A JOINT FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL POLICIES"
  "A JOINT FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL POLICIES"