Sitting of 26 October 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN BILL [Lords](By Order)
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday.

  CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)
  Order for further Consideration read.
  To be further considered upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Occupational Pension Schemes (Management)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he received during the parliamentary recess on the White Paper on membership participation in occupational pension schemes.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): I have received some 150 representations, of which 32 have come from the members of one pension scheme.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the Minister been following the expressions of public disquiet which have been revealed in the columns of the Press during the summer
    250
    over the proposal that 50 per cent, of the representation on occupational pension schemes should go to the trade unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this proposal, which is opposed by, among others, trade unionists, since investment decisions on occupational pension schemes should be taken purely with thought for the benefit of the pensioners and not with thought to alleviating temporary unemployment?
    Mr. Orme: The Government reaffirm their basic support for the proposals within the White Paper. During the summer and the autumn I have had consultations with employers and trade unionists about pension schemes. I have found a ready acceptance of many of the main points, and many pension schemes are already bringing themselves into line with some of the proposals in the White Paper.
    Mr. Paul Dean: Does the Minister accept that many people who are working for the success of the pensions legislation are strongly opposed to giving trade unionists the monopoly in employee participation? Will he give an assurance that legislation will provide flexibility for the participation arrangements so that occupational pension scheme members can decide for themselves who shall represent them?
    Mr. Orme: I have had representations along those lines which I have discussed with pension interests on both sides of industry, the CBI and TUC. Following those consultations, I see no reason why the Government should change their main proposals, because there is increasing acceptance of the general outline given in the White Paper.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Let me see whether I have it right. Is it the fact that the Minister has conceded that if no trade unionists are members of the scheme the trade union will not be involved, but that if only one out of perhaps many hundreds or thousands of members of a scheme is a trade unionist that man's trade union will have the right to appoint the entire representation of the members?
    Mr. Orme: There is misunderstanding about this. I should explain to the right hon. Gentleman that if there are no trade unionists the White Paper provision does not apply. If there is one trade unionist

    251
    who is not accepted by the company as being a member of a recognised independent trade union, the White Paper and the Bill will not apply.

    Analgesics (Sale)
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future sales of analgesics.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): The Medicines Commission has advised that there will be no need to prohibit the sale by self-service methods of preparations containing analgesics when Part III of the Medicines Act 1968 is implemented, provided that the preparations are in child-resistant containers or strip-packaging and are in packs containing not more than 25 tablets. We are now considering this advice.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister accept that analgesics sold through self-service outlets should be sold only at points of supervision, so that children are not able to purchase them in any quantity in a granny-proof rather than a child-proof container?
    Mr. Moyle: That view has been put to me by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain. It is one of the views I am considering.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that people employed in the industry—not least the workers who are members of my union—are pleased with the decision he has made? Industry and the unions would be less averse to the selling of these products if there were no possibility of their falling into the wrong hands or being used for suicide. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the regulations cover all the objections that have been made to self-service sales of analgesics?
    Mr. Moyle: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. The House will now realise why I am considering the advice carefully.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister bear in mind the remote areas, where people often buy the simpler analgesics from the grocer or the post office? If analgesics have to be sold in small quan-
    252
    tities, extra cost will be incurred by consumers because of the smaller quantity involved, in addition to the extra cost which people who live in remote areas have to bear anyway.
    Mr. Moyle: The interest of people who live in rural areas is a point which I shall bear in mind.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very strong feeling on this side of the House about the pressure exerted by drug companies to allow sales in supermarkets? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends do not think that drugs should be treated like sweets and believe that they should be sold over the counter properly?
    Mr. Moyle: That point of view has been put to me already by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It wishes to ensure that proper public education takes place about the manner in which medicines are handled. I shall be taking that into account as well.

    National Health Service (Resources Allocation)
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make an announcement on the allocation of NHS resources.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I am aiming to give regional health authorities their allocations for 1977–78 at around the new year after considering the views of the authorities and other interested bodies on the recent report of the Resource Allocation Working Party.
    Mr. Boscawen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the allocation of existing resources urgent attention should be paid to the over-lengthy waiting lists for non-acute surgery in any area? Has he read the latest report of the West Somerset Community Health Council, which states that if any area had a worse waiting list situation
    "it was a bleak outlook for people in this country"?
    What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?
    Mr. Ennals: The problem of waiting lists is one that concerns me very much. It concerned my predecessor and every Minister responsible over the past 25

    253
    years. It is a serious problem. There have always been waiting lists which are too long. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), introduced additional funds to assist where funds were the answer in alleviating the problem. In some cases waiting lists have become somewhat longer in the past few months, especially where industrial action was taken by consultants and, in some cases, by junior hospital doctors. I hope that we shall be improving the situation. It is an issue that I am examining carefully.
    Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend investigate the dangerously low level of nursing allocation in the parliamentary constituency of St. Helens before he decides upon the allocation of resources, in view of the report I have received in the past few days in which members of the trade unions and the area health authority report on the dangerously low level of nursing allocation?
    Mr. Ennals: The report of the Resource Allocation Working Party showed that the North-West, Trent, the Northern Region, Yorkshire and Wessex were among the regions which needed to have a higher share of national resources than they had had hitherto. The report showed that the four Thames regions and Oxford already had more than their fair share of revenue resources. St. Helens is affected by that situation. I shall have to take a decision at the end of the year on whether to accept in full the recommendations that are brought forward. In many areas there are some uncertainties for nurses. Up to now they have always assumed that they would be able to take up appointments in the hospital in which they had been trained, but that is not now possible because the wastage rate of nurses is much less. In some cases, nurses have to be prepared to be a little more mobile than hitherto.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that retiring consultants such as dermatologists are not being replaced, that sufficient nurses are not being employed although they are available, and that vital equipment is not being purchased? Is he not presiding over the slow death of the National Health Service? Where does he plan to find other sources of revenue apart from the Exchequer?
    Mr. Ennals: Since the Government came to power there has been substantial expenditure on the NHS. It has increased from less than 4 per cent, of our gross domestic product to nearly 6 per cent, in only two years. Even now, in a period of considerable economic stress, there is still an element of growth within the service.
    I cannot confirm the hon. Lady's point about consultants. As for nurses, I can assure her that, whatever she may feel, there is a steady increase even now in the number of nurses employed by the NHS. Of course, there will never be enough money to meet all the demands for equipment. We shall never be able to meet what everyone wants in terms of new equipment. The hon. Lady will always be able to bring me examples of where it has not been possible to make an immediate purchase.

    Health Education Council
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will increase the grant for health prevention work to the Health Education Council.
    Mr. Ennals: As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) on 15th October, I propose to allocate an extra £1 million to the Health Education Council for its budget for 1977–78. In addition, I shall be making available to the Health Education Council £200,000 a year specifically for contraception health education including publicity for the NHS family planning service.
    Mr. Sims: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement has been widely welcomed? Does he agree that a relatively modest increase in expenditure on health education can effect substantial economies in the treatment of illness and disease? That is particularly so for example, in dental health, bearing in mind the estimate that only half the population has a toothbrush.
    Mr. Ennals: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is one reason for my ministerial colleagues and myself putting a great deal of stress and emphasis on the importance of prevention and health. The launching of the publication "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" is really the beginning

    255
    of a new emphasis on preventive medicine. That is why we are greatly expanding the funds available—in fact, almost doubling them—to the Health Education Council.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Chief Medical Officer once said that the most important thing to do for preventive medicine was to do something about smoking and chest diseases? Will he take further action to make far more inroads into the £80 million being spent by the tobacco industry to persuade people to smoke? Even the amount now being given is inadequate unless the action supplements the work of the Health Education Council.
    Mr. Ennals: I agree that an important contribution to the health of the nation could be made if people stopped smoking, or greatly reduced their smoking, and if young people and women did not start smoking. There has been a serious growth in the number of young people and women who have taken up smoking, to the detriment of their health as well as their economic situation.
    Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) referred to dental health. Will the Health Education Council be asked to do more to promote fluoridation, which reduces dental decay in children by more than half, with absolute safety and at extremely low cost?
    Mr. Ennals: I absolutely agree. Not only have I made a statement in support of fluoridation, but I have made additional funds available because I think it is a matter of great importance, especially following upon the point made by the hon. Member for Chislehurst.

    Poverty
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the most recent estimate of the numbers in the United Kingdom living below the poverty line, as denned by his Department.
    Mr. Orme: Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn. In the past, information has been drawn from the annual Family Expenditure Survey as a convenient way of estimating the number of families with incomes below supplementary benefit level. The
    256
    1975 survey information suggests that 1,170,000 families comprising some 2,070,000 people have such an income.
    Mrs. Bain: Bearing in mind that already dreadful figure, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has made any estimate of the likely result this winter of the cut-backs in manpower services within DHSS offices, which are even now having great difficulties meeting the demands put upon them at this time of high unemployment and rising prices? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the last area in which such services should be cut back?
    Mr. Orme: I am aware of the difficulties that now exist in Scotland. It is not the Government's intention to create redundancies. There is a forward forecast, and talks are going on with the staff trade unions which, I hope, will bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: How many of the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred in his answer are in full-time employment and paying income tax on the level of earnings they are receiving in that employment?
    Mr. Orme: I cannot give that information without notice. There is a great problem in regard to what is normally called the poverty trap. We would like to simplify the situation and take many people out of that trap, but that consideration involves many other aspects of Government policy, including taxation and public expenditure matters.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that simple steps such as the removal of food subsidies will considerably increase the number of people who fall below the poverty line? Therefore, will he use his undoubted weight in the Cabinet to put pressure on the Treasury in respect of measures of this type?
    Mr. Orme: I assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are fully aware of that argument. He will appreciate that the upratings next month are the highest level ever reached in recent times.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does not the Minister realise that the problem of the poverty trap is becoming worse under the

    257
    Labour Government? This year, for the first time, anybody who goes out to work, whether married or single, and who earns less than the amount of long-term supplementary benefit could still find himself paying income tax on those earnings, even though he might be below the official poverty line. Will he accept that he is presiding over the steady growth in the number of people who find that it does not pay to work? Will he examine the tax credit approach as an answer to the problem?
    Mr. Orme: I notice that recently even within the Conservative Party those proposals were criticised because they would have helped people who do not need help in such a situation. I am well aware of the problem of the poverty trap. We are examining the situation, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of these issues. We are as concerned as anybody about the situation, and we should like to take people out of the poverty trap as soon as possible.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If 4 per cent, of our population are totally dependent on public expenditure for their standard of living, is it not criminal for there to be calls for further public expenditure cuts which would hit their standard of living as well as the standards of all the others who are partially dependent on the increased ratio in the top level of public expenditure which forms the most important part of their standard of living?
    Mr. Orme: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. He made a powerful speech on this matter at a meeting which he and I attended recently. The House should take account of the increase in benefits which are being made, despite the economic situation, and which are being maintained.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: In view of the statement by the Minister of State before the recess that in his view male wage and salary earners were not ready to accept the merits of child benefits, will he undertake to campaign in the next few months to publish details of those benefits? It seems certain that pay policy will be continued if the present Government remain in office and that there may
    258
    be another excuse for not introducing those benefits.
    Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that there are many benefits to which people are entitled but which they do not claim. That group of people embraces one-parent families and those who are entitled to supplementary benefit. I am concerned to see that no genuine people are deterred from claiming their justifiable benefits.

    Clinical Expenditure
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give estimates of the amounts of expenditure for which the average general practitioner and the average consultant with his team are responsible, respectively, in making clinical decisions in the course of a year in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Ennals: Detailed estimates cannot be made but, if the cost of the pharmaceutical and of the general medical services were broadly attributed to clinical decisions by general practitioners and the running costs of the hospital service to consultant teams' decisions, estimated averages for England in 1976–77 would be £36,000 and £290,000.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that, for the sake of the principle of clinical freedom, there is hardly any effective control of this expenditure? Bearing in mind the intense pressures to which doctors are subjected by the pharmaceutical industry, would it not be possible for the Government, in consultation with the profession, to achieve some useful economies in this direction without prejudicing in any way the interests of patients?
    Mr. Ennals: There is a major problem of escalating costs in the pharmaceutical industry. There are two aspects of the matter. One aspect concerns the cost of the pharmaceutical industry to the National Health Service, and I have been able to take action to limit the extent to which expenses can be set against costs charged. I am reducing the figure of spending from 14 to 10 per cent., and that will represent a saving. The other aspect relates to prescribing by general practitioners and hospitals. These are matters which can be dealt with only in consultation with the medical profession, but since this is

    259
    a part of the NHS over which there is no control whatever it should properly be discussed with the profession.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to ask shorter supplementary questions and to give shorter answers?
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that those figures will be of great interest to general practitioners? Since the family doctor service is a sector of the National Health Service which attracts only 8 per cent, of the total cost of the service, and is the point at which most people have contact with the service, does not my right hon. Friend agree that if more money was spent on that aspect of the service it would be well spent and also cost effective?
    Mr. Ennals: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. This is the area with the greatest growth rate of expenditure in the National Health Service, and intentionally so. Primary care is an extremely important matter. There is a substantial growth rate in the amount of funds available for primary care as well as in the number of nurses working in the community.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister publish a list of medical journals which will be threatened if he does not give more consideration to the speech which he delivered on 24th September?
    Mr. Ennals: Nobody will be threatened.

    Disabled Persons (Mobility)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the phased withdrawal of vehicles for the disabled.
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in the last two months from disabled people following his statement about the mobility allowance.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received concerning the proposal to phase out the invalid tricycle.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 11th October. I have also had meetings with representatives of several disabled peoples' organisations to hear their views. Our consideration of mobility policy is, of course, still on-going, and I am keeping very much in mind all the views expressed to me.
    Mr. Allaun: I appreciate the great reforms introduced by my hon. Friend to help disabled people, but will he now assure thousands of anxious people by undertaking that he will not phase out the three-wheeled car, not even after five years, until drivers have been provided with an alternative or suitable vehicle and that he will avoid bringing to an end their social and working lives?
    Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Since many disabled people have been caused unnecessary concern, I must state categorically that there is no question of any sudden withdrawal of tricycles for at least five years. We expect to carry on maintaining them, and it is our policy to replace worn-out tricycles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assured the House in a statement on 23rd July that we were examining the continuing need of drivers for specialised vehicles. We shall see what vehicles are available in markets at home and abroad. Our aim will be to ensure that nobody who has a tricycle will be immobilised by the decision to phase out.
    Mr. Luce: Will the Minister settle the principle of cash allowances? Does he not accept that those who at present have invalid tricycles will suffer a severe disadvantage when the mobility allowance is introduced since it will not cover the cost of purchasing and running a car? What progress is he making in the discussions with the Central Council for the Disabled on the question of mobility allowance?
    Mr. Morris: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised, we are seeking an increase, not only in terms of amount, but in terms of the value of the mobility allowance. The Central Council for the Disabled is studying what can be done to help disabled people to by cars on advantageous

    261
    terms. I have no doubt that they will be pleased to contact the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters.
    Mr. Hooley: What guarantee is there that any manufacturer in the United Kingdom will continue to produce a suitable vehicle for the disabled if the Government's purchasing system ceases? Will it be sufficient that there is an optional market and not a Government guarantee of purchase?
    Mr. Morris: This question underlines the considerable difficulties we have had. We do not know how many disabled drivers will opt for cash in place of hardware. I cannot go any further than the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). We are aiming at giving disabled people more freedom of choice than they have at present. It is our resolve to extend the mobility of the disabled person, not to restrict it.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the Minister realise that the announcement made by his right hon. Friend led tens of thousands of disabled people to believe that their mobility would be restricted? Is it not now clear that a policy of equal misery for all is not at all satisfactory? [Interruption.] Will the Minister consider proposals to give the highest priority to those for whom help with mobility makes all the difference between dependence and independence?
    Mr. Morris: It is my right hon. Friend's intention to have individual contact with every tricycle driver. On 23rd July, when my right hon. Friend made his statement, the right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he realised that Conservatives believed that in the great majority of cases cash rather than hardware should be the form of aid given to the disabled in terms of mobility considerations. His hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall), among others, welcomed the statement. This Government are more than trebling expenditure on mobility for the disabled, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to look at what they said on 23rd July and to try to make it clear to disabled people that we are seeking to extend their mobility.
    Mr. Ashley: Many people will welcome the fact that, despite protestations from Conservatives, the Government have increased expenditure threefold on mobility for the disabled at a time of economic crisis. We also welcome the fact that my hon. Friend is looking at an alternative vehicle, because a vehicle is vital. Is my hon. Friend aware that the mobility allowance is not being given with the humanity with which it should be given? This is instanced by the case of a thalidomide boy with legs only a few inches long who has been denied a mobility allowance. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the mobility allowance is administered compassionately?
    Mr. Morris: I shall be pleased to look into the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am grateful to him for emphasising that we are increasing considerably expenditure on mobility for the disabled. I wonder whether hon. Members realise that asking for an increase in expenditure for the disabled in July, as I did, was like asking to go for a holiday on the Normandy beaches in June 1944.

    Prescription Pricing Authority
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the cost of the Prescription Pricing Authority in 1975–76; and what is the estimate for the current year.
    Mr. Moyle: Nearly £4·4 million and about £5·5 million respectively.
    Mr. Ridley: In view of the escalating costs, will the Minister try a little experiment and ask the private sector for a tender for doing this work? It is likely that he could save about half the cost of it if he got it done efficiently by the private sector.
    Mr. Moyle: I am confident that the job is being done efficiently. The increased costs are due to £860,000 which took account of negotiated staff salaries and a further £240,000 to bring the staff up to the level it was at under the predecessor, the Joint Pricing Committee. The increase has had to take care of the steady secular trend in the rise of prescriptions in this country which is common to all advanced industrial countries.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend look at the increasing costs of the pricing of prescriptions and realise that nearly 55 per cent, of them are free? A great deal of machinery is used for collecting prescription charges, and therefore, this is more expensive than is necessary. Will my hon. Friend consider phasing out the present prescription charges when the economic situation allows?
    Mr. Moyle: I will look into that suggestion, but the Prescription Pricing Authority does not concern itself with the collection of prescription charges.
    Sir George Young: In view of the enormous financial problems facing the National Health Service at the present time, may I ask whether it is still the Government's policy to add to these by phasing out income from prescription charges?
    Mr. Moyle: Yes.

    Fraudulent Claims
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of social security fraud were investigated in 1971 and in 1975, respectively.
    Mr. Orme: No record is kept of the number of investigations of suspected fraud, but the number of cases of fraud discovered was about 39,000 in 1971 and about 46,000 in 1975.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister aware that thousands of people at present receiving unemployment benefit are actually working? Is he aware of a recent case in which a builder applied to the local employment exchange for plasterers and was given 10 names, eight of whom already worked for him? Will the Minister make unemployment benefit conditional on claimaints regularly signing a form, on receipt of benefit, to the effect that they have not received any income in the period in question? Would not this act as a deterrent to fraudulent claims?
    Mr. Orme: Blanket assertions like these do a great deal of harm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Lady does not talk about the millions of people who justifiably claim benefits and who are entitled to them. In cases where people are found to be defrauding the
    264
    system, action is taken, and the proof is there for all to see. We pay £10 billion a year in benefits to people. Last year we know that £2·6 million of these claims was fraudulent by the cases we took through the courts. I would like to see the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends take action on tax evasion on the same level as they do on social security frauds.
    Mr. Ward: Can my hon. Friend say how many cases were brought to his notice from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) to support his allegation that social security frauds cost the country £500 million a year?
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has been sending me quite a lot of letters and I am having them analysed. They do not all deal with fraud, and many of them have to be investigated. No one is more opposed to fraud and abuse than my right hon. Friend and myself. There are many people who on the surface appear to be defrauding the system, but on closer examination it is found that the facts are entirely different.
    Mr. Sproat: Will the Minister accept that I am grateful to him for making clear that he has received many hundreds of cases from me? Does he agree that legal abuse is just as bad as illegal fraud, and will he take steps to introduce residential qualification for benefit in order to end the situation in which families come here from overseas and, without having done one day's work or having paid one day's contribution, can claim benefits in the same way and, in fact, get more in taxable benefits than people who have lived and worked here all their lives?
    Mr. Orme: That is just another blanket assertion. The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that many people are entitled to benefit here under our EEC obligations and through reciprocal arrangements with other countries. Where cases of fraud are brought forward, they are dealt with. However, in spite of the number of letters that the hon. Gentleman has sent me, he has failed to come up with any proposal which would improve the system.
    Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend compare the latest available figures

    265
    for the cost of social security fraud with the £300 million-plus of tax unrecovered last year? Will he also confirm that Labour Members will not tolerate generalised and unspecific attacks on the social security system which are designed to bolster up racism or achieve the destruction of the Welfare State?
    Mr. Orme: I can express unqualified acceptance of that point of view. There was a headline in yesterday's Daily Express dealing with the increase in unemployment pay. I think that the figure quoted in that newspaper was £9·12. It suggested that this was a violation of the recent pay agreement. As usual, the Daily Express got it wrong. The figure is £5·95. The Government, however, are determined to ensure that people who are unemployed and disabled shall get the benefit to which they are entitled and that people who need supplementary benefits and pensions get those, too.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Has not a new dimension been introduced into this subject recently? Did the right hon. Gentleman see the report in Saturday's Daily Mail suggesting that some of the social security frauds are now being organised to provide funds for the IRA? Will he take seriously any recommendations which are put to him by the police to stop this deplorable traffic?
    Mr. Orme: I am aware of those allegations. Obviously, my Department works very closely with the police. I would prefer not to comment on the case that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We are aware of it and we shall examine the facts. There is, however, no doubt that organised crime has come into the system. We are trying to root it out. It is responsible for possibly more abuse than any other factor.
    Mrs. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. McNamara: On a point of order,
    Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to present it
    266
    after Questions. Questions to the Prime Minister are soon to begin.
    Mr. McNamara: But you allowed the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, but that was to enable her to give the customary notice.
    Mr. McNamara: I too wish to give notice, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw attention to the fact that many people are not getting what they are entitled to under the social security system.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here long enough to know the difference between a point of order and a point of view.

    Shotley Bridge General Hospital, Consett
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is taking to reduce the length of patients' waiting time for appointments with orthopaedic consultants at Shotley Bridge General Hospital, Consett.
    Mr. Moyle: I am not happy about the length of time patients have to wait for an appointment to see an orthopaedic consultant at this hospital, and I have asked the Northern Regional Health Authority to investigate the underlying causes of the problem and consider whether the waiting time can be shortened. The results of its investigation, which is being conducted with all possible speed, are not yet available. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have received and considered the regional health authority's report.
    Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that his unhappiness is shared by myself and large numbers of other people, not only in my constituency? The waiting time is two years. In spite of what my hon. Friend has said, there is no visible evidence of any sense of urgency on the part of the regional health authority.
    Mr. Moyle: I take note of my hon. Friend's point of view. I shall make sure that a sense of urgency is encouraged upon the regional health authority.

    Supplementary Benefit (European Community Country Citizens)
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is entitled to more favourable treatment from the Supplementary Benefits Commission than a citizen of another EEC country.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): No, Sir. Both are treated alike.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister indicate whether, in the payment of benefits to the citizens of the Irish Republic, cognisance is taken of the effect that discriminatory rates for British citizens and overseas citizens might have on movements over the Irish border?
    Mr. Deakins: No cognisance is taken of that. We take cognisance of the European Covention which we and our EEC partners have signed. It ensures that citizens of one country who are resident in or visit another country are entitled to social assistance on the same basis as the nationals of the country visited.

    Hospitals (Expenditure Economies)
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware of any impending strike action in hospitals by trade unionists opposed to public expenditure economies.
    Mr. Ennals: No, Sir, although I know that concern is being expressed in other ways.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the Secretary of State explain to the unions in the National Health Service that direct action will not change the Government's mind about public expenditure cuts?
    Mr. Ennals: We shall not be influenced by unions, by doctors or by any others in the service who seek to take industrial action. The patients suffer when industrial action is taken, and I am certain that that cannot be right. I am sure that that would be condemned from both sides of the House.

  SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  Mr. Reidasked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the STUC.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I hope to meet the STUC again before the end of the year.
  Mr. Reid: In view of today's depressing rise in Scottish unemployment, will the Prime Minister explain to ordinary Scottish trade unionists why, when our oil is keeping the United Kingdom afloat and the IMF happy, the Scottish Assembly should not have its own revenue access to that oil to help cure unemployment north of the border?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that, as in the remainder of the United Kingdom, unemployment among school leavers is very much better this month. I am sure that the hon. Member is pleased to note that it has fallen from about 15,300 to 10,600 this month. I am glad to say that there has also been a reduction in short-time working. A short while ago the number affected was 16,000, but this number has been reduced to 2,400. There has also been a fall in redundancies. I think, therefore, that the Scottish nation is still heavily against the SNP's demand for independence.
  Mr. Corbett: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he be in a position to discuss with it the reported plans to give the National Enterprise Board some of the powers and responsibilities of the former Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to assist with much-needed mergers and to help with the reinvigoration of British industry?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, we need to use all of those agencies, especially the Scottish Development Agency, which is a very useful weapon in the armoury for encouraging Scottish development. I am sorry to note that when the Leader of the Opposition went to Scotland she did not explain why she thought it necessary for the Conservative Party document to advocate weakening the powers of the SDA and removing some of its powers for encouraging industrial projects.
  Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister next meets the STUC will he discuss with it its critical views, which are

  269
  widely shared in Scotland, about the lack of any economic or fiscal content in the Government's devolution proposals?
  The Prime Minister: This matter will come before the House when all the issues are debated. I have discussed them with the STUC. Basically it broadly agrees with the Government's proposals as put forward in the White Paper, and I would have thought that that was a very good start to the debate.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: When my right hon. Friend meets the STUC will he remind it of the very great efforts made by the Government to save the jobs of Chrysler workers and shipyard workers in Scotland, and say that the benefits to the people of Scotland of that approach are meaningful? Will he reject the attitude of the SNP Members who do not care about Chrysler workers in England?
  The Prime Minister: Young as the SNP is, it has a past that is already beginning to catch up with it. To judge from The Scotsman today, Scottish opinion is catching up with it very fast. There is no doubt that the SNP will have to retreat from its demand for independence or the Scottish electors will soon see through its Members. I understand from Scottish opinion and I believe that the best way for us to proceed is to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom and that the measures produced by the Government, with whatever changes may be made as a result of deliberation in this House, should go through and provide widespread devolution.
  Mr. Tapsell: When the Prime Minister next talks to trade union leaders will he explain to them how it is that when he took the opportunity on television last night to refer to the vast German currency reserves he failed to point out that they had been accumulated as a result of social and economic policies entirely different from those pursued by this Socialist Government?
  The Prime Minister: There have been many differences between the German economic system and our own, including the total destruction of the German industrial system and the rebuilding of the trade union movement on an entirely different basis which does not fit our history. But one conclusion that I draw
  270
  and recommend to employers in this country and perhaps to the Opposition is that the system of industrial democracy in Germany is working extremely well, and that is why we propose that similar measures should be introduced here next Session.

  HARROW
  Mr. Dykesasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Harrow.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Dykes: Should not the Prime Minister come to Harrow to explain to my constituents just how much encouragement is being given to forces opposed to this country by his talk about NATO and his party inviting dubious characters from the Soviet Union?
  The Prime Minister: I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman to do that.
  Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer in which he suggested that in the Queen's Speech in the next Session there will be an item about workers' democracy? Can he assure the House that once the Bullock Report is published trade unions will have adequate time for consultations before the Government set out on a Companies (No. 3) Bill to restructure management in industry, deal with the whole subject of worker directors and the whole business of moving towards a German concept of industrial democracy?
  The Prime Minister: Adequate consultation about industrial democracy is important. I hope that when the Bullock Committee reports it will enable us to focus our discussion and that we shall be able to proceed to action in due course.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell)? The Prime Minister will be aware that he made some very serious statements on television last night. May I ask him a straight question? Was he serious when he threatened to pull our troops out of NATO if he did not get more of other countries' money on his own terms?
  The Prime Minister: If that is the right hon. Lady's idea of a straight question, I should like to know when she asks a crooked one. I suggest that the right hon. Lady reads the Question. I was dealing with an important matter that does not often appeal to the Opposition, namely, the fact that this country has a position of very great influence and importance in Europe. Because of this and because of the strength and stability that we give to central Europe through the important contribution of the British Army of the Rhine, attempts to disrupt the sterling system—or, indeed, our rate—and the consequences of such attempts or other adventitious factors due to the overhang of the sterling balances can lead to this country's influence being weakened.
  The Federal Republic has reserves of $35 billion to $40 billion and more. If the Opposition wish to preserve Britain's political influence, which they very much value—and this is not a cheap party point but a very important issue—they should have regard to it in relation to the overhang of the sterling balances. It could be that the deutschemark value of sterling is heavily depreciated because of these factors. If the right hon. Lady reads the Question and Answer she will see that I was discussing how Britain's influence in central Europe can be maintained, not removed.
  Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister was not maintaining Britain's influence; he was degrading the whole of Britain's standing in the world. He not only debauched the currency but debased Britain. So long as he is there, the country's only prospect is debt and decay, and the best thing he can do is to go.
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure how long it took the right hon. Lady to think that out, but, despite her tenacious attempt to gain power, I promise that I shall be here with this Government for a very long time.

  CITY OF LONDON
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the City of London.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my
  272
  hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on 19th October.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the Prime Minister go to the City and explain what he meant when he said that IMF policies would cause the British economy to go into a downward spiral? Is it not correct that it is his policies and those of Socialism that have put the British economy into the present downward spiral? Will the Prime Minister do something to cut public expenditure and save the country's currency instead of trying to bite the hand that feeds it?
  The Prime Minister: We have applied to the IMF for a loan. All sorts of stories are coming from apparently well-informed journalists but we have not yet begun discussions with the IMF.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Why not?
  The Prime Minister: We shall have to see what conditions it puts forward at the appropriate time.
  As to cutting public expenditure and growth, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we should go for a period of sustainable growth, and therefore it would not be right to accept conditions on such a loan that would prevent us from going for that sustainable growth.
  Mr. Ashton: Does my right hon. Friend remember that on 11th March the Government took notice of the Opposition and cut £1 billion off public expenditure and the pound fell? Then, in July, they cut £2 billion off and the pound fell even more. Does he not think that he could save £600 million by pulling the troops out of Germany? That would be warmly welcomed by the Labour Party, Labour Members and the people of the country.
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that my hon. Friend's figures for March and July are correct, but it is true that the cuts in public expenditure have not, as the Opposition said they would, had the effect of restoring confidence in sterling. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not enough."] I see that hon. Members think that they are not enough. In that case it would be as well if we could have a straight answer from the Opposition about how much they really think would be enough.
  Mr. Baker: Three weeks ago Helmut Schmidt said that the pound was undervalued. Why is it that in the past three weeks the Federal Government of Germany and the Bundesbank have not bought pounds since this would have driven up the price of sterling? Is it that Helmut Schmidt has decided that he no longer has confidence in the Prime Minister and his policies?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The Federal Republic is in the fortunate position of not having a reserve currency and it will do its best to prevent itself from becoming a reserve currency country. Our situation is a relic of the sterling area days and it is a burden that we bear. The hon. Gentleman knows that the monetary policy of the Bundesbank is not a question for me.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Mr. Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a point of order which I believe is of general application to the proper working of the House of Commons. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am chairman, has a sub-committee looking at developments in Japanese industry which may be of possible application to, or hold lessons for, British industry. The subcommittee intends to visit Japan next week. All detailed arrangements have been made with Japanese industrial establishments. Today the Leader of the Opposition has instructed the Conservative Members of the sub-committee to withdraw from the visit—may I say to the great despair of the Conservative Members involved—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to come to the point of order?
  Mr. Palmer: The magic date of 7th November has been quoted, like the Ides of March. What can be done to protect the working of Select Committees of this House from arbitrary interference by leaders of any political party?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House. He has been here a long time and he knows that that is not a point of order
  274
  for me. Arrangements between the parties are not my concern.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that matter.
  Mr. McNamara: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It has not to do with the previous matter?
  Mr. McNamara: No. I accept the point that you have made, that arrangements between the parties are of no concern of the Chair. However I suggest that the working of Select Committees is a matter for the House and a matter for you because they are Committees of this House. This is not the first occasion that the right hon. Lady has acted in this manner—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knew that he would not be in order.

BRITISH ARMY OF THE RHINE
Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, that should have urgent consideration; namely
"The bringing into question by the Prime Minister of the continued commitment of BAOR to NATO in a public interview on 'Panorama' last night."
This matter is specific in that it relates to the continued deployment of the British Army of the Rhine. It is self-evidently important and it ought to have urgent consideration in that the commitment of Rhine Army to NATO is vital for the safety of this country.
Mr. Speaker: Before I give my decision may I say that that is the way to present an application under Standing Order No. 9, rather than making a long speech.
The hon. and learned Member asks to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"The continued deployment of the British Army of the Rhine."

275
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I merely have to decide whether the issue raised should have precedence over the other business of the House.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. and learned Member but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With very great respect and while in no way challenging your ruling, may I ask whether you have taken into account—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have taken everything into account and that it is not customary to challenge Mr. Speaker on a question of this sort. I hope that he is not seeking to do so.
Mr. Amery: It would not cross my mind to challenge your ruling, Mr.
276
Speaker. I only wanted to inquire whether a particularly relevant consideration had been brought to your notice, namely that there is a treaty commitment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter cannot be pursued, because the right hon. Gentleman is seeking indirectly to challenge the decision I have given to the House.

BRITISH ARMY OF THE RHINE

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1419) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's Sitting, Standing Order No. 3 shall apply to the Motion relating to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 with the substitution of half-past Twelve o'clock or two and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (b) of the Standing Order.—[The Prime Minister.]

NATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATION (DENATIONALISATION)
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore the National Freight Corporation and its subsidiaries to private ownership.
The National Freight Corporation and the National Bus Company were set up under the Transport Act 1968. On 3rd August I sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to denationalise the National Bus Company. It will be a matter of great regret to the House that leave was denied to me.
Today it is the turn of the National Freight Corporation. Section 41 of the Transport Act 1968 places a duty on the National Freight Corporation to break even financially, taking one year with another. However, the Corporation has been almost consistently in breach of that duty.
In 1974 the Corporation made a loss of £16 million and last year it made a record loss of £31 million. During the seven years that the Corporation has been in existence it has made an accumulated loss of £51 million. The purpose of my Bill is to put a stop to loss-making on this alarming scale. The failure of the Corporation to fulfil its statutory duty ought to oblige the Government to draw the appropriate lesson, namely that there is too close a relationship between nationalisation and loss-making. In any circumstances a loss of £31 million would require a radical remedy. When even this Government are beginning to understand that the burden of public debt can no longer be sustained, I propose the radical remedy of denationalisation which would liberate the National Freight Corporation from the sterile control of the Treasury Bench.
There is no reason why the Corporation and its subsidiaries should not be run profitably. The Corporation does not have a monopoly position like the National Bus Company or British Rail. On the contrary, it accounts for less than 15 per cent. of the total annual freight movement in the country. Whereas the private sector has, in the nature of things, been obliged to make a profit over these
278
last years, it is the Corporation alone which has been run at a loss.
The whole history of the Corporation is one of a saddening gap between promise and performance. In its first annual report, for 1969, presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) when he was the responsible Minister, the objectives of the Corporation were summarised as follows:
"Last, but not least, we seek to escape the frustrations and general failure which the Corporation will suffer unless it pays its way on a commercial basis."
Later, the immortal words appeared:
"The fundamental aim at all times is to be non-monolithic, non-bureaucratic and non-subsidised."
The following are not the words of an unknown Member from a seaside resort. They are the words of the Chairman of the Corporation reporting to the Secretary of State. He said that the reality has been that nationalisation itself has been
"…a bad practice reminiscent of mediaeval usury."
You, Mr. Speaker, are a saintly man—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman still only has three minutes left.
Mr. Gow: That is more than can be said for the Secretary of State. But the Chairman of the Corporation has described the financial structure of the Corporation as being usury reminiscent of mediaeval times. The last verse of Psalm 15, which is possibly engraven upon your heart, Mr. Speaker, reminds us that the man—and I suppose, also the Government—who shall not fail is
"He that hath not given his money upon usury, nor taken reward against the innocent."
The financial structure of the Corporation is usurious, and in permitting losses on this scale the Government are taking reward against the innocent—the taxpayer.
I do not blame the directors or the 44,000 men and women who work for the Corporation for these losses. They are the helpless victims of a system over which they have no control and for which they have increasing contempt. Fortunately, the ingenuity of man, with the support of the Conservative Party, has provided a ready solution. Competitive free enterprise and the disciplines of the market place will provide what the

279
politicians can never provide, a proper financial structure, sufficient investment, a competitive service to meet the needs of the public, and, above all, a profit.
It may be argued that my Bill will take up valuable parliamentary time. Not so. It will have two clauses only. There is no reason to believe that it will be delayed in another place. It will oblige the Secretary of State to sell the National Freight Corporation and its subsidiaries at the best possible price. Such a step would, to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), "at a stroke" reduce the Government's borrowing requirement and lighten the burden of the Secretary of State for Transport, who is not even in his place today. Indeed, if I had my way, I would continue the process of denationalisation of all the projects under his control so that he, too, would become redundant I commend the Bill to the House.
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made great play of the fact that last year the National Freight Corporation suffered a deficit of £31 million. He follows these matters closely, and he must be aware that in the current year it has taken substantial strides towards reducing the deficit. [Laughter.] Clearly, hon. Members do not follow these things as closely as they might.
Only last Thursday, the Chairman of the Corporation, opening, I am glad to say, a new terminal in Scotland, announced that Freightliners Limited, which last year had lost £1 million, would have a surplus of £1 million this year. There is every reason to suppose that we shall see the National Freight Corporation as a whole moving from a deficit on trading account to surplus. In any year that would have been a remarkable achievement, but it is an even greater achievement in this year, a year of industrial recession, not marked by profitability in the private sector road haulage but rather by a large number of bankruptcies. Such a great achievement by the National Freight Corporation deserves better from this House than the hon. Member's doctrinaire jibes. We should pay tribute to the management and staff, who have worked together so well to bring about this achievement.
280
Even if we accept the depressing view of the hon. Member for Eastbourne that nationalised industries are necessarily associated with mounting and record deficits, he is proposing a curious remedy. He is saying that we should put up a sign at the headquarters of the Corporation, "for Sale", and that there should be a day when he gets up on a rostrum with a hammer and auctions off the Corporation in job lots. If he gets to that day, he will not find a shortage of buyers. At the start of the day, business men will be trampling over each other to get control of companies such as Pickfords, which last year declared, for the third year running, a record profit, and Tank Haulage, which doubled its profit last year. The Bill is being introduced because the private sector does not want to put up with the successful competition that these companies provide.
But as the day wears on, the bidders will get fewer. At the end of the afternoon, the hon. Gentleman will be left with National Carriers and Freightliners Ltd. He will then discover that there is only one bidder. There will be a moment of blind panic for him when he discovers that it is British Rail, from which National Carriers and Freightliners Limited came and which wants that business back on to rail. He will not want that, of course. He will then take National Carriers and sell it off in job lots. He will sell off the profitable assets, the attractive sites and the specialised lines, until at the end of the day he is left holding assets which no one wants and also the expensive commitment to the pensioners which no one will buy off him.
Thereby, we shall have a repetition of the experience of the denationalisation of British Road Services in 1953, when the nation was left with a loss-making company, with the profitable parts of the service sold off. Worse still, not only shall we be saddled with a loss-making enterprise but the hon. Gentleman will have destroyed a valuable national asset in a vital industry.
The National Freight Corporation is the one freight organisation in this country which straddles both rail and road. Many of us on this side of the House are disappointed that the Corporation has not shifted more traffic to rail, which was another obligation laid upon it by the 1968 Act. Indeed, only last year, National

281
Carriers halved the proportion of its traffic which goes by rail. It is difficult to reconcile that with the commitment it was given to put whatever scrap of freight it can on to the railways.
Nevertheless, if we are serious about wishing to turn our aim of an integrated transport system into reality, it makes no sense to dismember the one freight organisation which is intermodal on the principle of selling it to the highest bidder.
The hon. Gentleman said that the NFC is not a monopoly. That is right. However, he did the organisation less than justice in that respect. It is certainly not monolithic. It is genuinely regional in management structure. Nevertheless, it is by far the largest single major operator in the freight industry.
There are advantages to the whole industry in having one major operator with the sense of social responsibility that goes with being State owned. The NFC takes seriously, even if the Opposition do not, its role as a pacemaker in the haulage industry. In eight years, it has improved standards in conditions and standards of work, professional qualifications, technical innovation, such as the electrically operated Silent Karrier, and pioneered new markets such as waste recycling.
Moreover, the private sector recognises the valuable role of the NFC as a pacemaker within the industry. We know that, because the private sector is continually poaching Freight Corporation trained managers. We know it, too, because we have been through an extensive process of consultation on transport policy. In response to the consultative document, 1,000 replies were lodged with the Department. I defy the hon. Member
for Eastbourne to find one single document submitted by a significant haulage or road-based organisation which calls for the dismemberment of the NFC. There is not one.
Why does the hon. Member for Eastbourne seek to introduce such a measure? This is not the first Bill which he has introduced to denationalise a public undertaking. The hon. Gentleman has given us due warning that he intends to move through the public sector asking the question: what does it do and what can I do to stop it from doing it? It is a new dogmatism that anything which is public enterprise is bad and anything which is private enterprise is good.
Several times in the last month Labour Members have been asked by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen whether they have a committment to the mixed economy. I have no doubt about my commitment to a genuine mixed economy. Perhaps it is time that the Opposition Front Bench asked the hon. Member for Eastbourne and his colleagues whether they accept a mixed economy. In the meantime, I think that we should give the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to stand up and be counted for the mixed economy by coming out in defence of the State's modest, but valuable, stake in the freight business.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 168.

Division No. 343.]

AYES

[3.55 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Farr, John

Arnold, Tom

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Clegg, Walter

Fry, Peter

Awdry, Daniel

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Baker, Kenneth

Cope, John

Goodhart, Philip

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Cormack, Patrick

Goodhew, Victor

Benyon, W.

Corrie, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Berry, Hon Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Biggs-Davison, John

Crawford, Douglas

Grieve, Percy

Blaker, Peter

Crouch, David

Griffiths, Eldon

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Bottomley, Peter

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Grist, Ian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Grylls, Michael

Braine, Sir Bernard

Drayson, Burnaby

Hall, Sir John

Brittan, Leon

Dunlop, John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bulmer, Esmond

Emery, Peter

Hannam, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Eyre, Reginald

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Carlisle, Mark

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Hastings, Stephen

Hawkins, Paul

Mills, Peter

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hicks, Robert

Moate, Roger

Shepherd, Colin

Higgins, Terence L.

Molyneaux, James

Silvester, Fred

Holland, Philip

Monro, Hector

Sims, Roger

Hordern, Peter

Montgomery, Fergus

Sinclair, Sir George

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hurd, Douglas

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Speed, Keith

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Morgan, Geraint

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

James, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Sproat, Iain

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

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Stainton, Keith

Jessel, Toby

Mudd, David

Stanley, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Neave, Airey

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Nelson, Anthony

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Newton, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Lamont, Norman

Nott, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Lane, David

Onslow, Cranley

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Lawson, Nigel

Page, John (Harrow West)

Tebbit, Norman

Le Marchant, Spencer

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Lloyd, Ian

Paisley, Rev Ian

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Loveridge, John

Pardoe, John

Vaughan, Dr Gerald

Luce, Richard

Parkinson, Cecil

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wakeham, John

McCrindle, Robert

Penhaligon, David

Walters, Dennis

Macfarlane, Neil

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Weatherill, Bernard

MacGregor, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wells, John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rathbone, Tim

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Marten, Neil

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Winterton, Nicholas

Mates, Michael

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Mather, Carol

Rifkind, Malcolm

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Maude, Angus

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Younger, Hon George

Mawby, Ray

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mayhew, Patrick

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Mr. Ian Gow and

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Ennals, David

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Archer, Peter

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McCartney, Hugh

Armstrong, Ernest

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Ashton, Joe

Flannery, Martin

McElhone, Frank

Atkinson, Norman

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Bates, Alf

Forrester, John

MacKenzie, Gregor

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Madden, Max

Bidwell, Sydney

George, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Bishop, E. S.

Gould, Bryan

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Graham, Ted

Maynard, Miss Joan

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mikardo, Ian

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Grocott, Bruce

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hardy, Peter

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Harper, Joseph

Newens, Stanley

Buchan, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Ogden, Eric

Buchanan, Richard

Hatton, Frank

O'Halloran, Michael

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Heffer, Eric S.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Campbell, Ian

Hooley, Frank

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Cant, R. B.

Horam, John

Park, George

Carmichael, Neil

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Pavitt, Laurie

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Price, William (Rugby)

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Radice, Giles

Clemitson, Ivor

Hunter, Adam

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cohen, Stanley

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Coleman, Donald

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Roderick, Caerwyn

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rodgers George (Chorley)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

John, Brynmor

Roper, John

Corbett, Robin

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rowlands, Ted

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Ryman, John

Cronin, John

Judd, Frank

Sandelson, Neville

Cryer, Bob

Kaufman, Gerald

Sedgemore, Brian

Davidson, Arthur

Kelley, Richard

Selby, Harry

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lambie, David

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Deakins, Eric

Lamond, James

Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Silverman, Julius

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Skinner, Dennis

Doig, Peter

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Small, William

Dormand, J. D.

Lipton, Marcus

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Edge, Geoff

Litterick, Tom

Spearing, Nigel

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Loyden, Eddie

Spriggs, Leslie

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Stallard, A. W.

Stoddart, David

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Stott, Roger

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Strang, Gavin

Ward, Michael

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Watkins, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Watkinson, John

Woodall, Alec

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Weetch, Ken

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Weitzman, David

Young, David (Bolton E)

Tierney, Sydney

While, Frank R. (Bury)

Tinn, James

White, James (Pollock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Tomlinson, John

Whitlock, William

Mr. Dennis Canavan and

Urwin, T. W.

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Question accordingly negatived.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976

2. Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976

286

3. Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Act 1976

4. Armed Forces Act 1976

5. Resale Prices Act 1976

6. Trinidad and Tobago Republic Act 1976

7. Coity Wallia Commons Act 1976

8. Methodist Church Act 1976

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  INSOLVENCY BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  INSOLVENCY BILL [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY AND WINDING UP RULES
      (1) There shall be a committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor to keep under review the rules for the time being in force under—

      (a) section 132 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 (bankruptcy rules); and

      (b) section 365 of the Companies Act 1948 (winding up rules);

      and to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor as to any changes in the rules that may from time to time appear to the committee to be desirable.
      (2) The Lord Chancellor may consult the committee before making any rules under the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above.
      (3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the committee shall consist of—

      (a) a judge of the High Court attached to the Chancery Division;

      (b) a circuit judge;

      (c) a registrar in bankruptcy of the High Court;

      (d) a registrar of a county court;

      (e) a practising barrister;

      (f) a practising solicitor; and

      (g) a practising accountant.

      (4) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as additional members of the committee any persons appearing to him to have qualifications or experience that would be of value to the committee in considering any matter with which it is concerned.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.2 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the clause is to establish a committee which will be under a statutory duty to keep the bankruptcy and winding-up rules under review and to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor about any changes in the rules which the committee deems it to be desirable. In addition, the Lord
      288
      Chancellor will be obliged to consult the committee before exercising his existing powers to make bankruptcy or winding-up rules.
      The committee will comprise four members of the judiciary, two members of the legal profession and an accountant, all of whom are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and such additional members as the Lord Chancellor might appoint.
      Power to make general rules for carrying into effect the objects of the Bankruptcy Act 1914 and the Companies Act 1948, so far as it relates to the winding-up of companies in England, is given to the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Secretary of State under Section 132 of the 1914 Act and Section 365 of the 1948 Act respectively. This power is exercisable by Statutory Instrument which is required to be laid before Parliament after being made.
      In Committee, the Opposition moved New Clause 6, which was designed to do very much the same as we are achieving here. The arguments adduced by the Opposition reflected the then view of the Law Society and Bar Council Joint Working Party which at that time was pressing for a rule-making committee similar to those concerned with the Supreme Court and County Court Rules.
      The main objection, which I stated in Committee, to the establishment of a rule-making committee as opposed to an advisory committee is that bankruptcy and companies winding-up rules are not exclusively concerned with court procedure, as are the Supreme Court and County Court Rules. Many of them deal with matters of an administrative nature in regard to the duty of official receivers and the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers under the Acts and the two kinds of rules tend to be intermixed. Whilst, therefore, the advisory committee will be consulted even on rules dealing only with administrative matters, it is desirable for the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to retain the power to make the rules, as opposed to having merely a power of veto.
      The proposed advisory committee will be composed of members of similar status and profession to those who would be members of a rule-making committee so

      289
      that their advice would have strong persuasive authority.
      The functions of the proposed committee will relate only to bankruptcy and winding-up rules in England and Wales. No arrangements require to be made for Scotland, where the practice is governed by Rules of Court.
      As on a variety of other matters concerning the Bill, as will be evidenced by some of the amendments that I shall be moving later, I have had the happy experience of entering into very full personal consultations with the professional bodies concerned in these matters. The new clause reflects an accommodation between the Department and the views of the professional bodies which I think is a happy one. I feel confident that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will support me, and I know that it has the support of those professional bodies with whom I have engaged in these fruitful discussions.
      Mr. Terence Higgins: As the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, this matter was debated at length in Committee and is reported in the Official Report of Standing Committee C proceedings on 17th June 1976 at c. 509–517. The point was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who unfortunately is unable to be with us immediately but hopes to join us a little later in our proceedings.
      As this is the first new clause and the first matter that we are debating today, perhaps I might say that I think that the changes which the Government have put forward on the Order Paper by way of amendment will, if carried, represent a significant improvement in the Bill. This is something of a triumph for a sensible approach by the Opposition and a sensible and responsible approach by the Government. Would that it were always so. I hope that as a result of this sensible approach we shall make reasonably rapid progress.
      My only regret is that I was unable to persuade the Under-Secretary of State and the Chief Whip a few nights ago to transfer some of the business on the Companies (No. 2) Bill to today, when we could have debated it at a more reasonable hour than we did then, having continued on that occasion until after 6 o'clock in the
      290
      morning. It is important that these technical matters, which are not controversial—there is no question of marching troops through the Lobby—should be debated at a reasonable time of day, because one needs to be conversant with the content and also aware of what the Government are doing.
      I would not wish to object to the proposal which the Government have now put forward for a committee. There is, I think, perhaps some difference of opinion—indeed, one of my hon. Friends may wish to stress this—on the extent to which we want to proliferate committees of this kind. The precise status of this particular body is of interest, as was brought out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport in Committee, reported at c. 510. He questioned precisely whether the Lord Chancellor should retain a veto and whether the body set up should be an advisory body.
      I understand from the Under-Secretary of State—I think I quote him correctly—that the committee will be such that the Lord Chancellor will be obliged to consult it. That is an important point. It will not be simply a body which may or may not be consulted. It will be a matter of obligation. That is important and it is consistent with the view that we have previously put forward.
      The Under-Secretary of State emphasised the fact that the Rules Committee is not exclusively concerned with court procedure and that it therefore presented some problems to him initially. He went on to say that it would have persuasive authority. I think that that is perhaps a little dangerous and may be a contradiction in terms, but at all events I do not doubt that the Lord Chancellor's Department will take account of the view which such a committee, if we agree to its establishment, will express.
      As to the importance of consultation, had there been adequate consultation on the Bill at the outset both with the Bar Council and the Law Society, a great many of the amendments which have now been accepted would have been incorporated in the original Bill. But this is a matter with which we are rightly concerned here. We put forward the argument and seem on this occasion to have persuaded the Under-Secretary of State to accept the view which we put forward.

      291
      The Government have now announced—although I am doubtful whether it is really new or a repetition of what was said in Committee—a more wide-ranging review of the insolvency laws. It may be that in the light of experience we shall need to look at this aspect of the question again, but for the moment I am content not to dissent from the new clause. It should fulfil a useful purpose. We should let it go at this stage, and hope that in practice it turns out to be an effective way of achieving our objectives, namely, an insolvency law for this country and a procedure in court on insolvency law which are satisfactory both to creditors and to debtors.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Cope: I shall not detain the House very long, sparsely attended as it is. The obvious lack of interest by the House in this measure does not, nevertheless, deter me from registering one point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred briefly in passing.
      My heart grows heavy every time we set up a new committee in this House. I am not clear why it is necessary that the committee to be set up under the new clause should be written into law. I think it could have been set up even outside the law. I realise that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench support the new clause, and I have read the debates which took place about it in Committee upstairs, and in the Second Reading Committee, which was also upstairs. Nevertheless, here it is, going forward into law.
      It is not with this proposed committee only that I am concerned. Hon. Members will be aware, from the Written Answers yesterday, and from a reference that my hon. Friend made, that there is to be in effect a new Blagden Committee set up under Mr. Kenneth Cork, than whom nobody knows more about this matter or is more competent to review it. But this is, nevertheless, all part of the over-elaborate process of consultation which we are setting up today in all kinds of fields.
      The insolvency law is, of course, important, and never more than today, when so many people, unfortunately, are coming in touch with this part of the law because of the way their own affairs have turned out. Nevertheless, to have two
      292
      new committees set up, to postpone the major decisions again, and to have constant review and constant change as the only prospect for the law on insolvency for another few years, is depressing to me.
      In the Second Reading Committee, brushing against this point, the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "I should inform the Committee that the Department has started on a review".
      This was in effect, not a review of the matters concerned in this clause but a review being set up under Mr. Cork. The Under-Secretary of State went on to say that this was
      "a major and daunting task."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 3rd March 1976; c. 1460.]
      It does not seem to have taken long to daunt the Government, because they have now handed it on to somebody else—in fact, to Mr. Cork. Certainly those words have proved true in the six months since the Second Reading Committee.
      It is a depressing prospect for practitioners. I am a chartered accountant but have never been active in this part of my profession's activities. It is a daunting prospect for practitioners to think that not only do we have this Bill, which itself changes the law, but also two committees which will make future reviews.
      For these reasons, therefore, although I shall not oppose the new clause, I shall see it go through with a heavy heart.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I feel that I ought to reply briefly to the points which have been made primarily by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), because I take a wholly different view of the value of consultation—perhaps as a result of experience on this Bill, but certainly for wider reasons than that—than that which he takes. I wish to make it quite clear that this rule-making advisory body is wholly distinct from the Cork Committee, the setting up of which was announced on 25th October.
      We are seeking to accommodate views which have been expressed to us very forcibly by the profession, which is very much concerned with the administration of these rules. This point was very well articulated by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) during the Committee stage, and I need not rehearse those arguments.

      293
      It is quite clear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that certainly the two Front Benches at least are now ad idem on this. I am sorry that we cannot carry the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South with us. He will not go as far as to take this matter to a Division, but he is not with us in his heart.
      I do not think that either the Cork Committee or the committee which we are now discussing represent an overelaborate process of consultation. Insolvency law affects practitioners. They are the experts. I have experts in my Department, but I am not sure that they, having considered the response to letters sent out to about 40 professional and commercial bodies in January, would regard themselves as the right people to carry out this wide-ranging review. This matter is not party-politically contentious, but it could become contentious—as I have learned—if we did not consult in the right way at the right time.
      We have to take into account the dramatic effects of EEC legislation upon our insolvency law and we have to try to deal with the deep and difficult problems posed in Committee. I am convinced that the right way to go about this is to consult widely and to try to reach agreement. If that is not possible, it is for the Government to make their judgment on the matter. I do not agree with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish to intervene briefly because I was involved on the edge of bankruptcy proceedings only a short time ago. I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he said this was not a party political question. It may not be party political in the sense that the two Front Benches seem to be able to get together on matters of this kind, but I take the view, based on my limited experience, that, in practice, the attitude and disposition of those who carry out bankruptcy proceedings leans towards those in business and leans upon those such as my brothers and their nine colleagues in the Clay Cross bankruptcy proceedings.
      I know that you may take the view, Mr. Speaker, that mention of Clay Cross is alien to the proceedings of this House and that we should not be debating it, but
      294
      as far as I am concerned they are the 11 people most recently made bankrupt and I wish to compare their bankruptcy proceedings and the way in which they were pushed around with the way in which some business men have been dealt with.
      Kenneth Cork provides a wonderful comparison with the way in which the honourable people at Clay Cross were dealt with. I want the Minister to bear in mind the case of 65-year old caretaker George Goodfellow, who was retiring from work after a lifetime of clocking-on and clocking-off—unlike many bankrupt business men. George had days, months and years of slogging away at his job and when, following legislation in this House, he received a cheque for £174 after the Court Line disaster, in which he lost his holiday and his money, along came the Official Receiver, acting in a political fashion, and said to little old George, an ex-Clay Cross councillor who had retired and was living on a paltry pension, that he was going to twist and squeeze every possible penny out of George because he had been made bankrupt.
      Not only did the Official Receiver take that £174 cheque, but he also took old George's car, which was several years old and not worth a tremendous amount. It was offered back to George at a certain price.
      This is one side of the coin—a 65-year old man who had slogged hard all his life, worked honourably on behalf of his party and, in my opinion, done nothing wrong, but attempted only to serve his fellow men. Now that he has retired and paid over what few assets he had to the Official Receiver, he has been asked to pay back £112 in income tax. This is a scandal.
      I have no doubt that these matters were not discussed in Committee. As far as the elitists in this House are concerned, bankruptcy proceedings relate only to those in business. I have no doubt that the people who were trampled on at Clay Cross were given no consideration.
      I want the Under-Secretary to bear in mind what I have told him about little George Goodfellow, an honourable man who, at the age of 65, is being tackled in a ferocious manner and asked to payback £112 in income tax despite the fact that he has already handed over his car, a cheque for £174 and other belongings. It is a disgrace.

      295
      On the other side of the coin we have Kenneth Cork, who is in charge of this important committee. Have his credentials been fully examined? I saw him on television the other night when he was supposed to be looking into Great Britain's accounts in a half-hour programme on ITV. Let us examine what this so-called great expert has been up to.
      Acting as Official Receiver in the £110 million Nation Life bankruptcy disaster, this same Kenneth Cork of W. H. Cork, Gully and Company recommended to the creditors that because William Stern had so few assets in comparison to the £110 million which went down the drain in this property scandal arising out of the Barber boom, the property chief should not be made bankrupt but should be allowed £20,000 a year to live on because he had been used to a life of grandeur. Cork made this astounding proposition and also recommended that should Stern earn or pick up any money above the £20,000 a year, two-thirds of it should go to the shareholders.
      Mr. Tim Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had read our Committee proceedings, he would know that, contrary to what he has just said, we spent a considerable time considering the problems of the small man who went into bankruptcy. We discussed this problem on a number of occasions. What the hon. Member is saying has nothing to do with the new clause under discussion.
      Mr. Skinner: It is not my job to tell you how to conduct the affairs of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) were not a point of order but a matter of argument.
      I am trying to bring to the notice of the House something of great importance. The hon. Member may be right and discussions may have taken place in Committee, but no doubt they were about small business men. That is precisely my point. There may have been discussions about those who go bankrupt. I am talking about a special set of circumstances that involves 11 people and has resulted in hardship for several of them. I am trying to counterpose the alternative suggestions made by the so-called expert,
      296
      Kenneth Cork, who has been promoted as one of the most important accountants in the land. I want to remind the House of what this man has been up to.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Higgins: I am still not clear about what this has to do with the new clause.
      Mr. Skinner: I appreciate the point already made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Cork Committee was a different thing from the Standing Committee. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a debate and not a series of statements. People do not rise in this Chamber and trot out a statement, to be followed by someone else trotting out another statement. I am attempting to bring to the notice of the House, and to anyone else who cares to listen to me or to read my remarks, the fact that arising out of references to the Cork Committee, perhaps it would be a good idea for someone else to remind the House of what Mr. Kenneth Cork has been dealing with recently.
      Mr. Cork was the man who made the preposterous suggestion that William Stern, who had been in charge of a company that lost £110 million in the property boom, should have £20,000 a year on which to live because he had been used to a life of grandeur. It was Kenneth Cork who was making that recommendation to the creditors. That should be considered in relation to the way in which the 11 Clay Cross councillors were dealt with in bankruptcy proceedings.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should bear in mind that bankruptcy proceedings are not merely about big business men or small business men who go bankrupt. They are about other people, as well. In this case, they are about principled people. When these recommendations are looked at in future, the House should not be leaning upon those involved in bankruptcy proceedings, such as the 11 Clay Cross councillors. I want my hon. Friend—if it is possible, through his officials—to look at the way in which some of these councillors are being dealt with at present and to see that they are not leaned on any more. That is the reason for my intervention, and I think that it is worth while.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I understand the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He was intimately connected with those involved in the recent bankruptcy arising out of the Clay Cross episode. However, what he has said does not represent, unfortunately, anything but the most unfair attack upon officials in my Department, trustees and liquidators, who must carry out their job acording to the law. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that they do not inspire bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy proceedings occur because there is a judgment that must be enforced, and it is their job to enforce it. It is not for them to enter into the merits or demerits of the situation that led to the bankruptcy.
      Mr. Alan Clark: Does it not remain true that there is something here of considerable public concern? That is that where prominent people become insolvent, for reasons that may or may not be disreputable, they appear to be given preferential treatment in certain circumstances. There appears to be some kind of general consensus that they should be allowed to preserve vestiges of the way of life that they formerly enjoyed.
      Mr. Davis: There is absolutely no merit in pursuing this argument at this stage. We should be going on for a long time, and anyway, it has no relevance to the subject matter of the debate. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
      Be that as it may, if the official receiver, the liquidator or the trustee fail to carry out the responsibilities imposed upon them by law, or if they act over-zealously in the implementation of those duties, there is a recourse to the courts. That is something that is available to the creditors. That is the safety net. It is no use my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover ignoring that fact. If he feels that a particular debtor or group of debtors has been dealt with unfairly by the official receiver or someone else, there is always the availability of a recourse to the courts. That is something that my hon. Friend, in alliance with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark)—a somewhat strange alliance—must not overlook, and it would be quite wrong for the House to overlook that point.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      OTHER PROVISIONS ABOUT ADMINISTRATION ORDERS.
      '(1) Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 and section 4(3) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (under which an application for an administration order and the making of an order requiring the debtor to furnish a list of creditors with a view to the making of an administration order constitute an act of bankruptcy) shall cease to have effect.
      (2) In section 4(1)(a) of the said Act of 1971 (power to make administration order on application for attachment of earnings order) for the words "an order should be made for the administration of his estate" there shall be substituted the words "an administration order should be made".'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 16, 18, 19, 43 and 44.
      The Solicitor-General: I shall be dealing with some fairly technical matters, but that is my function. I begin by commenting that later on the Amendment Paper there is an amendment, No. 15, to delete Clause 10. That amendment stands in the names of Opposition Members. It may be that when the House debates that amendment I shall be able to say something that will evoke a welcome from the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). The reason for that and the events leading up to that outcome are perhaps best reserved until later.
      However, when these matters were discussed in Committee it was on the assumption that Clause 10 would remain part of the Bill. I listened to what was said in Committee by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. and learned Member for Southport. I hope that I listened sympathetically. I related what I heard to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
      These are technical matters. There was no point in making a party issue out of

      299
      them. Where we could meet the objections pointed out, we endeavoured to do so. That was the purport of Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. That no longer arises, so I do not propose to move Amendment No. 16 or Amendment No. 18 in this group, or, subsequently, Amendment No. 17. Having accepted the proposals to improve Clause 10, I propose in due course to accept an amendment to delete Clause 10 itself. But there is virtually no limit to the extent to which we are now seeking to accommodate Opposition Members. Because those discussions shed some light on provisions that were already on the statute book, it was thought that the same arguments ought to be applied.
      I shall try briefly to explain the purpose of some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 16 was tabled to meet a difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Southport. He pointed to the expression in Clause 10
      "an order providing for the administration of his estate",
      which refers to an administration order. The hon. and learned Member said that that expression was misleading because it presents a picture of a court or of someone else realising the debtor's assets and, in a sense, distributing them. As he put it, it was, "We shall do this with that land; we shall do this with that bank account; we shall do this with that business", and so on. He pointed out, with some force, that that is not what happens in fact. The principal purpose in any event of an administration order is to order the debtor to pay by instalments and chiefly out of future income.
      The hon. and learned Member for Southport said that those words were misleading and the proposal was simply to change them to the words "administration order". Those words were not unique to this Bill. They occur in Section 4(1)(a) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, and the purpose of New Clause 2(2) is to make an identical amendment in relation to that provision.
      Another matter which originally arose under Amendment No. 18—Clause 10(5) had it remained in the Bill—referred to the order by the court to furnish a list of creditors, that is prior to considering whether to make an administration
      300
      order. It provided that this order should be an act of bankruptcy. The hon. Member for Worthing pointed out that this did not meet with universal satisfaction. The purpose had been to protect the creditor. Since an administration order might deprive a creditor of remedies which were otherwise available to him, it was felt that he ought to have an opportunity of presenting a bankruptcy petition between the making of the order for the list and the making of the administration order.
      It was intended to give him that opportunity during the interval between the two orders. That might have been difficult, because there might have been no other act of bankruptcy by which he could proceed and, therefore, it was proposed to make the order for the making of the list itself an act of bankruptcy.
      That was the reason for including the provision, but since our discussions in Committee my noble Friend and I have made some inquiries. It transpires that the similar provisions in the Acts of 1965 and 1971 are not frequently used and we concluded that on balance they brought very little benefit to creditors to offset the obvious burden on debtors. New Clause 2(1) repeals those provisions—Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 and Section 4(3) of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. That is the purpose of New Clause 2 and I thought it right to explain it to the House.
      Amendments Nos. 19, 43 and 44 are all consequential on New Clause 2 and I propose to move those formally when their turn is reached. There is also an amendment consequential on No. 15. It may be as well to give notice that I have prepared that in manuscript form. When we reach Clause 12, I shall seek to move it.
      Mr. Higgins: I intervene only briefly. It may be that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) will also wish to say something about the new clause. The Solicitor-General has said that there is no limit to the extent to which the Government are prepared to go to meet the Opposition. I think there probably is a limit and I suspect that it has been reached. It appears to be 100 per cent. We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for that.

      301
      I think it is the case, following the consultation, that we had not given careful thought to these highly technical matters. We are glad that the Government have seen fit on this occasion to meet the point we make.
      4.45 p.m.
      We are particularly glad to learn that when we come to Clause 10 the Government will accept our amendment to delete that clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport has pointed out that it seems to be of no advantage and, indeed, of some considerable disadvantage. I am worried that the Solicitor-General discussed at length the amendments that he is not actually proposing to move. That will delay the proceedings unnecessarily. In all events, I understand that Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 will not be moved by the Government.
      The Solicitor-General: There is no pleasing the hon. Gentleman. I was elaborating on those amendments because they shed light on the amendments I was proposing to move.
      Mr. Higgins: The last thing I want to do is introduce an element of acrimony into these proceedings. We debated these matters in Committee—columns 67, 68 and 445 of Hansard—at great length. I do not want to go over it all now. The Government have effectively appreciated our arguments and we are grateful to them.
      We are also grateful for the Solicitor-General's comments on whether an administration order should be regarded as an act of bankruptcy—a subject which we also discussed in some considerable detail. I personally had not appreciated the point he made about earlier legislation also requiring amendment. On reflection we think that right. We discussed administration orders at considerable length. We were a little worried that the Solicitor-General had not fully appreciated precisely what they did. However, I think that is now common ground between us.
      I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for all that he has said and I hope that the House will agree to the new clause, subject to any technical points that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport may wish to make.
      Mr. Ian Percival: I have no technical points to raise. I rise only to say that I am pleased and that I look forward to being further pleased as the evening wears on. Only a small point is being dealt with in Subsection (2) particularly. I am glad to have the chance to acknowledge that it is good and that the Government have recognised that even small things like this provision, where the wording is wrong, are worth putting right.
      Anyone reading the words "administration of estate" would have thought they meant exactly that. But, in fact, they did not mean that. They were not introduced for any evil reasons. It was just that no one stopped to think that they might mislead. It is good that the Government have recognised the argument and have taken steps to put it right.
      I acknowledge and recognise that the Government have done exactly what the Solicitor-General has said in respect of the new clause. Having accepted the arguments in relation to the provisions in the Bill, the Government asked themselves whether there was an other statutory provision to which that same argument applied. They have come forward with New Clause 2. It is an excellent way of dealing with the business of the House and I hope that it is a precedent that the Government will follow frequently.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      FEES CHARGED FOR WINDING-UP COMPANIES
      'Section 365(3) of the Companies Act 1948 shall be amended by the addition of the end of subsection (3) of the words—
      "Any scale of fees set out in a statutory instrument submitted to Parliament shall ensure that the fees charged reflect costs so that, taking one year with another, there is no cross subsidisation between firms where the amount brought to credit is less than £100,000, less than £1,000,000 and more than 1,000,000."'.—[Mr. Higgins.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Higgins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      On the face of it, the new clause is of a general kind, but, as the Under-Secretary will be aware, it relates to a point

      303
      which arose on 30th October 1975 in respect of a highly emotional issue, namely, the Nation Life Insurance Company collapse. At that time I expressed concern at the extent of the fees which the Government were charging in relation to the winding up of that insurance company. That was a matter of general concern because it became apparent in the liquidation that the amount which the policyholders received might be significantly reduced by the fees which the Government were charging at that time. At various stages there was some dispute in the courts about the actual figures involved. The Department of Trade originally said £282,000 but this was later increased to £350,000.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: That was an estimate, as the hon. Gentleman knows. A new order came to light on 1st October of that year.
      Mr. Higgins: I understand that point. But there was some confusion about whether the figure was £282,000 or £350,000. It was a significant difference reflecting a change in the rules that this House has agreed under a Statutory Instrument. At all events, I think that the point of principle was clear—that whereas previously the Government had carried out this service for free, they were proposing in future to do so as a percentage of the money invested. That is the crux of the provision in this new clause, which seeks to amend the existing legislation and in effect to overrule the existing Statutory Instruments. The point at issue is whether the basis for computing the Department's charges is satisfactory. We all appreciate that the charge in the Nation Life case was substantial.
      No one on the Opposition side, anxious as we are to confine public expenditure and to ensure that any costs of Government service are charged out, would disagree that the arrangements we make should cover those costs. But there is a problem over the burden of the different categories of firm or person going into liquidation. What worried me at the time and still worries me to some extent is that the balance is not right.
      We are all agreed that the total costs that the Department levied should reflect its total costs, but it seems that the Statutory Instrument which so far we
      304
      have approved and which the new clause would override means that for the medium-sized firm the burden of the Government audit fees and other charges in connection with the winding-up is probably about right. In the case of a small firm, that is perhaps more doubtful. There are obviously no economies of scale involved and perhaps the fees should be adjusted to allow for that.
      It is at the upper end of the scale that we are particularly concerned, because the assets of an insurance company which goes into liquidation are likely to be very large. Consequently, on the present basis of charging, the Government audit fee and the other charges levied are also likely to be extremely high. I doubt whether that charge and the present basis of charging are equitable, in the sense that the people concerned are charged the true cost. If the new clause is accepted we should reach a more equitable basis.
      I do not think that this matter was adequately considered by the House in advance of the Nation Life affair. It is typically the kind of thing which goes through in a Statutory Instrument, probably on the nod and without adequate debate. So this is simply a probing clause designed to suggest that the present basis of charging in winding up, which is one of the matters covered by the Bill, needs to be reviewed.
      I hope that, in the general spirit of co-operation that we have now engendered, the Minister will be able to be forthcoming, to say that he has reviewed the matter and will consider accepting the new clause or tabling a new Statutory Instrument to put the matter right. It is certainly difficult to believe that in the case I have mentioned the cost of the audit was as much as £350,000, but no doubt the Minister can elaborate on that.
      That is the yardstick by which we should judge the present situation, whether the amount levied—no doubt the Minister will say whether the estimate was £350,000 and whether it has changed since—reflected the charges and costs incurred in carrying out the audit. If it is that high, we should seriously consider the scope for economies in the Department in this respect at a time when public expenditure is very important.

      305
      What gave rise to the new clause was a particularly emotional case, but I hope that the Minister can give some more general reply. It is worth raising the subject on Report rather than in Committee, because at the time it raised strong feelings among many hon. Members with constituents who had been badly hit by the Nation Life collapse and who felt that the burden which they were being asked to pay to the Department was unduly and unfairly heavy.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: There can be no doubt that the issue which gives rise to this debate was emotive. We are not debating today the merits of the Nation Life situation but rather how the Government compute their fees under the fees order. I gather that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is probing here with a suggestion that we should aim to fix the fees on the basis that in certain groups of compulsory liquidations the overall amount chargeable would be related to the actual cost of the work involved. I do not think that he would seriously contend that the new clause represents the last word on the matter, but he is perfectly entitled to probe on a matter of this importance.
      I shall deal first with the basis on which we approach these matters—a basis which commended itself to the House because the Companies (Department of Trade) (Fees) Order 1975, which came into operation on 1st October that year, did so with the concurrence of the House. That order authorises the fees and percentages to be charged in respect of the various proceedings for the compulsory winding-up of companies. These include fees and percentages chargeable by, first, the official receiver when he acts as liquidator in respect of some of his duties—for example, he has to realise assets, to distribute funds to creditors and so on—and, second, by the Department, which has to audit accounts, invest funds and so on.
      But there are other duties which both the official receiver and the Department perform in connection with the winding up of companies for which no fee is prescribed in the order. I should not complain if the hon. Member were not aware of this situation, because this is a technical matter and I confess that I was not aware of it myself until I became involved in these matters.
      306
      Under this category, in cases of compulsory liquidation, the official receiver has a statutory duty to investigate the reasons for failure and any criminal offence and the Department has functions to perform in relation to the conduct of compulsory liquidations. It has to make banking arrangements, keep accounts, undertake the audit, deal with the investment of funds and pay out moneys from the liquidation account. The conduct of liquidators may have to be investigated where complaints are made. It has to deal generally with complaints by creditors and others arising out of compulsory liquidations. So the fees chargeable under the order are not intended to cover all the costs of the Insolvency Service. However, these costs are expected to be recovered, as far as possible, from fees and income accruing from the investment of estate funds in both bankruptcies and companies winding up.
      5.0 p.m.
      The work of the Insolvency Service has to be undertaken for the benefit of the country as a whole, because it must represent the interests of the creditors. Therefore, it cannot be paid for merely by charging any particular estate for the actual work done in that connection. It is clear that in many estates the assets are inadequate to cover the cost of the work done. The service would therefore be incurring a permanent financial deficit. It is necessary to fix the fees at a level sufficient to produce an overall income which, together with the income from investments, will as far as possible meet the overall costs of the service.
      Despite this policy, in the financial year ended 31st March 1975 the service was able to recover only about 80 per cent. of its costs. There is a practical limitation, which I fully recognise, on the extent to which fees can be increased without diminishing returns. Creditors are already discouraged by the amount taken by preferential creditors, and they will not consider it worth their while to petition if the remaining corpus of assets is further mulcted by costs and fees. There has to be a point beyond which one cannot go on doing that sort of thing.
      The clause would have a curious effect. It would increase the amounts chargeable to estates by official receivers and the

      307
      Department, because the cost of the work done in most cases exceeds the fee charged. However, I concede that it would result in lower charges where large amounts are brought to credit—for example, Nation Life. There is already power under the fees order for the Treasury to sanction a reduction of the fees in such cases where the Secretary of State for Trade considers that they may be excessive. But if the actual costs charged to the estates under the clause were first subsidised by the income from investments, the service would operate at a loss, because it would be able to recover its costs only in cases where there were sufficient assets. The cost of the work done in other cases would fall to be dealt with out of public expenditure. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would consider that to be a proper result.
      Another effect of the clause would be to increase the cost of the Insolvency Service, because detailed accounts would have to be provided in relation to work done in each case so that the cost could be calculated. That is not done at present, and it was not done under a Conservative Government.
      I come now to the question of Nation Life and the actual fees charged to date. First, in the category where the Department of Trade charges arise, the audit fee was £60,260. In the second category, which relates to certain statutory duties which the Official Receiver performs, the statutory stationery fee charged under the fees order amounted to £18,127; the realisation fee was £16,701; and the ad valorem fee, by far the largest proportion, was £205,595. The total statutory fees to date have amounted to £300,683. The total realisations in the accounts so far audited amount to £14,099,752. There is likely to be further realisation of assets and there will be further audit and ad valorem fees chargeable. I cannot foresee what they are likely to be, because they depend on what occurs.
      Mr. Higgins: I have the greatest difficulty in reconciling any of the figures the hon. Gentleman has just given with the ones he gave in the debate on Nation
      308
      Life on the date to which I referred. I understood then that the legal costs were £500,000, that the liquidator's and special manager's costs were expected to be £700,000, and that the Department's audit fee was £282,000. These seem to be totally different orders of magnitude, let alone totally different figures. Can the Minister reconcile them? I know that it is a complex matter, but it is one of some concern.
      Mr. Davis: I am not dealing with the legal fees or with the liquidator's fees. They are separate matters and are not encompassed in what the hon. Gentleman has raised today. I am dealing with the statutory fees. What I was seeking to say in that debate—I was corrected on the matter—was that it was expected earlier that the statutory fee would be about £282,000. Then there was an increase from 1st October 1975, and it was then estimated that the fee would be of the order of £350,000. The figure I have just recounted is the actual fee up to the present of £300,683. I hope that that puts the matter right for the hon. Gentleman.
      The work carried out by the Insolvency Service in this case can also be conveniently divided between that done by the official receiver and that done by the Insolvency Service headquarters. The official receiver was appointed provisional liquidator of the company by order of the court on 3rd July 1974. He was directed to take possession of and to protect the assets of the company, and in performing that function he took over the control of the company previously exercised by the board of directors. He subsequently applied to the court for, and was granted, leave to continue the company's business for limited purposes.
      On 29th July 1974 the court ordered the company to be wound up, and the official receiver thereupon became provisional liquidator pending the appointment of a liquidator—that is, in the usual sense and not merely for the primary purpose of acting as receiver prior to liquidation. In his new capacity as provisional liquidator he negotiated arrangements with the clearing banks for them to continue operating the direct debit system for collecting policyholder's premiums. In this connection he entered personally into guarantee arrangements

      309
      with the clearing banks. He was involved in making numerous reports, applications and attendances before the court in connection with the continuance of the company's business. He made arrangements for a statement of affairs to be lodged and summoned meetings of creditors and contributories. This involved the issue of some 40,000 notices and forms of proof of debt. The official receiver chaired these meetings and reported the results to the court, following which Mr. G. A. Weiss, of Cork Gully, was appointed liquidator.
      Subsequent to the meetings the official receiver sent to each creditor and shareholder of the company a summary of the statement of affairs, together with his observations thereon. To obtain the information for the meetings and his observations the official receiver interrogated the officers of the company, and he is still engaged in carrying out a full investigation of the company's affairs.
      The Department of Trade, since the first appointment of the official receiver as provisional liquidator, has acted as banker for both the official receiver and the subsequent liquidator, and in this capacity has arranged for the investment of funds as they became available within the ambit of court orders. Subsequently the Department arranged for the realisation of these investments and prepared payable orders to enable distribution to be made to the creditors.
      Two dividends have been paid so far—the first for 41·5p, which I was able to report to the House on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the second for 11p. I gather that a third dividend is expected to be paid shortly. I am not sure what will be the amount of that dividend.
      The Department has further assisted the court in arriving at decisions on the interest to be attributable to the various funds and in resolving the conflicts between the various groups of policy holders. The House will recall that the Department appeared as amicus curiae in the proceedings, on the liquidator's application, to determine the rights of policyholders regarding liquidators generally.
      In addition, the Department has given advice and help to the liquidator, particularly in connection with his application
      310
      for special bank accounts, his control of the Committee of Inspection and the expenses incurred by that body, and in connection with bank fees. At present the Department is also required by law to carry out a detailed audit upon submission of accounts from the liquidator. These are due every six months, and the audit thereof is a major operation. Bi-annual audits will continue until the liquidator is released.
      Mr. Tim Renton: The Minister said that the third dividend would be paid shortly. Will that be the last dividend? I did not understand whether it was the third and final dividend or whether there would be a further dividend thereafter.
      Mr. Davis: I did not say that it would be the final dividend. Dividends depend on the realisation of assets. The liquidator has determined that it is appropriate shortly to pay a further dividend. What further dividends will follow will be dependent upon what he is able to realise.
      I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to the hon. Member for Worthing and the House that what has occurred in relation to Nation Life has fully complied with the statutory requirements. The basis which the hon. Gentleman proposed for the Insolvency Service could lead to a substantial financial imposition borne by the taxpayers which I would not expect him, on reflection, to embrace as a policy. This debate has given me a useful opportunity to recount what has happened about Nation Life, and to that extent I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for bringing us up to date in what is in many ways a tragic story. I am also grateful to him for distinguishing between the legal costs, manager's expenses and so on and the costs of the Department. We have had no clear indication whether the Department's fee of £368,300—
      Mr. Clinton Davies: Let us get it right. The hon. Gentleman has added another £68,000, which is a substantial addition. The figure is £300,683.
      Mr. Higgins: I have now understood what the hon. Gentleman said. We are not clear to what extent that figure reflects the costs of the operation. We tabled the clause because under the arrangements

      311
      which the Under-Secretary of State supports there is a degree of cross-subsidisation between liquidations of different sizes. I understand that in many cases there are no assets and the cost falls on the Insolvency Service. On the other hand, firms with large assets make big payments and there is, therefore, an element of cross-subsidisation.
      We are worried about whether that is the right principle. We are anxious that the service should be self-financing, but we need a scale which as far as possible avoids cross-subsidisation.
      I should like to consider what the Under-Secretary of State said about who is appropriately charged to cover any deficit in the service. It is a little curious that the people who are charged for the services provided by the Insolvency Service for those who have no assets should be the people who are themselves in liquidation but who happen to have some assets. It is nice to be able to balance out the accounts and say that the Insolvency Service pays for itself. There is a lot to be said for that, but it is a little curious that the people who pay should be those who are also in liquidation.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Insolvency Service should get even more into the red than it is at present? That is what would happen if his argument were pursued.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Higgins: That is not what I am saying. We should like to know the degree of cross-subsidisation to enable us to form a judgment. Perhaps I shall table a Question later. That will give the hon. Gentleman—whose briefing on this subject on earlier occasions has not been as perfect as it might be—an opportunity to go into the matter. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing us up to date. I shall try through a Question to get exact information, because there are limits within which one would wish to operate. There may be cases which involve payments by individuals who may be every bit as hard up as other individuals.
      In view of what the Under-Secretary of State said in his helpful reply, I do not wish to press the clause which, as he has said, is a peg on which to hang the argument rather than a clause we wish
      312
      to see embodied in the Bill. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      INCREASE OF MONETARY LIMITS RELATING TO BANKRUPTCY AND WINDING UP
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
      "(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations increase or reduce any of the sums for the time being specified in the provisions amended by subsection (1) above.".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41.
      Mr. Davis: The amendments have the effect of empowering the Secretary of State by regulation to vary—that is to say, increase, further increase, reduce or further reduce—the monetary limits specified in Part I of Schedule 1 and of subjecting the draft of any such regulations to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
      Those who served on the Committee will recall that Clause 1(2) of the original Bill was struck out. That amendment imposed upon the Government the extraordinary burden of having to come to the House with a Bill every time they wanted to achieve what is set out here. That is wholly unacceptable and completely inconsistent with the Opposition's attitude of urging us to adopt a flexibility of mind. Flexibility would have been impossible to achieve if the amendment had been allowed to stand.
      The original proposal related only to the increase or further increase of monetary limits, and I indicated that I thought it appropriate that we should have the right to vary both in relation to increases and reductions. That is what we seek to achieve by the amendment. I think the House will agree that the alternative carried by the Committee through fortuitous circumstances is untenable. Having regard to the importance of the regulations, we feel it right that they should be subjected to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure which we originally prescribed.

      313
      The purpose of Amendment No. 32 is to provide that no reduction in the following monetary limits shall affect any cases in which the proceedings were begun before the coming into force of the reduction: the maximum value of the debtor's assets for summary sequestration in Scotland; the maximum amount for the jurisdiction of the county court, in a case of bankruptcy, to adjudicate upon any claim not arising out of the bankruptcy; the maximum value of the debtor's estate for summary administration in bankruptcy; the maximum share capital for winding up jurisdiction of a county court in England and Wales or a sheriff court in Scotland.
      The amendment will also have the effect of ensuring that any increase or reduction in the maximum value of a bankrupt's necessary goods which are exempt from division among the creditors will not affect any case in which the receiving order occurred before the coming into force of the increase for reduction.
      The last group of amendments merely sets out after "increase" the words "or reduction". This will have the effect of applying the transitional provisions in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Part II relating to preferential wages and paragraph 5 relating to the amount of the judgment debt above which the sheriff is required to retain the proceeds of execution for 14 days, to any reduction as well as to any increase in the monetary limits.
      The fourth amendment will have the effect of applying the transitional provisions in paragraph 3 to any increase or reduction in the maximum salary payable to a curate where a benefice is sequestrated under Section 50(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1914.
      Mr. Higgins: This is a splendid British compromise. Originally the Under-Secretary wanted to make these changes by negative resolution. We succeeded in carrying an amendment that ensured that he had to do so by means of a Bill. The hon. Gentleman is now proposing that the affirmative procedure be adopted. On the whole, that is not a bad compromise. It is the sort of compromise that all Oppositions seek to achieve, and we have achieved it. I see no reason to complain.
      314
      In addition, the hon. Gentleman has eliminated any possibility of restrospection. I do not think that we can ask for any more. We are grateful to him for the amendments and I am happy to go along with them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 12, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 3, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'and' to end of line 17 and insert:
      'no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of them has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

    Clause 6

      POWER TO DISPENSE WITH PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF DEBTORS
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 26, leave out from 'particular' to end of line 30 and insert—

      '(a) whether the debtor has made a full disclosure of his affairs;

      (b) whether he has been adjudged bankrupt on a previous occasion;

      (c) the number and nature of his debts;

      (d) whether his bankruptcy would for any reason be a matter of public concern; and

      (e) such other matters as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by rules made under section 132 of the said Act of 1914.'.

      The effect of the amendment is to provide specifically for any additional criteria, if needed, by which the court will determine whether to make an order dispensing with the public examination to be prescribed by the rules. The format of the provision has also been altered to make reference easier. That alteration has been made following the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). We have come to an accommodation and I think that we have succeeded in making reference easier.
      Mr. Higgins: The format is a great deal better. We now have the advantage of paragraph (e), but other than that I think that all the provisions are the same. I am not clear what the hon. Gentleman feels might conceivably be covered by the paragraph. Perhaps he will give us some indication. However, I do not wish to dissent from the views he has put forward.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: It was to provide a residual discretion in the court after it was thought that the other matters were not sufficiently full. I think that they were sufficient but this puts the matter beyond reasonable doubt.
      Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): I rise briefly to ask my hon. Friend to explain the full meaning of paragraph (a), which states:
      "whether the debtor has made a full disclosure of his affairs".
      Does that include the directors' fees in a firm where the receiver has been brought in?
      My hon. Friend may be aware of a firm in my constituency where the directors had been helping themselves to the till. They paid themselves fees well in excess of what were thought to be reasonable by the creditors. It was thought that those directors had to a certain degree created a financial situation in their own firm—it was a family firm—whereby the business had to be passed to the official receiver for his attention.
      Paragraph (b) states:
      "whether he has been adjudged bankrupt on a previous occasion".
      These cases come to the attention of a number of people who watch the Press very carefully. However, there must be millions of people who do not observe the notices of bankruptcy or of bankruptcy proceedings. To my knowledge there are many decent business men and business women who operate on a small scale, selling their services to other firms and paying wages and salaries, income tax and other matters on behalf of their staff. They then find that a firm with which they have been dealing has gone into liquidation. What worries them is that a member of the firm or family may open up in business under another name to carry on what appears to be the same business that has gone into liquidation.
      Will my hon. Friend explain how we can rid ourselves of what I call business pirates? Clearly they are pirating. They are doing something that is detestable. They know that they are trading at the expense of honest business men who are paying their way. At the end of the day there appears to be no protection against the vandals who lurch from one business
      316
      to another, robbing other business men time after time. Sometimes the robbery takes place in their own names and on other occasions in the names of other people or other members of the family.
      Surely the House and the country are entitled to know what the Government are prepared to do by way of legislation to protect the good business interests. These questions need answering and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some indication of what is intended in this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Ian Percival: Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to say a little more about paragraph (e). I appreciate that generally speaking there is an advantage in retaining some sort of elasticity, but this is a bit more than that.
      In Committee we discussed the desirability of having the criteria set out by Parliament in the statute, and that is what was done. The first part of the amendment is putting into tabular form the criteria laid down by Parliament. However, paragraph (e) is introducing something quite different. This is not some flexibility which can be exercised by Statutory Instrument laid by the Minister and either negatived or made subject to the affirmative procedure. In fact, the paragraph is providing for an extra parliamentary alteration of the criteria.
      Has the hon. Gentleman a specific matter in mind that he hopes will be dealt with fairly soon? Is it for that reason that he thought some elastic and simple procedure such as this should be introduced? We are not against the provision, but we are a little concerned because it appears to be a rather different way of introducing elasticity from that which is usually employed.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I shall try to deal briefly with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). If he examines the clause he will see that we are dealing with the power to dispense with public examinations and the duty imposed on the court in that respect. Therefore, the point he raised is not wholly germane.
      My hon. Friend said that we should seek to rid ourselves of pirates in business.

      317
      I agree with that concept, and I ask him to reflect on Clause 9 relating to the disqualification of directors. He should also reflect on a provision which we inserted in the Companies (No. 2) Bill only last week providing for a register of disqualified directors. All these matters go some way, imperfectly though it may be, towards the achievement of a noble aim which I hope the House will find unexceptionable.
      The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) invited me to give reasons why we thought it right to import paragraph (e). We thought it right that the criteria to which courts should have regard when deciding whether to dispense with public examination should be introduced into the Bill rather than that they should simply be laid down in the bankruptcy rules. The hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with that point in Committee.
      We have to reflect on the rôle of the official receiver and on when he should make an application for an order to dispense. We take the view that he should be under a duty to apply for an order to dispense where he considers that these criteria are met in a particular case. Therefore, we intend to seek amendment to the rules to that effect and to provide for a report to be submitted by the official receiver in support of his application drawing attention to relevant matters and to any objection to the order to dispense about which a creditor might notify him. That again was a point raised in Committee.
      The application would be made ex parte by the official receiver, but only by him. I do not need to rehearse this matter further because we debated whether the right of application should be made by people other than official receivers. It was the Government's view that it would not be right for that to be done.
      It is not intended to provide in the rules for notice of the application to be given to creditors or debtors. Amendments to the rules will be sought to provide for a copy of the order dispensing with the public examination to be served on the debtor and notice of the order given to creditors not less than seven days before the date fixed for examination.
      In bankruptcy the permutation of circumstances which a court may be asked to
      318
      consider in determining whether to dispense with a public examination is very difficult to forecast. We have tried to set out certain criteria, but there may be additional ones. It would not be appropriate now to try to identify more closely the circumstances in which to act or not to act in a particular context. Therefore, this amendment provides some degree of flexibility, and I regard it as the right way in which to proceed.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      AUTOMATIC DISCHARGE OF BANKRUPT
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 19, leave out 'absolutely'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may also take Government Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      Mr. Davis: This is a somewhat complex matter. Although I shall try to summarise it, I may not accomplish the purpose very well, and then I shall have to go into the matter in greater depth.
      Under Clause 7 a person will be granted an automatic discharge on a particular date, usually five years after adjudication, in the circumstances prescribed in the clause if he has not already been discharged under Section 26 of the Bankruptcy Act 1914. The purpose of these amendments is to explain what is meant by the word "discharged", which appears in subsections (2)(a) and (4)(a).
      The amendments will have the effect of making it plain, taking account of the fact that various kinds of qualified orders of discharge may be made on a Section 26 application, when a person is to be regarded as undischarged at the relevant date so that the automatic discharge provision will take effect. In the meantime the bankrupt may make an ordinary application under Section 26 for an order to enable him to accelerate the discharge date. If an application is made and the court had granted a discharge by virtue of the fact that any period of suspension has expired, the automatic discharge provisions will not operate because that has become unnecessary.
      I hope that with that limited amount of verbiage the House will accept the amendments with acclamation.
      Mr. Higgins: I shall read with interest in tomorrow's Official Report the Minister's explanation of the amendments. My impression from listening to it was that it made good sense, which in itself is a triumph. We debated these matters in Standing Committee on 8th June and the arguments are set out in ccs. 317 to 320. However, there is still one point about which I am uncertain. As I understand the situation, there will be an automatic review after five years and, if that goes through, the person concerned will be discharged. I think I am right in saying that if the individual concerned applies for a discharge before then and is unsuccessful, the automatic review does not happen at the end of the five years.
      I do not think that that was what we intended, and it certainly seems an odd result. Obviously it will be a deterrent against a person applying for discharge before the end of five years. Therefore, there will be more undischarged bankrupts hanging around than is necessary. Will the Minister confirm whether the wording is such that if a person applied for a discharge within five years, he would effectively be subject to an automatic review at the end of that period?
      Mr. Clinton Davis: If the man is successful, it does not matter. If he is unsuccessful, the automatic discharge will not take effect. He must therefore carefully consider what he wants to do. We shall be dealing with this matter in subsequent provisions.
      Mr. Higgins: Do we really want to create a situation in which someone is deterred from applying for a discharge and gives up the right of automatic review at the end of the period? As the Minister says, if that person is successful, it does not matter, but if he is unsuccessful, do we want to force him to apply again at the end of the period when there are certain consequences which, from his point of view, are undesirable? If someone feels that he is able to apply and that he will be successful, he should be able to apply without incurring this penalty. Perhaps the Minister will consider this matter between now and the return of this Bill from the other place?
      Mr. Clinton Davis: He is seeking to pre-empt the automatic discharge, and the
      320
      court will have to consider certain circumstances in relation to that application which would have some impact in the determination of automatic discharge. In these circumstances, if he gets an adverse result the debtor has brought it upon his own head.
      It is a question of balance. We have given it a lot of thought between Committee and Report. I do not believe that one can reach an ideal solution here. It is always a question of balance and we believe that the right balance has been struck.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: Nos. 6, in page 5, line 35 leave out 'absolutely'.
      No. 7, in page 5, line 44 at end insert'—
      (5) In subsections (2)(a) and (4)(a) above references to discharge are references to discharge by an absolute order of discharge or by the expiration of the period, or satisfaction of any requirement, specified by a suspended or conditional order.'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

    Clause 9

      DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTORS OF INSOLVENT COMPANIES
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, leave out lines 24 to 29 and insert—
      '(i) is or has been a director of a company which has at any time gone into liquidation (whether while he was a director or subsequently) and was insolvent at that time; and
      (ii) is or has been a director of another such company which has gone into liquidation within five years of the date on which the first-mentioned company went into liquidation; and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Davis: The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the original intention of the clause in certain respects, namely, for the conditions of Clause 9(1)(a) to be met. First, the person concerned must be or have at some time been a director of at least two companies. Secondly, the companies must have gone into liquidation within five years of each other as a result of either a winding-up order made by the

      321
      court or of a resolution for voluntary winding up. Thirdly, the companies must be insolvent at the date of the order for winding up or of the resolution for voluntary winding up.
      This clause was very difficult, but the whole Committee agreed when we debated the matter that it was wholly desirable. However, a number of points made in the course of those debates gave rise to the need for clarification of our intentions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me, because it is one of the most important provisions of the Bill, to deal with these matters more fully than I have dealt with previous amendments.
      The persons coming within the provisions of Clause (9)(1)(a) include not only directors of the relevant company at the time or shortly before it goes into liquidation, but those who have been directors at any time, perhaps many years previously. It must be stressed, however, that a disqualification order may be made against a director or a former director only if his conduct as a director of any company referred to in subsection (1)(a) has been such as to make him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. If the director's conduct did not contribute to the failure of the relevant company it is likely to be because that director had resigned many years before the company went into liquidation. Thus, he cannot be made a subject of a disqualification order.
      Relevant companies must be at least two in number and the winding-up order or the resolution for voluntary winding-up in respect of one company must fall within five years of the winding-up order or voluntary winding-up resolution in respect of the other. Amendment No. 14 provides that at least one of these companies must have gone into liquidation after the dates of the coming into force of the provision.
      It has been suggested by professional bodies advising us that by using the date of the winding-up order for this purpose we are making substantive rights or disability dependent on a vagary, such as the state of court lists or the exigencies of litigation. The petition to wind up a company may be set down within five years of the failure of another company, but, because of the congestion in court lists, the winding-up order may be delayed and fall outside the five-year period. This
      322
      would allow the director to escape the consequences of the clause.
      The alternative was to use the commencement of the winding up, as defined in Section 229 of the Companies Act 1948, instead of the date of the order, but this solution was no less arbitrary and would create more problems than it would solve. It might he thought that the clause referred only to persons who had been directors prior to that date. In any event, it cannot operate until the second company goes into liquidation, for example, until a Winding-up Order is made by the court. Therefore, it seems more logical to use that event as the criterion.
      We have had correspondence on this matter and have considered it very carefully. We have come to the view that the balance we have struck, while not perfect, is about right. It is not likely to be more than a marginal problem in any event, and it is the most logical of the solutions available.
      It is not a requirement of the Clause that a relevant company must be insolvent when the person concerned was a director. It is only necessary for it to be insolvent when it goes into liquidation. This provision has been made because it is intended that the clause should catch a person who, although his conduct as a director has driven the company to the point of insolvency, has resigned before the company actually became insolvent. For this reason we consider it necessary for the clause to require that a company be insolvent at the date of winding up. I hope this will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs).
      Mr. Spriggs: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and his guidance. Would it not be in line with proper justice if people who forced their own companies into liquidation were treated as criminals? Should they not be treated as people who are creating unnecessary unemployment by their adventures in the industrial world and dealt with in the courts as such?
      Mr. Davis: If their action were in fact criminal, as frequently happens, prosecutions would follow. But the mere fact that insolvency has occurred through the negligence of an individual should not necessarily justify the institution of criminal proceedings. One must look at each case on its merits.

      323
      Amendment No. 10 is to make clear the original intention that an application for a disqualification order against the director of a company under subparagraph (i) and (ii) of subsection (1)(a) which is being wound up by the court has to be made by the official receiver, or in Scotland by the Secretary of State. The court which made the winding-up order has power to make the disqualification order on such an application. But the main burden of the argument relies on Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 13.
      Mr. Tim Renton: I have considerable misgivings over the wording that the Under-Secretary wishes to insert. As he rightly said, this is one of the most important clauses. I am sure that there is a strong wish on both sides of the House not only that directors should be held responsible to employees, shareholders and other interests in the company, but that they should be fully aware of their responsibilities.
      However, it is most important to get the balance right. If too great a burden is placed on the director by way of the penalties to which he may be liable in future years, there is the danger, particularly with non-executive directors, that they will refuse invitations to join boards of companies simply because they see the potential perils and traps as being too great, and certainly not commensurate with the reward they might receive for their directorships.
      I do not say that in an attempt to protect directors regardless of all else. I wish only to stress that the balance must be right if the right people are still to be tempted to lead companies to growth.
      Mr. Spriggs: Surely with his experience the hon. Member must be aware that any director who has a difficulty in understanding his responsibilities to the company can refer to the company secretary. The company secretary's information is always available to every director in the company from the chairman down.
      Mr. Renton: Perhaps the hon. Member has misunderstood me. I was not talking about a director not being able to understand his responsibilities or of not having them made fully clear to him by the company secretary. I was referring to the potential dangers and pitfalls for
      324
      the director who regards them as so great that he will decline an invitation to join a board.
      Under the amendments as proposed by the Under-Secretary the potential penalty applies to someone who is or has been a director of a company which has at any time gone into liquidation whether while he was a director or subsequently. The position therefore arises that someone could have been a director of a company in his youth. He could have left the company and four years and 11 months later the company could go into liquidation for no reason connected with the director's performance on its board. I take the Under-Secretary's point that it is still up to the courts to decide that his conduct was inappropriate and did not lead to good management of the company.
      The director, through inexperience or misjudgment, might have encouraged the company to engage in or might have been a party to poor commercial decisions. These decisions, however, might have had nothing to do with the subsequent insolvency of the company.
      I am trying to paint a picture in which people are encouraged to go into companies and on to boards and to take risks that encourage companies to grow. The director might have taken one or two wrong commercial decisions which the company could survive. His conduct could be regarded as poor and prejudicial to his reputation. Because of a subsequent liquidation that has nothing to do with his conduct, a black mark is entered against him. If another company of which he is a director goes insolvent within five years, he risks this heavy penalty of being prohibited from concerning himself with or taking part in the management of a company for another five years.
      By inserting the words "or subsequently" the Under-Secretary may have gone too far and may have erred into causing people to decline invitations to join boards as non-executive directors because of the fear of what might happen to the company four or five years after they have left those boards.
      As I read the amendment, it would be possible for the court to judge that directors ought not to be involved any further in the management of a company

      325
      on the basis of companies which went insolvent before the Bill became law. Is there not a retrospective power there? I believe the clause should apply only if both the companies become insolvent after the Bill has become law.
      We are debating this Bill at a time when, clue to unhappy economic circumstances, the number of insolvencies is very high. A director could find himself in an alarming position immediately the Bill becomes law, whereby he was a director of a company which went insolvent four years ago and is now a director of a company which looks like going insolvent in the next 12 months. It would be a pity if the Bill were to stifle the initiative of directors and limit their decisions to join boards. I am thinking particularly of non-executive directors.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Spriggs: I am concerned about whether the amendments will allow people who have indulged in dishonest business methods to creep back into directorships and once again to commit the same kind of behaviour against other firms. I wrote to the Department about St. Helens Auto Electrics, a firm which provides a service to haulage contractors by rewiring whole circuits of vehicles, including ominibuses. For many years the company sold its services to one of the larger haulage contractors. That contractor paid good wages but when the company sent in its account for between £3,000 and £4,000 the contractor did not pay—could not pay. I was told that the directors of the firm had been helping themselves to fat directors' fees at a time when the firm was apparently running down.
      The official receiver was brought in and his fees amounted to about £34,000, but my constituent who runs St. Helens Auto Electrics—a good, healthy but small firm—received about £1,000. He lost the rest because someone else took advantage of the situation. Will taking out the suggested words allow people such as the directors of that haulage firm to creep back into the business which they previously conducted or into another similar business?
      Mr. Higgins: It is common ground that action should be effectively taken against those who abuse the position of limited liability. That is why the clause
      326
      has been supported by both sides. The question is one of structure and the right balance. When the law is changed, a problem could be created for people who have been involved in an insolvency years before. It is possible that the balance is not correct, but the Government are pretty close to the fulcrum.
      I am concerned about the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). If a man was a director of a company which goes into liquidation years after he has left that company, he would still notch up one black mark which would count against him in the future. I question whether the period involved should be open ended. I doubt whether a court could decide whether a director was responsible to a greater or lesser extent for an insolvency which took place 25 years before. It is a minor issue but perhaps a time limit should be introduced.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: In Committee we all set out to mitigate the difficulties to which hon. Members have constantly referred. It is virtually impossible to deal with the director who is involved in an insolvency for which he is clearly responsible and who then sets up in another business somewhere else and becomes involved in another insolvency. The powers restraining such an individual from embarking on that course of conduct are limited.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is right to express anxiety about the situation. We welcome him to the debate as he was not a member of the Committee. Naturally he is worried about the situation in his constituency but he will forgive me if I do not give him an answer to his specific problem. I recall seeing his letter, but it has not been dealt with yet. I shall look into the situation further and see what relevance it has to the matters that we are debating today.
      Mr. Spriggs: I must correct my hon. Friend because the case was dealt with but not completed.
      Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is worried about the situation and he is entitled to ask me to look at it again. I shall do so.
      The clause will not have the deterrent effect on the good person who is invited to join a board of directors. I disagree

      327
      with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) about that matter. We are seeking to give—additional to the provisions of Section 188 of the Companies Act which deals with the fraudulent director who may be disqualified by the court—with the director whose conduct under the definition of the clause makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
      The court will determine the action to be taken. Common sense will not permit the court to act if the only complaint about somebody is that he was a director of an insolvent company 25 years ago. The court is bound to take a long gap into account, and that will be a powerful protection. The provision will not operate as a deterrent.
      The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) put his finger on the spot when he said that the country demands high qualities of judgment and, more importantly, of integrity, from those engaged in the business of running limited liability companies. It is therefore important that the court should take into account substantial lack of integrity and manifest lack of judgment in determining whether a person should undertake such important duties in future.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me whether it was possible for a situation to arise in which both companies went insolvent before the Act came into effect. The answer is "No". There has to be a situation where at least one of the companies went into a state of insolvency after the Act comes into operation.
      Mr. Tim Renton: The Minister has told me that one of the companies must go insolvent after the Bill comes into effect. Could he say in what part of the clause that arises?
      Mr. Davis: I said in my introductory remarks that I would be proposing Amendment No. 14, which deals with this point. The hon. Member is right to say at this moment that the issue is not dealt with.
      The hon. Member for Worthing invited me to say that I should make the provision less open ended. This must be a matter for the courts. Once we begin to embark on that course, we shall get
      328
      into difficulties. I hope that he will not insist that we should pursue that line.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 36, after 'period', insert
      'beginning with the date of the order and'.
      The purpose of this amendment is to remove any doubt concerning the date of the commencement of a disqualification order. The amendment will have the effect of ensuring that the period of disqualification commences on the date of the disqualification order.
      At present the clause is worded in the same way as Section 188 of the Companies Act 1948. It was laid down in the case of Regina v Bradley in 1961 that a disqualification order under that section could not start from a date other than the date of the order. The decision in that case may not necessarily apply in the context of a power not depending on a criminal conviction. The amendment will put the matter beyond reasonable doubt.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 7, line 38, leave out from '(2)' to 'is' in line 39 and insert
      'In the case of a person who is or has been a director of a company which has gone into liquidation as aforesaid and'.
      No. 11, in page 8, line 19, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 39, after second 'company', insert '(wherever incorporated)'.
      The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the original intention of the clause, namely, that it also applies to foreign companies capable of being wound up in Great Britain, whether or not they are overseas companies within the meaning of Part X of the Companies Act 1948.
      The effect of the amendment is to ensure, first, that foreign companies that are insolvent and that are wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act 1948 will count for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)—that is, they will trigger off the clause; secondly, a disqualification order will prohibit the subject of it

      329
      from being a director of a foreign company as well as of companies registered in Great Britain. It will, of course, be effective only in so far as such a person acts as a director in Great Britain.
      Mr. Higgins: I am not quite clear why this amendment has been introduced at this stage. I do not recall the provision being discussed in Committee. Was there some reason why it was not in the Bill originally? Perhaps the Minister could tell us how it is one winds up a company in this country which is incorporated somewhere else. I was not aware that that could be done.
      Mr. Davis: This arises as a result of further consideration of the matter after the Committee stage. I do not recall this being discussed in Committee. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the position is as I understand it.
      A foreign company, whether an overseas company or other foreign company, which has carried on business in Great Britain or has assets here is an unregistered company within the meaning of Section 398 of the 1948 Act and can be wound up as such. Subsection (7) of the clause already provides that such companies are to be included for the purpose of the clause. The amendment removes any possible doubt. We were concerned that there might be some small area of doubt and felt it best to deal with it now rather than allow the situation to drift.
      Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I am still a little puzzled. What is the situation about the incorporation of a company overseas? Is it regarded as being wound up within that jurisdiction? It seems a complete oddity. I am not clear how it can be done. Or is it that the company is simply wound up in terms of its operations in this country?
      Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right in the second part of what he had to say. We can have no determining effect on what may happen in another jurisdiction.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 8, line 44, leave out from 'of' to 'if' in line 45 and insert:
      'this section a company goes into liquidation'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
      '(9) Subsection (1) above does not apply unless at least one of the companies there mentioned has gone into liquidation after the date of the coming into force of this section; and the conduct to which regard may be had under paragraph (b) of that subsection does not include conduct as director of a company that has gone into liquidation before that date.'.
      This amendment seeks to specify the extent to which the clause has retrospective effect. This was an issue which gave rise to considerable debate in Committee. The amendment will have the effect of ensuring, with regard to retrospection, first that the clause will operate only in cases where at least one of the relevant companies has had a winding-up order made against it by the court or has passed a resolution for a voluntary winding-up after the date of the coming into force of this clause. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is not present at the moment. That deals with the concern which he expressed.
      Secondly, the amendment will have the effect of ensuring that a person's conduct as director of a relevant company can be used as a ground for a disqualification order only if the winding-up order against the company—or resolution for winding-up—is made or passed, as the case may be, after the date when the clause comes into force. The conduct may relate to a period prior to the date of the coming into force of the clause.
      Perhaps I should spend a moment or two in explaining the situation about the triggering off of this clause. Where one of the relevant companies went into liquidation before the coming into force of the clause, provided that the other relevant company goes into liquidation after the coming into force of the clause, the clause may be triggered off. It is the person's conduct as director of the second company only which can afford the grounds for a disqualification order.
      The clause can also be triggered off where both the relevant companies go into liquidation after the clause comes into force and the person's conduct as director of either or both of the companies may then afford the grounds for a disqualification order. The clause will not be triggered off if both or all of the

      331
      relevant companies had gone into liquidation—that is, if a winding-up order has been made or a resolution for voluntary winding-up passed—before the coming into force of the clause. That meets the point advanced earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.
      This limited retrospective effect is an equitable situation to reach because, although a person would not know that his conduct as director of a company—where it occurred before the clause came into force—could lead eventually to his disqualification from being a director, it is nevertheless not unreasonable to assume that he might have known that his conduct was such as to contribute to the company's insolvency. Obviously, the greater the time lapse between his acting as director and the company going into liquidation, the less weight will be attached to the effect of his conduct on the company by the courts. I hope that with this explanation the House will approve the amendment.
      Mr. Higgins: The House is always concerned about legislation that is retrospective, although the term "retrospective" means a number of different things. At one time, the Solicitor-General discoursed on the various definitions. It appears, however, that in this case, although we stressed its importance in Committee, the Government have not gone the whole way to meet the points that were made. Is that so? If it is, why do they not feel able to meet the case completely? I understand the position under the amendment to be that someone will be liable to be included on the register of disqualified directors if the court so decides and if at least one of the companies has gone into liquidation after the date when the Bill comes into force. But it will mean that someone who was the director of a company which was insolvent before the Bill came into force will retrospectively have a black mark put against his name.
      I am not sure why the Government do not feel able, when we are changing the law as we are, to go all the way and say that the total score shall be after the coming into force of the Bill. This is a matter of balance, and I do not feel that it would be appropriate to divide the House on it. Nevertheless, it is curious that the Government should have been
      332
      determined to include an element of retrospection, even though it is admittedly rather less than that contained in the Bill as originally drafted.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: It is necessary to have two companies which have gone into a state of insolvency for the position to be triggered off. We felt that it would be wrong, in effect, to postpone the situation which we seek to encompass in this provision, that the public are entitled to a degree of protection which should be afforded as rapidly as possible, and that a director who was a director of the first company that went into a state of insolvency before the Bill came into operation might fairly be taken to have known that his conduct was such as to contribute to the company's insolvency. I do not think that that is an inequitable solution.
      In Committee, we were urged to delete the provision altogether in relation to any company which went into insolvency before the commencement of the Act. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is a matter of balance. As I think he recognises, we considered the matter very carefully in relation to all the debates in Committee, and we concluded that the most equitable way of proceeding for the protection of the public was to adopt this course. I hope that, even if I have not convinced the hon. Gentleman, he will not decide to divide the House on this issue.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      EXTENSION OF POWER TO MAKE ADMINISTRATION ORDER
      Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 9, line 7, leave out Clause 10.
      I know already that the amendment is to be accepted by the Government. It is as nice as it is rare to know that a substantial change like this is to be accepted. But even though I know that it is to be accepted, I should say something about the amendment because, as Ministers recognise, we have been pressing for a very long time to get rid of Clause 10 and the battle over it has raged up until very recently. Therefore, I think that I should say a word or two about why we have been so insistent in our requests or demands—call them what one will—to

      333
      have it removed. I think at the same time that I can, without straying beyond the rules of order, at least not far, say on this amendment almost everything I want to say on all the amendments put together.
      It is important to remember that the law of insolvency is dealing mainly with bankruptcy in the case of firms and individuals and with liquidation on the ground of insolvency in the case of companies. Much of it, if not most of it, is concerned with safeguarding the position of creditors, so that a creditor may not be deprived of his just desserts by a debtor, whether that debtor be an individual, a firm or a limited company. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) graphically illustrates the need for such protection, if it may also demonstrate the deficiencies of the existing situation. Whether or not it does the latter, it certainly illustrates the former.
      It is in that context that the provisions of the Bill have to be considered. Furthermore, they have to be considered against this factor relating to the position of creditors—namely, that it is commonly agreed that the position of creditors has been substantially eroded over recent years. The remedies open to them are considerably less now than they were some time ago. I refer in particular to imprisonment for debt. It was very largely a threat, because the number of people who actually served imprisonment for debt was very small—a minute proportion of those against whom an order was made. That demonstrates that it really was the most effective threat, and it secured for creditors in an enormous number of cases, getting on for 1 million a year, payment of their debts.
      That has gone. I shall not argue why it has gone. Also, the availability to creditors of the very effective process of High Court execution has been eroded over the years. Therefore, those professionally engaged with the position of creditors, as well as creditors themselves, have been much concerned about the deteriorating position of creditors in that respect and also worried because there have been other changes in the wind, such as abolishing the register of county court debts, the compulsory transferring of High Court debts from the High Court to the county court for execution, and a number of other moves which have been
      334
      suggested from time to time and on which the Solicitor-General may wish to say a word.
      In that context, it is not difficult to see why those particularly concerned in this matter felt that bankruptcy was increasingly becoming the one remaining effective remedy for the enforcement of lawful debts. Let us not forget that what we are talking about is debts lawfully owed. We are dealing with the collection of sums which people are owed in law. Therefore, one starts from the assumption that the creditor is entitled to recover sums of money owed to him, and the law is an ass if it provides a judgment stage but no remedy for the enforcement of the judgment.
      For that reason, many of those actively concerned were becoming worried that the position of the judgment creditor was being eroded to such an extent as greatly to distort the balance which must be held between all the interests relevant to this matter. They were concerned, when the Bill was presented in its original form, that it would make such inroads into the bankruptcy provisions as to reduce it to a second-class service and, therefore, represent a further serious erosion of the remedies open to creditors. They were worried that a first-class service might be reduced to the status of a second-class service.
      6.30 p.m.
      It is right that we should pay tribute to everybody engaged in the bankruptcy service—the Department, officials, registrars and so on. It is a first-class service. Those practising in this sphere were concerned that, if the Bill went through in its original form, it would have reduced to a second-class service that which they all regarded as a first-class service.
      Where does Clause 10 fit into all this? The Government have recognised from the outset that there was substance in the general proposition that the remedies open to creditors are fewer now than they were some time ago. The general proposition that, if we increase the minimum debt on which to found a bankruptcy petition, we shall thereby reduce the remedies available to some creditors is incontrovertible. Therefore, we have always accepted the general proposition that, by raising the limits and making bankruptcy less available, we should be

      335
      further eroding the means available to judgment creditors for enforcing their rights.
      Clause 10 was said to be an addition to the law tending to move the balance a little way back by giving to creditors certain new rights which were of some value and, therefore, to some extent it made up for the further erosion of their rights by making bankruptcy less available to them.
      There are three reasons why we still feel that Clause 10 should not be in the Bill. First, because of the other changes which have been made, we think that the Bill is very much better now than when it first came before Parliament. It makes fewer inroads into the availability of bankruptcy to creditors than would have been the case if later amendments which are not now to be proposed had been put forward.
      Secondly, we have always taken the view that Clause 10 was useless. It would not add anything to the armoury of weapons open to the judgment creditor. I wish that what I now have to say was not right. I wish that the administration order had lived more nearly up to what was expected and hoped of it. Unfortunately, it has not done so. It is very little used voluntarily. We have always taken the view that at best it was a delusion to suggest that the clause added anything of sufficient significance to offset what was being taken away.
      The matter does not rest there. We have always felt that there were objectionable features about Clause 10. One objectionable feature—the provision that the ordering of a list of creditors would operate as an act of bankruptcy—would have been removed by one of the proposed Government amendments if the clause had been staying in the Bill.
      Another objection to which we have drawn attention was that the remedy had the peculiar feature—I mean peculiar in the literal sense—that it could be invoked by the court of its own motion. That may sound harmless, but we take the view that our purpose should be to provide remedies at law for judgment creditors to pursue their just rights and to give protection to debtors against being unduly harassed, and so on. Having provided the remedies, it should then be left to
      336
      the persons concerned to decide which of those remedies they should pursue. The court, of its own motion, should not be able to say "Even if you would rather pursue your judgment debt by execution, by putting in the bailiffs, and even though the debtor is not applying to us for protection in the form of an administration order, we shall order the making of an administration order." That is what could have been done under the clause as it stood without any notice being given to either party.
      Another of the amendments which would have been moved by the Government had the clause been staying in the Bill would have had the effect of providing that the court could make the order of its own motion only after giving notice to and the opportunity for both parties to be heard. To that extent the situation would have been improved, but it would still have meant that, after giving both sides the opportunity to be heard, and they having said "No, we do not want that", the court would be entitled to make the order of its own motion. We thought that that was objectionable.
      Thirdly, as the Solicitor-General in an intervention said, Clause 10 could have had the effect of depriving a creditor of some of the other remedies open to him. For instance, if an administration order were made, a creditor could not continue with the process of putting in the bailiffs or of instituting bankruptcy proceedings. If, after an administration order had been made, a creditor wanted to continue with bankruptcy proceedings, he would have to apply under Clause 11 as it stands and the court could, if all the conditions were satisfied, substitute a receiving order.
      For those reasons, the so-called remedy provided by Clause 10 had the great weakness that it gave the court no power to investigate the debtor's assets, to protect those assets for the benefit of the creditor against fraud by the debtor, or to get them in if they had not been disposed of.
      Mr. John Lee: I have been listening with considerable interest and I have followed the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasoning. Instead of deleting the clause, would it not be better to add the armoury of investigative procedures which he has enumerated regarding assets?
      Mr. Percival: That is arguable. It was not a practical alternative in this instance. We might have had a proposition from the Government which would have had that effect, but we should have been entering a different area. We would have been making an administration order a sort of mini-bankruptcy order. There would be a great deal to be considered in taking such a step. One might ask why it should be done in that way when there are already bankruptcy provisions; why not allow people to use the existing procedures? It would not have been a practical alternative in this Bill.
      It is sometimes overlooked that one of the first purposes of Bankruptcy Acts, which date back to the early seventeenth century, was to protect creditors against fraudulent debtors. There was a Bankruptcy Act as early at 1623, and Chalmers and Haigh said of it:
      "The examination of the bankrupt's wife was provided for and the penalty prescribed for non-disclosure of his property by the bankrupt was that he was to be set upon the Pillory in some publick place for the space of two hours and to have one of his or her ears nailed to the Pillory and cut off'."
      The House will see that I was not exaggerating when I said that the remedies open to a creditor to enforce a judgment have been substantially eroded in the past 350 years.
      Added to the provisions protecting a creditor—the investigatory powers and the powers to follow up assets—were those introduced for the protection of the debtor, with means to secure the orderly getting-in of his assets and their distribution.
      All these features of bankruptcy are absent from the administration order procedure. There is, therefore, force in my proposition that the procedures which it was intended to introduce in Clause 10 were, if not useless, misleading and would have deprived creditors of some of their remedies.
      Some tributes should be paid. The passage of the Bill has been an excellent example of the co-operation which can exist between representatives of the professions and others outside this House who are directly concerned with and, therefore, knowledgeable about these provisions, the Government, the Opposition and officials. Since Second Reading, there has been a full and free exchange
      338
      of views with the working party composed of solicitors and barristers. They have made available their views on these matters to the Government and to us and this has been of enormous assistance on this highly technical subject. I wish, on behalf of the Opposition generally and myself in particular, to pay the warmest possible tribute to the working party for its assistance.
      I also wish to acknowledge that the Ministers concerned with the Bill have been ready to discuss all these matters with us and to make available officials who have also discussed these points freely. It is all highly satisfactory. This does not always happen during the passage of Bills through the House, so one should make the point and mark it when it does occur.
      It is also highly satisfactory that the end product has been that the Government have accepted our arguments almost 100 per cent. There is no major topic in which our arguments have been rejected. The Government have considered them carefully and accepted them in all important respects.
      6.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I repeat that it is my intention to advise the House to approve this amendment. I am happy that we have pleased the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), but I am not sure that we shall please everyone. Everybody knows that Governments have a succession of moods. They are either weak and vacillating, cowardly in the face of pressure, lacking resolution and blown by every wind, or they are obstinate, impervious to reason, undemocratic and arrogant. Every concession to one group disappoints another.
      I hope that I shall be forgiven if I spend a moment discussing Clause 10, not in order to indulge any personal whim but for a serious purpose which will become clear. In the face of what the hon. and learned Member for Southport fairly said, I should like to explain why Clause 10 was originally included in the Bill.
      I echo some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's sentiments about the erosion of remedies available to creditors. In consequence of that, bankruptcy has played an increasing rôle and it is not unusual for bankruptcy proceedings to

      339
      take place when a comparatively small debt is in question rather than when someone is hopelessly insolvent. The rôle of bankruptcy has extended to a debt-collecting function which it did not originally possess.
      I am a little concerned that serious bankruptcy proceedings should be used in this way. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) that perhaps we should be looking for other ways rather than this heavy-handed method. This may be a matter to be considered by the review committee.
      The fact that creditors often use bankruptcy as part of the armoury of debt-collection weapons must be weighed against the need of the Insolvency Service to reduce its work load in order to confine it within available staff resources. And I add my tribute to that which the hon. and learned Member for Southport paid to the work of the Insolvency Service.
      One of the instances of a weapon in the armoury of creditors being eroded was the abolition of imprisonment for debt. The abolition of nailing someone's ear to the pillory had taken place rather earlier.
      Imprisonment for debt was abolished by the Administration of Justice Act 1970. The judgment summons on which some of us cut our teeth at the Bar now has little importance for the ordinary civil debtor. I know that this step was not taken with everyone's approval. The whole problem with enforcement of judgments is to achieve a fair balance between the debtor and the creditor. The abolition of imprisonment left a gap.
      Where a debt is substantial and the assets equally so, there is the remedy of bankruptcy proceedings. Where a debtor has a bank account, there is the remedy of garnishee proceedings. Where the debt is below the minimum which would support bankruptcy proceedings or the debtor has few assets, bankruptcy is not appropriate. When dealing with a debtor who has no assets except future earning capacity, the sensible course is to get him to pay by instalments out of future earnings.
      Where possible, judgment creditors should have at least that remedy. One step to close the gap was taken in 1971
      340
      with the attachment of earnings provisions, but they apply only when a debtor is in employment. Where he is self-employed, the attachment of earnings procedure is not applicable.
      Some people felt that the administration order helped to provide something of an answer. It had been known to the law since 1883. It was already available under Section 148 of the County Courts Act 1959, but there, basically, it was on an application of the debtor. Unless the debtor chose to initiate the proceedings, they could not take place. It was available under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, but there, of course, only in the case of a debtor in employment. If one was dealing with a self-employed debtor, therefore, and the debtor chose not to apply for an administration order, there was a very real problem.
      My noble Friend still quite regularly receives representations either from creditors or on behalf of creditors asking when something can be done to meet this very real problem of the self-employed debtor. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) raised this matter with the Lord Chancellor of the day back in 1973. I have been studying his letter, which emphasises the problem very fairly.
      It was thought, therefore, that it might be helpful if this provision could be included so that an administration order could be made even where the debtor did not apply. It was also the solution to another problem, because it may not be only the debtor and the single creditor who have an interest in what is going on. There may be other creditors.
      When one is dealing with most methods of execution, the creditor who first applies obtains priority. There is, therefore, little incentive for any single creditor to show indulgence to the debtor. That is a pity. Sometimes, if the creditors hold their hand, the debtor may survive a bad patch and may be able to pay off all his debts fully, which he could not do if someone asked for bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, it might be to everyone's advantage that there should not be a race between creditors to use the other remedies. They may prefer order to be brought into the process, which is what the Payne Committee said in paragraph 738 of its report. I do not propose to read that as I appreciate that time is limited. However, that was why Clause 10 was introduced into

      341
      the Bill—as an attempt to meet those two very serious difficulties which my noble Friend is being constantly urged to meet.
      The hon. and learned Member for Southport says that it does not meet the problem at all and that it is not an additional weapon in the armoury of the creditors. The debtor may be ordered to pay debts by instalments, but what is the sanction if he fails? That sanction, says the hon. and learned Gentleman, is simply to revoke the order under Rule 19 and allow a creditor to proceed with his other remedy, so he is no better off than he would be if the order had not been made in the first place and meanwhile all his other remedies are suspended.
      I have three comments to make about that. First, in many cases there is no other effective remedy anyway. Where there is a more appropriate remedy, I imagine that normally the court would not make an administration order. It is worth pointing out that in Section 150 of the County Courts Act 1959 there is the proviso that, although normally the creditor may not proceed with his other remedies, he may do so with the leave of the court.
      Secondly, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not have overlooked Section 151 of the County Courts Act 1959. The creditor is entitled as of right to ask for execution against the debtor's goods. We must not now get into the muddle that we got into in Committee. We are talking here only about goods, and not all other assets—although these may often be the only assets which the debtor has anyway. I am aware that the Payne Committee envisaged repeal of that section, but, as both sides agreed in Committee, the Payne Committee was envisaging a whole package.
      And I am bound to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth that the kind of package which Payne had in mind and which he has in mind is not available at present. Unhappily, it is not one of the options available to us.
      I must be frank about this. Section 151 is not used at all frequently. Normally, by the time someone comes to apply for an administration order, execution against the goods has been tried already and has failed to produce anything. It is modestly helpful in the kind
      342
      of situation where the debtor transpires to have more goods than was originally thought.
      Thirdly, and by far the most important point Clause 11 provides a sanction here. It provides an additional weapon in the armoury of the creditor, because the court can make a receiving order, and it can make a receiving order even if the debt is below the sum on which otherwise a bankruptcy petition could be founded. By this process, the situation can be brought—
      Mr. Lee: I do not want to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend's flow of thought, but will he comment on actions on the court's own motion? The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) seemed to deprecate this. I should have thought that there were many instances, not confined to this field of law, where it was not unreasonable, and of perhaps marginal advantage, for the court to have the power to undertake proceedings on its own motion, possibly when it got notice that the conduct of a party was reprehensible.
      The Solicitor-General: I entirely agree. I shall respond to that point shortly, but perhaps I may finish what I am now saying.
      The combination of Clauses 10 and 11 included an additional weapon in the armoury of the creditor. It may be asked why, if one can bring the situation within the bankruptcy process by these two steps, one could not do it in the first place, and why not remove the financial limitations on bankruptcy proceedings. The answer is that it is an attempt to get the balance as fair as possible between the debtor and the creditor. What was felt that this weapon should be available only after the debtor had been given the opportunity to pay by instalments and had failed to do so. Therefore, it is felt that Clause 10 would have cut ice. It empowers a court to tell the debtor that he must make an effort to pay by instalments, and it offers a real incentive to him to comply with that order. This is the view of experienced county court registrars.
      I am aware of the views of the joint working party. They have already been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Southport. I echo his tribute to all the processes and consultations which

      343
      have taken place in this case. But this is not the view of the registrars. I do not accept what the hon. and learned Member said about the administration order being used very little. It is true that not all registrars regard it as an effective remedy. The practice varies from one court to another, but some courts find it very helpful.
      The Payne Committee had this to say about it, in paragraph 742:
      "Its popularity has varied from district to district and it has met with differing success dependent upon the experience and enthusiasm of local county court officers. There can be little doubt that properly used it has met with great success and we have had many recommendations to the effect that the figure of £300 should be substantially increased"—
      as of course subsequently it was.
      I have here details of the number of occasions on which administration orders have been made in recent years. Perhaps I may recite them briefly. In 1969 there were 1,740. In 1970 there were 1,723. In 1971 there were 2,516; in 1972, 2,634; in 1973, 2,150; in 1974, 2,231; and in 1975, 2,100.
      It certainly would be misleading to say that registrars generally do not regard the order as of importance. In Committee there was a reference to Mr. Registrar Meeke of the Sheffield County Court. He has said, in a letter:
      "It would appear to me that it will be possible, as soon as there is a judgment which is not honoured, for me to order a self employed person or an unemployed person for that matter, to file a list of his creditors and the amounts and presumably if he does not do so, enforce it by a normal 194. Upon him doing so make an Administration Order and if he does not pay under that, make him bankrupt. I am quite sure that by using the threat of bankruptcy, which is of course, more important to a self-employed person than to one who is in employment, we shall obtain a considerable amount of money."
      In honesty, I must disclose that he added:
      "The clever thing is of course that it is being done without being noticed."
      Perhaps we must take issue with him on that. That was his view on the subject.
      I have here also a letter from the Past President of the Association of County Court and District Registrars—admittedly dated only yesterday—because we asked for some of these oral con-
      344
      sultations to be put in writing. He wrote:
      "We were particularly pleased with what is now clause 10, which had been previously suggested by us as a much needed improvement in the machinery for enforcing judgments. It will give the Court power to do what is often done now on a voluntary basis with a co-operative debtor and with the sanctions behind it we shall be able to deal with the unco-operative debtor, particularly the self-employed one against whom we have little remedy at present—a matter which has caused the practising members of the legal profession and the public much concern."
      That is the view of the registrars.
      7.0 p.m.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth invited me to say something about the power of the court to make an order of its own motion. The court may be dealing with people of very little experience in such matters. Many of them will not have advice, and solutions to their problems too often go by default. The creditor may hope to get an advantage over other creditors. If the court waits for an application it may not come, although there may be a number of people who stand to benefit. I accept what my hon. Friend has said and I would echo it.
      The reason why I have spoken at some length is that the Government do not believe that this clause is devoid of merit or advocates. It is not for that reason that I am accepting the amendment. I make no secret of the fact that the vigour of what was said about the clause in Committee took the Government by surprise. At one stage we hoped that we might meet all the various difficulties which were being expressed by a series of amendments, but it is quite clear that there is some real concern about this proposal. My noble Friend has considered it and he feels that it should not be introduced without further consideration and discussion. Measures of law reform obviously have a better prospect of success if they do not begin life in an atmosphere of strong controversy. But it does not follow that my noble Friend is persuaded that nothing can be done to solve the problems which we have been discussing.
      I am content that the clause shall be deleted from the Bill, but I hope that there will be further consideration by all concerned. There is to be a review of insolvency law in due course, but I hope we shall not necessarily have to defer

      345
      the discussions until that full review has taken place.
      My noble Friend and I propose to invite those concerned to discuss this matter further in the hope that we shall reach an accommodation which will satisfy all those who face these difficulties. With those words, I advise the House to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Percival: I gladly echo the Solicitor-General's closing hopes. I hope this will not be the end but the beginning of discussions because I think that in the field we are talking about there is a lot to discuss. I mention two of the things to be discussed, namely, the suggested closing of the county court registrar judgments and the possible transfer from the High Court to the county court of all High Court judgments in respect of collection. They are all part and parcel of the same thing.
      I absolutely agree with what the Solicitor-General's noble Friend has said—that law reform has a much better chance of succeeding if it is agreed. If that is something that parties in all parts of the House can agree upon it will probably get nearer to a better solution, particularly if it is agreed by those outside who practice in these particular fields. I echo the Solicitor-General's hope and assure him of our fullest co-operation in any such discussions.
      I would only mention three points which the Solicitor-General made. He referred to the Payne Committee. While the Payne Committee referred to the possible advantages of administration orders I am sure the Solicitor-General would be the first to acknowledge that it advocated the increasing use of them only in the context of the package which it put forward. I do not have a copy of the committee's report with me. Some hon. Members may be pleased because I might be tempted to quote from it. I am sure that in its recommendations about administration orders the committee stressed that these must be backed by the proper investigatory powers, and full powers to get any assets. The trouble with our reference to the Payne Committee is that the committee worked for a long time and produced a comprehensive report and recommendations which were a package. What we have done is nibble away at this package, at a num-
      346
      ber of small things; but we cannot deliver the essential part of the Payne Committee's recommendations, namely, the investigatory process.
      I do not query the figures that the Solicitor-General mentioned but I do invite those who are concerned with this to look at the success rate of these orders. The Solicitor-General gave the number of orders that were made. I think I am right in saying that the average time taken for the collection of debts under administration orders is something like four years. That may be why they are not used more frequently. Of course, they went up considerably in the years that the Solicitor-General mentioned, because the upper limit of the jurisdiction was increased. Since then they have fallen off again. That is disappointing but it is a fact.
      With these comments on the points made by the Solicitor-General I would finish by repeating that we echo the hopes expressed by the Solicitor-General. I assure him not only of our co-operation but of our real interest and desire to find some agreed improvement. It is necessary, if people's respect for the law is to be maintained, that some effective steps in the field that we are talking about are taken.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      ADMINISTRATION ORDER RULES
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 10, line 42, leave out 'sections 10 and' and insert 'section'.
      Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think we have had notice of the manuscript amendment in its precise terms. Perhaps it may be as well to place it on the record.
      The Solicitor-General: I mentioned earlier that I would move the manuscript amendment. I will see that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 19 in page 11, line 1, leave out 'and section 21'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Schedule 1

      MONETARY LIMITS RELATING TO BANKRUPTCY AND WINDING UP
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 12, line 9, column 3, leave out '£300' and insert '£200'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Government Amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Davis: This was a matter which attracted the consideration of the Committee for a considerable time. We originally took the view that it was necessary to increase the minimum debt to support a creditor's petition for a sequestration order in Scotland, or a receiving order in England, to a figure of £300. We have reflected on this further, as a result of the deliberations we had with the professional bodies.
      Although this matter was conceded by both sides of the Committee I have analysed the figures upon which petitions were founded and have come to the conclusion that there would only be a marginal benefit in relation to the work load if we were to raise the minimum debt to £300 instead of £200. Since this lower figure seems to accord with the view of the professional bodies, it is right, having regard only to these marginal benefits, that we should concede the case at least for the time being.
      It is right to monitor the situation over, say, 12 months after this provision comes into effect. We shall then be able to determine whether we should move to amend the figure to £250 or £300, but it is now possible to adopt a flexible approach, having regard to an earlier amendment which we moved.
      I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) will agree that I need not rehearse now the calculations upon which my conclusions were based, but I should be very happy to provide him with that information if he requires it subsequently.
      Mr. Percival: I welcome this amendment and all the others relating to figures. We are glad that the Government have accepted both the lower figure and the spirit in which we put forward all the
      348
      figures. The professions felt strongly about the figure of the minimum debt on which to found bankruptcy proceedings. They felt that it would make serious inroads to raise the figure to £300.
      The Minister's argument about reducing the work load of the service, to which the Solicitor-General referred also, is misleading. The work load is heavy because the service which is supplied is one that people want. It would be curious to use a heavy work load as a reason for making the remedy less available. We should think instead of ways of satisfying the demand. If we want economies, perhaps we should look at remedies which are not being used. It is illogical to save by cutting services that people want. I hope that that argument will be viewed with great caution by Ministers, since it could be misleading and could lead to the opposite of the consequences we want. Subject to that, we welcome the amendment and all the other amendments on figures.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. F. P. Crowder: What does the Minister mean when he talks about monitoring the position in a year's time? Does he mean looking at it again, reviewing it or taking control of it? I do not care for that word.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member should take exception to the mild term "monitoring". I did not intend it as a term of abuse.
      In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), the reduction of the work load is part of a genuine problem. It is not a question of having a sufficiency of people or having people who are capable of pursuing these jobs pouring into this area of the Department. This is highly technical work and a great deal of training is required, but unfortunately the people are not available to match the requirements. We therefore have to consider ways and means of mitigating the intolerable burden which has fallen on this service in the last year or two. That is a fact of life.
      Recruitment here is not easy. The hon. and learned Member for Southport will know this from his own experience. I know that he is not an expert in bankruptcy, although he has probably learned a great deal in recent months. We must

      349
      also take into account the fact that the service operates at a loss.
      What I intended by the word "monitoring" was that my Department would be trying to scrutinise the results of this situation over the 12 months after this part of the Bill comes into operation. I should have thought that that term was readily understood. I hope that I have now explained it to the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder).
      Mr. Crowder: Surely the answer is that the Department will look at it carefully under a review, not on a monitoring basis.
      Mr. Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a powerful intervention at this stage of our consideration of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 12, line 10 at end insert—

      Section 79.

      Maximum amount which trustee can retain without banking.

      £100.'.

      No. 22, in page 12, line 26, column 3, leave out '£120' and insert '£50'.
      No. 23, in page 12, line 32, column 3, leave out '£300' and insert '£200'.
      No. 24, in page 12, line 46, column 3, leave out '£600' and insert '£800'.
      No. 25, in page 12, line 49, column 3, leave out '£600' and insert '£100'.
      No. 26, in page 13, line 9, column 3, leave out '£120' and insert '£50'.
      No. 27, in page 13, line 38, column leave out '£300' and insert '£200'.
      No. 28, in page 13, line 40, column 3, leave out '£600' and insert '£100'.
      No. 29, in page 14, line 3, column 2, leave out from 'for' to end of line 5 and insert
      'service of statutory demand in case of unregistered company.'.
      No. 30, in page 14, line 3, column 3, leave out '£300' and insert '£200'.
      No. 31, in page 14, line 8, column 3, leave out '£600' and insert '£400'.
      No. 32, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—
      350
      '2. No reduction in any sum specified in—

      (a) section 174 or 175(6) of the said Act of 1913;

      (b) section 105(1) or 129 of the said Act of 1914; or

      (c) section 218(3) or 220(3) of the said Act of 1948,

      shall affect any case in which the proceedings were begun before the coming into force of the reduction.
      3. No increase or reduction in the sum specified in section 38(2) of the said Act of 1914 shall affect any case in which the date of the receiving order occurred before the coming into force of the increase or reduction.'.
      No. 33, in page 14, line 21, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 34, in page 14, line 24, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 35, in page 14, line 25, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 36, in page 14, line 26, after '(c)', insert or 50(3)'.
      No. 37, in page 14, line 31, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 38, in page 14, line 32, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 39, in page 14, line 36, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 40, in page 14, line 37, after 'increase', insert 'or reduction'.
      No. 41, in page 14, line 41, after 'increase' insert 'or reduction'—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

    Schedule 2
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INSOLVENCY SERVICES ACCOUNT
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 15, line 1, leave out', (2).—[Mr. Clinton Davies.]
    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 16, line 17, at end insert—

      1965 c. 2.

      The Administration of Justice Act 1965.

      Section 21.'.

      No. 44, in page 16, line 23, column 3, at beginning insert Section 4(3).'—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Queen's Consent must be signified. We need a Privy Councillor here.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the presence of a Privy Councillor was required at the end of the debate on Third Reading. But I gather that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has been called for and is on his way, so the requirement will be met in a moment. I wonder whether you would indicate the specific requirement, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very simple. We require a Privy Councillor to signify the Queen's Consent. If we do not have a Privy Councillor present, there is nothing I can do. The Queen's Consent must be signified at this stage.
      I see that a Privy Councillor is now present.
      [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      7.21 p.m.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I shall not prolong the proceedings unduly, but I think it appropriate to make one or two comments about the Bill as it has now emerged and the future course which the Government propose to take in relation to the law of insolvency.
      There is clearly a need for a Bill of this kind. This was evidenced by the general approval by all those concerned with insolvency law and practice of many of the main features of the Bill. It is not surprising that a number of people did not think that it had gone far enough. I have a good deal of sympathy with that view. But our intention, within the constraints of a Bill which had to be dealt with under the Second Reading Committee procedure, was to include only the most urgently needed changes, particularly with regard to the restoration of the value of the monetary limits in the Bankruptcy Acts and the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act 1948. In many cases the monetary limits are the same today as they were in 1914 or even earlier.
      There is a clear and overwhelming need for a review of the whole law of
      352
      insolvency. For this reason my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade announced to the House on 25th October that he was setting up a departmental inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Cork to carry out a fundamental and exhaustive reappraisal of all aspects of the insolvency laws of England and Wales.
      An attack was made on Mr. Kenneth Cork by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) during the course of our deliberations. With respect to my hon. Friend, it was an unfair attack. Mr. Cork's expertise is well recognised in this country. He has undertaken a very valuable process of inquiry into the EEC position in relation to the law of insolvency. His chairmanship has been expert and most useful.
      A review of Scots insolvency law is already being undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission and we are making arrangements to keep the two review bodies fully informed of each other's thinking and progress. This is particularly important in view of the discussions which are currently taking place in Brussels with the object of drafting an EEC bankruptcy convention. This convention is not intended to alter national laws save in a comparatively small area of law dealing mainly with the validity or otherwise of certain kinds of transactions taking place during what is known as the suspect period immediately before a bankruptcy or company liquidation. It will, however, provide a set of rules to prevent multiple bankruptcies and to enable a bankruptcy or company liquidation taking place in any member State to have effect throughout the Community. Clearly, both review bodies will have to have regard to the effect of this proposed convention when considering what changes ought to be made in our national insolvency laws.
      One of the features of the work on this Bill in Committee and subsequently which I found gratifying—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)—was the degree of personal consultation in which I was able to engage with members of the professions primarily concerned with the law of insolvency and, indeed, with both hon. Members. All of us had the aim of seeking to ensure that, within

      353
      the limits of a Bill selected for the truncated Second Reading Committee procedure, with necessarily limited objectives, we should secure some urgently needed changes in the law and also erase certain anomalies. The constructive dialogue which took place has, I think, improved the Bill and achieved those immediate goals we had set ourselves. It reflected well on the measure of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition on what was not a politically controversial Bill but was nevertheless, in certain respects, contentious. The changes which we have made have been quite significant.
      There will no longer be an obligation to hold a public examination in every bankruptcy. This will spare debtors, in suitable cases, unnecessary publicity. We are providing, for the first time in England and Wales, for automatic discharge for bankrupts in some cases and for automatic review for the purpose of discharge in the others. In future the only reason for a bankrupt remaining undischarged for a long period, even for life, will be if his conduct so warrants it.
      There are valuable changes which I am convinced will give quite large numbers of people who merit the chance the opportunity to free themselves of a stigma and to make a fresh contribution to society, which, perhaps, our previous law did much to impair. The new Insolvency Rules Committee will ensure that those who operate our insolvency laws in practice will be closely involved in seeing that the procedural rules are kept up to date and in advising upon what changes are needed. We are making a determined effort to prevent those persons who are not fit to manage companies, as demonstrated by the failure within a certain period of any two companies in which they have held directorships, from being a director or from taking part in the management of another company for a specified term. These represent valuable changes in the law and, therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
      7.28 p.m.
      Mr. Higgins: I join the Under-Secretary in paying tribute to those who have engaged in consultations on the Bill. When it was first drafted and introduced, there had not been consultation as wide-
      354
      spread as was necessary if we were to ensure that the law was changed in a generally satisfactory manner. But since then the debates here and in Committee and the consultations have resulted in great improvements in the Bill.
      I shall not say that there was never a dull moment in our discussions. Indeed, I could not tell what was going to happen from one moment to the next. I was looking forward to hearing a speech by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the need for the Queen's Consent to be signified, but we avoided that last-minute hurdle.
      The changes made as a result of the Opposition's representations are substantial and not simply some of the traditional points such as making changes subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. We managed to persuade the Government that many of their suggested monetary limits were not appropriate. We also managed to reduce the element of retrospection in the Bill, a matter which the House always regards as important. We have also had Clause 10 deleted. I shall not go over the debates we had on that.
      I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) who has throughout given great help to the Committee and on the Floor of the House on technical matters. This involved him in a great deal of work. I do not think that any of us would underestimate the amount of work done by him on behalf of the Opposition, who do not have the back-up which the Government have from the Civil Service. As a result of that hard work, the changes that have been incorporated in the Bill have greatly improved it.
      There is one point on the broad principle of what is still in the Bill that I wish to emphasise. Throughout, the aim has been to strike a balance between creditors on the one hand and debtors on the other. When the Bill was first introduced, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport and I felt strongly that the balance was not right and that the position of creditors was being further eroded. I hope that as a result of the changes that have been made we have helped to get the balance back to where it should be.
      The Minister said that a committee is to be set up under Mr. Kenneth Cork to look into the whole question of insolvency

      355
      law. I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went into detail, but that proposal is to be welcomed. Although hon. Members are concerned about the proliferation of committees, this is a complex matter which needs to be examined in depth.
      I am a little worried, given the changes that we have made in the Bill, that it is suggested that the committee might sit for two or three years before completing its work. Another document has been laid before us, Cmnd. 6602, the Report of the Advisory Committee—also under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Cork—entitled "The EEC Preliminary Draft Convention on Bankruptcy, Winding-up, Arrangements, Compositions, and Similar Proceedings". It would be helpful if the Minister would say whether any action is to be taken on that report before the other committee under Mr. Cork's chairmanship completes its work.
      The precise relationship between the two committees is important, and it would be absurd if we were to consider altering our laws without taking account of the position of the EEC and the relationship between the two sets of proposals. The proposals are not co-extensive and the report which I referred and which runs to 180 pages draws attention to several differences and problems which we are likely to have to face.
      The Bill is a useful measure with the Companies (No. 2) Bill, which was recently given a Third Reading. It is a much improved piece of legislation. It reflects the way in which the House of Commons, when there is no guillotine and the Government are not determined to force through legislation regardless of drafting, can do its work properly. This is a good example of the way in which legislation should go through the House compared with the way in which other legislation has been dispatched.
      I express my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General who has assisted him on the Front Bench for the way in which they have patiently considered the arguments put to them and worked hard behind the scenes. The results are incorporated in the Bill, to which I am sure the House will wish to give a Third Reading.
      7.33 p.m.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I should like to respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). There will be an inter-relationship between the work done by the committee which deliberated on EEC matters under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Cork and the committee to be set up under the same chairman. I am advised that it is likely to be two or three years before the review on the insolvency law in England and Wales will be completed. A committee is also deliberating on Scottish law. There are a number of provisions in relation to insolvency law which will not be affected by EEC legislation.
      As to the degree of co-operation, the hon. Gentleman must reflect upon the fact that the Opposition's attitude to the Bill, which was extremely co-operative and helpful, is not always the Opposition's attitude. Unhappily, the Opposition frequently adopt a somewhat irrelevant attitude to many of the issues that face the country today.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)
  7.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
  That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1341), a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th August, be approved.
  This Order in Council was made on 17th August 1976 under the procedure provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 whereby, for reasons of urgency, an order can be made without a draft having been approved by Parliament, provided that it is subsequently approved by a resolution of each House within 40 days after it is made, subject to extension for periods of prorogation, adjournment or dissolution for more than four days.
  The order increases the maximum penalties on indictment in respect of three offences under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. These are

  357
  carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, trespassing with a firearm in a building, and possessing a firearm or ammunition in suspicious circumstances.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may recall that towards the end of last year the House approved an Order in Council which, among other provisions, revised some of the penalties under the 1969 Act and in doing so brought all the penalties under the Act into line with those which applied in Great Britain. The present amendment of the law doubles the maximum penalties on indictment for the offences mentioned from five years to ten years.
  The revision is a recognition of the considerable extent to which the carrying of illegal firearms contributes to the violence in Northern Ireland. For example, the House will be aware of the existence of what have come to be known as the "travelling gunmen" and the criminal and murderous activities in which they engage. When these men are apprehended, often the only offences for which they can be charged and brought before the courts are the offences under the Firearms Act, and it is important that appropriate penalties should be available.
  As the House will be aware, it is the Government's policy that terrorists should be proceeded against through the courts. In these circumstances, it is vital that the penalties which the courts can impose should reflect the needs of the situation and constitute an adequate deterrent.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, speaking on 2nd July 1976 in this House, announced that the Government, having considered the penalties prescribed by the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, had concluded that the existing penalties under Section 17—carrying a firearm in a public place—and Section 19A—possessing a firearm or ammunition in suspicious circumstances—were inadequate and should be changed. He added that other increases might be appropriate and were being considered
  It was subsequently decided that, since there was an obvious link between the offence of carrying a firearm in a public place—Section 17—and trespassing with a firearm in a building—Section 18(1)—the maximum penalty for the latter offence, which was previously five years, should also be doubled.
  358
  In view of the continuing high level of violence involving firearms my right hon. Friend decided to adopt the urgent parliamentary procedure to which I have referred in the making of this order so that the increased penalties could be introduced with the minimum of delay. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that there is an urgent and immediate need for this order. I therefore commend it to the House.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The order to follow is of the size and scope of a Bill and perhaps hon. Members will want to speak upon it at some length. I do not mean that this is not an important order—clearly, it is most important for public safety in Northern Ireland. However, I do not think that I shall do wrong if my comments on behalf of the official Opposition are brief.
  The order has been lucidly explained by the Under-Secretary of State and its necessity and urgency have been made out. We could hardly expect less from the Government since the increase in the remission of sentences announced last year. If gunmen are given a maximum sentence of five years, they can be released after serving two and a half years in prison. The order redresses the balance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and other of my hon. Friends have argued from time to time, following Lord Gardiner's Committee, that the institution of a general offence of terrorism could simplify prosecutions and be of assistance in the enforcement of law and order, but the Government have not seen their way to implement the recommendation of the Gardiner Committee. In the absence of such an omnibus charge with a special scale of sentences and a heavy maximum sentence, many gunmen commit the offence specified in Article 3(2). They do so in the knowledge that they can be charged only under the Firearms Act. Indeed, the Under-Secretary said as much.
  It is a reasonable prima facie assumption that those acting in the manner prescribed in Article 3(2) are concerned in terrorism or other violence. One may even wonder whether 10 years is sufficient in the anarchy that is Northern Ireland today.

  359
  Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman to give some indication—I know that it is difficult for him to give precise figures—of whether there has been an increase in the number of persons charged under the regulations in recent months. What is the average length of sentence imposed upon those who are convicted? I ask for the assurance that the Government will keep the length of sentences under review. The sentences contained in the order may not prove sufficient. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman takes up those two points.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. McCusker: On behalf of United Ulster Unionists I give a qualified welcome to the order. It is qualified not because we object to the fact that the sentences are being doubled, but because we doubt the order's effectiveness. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has said, the order may restore the status quo in some respects. The 50 per cent. virtual automatic remission now granted to convicted terrorists has reduced the sentences of the courts of a few years ago to something that is almost meaningless. However, as the Under-Secretary of State said, the order has been introduced because the Government consider that its provisions will be an adequate deterrent. I have seriously to question that judgment.
  Would the murderers who entered my constituency two weeks ago have been deterred by the knowledge that they might have been sentenced to a 10-year sentence if they were caught? They drove to what would have been considered a fairly safe area in Annaghmore in County Armagh armed with the most sophisticated eastern European rifles, not revolvers that might easily have been concealed. They murdered one man and wounded his 18-year-old son. In fact, the son died on Sunday, so they murdered two men.
  Would the 10-year sentence have caused concern to the murderer who, three hours ago, walked into a supermarket on the main shopping street in Armagh city and murdered a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment in broad daylight in front of other customers?
  360
  Would it have caused him to prick up his ears? Would it have caused him to think before he committed the offence? I have to say that I doubt whether it would have had that effect.
  I doubt the effectiveness of the order. In some respects we are putting the cart before the horse. The persons with whom we are dealing will be deterred only if they feel that they will suffer as a consequence. It will be a deterrent only if there is evidence that those who commit these crimes will be brought before the courts and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
  I refer the House to the 100 murders—there must have been 100—that have occurred in my constituency over the past year. They were committed by people carrying loaded firearms in public places. To my recollection not one of them has been brought to justice this year. Not one of them is likely to suffer the penalty that he would have incurred if he had been caught before he perpetrated such foul deeds.
  Mr. Wilson was murdered today, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have no doubt that one of the reasons for his murder was his membership of the UDR. However, two or three years ago his wife was brave enough to go into court and give evidence against IRA men. Those men were subsequently sentenced. The IRA threatened revenge against the family, and no doubt it exacted it today.
  Perhaps we should be considering how we can encourage and protect public-spirited people who are prepared to go into court to give evidence. Perhaps that would be a more positive approach in the fight against terrorism than introducing an order to double the sentences. Those are the questions that I must ask myself. Is it not more important that the Government consider all the events leading up to sentencing than only the sentences? Should we not be considering how we can improve the possibility of the police being able to arrest suspects, obtain evidence, get convictions and get convicted persons put away for 10 years before we concern ourselves with a sentence of 10 years?
  I hope that the thousands of people who marched for peace in Armagh a

  361
  fortnight ago will realise that marching is not enough. It is necessary to work for peace, and part of that work is telling the security forces the name of the murderer who this afternoon committed his foul deed in broad daylight. Someone is harbouring him tonight. Peace will come to Armagh only when the people have the courage to produce him and have him properly dealt with.
  We welcome the order as a partial step and a staggered attempt to do something. However, I fear that the day may come when the penalty for these offences may be even more Draconian than those now suggested. I hope that the day will never come when we have to do what was done in the Republic in the 1920s when people were put against a wall and shot when found in illegal possession of a firearm. If the anarchy continues which now prevails in my constituency and which has prevailed for 12 months, that day may not be far off. I hope that it will never come and I hope that the order will do something to prevent its coming, but I have grave reservations.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: The incidence of bombing and sabotage increased in 1976 over the 1975 figures. I know that the Minister will give us the figures in his own good time.
  The recent flurry of armed activity by the Provisionals is a clear sign of their desperation in the face of the peace campaign. The security forces have had increasing success in the tracking down and arresting of IRA personnel, as well as the discovery of equipment. It is vital that we should build on this success. We must produce a situation of calm and general security within Northern Ireland so that the essential political discussions can resume with some hope of success. That cannot be done if the participants in such discussions are at the mercy of gunmen.
  Our basic support for the Government's policy for the role of the security forces must not blind us to the importance of establishing good community relations.
  It is unfortunate, to say the least, that there have been some incidents recently in which the Army has been involved
  362
  and which have not helped the peace movement. I hope that there will be a full investigation into the recent case which revealed that original Army evidence was false and resulted in wrongful imprisonment. Nothing could be more guaranteed to ensure that the IRA maintains its support than misbehaviour by any section of the security forces.
  We have witnessed the burgeoning of the peace movement, and it should be placed on record that the peace movement has displayed amazing courage and tenacity in resisting intimidation and brutality by the terrorists. All people in Ireland must hope that the indiscriminate use of violence will be resisted, for meaningful political progress cannot be made without some peace and tranquility within the area, and, most importantly, that British forces will remain there until such time as peace reigns again.
  In this context the Liberals support the order.
  7.52 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) poured a bucket of cold water down our spines. He brought home to us the fact that Northern Ireland is not at this time worried about political dialogue, but about people being enabled to live.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), as spokesman for the Liberal Party, must acquaint himself with the true situation in Northern Ireland, where people are in desperation to live their lives. The sooner security reaches the stage where those people are allowed to do so, the better. Therefore it is useless to talk about some kind of political settlement unless those conditions are established.
  There is only one way by which one can have true democracy, and that is by guaranteeing citizens their lives so that no man speaks under threat of intimidation. At present, alas, that is not the situation in Northern Ireland.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State knows the situation, because he has been in Northern Ireland for some considerable time. I am sure that he is aware of the feelings of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. It is all very well for the Liberal spokesman to hail certain successes by the Army and the

  363
  police, but it is a startling and terrible fact that in the constituency of Armagh two dastardly murders have recently taken place. I refer to the murder in Tullyvallen and that at Kinsgmills, Bess-brook. Nobody has yet been charged with committing those dastardly deeds. My hon. Friend has already told the House that 100 murders have been committed in his area and as yet nobody has been charged with any offence in relation to those matters. These are the matters that concern us when debating this order.
  The Liberal spokesman should have made clear that those who attack the so-called peace marchers are not from the Protestant side. They come from their own religious side of the fence.
  Accusations have been made against members of the British Army. It should be pointed out that in the case referred to by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely some evidence given in court was contradicted by later evidence. Indeed, the person who gave evidence had already been charged with an offence, had been court-martialled and dishonourably discharged from the Army. If that evidence had been put forward from a witness of good standing in the British Army, one would have given it more credence. The judge gave the benefit of the doubt in that case.
  We feel that justice must be upheld. We certainly feel that British justice in Northern Ireland will gain when the benefit of the doubt is given in a particular case. But let us not take the view because one person's evidence is contradicted by other evidence that the original evidence should be regarded as being the absolute truth and the other as falsehood. We must get the balance right.
  Will the Minister say whether in firearms offences the onus of proof is on the accused or whether it is for the Crown to prove the case against the accused? If the onus is on the accused, the grip of the law on the individual is tightened.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh that the fact that we now have in these provisions a 10-year sentence will not alter the situation a great deal. Will the Minister consider the imposition of mandatory sentences, in other words, a fixed sentence in respect of a person who is found guilty? A mandatory sentence may well provide a
  364
  greater deterrent than a sentence up to a maximum of 10 years.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be living in cloud-cuckoo land if we thought that this order would be a great deterrent to men who are engaged in murder in Northern Ireland. Nothing will stop those men in their determination to inflict ravages on the community until this House is prepared to take the ultimate into its hands and say that a person who commits a capital crime should suffer capital punishment.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Dunn: I hope that I shall be able to deal briefly with all the points raised in this short debate.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will convey to the family of Mr. Wilson our sympathy and condolences in the tragedy that has befallen them, as on other occasions to the many other families who have been similarly bereaved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office wish to share in the sympathies extended to the Wilson family in their hour of need.
  I shall try to deal with observations briefly, although not necessarily in the order raised. It is always difficult to talk about new law in a setting where tragedy occurs in the context of Northern Ireland, but this evening we are dealing with the penalties for the possession of firearms. Therefore, if I do not take up the theme mentioned by the hon. Member for Armagh it is not because I do not understand his feelings or the problems that confront his constituents and others in the Province, but because I wish to confine my remarks to the order before the House. If only we could apprehend all those who carry firearms by imposing a sufficient deterrent penalty, the incidence of murder and maiming would be seriously diminished.
  We are in the difficulty that we are trying to deal with firearms here and not with the other weapons of terrorism. It is against that setting that I answer his point. I agree with him that if help and support for the security forces were given and information made available about those who perpetrate such offences against the community and the security of the individual, it would be to the

  365
  advantage of the Province as a whole and would bring peace much sooner than is apparent in the circumstances confronting us today.
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked me about the number of people charged. Statistics are not easy to provide in great detail, but 672 persons were charged in 1975 under the relevant sections and in the same year 593 persons were convicted. The hon. Member will appreciate that there is always a time lag between the charge being made, the court hearing and the eventual conviction. Between January and June this year the comparable figures were 307 persons charged and 237 convicted. There has been a great surge forward in preparing the documentation necessary for charging, and more convictions will certainly emerge. The success rate of the RUC is very marked in this regard.
  On the question of the review of sentences, the Attorney-General indicated in a previous debate that he would keep this matter constantly under review and recommend an increase in sentencing where this would be of immediate help to the security forces and the police. However, I must say that one of the grave problems confronting the security forces in the province is getting sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is in that area that we need to do much more work. I am sure that all those in this House who are involved in the situation will help to secure that objective.
  The Chief Constable is concentrating all his efforts on improving the ability of the force to detect those engaged in terrorism. He is trying with reorganisation to build up sufficient active preparation of the documents required to take the cases into court so that convictions can be obtained.
  So far this year 87 persons have been charged with murder. That figure does not relate to the charges I read out about carrying firearms.
  Mr. Freud: What percentage of all murders committed does that figure of 87 represent?
  Mr. Dunn: I am in some difficulty here. So many murders are committed that I could not possibly say without knowing the time scale for which the hon. Member wishes to make the comparison. If he will let me know, I will write to him.
  Mr. Freud: The period I have in mind was the period during which the 87 were apprehended for murder.
  Mr. Dunn: I will write to the hon. Member and give him these facts. I cannot take such statistics out of the top of my head.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) talked about improving community relations as part of the ongoing exercise to deal with the problem of carrying firearms. He suggested that we should encourage those people with information to give it to the security forces, or at least to have sufficient anxiety and concern so that when they find people carrying firearms they will, by some method, make the information available to the security forces and assist in acquiring the necessary facts to charge them. I agree with him about that.
  He will appreciate that there are difficulties about giving any answers to his other questions because investigations and inquiries are being undertaken at present and it would be wrong for me to pass any opinion at this stage. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what has been said.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked me a question of fundamental importance to the present situation. If a person is charged with one of these offences and claims a defence of reasonable excuse, the onus is on him to demonstrate that reasonable excuse. However, I believe that uppermost in all our minds is the fundamental principle of English law—that in the main the onus of guilt rests on the prosecution. There are circumstances in which that principle would have to be regarded if there were claims from an individual that he was carrying such arms under intimidation or with reasonable excuse. There would be great difficulties. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point.
  There are many difficulties in the way of introducing mandatory sentences as the hon. Member for Antrim, North has suggested. In jurisprudence it is always the view of those who make representations and are consulted that each case must be considered on its merits. What we do is legislate for a range of sentencing which is available to the court, taking

  367
  account of all considerations and circumstances of merit in each individual case, and any disadvantages which might occur for the presentation of the prosecution, or the case for the defence. It would be alien to general practice of this House to legislate for mandatory sentences. There would be grave difficulties. However once again, I shall draw this matter to the attention of both my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Before my hon. Friend sits down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already sat down.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. McNamara: I thought that I had caught my hon. Friend suspended in mid-air.
  Mandatory sentencing has a most unhappy history in the Six Counties. It caused no end of trouble and difficulty for the police. There were many cases where the law was got around because the police did not always want to bring about the mandatory sentences in cases where there was obvious guilt but mitigating circumstances. With serious criminal offences it is essential that each case should be looked at on its individual merits.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. F. P. Crowder: I have a question for the Minister to which I ought to know the answer, and I apologise for not knowing it. In this country a person who is sentenced to, say, 12 years' imprisonment and who behaves himself gets a remission of one third of his sentence. A further consideration is that he can go before the Parole Board. Do those provisions exist in Northern Ireland?
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Dunn: With the leave of the House I shall answer the last question first. We in Northern Ireland do not have a system similar to that described by the hon. and learned Member.
  Mr. Crowder: Is there a parole board?
  Mr. Dunn: No, the system is entirely different.
  368
  I turn now to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I must tell him that each and every case must be considered on its merits. I know of the difficulties which arose with mandatory sentences in the past. I know the problems these caused in individual circumstances. Concern was expressed by those who had to apprehend and charge offenders who were covered by this code. Let me say merely that when any hon. Member brings up a point of fundamental importance I can confirm that such matters will be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who are better versed and more experienced in them than I.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1341), a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th August, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (HOUSING)
  8.12 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
  That the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be approved.
  I am sure that the House would want me to place on record our thanks to my predecessor the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who was principally responsible for drawing up this order, which is extremely complex by Northern Ireland standards. He carried out a lot of the negotiations with various individuals and groups. I merely present the order to the House tonight, and in doing so I would wish the House to recognise precisely the part that my hon. Friend played in it.
  We have in the Northern Ireland Housing Condition Survey and the Northern Ireland Household Survey clear and irrefutable evidence of the extent and magnitude of the housing problems in Northern Ireland and, in particular, of the poor condition of much of the existing stock. The Government are currently looking at housing policy in Great

  369
  Britain, and Northern Ireland has been associated with this review, as well as carrying out a re-examination of the particular policies which are needed in Northern Ireland.
  There can be no doubt that housing as a whole must continue to enjoy a high priority. In particular, we must find more effective means—while recognising the constraints arising from violence and its consequences—to deal with the existing stock. This order represents a major step in that direction. Last week we published proposals for the future of the private rented sector, and yesterday a report on tenant participation and new forms of housing tenure was released.
  In the past many people have tended to see the solution to Northern Ireland housing problems in terms of more and more new houses. Of course the new construction side of the work is and will remain important. But we have an existing stock of almost 460,000 houses and I am satisfied that we need to devote more attention to preserving those which are, or can be made, fit and to re-deploy our resources accordingly.
  There is a massive programme of improvement and rehabilitation which must be given high priority, not only because it makes economic sense, but for the even more valid reason that it is right in social and human terms. I see the preservation of established communities as a highly desirable objective and one which is attainable through programmes designed to raise the standard of existing homes and the environmental quality of neighbourhoods—particularly in places like the inner parts of Belfast which are not affected by redevelopment. I also want to encourage people to play a greater part in meeting their own housing needs. I hope and believe that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will support that line of approach to our problem.
  The draft order now before the House is a measure of the Government's commitment to this task. It is also the main instrument by which results will be achieved. The order contains four major proposals. First, Parts II, III and IV will provide for an expansion of the work of the voluntary housing movement. Secondly, Part V will give the Housing
  370
  Executive new powers to tackle areas of housing and social stress. Thirdly, Part VI proposes the introduction of a new structure of grants for house renovation in the private sector. Fourthly, Part VII will give the Executive new powers to deal with unoccupied premises. I want now to explain these proposals in more detail.
  In the past housing associations have not played a significant role in Northern Ireland, largely because of the inadequacy of the financial help which was available. I want to see them playing a much bigger rôle, in particular in rehabilitating existing houses and building new houses for special groups like the elderly and handicapped. I hope also that housing associations will be prepared to experiment with new forms of tenure which will, in particular, help young married couples.
  Parts II, III and IV of the draft order provide a new charter for the housing association movement in Northern Ireland. They follow broadly the provisions of the Housing Act 1974 as well as consolidating the existing Northern Ireland law on housing associations. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will, under Article 4, play the rôle which the Housing Corporation plays in Great Britain in promoting the expansion of the voluntary housing movement and supervising its work.
  Part II provides for the Department to establish and maintain a register of housing associations. Broadly the same criteria for registration of housing associations will apply in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. Only registered associations will be eligible for loans from the Department of Finance and grants from the Department of the Environment. The Department will have wide powers to ensure that associations operate in a proper way. It will be able under Article 12 to acquire land on behalf of associations. Part IV sets out the financial assistance housing association grant, revenue deficit grant and hostel deficit grant—which will be available. These are based very closely on the grants which exist in Great Britain. Tenants in housing association houses will under Article 9 be elegible for rent rebates and rents will, under Article 8, be subject to the Department's approval.

  371
  Since the intention to prepare this legislation was first announced, there has been a considerable strengthening of the voluntary housing movement in Northern Ireland, assisted by my Department. A Northern Ireland Committee of the National Federation of Housing Associations has been set up; some of the existing associations have started to bring forward new schemes; successful associations in Great Britain have helped to sponsor new associations in Northern Ireland, particularly to deal with the needs of the elderly and the handicapped. In addition a number of new community-based associations have emerged and are beginning to have an impact in purchasing and rehabilitating older houses.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister said just now that Part IV sets out the various forms of grant available to housing associations. What it does not do, apparently, is to indicate the relationship of grants with costs, in contrast, for example, with Part VII. Will the Minister, either in the course of his speech or when he intervenes later in the debate, give more indication of the principles on which the grants will be available than appears to be in the face of the order?
  Mr. Carter: Perhaps I may come back to that point when I wind up the debate. It is a fairly technical question and one upon which I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman a precise answer.
  Part V of the draft order will enable the Housing Executive to declare housing action areas. Following the Housing Act 1974, these areas will be relatively small areas in which urgent action is needed over a five-year period to tackle housing, environmental and social problems. We have decided that, because of the scale of the problems of disrepair and lack of amenities in the housing stock in Northern Ireland, the housing action area approach should not be supplemented by general improvement areas and priority neighbourhoods which are provided for in Great Britain legislation. Also we have not thought it appropriate to follow the provision in the Housing Act, 1974 for compulsory improvement, though I shall want to reconsider this in the context of future legislation on the private rented sector.
  372
  In a housing action area the Executive would endeavour to encourage owners to improve their homes. It would, under Articles 36 and 37, itself acquire and improve houses. Efforts would also be made under the provisions of Article 38 to improve general environmental conditions and, in conjunction with the appropriate bodies, to upgrade social, community and recreational facilities. In suitable cases a housing association could undertake a major part of the task of purchasing and rehabilitating houses. In all this work, it will be essential to establish and maintain the closest possible liaison with the local community.
  I hope that the housing action area approach will enable substantial progress to be made in arresting and reversing the decline of the twilight areas in Belfast and other towns. But I issue a word of caution against over-optimism. Many of the areas which most need action are in, or near, confrontation areas. They are in decline because houses have been damaged in the civil disturbances and because families are reluctant to live there. The task of rescuing such areas involves more than simply repairing and improving houses; it involves restoring confidence in the future of the area and this will be no easy task.
  The Housing Executive has already embarked on a number of pilot rehabilitation schemes and I hope that it will be possible to move quickly to the declaration of the first housing action areas if Parliament approves the draft Order. If we can show fairly quickly that some of these areas can be saved, it should bring encouragement to other areas and will eventually do much to restore heart to many parts of Belfast.
  Part VI of the draft order provides for a new system of financial assistance to be administered by the Housing Executive to encourage the repair and improvement of existing privately-owned houses. The new system will incorporate three grants—improvement, intermediate and repair. Improvement grants will be available at the discretion of the Housing Executive for works of a high all-round standard for the improvement or conversion—including repairs—of properties with a good life ahead. Intermediate grants will generally be obtainable by owners as of right for the installation of

  373
  missing standard amenities and the execution of related repairs. Repairs grants, also available at the discretion of the Executive, will be payable towards works of repairs provided that the works are not associated with improvement or conversion.
  The level of grant in each case will be fixed by reference to the "appropriate percentage" of the "eligible expense". The appropriate percentage for all three grants will be set generally at 75 per cent., while in a housing action area the Executive will have discretion to pay grants of up to 90 per cent. in cases of hardship.
  The eligible expense will be the estimated cost of the works approved by the Executive subject to limits for each type of grant, and the maximum grants available will be, for improvement grant, £2,400 on works of improvement and £2,775 on conversion; for intermediate grant, £1,125; and for repairs grant, £600. Both the appropriate percentage and the limits of eligible cost may be altered by subordinate legislation.
  The draft order also contains safeguards to prevent the abuse of grants and to direct grants to those in greatest need. First, all applications for improvement or intermediate grant will have to be accompanied by a certificate of owner-occupation or of availability for letting. These certificates are designed to direct grants towards those persons proposing to occupy dwellings after improvement or to keep them available as rented accommodation. The certificates will require owner-occupation or availability for letting for a period of five years from the payment of grant. In the event of a breach of this condition, the Executive will be empowered to require payment of grant with compound interest. Power will also be taken to prescribe by order grant conditions which will require to be registered.
  The second safeguard excludes from grant under certain circumstances dwellings whose net annual valuation exceeds specified limits. Excluded from improvement grant are dwellings intended for owner-occupation whose NAV exceeds, in the case of improvement, £175 or, in the case of conversion, £350. I should add that the NAV limit for improvement works on a farmhouse remains at the£300
  374
  level imposed by the Housing on Farms (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. Excluded from repairs grant are all dwellings whose NAV exceeds £130 with the proviso that the grant will be available for all rent restricted property.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the hon. Gentleman any intention of increasing the housing on farms grant?
  Mr. Carter: Not at the moment. The principle behind the order is that our resources be directed wherever possible to those areas of housing requirement that are most in need. For the moment we do not anticipate increasing the sum.
  The purpose of the NAV limits is to direct assistance to those dwellings in greatest need. I do not, however, propose to introduce NAV limits for improvement grants on dwellings to be kept available for letting—I have no wish to discourage an increase in the availability of rented accommodation—or for intermediate grants which are available—like their forerunner, the standard grant—as of right.
  The new grant arrangements also include provisions designed to enable improvement and intermediate grants to be paid towards works necessary to make a dwelling suitable for the welfare, accommodation and employment of disabled persons. These proposals are based on the grants which were introduced in Great Britain in 1974, but with two important differences.
  The first is that, while the levels of "eligible expense" are identical, the "appropriate percentage" in Northern Ireland has been set at 75 per cent. generally with a discretion to increase up to 90 per cent. in hardship cases in housing action areas. In Great Britain the appropriate percentage is set at 50 per cent. generally, rising to 60 per cent. in general improvement areas and 75 per cent.—or in hardship cases up to 90 per cent.—in housing action areas. The second is that the repairs grant will apply throughout Northern Ireland and not just on a restricted basis in housing action and general improvement areas as in Great Britain.
  The justification for these differences can be found in the Housing Condition and Household Surveys which show very clearly the alarming state of the housing

  375
  stock throughout Northern Ireland, particularly the scale of the problems of disrepair and lack of amenities in rural areas which are not amenable to treatment on an action area basis, and the fact that the people living in the worst conditions are the least able to help themselves.
  While there may be a theoretical argument in favour of directing assistance to those in greatest need by some sort of means test, I am not convinced that this is a practical proposition throughout Northern Ireland. I shall, however, be keeping these grants under close scrutiny to ensure that abuses do not arise and I shall not hesitate to introduce tighter controls if they are shown to be necessary.
  These new grants will provide a very valuable stimulus to house owners to improve their homes. They are essential if the housing stock in Northern Ireland is to be preserved and improved.
  Part VII will give the Executive new powers to take more effective action to deal with unoccupied premises. These proposals are specially designed to deal with conditions in Belfast. Some 25,000 houses have been damaged by explosions, petrol bombs and vandals. These houses are frequently left vacant and cannot be sold or re-let; they have to be bricked up to prevent further vandalism or to protect adjoining property.
  People living in the area are already uneasy about remaining there because of the disturbances and the general run-down appearance of the property. They start to leave. Often they or their landlords cannot readily sell or rent their houses and so these houses, too, become vacant, are vandalised or are used by terrorists for sniping or storing weapons. The houses are then bricked up. With quite alarming speed, an area of quite reasonable housing can decay. Hon. Members, and especially the Northern Ireland Members, will appreciate that the problem of unoccupied premises in Belfast is quite unlike that in, say, London.
  Some of the measures I described earlier will help to deal with this situation particularly the housing action area approach. However, it is abundantly clear that one of the first steps in restoring confidence in these areas must be to arrest the physical decline, by securing vacant houses and by bringing houses
  376
  back into use as quickly as possible. The Housing Executive is already endeavouring to do this, but the normal processes of finding the owner of a house, negotiating a price or buying the house by compulsory purchase take far too long. This is the sort of situation in which action must be taken in days and weeks rather than months.
  Part VII will, therefore, do two things. First, Article 66 will strengthen the powers which are available to ensure that, where necessary, unoccupied premises are secured or demolished. This provision gives clearer legal authority to what has in practice been happening in recent years in Belfast, relying on public health or local legislation which is not really designed for this purpose. There is a power in the article for the Executive to recover from an owner the costs of securing or demolishing his property. This will only be used where the condition of the property is due to the owner's neglect rather than to the civil disturbances.
  Secondly, Articles 63 to 65 will enable the Executive to take possession of unoccupied houses. This proposal has been welcomed in Northern Ireland, but I want to explain it fully to remove any possible misunderstanding. These articles do not provide for the requisitioning of property. What they do is to enable the Executive to take over the management of an unoccupied house and to use it for meeting housing need while the normal process of acquisition proceeds. The powers will be used in the twilight areas, largely in Belfast.
  I can assure hon. Members that they will not be used in respect of second homes or of houses whose owners are on holiday or in hospital. The Executive will be able to take possession of a house if the house is unoccupied or if the owner is unable or unwilling to occupy or let it, and the house can be used for housing purposes. Once the Executive has taken possession of a house, it must immediately notify the owner and it must, within a month, apply to the Department to acquire the house compulsorily. In the meantime, the Executive can repair the house and let it to a tenant of its choice. The owner is entitled to full and proper compensation, both for the period during which the Executive has possession of the house and when the house is acquired by

  377
  the Executive. Any dispute about the amount of compensation will be settled by the Lands Tribunal.
  I am convinced that these powers are necessary to deal with the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland. I accept that they are unusual and would not be warranted in more normal times. I shall, therefore, be keeping a close personal eye on their administration. The provisions in Part VII will, in fact, lapse after five years unless continued by order. I give an assurance that, if a system of devolved administration has not been established in Northern Ireland within five years, Northern Ireland Members will be consulted before a decision is taken on whether to seek Parliament's approval to renew the provisions in Part VII.
  Mr. Powell: May I be quite clear on that point because this is an important undertaking? I take it to mean that, although the renewal would be by statutory rule and order and although that would not be one of the small class of such orders as are "prayable", nevertheless the Government are undertaking that before making that "unprayable" order they will consult hon. Members who are interested. I apologise for intervening but it is a complex point and an important undertaking.
  Mr. Carter: That is as I understand it. If I have it wrong, I shall deny it when I reply.
  Part VIII of the draft order contains a number of miscellaneous amendments to the housing law in Northern Ireland. For example, Article 70 removes the somewhat outdated idea that public authority housing is intended only for "workers" and Article 73 clarifies the Executive's powers to make available rent rebates to its tenants.
  This is a lengthy piece of legislation containing 80 articles and six schedules. In many respects, the provisions follow recent Great Britain legislation, but with some important differences which I have mentioned. I can assure the House that the proposals in this draft order have been widely discussed in Northern Ireland. The decision to prepare the legislation was first announced in December 1974, when my predecessor outlined
  378
  in a speech the main topics which might be covered. Since then there have been lengthy and detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland Housing Council, the Northern Ireland Committee of the National Federation of Housing Associations, and many other interested bodies. The proposal for a draft order was published at the beginning of June 1976, and further comment was invited. My predecessor met many deputations to discuss housing matters related to this legislation, and he also had a lengthy discussion at the start of July with some Northern Ireland Members about these proposals.
  I believe that this draft order will enable substantial progress to be made in tackling Northern Ireland's housing problems. I am convinced that the policies of encouraging greater action to improve the existing housing stock and of stimulating the voluntary housing movement are correct and are well designed to meet the special conditions in Northern Ireland. I commend the draft order to the House.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: We on this side associate ourselves with what the Under-Secretary of State has said about this very important order, which is vital to Northern Ireland and implements the Housing Act 1974, which was based on a Bill, introduced by the Conservative Government, which fell in February 1974. The hon. Gentleman has explained the draft order very well. It is a complex measure and much of my speech, I am afraid, will consist of questions arising from what he has said and what appears in the order.
  First, I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about housing associations, which have not played a major role so far in Northern Ireland. They encourage one to think that they will do a great deal of good in the terrible housing problems that Northern Ireland has and which the Minister of State explained to the Northern Ireland Committee on 21st January, when we had a very full statement from him and he demonstrated the need for a new housing strategy. That was clearly needed, and we welcome it in the form of this draft order, which is

  379
  a very large piece of primary legislation, even if in the form of an order.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to give attention particularly to the 450,000 houses which exist. I am glad to note the provisions relating to that point and what the hon. Gentleman said about the various parts of the draft order. Housing associations can make a valuable contribution in the problems of Northern Ireland, especially in helping to meet the needs of the disabled and the elderly. I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the expansion of voluntary housing associations, because voluntary effort and initiative are needed to help resolve the housing problems. This was dealt with in the Household Survey in 1975, which I have just been reading.
  That survey is useful in showing how Northern Ireland differs significantly from Great Britain in terms of social and economic structures in housing. As the survey points out, the larger average family size in Northern Ireland creates greater overcrowding. It also shows that 35 per cent. of all households in Northern Ireland live on resources below the level of their needs, compared with 21 per cent. in Great Britain in 1974. There are, therefore, significant differences.
  Now I come to the questions. In another place, Lord Melchett mentioned the question of rents and the fixing of rents. As I understand it, he said that housing associations would fix rents at a level comparable with those of Housing Executive houses. This raises the question of costs. Does it mean that the Government expect to pay a higher proportion of the initial costs of housing than they do in Great Britain?
  At present, in Great Britain the capital cost of a house minus the rent income for one year is written off by the Government. This is known as the housing association grant. There is a housing association grant in the draft order which amounts to a percentage of the total cost. In Great Britain, a housing association has to pay off the interest on the remaining debt plus management and maintenance, but the rent is not fixed by the rent officer at the same level as for local authority housing. It is fixed on a fair rent basis and, therefore, is normally higher.
  380
  I am not saying that that should apply in Northern Ireland. I want to know the position regarding the initial costs of houses where rents are to be fixed in relation to Housing Executive houses. I understand that they are to be fixed at a level comparable with Housing Executive houses. Will the Minister deal with that point in reply or write to me about it?
  Have the Government any estimate of the number of housing units which the housing associations are expected to provide to supplement the housing stock in this way? I understand that in Britain the figure was about 15 per cent. in 1975. If the Government have plans to allocate particular sums of money to this area, they must presumably have an estimate or assumption about the future significance of housing associations in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister indicate what that might be?
  Will the housing associations work in housing action areas? It was not clear from the Minister's speech whether they are to work in housing action areas.
  Mr. Carter Mr. Carter indicated assent.
  Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman is indicating assent, so that point is met. That will obviously contribute to the emphasis on improvement. That is all I have to ask about the part of the order dealing with housing associations.
  I turn now to housing action areas and grants. We welcome the declaration on housing action areas, particularly in Belfast, where there is an urgent problem of unfit property, especially in the privately-rented sector. We also welcome the higher rate of grant for the renovation of homes in Northern Ireland from 75 per cent. to 90 per cent., compared with what obtains in Great Britain, and the application of the repair grant not only to Belfast but to the whole of Northern Ireland. Poor housing is a Province-wide problem. Therefore, the repair grant should be available throughout the whole of Northern Ireland.
  Regarding improvement grants in general in Part VI of the order, will the Minister indicate the amount of take-up? Two years ago the Minister of State announced his intention to initiate what he called a new publicity drive on the availability of improvement and conversion

  381
  grants, which were then being taken up at the rate of only 2,500 a year. Has that situation changed? Has the publicity drive been effective? I note that in Great Britain the take-up of improvement grants dropped by about 60 per cent. between 1973 and 1975. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the proposals for Northern Ireland are adequately designed to prevent such a situation occurring in the Province? Perhaps he will deal with that matter when he replies.
  Does the Minister agree that, if these new grants are to be effective in stimulating action in the privately-rented sector, they must be accompanied by action to deal with what in August last year, when commenting on the findings of the Porter Committee, he referred to as a vicious circle of low rents and lack of repair and maintenance?
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon)The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon) indicated assent.
  Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman agrees. I remember his words quite well. We welcome the Government's announcement on 21st October regarding proposals to alleviate problems in the privately-rented sector by decontrolling rents and providing a fair rent system. I understand that 75 per cent. of houses in this sector have rents of less than £1. This is unrealistic. If the proposals in the order are implemented—I hope that they will be brought in with the utmost urgency—will the privately-rented sector be in a position to provide a valuable second force in dealing with housing needs?
  The Minister made a number of interesting remarks about the powers of compulsory acquisition contained in the order. We accept the necessity for these powers in a serious emergency, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that every step must be taken to protect the rights of owners.
  The Minister referred to the five years during which this part of the order will remain in force. What will happen at the end of the five years? Will the houses remain in public ownership or will they be returned to their original owners? We need more information about this.
  382
  How many houses are likely to be acquired in this way? May we have an estimate of the cost of acquisition? It is important to have a basis on which to assess this operation. On what basis will compensation to owners be calculated? Will it be the original cost and value of a house, were the area not affected by violence, or its market value as a derelict property?
  All these questions need answers, but I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his introduction of an order which we welcome.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: My hon. Friends and I join in the tribute paid to the Under-Secretary's predecessor, the present Minister of State, whom we are pleased to see on the Front Bench. Although he is not directly involved in our deliberations, we appreciate the fact that he has taken the trouble to be here for the debate.
  It must be admitted that progress with the housing associations has not been as great as one might have hoped. Indeed, it has been disappointing and we should like to know whether the order will do anything to improve the situation. Will it supply whatever has been lacking or remove any obstacles which may have existed?
  My impression is that relations between the Housing Executive and the associations were formerly not as good as they might have been and we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the present Under-Secretary. Since he took office—and I am not saying that there was negligence by his predecessor—there has been an improvement in the liaison and relationship between these bodies. I hope that this not only continues but improves.
  Areas of friction and rivalry may recur and, indeed, may not have disappeared in all cases. For instance, I was asked recently whether the Executive had given instructions to its staff not to seek a transfer to a housing association. I do not state this as an accusation, but it is a rumour which has got around. If it is incorrect, I hope that the Minister will scotch it.
  Has there been any delay in arriving at decisions as to where the borderline of responsibility is drawn between the

  383
  fairly limited operations of the housing associations and Big Brother, the Housing Executive? This applies particularly to the rehabilitation of existing houses, where progress is highly desirable.
  In Parts II, III and IV of the order the housing associations' relationship to the Department of the Environment is set out very clearly, but perhaps there is a good reason for the relationship between the Department and the housing associations and the relationship between the Housing Executive and the associations not being defined quite as clearly. I hope that in the coming days the Minister will encourage the larger associations as they come into being and find their feet to tackle perhaps fairly major and ambitious schemes and not to confine themselves merely to consideration of more minor activities.
  We welcome the trend expressed in various parts of the order, and clearly expressed in the Minister's speech, in relation to the need for the rehabilitation of existing houses. At a time of national financial stringency, we feel it highly desirable that economy should be a very significant consideration. A sub-standard home can very often be made habitable and comfortable by fairly modest expenditure. If expenditure can be restrained, it follows that the inevitable rent increase can also be kept to a reasonable level. This is very important, particularly for elderly persons.
  The Minister has outlined and restated the schemes for rent rebate. My colleagues and I at diverse times have also tried to make known to our constituents the availability of this concession, but again one must admit that it is not always taken up and fully used as it ought to be.
  The business of providing relatively economic accommodation for elderly people is vital on two grounds. First, a great many of them have no particular desire to move to an entirely new locality and into glass-walled housing and so on. They would far rather finish their days in their own locality with the friends and neighbours with whom they have lived most of their lives. Secondly, their income is often insufficient to meet the costs of the rent charged for the new housing, and it is often not quite sufficient, either, to keep up with the relatively high costs of
  384
  running houses sometimes of very faulty design.
  I should like to give an illustration of that. A Housing Executive estate in my constituency, in the town of Antrim, had—and still has—what was meant to be a very sophisticated type of electric central heating. It was some kind of blower device. In this type of house, the blower was situated on the bottom flight of the stairway that came down to the back door, and there was a very obliging gap of about an inch between the doorstep and the back door. This had the beneficial effect that in snowy weather snow never laid on the doorstep. However, it did not commend itself very much to the unfortunate tenant who had to foot the bill, which was quite an exorbitant amount, and who derived very little benefit—except perhaps by having his doorstep and lawn free of frost and snow.
  Modern architects are not infallible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I were sitting at Heathrow Airport on one occasion shut in by glass plate. He made the comment that the mediæval architects knew their jobs far better than modern architects because they got the relationship of walls to glass correct.
  That could apply equally well to houses, because in these glass palaces it is not uncommon for the temperature to rise or fall depending on whether the sun is shining or has gone behind the clouds. Some of these architects ought to be grasped firmly by the ankles and brought down to earth with a bump. We must seriously consider all possible means of providing houses at prices that we can afford. I say "we". I mean all of us—taxpayers, ratepayers, tenants—who are responsible for advocating, as we do on this Bench, the control and reduction of Government expenditure.
  We welcome the more realistic approach to private landlords which is reflected in the order and in the speech of the Minister. Indeed, it was evident in the thinking of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It is a line of thinking which has become more and more apparent on this side of the water. In tonight's Evening Standard there is a good article on this very topic.
  The other day Councillor William Bell, a close associate of my hon. Friend the

  385
  Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson), who has taken a special interest in this aspect of housing, said:
  "These improved grants would not only aid landlords to bring dwellings up to standard despite the low remuneration from fixed rent levels, but would also radically improve conditions for tenants and especially the high percentage of elderly people in this category."
  That is a view that one hopes will prevail in Northern Ireland.
  At present some strange contradictions exist even within the structure of the Housing Executive itself. I think the Minister and his predecessor to their cost will identify the problem that I shall briefly give as an example. It concerns the town of Ballyclare in my constituency.
  The district office of the Housing Executive in that town is doing its best to provide accommodation for young married couples. So far it has not been particularly successful because of the length of the waiting list. Many of those young couples, some with families, have been forced to live with their in-laws. Others have had to seek accommodation in remoter areas and to commute back to their home towns where they are employed.
  I have every sympathy with the district office staff. They have been helpful to me on many occasions. But now their problems will be vastly increased by the action of another branch of the same Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is in the process of condemning about a dozen houses known as Wilson's Row.
  That branch of the Executive approaches the tenants saying "These are not particularly good houses. Would you like to live in a nice brand new shining house?". Half of those tenants, with that carrot dangled in front of them, said that they would think about it, but the other half firmly said that they did not want to leave. The position is that the two branches of the Housing Executive will contrive to add a dozen more names to an already lengthy waiting list. What is more they will give an added priority to those people who have been made homeless by their own actions. Those people will receive a higher priority than people desperately in need of houses but whose points will not match up to
  386
  those tenants who have been displaced by the action of the Executive itself.
  In fairness to those displaced tenants I should say that this is a degree of priority that they do not seek. Is it not possible for the Government to persuade the Housing Executive to make sure that spare capacity exists in all these areas to provide accommodation for those whom it displaces before it condemns or demolishes existing houses?
  We welcome also the indications of a shift towards the repair and restoration of existing properties as opposed to the creation of vast new housing estates, which have proved social disasters. I hope that this thinking will influence the inquiry which began today on the proposed Poleglass development.
  In case any hon. Member thinks that I am being gloomy, let me offer him this glossy booklet produced three years ago describing all the joys of moving to the new community at Twinbrook, which is also in my constituency. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will agree that this is not a political or sectarian point. That estate was designed as an integrated estate—in other words, a person's religion would not be taken into consideration and people of different religions and political outlook would be encouraged to live and work together. As their Member of Parliament, I fully subscribed to that objective and did what little I could to assist.
  But I doubt whether anyone on that estate is not now compelled in some way to co-operate with the Provisional IRA. That is a very sad picture and exactly the same will happen if the Government allow the Housing Executive to proceed with what it now proposes at Poleglass.
  I do not wish to labour the point but it has been said that within the boundaries of Belfast there is, although not a great deal of space, certainly sufficient to house many of the people who urgently need accommodation. On one occasion, the hon. Member for Belfast, West agreed with me that such space existed within his constituency and within the city generally.
  I am hoping that the Minister, who takes a keen interest in all these affairs will examine the possibility of using the relatively small areas in west Belfast for

  387
  building new houses and that he will press on with his declared intention of restoring and rehabilitating existing houses, thus avoiding the development of huge housing estates anywhere outside the city boundary—I am not just thinking of Twinbrook and Poleglass.
  I have had experience of the community to the north tof the city called Rathcoole. It is much older than Twin-brook but it has taken years for those people to put down roots and develop any community spirit. Speaking now of people on the other side of the fence, I would say that some of those who have muscled in on the control of the amenities on that estate are no great credit to the people of Ulster.
  May we be assured that the scrutiny of expenditure to avoid waste will be applied to the workings and the administration of the Housing Executive itself? It has been the experience of all hon. Members that empires of that kind are difficult to control or supervise. While we are very grateful to the Minister and his predecessor for ensuring that the housing programme in Northern Ireland will escape most of the savage cuts being made elsewhere, we wonder whether some of the newly created and highly paid posts in the Housing Executive are necessary at this time.
  Finally, as we give our support to the order we hope that there will be more co-operation among the authorities responsible for housing. If I wanted to be naughty I might add that we hope for more co-operation among the various formations and elements within the Housing Executive. I trust that everything will be done to ensure that money is well spent and that those concerned will bear in mind the need for economy in design, construction and running costs of new and improved houses.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Legislation such as this, designed to build up the housing stock in Northern Ireland, must be welcomed. However, I have reservations about one or two points in the order.
  I have been in politics for a number of years in Northern Ireland both at local and central Government level at
  388
  Stormont and as a representative in this House. I have never been aware to any great extent of the rôle played by housing associations prior to the reformation of local government and the creation of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Most of the housing in Northern Ireland is run by local authorities and the Belfast Corporation.
  How many housing associations are there in Northern Ireland at present? It may be interesting to find out who are the people involved in them. I remember some years ago in the Stormont Parliament questioning the bona fides of a person who was a member of a housing association and yet seemed to be in collision with the Belfast Corporation, as it then was, in its attempt to buy land at Knocknagoney on which to create a Belfast Corporation housing estate. There seemed to be a conflict of interest brought about by the price of the land. The corporation was being asked to pay what was regarded as an outlandish price for the land, which was being sold by a member of a housing association. In giving our support to housing associations we must at all times be aware of the personnel involved. We must be convinced that they are anxious from the social standpoint to try to create houses.
  Will housing associations make a profit? The order does not make it clear. Local authorities make no profit, and the Housing Executive has not been making a profit. [Interruption.] There is no guarantee that the housing associations will not have to put up with the same builders as have been operating with the Housing Executive. If housing associations are to make a profit, will that be their function alongside the provision of homes? If profit is a motivating factor, I cannot see them opening up their big hearts to the people who will need homes.
  An old couple who lived in a rented house paid their rent religiously every week to the estate agent. Fortunately, the husband was able to keep the house in good condition. Then the owner, through the agent, sold the house to a housing association. The first thing the tenant knew about that was when he received a notice from the new owners to the effect that as they now owned his house they would increase his rent. He told the housing association that he had

  389
  signed an agreement with the agent, paid his rent every week and carried out his own repairs. He asked why the housing association should increase his rent by £1·50 per week.
  I met the Minister of State about the case, and many figures were produced to justify the rent increase. It was said that the housing association owned a lot of bad property in Belfast on which it had to carry out repairs and, as a result, had a deficit in the accounts which justified an increase in the rents of all the houses it owned. That seems a little unfair. The tenant was not told that his house was being acquired. Then he was asked to pay a rent increase on his home, which was in good condition, because the housing association owned bad houses. That tenant was one year off retirement. He might have been able to afford a higher rent in his younger days, but it seems unfair to charge him a higher rent on the eve of his retirement.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that Twinbrook was originally planned as an integrated estate to house people of all religions and none, but so also was Rathcoole. People of all religions lived happily there until the outbreak of the troubles five or six years ago. Now it is almost totally a one-religion estate. The Roman Catholics had to leave the estate just as the Protestants had to leave Twinbrook. It is a sad commentary on Northern Ireland when we have to talk about religion in the context of the provision of housing.
  On the Shankill Road and the Falls, in North Belfast, and New Lodge Road—which is represented by the hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—there are numerous housing action associations. I do not know how legitimate they are and what their function is supposed to be, but crossing the political and religious divide from Westland Road to New Lodge Road, to the Falls and Shankill Road, strange personnel can be found dictating to the Housing Executive who shall and shall not get a house and who shall be evicted. I have always been opposed to the Housing Executive talking to such groups. In all the associations, right across the religious divide, people are telling the Housing Executive what it should and should
  390
  not do. When they had the temerity to fight a local government election, they lost their deposits. However, the Executive is still talking to them.
  The order provides that there shall be housing action areas. The association personnel may well think that that terminology gives them justification for saying "We are a housing action group and this is a housing action area. Therefore, we are the people who must be consulted." I urge the Minister, who has only recently taken up his appointment, to be wary of the different organisations which claim to be the voice of the ordinary people when it comes to discussing housing.
  This is not a party-political point of view. This is a matter that affects all of us, particularly in Belfast, where elected representatives are being usurped by those who could not win an election. They are dictating what the Housing Executive should do in certain areas.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned the Poleglass scheme. Perhaps the best place to make known our sentiments is at a public inquiry. Should there be a reduced number of houses built there or should the number be increased? The houses have not been built so far, but there is a real need for houses to be built adjacent to the west Belfast area. I fully support what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is my information that there is still a certain amount of ground available in the West Belfast area which should be used for housing. I believe that the Housing Executive and the Minister would justify their case to a far greater extent as regards the Poleglass scheme if they built on any available ground. They would then be able to justify, if the figures so suggested, a further extension of the Poleglass development scheme.
  I know that in West Belfast it is not only the Catholic areas that need to be redeveloped and declared. There are many areas with that need in the Shankill Road area and in North Belfast. If my party and I have any influence to bring to bear, I hope that we can make Poleglass an integrated estate. I co not want to see it develop in the manner of the other estates I have mentioned, which would mean that it would be under the

  391
  control of one or other of the paramilitary organisations that we have in such abundance in Northern Ireland.
  I welcome the order. I believe it is necessary to try to quicken the provision of more houses in Northern Ireland. If it gives some impetus to housing associations, I hope that it will not be to the extent that people are forced to the conclusion that the task is far too large for the Housing Executive so it must therefore be unloaded on to the housing associations.
  Although it has its imperfections, I believe that the Executive has a necessary and worthwhile job to do, not only in Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland. I would rather have the Executive, given its imperfections, because it is answerable to us as elected representatives. The housing associations often have questionable motives or personnel. Will the Minister tell the House how many housing associations there are in Northern Ireland, what are their bona fides, and who are the personnel who control them?
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. John Carson: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) in congratulating the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on the pioneer work he put into this order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I represent the worst housing areas in Northern Ireland—possibly in the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we appreciate the Minister's efforts in trying to provide the best possible houses for the people of Northern Ireland.
  I am delighted to see in the Chamber the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the present Home Secretary, and also his former Minister of State, the present Minister for Social Security. It shows that they still display an interest in Northern Irish affairs.
  The housing grants covered by the order will go a long way to alleviate some of the problems in Northern Ireland, especially those faced by young married couples. On numerous occasions representations have been made to hon.
  392
  Members in the area on behalf of these young people, and it is always said that they have a good chance of obtaining housing accommodation. However, I believe that the contrary is the case and that young married couples in my constituency have to be married a very long time before they are considered by the Housing Executive. Therefore, the 75 per cent. grant—or the 90 per cent. grant in housing action areas—will go a long way to help young married couples who wish to take over houses in a bad state of repair and spend money on them to make them habitable.
  I was also pleased to learn that these provisions will assist the older generation. People who have spent 40 or 50 years in a house think twice before leaving. However, they fear that in future they will not be able to meet the rising costs in any new housing to which they may move.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South has already mentioned the cost of heating in some new homes. An old lady constituent of mine recently moved from her small comfortable parlour house into a new house on the outskirts of Belfast and, because of the high cost of the electricity, she was forced to ask her son to disconnect the heating system, for she could not meet the electric lighting bill.
  She was not like many other people in Northern Ireland who are determined to destroy its economy and to take everything they can get with nothing in return. She was an old lady of the old stock—and we should like to have more of her kind in Northern Ireland—who like to pay their bills and pay their way in life. However, she was forced to have her electricity cut off because she could not afford to pay for that heating supply as well as for her food and other essentials. I am pleased that the 75 per cent. grant will also assist other old people who find themselves in difficulties.
  I wish to question the Minister about abuses of the grant system because he said that the situation would be taken care of. If a private landlord carries out renovations to a house and receives a grant, whether it be 75 per cent. or 90 per cent., will he be able to let the house for at least five years?
  The landlord may well ask what grant he would be able to receive for that

  393
  house. Will he be able to charge the same rent as the Housing Executive and the housing assocations, and will he be able to charge for repairs? Even after repairs have been carried out, essential amenities installed in the house and he has received the grant, he has to undertake maintenance.
  This is a problem facing every private landlord throughout Northern Ireland. The Minister of State has said that some rents received by private landlords in Northern Ireland were not enough to buy a packet of cigarettes, and that is certainly still the case. Carrying out repairs over the next five years to the houses which will affect these grants will cost the landlords quite a lot of money. Would the Minister give an assurance that the landlord will be able to charge rents equivalent to those charged by the Housing Executive or housing associations?
  Everyone from Northern Ireland welcomes the schemes for the rehabilitation of old houses. But over the past two or three years we have had the Housing Executive closing down houses and then blocking them up. When the Executive is asked when it hopes to start rebuilding and providing homes for people, it cannot give an answer. It could be as long as two years. In my constituency there are many thousands of houses which have been blocked up in redevelopment areas, and the Housing Executive cannot say when the people will be rehoused, or even when the houses will be knocked down and new ones built. This is forcing people to leave these areas. When the Housing Executive says that it will take over an area for redevelopment in the future, decent tenants start moving out and then many houses are blocked up.
  We welcome the rehabilitation of old houses but there are some problems created such as the one in my constituency. An area of north Belfast comes under redevelopment area No. 7, some of which is included in a rehabilitation scheme. Just two weeks ago the Housing Executive, in one of the daftest actions I have seen, blocked up a house which had all the basic amenities—bathroom and toilet facilities, hot and cold water.
  One of my constituents went to the Housing Executive office in the area and said he would be willing to rent that
  394
  house rather than move to the outskirts of Belfast where he would face high costs of transportation in travelling to work. He wanted to sign for the house and move into it until the Executive took over. He was told immediately that the house was to be blocked up even though it had all the basic amenities. After two weeks, the Housing Executive came and blocked up the house, and the contractors removed the whole bathroom suite. No one knows where it went: it was not taken into the Executive's stock—I know because I made inquiries. I hope that if the housing association proceed with the rehabilitation schemes they will do so more effectively and on a more businesslike basis than did the Housing Executive. I hope that they will see that every house is properly looked after.
  I am delighted that the housing associations are to make provision for elderly people. These people have been neglected throughout Northern Ireland and, I believe, the United Kingdom, too. We can never do enough to help the elderly. I visit many of them in my constituency. They live in terrible conditions, and often when I leave them I wonder how they will survive the winter months.
  I would also welcome help from the associations for the handicapped. One family in my constituency—just one of many such families in Northern Ireland—have two children who are completely handicapped, a boy of 13 and a girl of 16. The Housing Executive refused the father permission to drive his car, which was necessary for getting the children about, alongside the house because that would have involved making a hole in the hedge and crossing a footpath. After making certain representations we secured that permission for them.
  But we have not secured permission for basic changes to be made in the houses of other handicapped people, for example, to enable them to move their wheelchairs around and to make things easier for them in their bathrooms. I hope that the housing associations will press ahead with many homes for the handicapped and will help with the work that is already being carried out by parents and others responsible for handicapped children.
  Is Article 14 sufficiently wide to control housing associations and to clarify their legal position? I fear that we could be

  395
  opening the gate to something similar to what happened with the Housing Executive when it had a rehabilitation scheme which involved handing out work to certain building contractors in West Belfast. I need not elaborate on that this evening. Certain of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) brought this matter to the attention of the House almost a year ago and highlighted some of the things which were being done under this contract. This matter is now being investigated by the police and I hope that it will be dealt with in the proper way. I hope that we are not opening the gate to something similar with the housing associations.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West has left the Chamber. He said that in certain areas of Belfast there were action groups, that there would be housing action areas, and that housing associations would be set up. A leaflet I have asked whether anyone can form a housing association. It says "The answer is Yes". I know that the Minister realises that many people in Northern Ireland are determined not only to bomb and kill but to destroy the Northern Ireland economy as part of the United Kingdom economy. These people will stop at nothing. They will even try to infiltrate housing associations and eventually to take them over. The grants those associations would receive from public funds would not go towards the good of Northern Ireland or towards the good of the people the associations are supposed to help. We must guard against those people who will try to take over housing associations, because that will not be for the good of the Northern Ireland people.
  On Part VII the Minister said that there were 25,000 unoccupied houses in Northern Ireland. Almost half of those must be in my constituency. These houses have been blocked up. Immediately a house becomes vacant, vandals move in. Terrible vandalism occurs in every part of Belfast. Vandals remove a layer of the roof, take away copper cylinders and water tanks and the water pours into the house. If there is a decent house next door, it suffers damn as a result, which forces good tenants out. To block up such houses costs a lot of
  396
  money. I have heard estimates from contractors ranging from £100 to £300, depending on labour, the length of contract and how the contractor feels. The Minister must take note of this situation.
  I know of a number of houses that have been vandalised beyond repair and it would be the height of foolishness for the Housing Executive to block them up. They should be demolished. It would be cheaper to knock them down.
  Many such houses are a health hazard. People dump rubbish in them and there have been complaints about the possibilities of disease. People living in such an area worry about rat-infested houses and the rubbish which is dumped over garden walls. Unoccupied houses which are beyond repair and rehabilitation should be demolished. With those comments I welcome the order.
  9.38 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The order is important. Once again, as representatives of the Northern Ireland people, we feel that this type of legislation should come before the House as a Bill so that hon. Members from Northern Ireland may have the opportunity not only for a full parliamentary debate but to move amendments to improve the legislation.
  We know that all sorts of representations are made about parliamentary time, and we are all aware of the great pressures under which the Government are operating because of the actions of another place. We know that all of us will probably have to be here at strange hours to debate coming legislation before the Session ends. But as the debate before this one did not continue as long as it could have done, we are at least able to discuss Northern Ireland business before midnight, and for that we are deeply thankful. We trust that on similar occasions in the future the Whips will so arrange matters that the business which is to be taken before orders relating to Northern Ireland finishes early, giving us more time to debate these important matters.
  There are 80 articles and six schedules in the order. I do not know how any legislative assembly in the world could adequately digest all of them in the time left to us. I know that, because

  397
  of what happened earlier, we will have a little longer in which to debate this issue. If the preceding business had not fallen, we would have had only two and a half hours. The Under-Secretary has an important part to play tonight. He has been asked a number of questions, and no doubt he will do his best to reply to them. I see the Minister of State sitting beside him. He was really the father, if I may put it that way, of the order. I do not know whether the Housing Executive was the mother, but the hon. Gentleman was certainly its father. We appreciate all that he did.
  The Minister of State has listened to many deputations. He must have been wearied listening to the story being told and retold. The story of housing in every constituency in Northern Ireland is almost identical. The names of the streets and the estates are different but the same conditions, alas, prevail. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made it clear that bad housing—houses that are unfit and need urgent repairs—exists on both sides of the religious divide.
  When I first came to this House, it was common to hear it said that while there were certain areas of bad housing in Northern Ireland there was good housing in the Protestant majority areas. In the heart of Protestant Sandy Row and in the depths of the Roman Catholic Falls Road, there is housing equally as bad, and I am glad that the House has learned this. It is essential that the people of Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to remedy that situation. Over 40 per cent. of the housing stock is substandard. Many houses are not fit for human habitation.
  Perhaps the Minister will spell out the criteria he will be using for the definition of housing action areas. Who will make representations to him? Will representations be made by the people the hon. Member for Belfast, West told us about—self-appointed persons who feel that there is something in these housing associations and housing action groups that they can exploit for political and other advantages? Will the Minister deal only with the city of Belfast, or will he come into the rural districts?
  I am reminded of the terrible state of affairs in my constituency, where 27·5 per cent. of the houses are unfit for habi-
  398
  tation or are below standard. Yet North and South Antrim are looked upon as being the most prosperous part of Northern Ireland. I say that with respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
  Unfortunately, the voice of Fermanagh is seldom if ever heard in this place. It is only right that we should stress tonight the terrible situation existing in Fermanagh. I believe that 40 per cent. of the houses there are unfit or below standard. We have a serious situation in the rural districts. We want the Minister to spell out the criteria to be used and how he is to proceed in the housing action areas, and also to tell us whom he is consulting. This matter is of vital importance to every Member from Northern Ireland.
  As I have said, much of the present housing stock is below standard. Some effort must be made to bring it up to standard. Then there are the houses which have been forsaken, which were good houses and have now been vandalised. As a result, they have been bricked up. Then there is the de-bricking process, which has been very expensive. Houses which cost £300 to brick-up have cost £10,000 to de-brick in Belfast, and figures of £7,000 and £8,000 have also been quoted.
  I am glad that the Fraud Squad is looking into allegations made in this House—allegations which were denied, especially by the former Leader of the Liberal Party, who suggested, because I mentioned these matters in Committee, that some sort of police action should be taken against me for daring to leak the vital information that the IRA was gaining ground through these large handouts. A member of the brigade staff of the IRA, Sheamus Loughran, was managing director of one of the firms concerned and he was getting about £7,000 or £8,000 for de-bricking a house. The cost of the material came on top of that. Therefore, houses built for £5,000 were costing perhaps £20,000 to £25,000 to put them in a proper state of repair. It is a sad and depressing story.
  It should be added also that when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made certain allegations, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shot them down in what

  399
  was perhaps a rather discourteous manner. But the truth is now coming out. The truth will always out.
  In the Northern Ireland Committee last January, my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) pointed out some of the serious things about the housing in his area—and I remind the House that this sort of thing can happen in both Roman Catholic and Protestant estates. In Rathcoole the Roman Catholics were driven out, or it was made impossible for them to live their lives there; in Twinbrook the Protestant people were driven out, or it was made impossible for them to live there. We all know what is happening in Stewartstown Road at the moment. This is a terrible situation but it is the reality that we have to face.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh told the Committee:
  "In my area, there are 500 empty houses. In Churchill Park, there are 145 vacant dwellings; in Obins Drive and Obins Avenue, there are 18 vacant dwellings; in Lurgan Tarry, there are 11 vacant dwellings; and in Ennis Close, there are 81. In Rathmore, 168 dwellings are vacant; in Meadowbrook, 18; in Drumbeg, 43; and in Wakehurst 11. The Under-Secretary knows why those dwellings are vacant. They are in notorious Republican areas. The murder of policemen and soldiers and petrol bombing—including one last week above Churchill Park—have driven out the Protestant community. There is no way in which I can convince people to go back to that area and live together. The only hope of sanity is integrated housing. There are 500 houses which are available only to one section of the community."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 22nd January 1976; c. 68.]
  Those houses should be occupied. I should be in favour of their occupation even by one section only of the community. But not one house has been built by the Housing Executive for the Protestants who were driven out of those areas. That could be argued in reverse for the Roman Catholics who have been driven out. We are very concerned about this matter. The Minister must look at this terrible problem.
  I do not know whether the Minister got the full strength of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). There is a conflict of interests within the Housing Executive because it administers the closing orders. Indeed, the closing orders are administered in very strange ways.
  400
  Some houses in my area are not fit for human habitation. I am not blaming the Housing Executive for that situation. The houses are the heritage of the old rural district councils—the Ballycastle Rural District Council, the Ballymoney Rural District Council and the Ballymena Rural District Council. Those three councils do not have a very good housing record. I am being charitable when I say that.
  There are houses in those areas with no amenities: no lavatories, water or sewerage. When any electric wiring took place, those councils said to the tenants "As we have wired your houses, we shall add a charge to your rent." Even if the houses had three different tenants, they still paid the charge. That is why there is an uneven rent structure in North Antrim. One person living in a house might pay £2·50 rent whereas others in similar houses might pay £2·75. That system goes back to the old heritage.
  Recently, one of my constituents said to me "Under the old council I needed a new fireplace. When it was put in, 5s. was added to my rent. That fireplace was installed 20 years ago. I have asked the Housing Executive for a new fireplace and have been told that I can have one, but I shall still have to continue to pay the extra 5s. which I have been paying all these years." These are some of the things that the Housing Executive is up against. People do not understand why a house should cost more because in the past electric lighting was installed by the council.
  I have no time for such councils and the way they act. They have gone now. Some of them felt that they should not be called into question. When I was first elected to Stormont and raised this matter, one of the councils immediately called a special meeting and passed a resolution not to answer any letters from me about the houses in its area. That was what we were up against. That was not even under direct rule.
  I am perplexed by the actions of the Housing Executive. In Duke Street, Ballymena, houses were bought by certain people and grants were given for improvements to be carried out. Now, the Housing Executive feels that all the houses should be closed. It asks tenants whether they would like to go to a new house with much better facilities, a house which

  401
  is off the road and which has a garden for the children. The Executive tells the tenants that they will be far happier in the new property. Before they have had time to consider it properly, they consent and the Executive puts them on the emergency list and slaps closing orders on their houses.
  Those who advise me on legal matters say that, as the law stands, there is no way of lifting an order. It is on for good. This is a serious matter. The Minister should take these points on board and consider them carefully.
  The Housing Executive does not slap orders on its own terrible, hopeless houses which have no water, sewers or other facilities. I took the housing manager in my area and showed him a woman's home with no facilities. When I asked why he did not put a closing order on the property, he said that it belonged to the Executive. Yet if I were the owner of that house a closing order would be served. There is a conflict of interest here.
  The Minister must find a way of preventing the Executive from having these two jobs. It cannot have the arbitrary power to close houses when it does not close its own properties which, if the same criteria were applied, should be the subject of closing orders.
  I am glad that the Minister and his Department will be the bosses in the acquisition of land. I know that the housing associations have been kicking against the pricks, but I should be worried if they were given this power. I congratulate the Minister on keeping control in his own strong hands.
  The associations can request the Minister to acquire land compulsorily and vest it in them. There is a strange anomaly in the provisions relating to vesting in Northern Ireland. If a Government Department vests land for a specific purpose and does not go ahead with the scheme, the original owner has no way in law to make the Department hand back the land. A Department may want land for housing, a school or a road. Land was acquired in Ballymena for the purpose of building a road, and the owner opposed the proposal. The only appeal in regard to money in these cases is to the Lands Tribunal. If an appellant wins his case, his expenses are guaranteed. If he loses,
  402
  he loses everything and has to pay all the costs. It was eventually decided not to built the road in Ballymena. It was decided that there would be a change. The man concerned would like his ground back again. The Ministry admits that no road will be put there. However, that man cannot force the Minister on this. If the Ministry, in its good grace, says "Yes, we shall negotiate and resell the land to you", of course it must now be sold at today's price. Therefore, the man has lost his land. He did not want to lose it. His ownership was called into question by the Government, and they took the land. Having taken it and not used it for the stated purpose—the land could not be purchased without that being spelt out—they have let it lie fallow, and the Minister has no power to force the Department or the Government on the matter.
  I should like an assurance that the Minister will look into this matter and safeguard the rights of owners. If an association takes land and does not go ahead and build on it, surely the owner is entitled to have it back again.
  I never advise constituents of mine to go the Land Tribunal, because of the way in which it is set up and the compensation that is offered for property. Even when a man goes to the Tribunal, he is likely to fail. If he fails, he loses everything. That is not a fair redress for a person in such a position.
  I am very sad that the Minister will not look more favourably on the farming community. Agriculture is the basic industry in Northern Ireland. We have had a serious move away from the land. It has not been helpful. More and more people will have to go back to the land. Increasingly, the position of the farming community will have to be borne in mind. When all other parts of the community are to get help, I do not see why the farming grant is not to be increased at all. The agricultural community will think that very strange indeed. After all, people are employed on the farms, and if their houses fall into disrepair there could be a drift away from agriculture again and a loss of employment.
  In the past week in Northern Ireland, factories have closed. That brings sorrow to all of us. The queue of the unemployed has swollen. One factory made prefabricated houses. I should like the

  403
  Minister to tell us something about its closure. It would seem that houses are needed in Northern Ireland. However, we suddenly hear that a factory that is making houses is to close. On the face of it that does not seem right.
  I do not think that the Housing Executive has been very helpful by its statement. It simply said that houses must be up to a standard. That was as much as saying that the factory concerned could not make houses to the Housing Executive's standard and that, therefore, it would have to close. That is what I assume from the statement, although that may not be so. I see that the Minister does not agree. However, perhaps he could explain this and tell us how many houses the Housing Executive completed three years, two years and one year ago and how many it will complete this year. We need to know how the Housing Executive is getting on with its building programme. I think that there has been a fall in the number of houses that it has been completing.
  Everyone who is prepared to put money into housing in Northern Ireland should be encouraged. If the public purse is not able to supply the wherewithal, those who want to build their own houses will have to be encouraged. In the debate in another place, the Minister said that the needs of Northern Ireland's housing would have to be specially tailor-made to meet the situation in Northern Ireland.
  Planning will have to be looked at again. It is very sad that planners seek to destroy the small hamlets in Northern Ireland. I am very much opposed to that. We have been told tonight about the jungle of the vast housing estates on the perimeter of Belfast. It would be far better for people who have been brought up in the community, and who are already integrated into it, to be able to build in that community and continue to reside there.
  I thought that when the rural planning proposals had been made—I understood that this was the objective—there would be some easing when people applied for planning permission. I have to attend many planning appeals and fight the cases of my constituents at those appeals, but the planning officer seems to think that his role is to keep everyone in a particu-
  404
  lar area. All sorts of area plans are floating around, and these proposals have now almost become the law of the Medes and Persians. Immediately a case comes up for appeal, the planning officer says, "These are our proposals and you cannot build outside this area". The officers have no statutory powers, and their maps are only proposals for discussion.
  In Ballymena there are people who want to build houses and replace old ones. I had one planning appeal at Ballycastle. The hon. Member for Belfast, West enjoys the sweet air of the glens of Antrim and he knows Bally-castle. In fact, we are told that he often plays a mouth organ in the glens. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever played "The Sash", but that is hardly something for this debate.
  However, I recently attended an appeal in Ballycastle concerning a farm house which had not been lived in and was disused. A man who was brought up in the area wanted to replace that house and build a new one on the site. We know that a directive has gone out and that a house must have four substantial walls and a roof, and if it can be proved that it was lived in within the past five years it will be considered as a dwelling. This particular farm house had not been lived in for some time, and there was a hole in the old-fashioned chimney breast which had been built outside. The planning officer said that because of the hole and the state of the house he did not recognise it as a house, and he would not give planning permission. I asked him "Is it not a nice home?" He replied "It is not nice". I asked "If a new house was built, would it not be a nice home?" He said "We would prefer nature finally to demolish that building rather than have a new house built there."
  How does a young man, who wants to put his money into that kind of house and bring his bride to it, feel when he walks out of a planning inquiry? There is an appeal system, and I am thankful that there is. I must say a word in favour of the Planning Appeals Commission. Those of us who take part in planning affairs know the good job that it is doing. But there are planners on the commission and there seems to be a

  405
  great effort to keep development away from the rural districts.
  I want country schools to continue. I want to see the country community continue. I want to see people brought up in those areas able to build there and live there. I want them to be able to bring their children to those areas, because they know those areas and they have had happy childhoods there. They could have a happy adult life in those areas and their children could have a happy childhood as well.
  I hope that the Minister will look not only at the matters raised tonight by various hon. Members from Northern Ireland but also at planning and in some way try to help us in respect of these matters.
  It is essential not only that the people of Northern Ireland are well housed but that they realise that they have a part to play in their own housing. I should like to see tenants taking more of an interest in the well-being of their estates. The Minister's suggestions in his recent publication are very helpful, and I hope that all those in Northern Ireland, whether in publicly-owned houses or privately-owned houses, will do their best to give their houses a face-lift so that all Northern Ireland will benefit and the world will realise that there are people in Northern Ireland who believe in its future.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Dunlop: The presence of a digital clock in the Chamber has an inhibiting effect on would-be speakers. To me it approximates to the green eye of the little yellow god. I shall therefore be very brief.
  I want to talk about the temporary housing of the victims of bomb damage. Recently, the little town of Castledawson, only 15 minutes' drive from my home, was savagely bombed and practically destroyed, and many people were left homeless. I pay tribute to the welfare people who did their best in the circumstances to rehouse those affected. But there are some anomalies and I want to draw attention to one of them.
  A baker who lives in the village and does a good job supplying the whole area with fresh bread had his whole establish-
  406
  ment completely wrecked and his home destroyed. He was reduced to moving into a caravan in his badly wrecked yard. He has to attend during the night to ovens and so on which have to be kept at a certain temperature.
  A good neighbour whose house was not too badly damaged offered the baker and his family the use of his house. The Housing Executive had already offered the baker a temporary house in the neighbouring town of Magherafelt, where, as a bombing victim, he was entitled to temporary housing. But that is five miles away. He could not afford to be that far from his business.
  Therefore, the friend who had offered his house said that he would go to the Housing Executive house to facilitate Mr. Ditty. The local management of the Housing Executive said, "That is all right, Mr. Campbell. You give your house to Mr. Ditty. But we cannot guarantee to give you the house that we were going to give him." Mr. Campbell will have to take his place in the queue, and if he does not have sufficient points, he will not get the house because his is not an emergency housing problem. That is a monumental anomaly. Surely more flexibility should be allowed to the local management to determine such a case.
  I wonder whether the Minister would remind the Secretary of State of his firm promise to visit that savagely bombed area. Some 250 lbs. of explosive was used—not home-made from fertilisers but gelignite—and it made an awful mess. The Secretary of State was not able to go to the village as he had promised. Perhaps the Minister would bring to his right hon. Friend's attention that promise which has not been kept.
  I hope that the Minister will concede that it is an anomaly that a man who wants to live near his business is prevented from doing so by the monumental bureaucracy of the Housing Executive. I went to see the housing manager personally. He threw down the booklet with all the little coloured chequers and said that he could not in all conscience give Mr. Campbell the house that Mr. Ditty was offered. I said that I did not understand that and he replied, "Those are the rules. I cannot do it."

  407
  There should be a little flexibility. I know that some people and some hon. Members are afraid of any local control of housing. I am not asking for that. I am asking for local management to have
  408
  some autonomy, contingent perhaps upon the approval of headquarters in Belfast, so that it may act sensibly to help people who have suffered grievously from bombing. I commend this idea to the Minister.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is by any standards a substantial piece of legislation. Had it applied to any other part of the United Kingdom, it would have made a considerable hole in the Government's timetable for the relevant Session. However, that is not a point for the debate, except to recognise that within the procedures under the 1974 Act Ministers have made very large efforts to secure at any rate a shadow of the collaboration which we get in the passage of legislation in the ordinary sense.
  There have been three months during which the order was in the form of proposals before hon. Members and before the public of Northern Ireland, and the previous Minister of State carried out a quite detailed consultation with my hon. Friend and myself. It is perhaps pertinent to inquire whether as a result of the consultations, and as a result of the prepublication in the form of proposals, there has been any difference at all between the proposed draft and the draft before us now. It would be interesting to know, because it would be surprising if legislation of this size got through the most benevolent Committee stage without the Government's recognising the necessity to make some improvements in it.
  As we develop the procedures for considering these orders, which were suggested during the appropriation debate in the summer, I hope we shall find that we get quite substantial changes between the proposal stage and the draft stage where major points have been brought to the attention of the Government.
  For the most part, the order brings about a far-reaching assimilation between the law in Northern Ireland and the law in Great Britain on the subject matter of housing grants and housing development. My hon. Friends and I would make no complaint of that. There are certain differences, which are fully justified; but in most respects this represents a drawing together of the procedures and law in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The first of the four major matters which the order covers is an illustration of that; for the provisions which are
  410
  being made for housing associations move away from the style of housing associations hitherto in Northern Ireland and apply almost precisely the law and practice as it stands in Great Britain. The Government are taking, if not a leap in the dark, at any rate a major initiative in seeking to make housing associations one of their instruments in Northern Ireland.
  In winding up, the Minister might respond to the invitations which have been issued to him in the debate to expand a little upon the precise function which the Government hope that housing associations are to fulfil. Will housing associations bring a greater flexibility than the Housing Executive can to the work of housing? Will they attract into housing capital from non-public sources which would otherwise not be available? Will they contribute additionally to the managerial skill and enterprise in the housing field? I think that it would be a service if the Under-Secretary would dilate somewhat upon this.
  Housing associations are to be an instrument of housing policy in Northern Ireland. Therefore we consider it right—in this respect the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been at one with my hon. Friends and myself—that the Department of the Environment should have full and proper control over the character and quality of the housing associations which are used. The rules, which are available in the form of a draft order, "Criteria for Registration of a Housing Association", of which the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to send advance copies to some of us, are impressive in showing how far the Department will he able to exercise control and surveillance over housing associations. For example,
  "The association must be … so fitted and organised as to be an acceptable body for handling public finance. The calibre and quality of the persons exercising this control should be such that the affairs of the association are likely to be conducted in a responsible and effective manner."
  These are matters of judgment, which will be exercised by the Department; but it is far better that the Department should impose strict standards—after all, hon. Members will have the right to intervene in any case where it appears that such

  411
  control is being unconscionably exercised—if housing associations are to play a bigger part in housing in Northern Ireland. They should be bodies fully competent for the purpose and fully respected by the public.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will respond to the question of which I gave him notice in an intervention in his opening speech and say more about the financial arrangements which are contemplated for the housing associations. Elsewhere in the order there are precise indications of the limits on the contribution which will be made by the Department towards housing operations. It is curious that the order is silent as to the criteria which will be applied in this respect. It is surely right that an indication of policy in that matter should be given by the Government before we part with the order.
  One more provision dealing with housing associations, although it reproduces that already in force in Great Britain, should perhaps he referred to. That is the provision for deficit grants for hostels which appears in Article 30 of the order. As the article stands, theoretically it would be possible for housing grants from the Department of the Environment to housing associations to subsidise the conditions and the rent of persons in hostel accommodation. If that were so, an undesirable overlap would occur between the housing agency on the one side and the social service agencies on the other: for the support of the individual and his provision with what he needs if he is unable otherwise to obtain it is primarily a matter not for housing provision but for the welfare and social services. Perhaps, therefore, the Under-Secretary of State will be good enough to indicate the limits within which this remarkable provision for meeting the deficits incurred in the provision of hostel accommodation by housing associations will be exercised.
  I turn to the second and third of the four main elements in the order. In doing so I observe that they are almost exclusively of relevance to Belfast. It is a reminder that Northern Ireland is not one place but two—namely Belfast and what is not Belfast. Many of the policies that have been devised to apply to the conditions of Belfast have little relevance
  412
  to the rest of the Province, and vice versa.
  As the Minister is relatively new in the Northern Ireland Office, I make a suggestion to him. Living, as Northern Ireland Ministers do, in Belfast and looking out from Stormont Castle over a part of the city, it is especially difficult for them to have constantly present in their minds a general perspective of the Province as a whole. It is important for them to make every endeavour to remember that when they are looking at Belfast and concentrating, as they often will be, upon its problems, it is not the only part—in some respects not a typical part—of the whole Province of Northern Ireland for which they are responsible.
  These two provisions which are primarily directed to Belfast relate to the housing action areas and the emergency provisions in Part VII of the order. I reiterate that the housing action areas should not become merely Housing Executive enclaves. The Department should endeavour to use as many agencies as possible in securing improvement in the housing action areas. If they can get the owner-occupiers, the private owners of rented accommodation and the housing associations to take a hand in the action areas, the result will be far better than if the matter is merely left, for simplicity or any other reason, to the Housing Executive. It will certainly need more effort—it always needs more effort—to produce variety rather than uniformity, but the effort will be worth while. I hope that that will be recognised by the hon. Gentleman when he replies.
  I turn to the emergency provisions in Part VII. We have been given a handsome undertaking that despite our legislative limitations these provisions will not be extended without representatives from Northern Ireland having the opportunity to discuss the proposal and, if necessary, enter objection. I emphasise again that it would be a bleak prospect if we were to accept that Part VII will be one of those cases where nothing lasts but the provisional. The acquisition and occupation—I think that "possessing" is the technical word—of property under Part VII will in practice bring property and land permanently into the hands of the Housing Executive. In the present circumstances in Belfast, none of us can say

  413
  that that is not right and necessary. But we should jealously maintain the temporary and emergency nature of this power. As soon as possible, it should no longer be necessary and should not be permissible for the Executive to exercise the powers which it is given in Part VII.
  Finally, I turn to the fourth of the major items. In some ways it is the most important of all the four elements of the order. Certainly it is the part which is most attractive—namely, the generous and extensive provision made for the repair and improvement of existing property other than the property of the Executive. I insert those last words because my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) did the House a service by reminding it that to discuss repair, improvement and rehabilitation of housing in Northern Ireland and forget the condition of so much of the stock belonging to the Executive would be the height of unrealism.
  One cannot but be oppressed by the burden of the inheritance which the Housing Executive took over from the predecessor housing authorities, especially perhaps in rural areas like mine. One comes almost unawares upon little groups of houses here and there across the countryside where the living conditions are as intolerable as any to be found in the slums of the great cities. Yet this property is vested in the Housing Executive. As one talks to the people living in these houses, they naturally want to have some intelligent prospect of what their future may be. So one finds oneself in constant communication with the Executive at all levels about the repair and improvement of this inheritance. Very often the Executive has to wait upon other branches of the Administration. Very often it is water and sewerage which are the dominant factors in these operations of the Housing Executive.
  Often—though this does not arise directly out of the order, the question of housing improvement involves it—it is of the greatest help if the Housing Executive is able, either through hon. Members or by other means, to give its tenants some view of a period of years ahead and of the manner in which improvements are expected to take place over that period. As a matter of simple public relations for
  414
  the Housing Executive and the Department, it is really important to be able to tell the inhabitants of houses such as those I have described that this is a three-year job or that is a five-year job, that this can be done next year but that that will be a quite distant project.
  We should never be afraid to obtain for our constituents and communicate to them that sort of projection of the future, whether or not it is agreeable in the particular case. I personally have received from all levels of the Housing Executive total co-operation in ascertaining projections and information about the prospects for this or that group of houses, this or that estate, in my constituency. I cannot but feel, however, that it would be helpful if at some stage these projections were pooled so that the tens of thousands of families—no, the hundreds of thousands—who occupy Housing Executive houses could see on a large scale that they too are to share in the process of repair, improvement and rehabilitation which Part VI of the order opens up for owner-occupiers and tenants of private property.
  The provisions of Part VI are 50 per cent. better than the corresponding provisions in Great Britain, and all of us from Northern Ireland will say "So they should be". But it is worth emphasising how great is the incentive which is being given to owner-occupiers and, subject to certain conditions, to landlords to repair and improve their houses. The owner-occupier or the landlord will have to put up only one-quarter of the cost of doing the job at most, and in some areas only one-tenth. He gets the improvement; he gets his property, which is his responsibility, put back into repair, improved and rehabilitated for 25 per cent. or even only 10 per cent. of the cost of doing the job. That is a remarkably fine bargain. The fact that we are all prepared to justify it in existing circumstances is evidence of the stress that the House and the Government place on the maintenance of existing property.
  One of the striking characteristics of Northern Ireland, and certainly of the part with which I am familiar, is the sheer volume of work which people do themselves on their houses. I do not believe there is any parallel in Great Britain to the readiness of people in Northern Ireland to turn to and carry out substantial

  415
  building works in the improvement of houses and the conversion of buildings. It is quite common to find an ordinary member of the public, perhaps newly married, setting out to convert an old school house with his own labour and a little assistance from others into a home for his family. It is that sort of initiative which ought to be getting an impulse from Part VI of the order, and we will be very disappointed if it does not receive it.
  This point underlines what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North about the obsession of the planners in favour of housing development in large masses. Perhaps it is easier for someone who came to Northern Ireland from outside than for natives of Northern Ireland to see what a great asset the Province has in the pattern of distribution of its population. The structure of rural Northern Ireland, which at first sight appears to be a haphazard scatter of houses, but which, upon more intimate acquaintance, is seen to be the product of a long and characteristic history, will be a great asset for Northern Ireland in the coming years and one which ought not to be destroyed by the application of planning rules of thumb that might be very satisfactory on the outskirts of cities or in other parts of Great Britain. As the turnover takes place from agricultural occupation to industrial occupation, this distribution of population will be a source of great strength in enabling the people to turn from one type of life and employment to another without having to desert their rural background and without destroying the essential and characteristic heritage of Northern Ireland.
  This will not happen unless the planning authorities in Northern Ireland are deliberately concerned not merely to maintain but to expand the existing nuclei right across the face of the country. Over and over again we come across cases where an additional house, a house for an employee—not a farm employee, for whom it is relatively easy, but an employee in one of the shops or small workshops in a tiny hamlet—is required, but where this is being resisted by the planning authorities on the ground that if the man wants a house he ought to move
  416
  to Downpatrick or some other major area of population.
  One is not pleading the case for sporadic development when one says that planning ought to be engaged in Northern Ireland in the preservation, maintenance and revivification of the typical groups of houses and hamlets which are its characteristic. I hope that the effect of Part VI will be to strengthen that characteristic spread of the population.
  Finally, coming from owner-occupied to landlord-owned houses, there is of course a factor in all this which has been only lightly mentioned this evening, and that is rents. It is no use supposing that all the provisions in Part VI will secure the maintenance of the existing stock of rented housing unless rents are adequate to give the landlord a reasonable reward for the responsibility which he undertakes, as well as to cover the economic cost of keeping the property, once it is repaired and rehabilitated, in decent condition. We need urgently to have a debate upon rents in Northern Ireland. It is already about two years overdue. The Under-Secretary, we suspect, is anxious to have such a debate. Certainly it is time that something was done about the structure of private rents in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends and I and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Belfast, West can assure the Government that in tackling that task they will have the technical support, the parliamentary support, as well as the policy support of Northern Ireland Members.
  A large number of questions have been put to the Under-Secretary in the debate. There are some which he must in all fairness answer in the course of his windup speech. As to the rest, I am sure that he will follow the admirable standard his colleagues have set in previous debates of mopping up behind and ensuring that all the points that have been raised receive, sooner or later—and the sooner the better—a reply from him in writing.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Carter: This has been an extremely wide-ranging debate. We have gone from Wilson's Row in Ballyclare to Dixon Street—I was not sure where that was—and from West Belfast to Fermanagh. This would tend to highlight the extent of the housing problem in Northern Ireland.

  417
  Since I have been responsible for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, we have issued a wide range of policy documents and discussion documents, and now we have the order. It has, therefore, in a very short space of time, given me an excellent insight into the housing problems of Northern Ireland. I am not an expert on European housing matters, but I would not mind hazarding a guess that Northern Ireland's housing problem is probably as bad as that anywhere in Western Europe and is probably a lot worse than most. The debate so far tonight has confirmed that.
  To say that there have been 50 years or more of neglect in Northern Ireland may be considered by some to be too pointed an observation. One cannot direct a criticism at any one group or organisation. I suppose that everyone in Northern Ireland, with the situation as it is, has made a contribution of some kind towards the problem. The problems are enormous. They are problems of disrepair, lack of amenities and, of course, the dreaded problem of sectarianism—and, thankfully, we do not experience that in the greater part at least of Great Britain. No one in the debate has sought to underestimate its effects on the housing problem. None of us for one moment must ever try to underestimate its overall effect. I hope that this order and all the discussion documents which have been issued with it will mark the beginning of the long fight back. We must not deceive ourselves. It will be a long fight back. We have a long way to go. We must be optimistic but at the same time realistic.
  We want to adopt a diverse approach. There is no monolithic approach to Northern Ireland's housing problems. If one takes out Belfast, Northern Ireland is still essentially a rural community and because of its nature any solution to the problems demands that the approach be diverse.
  I assure hon. Members on all sides of the House that while I am Minister responsible for housing I shall devote all my energies to the housing problem. Even though I have been in office for less than seven months, I can see that many of the problems, be they social, economic or political, are based on bad housing. If we could get to grips with the problem of bad housing we might
  418
  make a contribution to solving Northern Ireland's many other problems. Having said that, I do not underestimate the size of the problem. It is enormous, as the range of questions asked in the debate has indicated. I shall do my best to answer all of them. If I forget anything it will be dealt with later and the fullest possible reply will be sent to hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked about housing association rents. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, this is to some extent a leap in the dark. We have Great Britain legislation in the background to which we can refer but for Northern Ireland it is an entirely new venture. We shall have to see how we go. We expect that the average grant will be about 80 per cent, but we stress that the grant will vary from scheme to scheme. With the range of housing and the range of people for which housing associations will cater, we cannot say what figure will be put on rents. We hope that housing associations will work in the housing action areas, for we want to see the most diverse approach to housing action areas.
  We also want to see housing associations involved in the private sector. As hon. Members opposite know, much of the small terraced property in Belfast remains in private hands. We hope that with the availability of grants, much of the private property can be maintained and that we can get the most diverse approach possible.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon also asked about the present take-up of improvement grants. It is not great. I will give him a detailed reply by letter but we hope, with the increased publicity that we shall be devoting to the whole subject of improvement, that there will be a much greater take-up. If there is not, the policy will fail. We shall do what we can to ensure that there is the maximum possible take-up. In that event the policy will be successful.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there are 25,000 properties in the private rented sector with rents under £1 and asked whether, in view of that, the private rented sector would be retained. It is our hope that a large part of it will be retained, but clearly there are great

  419
  difficulties. Of the 60,000 houses in the private rented sector, 25,000 are currently regarded as unfit for human habitation. These are clearly candidates for a public take-over. We have to be frank about that. We hope that we can leave the rest in the private sector.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of compulsory powers. He asked whether the houses would remain in public hands. The answer is that they will. There is no doubt, if the Housing Executive takes over a property, that it will remain in the ownership of the Executive. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) talked about the past difficulties of housing associations in Northern Ireland. To be honest, there has not been much of an effort in the past and no doubt there have been problems. We shall do what we can to ensure that housing associations play a major part in housing provision in Northern Ireland.
  I was asked whether there would be encouragement to take up major schemes. If experience in Great Britain is anything to go by, housing associations will not be so involved. They tend to concentrate on smaller groups of housing. Once again, we shall have to see how we go. We never know. Housing associations in Northern Ireland, given the support of the Department, may well prove to be a greater success than in Great Britain as a whole.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South dealt with rent rebates and said that there was not sufficient take-up in many areas. I am told by the Minister of State that, with the assistance of hon. Members and of councillors, there has been an increase in the take-up. We value the assistance that has been given to us. The Department will do all it can, along with the Executive, to increase the justified take-up of rent rebates.
  Housing for older people was another issue that concerned the hon. Member, as it does us. We hope that housing associations will play an important part in the provision of such accommodation. To a certain extent this has been a neglected area in Northern Ireland. With the wide range of instruments available to us—housing associations, the
  420
  Executive and the private rented sector—we shall do all we can to assist here.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South was rather concerned about the standard of new housing, as is the Department. Given the fact that we have an enormous job before us in the provision of new housing, we must ensure that what we do build will last. We do not want to be constantly repairing and maintaining. We want to put up a house, leave it and get on with the job of providing more homes or renovating existing properties. The hon. Member raised a case concerning Wilson Road in Ballyclare. I will have the Department look at this and reply later to the hon. Member.
  We are all concerned about the demolition of existing stock. But, to be fair, one must point out that the general demolition of existing housing has been the subject of some controversy in the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no doubt that we have gone much too far in destroying existing houses. Who is to blame, I do not know; the politicians have played their part. For 25 years we saw the solution to the problems of the inner cities in the removal of the older houses and the export of the people in them to new towns.
  I live on the edge of a new town and have done so since I married 17 years ago. I know that in moving from an inner city area to a new town I escaped some problems, but I ran into others. Tragically, however, we have been able to learn only by experience. We have enough experience now. We have enough time before us in Northern Ireland, and we certainly have a big enough problem there. Where we can save existing houses, and in so doing save existing communities, we shall do all we can to achieve that end.
  But it is not always easy. Sometimes the saving of old houses is much more expensive than the provision of new ones. I hope that we can all work together in this. The Department and the Housing Executive do not want to impose on any individual or community something that they plainly do not want. If people do not want to live on the 20th floor of a block of flats, we do not want to put them there.

  421
  One of the saving graces of the housing scene in Northern Ireland is that, with the exception of Belfast, we have the land available. That cannot be said of my own city of Birmingham. The right hon. Member for Down, South probably knows rather more about this than I do, having been a Member for an almost adjacent constituency. He knows that urban constituencies are circumscribed by boundaries from which they simply cannot escape.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South spoke also of new towns. He raised the question of Poleglass, which is the subject of an inquiry, so I shall not go further into that matter tonight. He also raised the question of Twinbrook. No doubt, if we had had long enough tonight, other hon. Members could have raised problems relating to new towns such as Craigavon. We know that there are problems and we shall not run away from them. We shall try to deal with them in the best and most rational and, above all, the most humane way possible. I know that everyone in Northern Ireland who is concerned with the housing problem is prepared to work in that spirit.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to scrutiny of the Housing Executive's expenditure. This is a new body. Obviously it will have to learn from experience. But if hon. Members opposite have cases which they feel are a criticism of the Executive, I know that the Executive will be only too glad to look at them, and the Department wants to look carefully at any problem put to it. We are all keen to ensure that we get value for money in housing because we have such a massive problem in Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked how many housing associations there were. There are between 30 and 40 housing associations. If he wants a more detailed answer, I will send it to him.
  My hon. Friend was concerned about the bona fides of both present and future housing associations. I am sure that he heard what I said about the powers that we have and intend to use to ensure that housing associations are run in a legitimate way by legitimate people. I have been at the Northern Ireland Office for only seven months. My hon. Friend has
  422
  spent a lifetime in Northern Ireland and therefore knows the background of both past and present difficulties regarding voluntary associations. We are aware of these problems. We do not think that, because of the difficulties, we should jib at moving into an area which can make a considerable contribution towards relieving the housing problem. We have taken on board what he and other hon. Members have said.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulty that he and others have in dealing with housing bodies, tenants' associations, and so on. We are aware of this problem. We cannot hide the fact that these bodies exist. We keep a constant watch on this matter. Again, if hon. Members have information which will make our job easier, we would welcome it.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) stressed the need to make housing grants available to young married couples. We are concerned to ensure that housing action areas, particularly in Belfast, principally because of the smallness of the accommodation, do not become enclaves for old-age pensioners. We shall try to produce balanced communities. If young married couples are prepared to go into housing action areas and to take up accommodation which has only two bedrooms, that will be welcomed. We shall do all that we can to structure, if that is the right term, the community in the proper sense. We do not want to leave retired people behind in areas which have been renovated.
  We are aware of the abuse of grants, but have power to oversee grants and we shall do all in our power to ensure that grants are properly claimed and used. Again, if hon. Members can provide us with information which indicates that things are going wrong, we shall welcome it.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North asked what system would be used to determine rents in the private sector. A document under my name was recently issued by the Northern Ireland Office making certain proposals. We await responses and ideas. The idea that we put forward was that there should be a multiplier acting on the net annual valuation. It is only an idea. If we receive a better suggestion from local authorities, hon. Members or any other

  423
  groups concerned with housing, we shall be only too pleased to look at it. At the end of the day we want to produce a viable rent which will maintain units of accommodation in a proper standard of repair.
  The Belfast community—I stress Belfast—must have a vested interest in maintaining property at a reasonable standard in areas in which it likes to live. In this sense there is no such thing as cheap housing. In fact, cheap housing in Northern Ireland has brought us to the stage at which we are now. If we had had economic rents in the private sector during the past 50 years, most of the houses which have been demolished would still be there. There is not much private rented accommodation left in Northern Ireland. We believe that a viable renting system is the best guarantee of its survival.
  The hon. Member spoke about control of the housing associations. I can only repeat to him what I said to the hon. Member for Belfast, West.
  Mr. Carson: Would the Minister not agree that although his Department had control over the Housing Executive in the past, millions of pounds of public money have been wasted on grants and contracts for rehabilitation which are now the subject of police inquiries? Could this not happen again even if his Department keeps a sharp eye on the housing associations?
  Mr. Carter: The police are investigating certain matters and I do not wish to comment on them. We intend to act in the most vigorous way to ensure that abuses do not occur in future. I cannot stress that enough.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of protecting vandalised houses. If we wish houses to remain in existence, we must take action to safeguard them, and in many cases this is costly. However, I do not believe that many people would agree with the hon. Member that demolition is the answer. Most people look forward to vandalised houses being used again. Knocking them down and rebuilding them would be infinitely more expensive than the current temporary steps which we are taking. In any case, the demolition for which the hon. Gentle-
  424
  man is asking would not have been possible before we introduced this order.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) complained about the lack of time, but this order has been chewed over for two years and housing has been before the Northern Ireland Committee. Given the round of discussions which have taken place, I do not think that anyone can complain about lack of time. The way in which we deal with certain Northern Ireland legislation may not be satisfactory, but on this occasion we have had a good deal of discussion and everyone has had ample time to comment on the proposals.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked how we would define housing action areas. This will be done in consultation with the Housing Executive, local authorities, hon. Members opposite and other parties concerned with housing. We want to get the greatest possible amount of agreement, though it is true that, particularly in Belfast, there will be little disagreement about what constitutes a housing action area.
  Perhaps the hon. Member was wondering whether the principle would also apply in rural areas. The answer is "Yes". If he can point to a rural town which would benefit from this action, there is no reason why, with agreement, we should not move ahead there in the same way as we would in Belfast.
  The hon. Member also dealt with a number of problems associated with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. No one can deny that there have been problems. The Executive faces enormous difficulties. There were housing problems long before it was established. That is why we are here tonight. It would be difficult for any body to operate in a blameless and efficient way in this field. The Housing Executive has done a great job so far. With this order and other proposals that we have made, we hope that the situation will be improved.
  Up to the limit to which I have referred, farm houses can benefit. The hon. Gentleman should not be under the impression that farm houses of any kind in rural areas are outside the scope of the improvements.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of TRADA houses. I have a long

  425
  brief on the subject, but I shall not bore the House by reading it tonight. However, I shall give the general outline and write to the hon. Gentleman. When I heard the radio broadcast on Friday, I was rather worried and concerned, given the scope of the housing problem in Northern Ireland, but having looked at the matter I am satisfied that the Housing Executive has operated in the correct fashion here.
  The original order was for 100 houses, but on an experimental basis. We could have bought those 100 houses here in Great Britain, but we decided, because of the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland, that we would get those 100 houses constructed in Ulster. We have to wait to see precisely how those 100 houses stand up to the test of time. In the meantime, however, we cannot produce any more.
  When one sets the current concern alongside the factual background against which the order was placed, the apparent contradiction of having an enormous housing problem yet shutting down a part of a firm constructing houses can be understood.
  Mr. Carson: How long does the Housing Executive allow for these TRADA houses to be tested? Surely the Minister must be aware that these houses have stood over a winter, and in fact a full year. How long will it be before he will be able to say that these houses have stood up to the test?
  Mr. Carter: I would not have thought that a year was long enough. I should have thought that it would be about five years. Many people have moved into flats and have been quite happy for two or three years but have discovered after five years that they were not so pleasant. It is not only a matter of structural problems. There is also the question whether people are happy. I have been in one of these houses. The first impression is that people like them, but we shall have to wait longer than a year. If we can cut down the time, well and good. We are seeking an optimum solution. We are not trying to impose anything on anyone.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North then asked how many houses had been completed in each of the last three years.
  426
  In 1973 the figure was 5,966, in 1974 it was 5,412, and in 1975 it was 4,885. In 1976 we hope that the figure will be about 6,000, so this year should be the best of the last four. That is how things stand at present.
  The hon. Member went on to deal with the question of rural planning, about which I have heard a lot in the last few days. No doubt some of what I have said over the past few days has found its way back to the hon. Member. It was no more than three or four weeks ago that I first looked at the question in the Department. I knew that I would be meeting the Association of Local Authorities on a couple of occasions, on one of them specifically about rural planning, and that I ought to come to grips with the problem as soon as I possibly could because it is an issue of great concern in Northern Ireland.
  I have some sympathy with the way in which people react to current planning matters in rural areas. I cannot be too specific tonight, but with the issue of planning notes within days rather than weeks, and guidelines on wider planning matters in the rural areas, I hope that for at least a year we can operate a slightly more flexible system. I have given the Association of Local Authorities an undertaking that it can come back on the matter—it will come back in a year's time—and that we shall look at the way in which the rural planning system has operated. If it is satisfactory we shall continue with it. If it is not, we shall look at it again to see whether we can refine it. All that we want to do is to ensure that the rural environment is protected. No one is keener in that respect, I would have thought, than those who live in the rural environment, but it must be said that those who live in towns may also have something to say about it. The countryside belongs to us all, not simply to those who live in it.
  My initial feeling is that we ought to concentrate rather more on the small nuclear communities in the rural areas where services exist. That is only a general approach of mine at the moment. I cannot guarantee what outcome will flow from what I shall now say. Where small nuclear communities exist, such as hamlets and villages, I cannot for the life of me see any reason—given that the services are available—why we cannot

  427
  extend those communities in a planned and orderly way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that would conflict with wider planning, housing and population questions in Northern Ireland.
  Even though some hon. Members opposite said "Hear, hear", I have no doubt that, probably in a few months, when the system is in operation, they will see certain objections to it. I do not think we shall find a perfect system for the administration of rural planning either in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: We deeply appreciate what the Minister has said and we look forward to the implementation of some of these things. Would the hon. Gentleman say a word about these proposed plans which have no statutory power but which have been tightening their grip on certain areas such as the perimeters of Ballymena, Ballymoney and other towns?
  Mr. Carter: The policy is currently under review. I do not think that I can go much further than what I have said tonight. If hon. Members opposite have ideas on this matter I would like to hear from them. I certainly hope to work in the closest possible way with the local authorities in this area. In fact, I have positively asked them to go away and look at their local authority areas and try, among themselves, to come to some agreement about where they think development will be most appropriate.
  I would not suggest for a moment that we shall necessarily accept what they say to us, but hopefully we can have a productive dialogue. There is no reason at all why we should be at loggerheads.
  I have already dealt with the question of housing on farms. Houses on farms will qualify for grants in precisely the same way as other housing will, up to the ceiling to which I referred before.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) raised a wider question, although he raised it in the context of a particular case—the problems of victims who suffer from bombing or being burned out. If the hon. Gentleman will leave that with me—I have not encountered the difficulty before—I will get my officials to look into it and send him a reply. If the hon.
  428
  Gentleman is not satisfied in respect of the particular matter he raised, we shall look closely at it. Anyone would be concerned at the plight of people who have been forcibly thrown out of their home and, as a consequence, have housing problems.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South raised two points in an interjection when I spoke at the outset. I would give him a detailed reply on the first point on housing associations. It is that housing association grants will be based on an overall appraisal of the scheme. The capital costs, on-going management costs, income from rents and the level of grants vary from scheme to scheme. This is the basic system which exists in Great Britain. We expect that the average grant will be about 80 per cent. but I would stress that the grant will vary from scheme to scheme. The revenue deficit grant and hostel grant will be based on an analysis of the revenue grants of the association. If that does not go far enough for the right hon. Gentleman I shall certainly send him a more detailed reply later.
  On the question of the renewal of the powers in the order, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I give the undertaking once again that discussions will take place before any attempt is made to renew them after five years.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was a difference between the draft published and the order as it now exists. As a result of the consultation process, a number of amendments, major and minor, were made. For example, the repairs grant was extended to cover all rent-restricted houses and Article 66 was extended to ensure that essential repairs were carried out to unoccupied houses to prevent damage to adjoining property. No doubt I could give more detailed examples, but that serves to illustrate what I said to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, that extensive consultations are taking place.
  As to what the functions of housing associations will be, as the right hon. Gentleman said to some extent this is a leap in the dark. Their rôle will be as big as the potential for housing associations in Northern Ireland. They will be complementary initially to the activities of the public sector, but one never

  429
  knows. Perhaps legitimate housing associations, properly run and organised, could have a bigger role to perform in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. We shall have to wait and see.
  The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the control of housing associations. I can only emphasise again that the Department and I recognise the difficulties in this area. One would be foolish ever to try to ignore them. We are well aware of them and we shall do all we can to ensure that housing associations remain proper organisations in the sense of the legal definition and that they are run by the right people.
  I have referred to hostel deficit finance. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the difference between Belfast and the rural areas. I am well aware of this. Since I have been in Northern Ireland I have travelled over most of the Province. I have been to all the major communities, such as Derry, Newry, Down, Fermanagh, Enniskillen, Armagh and of course throughout Belfast. I have even been to Ballymena, but I think that I have been to most places in the Province.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Not Rathlin Island.
  Mr. Carter: I have looked at it from Corrymeela. I hope one day to go there and meet the king himself. That is a pleasure yet to come, but I suppose there are many pleasures to come in Northern Ireland. I am certainly aware of the difference between Belfast, a major conurbation, and the rural areas. I hope that what I have said about rural planning will show that I am aware of the difference.
  The right hon. Member said that housing action areas should not be Housing Executive enclaves. Once again, I have dealt with that. We sincerely hope that we can encourage a multiplicity of provision in a housing action area. We want to ensure that communities in Belfast—we are looking at Belfast specifically here—have a viability and social cohesion which can only come from diversity.
  The right hon. Gentleman was worried about the emergency provisions. He has
  430
  cause to be worried, but they are allied to the existing situation. We hope that as soon as normality returns to life in Northern Ireland the need for these provisions will disappear. In any event, I have already given assurances on how the Government will go about seeking any renewal.
  Although there have been several references tonight to the improvement of property owned by the Housing Executive, it is the first I have heard of the difficulty. I shall see what can be done to ensure that, particularly in rural areas, Housing Executive property is quickly brought up to standard. I can think of some difficulties, but we must tackle them with a sense of optimism and hope and not leave them because someone suspects that they are incapable of solution. I do not believe that they are.
  I have given the Department's view on how we might proceed over private sector rents. If hon. Members have ideas on the subject we shall be pleased to hear them. Our view is that the net annual valuation times a multiplier yet to be determined is perhaps the best way to go about the matter. However, we shall welcome views on that and on all the other housing proposals now before the people of Northern Ireland.
  I believe that with two documents published in the past few days, on tenant participation and new forms of home ownership and on the private rented sector, together with the order, we can make a major attack upon, and hopefully find a permanent solution to, the problems of housing in Northern Ireland. It is a desperate problem, but one which the Government are determined to overcome. I believe that, with the co-operation of the Housing Executive, emerging housing associations, the local authorities and hon. Members, we can overcome the difficulties, no matter how big some people might think them to be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be approved.

  SCHOOL UNIFORM (GRANTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the question of school uniform grants, though I have two reservations. First, I am not a believer in school uniform. I find it odd that secondary schools try to encourage pupils to show self-expression in the use of English, in drama and in art, that they encourage pupils to make decisions and exercise choice, and yet deny them self-expression when it comes to what they should wear in school. However, I accept that many schools demand uniform and that it will be a long time before we can change that.
  My second reservation is that ideally the Government should be trying to abolish school uniform grants. One of the major aims of trying to introduce a generous child benefit was to remove the need for fragmented means-tested grants such as this. If the Government had been able to introduce for next Easter a generous child benefit scheme I should not be raising the subject now. Sadly, the Government have not been able to introduce the generous level of child benefit that I wanted to see. Therefore, it is important that the Government review the many fragmented forms of benefit and consider whether they can he improved.
  What is the position of grant towards school clothing? What is the position of the Department of Education and Science? The Department states:
  "It is to be hoped that in any review of school clothing arrangements, authorities will bear in mind the position of poorer parents and ensure that grants towards the cost of distinctive clothing such as school uniform are adequate as Section 81 of the Education Act, 1944 puts it, 'for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them.'"
  That is what the Act states and what the Department says in interpretation of it, but what happens in practice is often very different. It seems that on the whole the schools rather than the education authorities decide what uniform they
  432
  want. They often do that with no regard to how much grant is available in their local area. If they take that factor into account, very often they provide two lists to the parents of children entering the schools, one containing what is called essential school uniform and the other what is described as desirable school uniform. However, in a variety of ways they put pressure on the parents to conform not only to the essential list but to the desirable list.
  When we talk to 12-year old girls or boys entering secondary school we find that they are concerned not to be different from other pupils. They tend to go to the full excesses of any list that is supplied by the school rather than limiting themselves to the essential items. Many schools are asking parents to spend about £50 a year on school uniform and clothing that they consider essential. It cannot be said that the whole of the £50 is being spent as a result of the school uniform as it is obvious that the children have to go to school in clothes. However, there is much evidence that school pressure probably doubles the cost to the parent. Instead of having a cost of possibly £25 to clothe a child adequately for a year so that he or she can attend school, the demand for the school uniform means that the cost is doubled.
  I am aware that there is great variation from school to school. Some schools still have elaborate uniforms. They go in for blazers with fancy beading down the sides and a woven badge on the pocket. Other schools go in for much simpler uniform, merely saying that they would like pupils to wear clothes of the same colour—for example, either blue or grey.
  Just as the demands from schools vary, so does the response of many local authorities. There is great variation in the means tests that local authorities apply. There are also great variations in the amount of grant and the frequency of grant that local authorities make. From all the information that I can gather, it is clear that over the past two or three years grants have slipped behind the steadily inflating cost of school uniforms. They have slipped even further behind the demands that schools are increasingly making.

  433
  I have been supplied with a great deal of information by the Child Poverty Action Group. In a recent survey it found that authorities such as Liverpool were making a grant of about £10 every two years and that some schools in the area were demanding uniforms costing £50. In the borough of Barnet in the London area the grant varied between £12 for the 11-plus pupil, to about £20 for a pupil of 15. The borough's estimate of the cost of essential school uniform was £25. That covered only one item of each piece of equipment. It is not easy to wash a shirt every night, or every couple of nights, so that the pupil can wear it again the following morning. If we are realistic, the assessment was very much out of keeping with the size of the problem. My own area of Stockport is fairly good about the amount that it will make available. It bases the grant on the school meal means test. It provides for essential items such as a blazer or its equivalent and, if the schools still insist on them, it covers such items as a tie or a cap.
  However, there is a clause in the scheme which says that need has to be proven and the authority interprets that by saying that the child must not have any of those items. I have recently come across a problem with parents who have bought those items using money saved perhaps for an electricity bill. The parents have asked the authority for a grant but have been told that a grant could not be made because the items had already been purchased. That seems to be a major anomaly.
  Let me list the problems that school uniforms create for low income families, particularly when the parents are determined that their child shall not suffer or be different from other children. Uniform usually means that a child has to have two different types of clothing, one for school and one for the weekends, and that greatly increases clothing costs.
  The uniforms are often of poor quality and that often means that the parents are involved in extra expense. I admit that the school cannot win in that respect, for if the clothes are of good quality, that puts up the initial purchase price and if they are of poor quality, there are extra recurring costs.
  434
  Another problem is that the expense comes for the low income family in one fell swoop. Some schools estimate about £50 for a whole year's uniform, but parents often have to spend £40 at one go when the child moves into secondary school. Finding £40 at the end of the school holidays in late August or early September is a tremendous burden for low income families.
  There is a problem about sports equipment, especially in view of all the other demands that a school may place on a pupil—cookery and craft requirements, for instance. Many parents are being asked an average of £2 a week to send their children to school in what is supposed to be our free system of education.
  Another problem for parents is that getting help is not at all easy. The application forms for means tests are extremely complicated and it is often difficult for parents to get hold of them. Stockport, which I represent, defends the complexity of the application form by saying that the education welfare office is expected to help most people to fill in the form. However, parents find it confusing, particularly if they are receiving supplementary benefit they have to decide whether to apply to the supplementary benefit office or the education office for extra help. They are often pushed between the two. I understand that if it is distinctive clothing, school uniform, they should go to the education office and if it is essential clothing, they should go to the Department of Health and Social Security. Parents are often shuttlecocked between the two authorities, getting nothing but confusion.
  A great deal of confusion exists because of variations in demands by the schools and the amounts of grant that authorities give, so that people who live relatively close to each other and who have children going to the same school get different grants because they live in different areas.
  A growing problem is the way in which the wearing of uniforms is being extended into many junior schools. It particularly alarms me that junior schools are now beginning to adopt uniforms and there is no provision in the local authority scheme for provide a grant in such cases. A low income family may provide a child with

  435
  a uniform for the junior school with great difficulty only to find that the child moves into the secondary school for which another uniform is expected although the first has not been worn out. I understand from the Child Poverty Action Group that it is a problem not only with secondary schools but with middle and upper schools.
  I understand that this is a particular problem in Northumberland where the schools want to indicate separate identities so they have completely different uniforms between the middle and upper schools. This increases the problem of having to pay out the cost without getting good value for it.
  Another acute problem is that many local authorities do not actually make cash grants. They give parents a voucher to take to a certain shop and exchange for a particular item. That is all right if the shop has the item in stock, but it presents problems if it has not. If a blazer or a pair of shoes is not in stock the parent cannot go to an alternative supplier because the voucher is usable only at the one shop.
  Some schools put a lot of pressure on children to wear uniforms, certainly threatening not to allow them into school, if not actually carrying it out. Some schools do not allow children to take part in sports or games unless that they have the proper sports equipment. It is appalling to see children sitting out watching these activities because they have not got the equipment.
  Then there are the difficulties faced by parents who apply for grants at the end of the summer. The education officers take time to process the applications and the clothing is not there for the start of the new term. Then there is the problem of disasters—a blazer gets torn, an essential item is lost. None of the schemes makes provision for help in these cases.
  In these difficult circumstances the education welfare officers try very hard, and many schools patch up the situation with charitable activities such as the collection of second-hand clothing, and so on. But it is time the Government did something to improve the situation, particularly in view of the difficulties and disappointments over child benefit.
  436
  Of course we cannot expect a lot of money in the present economic situation. However the Department of Education and Science should send out a circular to local authorities recommending one uniform means test—preferably from the school meals test—thus cutting down on the number of forms. The Department should also try to make the grant as generous as possible, and having done that, see that the demands placed on parents by schools for uniforms conform to the amount of the grant available in that local authority. That is the minimum one can expect of the Government.
  Also, local authorities should be discouraged from using vouchers which tie parents to a particular shop, and they should clear up for once and for all the anomalies of being shuttled backwards and forwards between the local council Education department, and the Department of Health and Social Security. Junior schools should be discouraged from inflicting the cost of uniforms on parents, and the problem of transfers from middle to upper schools should be sorted out.
  We should look at the situation where many schools spend £10 to £15 a year per pupil on books and other equipment, yet at the same time demand that parents pay out that amount for a single blazer. There is still a situation in which too many schools measure achievement by the number of pupils who wear school uniform, rather than by the amount they learn, or the way in which their personalities flower.
  11.44 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for raising this matter. It is one in which I am extremely interested and about which I am very much concerned, although I fear that I shall not be able to be as helpful as both he and I would wish.
  The power of local education authorities to help with the cost of school uniforms comes from Section 81(a) of the 1944 Act which, together with the relevant regulations, enables them to pay money to cover such expenses as may be necessary to enable children to take part in school activities. This arrangement has certain advantages. The help

  437
  given can be completely confidential, outside the school milieu. The majority of authorities take trouble to inform parents of the financial support that is available.
  The system is discretionary; therefore it is inherent in the system that some authorities will be more generous than others and that different assistance will be given by different authorities. We are keeping a constant watch on the situation and I assure my hon. Friend that we take a careful note of all the information that we receive. I am grateful for the additional information that he has provided. As the law stands, the Government have no power to intervene in these matters.
  Any change to provide a more satisfactory system would require new legislation. There are mixed views about the desirability of school uniforms. The decisions to introduce uniforms and what kind of uniforms are matters for individual schools subject to the advice of the local education authority. But it is within the power of individual schools to decide what uniform they will have, without regard to the grant available. I take the point that this kind of pressure from a school might have bad effects on the cost of uniforms.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of publicly castigating those individual schools and individual teachers who exclude children from a particular educational activity just because in their opinion they are not suitably clothed. Will she also publicly castigate those teachers who give corporal punishment to children in such circumstances? This is a terrible indictment of the educational system.
  Miss Jackson: I had intended to deal with this point later in my speech. There is no question that we in the Department—and, I believe, most, if not all, local authorities—deplore to the utmost any such action by staff or schools. Subject to the reservation that it is sometimes the case that disputes which appear to be about school uniform in fact have nothing to do with it, I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks where action of this kind is taken.
  438
  We feel very strongly that decisions about school uniform—the kind of uniform, the cost and whether there is a uniform at all—should be taken on a democratic basis and should command a wide consensus among staff, pupils and parents. We fully endorse the advice, given to members by teachers' organisations, that it is sensible to consult parents and pupils about the uniform, and that the rules should be simple, not too restrictive and not likely to lead to excessive confrontations between pupil and teacher, as was described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North referred to areas where the grant was inadequate in view of the cost. It is our experience that, where the grant is patently inadequate, a great deal has been achieved by local pressure. There has been a number of instances in which arrangements which were felt to be unsatisfactory have been reviewed by the authority after a campaign by groups in the area. We think that is probably the best way to approach the question at the moment.
  A few cases have come to our notice where unreasonable disciplinary action has been taken against pupils whose parents could not afford to buy the uniform and in circumstances where pupils have been humiliated. Such conduct is quite inexcusable. It is sometimes the case that the uniform is just a manifestation of the trouble and is not the real root of the trouble. Where this is not the case, it is my understanding that all local education authorities take the same view as we take and as my hon. Friend takes in the matter, and would certainly initiate prompt and appropriate action if cases of this kind were brought to their notice.
  My hon. Friend asked me to recommend to local authorities the circumstances in which they should make a grant and to suggest that they should iron out some of the more obvious differences between what happens under one authority and another. I will look most carefully at his suggestions. As he knows, this is not the most propitious time even for suggesting to local authorities that they should iron out differences between

  439
  the provision in one area and another, still less when this would mean increasing expenditure.
  However, I am interested and very sympathetic to the problems which arise in this area, and I assure my hon. Friend
  440
  that, like him, I take a close interest in it and will do anything I can to help in the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums
  Museums
  German Language (Examination Passes)
  German Language (Examination Passes)
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Examinations
  Examinations
  Education Standards
  Education Standards
  "The Staffing of Public Libraries"
  "The Staffing of Public Libraries"
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Edinburgh University (Commission Report)
  Edinburgh University (Commission Report)
  Children (Employment)
  Children (Employment)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Children (Observation and Assessment Centres)
  Children (Observation and Assessment Centres)
  Trade Unionists (Health Authorities)
  Trade Unionists (Health Authorities)
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Junior Hospital Doctors (Pay)
  Junior Hospital Doctors (Pay)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Insurance Records
  National Insurance Records
  Supplementary Benefit (Foreign Citizens)
  Supplementary Benefit (Foreign Citizens)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Northfield, Birmingham, Departmental Office
  Northfield, Birmingham, Departmental Office
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit (Personal Claimants)
  Supplementary Benefit (Personal Claimants)
  Kidney Donors
  Kidney Donors
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Young Persons (Case Investigations)
  Young Persons (Case Investigations)
  Influenza Vaccine
  Influenza Vaccine
  Supplementary Benefit (European Community Countries)
  Supplementary Benefit (European Community Countries)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Medical and Hospital Equipment
  Medical and Hospital Equipment
  Consultants (Pay)
  Consultants (Pay)
  Medical Journals (Advertising)
  Medical Journals (Advertising)
  Psychiatric Rehabilitation (Industrial Disputes)
  Psychiatric Rehabilitation (Industrial Disputes)
  Hospitals for Children
  Hospitals for Children
  Occupational Pension Funds (Management)
  Occupational Pension Funds (Management)
  Public Expenditure (Health Services)
  Public Expenditure (Health Services)
  Fraudulent Claims (Investigations)
  Fraudulent Claims (Investigations)
  National Health Service (Resources Allocation)
  National Health Service (Resources Allocation)
  International Medical Credit Cards
  International Medical Credit Cards
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Maternity Services (Northallerton)
  Maternity Services (Northallerton)
  Housewives (Invalidity Pension)
  Housewives (Invalidity Pension)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Runcorn (Health Services)
  Runcorn (Health Services)
  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases
  National Hospital for Nervous Diseases
  Willesden General Hospital
  Willesden General Hospital
  Reciprocal Agreements
  Reciprocal Agreements
  Disabled Persons (Job Creation Programme)
  Disabled Persons (Job Creation Programme)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Disabled Persons (Equipment Research)
  Disabled Persons (Equipment Research)
  Marginal Tax Rates and Personal Incomes
  Marginal Tax Rates and Personal Incomes
  British Deaf Association
  British Deaf Association
  Psychotherapy
  Psychotherapy
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Cotton Cellular Blankets
  Cotton Cellular Blankets
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Family Practitioner Committees (Complaints)
  Family Practitioner Committees (Complaints)
  Southampton (Hospital Operations)
  Southampton (Hospital Operations)
  Youth Treatment Centres
  Youth Treatment Centres
  Eye Tests (Leek)
  Eye Tests (Leek)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Cults
  Cults
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Kidney Failure
  Kidney Failure
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Supplementary Benefits (Discretionary Powers)
  Supplementary Benefits (Discretionary Powers)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Neurology
  Neurology
  Sheffield (Health Services)
  Sheffield (Health Services)
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Darlington Memorial Hospital
  Darlington Memorial Hospital
  Prescriptions (Leek)
  Prescriptions (Leek)
  Deaf and Blind Persons
  Deaf and Blind Persons
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Children (Employment)
  Children (Employment)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Paddington Day Hospital (Inquiry)
  Paddington Day Hospital (Inquiry)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Sickness and Unemployment Benefit
  Sickness and Unemployment Benefit
  Elderly Persons (Bus Journeys)
  Elderly Persons (Bus Journeys)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (CHANCELLOR)
  FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (CHANCELLOR)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  GLASGOW
  GLASGOW
  CARDIFF
  CARDIFF
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  DR. KISSINGER
  DR. KISSINGER
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION
  WOOLER
  WOOLER
  MINISTER FOR OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (SPEECH)
  MINISTER FOR OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (SPEECH)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
  POLITICAL LIFE (ALLEGATIONS)
  POLITICAL LIFE (ALLEGATIONS)
  LEGAL SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  LEGAL SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION)
SCOTLAND
  National Health Service (Staff)
  National Health Service (Staff)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Transmission Line Towers
  Transmission Line Towers
  Dr. W. M. Thomson v. Lothian Health Board
  Dr. W. M. Thomson v. Lothian Health Board
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Local Authority Smallholdings
  Local Authority Smallholdings
  Beef and Lamb
  Beef and Lamb
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Butter and Cheese
  Butter and Cheese
  Fishing Nets
  Fishing Nets
ENVIRONMENT
  Baldwin Steering Group
  Baldwin Steering Group
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Rates
  Rates
  South East Joint Planning Team
  South East Joint Planning Team
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ranby Prison
  Ranby Prison
  Bugging Devices
  Bugging Devices
  Squatting
  Squatting
  Magistrates' Courts (Expenditure)
  Magistrates' Courts (Expenditure)
  Czech Refugee Trust Fund
  Czech Refugee Trust Fund
TRANSPORT
  A52, Leek (Road Casualties)
  A52, Leek (Road Casualties)
  Kelsall Bypass
  Kelsall Bypass
  London Outer Orbital Road
  London Outer Orbital Road
  Roads (Hertfordshire)
  Roads (Hertfordshire)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Tachographs
  Tachographs
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Bus Fares (Children)
  Bus Fares (Children)
  Homosexual Conduct
  Homosexual Conduct
  Armaments Manufacture (Work Force)
  Armaments Manufacture (Work Force)
DEFENCE
  Equipment Sales
  Equipment Sales
  HMS "Fittleton" (Sinking)
  HMS "Fittleton" (Sinking)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Belize
  Belize
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Dominica
  Dominica
WALES
  A4086, Llanrug (Pedestrian Crossing)
  A4086, Llanrug (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
EMPLOYMENT
  "Sunday Telegraph"
  "Sunday Telegraph"
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Wages
  Wages
  Alloa, Falkirk and Stirling
  Alloa, Falkirk and Stirling
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
INDUSTRY
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Raw Materials
  Raw Materials
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Offices (Cleaning Contracts)
  Government Offices (Cleaning Contracts)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Members of Parliament (Pay and Allowances)
  Members of Parliament (Pay and Allowances)
ENERGY
  Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Disconnections
  Uranium
  Uranium
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Government Papers (Members of Parliament)
  Government Papers (Members of Parliament)
  Land Registration Act 1970
  Land Registration Act 1970
  Police (Londonderry Residences)
  Police (Londonderry Residences)
  Land Law Reform
  Land Law Reform
  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Office of Law Reform
  Office of Law Reform
  Queen's Visit (1977)
  Queen's Visit (1977)
  Police Station, Coleraine
  Police Station, Coleraine
  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Health Authorities (Staff)
TRADE
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  United Kingdom—EEC Trade
  United Kingdom—EEC Trade
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  British Overseas Trade Board
  British Overseas Trade Board
  Co-operative Development Agency
  Co-operative Development Agency
  British Overseas Trade Advisory Council
  British Overseas Trade Advisory Council
  British Tourist Authority
  British Tourist Authority
NATIONAL FINANCE
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Perquisites
  Perquisites
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Exports
  Exports
  PAYE (Computerised Records)
  PAYE (Computerised Records)
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Employment
  Employment
  Cars (Fuel Consumption)
  Cars (Fuel Consumption)
  Taxes Outstanding
  Taxes Outstanding
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Public Sector Debt Interest
  Public Sector Debt Interest
  Taxation (Personal Incomes)
  Taxation (Personal Incomes)
  Manufacturers (Exports)
  Manufacturers (Exports)
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Trade Union Services and Benefits
  Trade Union Services and Benefits

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

UNESCO: FUNDS AND OPERATIONS
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 how much was contributed to UNSECO in 1974/75 and 1975/76, and whether they approve of the purpose for which UNESCO funds are used.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, our contribution to the regular budget of UNESCO amounted to£1·9 million in 1974/75 and£2 million in 1975/76.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it right that the United Nations' Organisation, which was founded to promote peace and to which we subscribe substantial funds, should use those funds to promote guerrilla activities and warfare throughout Southern Africa?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence that that is what the funds are used for.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware of the report that was given by UNESCO officials to the Sub-Commission on Discrimination of Minorities this year, in which it was stated that several hundreds of thousands of dollars are given in support of national liberation movements which are recognised by the Organisation of African Unity and that such support comes out of UNESCO funds? Are the Government aware of that? May I also ask whether, if they are aware of it, they
262
approve and, if not, would they kindly instruct their representative at the present conference in Nairobi not to support these movements?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, aware of it. Certainly UNESCO provides assistance to liberation movements which are recognised by the OAU and which come within the sphere of humanitarian assistance for refugees.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness what efforts are being made by United Kingdom delegates to prevent abuse of UNESCO funds for political motives by certain States, since this consequently causes grave damage to its proper educational, scientific and cultural activities? May I also ask my noble friend what steps are being taken to ensure that all member States are able to participate fully in the proper work and activities of UNESCO?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore attempts by member States to raise issues which are more properly debated in the General Assembly and the Security Council. I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government believe that all member States should have the right of full and proper participation in UNESCO.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does the noble Baroness therefore approve of the appointment of a special representative of UNESCO at Dar-es-Salaam, precisely in order to co-ordinate the activities between the national liberation movements, including SWAPO, ANC and ZANU?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, certainly, if they are for educational and humanitarian purposes.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, does that mean that the money which is given to promote cultural and educational activities can be used to spend on arms and on fighting?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is an extremely

263
tautological argument, if I may say so. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the administrations of UNESCO or of UNRWA do anything but what is completely proper.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the question put to my noble friend by the noble Lord, is she aware that it would be most interesting to get to know, since this Organisation was set up in the 1930s, the amount of money that was spent by the previous Government over the 13 years when they had control? Would it not be interesting to know what really happened during that particular period?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have every reason to suppose that the same proportions of money was spent by both Administrations, but I am afraid that I shall have to check on that and let my noble friend know.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, do the Government approve of the way in which the funds of UNESCO have been used in connection with the representative of Israel where, on one occasion, UNESCO very much discriminated against him? Do the Government not think that that sort of behaviour is unworthy of their support?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sorry; I did not catch the beginning of the question put by the noble Baroness.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, my question was whether the Government know of the very discriminatory way in which UNESCO behaved over Israel. Do they believe that this is the way in which UNESCO should behave, and do they believe that we should be supporting UNESCO when they carry out that kind of discrimination?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have spoken and voted against the resolutions which tried to discriminate against Israel and we shall continue to do so; but we think it better to remain within UNESCO, where we can have some influence.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she has read the statement in the Press relating to educational departments and institutions in the USSR and Arab countries being used for the purpose of training assassins, hijackers and so on, and whether she is aware that UNESCO is being used for that purpose? If not, what will UNESCO do in order to prevent that kind of use being made of so-called educational establishments?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I have said, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that UNESCO funds are being used anywhere for training terrorists.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have in my hands a UNESCO document which says that a meeting will be held in Mozambique on social structure, revolutionary change and culture in Southern Africa, and that this will bring together members of liberation movements and sociologists who have done work on colonial societies? Is the noble Baroness aware that many other factors mentioned in this paper suggest that money and considerable support is being given to guerrilla movements throughout Southern Africa? As there is some concern in different parts of the House on several issues, may we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government's diplomatic representatives in these countries will keep a close watch so that these funds are not misused in the manner in which some of us believe them to be?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, along with most Western nations, have recognised the Government of Mozambique and they cannot be considered a liberation movement. We are all delighted that they should meet with sociologists and specialists of every kind. As to change in Southern Africa, it is long overdue.
Lord JANNER: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we should now proceed.

RHODESIAN DETAINEES
2.43 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: 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 information they have about the numbers of persons detained without trial by the illegal regime in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and what provisions were included in the draft agreement proposed by Dr. Kissinger to Mr. Smith concerning the release of these persons.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it is difficult to obtain precise figures on the number of detainees in Rhodesia because of the regime's ban on publicity for such cases, but it has been estimated that at present there are some 850 people being detained there without trial. The release of detainees was not a prior condition for the convening of the conference. Her Majesty's Government consider that the best prospect for the release of political prisoners in Rhodesia is early agreement at Geneva.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure of 850, which he has quoted, appears to be the number of long-term detainees who are incarcerated by means of an order signed by a Minister, and that there may be a much larger number of short-term detainees who may be at even greater risk than the ones he has mentioned? Can the Minister say what are the powers of the chairman of the meeting which is shortly to be convened in Geneva, to prevent detainees being used as a political pawn by the Smith régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the factual point, I believe, with the noble Lord, that the figure I have given in answer to his Question is of people detained without trial. There are a number of others who are convicted political prisoners, having gone through the court procedures of the illegal regime, a number or restrictees, and of course there have been a number of executions. The figure of 850 relates only to those who have been detained
266
without trial. As to the chairman's function, I am abundantly satisfied that Mr. Richard will bear in mind the importance of the point raised by the noble Lord.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the name of any African Government which discloses the number of people that it detains without trial? Cart he also, perhaps, disclose the name of any African country in which it is as safe to dissent from Government as it is in Rhcdesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the second point, I m got cross swords with my noble friend. On the first point, there are a number or Governments in various parts of the IN odd, not all belonging to one political persuasion, who do not publish the number of people detained without trial within their borders.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while this position obtains it would be quite impossible for the nationalists to agree to the Smith regime retaining control of law and order?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly agree to this extent, that if there were a generous and constructive concession by the illegal regime at once, it would greatly help the success of this conference.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are many Christians and people of no religious conviction, people who are not Roman Catholics, who are deeply distressed by the treatment of Bishop Lamont by the Smith rè gime—treatment which has been denounced by the Vatican? If there is to be an improvement in the relationships and if the right attitude is to be created for this conference, it might be a great help if Her Majesty's Government could prevail on the Smith régime to revise its attitude towards Bishop Lamont.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very glad to repeat the assurances which I gave, I think the week before last, when we last discussed the case of Bishop Lamont. As my friend

267
the right reverend Prelate then indicated, it is part of the general inhumanity practised not only against people of eminence, such as his Grace the Bishop, but also against a great many other people in Rhodesia. We shall continue to do what we have been doing for many years, using every opportunity that comes our way to try to prevail upon the Smith regime to follow better and more humane practices.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister also prevail upon leaders of guerrilla movements not to continue the appalling atrocities and cruelties that they arc inflicting upon both black and white Rhodesians?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, certainly. Atrocities are indivisible.
Lord AVEBURY: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo were attempting to secure that the political prisoners should be released as a condition of starting this conference? While that may be possible, will the Minister ask the chairman not merely to bear in mind the point that has been made this afternoon but also to rule out of order any attempt by the Smith regime to use human lives as a bargaining counter to secure the kind of concessions he wants?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. When one asks the chairman to bear these considerations in mind one means what one says: that these and other considerations will be borne in mind by the chairman in his conduct of this very difficult but very hopeful conference. I think we would all unite in expressing our confidence that he will do everything from his position in the chair to prevent anybody from using the lives of human beings as a counter in the bargaining across the conference table.

MUSEUM ADMISSION FEES
2.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELD: 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 there is a case for the restoration of admission fees to museums in view of the financial situation leading to one-day closures at certain museums and cuts in museum staffs.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, before replying, I would point out that this is probably the last Question which we shall have in this House from the right reverend Prelate, as I believe that next week he leaves our company; so I think we should all like to wish him well.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, one of the first acts of the present Administration in February 1974, was to honour its Election pledge to remove the requirement to charge for entry to the national museums and galleries. I should need a good deal of convincing that this step should be reversed. Quite apart from wider issues of policy and other costs of administration, the restoration of museum charges would involve additions to musiums' staff.
The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I remind him that in the first year of the opening of the National Railway Museum in York 2 million people attended it? Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether it is not preferable to persist with museum charges, bearing in mind the reduction of museum staff and the redundancies resulting therefrom?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the tremendous success of the National Railway Museum at York, and nobody is more pleased than I am about this. This museum, however, is part of the Science Museum and cannot be considered in isolation from other national museums. Exact numbers of the visitors attracted to the museums cannot be measured, but they include many people from overseas, to the great benefit of the economy and of the City of York. The

269
rising costs of living and of travel are making it increasingly difficult for many with modest means to visit the museums and galleries, and I repeat that whatever museums which are not part of the national group may like to do, I think that it would be quite wrong at this stage to reverse the decision which was made in the Manifesto and which we have carried out.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the enormous number of people in the art world who will support the line that he has taken?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it is always a surprise to me but also a pleasure.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain why a charge is made to see the Mantegna pictures at Hampton Court, since these pictures belong to the National Gallery?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, this is another question which I do not think I can answer without reference back. However, there arc a number of places, like Stonehenge, which arc not part of the national museums and galleries, which always have charged and which will go on charging for as long as they want to do so. Should they wish to stop charging, or to carry on charging, they can do so.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the Minister aware, however, that the Mantegna pictures are part of the National Gallery collection?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, that is why I should like to have further notice of the question.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree with me that the Mantegna pictures at Hampton Court unfortunately do not belong to the National Gallery but are part of the Royal Collection?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think I was right to ask for further notice of the question!
Lord CONGLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain how it is
270
that the Department of the Environment apparently sanction the levying of visitors' fees to national monuments, to the Tower of London and to historic houses in their ownership (Stonehenge has already been mentioned by the Minister) and that apparently there is no policy to stop the levying of those charges? Indeed, I understand that a rattling good business is going on at some of these places, and I welcome it. On the one hand, the Department of the Environments allowed to levy charges while on the other the Department of Education and Science will not contemplate the levying of charges for visits to the national museums and galleries.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think I have already answered the Question. The undertaking in the Manifesto was specifically in relation to charges imposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I remember sitting opposite the noble Viscount here day after day and feeling very sorry for him because of the obvious discomfiture he was suffering as a result of trying to impose charges. We undertook to reverse the imposition of those charges. No comments were made about other museums, other places and other things. Some of them have charged before; others have not. If they want to charge they will not be stopped by me. I speak only for the nationally controlled museums and galleries.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, will the Minister take an early opportunity to look at the various museum; in the South Kensington area, for instance, where it appears that the lack of admission fees introduces quite a large lumber of elements who are not interested in art or culture but go there just to pass freely the time of day? Secondly, can the Minister say which other countries within the European Economic Community do not have any admission fees?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if the Science Museum, which is presumably the museum about which the noble Lord is speaking, or the Victoria and Albert Museum felt very strongly that they wanted to consider the imposition of charges I should not rule it out of court. I should I consult them, come to a conclusion and then put

271
it to my colleagues. But this has not happened and I do not expect it to happen. I do not think that the imposition of charges would necessarily keep out the people who give the trouble to which the noble Lord has referred, because most of them have a great deal of pocket money.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that other nations who are in a rather stronger financial position almost invariably charge for entry to their museums? In retrospect, does the noble Lord think that as Socialism is the religion of priorities, he was right to give overriding priority to the abolition of these charges in the Government's legislative programme?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I repeat what I have said. I stand by the pledge. I think that we were right to abolish charges and I do not believe that the superior financial position of certain countries to which the noble Lord has referred is due to their museum charges.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, it is a question of priorities.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, is it not time that the Manifesto was put into a museum?

IMMIGRANT'S CHILDBIRTH AT LONDON AIRPORT
2.56 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 an inquiry is to be held into the circumstances of the birth of a baby (who subsequently died), at Heathrow Airport just prior to the mother's intended transference to an aeroplane to be returned to India.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I have studied a full report on this unhappy incident. The mother, who was about eight months pregnant, was
272
brought to this country on 20th October in breach of the immigration laws. At that stage there was no sign of an imminent birth and medical advice was that she was fit to return to Bombay. The baby was born prematurely the following day and mother and child were immediately removed to hospital where the child died. I understand that it could not have survived.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my Question as to whether there will be an inquiry. How is it that a married woman, the wife of a legal resident of this country, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy was put on a plane to be returned to India, the delivery of her baby taking place without any medical assistance? Should not such an inquiry extend not only to those conditions but also to the alleged behaviour of some of the personnel who were present?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government do not consider that in this case an inquiry is appropriate. I have indicated that I have studied the papers and so has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The fact is that entry clearance is required for dependants seeking to enter this country. That is the situation quite clearly laid down by the law. Entry clearances are essential because experience has demonstrated that efforts are made to brine in women who are not the wives they are claimed to be. This in no way under-estimates the tragic nature of this episode, but I must make it clear that in my view there was no impropriety on the part of any member of the Immigration Service and that the Government see no cause for an inquiry.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while deploring the fact that anybody should present themselves for entry without complying with the regulations, is it not the case that airlines in general never carry passengers who are more than six months pregnant? How, then, was this woman, who was apparently eight months pregnant, accepted for carriage?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is one question which I am afraid I am unable to answer.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not that a further cause for inquiry? Is it not the case that, while there was a medical examination at the detention home, there was no medical attendance at all as this woman, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, was being put on to a plane in a condition which airlines generally refuse to accept?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it is certainly true that I am unable to answer the question as to why a carrier accepted this woman on to the plane, but that is not a decision for Her Majesty's Government. The Government have in fact a responsibility for answering questions on the subject of whether the Immigration Service behaved with propriety in this particular case. I must make it quite clear that any suggestion that there was calculated inhumanity, or even inadvertent inhumanity, is not a reading of this situation which, having studied the papers, I would accept.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord inquire further as to why the woman was accepted for carriage out of the United Kingdom, and can he give an absolute assurance that no pressure was brought to bear by the immigration authorities on the airline to carry the woman?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the question why this woman was brought into this country and accepted by the foreign carrier is not one, as I have indicated, that am in a position to answer this afternoon. The essential feature of this case, which has received a substantial amount of publicity, is the suggestion that there was at best some lack of humanity by members of the Immigration Service at London Airport. What I am indicating this afternoon quite clearly is that, having studied these papers, I do not accept that those allegations have any justification whatsoever. I am also saying that there is a clear legal requirement on dependants to obtain entry clearance before they arrive in the United Kingdom. This matter has been debated over a substantial period of time. It is quite clearly the law and it is highly desirable that everybody concerned should attempt to abide by it.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that probably the
274
root cause of this tragic affair was the non-declaration by the passenger concerned of her state of pregnancy?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not making any suggestion of calculated inhumanity? I am asking whether there is any suggestion that the woman was not in fact married to this man. Is there an allegation to that effect?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the position is that the woman arrived in this country, as we now know, eight months pregnant, without t an entry certificate. The Immigration Service behaved in exactly the same NN ay as they would do to any other person who had attempted to enter this country without an entry certificate. There is one other point which I must make quite clear in view of the fact that it has been touched on. It is quite clear that medical advice was taken by the Immigration Service throughout this incident.

TEES TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons with the Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.6 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No 36 (Order of Business) be dispensed with this day for the purpose of taking the Motion standing in my name forthwith.—(Lord Byers).
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I am in no way hostile to his honourable intentions in the Motion that he proposes to move later on, but I want to oppose the present Motion that we should dispense with the normal business which appeared on the Order Paper and proceed to a further Motion. I do so not because I object to debates: on the contrary, I enjoy them. I do not profess to be an orator at all, but in

275
matters of debate I gain considerable experience. However, I have no desire for "fun and games" this afternoon; nor do I suppose that any Member of your Lordships' House in the existing situation, not only economic and financial, hut political, desires to indulge in frivolity of any kind.
My reason for opposing the Motion is because in neither the Motion to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, nor in the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is there anything constructive or likely to promote greater goodwill, either in this House or between this House and another place. All I want to say at this stage is that it occurred to me when I saw the Motion on the Order Paper that if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, with his influence—and he has undoubted influence, not only in his own Party but in your Lordships' House—had consulted the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' House, and they had both then consulted my noble friend the Leader of the House, had met together and had asked a few other Members, for example the noble Earl, Lord Home of the Hirsel, with his vast experience, and the Chief Whips of the three political Parties in the House—or two of them, whoever they are—they could have gathered round a table to consider what representations ought to be made to Her Majesty's Government and to the Prime Minister in particular (or in the first place) with a view to removing any difficulty that exists in connection with the timetable in your Lordships' House.
If this Motion is accepted and we proceed to the further Motion I should wish to take part in the debate, but I can see no great advantage or any relevance in the situation. I recall a statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thorney-croft, the chairman of the Conservative Party, some time ago in one of our debates, when he pleaded for a better understanding with Members of your Lordships' House. That does not mean that we should always agree with each other; that would be asking too much. But in a matter of this sort, concerning the timetable and difficulties and even hardships imposed on Members of your Lordships' House, by asking them to r main, sometimes through the night, for
276
the purpose of dealing with Government business, to which they naturally object because of their political philosophy, (I can understand all that), to enter into a debate of this kind at this stage when there are so many other subjects that could occupy our attention, I regard as a complete irrelevance.
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, should not proceed with his Motion to suspend the Standing Order and proceed with another subject, but that he should do as I have suggested and consult with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the Chief Whips, and any others who are acquainted with procedure, in order to try to remove this obstacle, this dispute between some Members of your Lordships' House and Her Majesty's Government. For that reason I oppose the Motion.
3.9 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I understand the sentiments and feelings of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I would only say that there are the usual channels, and they have gone through the procedures in the best spirit. I personally believe that we should have a debate. I agreed to the Motion to dispense with Standing Order No. 36, because I believe that if we have a debate we shall not be wasting time unnecessarily. I think it is the general tone of the House that this debate should come at the beginning, and for that reason I have taken this move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE PARLIAMENTARY TIMETABLE
3.10 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS rose to move, That this House declares that it cannot discharge its duties as a revising Chamber with efficiency and diligence if legislation is to be considered throughout the night or for more than ten hours in any one sitting day; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that it is vitally important that this House should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny on the floor of the House of Commons, and insists that the Parliamentary timetable be adjusted

277
accordingly. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the substantive Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that there is no intention whatsoever of indulging in frivolity or fun and games, and that all the procedures which, with his great Parliamentary experience, he knows must operate here have been gone through. Nobody could have been more forth-coming and helpful than the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. The fact is that the overloading of the Parliamentary timetable does not start here, but at the other end of this building.
I move this Motion in the belief that it will attract support from those noble Lords who are regular attenders of the House and who have its reputation much at heart. I am concerned that under the present pressures we are in danger of not properly discharging our responsibilities. At this time of the Session in recent years the Government legislative programme or timetable produces a complete log jam. This is nothing new. But, despite the protests of previous years, the situation this Session is far worse than I have ever known it, and unless we try to check it, in my opinion it will go on getting worse year by year. The Government timetable now contains far more legislation than the House could properly digest. As I have said, this stems from another place and puts the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip here in an intolerable position. Either we have more time to sit so that these measures are dealt with properly, or the Government must reduce the Parliamentary load to enable us to deal sensibly with the remaining Business.
My Lords, let us recognise there is no magic in the date 17th November for the Opening of Parliament, although I must admit that I favour the Government dropping one or two of their measures rather than extending the Session. This House is a revising Chamber. One of its major tasks is to ensure that legislation containing incomprehensible or ambiguous provisions does not reach the Statute Book. This can only be done if Peers with knowledge of the subject are present, if there is adequate time for the study of the provisions of a Bill, and for the preparation of speeches. It also requires
278
Peers to be alert and not over-tired when scrutinising legislation. This is all the more important when much of the current legislation has been guillotined in another place.
In addition, this is a House which is not composed of full-time profess on all politicians. Many, if not most, of the noble Lords active here have other obligations outside the House in order to earn their living or to fulfil public duties. It is quite wrong that the House should be asked to sit on any day for much more than 10 hours continuously. More than this, to my mind, is not conducive to efficiency. It is not for the Government to dictate the length of the sittings. This is a matter to be regulated by the House itself. I believe there is deep unrest in all quarters of the House, not on rounds of personal convenience, not on grounds of health, but on grounds that we are not going to discharge our Parliamentary duties efficiently if we carry on as we are doing.
There is also a political consideration. To many of us it seems absurd that at a time when the pound is under the greatest pressure to which it has ever been subjected, and at a time when we have had to borrow from our creditors' interest to service the money they have been good enough to lend us, that we should spend Parliamentary time on such irrelevancies as further nationalisation and the restructuring of the dock labour system. The latter will increase our export and import costs. Some of us feel very strongly that this irrelevance is itself affecting our credibility abroad and that it is tie function of this House to say so and, if necessary, to delay this legislation, which we are perfectly entitled to do.
My Lords, I should like to emphasise that, contrary to some of the hysterical assertions from the other end of the building in recent days, it has always been contemplated that this House should have a delaying power. At the moment we are operating under the terms of the Parliament Act 1949, and that Act was brought into being by a Labour Government. Before I came to the Chamber, I looked up the Division on the Third Reading of that Bill. I was very interested to see that in the same Lobby voting on the Bill were "F. Byers" and "T. F. Peart". We both voted for the Parliament Act

279
1949 which contains the rules governing our delaying powers and other powers we have today. I well remember that Division.
We also had proposals for Lords reform in 1969. These were drafted by a sub-committee of which I was a member, and were agreed by all the Party representatives on that Committee. We specifically proposed that the Lords should be able to delay a Bill for six months from the date of the disagreement between the two Houses, and it was certainly envisaged that this power would be used. I know it was allied to a reformed House in which the Cross-Benches were expected to play a fairly decisive role, but the one thing we were all agreed on was that if this House had no power, we had no function. It is a matter for great regret that the efforts of Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell prevented this reform of the Lords from coming about. There are those in another place who would like to see not the reform, but the abolition of this House. To them I only say I do not believe that any British Government can dispense with the Second Chamber. Governments need it, and Governments use it.
My Lords, if we look back at the figures for some of the measures for last Session we find, for instance, on the Industry Bill that in this House the Government moved 95 Amendments in Committee, 32 Amendments on Report and 54 on Third Reading. I hope Mr. Eric Varley will note those figures. In the case of the Employment Protection Bill the Government moved 87 Amendments here on Third Reading. Whatever its composition and powers, I believe we need this Chamber in our constitutional system. We should not allow a situation in which we believe we are performing a useful public service to become a constitutional confrontation; it is totally unnecessary. We are working within the rules of the game. We need a sensible timetable which can be achieved, as I have said, either by dropping one or two measures, or extending the Session. If I were the Government, I would drop one or two measures in order to demonstrate to the world that we can at last get our priorities right and are not going on with irrelevancies.
The Government should recognise that the situation today is very dramatically
280
different from that which existed when the 1974 Manifestoes were drafted. Only last week the right honourable gentleman Mr. Healey said that further nationalisation can only increase the public sector borrowing requirement, and we cannot justify it. He is right. Therefore, why, in the light of that, are we going on, in one Bill, with these nationalisation measures for four major industries?
My Lords, there is another consideration, and an important one, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, drew attention only the other clay; that is, the intolerable burden our present arrangements put upon a very loyal and dedicated staff in this House. We are imposing on their willingness. I do not believe that any commercial or industrial concern would be allowed to subject their staff to such onerous duties and such very unsocial hours.
Since I tabled my Motion on Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put down an Amendment to it. It rather weakens my Motion, but it may be none the worse for that. It is more aristocratic in tone; there is a noblesse oblige about it, and I want to put the noble Lord out of his misery, because I am quite prepared to accept it and to recommend it to my noble friends. My sole purpose in this debate is to serve notice on the business managers in another place that we in this House have an important function to perform. We must be allowed to perform it, free from threats or intimidation. We must work within a properly revised timetable. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House declares that it cannot discharge its duties as a revising Chamber with efficiency and diligence if legislation is to be considered throughout the night or for more than ten hours in any one sitting day; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that it is vitally important that this House should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny on the floor of the House of Commons, and insists that the Parliamentary timetable be adjusted accordingly.—(Lord Byers.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON Lord CARRINGTON rose to move, as Amendments to the above Motion,—
Line 1, leave out from ("House") to ("calls") in line 3;
Line 6, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 7 and insert ("regrets that Her Majesty's Government has failed to give effect to this principle and requests that adequate Parliamentary time be afforded for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the two Amendments which stand in my name, if your Lordships will allow, because they both hang together. I move these Amendments not because I disagree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Byers; indeed, I agree with all of it. But your Lordships have been asked to work at a pressure which makes it impossible for the Bills before this House to be adequately discussed. There comes a time when, however much we may seek to do our jobs, the load upon us is too great. We have been asked to discuss and amend and pass through all their stages five major Bills, as well as dealing with such important measures as Felixstowe, in about six or seven weeks; and as well we have to consider Amendments to various other measures which have already been through this House and which will shortly be coming up from another place.
I really do not think it is possible to do that. I hope noble Lords opposite will acquit me of the charge of springing this news on them at the last moment. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn and I have made it abundantly plain ever since the summer that what the Government were asking us to do was quite impossible, and we have said it time and time and time again.
My Lords, there are really two separate issues, the question of whether there is enough time for the House to debate the Bills, and what steps we take to amend and alter them when we do debate them. So far as we are concerned today we need consider only the first question; though perhaps I might say in passing that it seems to me quite contrary, at any rate, to the unwritten conventions of our unwritten Constitution, that a Government which is a minority Government should seek to push through both Houses of Parliament legislation of such a controversial character, legislation to which, if the view of the country is known at all, it seems to be opposed. It would surely have been more sensible for a Government supported by only 38 per cent. of those who did vote
282
to concentrate on putting the economy right, and, Lord knows! there is enough to do there. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the other night, no dispassionate observer and none of your Lordships opposite could stand up in your place and put your hand on your heart and conscientiously say chat in the very serious economic circumstances in which we are the nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, or indeed the Education Bill, can have any positive effect other than to undermine confidence abroad. Nevertheless, we have been laced with this mass of legislation.
Perhaps I might mention just one other matter. We have also noticed—how could we not?—statements about confrontation made by various Ministers. They seem, if I may say so, both premature and a little hysterical. The House of Commons have not even discussed our Amendments to any of these Bills, so how can confrontation arise? And even the Prime Minister seems to hive moved into a world of fantasy. Liste ling to his remarks, repeated on the radio this morning, I was mildly surprised that he did not blame the run on the pound on the House of Lords, engineered, of course, by myself, who is well known to have been the leader of the conspiracy against the miners, helped this time by all the Liberal Party and all the Cross Benchers. Of such are fairy stories made. We shall not be deflected by this sort of stuff from doing our constitutional job.
There are those who say that, since the House of Lords is composed as it is, why bother? Just treat it as if it did not exist; if it says anything just ignore it, and make speeches about abolition and its "self-appointed task" and confrontation—things of that kind. Well, I suppose there has not been anybody o z any side of this House—and not always, I think, with the wholehearted approval of all your Lordships—who has more consistently advocated the reform of this House than I have. Indeed a great many of us, eight or nine years ago, voted for it, and, as the noble Lord, Lord flyers, said, but for Mr. Foot we would have had it.
Several noble Lords: And Mr. Powell.
Lord CARRINGTON: And Mr. Powell.
Lord PEART: Mr. Powell and a lot of other Tories.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I must say quite frankly that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does not know what he is talking about when he blames Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, does. I was in the other place at the time; I know exactly what happened. If there had been a reasonable scheme, a scheme which would have appealed to the majority of the Members of another place, it might have been agreed.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the vast majority of your Lordships thought it was a reasonable scheme, and it passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons; Mr. Foot opposed it; so I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is getting so excited. He has already had one turn and he is going to have another turn later. Mr. Foot opposed it, and but for him and for Mr. Powell and a few others we should be reformed. Mr. Foot actually had a lot of Parliamentary fun, but I do not think he did anybody much of a service. So we are not reformed.
It so happens that because the Government have got themselves into a terrible and incompetent muddle over their programme, because they have gravely miscalculated the amount of time needed to get these Bills through the Commons, we are in the mess we are in. Even in the Commons these Bills have not been properly discussed; they have been guillotined. Large chunks of the Bills have never been discussed at all. Unless the second Chamber does something about it, these Bills will, without any Parliamentary examination, go on the Statute Book.
I must honestly say that I am astonished at those in another place and elsewhere who seem to think that there is something malign or improper or unconstitutional or anti-democratic about those of us who suggest that Bills which have not been properly examined in another place should be properly examined here and that proper time should be given to do it. It is a curious doctrine to suggest that the Government must get their own way regardless of what Parliament says, or what Parliament does not say because it has not been given the opportunity to say
284
it, to declare in effect that what the Government want they are going to have. My Lords, Parliament is still sovereign, and I can think of no precedent in my time in this House for the way in which we have been asked to treat these Bills.
The two most contentious Bills that I remember have been the Industrial Relations Bill and the London Government Bill. On the London Government Bill, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, two days were spent on Second Reading, 11 days on Committee spread over four weeks, in which there were 61 Divisions, most of them Divisions on the advice of noble Lords opposite. Four days were spent on Report, spread over two weeks, in which there were another 33 Divisions. The passage of the whole Bill through your Lordships' House took three months. On the Industrial Relations Bill 18 days were spent in Committee, spread over April, May and June; nine days were spent on Report, and the whole Bill took just under four months to go through your Lordships' House. The comparison between the time afforded then and now needs no under-lining. Surely noble Lords would not claim that the Bills we now have before us are of less importance, for if they are why are the Government so anxious to get them through? I must tell your Lordships that I think that the attitude of the Opposition and of the Liberal Party has been wholly reasonable. We have sat late every night. We have worked hard and we have worked long.
It may not be wholly realised by those outside this House exactly what a Committee stage and a Report stage entail. It is bad, but it is not so bad for the Government, because they, after all, have the whole of the Civil Service behind them, preparing briefs, devising Amendments or answers to Amendments, a most efficient and most substantial bureaucracy. We in the Opposition have nothing of the kind. We have to do these things ourselves. We write our own speeches; we devise our own Amendments; we learn our own facts. I think that even the Government have a difficulty, and I make no complaint about this because I realise their problems just as well as they do, particularly those of the Ministers who are answering for Departments in which they themselves do not serve. I remember once when I was First Lord of the

285
Admiralty having to pilot through this House the Shops and Offices Bill for which I was hardly well qualified, and it was very hard work. But the result has been—and I make no personal criticism in this—that some of the answers really have been inadequate. When those answers are inadequate it inevitably means that the Amendments will be put down again on the Report stage, and yet more time will he spent and be needed.
There is one other issue which I think we should consider, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned this, and that is the question of the staff of this House. The Reporters who have to take down the debates, the staff of the refreshment room, the Doorkeepers, and countless others are under very great strain. I would therefore say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the right and proper thing to do is to allow more time for discussion. If it means that the Opening of Parliament has to be postponed, then so be it. But I, for one, cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who has just arrived from another place—and we have welcomed him—to be the Leader of your Lordships' House, wishes to preside over a House which his Government refuse to allow to function properly.
I have moved my Amendment to Lord Byers's Motion as I said, not because I disagree with his purpose but largely because I prefer my own words. In this House we have very few rules and we do not bind ourselves, broadly speaking, with standing orders. I believe that to accept the first sentence of Lord Byers's Motion would be to take us on the road to having compulsory adjournments at certain hours and would put the House in the future in a straitjacket. Of course we should not sit more than ten hours, but there have always been occasions when the House has found it necessary to do so. They should be, and indeed apart from this spill-over have been, very infrequent. In my Amendment I seek to delete that part of the Motion and to ask your Lordships to agree with me that it is regrettable that the Government have failed to give effect to the principle that we should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny, and to ask that proper time be afforded to us. I beg to move.
Moved, as Amendments to the above Motion,—
Line 1, leave out from ""House") to ("calls") in line 3;
Line 6, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 7 and insert ("regrets that Her Majesty's Government has failed to give effect to this principle and requests that adequate parliamentary time be afforded for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation.")—Lord Carrington.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am tempted to get involved in making a debating speech. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that while there are some parts of his speech with which I agree there are some with which I do not. He was rather wrong and hi: rd on the Commons in relation to the time they have spent on Bills which have come to this House. I have all the figures. They debated the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill in another place on the Floor of the House for 46 hours and 13 minutes, and in Standing Committee for 141 hours; the Health Services Bill, on the Floor of the House 23 hours and 46 minutes, and in Standing Committee 74 hours and 11 minutes; the Education Bill, on the Floor of the House 40 hours 7 minutes and in Standing Committee 30 hours.
I may say to the noble Lord, when he talks about a guillotine, that I remember that it was a Conservative Administration which quite recently guillotined one of the most important Bills this Parliament has discussed. I refer to the Bill which paved the way for our entry into the European Community. I believe it was a constitutional outrage to put a guillotine on a measure like that. So the guillotine has been used by several Governments. Indeed, the Liberal Party itself has not been clean—if I may use that word—in this regard. I see nothing wrong myself, as a former Leader of the House in having a time-table procedure which has been accepted by all Parties. Therefore I believe that that type of argument is not one that really can be taken quite seriously.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we must have proper discussion. Parliament is sovereign. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and

287
indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I believed in a reformed House of Lords. I said this. Indeed, I was then partner to the discussions which went on with the major Parties at that time. I regret that we did not have it. It is true that certain individuals took a certain line of activity, distinguished Conservatives and distinguished members of my Party, for various reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, they took a certain line and there was force in their arguments. I am only sorry that we did not have a reformed House.
So I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, that I believe strongly in a Second Chamber. I should not wish to be in a Chamber if I thought it was not going to serve an important part in the working of our Constitution. I mean that sincerely, as I think noble Lords on both sides who know me well would agree. But I do not want to make it too personal. We are having major arguments. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was rather hard on the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had arguments of that kind, but not on a procedure Motion of this type. I have heard them and I do not want to get involved in that type of argument. I know that hard things have been said today, and indeed a number of hard things have been said outside the House in the last few days as well. At this point in the Session there are bound to be hard words on both sides. Nevertheless, I shall not be deterred from beginning with the points on which I believe we can agree. That, I have always been told, is the way in which this House works. It is also the way in which I hope it will work in the future. We shall not make life any easier for ourselves by pouring fuel on the fire.
I can assure noble Lords opposite that I accept a great deal of what they have said. We have been working under considerable strain. A noble Lord said on my first day here, when I made a contribution, that I had jumped into the deep end, and it is a very deep lake that I have fallen into. We have been working under considerable strain; I accept that, and the noble Lord is right. We have been working late in the evening night after night and have been asked to make real personal sacrifices. Noble Lords opposite
288
will understand that the sacrifices are not confined to them.
I am glad that the noble Lord paid tribute to some of my colleagues, because he, too, as he said, had experience of this when he was once in Government. My noble friends behind me, and particularly the noble Lords on the Front Bench beside me, have also borne a heavy burden. I should like to pay a tribute to them for the unflagging way in which they have carried on through thick and thin, debating Bills which quite often are right outside their Departmental responsibility. It just happens that I am lucky: I am conducting an agricultural Bill, a subject which it used to be my responsibility to deal with. But it is difficult for them, and I think we all understand that. Again I pay tribute to the hard work of the staff—the Clerks, Hansard, the people who look after the refreshment departments, and I know it does impose a burden on them. I pay tribute to their work.
I think noble Lords on both sides have always borne in mind the House's constitutional duty to give thorough consideration to Bills, and especially Bills which have been guillotined in another place. I accept this. The noble Lord has in no way frustrated the House. He and his colleagues have been anxious to see that these Bills are adequately scrutinised. I know that on the Bill dealing with tied cottages we have had full debates and full scrutiny; and this is right. I cannot complain—I must be frank with those who may criticise unfairly—and I hope that this attitude will continue.
We have had long debates on many of these issues and it is right that we should. I hope, as I have said to my noble friends, that the House will go on giving full and detailed consideration to the measures that are before us. Of course, I do not agree with everything the House has decided. There are passionately held opinions on the Benches opposite and noble Lords are entitled to express their views vigorously and with passion and eloquence. And certainly it is right that we on these Benches must have this policial debate within the framework of the system which we treasure and defend. We are sure to differ about the significance of some of the Amendments which have been carried against the Government. For my part, I think that some of the Amendments

289
which are called revision could be described in a different way, and I will mention one in particular.
I find it rather ironical or amusing that on a major Bill dealing with the agricultural industry the first Amendment should he to exclude the dairy industry and then later to exclude forestry, a major section of the industry. If that is not what would call a wrecking Amendment, I do not know what is. I do not see, for example, how one can take a Bill on agricultural tied cottages and remove more than half the agricultural industry from its scope without questions being raised. I do not doubt the motive of noble Lords opposite; I believe that they want to change the Bill radically and improve it from their point of view. On the other hand, some other people may argue—I am not—that their motives are different.
I also find that the Opposition has developed an addiction to the Division Lobby. Noble Lords opposite have defeated the Government 169 times in the last two years. Taking the average of Conservative Administrations, we should normally need 28 years to run up a total like that. While I would not argue with the right of noble Lords opposite to carry out their constitutional duty, I think it should be for all of us, through consultation and co-operation, to find the best way to carry out that duty in the time available. We should be seeking to ease this burden on the House wherever we can, and I stress that. So let us find ways of carrying this burden of legislation as sensibly as we can.
Having said that, I must comment briefly on the Motion and the Amendment before the House. I already detect a feeling that one cannot and should not lay down hard and fast rules about how long the House should sit and I believe that there is broad agreement on that. We do not want to have any cut-off points like those in another place because of the opportunities for abuse and filibustering which they create. We do not have a Speaker or elaborate rules of order and I am sure that we do not want them. The other House is a different place. We are much more interested, I think, in ensuring that the House can discharge its duties as a revising Chamber efficiently and well.
290
A period of heavy legislation like this is, after all, not unknown. One need only go back to 1947, for example, during the nationalisation Bills of that period, to find the House sitting night after night until 11 p.m.; or to 1971, when the Conservatives were in power, to see the House sitting regularly after midnight. Probably Opposition Members expressed the same views then as have bee expressed by noble Lords today. In 1972 there was another period of Sittings regularly until late at night and one on a Friday when the House sat until after 6 p.m. Admittedly we must go rather further back to find a time when the Liberals were in Government; the old House of Lords in October 1909 was behaving just like it is now, sitting until midnight every night.
I know that statistics can prow, anything. My object is only to show that the strain we have undergone in recent weeks is not so exceptional as some noble Lords would have us believe. Although we should be looking for improvements in our procedure, I ask the House to consider what would he the effect of agreeing with the Liberal Motion. It would still be possible to sit until after one o'clock in the morning every day, and we should have trespassed against it only three times this Session. I assure noble Lords that, contrary to what has been suggested in certain quarters, we have no intention of regular all-night Sittings, which I at once agree would have a very harmful effect on the standard of our debate and the value of our revision. This has never been our intention and when noble Lords have consulted me on this point I think I have been able to satisfy them at once.
Much has been made of the suggestion that we should extend the Session. I should point out that we have already extended it; the opening is at least a fortnight later than is customary. Moreover, the conduct of business in this House depends basically on good and without good will business becomes very difficult under any timetable. I recognise, however, that there have been many representations about the programme, that these have been reinforced by noble Lords opposite, and that they may well be repeated. I can therefore assure the House that I do not ignore them, and in any discussions I have following this debate I shall keep the interests of the House firmly to the fore.

291
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the main part of his Amendment because, contrary to what he argues, I think Her Majesty's Government have certainly not failed to provide adequate time for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation. The major Bills were given some of the fullest and longest discussion ever in the Commons and there has been no out-back of debate here. We have had detailed Committee stages and will no doubt have detailed Report stages as well. I agree that we should try to give adequate time for discussion, and I shall do so, but it is more important that we should be looking for ways to meet the spirit of the Motion and the Amendment than that we should increase the source of conflict between us. I believe that this debate will have served its purpose without a Division and I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, will see fit to withdraw the Motion and the Amendment.
3.47 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, the Motion with the Amendment proposed by my noble friend and Leader Lord Carrington, which I cordially support, is expressed in terms of moderation. I understand that last year the House warned the Government that it was unreasonable to swamp us with legislation in the last month or two of the Session and that we could not fulfil our role efficiently if it happened again. The Government, I understood, said that that would not recur, but in spite of that warning it has been incomparably worse this Session.
A number of intensely controversial Bills have been imposed upon us during not the last few months but the last few weeks of the Session, and most of those Bills, in the opinion of many noble Lords, have no relevance whatever to our pressing immediate economic problems. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, just said about the priorities with which we are faced; I thought that his remarks were not relevant to this debate but were relevant to the measures that are being imposed on us at the present time. Confronted with this situation, what have your Lordships done? We came back two weeks earlier, we have sat long hours and
292
our efforts have been concentrated on a careful examination and improvement in detail of the Bills before us. I have heard no filibustering when I have been in the Chamber.
What thanks do we receive from Ministers in the other place? Allegations in some quarters have been made that we have been guilty of the sacrilege of making any Amendments to Socialist measures passed by small majorities in the other place. There have even been threats that if we continue with these efforts we risk abolition. Do the Government not recognise that the main role of this House is a positive and inescapable duty to examine, amend and try to correct defects in the legislative measures which come up to us? So far from exceeding our powers by undertaking this function, we should, if we were to allow the complicated and in some cases hastily drafted legislation that has come before us to pass without criticism, be guilty of utterly failing in our constitutional duty. As a silent Back-Bencher, I should like to pay tribute to the very able noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for the way in which they have carried out their tasks during the very tiring past weeks with good temper and conscientious thoroughness. I gladly concede that Ministers, too, have played their part with courtesy, patience and consideration. They cannot have had an easy time either and they have my respectful sympathy. The time factor has made it an almost impossible joint task.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, just now gave us a very bizarre statistic and perhaps a rather melancholy one. He said that the Government had been beaten 169 times in the past two years. I do not know where he unearthed that figure, but it is very interesting. I hasten to say that I am attributing no blame whatever to the usual channels. I am sure that they have done their very best to make things work.
In particular, I am convinced that excessive hours and all-night Sittings are a recipe for inefficient and ineffective work. I never remember, when I was in another place, any worthwhile discussion of intricate clauses taking place much after midnight. All-night Sittings are an invention of the devil, if that is a Parliamentary expression.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount managed to keep me up all night on the Finance Bill on a number of occasions.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, if everybody had gone home, that Bill would have gone through like lightning! The treatment we have received this Session from the Government on our timetable is utterly unreasonable. I nearly permitted myself to say "outrageous", but in this House we choose our words with studied moderation and I am speaking today more in sorrow than in anger. It is our bounden duty to warn the Government, as the Motion and the Amendment do, that we cannot fulfil our constitutional functions if we are treated with such a lack of under-standing and consideration.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House is greatly liked and respected in all parts of the House. He will know, because he is a wise and percipient person, that if your Lordships are treated reasonably we are an easy lot to manage and are responsible, patient and responsive. As he is a former Minister of Agriculture, I had been going to make a comparison, but I will tell it to the noble Lord afterwards, for I am afraid that, if I do so now, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will accuse me of flippancy. I do not want that. I trust that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will represent the reasonable but strongly held views held in many parts of the House to his right honourable friends with force and with that persuasiveness for which he is so rightly admired. In the long term, the answer to this problem can be expressed in two words, "less legislation".
3.55 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in a speech of studied moderation, my noble friend the Leader of the House has appealed to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, to withdraw both the Motion and the Amendments. I shall, in the language of the late lamented Herbert Asquith, wait and see. We have no authority in such matters; that authority is vested in the over-whelming, built-in Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. There have been criticisms of Her Majesty's Government, some subtly suggested, but the
294
whole point of both speeches that we have heard from the Opposition was to undermine Her Majesty's Government. Let there be no hesitation on the part of anybody on this side of the House in accepting that point of view.
I want to make one point clear beyond all possibility of doubt. Nothing that I have said in any debate in this House indicates that I seek its abolition. I doubt whether there is anything in our Constitution, written or unwritten, which vests authority in your Lordships' House. Indeed, no such claim was ever made except by the Conservative Party itself many years ago. This was when Arthur Balfour, the intellectual and scholarly Prime Minister in the early fart of the century, declared that—and it is on the record—whether the Conservative Party were in Government or Opposition, it was they who controlled the destinies of this country. That was said then, and there are many Conservative Members of this House who still believe that.
Anyhow, they have the authority. On no single occasion in the past few months when engaged in debate—that is what we call it, though it is confrontation, for there is no question of debate when we know that at the end of the discussion, the Opposition will win—have we been able to change the Opposition's mind. The same thing could happen this afternoon or evening, if the appeal that my noble friend Lord Peart has made to the other side fails, as that is likely—for what other purpose have they? A few years ago, they engaged in a policy of union bashing. That no longer applies. They are now seeking to flirt with the trade unions. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and others are an indication of what they would like to happen. Now it is not union bashing but Government bashing, and we had it this afternoon.
All the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is asking for—and it is not so very much—is the withdrawal of the obnoxious legislation that has been passed in another place. That would satisfy t le noble Lord, Lord Byers. In other words, he is quite prepared to accept the Government so long as they carry through legislation that suits the Liberal Party. That is what he said. The same applies to the Conservative Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he would be quite

295
satisfied if the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill were withdrawn. He would prefer that to an extension which would enable discussions to proceed.
There are other items of legislation that are objectionable—repugnant even—to those on the other side. They have said so and still believe so, and, in spite of the moderation shown by my noble friend the Leader of the House, they will continue to say so. Nothing that was said by my noble friend will satisfy those on the other side.
Let me make it clear to Members of your Lordships' House that what I am asking for is what I mentioned in the course of a very short debate when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, moved his original Motion. That is if we are to resolve our problems, whatever they are—even our political problems—at any rate in the foreseeable future and, indeed, for some time longer if need be, it is essential to act together. I do not ask for a coalition because coalitions cannot be imposed suddenly upon the community, and certainly not on political Parties as they now are. But I ask for understanding.
Perhaps I may mention a speech which I made in your Lordships' House when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister. I remarked at a time when it was obvious that problems were in our path which seemed almost impossible of solution that he should have addressed himself to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Wilson as he then was, and to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, and in conjunction with the CBI and the TUC he should have diagnosed the complaint which was affecting our country financially and economically and, having diagnosed it, should have sought a solution—not a coalition but an understanding which would have created confidence in the country. When there was a change of Government and Mr. Wilson found himself at the head of the State I appealed that he should approach Mr. Heath and the Leader of the Liberal Party and so on, as well as the TUC and the CBI, precisely in the language I used on a previous occasion, in order to bring about an understanding. I mention this, not to depart from my political philosophy—not at all. I have strong convictions, sincerely held, whatever others may think. I do
296
not see a possible solution of our problems without such understanding and the creation of confidence. There is no hope of creating confidence, either here or over-seas, unless it is understood that those in authority in this country, in the political arena, get together and talk things over with understanding, even if it means, for the time being, setting aside the political shibboleths that have been current for far too long.
I do not wish to prolong the debate and have only one or two further points to make. I do not believe that this debate will make the slightest difference. If my noble friend the Leader of the House thinks so, I must remind your Lordships that he is new to this place. I wish him well, although I have reasons for wishing otherwise sometimes. I have known him a long, long time. I will not go into details. I leave him, when he writes his autobiography, to refer to them. I will bear what he writes with my customary fortitude. But he is not the politician he is claimed to he—a subtle politician—if he believes that an appeal to the other side has the slightest effect; not at all!
I do not charge them with filibustering; indeed, if I may be permitted to say so, I admire some of the young elements on the Opposition Front Bench: the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and some of the others. There is also the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I admire them: they are young, they are putting up a show, trying to teach their elders—and that is not very difficult, after all. I can understand their anger, straining at the leash because they hope for an Election and they hope to find themselves geographically placed otherwise than at present. I can understand them; I admire them; I listen to them. But no filibustering, no, not at all; just probing and probing, and indeed having postmortems and inquests at the very beginning, even before the corpse has arrived. I have watched this situation time and again, on innumerable occasions, until it became a bore and I had to leave the assembly. I could not stand it any longer.
They were moving Amendment after Amendment, and then withdrawing them, again and again. If they had indulged in a little thought, more investigation,

297
more scrutiny—that is what is being asked for this afternoon, more scrutiny—then they would not have moved the Amendments at all. At any rate it was their intention to withdraw them. Far more Amendments have been withdrawn than have been carried in your Lordships' House on any legislation under review. We know that. I am getting tired of being in an assembly—although there is nothing personal about this; there are people of remarkable intelligence in your Lordships' House, people for whom one has an affection after a time when one gets to know them; there is no malice at all in it—where one is on the losing side all the time. If only one could once be on the winning side!
Time and again it did not matter. It was said that we do not turn up, that we stay away. I, too, complain about that, although sometimes I do not stay here late at nights; unless you pay me overtime I have no intention of doing that. But there are too few of us here occasionally. Many have been pitchforked into this place, and having been pitchforked into it have pitchforked themselves out. We hardly see them at all—and even if we see them it does not matter very much. That is the position. What is said? We do not appear in sufficient numbers, said the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. How clever it was! What an observation to make. How clever! If only we appeared, he said—
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I never said anything of the kind.
Lord SHINWELL: Perhaps the noble Lord will say what he did say—or perhaps he will tell us some other time. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is very clever and very able; no doubt about that. But here I use the language of the famous Lord Salisbury about somebody for whom I had the highest respect, but I will not mention his name: it was said that he was "too clever by half". That is part of our political history. What is the use of coming here anyhow? We know that we are going to be defeated. I admire the activities of our Chief Whip. How hard she works, how industrious she is, and how charming she is at the same time! But does that make any difference? One comes here, one takes part in debates,
298
one argues, one is eloquent and one believes oneself to be right; but at the end of the debate the overwhelm is majority on the other side, who do not even listen to the debate, suddenly appear There are hordes of them. From whence they come I have not the slightest idea. I have not the least doubt that many of them are here today because they have been told to come.
Lord BYERS: My Lords. does the noble Lord remember what he said on the Business Motion, about fun and games and frivolity?
Lord SHINWELL: Yes, my Lords, but I do not see the relevance of that now. It is not a question of fun and games. I am quite serious in what I say; I am very serious indeed. I am serious because I do not want anything to go wrong in your Lordships' House, except to reduce the numbers on the other side. Is there any thing wrong with that? Why even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has suggested that—and, by the way, how many times has he said, truly said, as he said this afternoon, that he has sought to reform your Lordships' House and to make suggestions. Perhaps he might be a little more practical and some day produce a Motion which is rather more detailed; perhaps we might support him. But nothing short of reducing the number of hereditary Peers in the Howe on the Conservative side will make the slightest difference. It is an imbalance which cannot be sustained.
My Lords, I shall not proceed any further other than to say this. I do not believe that this debate has been of the slightest help—not at all. We will go on as usual; there will be a bashing of the Government, and the Government will proceed with their legislation. I know what they could do in another place. What they could do is this. Instead of legislation proceeding as it does—Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and all the rest—they ought to submit legislation to Committees for them to consider and scrutinise in the first place. That is what they ought to do. If they proceeded along Committee lines they would save a lot of lime, and so should we. However, there it is. We shall just have to put up with what is happening, and say what we think is right.

299
That I have sought to do; and if anybody thinks there is malice in what was said he is mistaken. But I do understand what the other side are driving at, and object to it.
4.11 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, if we were business executives and not a Legislature we should find ourselves subject to a directive from our colleagues not to attempt to conduct negotiations or enter into agreements while we were suffering from jet-lag, sleeplessness or general travel weariness. That is because boards of directors, who are not divided into a Government and an Opposition permanently finding fault with one another, are prepared to base their regulations upon common sense, and it is generally agreed that tired men do not conduct their business as efficiently as men who are fresh and have had a good night's sleep. Now, if you make an ill-advised business agreement you can usually buy your way out of it; everything has its price. But we here, as a Legislature, are engaged on very much more delicate business. Every time we make a law, either directly or indirectly we compel every one of Her Majesty's subjects, either to do something which left to their own devices they spontaneously would not, or not to do something which left to their own devices they spontaneously would. This is a very serious matter, and ought to be entered into in a very serious frame of mind.
It sometimes requires a double prick, as it were, to drive a point home, and the first time I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsharn, remind your Lordships' House that in the period he was reviewing we had put through 3,000 pages, I think it was, of new legislation and 10,000 pages of subordinate legislation, I did not react to it as sharply as I might. But when I heard him repeat it the other evening in his now famous lecture on television, the point struck home and I suddenly realised that your Lordships' Legislature is engaged on precisely the same task as Tristram Shandy when writing his autobiography; namely, that it took him longer to write out the events than the time in which they occurred, and so he was falling steadfastly behindhand. Your Lordships'
300
attempts to put on the Statute Book all the opinions which are ventilated as to what might be nice in an ideal world are taking longer than the rate at which the world is changing, calling for more and more legislation conceived in the same way. So we are suffering from an excess of legislation at a time when we ought to have our minds on other things. Here we are, living beyond our means on borrowed time and borrowed money, both of which are running out, and instead of putting our minds to what matters they are engaged in an entirely excessive amount of low-priority legislation which I am quite convinced in my own mind nobody wants.
My Lords, I speak from the Cross-Benches. All seven Benches were full at Question Time today—so full that they were full to overflowing and some of my noble friends were beginning to elbow supporters of the Government Party out into the gangways. But I hope that we shall expand our influence, which we maintain to the small hours of the morning. There has been a Cross-Bench presence up to as late an hour as you please to specify at any time when we were suffering from excessive legislation. This is not moved by Party passion, but by the desire to discharge our duties, in terms of the writs we have received, by coming here and listening—and they also serve who only sit and listen. I was here till three o'clock this morning. I was home by half-past three. By four o'clock I had found a double yellow line on which to park my car, and thereafter I set my alarm clock for eight o'clock so that I could move my car again before picking up a£6 fine, which I should not have been allowed to charge as an allowable expense for attending your Lordships' House. There followed a morning's work, and I am going to do my best in what remains of today.
To what purpose, my Lords? Here, if I may, I must address a word by way of reproof to the Government Party, some-what on the lines of Hamlet, who said to his mother,
"… look here, upon this picture, and on this …".
Let me show them their portrait in my mirror. What does all this low-priority legislation do for us? In my view, it serves but one purpose: to paper over the cracks in the coalition that governs us.

301
I do not care whether you call the paper the Social Contract or the emperor's clothes, the cracks are there. In a sense I support both the Motions which are before your Lordships' House. If I had to choose between (as I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, called it) the aristocratic tone as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and what I would call plain speech, which is the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would back plain speech against aristocratic tone any day. But since the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is prepared to pull his punches and go along with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I will do the same and support the Motion and the Amendment which the noble Lord proposes.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he spoke, I think understood very much the feeling of the House. He nearly agreed with everything that my noble friend Lord Carrington said to him; he very nearly agreed with everything the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said to him. I think it is a great pleasure to know that we now have a Leader of your Lordships' House who is as sensitive to the wishes of your Lordships. All I hope is that he can translate those wishes to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and especially to the Prime Minister.
Clive, when accused of bribery, is reported to have replied,
"Gentlemen, I am astonished at my own moderation".
I think that this remark could with all justification have been said by every single Liberal, every single Tory and most Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships House. The legislation which is being hurled at us night after night is anathema to all of us on this side of the House, and it could be described thus: legislation to provide privileged fiefdoms for some of Her Majesty's Government's most influential supporters; legislation to abolish educational centres of excellence; legislation to deprive the Health Service of much needed funds and people of the freedom of choice; legislation to inflict on the agricultural industry disadvantages not applicable to other industries; legislation for the forced sale of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries to the State on terms
302
which are dubiously near, in come cases, to that of confiscation.
I do not think that the members of Her Majesty's Government in another place realise how much we dislike these measures. If they did, they would see how apt my quotation of Clive was. We have not wrecked any Public Bills; we have not threatened to stand form on any of our Amendments. As every noble Lord who has spoken so far has said, we have done our public duty—as has also been said, this public duty given to us by a Labour Government. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, have we unnecessarily prolonged the discussions. We have not, as was done by the present Party in power when it was in Opposition, forced six or seven Divisions over one dinner hour on one night. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, mentioned "Division addiction"; I presume he is saying that it is catching.
All that my noble friends and I are asking is that Her Majesty's Government should respect the Constitution and not overload us with work, and when we work according to that Constitution not squeal, "Foul!" if they do not like what we are doing. They can always, after all, change it in another place and if they do not like that, they can go and ask the opinion of the people who are our lords an I masters. Above all, as a revising Chamber this is obviously necessary for both Parties in power. How long was spent on the Industrial Relations Act? How long was spent on the London Government Act? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has told us. Much longer was spent on t hem than on Bills we are now discussing. Let us have a reformed Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made the point so well for this. It must be a reformed Chamber which can carry Amendments against a Conservative Government when it is in power. The arguments then about Peers versus people would no lor ger carry weight because the composition could be justified.
But, my Lords, until that reform has happened I sincerely hope that your Lordships will do your duties to the best of your abilities, each and every one of us. Will not the Labour Party introduce a sensible reform? If the Labour Party will not do this, then will my noble friend Lord Carrington urge it even more

303
loudly and more prolongedly on his friends and our Party to make sure that we have a sensible, sound and wisely constituted revising Chamber.
4.22 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I find myself in almost complete agreement with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Measures which have been guillotined in another place and which come to this House should be looked at line by line and clause by clause. That is the fundamental duty of a second Chamber which regards its function as that of a revising Chamber. It should discharge that duty. My complaint against this House is that it does it with thoroughness only when there is a Labour Government.
I was very glad indeed that the Leader of the House mentioned the Common Market. That was a constitutional outrage and the price for it has not yet been paid. We have not yet paid the first instalment of it. What it meant was that when the Bill was guillotined in another place, forced through unamended, and was placed on the Statute Book, the people of this country missed the opportunity to learn what it was all about from the debates that should have taken place in another place and in this House. The full realisation of what the Common Market means has not yet penetrated the political thinking of the British people. My charge against the Conservative Party opposite is therefore the old one of, in one word, hypocrisy. Today they have said many things with which I agree, but when we judge what they say by what they do, there is a world of difference. That is the charge against them.
For my part I say to the Government something very simple. The Leader of the House, and indeed the Cabinet, should know what this place is about. They should not expect any different behaviour from that which has happened. When there is a great majority and the popular will is plain for all to see the Tory Party, as always, is either at your feet or at your throat. In the early stages it will be at your feet. Nothing is too much for you—"Yes, old boy"—all the collaboration in the world. But when the wind changes and the majorities are narrow, then off
304
comes the sheeps' clothing and you find out that the wolf has teeth.
If one wanted another example in addition to the Common Market, one could look at what happened last Friday, on a Private Members' Bill. The noble Lord on this side of the House "boxed" it a bit by giving the Tories opposite an excuse for doing what they did, for voting it down. But I thought that this was a judicially-minded Chamber, a Chamber which took full account of the legal processes. There was a Select Committee of the House which made a recommendation. That however made no difference, and because this smacked of something the Tory Party did not like—nationalisation, they said—so off with its head.
I have been a critic of the present Prime Minister; my attitude towards the Prime Minister may perhaps he likened to the attitude of my noble friend Lord Shinwell to the Leader of the House—we wish him well, but not too much if I may say so. But after listening to the Prime Minister's broadcast last night, let me say that he has my 100 per cent. support. And one needs support when times are not as good as they might be. Of course, the Government should recognise what is afoot and should behave accordingly: never threaten, never warn, just promise. The Government should extend the sittings; they should go all through the motions; they should give the Party opposite all the rope in the world, because that is the only way in which they will hang themselves. If necessary, they should introduce the Felixstowe Docks Bill as a Government measure and, if it is slung out, then use the Parliament Act to enforce it.
The Prime Minister was asked last night: "Who governs this country?" Somebody said, "The TUC." "No", he said, "We govern". Very well, let the Government govern, and govern in the face of the Opposition opposite. What does it mean? Nothing. On the day the House reassembled I—a minority of one—ventured to get to my feet just to put on the record what the economic crisis was all about. I pointed out the situation of the Rhine Army which is now costing not a penny less than£1,200 million a year. For practical purposes its military use is not worth tuppence.

305
An American general said it was "pathetic". Why did he say that? He said that because it is armed with atomic tactical weapons that have a range of 12 miles. They are obsolescent and under American control. It has always been so. If ever war comes then within two hours we are in the bag. Would noble Lords please note that since the end of the last war £58,000 million has been spent in defence; and if an American general says that is pathetic, I in my barrack room way would say, "You couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding"—but that after£58,000 million has been spent.
The comparison is made with the reserves of Germany. That is what your noble policies have done for this poor benighted country. We won two wars. Noble Lords will perhaps remember the popular song "We Won the War". Whatever for? Look at the defeated. Germany and Japan have not done so badly. But look at us. The cause of our economic crisis is because the people of this country have never been brought face to face with the truth. It is not because we do not work too hard. The Prime Minister last night spelt out the Rhine Army, the reserve currency, and of course our Middle East policy. All those trips to Israel have to be paid for, and they are paid for by runs on sterling by those who now hate our guts. That is what we have done. It is within our control; but we shall not control it until we face up to it, and we have not faced up to it.
I will now venture another prophecy. Noble Lords have behaved as they have over the Common Market and over the Felixstowe Docks Bill. What they are doing—I probably will not live to see it but it will come—is to lay the foundation in Britain for the largest, strongest Communist Party in Europe. Let the economic crisis worsen because of the phoney policies here, and what results from them? A Conservative Government might fall through; but the bill comes to be paid, and then the scales drop from people's eyes just like that. Noble Lords will see what happens. As to their vaunted so-called power to come down here and vote down this Administration night after night, they will see what it is worth.
I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on his speech; he is a reasonable man. But he can be quite sure of
306
one thing. The Amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is going to be carried, and its effect is to regret the Government's action. Of course, if they do not put you into shackles, the reason is because they fear they might inherit the shackles too; and so they leave it. We should go back to the Prime Minister and say: "If that is the game they war t to play, play it. Go to the people of 'Wales and Scotland and say to them that they cannot have devolution, that you are very sorry but devolution will have to be put off because the Tory Party are having political fun and games." That is what politics is about. If they wart to play the games that they have played, let them play them—but make sure that they pay the bill.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I put one point to him. He said the reason why the Felixstowe Docks Bill was rejected by the House was because the Tory Party dislike nationalisation. Would the noble Lord not agree, on reflection, that something between 85 and 90 per cent. of the people of this country also dislike it?
Lord WIGG: It may well be; but I must say to the noble Lord that he really oughtto try to understand howademocracy works. Once a Government ale elected they are not expected to trim their sails to every wind that blows. They do what they believe to be right as long s control of the House of Commons is in their hands, and at the end of the day the electorate will take a decision But I do not happen to believe what the noble Lord said. Of course, as the situation is presented by the media—the impartial BBC and our impartial Press—what chance have the people of this country to under-stand objectively what it is all about?
4.32 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the debate in which we are engaged is on a procedural Motion with constitutional overtones, so I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others in controversy about controversy, if I may put it that way. I will return to the noble Lord's point about the imbalance and constitution of this Home later. If we had listened to one speech this afternoon which is more outstanding than

307
any other, I believe it was that of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who in effect said: "What on earth does this House and Parliament look like, at the centre of a great economic storm, fiddling around with matters of second-rate importance?" I am, of course, paraphrasing, but that is very much what the noble Earl said.
We must surely consider first the standing of this House and of Parliament in the eyes of the people. If there is one feature of recent weeks which is less agreeable than any other, it is the decline of the normally co-operative atmosphere in this House. During the Felixstowe debate last Friday I was struck by some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who, although he was accused at one point of "wriggling", at any rate included in his speech this useful passage that I am about to quote. He said he regretted that particular Bill had come before your Lordships for its Third Reading—
"in a particularly charged period politically when there has been a great deal of discussion against nationalisation and nationalisation proposals."—[Official Report, 22/10/76; col.1734.]
He continued:
"It has partly resulted from the pressure of the overspill and the fact that we are all operating under time pressures which are not to the benefit of sober discussion and debate."
I believe that statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, whose moderation we all respect and whose personality we all admire, will command the general assent of this House.
A rather similar point was made in the very moderate speech made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he said in effect that if, for example, in another place a cut-off point for debate is established, that immediately invites filibustering. I believe he was on to an absolutely right point and one which is relevant to our own proceedings here. For the difficulty that we are up against, and about which we are now protesting, is that so early a date has been fixed for the next Session. I grant that it is later than usual, but it is an early date against the background of the Business still before us. An early date has been fixed for the next Session, against which there is so heavy a backlog, which—and, my Lords, one must say this with honesty and modesty—amounts, or at least may be
308
thought to amount, to an attempt to bulldoze this House.
The "bulldozing" that many of us have felt—and as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said, our debates in this House have been attended by Cross-Benchers throughout the night—does not apply simply to Members of these Benches or of the Liberal Benches but certainly also to the Cross-Benchers. The fact is that this sense of pressure has been, one might almost say, "blessed" by some words less temperate than might otherwise have been expected from respected members of the Cabinet such as the Prime Minister and Mr. Varley. I ignore the vituperations of some rather lesser Members with all their silly gibes about Rolls-Royces and things. But we have had words from the Prime Minister and another member of the Cabinet which reinforce the sense of pressure under which this House has been labouring. May I say—it is an old saying—that "threatened folk live long".
We are all aware of the limitations of both Parliament Acts. I personally do not complain about them. I am reminded of the words which were attributed to the late Lord Beveridge at a time when he was either still a senior civil servant or had just recently retired. He said that as a senior civil servant he had possessed considerable influence, and he added: "If you have influence, why do you need power?". This House has very considerable influence, and if it is the case—and one certainly understands it to be the case—that noble Lords opposite feel themselves in such a numerical minority that there is no point in coming anyway because they will lose the vote, the simple fact is that this House has very considerable influence in a whole number of ways. Perhaps the first of them is this: it is a place where ideas may be tossed out, and although they are invariably incomprehensible to the Front Bench of either Party they are well under-stood by civil servants. Since in the Civil Service No. 2 is always waiting for a good idea to bring in when he replaces No. 1, these ideas are mopped up by the Civil Service and are in fact seeds that are sown in very fertile ground. How often, indeed, have we not seen an idea launched in a debate here reappear perhaps within months as the genuine, spontaneous thought of the Government of the day?

309
Then there is the very considerable work that is done by Select Committees of this House, whose Reports are quoted in the other place. Indeed, they are sought after. We have even found that fundamental research, of which the other place is incapable, is among the burdens borne by this House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, sitting on the Cross-Benches now. The Select Committee over which he presides is a very good example. I hope it will not embarrass him—though I embarrass him often enough in his Committee—when I say that he has been invited to preside over a Select Committee doing what amounts to original research on the whole problem of commodity prices and their possible stabilisation. The suggestion conies from the late Prime Minister himself, Sir Harold Wilson. It has been laid upon this House, and a number of noble Lords from both Parties and from the Cross-Benches are taking part in that work. It is work which could not conceivably be done by another place.
There is a whole apparatus of Select Committees working in this House, which are busy as bees without sight of the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who graces the Woolsack at this moment, presides with distinction and charm over no fewer than 80 Members of your Lord-ships' House, who work on the scrutiny of European legislation, and the Reports stemming from that Committee are not only quoted, cited and argued about in the European Parliament; they are cited in another place as well. It may well be, indeed, that the House of Lords has something to show Parliament as a whole, and perhaps even another place, about how business might be transacted. There is a system here of sifting and examining secondary legislation. Perhaps the Committees of both Houses, which are looking at the procedures and practices of Parliament, might consider, also, the possible sifting and scrutiny of delegated legislation at home by a like system.
But whether or not that be so, the manning of these Committees is an arduous task for any Member who spends time on them, and attempts to get through the amount of paper that has to be read, let alone understood, and who has to consider before each meeting when evidence is heard what questions can most shrewdly,
310
tactfully and usefully be put. There is very considerable work involved. It is difficult enough to man these Committees as they are, but under the burden of the contested and contentious legislation going through this House, keeping us up late at night, it is very difficult and very burdensome indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady White, who had been sitting in this House till a quarter-past three this morning, was again presiding with her familiar grace and deftness over one of these Select Committees only a few hours later—at eleven o'clock. Since many of us are either of pensionable age, or still earning our livings, or both—and most noble Lords in this House earn their livings and do not live in style on private incomes—these are very serious burdens.
On the matter of contentious legislation, so far as I am aware the Salisbury-Addison agreement has been upheld to the letter. Just to remind noble Lords who may not immediately recall what that amounted to, may I say that when the Labour Government came in will a vast majority in 1945 the Tory Opposition, though out-numbering the Government Benches considerably, came to an agreement to the effect that it would never destroy legislation coming from the other House that was based on the fulfilment of an Election pledge, and I do not believe we have ever voted down a Bill on Second Reading. If we have, then I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of any single occasion.
But what happens when we pt down to the Committee stage is very often another story; and here may I say in parenthesis that what I am going; to say should be balanced by a compliment. The noble Lords who have manned the Government Front Bench nigh after night have done so with unfailing courtesy and good humour. Unfortunately, those noble Lords whom I have tormented are not sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, but I think they will accept it as sincere when I say that they have taken our sometimes rather playful arguments with very good humour, and they haw batted steadily and well. But, my goodness! they have stonewalled and when the Government of the day, despite all the support of the Civil Service machine behind them, stonewall so completely against serious Amendments, seriously argued by persons who have given up their

311
time to come here, sometimes at some cost, it makes a poor impression.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke several times last week with great vigour, great eloquence and superb knowledge, on certain Amendments. He had had to work at his bank throughout the day; he came here and stayed up the whole night; he had to go back to his bank at eight o'clock that morning, and he was on his feet in this House two days later after only six hours' sleep in between. It was a sacrifice by him to come and make those serious speeches which were not properly answered, although they were worthy of very serious answers. When serious Amendments—if I may put this in the nicest possible way to the Government—which are argued cogently by persons who have practical knowledge and give up time to come and make their speeches, are not properly answered, a different situation obtains. This is where the strain under which we have been operating has begun to tell.
If the Government show no "give", if they agree only to give lip service to the revising function of this Chamber and do not admit that any revision is necessary, desirable or acceptable, then that is where the charge of hypocrisy will properly lie. When there is no "give", when we are exposed to the reading of Civil Service briefs that do not answer the Amendments one is reminded of the Scots Minister who came to be considered for a call to a particular parish, and the sermon taster in that parish commented: "He read his sermon. He did not read it very well, and it was not worth reading." Very often, that is how we are forced to react to some of the replies from the Government Front Bench, although, I say again, the noble Lords manning the Front Bench do so with grace, with kindness, with good humour and with tact. But their answers sometimes elicit a poor response, because they are such poor answers. Therefore, when we are up against a timetable which really amounts to a guillotine, if the answers are not satisfactory reason goes out of the window, brain gives way to brawn, argument gives way to numbers and the worst comes out of us all.
I said earlier that I would return to the frustration which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and others expressed about the
312
absurdity of the numerical composition of this House. Personally, I always regret that the Party opposite has not created far more Life Peers to man those Benches, so that there could be some equality of numbers in this House. But I must also say that it is disappointing when noble Lords, who have made a name for themselves in industry, commerce, business or the City, are brought to this House, ennobled and immediately take their place on those Benches, and then we do not see them again. That is a disappointment, because the House should be enriched by their arguments; and very often their arguments would provide better replies to the Amendments put forward from this side than the briefs read out from the Front Bench.
All this talk about confrontation is really beside the point and need not be pursued. What we must get quite clear is that if this is accepted as a revising Chamber, then answers put forward to serious questions must be real answers. I think it was Samuel Butler who said:
"Learned nonsense has a deeper sound than easy sense and goes for more profound."
The Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is reasonable. I think that the Amendment accepted by him and put down by my noble friend Lord Carrington is more reasonable still. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Party opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who is now on the Front Bench and to whom we are indebted, and whose kindness and friendliness are such a pleasure to us all, will carry to the business managers of the other place the message which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, gave them. It is to serve notice on the business managers there that they must do better in future.
Now that Mr. Michael Foot is a gentleman of distinction in the Cabinet, and now that Mr. Enoch Powell has retired to the outer marches, perhaps the opportunity might come to return to the proposals for reform which were supported so well by my noble friend Lord Carrington. Our job is not to push a Party position; it is to make the House work, to make Parliament work, and to see it give a lead to the nation.
4.50 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, it is a sad sign of our times that at the end of

313
October we have to indulge in a debate of this kind, particularly when the pound and currency in many parts of the world is in such a parlous position. Nevertheless, I believe that this debate is necessary and that on the whole it has been useful, and in the few minutes that are available to me I hope I can keep up the standard. Some will ask whether this has been a counter-productive debate. It has been pointed out that the composition of this Chamber means that, whatever happens, the inbuilt majority on this side will carry the day. This is true. I have spent 18 years in your Lordships' House and have been a fairly regular attender and participator. I have never been what one might call a Tory hack. In fact, I have rebelled against my Party on more than one occasion. My noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned the London Government Act. I carried then the only Amendment against my Party. If it happened now I should do the same again because I happen to believe that that was the right decision.
The real bone of contention is that in this Session we are dealing with more than one controversial Bill. It is quite true that during, our period of office there were the London Government and the Industrial Relations Acts. Both Bills were highly controversial and figures have been quoted as to how much time was spent on these measures in Committee, on Report and so on. Figures can be quoted on many occasions and in many circumstances, but the point is that, whereas in those Sessions there was one, or there were possibly two, highly controversial pieces of legislation, in this Session there are five, if not six.
At this hour I shall not seek to go into any detail whatever or say anything whatever about these Bills. My feeling is that we should discuss all of the Bills and that the Government should adhere to their programme. I do not believe that the Government should drop any of the Bills. I do not say that because I like the Bills. I do not; I object in various ways to all of them. However, I make this appeal to the Government. Although we have had a long Session I believe that it should be prolonged because, as has been pointed out, we are a revising Chamber. Revision can he a lengthy process and there is still much to be revised in these Bills.
314
I sincerely hope that when the noble Lord the Leader of the House, whom I have known for a number of years and for whom we all have such respect, reports back to his honourable and right honourable friends in the other place he will report back the views which have been expressed in this Chamber. I end with the hope that further time will be given during this Session for these maters to be properly, constructively and the heatedly debated.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, may I make one brief point? We have heard a great deal about—
4.55 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I think it is the wish of the House that we should come to a conclusion. It has been a very useful debate. I gather from what was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he has got the message and I hope he will find that it is possible to adjust the timetable to a more reasonable tempo. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, intends to press his Amendment to my Motion I shall be very happy to support it and to ask my colleagues to do the same.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. I feel sure that he would have been on my side, but then; we are. If I may say so, the Leader of the House made a very conciliatory speech. I think that both he and the noble Baroness the Chief Whip understand perfectly well the difficulties of the House. I hope that nothing I have said is in any way taken as being a personal reflect] on upon either of them because that was the last thing that I intended. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that he was there on in at the deep end. Well, so he was, Jut he is still swimming and he is still swimming very courteously. For that we on this side of the House are very grateful.
I think that the sense of the House is perfectly obvious. Nevertheless, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is enable to accept my Amendment to the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I understand the reason, for it is difficult to accept an Amendment which regrets his own actions. But the

315
fact remains that if we pass this Amendment it will make things a little easier for the Government in their dealings with another place, because at least they will be able to tell their colleagues there of the real feelings in this House about the timetable.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, the original Motion was in the terms set out on the Order Paper, since when Amendments have been moved:
In line 1, to leave out from ("House") to ("calls") in line 3;
and
In line 6, to leave out from ("Commons") to the end of line 7 and insert ("regrets that Her Majesty's Government has failed to give effect to this principle and requests that adequate parliamentary time be afforded for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation.").
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendments shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amherst, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monson, L.

Amory, V.

Furness, V.

Morris, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gage, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Atholl, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Auckland, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Banks, L.

Gray, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Barrington, V.

Grey, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Birdwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Platt, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reading, M.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hampton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bradford, E.

Hankey, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Brock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Broughshane, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Sackville, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Carrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Salisbury, Bp.

Cathcart, E.

Hunt, L.

Sandford, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jessel, L.

Savile, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Seear, B.

Clwyd, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Coleraine, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Sharples, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Simon, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Leathers, V.

Stamp, L.

Cross, V.

Lloyd, L.

Strang, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

McNair, L.

Terrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Marley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Elles, B.

Melville, V.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Middleton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Molson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Falmouth, V.

Monck, V.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Arwyn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

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

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Stedman, B.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Maelor, L.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Wall, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Oram, L.

White, B.

Fulton, L.

Pannell, L.

Wigg, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Parry, L.

Willis, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendments agreed to accordingly.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976,

Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976,

Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Act 1976,

Armed Forces Act 1976,

Resale Prices Act 1976,

Trinidad and Tobago Republic Act 1976,

Coity Wallia Commons Act 1976,

Methodist Church Act 1976.

ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons with the Amendments.

EDUCATION BILL
5.10 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Clause 2 [Submission of proposals for giving effect to comprehensive principle]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 42, after ("specify") insert ("not being less than 12 months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be to the convenience of the House if we consider Amendments Nos.5 and 6 together. They are both concerned with the length of time which a local authority or school may be granted in which to prepare or revise plans for comprehensive reorganisation. On Committee we had a brisk and useful debate on the matter of imposing on the Secretary of State a minimum period of time which she must allow to a local education authority to prepare plans in the first instance under subsection (2). Our debate took place at about 11 o'clock at night, late enough for us to be anxious to get on, but not so late that weariness had reduced our ability to do so. It was therefore brief.
Two Amendments were considered together: a Liberal Amendment requiring the Secretary of State to allow a reasonable period for the preparation of plans, and our own specifiying a period of a minimum of 18 months. The noble Baroness said to the Liberals it was settled law that all actions of the Secretary of State had to be reasonable. To us the noble Baroness said that six months to 12 months—or I think in fact up to 12 months—would be more reasonable than the 18 months we proposed. In the event your Lordships, having recently had a case of unreasonable conduct by a Secretary of State brought to your notice, opted in a Division for the longer period of 18 months.
That is the period allowed for the preparation of a plan by the local education authority for submission to the Secretary of State at the command of the Secretary of State under Clause 2(1). Under Clause 2(2) there is a requirement that the local education authority should consult with the governors or managers of any affected voluntary school in their area before finalising their" plan, and to forward to the Secretary of State, should the managers or governors so request, plans that the managers or governors have themselves drawn up to meet the case of their school.
The Secretary of State may, and quite probably will, therefore, be faced by not one but two or more conflicting plans. Your Lordships will appreciate that the governors or managers will not request the local education authority to forward their plan to the Secretary of State unless the plan of the local education authority in their view is unsatisfactory. It is not necessarily the case that there will be only one alternative plan, because there will not necessarily be only one voluntary school involved. Each of the several other plans will necessarily be in conflict with the local education authority and may possibly also be in conflict with each other. The Secretary of State will have to rule upon each of the plans, and if it seems fit to him he will reject them, severally or jointly, under subsection (3).
Therefore, there is a variety of circumstances in which the Secretary of State may see fit to throw back plans drawn up by either a local education
320
authority or the governors of a voluntary school. To take a third case, it may happen that the governors of the voluntary school in the area make no such request, but that the local education authority plan, none the less, makes insufficient provision for their school. Your Lordships will observe from the drafting of subsection (2) that it is open to a local education authority to submit a plan after consultation with voluntary schools, unaccompanied by any submission from the voluntary schools.
My Lords, under Clause 3(3) it is open to the Secretary of State to set aside these plans, and to call for alternative plans for a voluntary school that is affected by them, but for which they do not adequately provide. I wish later to return briefly to that situation, but at this stage I refer your Lordships to page 2, lines 40 to 43, which empower the Secretary of State in these circumstances to require the managers or governors of the school to prepare and submit to him, within such time as he may specify, proposals for that purpose.
This requirement is going to fall on the governors out of a clear sky. They will have been consulted by the local education authority, they will have acceded to its plan, and they will consider themselves to be right with the world, and to have no further duty in the matter but to comply with the request of the local education authority to carry out the plan in due time. They then will receive this injunction to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State plans of their own, and to do so in such a time as the Secretary of State may suggest is reasonable. For reasons to which I shall allude later, we feel the minimum period in these circumstances would be 12 months.
That takes care of the voluntary schools being asked for the first time to prepare and submit plans of their own. Let us now revert to cases under subsection (4), where we are concerned not with new proposals, but the reviewing and redrawing of old proposals. That there will be instances of such circumstances arising I am confident. Comprehensive reorganisation is a complex and, indeed, a controversial matter, and has a lasting effect on both the schools and the children in them, so it must be got right. Let us not forget also that comprehensive reorganisation

321
has a considerable effect on the career structures and lives of the staff in the schools.
The Bill as now drawn up lays down a procedure to be followed when either the plans of the local education authority or those of the governors of a school are referred back by the Secretary of State. The Bill states quite baldly in Clause 2(4) on page 3 that they shall prepare and submit to him further proposals within such time as he may specify. It seems to us that the reluctance of Her Majesty's Government to accept the minimum time requirement imposed by our Amendment on Committee was so great, and the suggestion that a reorganisation plan for an entire area could be hatched, fledged and flown in as little as 12 months as suggested in column 1472 seemed to us unrealistic, that there is every symptom that the Government have the intention to press this forward at an unrealistic and therefore damaging speed.
The only defence against such an aggressive attitude coming into the open once the original plan is submitted under the protection of our 18 months Amendment is at present a very flimsy and devastatingly slow and costly one of a recourse to the law, and a rerun of the recent case about the interpretation of the word "reasonably". That recourse is in itself unreasonable and, in the light of the Government's attitude, we feel it necessary to extend the protection of this Bill to the process of planning beyond the stages embodied in Clause 2(1) and (2). If the Secretary of State is to turn upon some hapless voluntary school, a very small and weak institution in comparison with a Secretary of State flanked by Ministers and serviced by a vast Department and, indeed, in comparison with the local authority with its own bureaucracy, that, too, must be given time to give proper thought, care and above all, consultation before it commits itself to a plan that may become binding.
My Lords, there is an anomaly which occurred to me in my studies when preparing this Amendment. I said, when I was discussing the case of a voluntary school, that I wished to refer again to the position it would find itself in if required under Clause 2(3) to prepare for the first time plans for its own future. The position then would be that a local education
322
authority had submitted a plan and not had it rejected, that the voluntary school had been asked for a plan which might merely be an extension of it, but which might be in conflict with it. It is an oddity of the procedure set out in this clause, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain it, that it permits an authority's plan to be then shelved, and if there is to be a reference back of the authority's plan, it takes place separately, not under Clause 2(3) but under Clause 2(4). A voluntary school will already have set about planning under Clause 2(3) when the local education authority will come along to consult it again under the rerun of Clause 2(2) procedure precipitated under the implication of Clause 2(4).
I should be much obliged if the noble Lord, when he comes to rep y, would explain that. It seems to me that it could well result in a resubmission of the local education authority plans being: required at an even later stage when it became clear that the acceptable plays of the voluntary school did not match the unacceptable plans of the local authority. This would seem to be an ungainly procedure. I suspect the noble Lord has something else in mind, but it is not clear from the drafting of the Bill. Whatever the circumstances in which the new or revised plans are required, time for consultation is of importance. Such affairs are often matters of great civic concern to the community as well as to the specifically parental concern of those whose children are at the schools in question. Where a local education authority's plans, including provisions for a voluntary school which the governors have found acceptable, have been thrown out, the governors will at least have the support of 2. friendly authority in their search for a new formula.
In such circumstances, Amendment No. 6 allows a minimum of only six months in which to come up with an alternative. Where it is a voluntary school's plan only that is called for, as can be the case from scratch, under subsection (3) procedure, we regard 12 months as the recessary minimum. If your Lordships will consider the complexity and controversiality of the matters coming under review at the planning stage and the magnitude of the effect of the final decisions upon the institutions and the pattern of life of the community immediately affected, I do not see how you

323
can regard these periods as being in any way too long a time. We have to remember that in practical terms it is not only a question of bricks and mortar, playing fields and changing rooms, timetables and dinner accommodation; it is also a question of careers and contracts of employment for the staff, adjustment of the burdens upon the rates, provision of transport, and in many cases the hearing of planning applications as well.
My own feeling is that in setting the minimum time limits in these cases we may have set them too short. If the noble Lord agrees with me, then he will have no cause to resist these Amendments. If he does resist them, then he is providing us with evidence that the Government intend to allow less time than this for the planning process, and in our view that is entirely inadequate provision and is in itself evidence of the necessity for the Amendment. I beg to move.
5.22 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I must confess to a certain mild dose of impatience over these two Amendments, which seem to me to illustrate very well the persistence and at the same time the ambivalence of the Opposition's approach to the Bill. May I take first Amendment No. 5, which would require the Secretary of State to give the governors of voluntary schools not less than 12 months to submit their proposals. In Committee the Opposition put down Amendments designed to take voluntary schools out of the Bill altogether. They were sternly rebuked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who pointed out that this was the last thing that the Churches wanted; so the Opposition withdrew in some confusion. Now they return with this Amendment, designed simply to delay the whole process of reorganisation of voluntary schools, of which, may I say, some 80 per cent. are Church schools. Does the Opposition realise that all the Roman Catholic schools and all but a handful of the Church of England schools have already accepted the comprehensive principle? What, then, is the point of this delaying tactic except as a naked delaying tactic? This Amendment is intended simply to delay the reorganisation of a handful of non-denominational voluntary grammar schools.
324
Amendment No. 6 is even harder for a simple man to understand. In Committee the Opposition carried an Amendment requiring the Secretary of State to give local authorities not less than 18 months for submission of their proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, told us, at Col.1474, that this was needed to ensure that
"people shall be able to collect themselves;"
that he wanted to defend
"schools which are being peppered with grapeshot from Transport House."
My Lords, it was late; I say no more.
Having got their 18 months on the first round, the Opposition want six months more on the second round for the submission of revised proposals. They tell us that the local authorities, harried to distraction by the unreasonable demands of central Government, need two years in all before they can be ready with a second set of proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who has served both as a Minister and as a member of a local authority, knows full well that in a fraction of two years the local authorities are perfectly capable of preparing proposals, consulting on them, and submitting them to the Secretary of State.
This Amendment is almost an insult to the local authorities. I am using strong words because in other Amendments the Opposition have sought to add to the burdens of these same local authorities by imposing on them new statutory requirements about parental appeals and about the publication of information about their schools. Yesterday, outside the House, the noble Lord, Lord Elton said, I think to a newspaper, in a moment of selfrevelation, "There are a lot of people in the Lords who speak rubbish". My Lords, who am Ito differ from him? These Amendments show what splendid sense he was talking. He knows, the House knows, that these are wrecking Amendments and are meant to be wrecking Amendments.
The noble Lord asked me a specific question about subsection (4). I think he has misunderstood the subsection. The voluntary aided school plan, to be acceptable, would have to fit into that of the local education authority, and it is highly improbable that an acceptable plan could be put forward by the voluntary school if at the same time the LEAs plan

325
was unacceptable. I really believe these Amendments to be, if not wrecking Amendments, delaying Amendments, and I cannot for one moment recommend the House to accept them.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord "going to town", if I may put it that way, when he referred to an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage with regard to voluntary aided schools. It is a fact that I moved an Amendment which would have deleted voluntary aided schools from this miserable Bill, but when I moved it I started off with these words:
"There is no desire, as far as I know, on the part of any of the voluntary schools to see this Amendment to the Bill."
I explained that that was provided there could be some improvements made to the Bill on their behalf. I went on to explain that I was using that Amendment as a peg on which to hang a series of questions which I then put to the noble Lord. It is not the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—who, unfortunately, is not here today—then took me to task for this at all. He bore out what I said when I moved that Amendment, namely, that he did not wish to see the Church voluntary schools excluded from the Bill, and it was my impression that he listened with interest to the debate which ensued, which certainly cleared up certain points.
The position of the voluntary aided schools, despite the questions I asked on that occasion and the answers I received, still remains difficult under this Bill, and particularly so with regard to Clause 2. It is never easy for an authority to reach agreement with its voluntary schools about reorgnisation, if for no other reason because many of the voluntary schools are small; many of them are three-form entry or less. Unless the authority is prepared to try to change these very good schools which have large sixth forms into mini-comprehensives, as the Inner London Education Authority has been making a habit of trying to do, it is extremely difficult to know how such schools can accept non-selective intakes without radically changing the sort of schools that they are. My noble friend Lord Eccles gave a particularly clear example of this yesterday when he referred to a voluntary aided
326
school in South London which had a thriving sixth form of, I think I remember him saying, some 200, but under proposals which Inner London wished to put forward, would become a mini-comprehensive with a sixth form of only about 60.
I ask the noble Lord to take on board that this is a problem, and that it may need time to work out between the voluntary school concerned and the authority. In addition to that, the latest projection of the child population figures for the whole country show a dramatic fall, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, of 1½ to 2 million children over the next 12 years or so. With a falling school population, another problem is that an authority is always bound to be tempted to ensure, when reorganising, that if an) schools have to be closed they will not be their own schools. It is a perfectly natural thing for any local authority to want to ensure that their county schools are preserved. Therefore I am putting it to the noble Lord that it will be necessary for a period of time to be allowed for voluntary schools to consult with their local education authority when proposals are demanded by the Secretary of State under Clause 2. I would have thought that a period of 12 months could not be seen as a totally delaying or wrecking tactic but as a reasonable period of time, as my noble friend has tried to say.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, a reasonable period of time is what is already contained in the Bill under the law. What we are objecting to is the period of 12 months as a minimum.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is no reasonable period of time written into the Bill. The noble Lord is looking at the wrong subsection. Let me turn now to subsection (4) of this clause, the six month period for consultation when proposals have been rejected End the Secretary of State demands further proposals. Here again, I should not have thought that this would be an or unreasonable period of time. Once again there is no reasonable period of time written into subsection (4).
I have already had occasion on previous debates on this Bill to criticise due intentions of the Government for the procedure which is contained in Clause 2(4). It was

327
in my view, as originally worded, a dictatorial procedure, because the noble Lord will remember that the wording of it was that the Secretary of State could specify conditions and could force the local education authority to adhere to those conditions. I put it to the noble Lord that I thought that this was an intolerable situation for a local authority.
How Ministers can get up from the Government Front Bench and suggest to the Opposition Front Bench that we are laying extra burdens on local education authorities, when this Bill is destroying in a way that has never been seen before, so far as I know, the partnership between local and central Government, defeats me. However, that aside, I should have thought that the Government could have agreed that a period of time not exceeding six months should have been allowed for consultations at that particular stage, even though I do not think that the consultations by that stage are going to be very genuine because it is the Government's intention that the proposals will be dictated as approved by the Secretary of State.
With those few words I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Elton to decide what to do with this Amendment. But I hope that we shall hear no more from the Government Front Bench about ambivalent attitudes from the Opposition side with regard to voluntary schools, and I hope we shall hear no more from the Government Front Bench, from the Minister of the Arts, about wrecking Amendments, when all we are trying to do is put reasonable periods of time into this miserable Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Belstead has dealt so effecttively with most of what the noble Lord opposite has said that it is scarcely necessary for me to say more. The remark I made outside this House about your Lordships was taken at one remove from context there, and has been taken at another remove from here. I in fact said that some noble Lords do on occasion speak rubbish, and I am afraid that the noble Lord opposite would bear this out if he only quotes me as an example. I went on to say that your Lordships as a whole were a wise and excellent body of men, but that did not get into the column.
328
I would leave it there. I think that the noble Lord has used rather strong words—words like "insult", and "tedium"—which I would rather not use so early in the night. They may after all accelerate the pace of exacerbation as we draw towards midnight. It is our intention to keep this cool.
Our feeling about the way this clause should be adminsitered is clear. It is quite clear that we are not convinced from what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have already said, that it is going to be administered as it should be. But we should try to preserve an element of decorum about our exchanges, and I fear that if we were to put this very modest requirement into the Bill it would inevitably be seen by the noble Lord and his friends, both here and elsewhere, as being another wrongful exercise of a rightful privilege. I do not think it would be, but in the interests of good relations I would rather concentrate our fire on more important things and merely see that ombudsmen and others keep a very close eye on how this Bill is run. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and if the Secretary of State does so require, he shall inform the local authority of his detailed reasons for finding the proposals unsatisfactory.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment takes the place of one which I moved in your Lordships' House at Committee stage. There were then various detailed objections to it besides possibly the main ones of principle. I hope I have managed to deal with the detailed objections by redrafting the Amendment. However, its purpose is exactly the same. It is that when the Secretary of State shall disapprove of a scheme put to him by the local education authority he shall not at that stage just return it, nor shall he have the right to dictate in exactly what form the local education authority should return the amended scheme, but he should have an absolute duty to explain what it was that was wrong. That is very different from saying what should be done. If you say what the defects of the plan were, it is not equivalent

329
to saying that you instruct the local education authority to solve them in a particular way. In fact, if you limit yourself to saying what the defects were you give the local education authority the maximum amount of discretion in drawing up new plans and finding new and different ways to circumvent the difficulties which they have.
We have decided in this Bill, certainly at this stage, that we are not having a situation where the Secretary of State in fact tells the local education authorities exactly what they should do, but I think it is for the help of everyone concerned that we should write in this duty for the Secretary of State to inform the local education authorities what the faults are. I know that one of the answers we shall he given is that this of course always happens, and I believe that to a certain extent that is true. As we said in rather loud voices on a previous occasion, there are such things as telephones and they are used, and there is such a thing as the mail and that is used too; but it is important that we get on record at that particular stage that if inadequate plans have been put forward it shall be publicly stated exactly what is wrong—not what should be done, because that is central dictation, but what is wrong and therefore the faults which the local education authority has to overcome in its original plan before it can put forward a new plan. I hope that this is a constructive Amendment to make the whole process rather more clear to the general public at large, to help people make up their minds and make decisions at this particular stage of the process. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I welcome the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. When he moved a similar Amendment during Committee stage, I explained certain legal defects which he has now corrected. On that occasion I also pointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary in the light of the then Clause 2(4). That subsection, as originally worded, enabled the Secretary of State to require fresh proposals to fulfil such conditions as she may specify with respect to any matter in the previous proposals which she considered unsatisfactory. Clause 2(4) assumed that the Secretary of State would tell proposers what in her view was wrong with the
330
original proposals and require them to avoid that error on the second attempt.
If the Bill were still as originally drafted I should have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that his new Amendment, whilst no longer defective, was still unnecessary. However, during Committee stage your Lordships carried an Amendment to remove part of Clause 2(4) from the Bill, so the Secretary of State is now prevented from stating the reasons why proposals submitted under Clause 2 are unsatisfactory and requiring further proposals to avoid those unsatisfactory features. In order to show how conciliatory, helpful, moderate and flexible we are on these Benches, may I say that as the Bill now stands this Amendment improves Clause 2 and is therefore acceptable to the Government. Having said that, I must reserve the Government's position to consider the wording of Clause 2 when the Bill returns to another place, but in this House I am happy to accept it.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I simply cannot understand why the Government cannot write into Clause 2 a requirement that proposals submitted or transmitted by LEAs should have to conform with the general principle of Clause 1. If that were written into the clause—that proposals under Clause 2 must conform with the general principle of Clause 1—and if this Liberal Amendment were accepted, then by the time local authorities came to the end of the procedures under Clause 2 they would be bound to have produced proposals which would then lead to the Section 13 procedure under Clause 3.
There would be a world of difference between that sort of procedure—which I should not like because this is not my Bill; it is a miserable and horrible Bill—and having the procedure which I know perfectly well is what the Government want to insert in the Bill again when it goes back to the House of Commons; namely, the old wording of subsection (4) which was that the Secretary of State could stipulate exactly what the local authority had to put in any revised proposals. Have the Government really moved to the position where they are convinced that the Secretary of State should dictate to LEAs the details of how authorities are to provide their own

331
educational services? If that is the Government's view, they have moved a very long way since Circular 10/65, which spelt out a variety of ways in which authorities could reorganise.
I welcome the Amendment for another reason. I cannot resist spelling out in a little more detail, to remind your Lordships of how unpleasant it was, the original wording of the subsection, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred in passing. Under the subsection as originally worded the Secretary of State could stipulate exactly what an authority was to propose under what we should call the second round, and of course that would put a local authority in an impossible position. They would have been dictated to by the Secretary of State so that when they came to consult under subsection (4) they would have been unable to explain that the proposals were the best they could devise, because the proposals would not be their own. The local authority would therefore be unable to recommend their acceptance to people because the proposals would clearly be at variance with what the authority originally thought would be the right policy for their schools.
I put this to the Government earlier and I am bound to tell them that it has been put to me by representatives of local authorities that the old wording of Clause 2(4) placed authorities in a very difficult position when they came to consult with parents, teachers, governors of schools and the general public in the way with which many noble Lords are familiar, when the chairman of an education committee, usually the chairman of the schools committee and the chief education officer or one of his representatives go to a variety of meetings. I therefore hope that the Government will think again on this issue. Here they have what I should have thought was a reasonable Amendment from the Liberal Front Bench. If they could tie that in with a requirement that proposals sub-mitted or transmitted by authorities should conform with the general principle of Clause 1, that would, in my view, do the trick under this clause, without having to do what I deprecate so strongly, namely, spell out in detail what the Government believe an authority should propose.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 2(1) he may find that it states exactly what he is asking for:
"If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that progress or further progress in giving effect to the principle stated in section 1 above"—
That was the point the noble Lord was particularly making—
"is required in the area or any part of the area of any local education authority, he may require the authority to prepare …".
It seems to me that that meets the noble Lord's case. I believe that it is totally unfair to suggest that if a local authority, a voluntary school or any body has to submit a scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State it should be regarded as detailed dictatorship to tell that authority in what respects the proposals put up fall short of what the Secretary of State would approve. Clearly, this could be used I suppose as a means of dictating. On the other hand, it is done everywhere wherever people have to put up schemes for approval; the approving body is almost always obliged to give reasons why the approval cannot be given. I think the noble Lord is on an entirely wrong tack. I am not saying that it is a tack which is in any sense a wrecking one, but it is not what this is about.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene because if I make a speech the noble Lord will not have the right to reply. He seems to be defending exactly what the Amendment says, because it states that the Secretary of State may inform the local authority what the grounds for rejection are. There is no question about that. Specifying what the solution to the problem has to be is what the objection is about, and that is a different matter.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I agree entirely, my Lords, that I am defending the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was, as I understood it, complaining that by giving reasons the Secretary of State was dictating. First, I do not agree with that, and secondly, I do not fully understand it. Perhaps I have misunderstood Lord Belstead, but if he is content with the Amendment, we are.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I hope that we may

333
have complete understanding about this. The clause as previously drafted entitled the Secretary of State to tell an authority virtually what they were to do and then to resubmit what he had told them to do, whereupon he would sit in judgment on them under Section 13. That seemed to us to be a very unusual procedure, to say the least, in that one should tell somebody what to do and then sit in judgment on one's own decision as to what should be done. As amended, I think that our people would find it entirely reasonable. If the Secretary of State finds the proposals submitted not acceptable—for whatever reason there may be, and there may be many—he will indicate why they are not acceptable, which is again reasonable. The authority will then resubmit their proposals for approval. That will enable the authority at least to submit plans which they believe meet the criticisms that have been made, but they are their plans. As previously drafted they would not have been their plans. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it possible to leave the clause as amended and accept the Amendment, which I think would be helpful to my people.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I elucidate and confirm what has been said: that is, that we do not object to the Amendment and that we defend it very much in the terms that the noble Lord has done? My noble friend Lord Belstead was adding a rider to the effect that when this goes down the corridor and the noble Baroness's reservation is noted about the wording being considered in another place, they should not too keenly consider reinserting what was here before, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, that was undemocratic, unusual and unacceptable. This is not, and I hope that if we were at cross purposes we no longer are.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, there still seems to be some slight confusion, particularly on the Government Front Bench, about the difference between the Secretary of State's duty to diagnose and transmit the diagnosis of a problem, and her duty, if it should so exist, actually to prescribe how it should be dealt with. However, I think that there is a genuine difference and, if a change is made in the other place, we may come to discuss this matter a great
334
deal more fully. In the meantime, it is a very rare pleasure to have put forward an Amendment that appears to be welcome on all four sides of the House, if I count the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on his own as a whole side.
Clause 3 [Approval and implementation of proposals submitted under s. 2]:
5.51 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed in Committee and, at the end of a debate, it was still not clear to me and to other noble Lords—I remember that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn spoke on it—exactly what was the effect of Clause 3. To understand the importance of Clause 3, I hope I may remind your Lordships of the provisions of Clause 2. To establish a m w school or to close, enlarge or significantly change the character of an existing school, it is necessary for a local education authority or a voluntary school to publish notices under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. There is then a two-month period allowed for objections by any local government elector and a final decision is given by the Secretary of State. It has always been accepted that this democratic process should be preceded by a period of consultation between the local education authority and governors, teachers, parents and the general public.
I know that Clause 2 does not deal with Section 13 proposals. However, it is dealing with proposals that will become Section 13 proposals and it is right that the House should take into account that Clause 2 provides for none of those democratic procedures. It is not the authority or the voluntary schools who initiate the procedure under Clause 2 to establish, close, enlarge or significantly change the character of schools. Under Clause 2(1) this will be done at the requirement and behest of the secretary of State. No notices are to be published. There is to be no statutory right of objection, although, curiously enough, there was a statutory right of objection under

335
Section 11 of the 1944 Education Act which dealt with the proposal of general plans in the same way as this clause does. Nor was there any recognition of the need for consultation written into the clause until we wrote in the 18-month period for that purpose by an Amendment in Committee.
I therefore contend that Clause 2 does not represent a democratic procedure. Indeed, in the final analysis, if an authority or a voluntary school refuses to conform to the requirements of the Secretary of State, clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has pointed out, it was the intention of the Government under the original wording to enforce compliance. However, as the Bill stands, we now have the excellent Liberal Amendment written into the Bill which gives a very much better procedure which I hope will be accepted in another place.
It might appear to your Lordships that there is little left to do after the procedures of Clause 2 have been completed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said, one is tempted to believe that, if the Government are to have their way, the Secretary of State will be both the architect and the arbiter of the proposals when they come to Clause 3. None the less, I must be fair and record that the Government have all along, both in another place and in this House, made it clear that the proposals of Clause 2 are envisaged only as a "sketch map" for reorganisation. Those are the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in Committee. Clearly, if such a sketch map is to be converted into detailed proposals under Section 13, school by school, it is still important that we should be certain that the democratic procedures of Section 13 will really be followed under Clause 3. It is the purpose of this Amendment to be assured on this point.
May I say immediately that I am aware of a point that the noble Baroness has made to me in a letter which she wrote, that Section 13(5) prohibits any alterations to schools for which proposals are required under Section 13. In other words, one cannot alter a school unless one has gone through the Section 13 procedure. But what I do not find clear is whether the wording of this clause really conveys that
336
meaning into law, for it says that where any proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State by an authority or a voluntary school, being proposals that are to be wholly or partly carried into effect within five years,
"the Secretary of State may direct that those proposals (or any of them) shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority under"
Section 13 of the Education Act 1944.
I believe that two points arise from this wording. The first now gives me no very great worry and we raised it in Committee. Apparently the Secretary of State has discretion—for the word "may" is used—as to whether he will select the sketch maps to be subject to the Section 13 procedure. Following the debate in Committee and correspondence with the Minister, I understand that if "may" became "shall" it would mean that all the sketch map proposals under Clause 2 would, if they were to be implemented within five years, automatically have to go through the Section 13 procedure, though this might not be the wish of the authorities or the Secretary of State. I accept that, but there is a second point which I feel is far more obscure and perhaps more contentious. If the Secretary of State does pick out certain sketch map proposals for reorganisation, he may direct that they shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him under Section 13.
What does that wording mean? Those proposals have not been submitted under Section 13. None of the democratic procedures with which I have wearied your Lordships has been observed under Clause 2. There has been no publication of notices, no opportunity for objections, possibly no consultation. I contend that those words could mean that the Secretary of State would treat the proposals as if the Section 13 procedure had been gone through and all that would remain for him would be to give a decision. If that construction can be placed upon the words,
"as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944",
I am bound to say that that is contrary to what we have been assured by the Government and that those words would be in essence a licence to bypass the Section 13 procedure.
The Amendment has therefore been put down again purely to try to ascertain the exact effect of Clause 3(1). I am in no way trying to overturn what I believe to be the intention of the Government. As I understand it, the Government are definite in their belief that Clause 3 provides for a full Section 13 procedure. I hope that they will be able to confirm that their intention is borne out by the wording of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am absolutely happy with this probing Amendment. I believe that there was some misunder-standing before and I am grateful for the opportunity of clearing it up. The noble Lord has asked his question very clearly. He has asked whether the operation of Section 13 procedure means that that procedure can be skipped. The answer is that it does not. It means that the procedure begins and is then gone right through. I can give him an absolute assurance that, under these arrangements under the Bill, which is were the application of Section 13 is new, the whole consultation procedure, the publication and all the rest of it, is legally necessary when the procedure begins.
Clause 3(1) envisages that if short-term proposals are satisfactory to the Secretary of State they will be subject to the Section 13 procedure. There can be no question of the Secretary of State giving formal approval to proposals that would then have to be implemented by the proposers without the proposals having been through the Section 13 procedures. I believe that this was the point that was worrying the noble Lord. Such approval would be illegal under this Bill, as it would be under the provisions of the 1944 Education Act.
It is true that Clause 3(1) confers a power rather than imposes a duty, but, as I indicated during the Committee stage, it would be inconceivable that the Secretary of State would call for proposals but not direct that they undergo Section 13 procedure if they satisfied the necessary criteria and were, in her opinion, prima facie satisfactory. How else could the proposals she had called for be implemented? The answer is that they could not. So we do not consider that this this Amendment to Clause 3(1) would safeguard anything. It would result in the pointless Section 13 consideration—as the
338
noble Lord admitted at the beginning of his speech—being brought into operation, and in quite unnecessary effort and equally unnecessary delay and expense. I hope that after what I have said, it will be felt that there is no difference between us on this matter and that the noble Lord will be satisfied and will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he welcomed the opportunity to elucidate. He has elucdated one half of the problem very clearly. I apologise if I have not followed him to rough the other. But what exercises me is this: I still cannot quite define in my mind the junction between the procedures c f Clause 2 and Clause 3. As I see it, all proposals which are treated in Clause 3(1) are proposals which have already been taken through Clause 2. This is how it was explained to us at the Committee stage. We were told that Clause 2 proposals were to be outline proposals, and frequently they were referred to as the sketch-map proposals, but a sketch map is not something which one puts through a Section 13 procedure.
I wonder, therefore, whether what we are to have are Clause 2 proposals, which are woolly and imprecise aspirations studied with a few concrete, voluntary school-type proposals like lumps in tapoca, and only the lumps go through the Clause 3 to Section 13, because they are the only precisely drawn plans, whereas the others are aspirations as to how general problems are to be handled. If so, the remainder of Clause 2 plan escapes that clause. It relates presumably to busing and banding and matters such as that which do not require ministerial sanction under other legislation.
But if this is the case, why is it necessary under the Bill to submit plans in that grey area to the Secretary of State anyway? It would seem that without an Amendment she has the power only to reject and none to accept. I am puzzled by this, because I try to visualise a plan through Clause 2 into Clause 3, emerging at the end as a block of buildings, and I cannot quite get the tie up. I am sure that the noble Baroness has anticipated this point, because I tried to express this difficulty previously, though perhaps no more successfully than now. Bui I shall be grateful if she can tell me how it is

339
that one can refer to Clause 2 as sketch-map plans only and then in Clause 3(1) all the plans that come for Section 13 are referred to as plans that have already gone through Clause 2, specifically in the first two lines of the clause. Perhaps the noble Baroness can elucidate this point.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment at which we are now looking is one that will require the Secretary of State to direct that all the short-term proposals that are submitted under Clause 2 on the sketch-map procedure—whether they are to establish, to enlarge, or to change the character of the school or what-have-you, or even to cease to maintain schools—should all undergo Section 13 procedures, even if at first sight they appear to be unacceptable. It is quite unnecessary. If a proposal in a sketch map appears to be unacceptable, then surely the sensible thing is to send it back to the authority, saying why the Secretary of State feels it is unacceptable, and not to go through all the Section 13 procedure until the proposal is one that is likely to be accepted—
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if I may intervene it may reduce the length of this exchange. I see the force of what the noble Baroness says. She may feel, and she may strictly speaking be right, that I am not in order in asking her this question although it is analogous to the Amendment, but this is the last occasion on which we can have an explanation. It seems to me that the Bill provides for a sketch plan to be prepared under Clause 2 procedures, which we discussed at great length. Under Clause 3 everything has to go in order to get into bricks and mortar. We are told that everything in Clause 3 will go through a Section 13 procedure, and that is not of the nature of a sketch plan. Therefore I am asking the noble Baroness whether this requires an enormous amount of detail to be written into the plans which go through Clause 2, because they have to be the same plans which are taken through Clause 3. I will not go further on this point if the noble Baroness is not able to enlighten me. Perhaps she would like to write to me about it, but it seems to me that we are discussing a fairly complicated procedure—at least it appears more complicated to me than it does to the noble Lord, Lord
340
Donaldson of Kingsbridge; that I can see by his expression. But I am a sinful man, and there are many such, and perhaps the noble Baroness can help us.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, under the sketch-map procedure, if the plans come back with the general approval of the Secretary of State, they are then firmed up and are submitted as firm proposals, and then, when accepted, go through the Section 13 procedure. I will look in Hansard to see what we have all said, and if I can put the matter more clearly to the noble Lord I will write to him again.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as I moved the Amendment may I, in with-drawing it, speak for a moment? I have one worry. I think that this is by way of being a complicated clause and as people talk about it so things come to mind. What is now worrying me is the wording of line 36 where Clause 3 provides that
"the Secretary of State may direct that those proposals"—
that means sketch-map proposals from Clause 2—
"(or any of them) shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority"
under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. The point I should like to put to the Government—and we still have a Third Reading to come—is that clearly the proposals from Clause 2 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be treated as though they had been submitted to him under Section 13 because they are general sketch-map proposals on reorganisation, as the noble Baroness has pointed out to us in Committee on the Bill.
Section 13 proposals are a very different creature. They are individual proposals for individual schools, to enlarge them, or to establish them, or to change their character. All I am saying is this: I wonder whether the wording of line 36 is an accurate reflection of what the Government mean. I will not say any more on that, but I ask that the Government have one more look at the wording. I am not trying to persuade them to a different way of thinking. All I am trying to do is to say, is the Bill drafted accurately? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 45, after ("Education") insert ("(Miscellaneous Provisions)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, just as it is proper on a formal occasion to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, as Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, so it is correct on formal occasions to refer to the Education Act 1953 as the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. I omitted to do this in drafting the words which now appear in the Bill, and therefore I beg leave to insert the words as shown in the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the Government will always be happy to accept any Amendment of the noble Lord's drafting, and I am happy to accept the Amendment in this case.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if it is the will of the House, I think that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Report stage.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to register the strongest protest—I do not think that one does that in this House, but I will have a go—about cutting out this piece of the Education Bill. It seems typical of democratic procedures that we wasted two hours debating whether we should speak at shorter length. We could have usefully spent that two hours on this Bill. There seems to be some informal arrangement that consideration of the Bill was to cease at six o'clock. This was not noted on the Order Paper, and one can only assume that it was an arrangement between the two Front Benches. It is not even mentioned on our unofficial Whip. But we are defrauded of at least one and a half hours of the Education Bill.
We are supposed to reach another stage of the Education Bill on Friday morning. This cannot now be so, and I feel it is most deplorable in the case of a very important Bill of this kind. We so rarely get the opportunity to debate education. We debate almost everything else in this House, but very rarely education. There are many of us who feel very strongly about this, and I deplore the
342
fact that we have been cheated out of 1½ hours of discussion on this very valuable Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think it is worth saying that I hope we are not being cheated of any time at all. Of course, these arrangements arc made between the usual channels, but I cannot believe that the usual channels would think that we should curtail the debate on this Bill, and I was not under the impression that they had. But it would he very helpful to us and our Front Bench to know when it is proposed to take the next stage; and I do not doubt that the remedy which the noble Baroness seeks would assist us in this matter also.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps I can help there. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend has said, but of course at the moment there is a great pressure on the timetable. It was agreed, I think, that three hours would be given to the Report stage of the Education Bill today, but that the Docks Bill would start at 6 o'clock, which must come on now and be completed today. Earlier today your Lordships agreed to pass a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, with an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the debate on which of course took until 5 o'clock, so that has, I am afraid, rather curtailed some of the time we were to spend on the Report stage of this particular Bill. But I think we have made some progress, and I can assure my noble friend that what she has said will be noted. Further consideration on this Bill, it is proposed, should be on Friday; and I may say that the fact that the Dock Work Regulation Bill was to come on at 6 o'clock was given in the advance notice of business when it was agreed between the usual channels. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying my noble friend.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give us an assurance that we are not going to have the Third Reading as well on Friday?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords; Friday will be given over to completing the Report stage.
Consideration on Report adjourned.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
6.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jacques.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Descriptions of work which may, and those which may not be classified as dock work]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 26, line 17, at end insert ("either by structure or contract").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 3 of this Bill is divided into two Parts: Part I which lists work which may be classified under this Bill together with a number of definitions. and Part II which is work to he excluded from classification. Paragraph 10 of the Schedule provides a certain category of work in Part II. It defines work which shall he excluded from classification. It is:
"The work of persons employed in a retail, wholesale, manufacturing or other business, at premises"—
which, if I may paraphrase, are premises principally belonging to the person running the business, or work carried on in relation to which the owners are an associated company.
It is this definition of an associated company that I seek to clarify by means of my Amendment. I am anxious that the definition should be rather more easily understood than is presently the case. I believe it would be appropriate for the words that I have tabled to be added at the end of line 17. The words are:
"either by structure or contract".
Thus, if my Amendment is accepted, the last part of the paragraph would read:
"… or a company which in relation to the owners is an associated company either by structure or contract".
344
I think this is an important point because it would give scope for associated companies to be more fully defined, and will therefore, I think, be useful. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The Amendment is presumably intended to extend the meaning of "associated company" to include one which has any kind of contract with the owners of the business who own or produce the goods in question. The noble Lord is seeking in this way to exclude from classification work at third-party warehouses which have contracts with their clients to store goods on their behalf. The Government cannot accept that cargo-handling work at third-party warehouses should be automatically ex—cluded from the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment would also seem likely to exclude from classification a great deal of ordinary stevedoring work, and probably any cargo-handling work except where the contract by the firm handling the goods was not with the owner but with an intermediary, such as a forwarder. While this may frequently be the arrangement, it is certainly not so in all cases, and could in any case be changed by the parties if they found it desirable to avoid classification.
I must say that I would regard this as a wrecking Amendment, even though the noble Lord may not have intended it as such. May I put it in simple language? If the person who owned the goods had a contract with the port employer, then it would mean that the handling of those goods at the port could not be classified because there was an association by contract. This is certainly an Amendment which the Government could under no circumstances accept.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: The noble Lord, in rejecting this Amendment, is I think taking no account of the small man and the smaller business. For example, in food and other commodities protection is given to the enormous chains that have their own exclusive warehouses but the many other smaller companies, or divers companies, which may draw from different warehouses, are in no similar way protected, and it will merely add additional cost and expense to the middle-sized company, the middle-sized firm and the middle-sized distributor. I think the

345
Government might give some consideration to them, because the big chains, with their exclusively-owned warehouses, can bring the muscle in and tell the Government it is not on, but the small businessman suffers all the time.
Lord JACQUES: This has nothing to do with the size of the firm. The whole question here is whether, in addition to the goods belonging to the company or an associated company, it should also cover the goods which belong, not to an associated company but to a company with whom the principal company has a contract.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, although disappointed. I must say I am flattered to think that my Amendment should be classed as a wrecking Amendment, because, as the noble Lord rightly surmised, that was far from my intention. One of the purposes of tabling this Amendment was to try to extract from the Government their idea of what is an associated company. Is it a company simply owned by the parent company? Is it a company in business in some way with the principal company? I thought that my Amendment would give the Government an opportunity to expand on that point and I hope that the noble Lord is able to do that.
As for the second phrase in my Amendment, namely, the words "or contract I agree that as defined by the noble Lord this would widen the scope quite considerably. I can, however, confirm to the noble Lord that the thought that was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith when she was talking about the smaller company was that it was most certainly my intention to try to provide some easement for these kind of people and that was one of the reasons why the Amendment was tabled. But the definition of an "associated company" is an important point and while I am pondering upon what to do with this Amendment perhaps the noble Lord could help me there?
Lord JACQUES: The definition is in Clause 15(3), page 19.
Lord TREFGARNE: I shall not weary the Committee while I look that up and ponder on it. I will take the noble Lord's
346
word for it, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
6.22 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 26, line 17, at end insert—
("10A. The work of persons employed in a business on premises occupied for the purposes of business where the terms and conditions of employment are mainly or exclusively the subject of a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the concept, and I might call it the expression, of loading and unloading cargo and the handling of cargo. We believe, and indeed I think noble Lords will accept, that the Committee has found these two concepts have been more than a little difficult to define. We believe that these varying, different definitions could result in some work which is being done currently, and indeed properly at dockside areas and in dock areas, where this work should be under-taken by members of any particular trade union and it should be classified and regarded as dock work, under the Bill becoming work reserved for registered dock workers.
We hope, and we firmly believe, that the Government do not wish the provisions of the Bill that we are discussing to promote any form of strife or dispute or demarcation arguments between one set of employees and another, nor indeed do the Government hope that the. Bill will act as an irritant between employers and employees. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to recognise that there are existing agreements between employers and employees, and we hope that the Amendment may go some way, indeed a long way, towards preventing a ay possibilities of inter-union disputes. In the course of our last debate at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that 8 per cent. of disputes, I think it was in the last 12 months, were caused by disputes between one set of employees and another. We feel that 8 per cent. is certainly a figure that is too high, but that other disputes should be prevented rather than cured, and we are fearful that, if this Amendment is not put into the Bill, disputes could arise fairly easily.
Noble Lords have pointed out at earlier discussions on the Bill that it seeks to remove casual employment and that it seeks to remove a certain category of workers and employees who have been named as "cowboys". Maybe that language is a trifle florid but noble Lords will understand what we are seeking. The Bill seeks to remove "cowboys" from the areas around dockland and harbours and ports. That is why we commend this Amendment and stress again that where there is a collective agreement between one or more employers and one or more set of employees—there may be more than one trade union, there may be several of them—it would be unwise and inadvisable to overturn it. That is why we should like to see this Amendment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The consequences of this Amendment as it stands would be that in any case where there was a collective agreement with a recognised trade union the work in question could not be classified as dock work—even if the union and the management were both anxious that it should be so classified. It would, for example, prevent classification of the work of the tally clerks at Liverpool. The tally clerks at Liverpool are working in very close association with registered dockers. It is the wish of both the employers and the employees that this work should be classified, but this Amendment would prevent classification.
In discussing an earlier Amendment I also mentioned that on the North-East coast fish bobbers at all ports except at Hull are registered dockers, and the Hull fish bobbers claim that this is entirely due to an accident of history and they want the work classified. They have a very strong case for the work being classified, but this Amendment would prevent that classification. Consequently, we hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will see his way clear to withdraw this Amendment.
6.27 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his response to my noble friend's Amendment; but is it really fair to suggest that for the sake of classification, arrangements which have
348
been in force in some places for very many years should be upset? I know that in Southampton a number of jobs are done by dockers by agreement with other employers and unions. Surely, as the Bill stands, there will be a case for classification—with all the trauma that that is likely to bring.
If one takes the case that the noble Lord has cited, at Hull, if those workers are currently excluded from having their work classified as dock work, instead of going through the rigmarole of classifying the work throughout all the ports, surely a collective agreement as is provided for in this Amendment could be entered into and then they would have the same status? If such an arrangement, as suggested by my noble friend in moving the Amendment, is good enough for all parties, why do we need to make a law which will upset it?
I am told that at Southampton there has been a great deal of harmony over the years in agreeing different types of work. Certainly a trade union leader and road haulage official told me about ten days ago that they thought that the Bill was quite stupid in this respect, and quite unnecessary because with good will and good intention on both sides everybody could be satisfied. Surely that is all my noble friend Lord Lyell is seeking, an area in which people of good intention can be satisfied without having to resort to the law.
Lord JACQUES: But that is not the effect of the Amendment. The effect is that where both the employers and employees wish for classification, it could not happen in a case where there is a collective agreement if this Amendment were passed. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement. They want the work to be classified and they want to come within the Scheme. The employers do not object, but if this Amendment were carried they would be excluded. In our opinion that is an intolerable position.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Either I have not made myself clear or I have quite misunderstood what the noble Lord has said. Surely, if the tally clerks have a collective agreement they have got what they want.
Lord JACQUES: No.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: And by coming within the Scheme, it is the same thing but called by a different name.
Lord JACQUES: No.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Then could the noble Lord tell me what real, and not the imagined, difference, would occur in the case of the tally clerks so they could get what they do not have under their collective agreement?
Lord JACQUES: There are many collective agreements associated with dock work covering non-classified work, where the workers are quite happy with the agreements. But the agreement is quite different from the terms and conditions that would operate if they were registered dockers. There are advantages and disadvantages. There are certain advantages in not being classified and being subject to a collective agreement which they have had for years, and to be able to belong to the union they want to belong to. All those things count. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement, but there could be further advantages to the staff if they were registered dockers, and the employers wish them to join the Scheme. I imagine that what has happened here is that most of the employees are already registered and covered. But there is a sector, the tally clerks, who want to be covered and the employers want them to be, even though they have a separate collective agreement.
Viscount SIMON: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I think the Government are absolutely right on this matter and I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has not quite appreciated the point. Part II of this Schedule, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, covers work excluded from classification. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about tally clerks at Liverpool, but it would apply to ordinary dockers in the ports of London, Southampton or elsewhere. They all have collective agreements and therefore would be excluded. It must be appreciated that Part II refers to work excluded from classification. Part I covers work that is subject to classification, but it does not follow that it will always be classified.
350
If you include it in Part II it is excluded from classification. That is the point which the noble Lord is making. As regards the difficulties that have been mentioned, I wonder whether they not be met by Amendment No. 107. That might help the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, if the Government can be persuaded to accept it.
6.34 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I must apologise for not having been here at the beginning of this discussion. As I see it, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is saying that this Amendment is unreasonable because there may be some workers in a particular occupation who will get advantage by having their jobs classified as dock work and would be prevented from seeing that happen because of this Amendment. I seek the indulgence of my own Front Bench as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it seems to me that this Amendment is talking about the state of affairs that will result when the Bill becomes law. Then, people who are working in a certain business or on certain premises and have a collective agreement with a recognised trade union will, by means of this Amendment, be able to remain with that trade union and with that particular type of work without its being classified as dock work.
It seems to me that there is nothing within this Amendment—and here I must ask the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to prevent the workers, if they so wish, seeking to have another collective agreement with their employers. In my experience, collective agreements are not rigid things which never change. As I see it, the Bill would not prevent a group of workers from having discussior s with their employers and negotiating, if they wish, on whatever grounds there may be, to have themselves switched over. It would seem to me, therefore, that the particular clause is more a holding of the status quo at the time the Bill becomes law, rather than a long-term thing which would stop changes ever happening in the future. Perhaps I have gained the wrong impression.
Lord JACQUES: I would not agree with that interpretation. My interpretation of this Amendment is that at any time if

351
the workers doing certain work have a collective agreement, their work could not be classified.
Lord SANDFORD: First of all, may I say that I am afraid the exigencies of our business has meant that the Front Bench team is having to be changed in mid-play. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and other members of the Committee will bear with me if we have to go a little more slowly when I am taking part. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has not registered the intention as expressed by my noble friend Lord Lyell. I thought he had made it abundantly clear that this Amendment—which after all is more or less on a par with what is set out in paragraph 10—seeks to do no more than secure that everything was left well alone when the arrangements that obtained were based upon a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is really no answer to that to say that there are collective agreements which, if this Amendment were passed, would prevent those concerned from having their work classified as dock work, because, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, all they would have to do then would be to cancel their collective agreement as the first of a series of steps to get their work on to a different basis. Once the collective agreement is there, the proposed new paragraph would not bite. We should find it helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would give an indication of the Government's attitude towards the intention expressed by my noble friend; namely, would they not agree that where work was being done that was based on a collective agreement with a recognised trade union it is better to leave well alone? That is the purpose of this Amendment. What my noble friend will do concerning this Amendment at this stage will be a matter for him to decide, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help us on that point.
Lord WIGODER: May I rise for the first, last and only time in the course of this long series of debates to support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I venture to suggest that this Amendment would have an effect which is far wider than is
352
intended. What it would do, in fact, would be to make an already rather meaningless clause totally meaningless. It would mean that in no conceivable circumstances could work ever be classified if a collective agreement was in force, and even if a new collective agreement came into force it would be caught by the terms of the Amendment. The only time work could be classified, if this Amendment were accepted, would be if there were no collective agreement in force at all. That, with respect, is surely a recipe for industrial anarchy.
Lord JACQUES: In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would say that we can go a very long way with him. In fact, under Clause 8 if the Board have under consideration the classification of work, a trade union recognised by an employer as from the end of decasualisation in 1967 can veto the proposal.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord said that the date is the end of decasualisation, and we shall be coming to that later. But I should like to thank him for some of his answers, particularly when he said that the Government go a long way with my noble friend Lord Sandford. As the noble Lord said, there are defects in the Amendment and it prevents classification. He quoted the example of the tally clerks at Liverpool who, I presume, do not belong to the docks section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, because if they did there would be no difficulty. I understand that the tally clerks in the Port of London belong to that union, but I suppose that different ports have different customs. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that there would be advantages to the employees in belonging to a union of their choice. I hope that there would also be advantages to an employer in allowing his employees to belong to a union of their choice, and this is what the Amendment seeks to preserve.
I take the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. They are probably valid points, but not so valid as our good points. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, accepted the fact that we are setting out in a constructive spirit. I appreciate that the effect of the

353
Amendment will be to prevent classification when the work force wishes it, but we are of the opinion that when there is a collective agreement between an employer and employees or a trade union it should be upheld. The noble Lord's reply had considerable merit, and I should like to take this opportunity of withdrawing the Amendment and will consider it for a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 26, line 18, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
("11. Driving any vehicle whose normal use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any dock labour scheme area; supervision of loading or unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load;")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is particularly concerned with the transport section of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the road haulage industry, and it would replace paragraph 11 of Schedule 3. Its purpose is to permit drivers of transport and other vehicles, whose normal use is mainly on public roads, to drive their vehicles right inside the dock area if they so desire. Noble Lords will be aware that the roll-on/roll-off ports, together with the road haulage industry, are particularly concerned about this paragraph. It does not make it clear that the driving of normal commercial road vehicles within the port area is not dock work and would not necessarily be classified as such. We are a little worried that the Bill as drafted would allow registered dock workers, who may not have heavy goods vehicle licences or the necessary experience, to drive such vehicles whether they are fixed axle lorries or have trailers. We believe that there is a risk that operators of road transport vehicles might not want to use the larger ports, and might seek to use non-Scheme ports or the smallest ports. This appears to be a fairly minor Amendment, but we should be grateful for guidance on the Government's thinking from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: This Amendment is very similar to Amendments which were considered during the Committee stage in another place, and which were negatived on a Division. In the debate which took
354
place in the other place the Secretary of State made it clear that it was certainly not envisaged that the driving of such vehicles within dock estates should in general be classified as dock work. He explained that there were, however, some cases where it might be considered appropriate to classify such work; for example, there could be cases where, as a matter of practice, convenience or efficiency, vehicles were left in cock parks by their drivers and driven on board by dockers. Another case was that of cars or lorries for export or import. The fears expressed in some quarter; that the effect of the Bill as drafted will be to lead to a general take-over of driving lorries within dock estates by registered dock workers, are unjustified. It is the, Government's views that the various tests to be applied under the Bill, before work is classified as dock work, are adequate to ensure that the work of driving vehicles normally used on public roads will be recommended for classification only in those exceptional circumstances when it would be appropriate to do so.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this Amendment, which is sound. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained very carefully that classification would be sought only in special cases. This seems to be introducing a great complication, unless these special cases are all itemised. Is it not better to accept this Amendment, which excludes from classification the driving of any vehicle within the port limits?—because there is nothing to prevent someone from employing Registered dock workers to do unclassified work, and it is still possible, in the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned, when by custom, or whatever it may be, dockers are employed to drive a vehicle on to a ship, for them to do so.
6.50 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not going to answer the noble Viscount, I shall have to try to prompt him into a reply. This is a good Amendment, because it will satisfy one set of workers as against another. Those members of the road haulage industry who are engaged in going to and from the docks are extremely worried. No amount of assurances in the other place have satisfied them.

355
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he has just said, that the Secretary of State made it clear that he did not envisage that this work would become registered as dock work but that there might be some cases where classification may be sought. The members of the truck driving industry feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are the poor relation. They see themselves as highly skilled men, in that the vast majority of them have to hold an HGV Class 1 licence. You do not pick up such a licence by sending £1 to the Post Office; it can cost a man or his employer £300 or £400 to get that licence.
Perhaps I may quote from the August 1976 issue of Headlight, the independent journal of road transport:
"We can only judge what the dockers will do from their record in the past. Such as at Chobham Farm container depot, in East London. Once the dockers moved in, they soon elbowed out the people who were already working there".
These men may arrive at a dock having driven a long distance over many hours. I have known of drivers waiting outside a dock to get in for as long as two days, for a variety of reasons, without enjoying any kind of facilities bar the street. Why should these men work under the threat that one day their job will be taken away from them and given to somebody else, or that they may be required to join either another union or another section of a particular union?
This Bill is so incompetent. It holds out promises to a wide variety of people, so much so that along the South Coast there are already moves by the docker section of the Transport and General Workers' Union to persuade the drivers within that union that they should register, albeit in an unofficial capacity, as drivers who regularly do work in and around the port area. They will be issued with a card. Those firms which send a truck into the dock with a driver who does not hold a card may find that it is a little difficult to get their work done. That is the kind of suggestion the Bill is already creating. That there may be vehicles left in a pound and therefore unaccompanied is not germane to the argument because an unaccompanied vehicle, whether it is a new motor car, a new land rover, a new lorry, a private motor car being shipped to Le Havre for collection by somebody who flies over, or a loaded
356
lorry, has then passed, surely, into other hands. Different rules will apply because then it is under the guardianship, as it were, of a shipping company.
If the arguments are correct which the Government advanced when we discussed Amendment No. 88, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, and were trying to decide when goods became cargo, it may be that that would be the case, but what happens in the case of a rigid vehicle or an articulated vehicle that is accompanied? Why should there be any reason to suggest that the law should provide that on a private road or in a private part of a dock that vehicle could be, might be, may be driven by a docker who may or may not have (my contention is that he will not have) the requisite qualifications? Nor, indeed, is he likely to be covered by insurance. These are the kind of cases which the haulage industry feel could he upset by the Bill.
The drivers are responsible at all times not only for the safety of the vehicle but also for the safety of the load. This is not to say that loads are not well looked after, particularly in ferry boats, in terms of lashing down vehicles. At this point it might be appropriate to pay a tribute to those workers on board the ferries who so well looked after commercial vehicles and their loads during the recent gales. Nobody would deny that they did a good job. Nevertheless, why should they move wagons on or off a boat? We have spoken a good deal about roll-on/roll-off. This is only the current expedient for moving goods about; later on there could be another one, although I do not know what it might be. I do not believe that it is fair that there should remain in a Bill a clause whereby this group of people may have their jobs taken away.
At col.621 of our Second Reading debate I asked what would be the situation with drivers coming from Common Market countries if the provisions now contained in the Bill obtained. I know full well what happens in practice. Whether the vehicles are usually, by custom, or by a collective agreement driven by dock workers, no foreign driver that I have spoken to or heard of will ever allow his vehicle to be moved by any person other than himself. I asked at

357
that time whether the Bill impinged upon our commitment to the relieving EEC regulations. A good deal more traffic will be moving across the Channel and, it may be, across the oceans. The development of the movement of goods in whole wagons, whether they are rigid, whether they are the train type vehicle or whether they are the tractor-trailer type vehicle, means that more drivers will be employed, and they are not going to give up one part of their job to another group of people. It is not right that there should he any gap in the Bill that would enable one group to ease out another.
Unless the Minister can give very much better reasons for refusing the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lye11, I think that my noble friends will have to test how the entire Committee feels about it.
The Duke of ATHOLL: If the Amendment were written into the Bill rather than paragraph 11 which is already contained in it, would it preclude dockers from doing the jobs they already do which the noble Lord instanced that the Secretary of State had given as examples in another place? As I read the Bill, it means that driving these vehicles not only on public roads but also on private roads within the ports could be done by transport workers who are not dockers. Presumably if it has been the normal practice so far it could also be done by dockers. Is this reading of the Amendment correct or would it prevent dockers from doing this work? I think this is an important point.
Lord JACQUES: If the work was not classified it would not prevent dockers from doing it but they would not have a right to claim it as their work.
The Duke of ATHOLL: But if it had been the normal practice for them to do it up till now presumably they would be perfectly entitled to continue to do it?
Lord JACQUES: I think the noble Duke is now supporting my case of rejecting this Amendment. Let me tell the Committee what the position is. Work within a dock site driving lorries we say would not normally be classifiable because it would not get over the tests which are laid down in Clause 8 and Schedule 4. Let us look at the tests which they have to get over. It is a two-stage procedure in Schedule 4. First,
358
the Board has to consider whether there is a prima facie case and in order to do that they have to take three things into account: first, whether the work is in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers; secondly, whether the work needs the training, aptitude and experience of a registered dock worker; thirdly, whether the work is for the time being wholly or mainly done by workers employed as casual labour. They have to take those things into account, and having done so they come to a decision as to whether or not there is a prima facie case.
During the course of that any parties can make representations anti if they decide that there is a prima facie case they have to start afresh with a second procedure. They have then to inform the parties that they have decided there is a prima facie case and in conseatence they propose to give further consideration to the matter. They have to allow time for further representations and when the second procedure is completed they have to decide whether it is sensible having regard to the efficiency and the effect upon industrial relations, to classify this work. In my view ordinary driving would never get over those tests. We have gone out of our way to prevent it from got ting over those tests. Consequently we say that without this Amendment ordinary lorry drivers need not fear for their jobs. It is only in very exceptional cases, such as those which I have mentioned, where by normal practice they take their lorries into the car park and leave then for the dockers to drive them on to the ship. We do not think that the normal drivers have anything to fear, and if I may say so I do not think that the Transper ort and General Workers' Union would be very unhappy if drivers were threatened in that way because I imagine that they have far more drivers than dockers in their membership.
Lord LYELL: If I may intervene briefly, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is very close to admitting that this Amendment is valid, in that I think I heard him say that should this Amendment be written into the Bill, in the exceptional cases that he me mentioned much earlier on, where registered dock workers do indeed drive such vehicles within the dock areas, they could continue to do so. Is that the position?
Lord JACQUES: I think I made the position clear. I said that if the work was not classified the registered dock worker could do it but he could not claim the right to do it. Even though he had been doing it he could not claim the right to do it because as a result of this Amendment it would be unclassifiable. We are considering Part II of Schedule 3, which lays down that work which is not classifiable. Noble Lords opposite are trying to make this not classifiable so therefore even if the dock worker is doing it at the moment I am saying that he could continue to do it, but he would not have the right to continue to do it.
Lord LYELL: This is the whole purpose of the Amendment. We agree that where by custom and practice—I think that is mentioned earlier in the Bill although we should need to have it defined more clearly—registered dock workers do indeed drive these vehicles, there is mutual agreement between the owners of the vehicles and the dockers that this should be allowed. I thank the noble Lord for clearing up that point but I think my noble friend has something more to say.
Lord MOTTISTONE: It seems to me that the real point of this is where the balance of advantage is to be left. It is all a matter of privilege of one set of workers against another, and as at present written the Bill gives the opportunity of privilege to the dockers; the Amendment gives the retention of privilege by the ordinary transport driver under what might be called a "disputed area situation" regarding a vehicle being driven in a dock scheme area. It would seem that, on the whole, knowing the sensibilities of the long-distance drivers as well as appreciating something of the sensibilities of the dock workers, it is fairer on balance that a vehicle which is normally used on the main roads should not be one to which the dockers have any special rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that of course under agreed situations there is nothing to prevent the dockers from driving these vehicles, but the issue arises on the special rights. It seems to me to be very reasonable that they should not have special rights with regard to long distance lorries, the main purpose of which is to drive on the public roads. Therefore, I do not quite see why the
360
noble Lord is pressing his case, because on the whole one would have thought that once this Bill is through and the dock workers are in a position to exploit what they can from it, then surely they are going to do that. We know from past experience that this is what they do and therefore we want to safeguard as much as we can other types of worker where there is any possibility of conflict, particularly where, as in this case, there is opportunity for the dock workers to do whatever is necessary without having a statutory right to do it. I think that is really the point at issue.
Lord JACQUES: I should like to put it another way. I believe that both sides of the Committee have the same objective. We both want to have the best possible industrial relations; we do not want rows between one group of workers and another. It is our experience that we shall get that situation if there is flexibility but we shall not get it if we have rigidity. The Amendment seeks to give rigidity whereas the Bill as it stands is seeking flexibility. Noble Lords are saying that it shall not be classifiable; we are saying that it shall be classifiable in only the most exceptional circumstances. But we are leaving the door open because we know that there are those exceptional circumstances. Consequently, I would suggest that we have the same objectives but that the method we are using is more likely to get the results.
7.10 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has not answered my question about the effects in regard to the European Community. I want to know the answer to that, and having asked the question a long time ago I think I deserve an answer. However, on his main point the noble Lord says—
Lord JACQUES: I should like the noble Lord to repeat his question on the European Community because I am afraid I completely missed it.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I shall find a way of raising the matter at the next stage, because if the noble Lord has missed it now, I feel confident that he will not be able to answer it. It is written down. The question can be found at col.621 of Hansard for the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 30th September 1976. Perhaps in due course he could let me know the answer.
Lord JACQUES: I certainly will.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: His main argument is that the drivers need have no fears because the Government are absolutely sure that this work will not. be taken over and that it will be only in the most exceptional circumstances that a classification will be sought; and there are all the safeguards that he has outlined. That may well be so in the warmth and comfort of an October evening in your Lordships' House. However, on the dockside when someone has driven 300 miles with 32 tons up it is not such a comfort.
I assure noble Lords in this Committee that notwithstanding assurances of that kind, which are a repetition of those given in the other place, the employees of the haulage industry have fears—the whole record vis-à-vis dock work and other work gives them the grounds for those fears. Given one little chink, they feel that the dockers will he right through and that their jobs will be in jeopardy. Already the two sides are facing up for a fight about it. Remove the basis of the fight and there will not be one—everyone will be happy. It may be argued, "Why should the haulage drivers be given this privilege of exclusion?", to which I suppose they might counter, "Why, indeed, do the dockers have their privilege, which they have had for years and which is now being extended? For God's sake! give us our little bit and then we shall know where we are". Surely that is what this is about. It is not about flexibility or a difference of opinion; it is to ensure that one branch of the transport industry knows exactly where it is, with no "ifs", "ands", or "buts", no exceptions, no special cases and no long drawn out procedures. It is their work; let them keep it.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to heed the word of my noble friend Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right. It is not a question of flexibility; it is a question of making the position as clear as we possibly can to those concerned about where they stand. There is no doubt at all that the assurances that have been given so far on this Bill have done nothing whatever to allay the fears of an attempt at a takeover in this area. As drafted, there is no doubt at all that the Bill is open to a widespread take-over by the dockers of all or any driving
362
of transport vehicles on the private roads inside the docks. That is one loophole which must be closed. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, saving, as he has repeatedly, that there will be only a few reasonably special cases when he has not given us one example. It would be helpful if he could give us such an example.
Lord JACQUES: I gave two examples in my first reply to the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: I will read it. We must have many more than that, because many more occur to me as possibilities, and we should like to know them. We have received an answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about using dockers for unclassified work. That has been useful and helpful. It is. probably true that our Amendment could be modified, leaving the intention intact, so that vehicles which are themselves cargo and are waiting in a pound, whether they are cars or transport vehicles, could continue to be driven by dockers as of right, if that is the position al present. I beg the noble Lord to take the point of my noble friend, Lord Lucas, that in this particular instance, whatever may be the merits of flexibility elsewhere in legislation, it will not be a merit in this case, and we want this Schedule and this paragraph to be as precise as possible. I hope also that in answering my noble friend's point by correspondence the noble Lord will realise that it must go on the record, because a number of other interests will be able to read it only if it is in Hansard. I hope that my noble friend, Lord Lucas, will raise the matter again.
Lord JACQUES: A good dealer as been said by both sides. Things have teen said which ought to be considered quietly and carefully. May I suggest that at this stage the Amendment be withdrawn to give the Opposition an opportunity to see just what we have said and to decide whether they should carry on with the Amendment or a similar one at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Lucas, who gave a very clear explanation of the problems of the road haulage industry as we see them. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may think that he gave the examples when he replied after I had moved this Amendment. Am I right in

363
thinking that he mentioned, as examples, the tug masters and the cars and lorries being driven from the pound by the dock-side on to the ship? We believe that this might come under the classification of loading or unloading cargo. Nevertheless we shall look at it. We wondered whether that was a particularly good example.
However, there is one query on which the noble Lord may be able to help me at this stage. He was looking at Clause 8(4) of the Bill, where it is pointed out that:
"The Board may … determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation …"
The noble Lord then mentioned the three criteria. The first criterion would be substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers. That would clearly not be the case here. Secondly, the persons employed on this particular work of driving these very large and often complicated vehicles on the public roads or within the dock area, or manoeuvering them on to a ship, do indeed need special skills and training which are not the same as or similar to those of registered dock workers. I think that the noble Lord would agree that the skills are different. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, said that often such a skill may cost as much as£300 or£400 in time, training and fees to acquire. Certainly I do not envisage—and I do not think that the Committee would envisage—such work being done by casual labour.
The noble Lord mentioned that this was the first hurdle or obstacle to classification, and that there would be another. I am not quite sure what the other hurdle would be. The one thing that has worried me—and it has probably worried the Committee—throughout our discussion on this Amendment is that the noble Lord said that registered dock workers would not have the right to drive vehicles within the dock areas, even where such work is agreed and is carried on under custom and practice at the moment. Is that flexible? The noble Lord may believe that our Amendment will lead to rigidity, but we believe very strongly that where the noble Lord says the dockers claim a right to do something which they do not have at the moment and which is not covered in custom and practice, there is a danger of a similar rigidity. It is a very real fear. However, the matter has been
364
much more eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We are grateful for the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has made. We should like to withdraw the Amendment at this stage and come up with something similar at a later stage which we hope may meet our particular point. So I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.20 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 26, line 21, at end insert—
("12. Maintenance of vehicles and their equipment.")
The noble Lord said: This is a follow up to the previous Amendment. We felt that the maintenance of particular vehicles and equipment should be done by the lorry drivers themselves where there is a need for such routine maintenance, as I would call it, to be done. I think that all the arguments we have used in the previous Amendment, so far as particular skills and training are concerned, fit this particular Amendment, too. Therefore, I think I need say no more. I beg to move the Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replies, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that as drafted this Amendment appears to include the maintenance of any vehicles and their equipment. I think the noble Lord must mean vehicles whose normal use is mainly on public roads; but as drafted, it is not so. Of course, there are vehicles used entirely within the port estate by stevedores and others. I do not think the noble Lord means to suggest that this should be the work of registered dockers.
Lord LYELL: That is indeed the case.
Lord JACQUES: I submit that this Amendment is not necessary. The Government Amendment on Report stage in the other place amended paragraph 5 to read as follows:
"… containers, crates, boxes, pallets or other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo".
Those words cannot be interpreted as covering vehicle maintenance and repair. We think we have fully satisfied the undertaking which we gave in the other place.
Lord LYELL: We felt that this Amendment was necessary in that we wished to ensure, beyond peradventure I think is the phrase, that such work would not be classified. If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would permit it, we wanted certitude and rigidity in this particular case. Nevertheless, I am prepared to look at what he has said, because probably there could be a case where repairing vehicles is excluded from paragraph 5 under work which may be classified; but we would like it written in that where specialist skills are needed to repair vehicles this will not be classified, because of the reasons I gave when I was speaking to Amendment No. 98, as far as special skills were needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may remember that at an earlier stage in our proceedings, during the last session of the Committee stage, I was speaking about executing minor repairs to containers. I believe special skills are definitely needed there for welding, and other such skills which would not be applicable to dockers. These skills are needed in Amendment No. 99. Nevertheless, I believe there might be a gap here and, subject to what my noble friends might want, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, withdraws the Amendment, could the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, tell me this: Under Schedule 3, Part I, paragraph 5—the one he has just quoted "other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo"—can "other articles" really be held to include something like a fork lift truck or, indeed, a tugmaster? The trouble is that one thing leads to another. While my noble friend Lord Lyell, and I think most of us, really had in mind the maintenance and emergency repair of a road vehicle and its trailer or other gear, it gives rise to other automotive engineering works which would normally be carried out, for example, by a fork lift truck or a tugmaster. I do not think it really is protected under the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, quotes as "any other article". I was really thinking more in terms of a porter's trolley or a four-wheeled hand-drawn trolley as "any other article", not a piece of mechanised equipment.
Lord JACQUES: I always thought the Opposition were against lines of demarcation. We have a case here where we
366
are trying to get away from lines of demarcation, to allow the dock worker to make a minor repair instead of holding up the whole job while he sends for the engineer.
First of all, we are dealing with Part I, Schedule 3, work which will be classified. This excludes minor repairs—
"to containers, crates, boxes, pallets, or other articles used"—
and I think that when one says "other articles", one must continue—
"used for packing or loading or unloading cargo".
I would say that possibly this could include a very minor repair to a truck of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, the kind of repair the driver himself would make without holding up the job.
Lord LYELL: That is just the basis of my argument. In fact the noble Lord was saying that we were speaking to Part I of Schedule 3. With the greatest respect, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, introduced this. I am speaking, and I think probably the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is speaking, to Amendment No. 99, which seeks to amend paragraph 11 of Part II.
The noble Lord mentioned just now the case where a driver might carry, out a minor repair. I believe that what might be a minor repair to a driver who would have skill in this particular facet of maintenance of his vehicle, would not be a minor repair to a registered dock worker, for reasons which we have already discussed in Clause 8(4), in that different skills are involved. But I hope that the noble Lord will consider the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. However, I still believe that different skills are involved, and that that which is a minor repair by a driver would not be a minor repair to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or, perhaps, to many others of your Lordships. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.29 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 26, line 22, beginning insert ("(a)")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, which paves the way for Amendment No. 101. I suggest that it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we discussed both

367
Amendments together. Our main point is that while paragraph 8, to which we turn now, provides a necessary and a welcome exclusion from classification, in our view it is neither wide enough, precise enough nor flexible enough for its purpose. In this particular case, as in some others, we wish to strive both for precision and flexibility.
May I remind the Committee that the broad processes to which the exclusion of paragraph 12 refers are these, namely, preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo—paragraph 6 of Part I—and preparing ships for departure after loading or unloading cargo. That is paragraph 7. You do not have to be a seafarer—so perhaps that is why I have been drafted on to this Bill—to appreciate that here we are right on the demarcation line between the work of the docker in the port and the work of the sailor on the ship. It is no surprise, therefore, that in the past it has often, if not always, been difficult to draw that demarcation line. It has not always been drawn at the same point, and it is not everywhere drawn at the same point today.
There are two further factors which we must have in mind because they bear upon the matter. The first is that of the ship's company it may not only be the seamen—they are the only ones mentioned in the Bill as drafted—it may not only be members of the National Union of Seamen who may be involved in preparing ships for handling cargo or preparing ships for sea after they have taken on cargo; the shipwrights may also be involved, though, strangely, they are members of the Boilermakers' Union. They may also be involved in doing parts of this work, and the more skilled parts in particular. That is the first point: that shipwrights are involved as well as seaman.
The second point is this. It may well be that some shipowners choose to employ for these duties not seamen from the crew of the ship's company, who after a spell at sea are entitled to go on leave and may well be discharged to go on leave, but instead experienced men specially registered to do the work on behalf of the crew. The "local custom and usage", which is the term used in paragraph 12—quite rightly because that is what we want to preserve—has varied
368
and still varies because the demarcation is quite difficult. But in London, for example, the following has been the pattern for some years. Originally all shipping companies using the port employed their own shore gangs to go abroad and replace those members of the crew who were going on leave. They were needed to prepare the ship for cargo handling. Now only two companies still do that, but contractors provide the gangs for them instead, all registered. Although these men, known as "riggers", work for a contractor, the predominant majority of the individual members of these teams, 200 out of 216 at the Port of London, remain attached to the ships of a particular company and therefore become skilled and experienced in operating their equipment, much as they did when employed directly by the shipowners themselves.
I should like to specify rather more precisely the kind of work which is involved here, so that your Lordships may imagine more readily what it is we are talking about. This is the kind of work under-taken by the riggers in lieu of the seamen of the ship's crew: preparing the ship's derricks, opening and closing hatches and cleaning holds, discharging edible oil with portable pumps and cleaning deep tanks in preparation for dry cargo, the rigging of jumbo derricks for heavy lifts—and your Lordships can see that that is something which may well require the services of a shipwright—the supervising and carrying out of heavy lift operations (the shipwrights again), the laying and removing of dunnage (the shipwrights again in some circumstances), the lashing and securing of cargo in general cargo vessels in conjunction with shipwrights who chock the cargo and build beds for heavy lifts, the lashing of containers, and the fendering of vessels inwards and outwards. From this list it is easy to see that at certain points shipwrights will need to be working with the seamen and/or the riggers; there is no mention of them in the Bill as drafted. We think there should be, and have so provided. The position as I have described it for London is roughly similar in the other principal ports like Southampton and Liverpool; but, of course, it differs in the smaller ports, where the provision of registered riggers for the shipowners may not always be practical; they may not always be available.
I hope your Lordships will now see that paragraph 12 as it stands is not enough to preserve the status quo, the local custom and usage. It is inadequate, in that it omits to mention the shipwrights or the other possible members of the ship whose skills are quite often needed for the work in question which I have described. It is inadequate in that it makes no provision for the registered members of the shore gangs of riggers to continue to be engaged for the work that they have done for ages. And it is inflexible, as there is no scope in paragraph 12 as drafted for devising and adopting fresh usages and customs by agreement among all those concerned, which is the last leg of my Amendment No. 101. I submit to the Committee that the phrase "agreed by all … concerned" acts as a very valuable curb to any attempt by any one party to overturn existing agreements arbitrarily, but provides for the flexibility which I am sure we should have within the precision we are providing. I hope that I have indicated sufficiently clearly to the Committee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in particular, the reasons why we are not satisfied with paragraph 12, and the justification for the Amendments which I propose. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: This is probably the most complicated of the Amendments that we have dealt with in its effect. I will therefore go very slowly, hoping that we shall all understand what is being said. The question of work customarily done by shipwrights and riggers was discussed in Committee in the other place. The Minister of State explained that there were circumstances in which it was considered it would be appropriate to classify such work and that an absolute exclusion for such work could not be accepted. The Amendments now before this Committee modify the Amendments discussed in the Commons Committee in two ways: first, by confining the exclusion to work done on board ship; and, secondly, by adding the proviso allowing for classification if this is agreeable to all parties concerned. We have considered this wording most carefully, but still do not feel that it provides an acceptable basis for an exclusion of the work of ship-wrights and riggers.
So far as the words "on a ship" are concerned, it is true that most of the work of those normally described as shipwrights
370
and riggers is done on board ship. But some is also done in shore workshops, where it involves preparing equipment, rigs and so on, for use in loading and unloading, or in container group age depots, where rigger. may lash down the cargo inside the container. But there is no reason to suppose that the work which shipwrights and riggers do on board ship is in some way less appropriate for classification than flat which is done on shore. Indeed, in so far as the work on board ship involves battening down hatches, sheeting up deck cargoes, et cetera, this is work which in some places is already done by rigger; who are registered dock workers. In other words, it is already classified work and is the sort which, in certain circumstances, might be appropriate for classification elsewhere. The work on shore, on the other hand, is of a more specialised nature and seems generally less likely to be appropriate for classification. In brief, we are saying that very often the work on board the ship is more appropriate for classification than the work ashore.
The Amendment would permit classification of the work of riggers, shipwrights and seamen and others on board ship where a change in local custom and usage was agreed by all the parties concerned. It is not clear what is meant by the phrase "agreed by all the parties concerned". Does it mean the unions and the employers? If so, what is to be the situation if three out of four employers agree to classification but the fourth, who employs, say, 5 per cent. of the workers, disagrees? Alternatively, if the union are agreed but a small unofficial group of men disagree, are they to have the right of veto? The Amendment does not indicate what is meant by the parties.
The Amendment also refers to the work of others on board ship. This could be taken to refer to stevedores working on board, stowing or unloading gods in the hold. The effect of the Amendment would therefore be to prevent the. scheme from applying where casual labour was being used on a regular and constant basis to unload ships, unless, of course, the employer voluntarily agreed to change the existing custom and usage. The Scheme could then not be used to end casual working, and whatever the difference between the two sides of the Committee there has been general agreement that this is a desirable objective.

371
The Government have taken serious note of the views expressed by some groups of riggers to remain outside the Scheme. This is not a new problem. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 3, which make riggers potentially liable to the Scheme, form part of the enabling powers of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. The Government believe that the procedures for consultation and examination in the Bill, and the very close scrutiny which is being given to industrial relations implications, means that the Scheme will not be applied when it is undesirable and contrary to their wishes. The question does not arise to the same extent with shipwrights because only a small part of their work is within this scope, and in any case would not satisfy the criteria in Clause 8(5).
Lord SANDFORD: I think that this has been a most useful and valuable exchange. I would not attempt, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that this is a complicated business, to respond straight away. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said. I felt as he was speaking that although he was making entirely valid points they could be met, and not perhaps by the Amendment as it stands but by relatively minor modifications of it. I am encouraged to attempt that because the noble Lord started off by saying that he was in sympathy with our intention. This is, as far as possible, to preserve the local custom and usage where it is operating to everybody's advantage, and to make it possible to adapt and to change such usage where there is general agreement—and I agree that that has to be defined more precisely than we have done so far—but at the same time to give people whose interests are at stake a sense of security that their jobs are not to be jeopardised by the operation of the Bill when it is on the Statute Book. I think that we also want to do everything we can—and this is highly relevant at the present time—to make sure that the charges of handling cargoes in British ports do not rise as a result of this, and that the work is done by skilled and experienced men as efficiently and quickly as is consistent with safety. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I shall carefully study what he has said, and return with a modified Amendment
372
at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("the cargo-handling zone") and insert ("a dock labour scheme area").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential to, I think, Amendment No. 11A, if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would confirm that. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: It is consequential.
7.47 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 26, line 45, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
("15. Work with liquid chemicals, liquefied gases, bulk hydrocarbon oils and chemicals derived therefrom; oils and chemicals derived from natural products including vegetable oils, natural rubber latex and other commodities shipped in bulk liquid form, where such bulk liquid commodity is unloaded from or loaded into deep tanks of ocean vessels, ocean tankers, sea-going tankers or tanker vessels including tank barges. Any work with natural gas including work at a site where the gas is piped ashore; any work at a site or fixed installation for the bulk storage of hydrocarbon oils, bulk liquid chemicals, bulk liquefied gases or products derived from hydrocarbon oils, crude liquid petroleum and natural products in hulk liquid form.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, in spite of its length and in spite of some of the complicated chemical descriptions, I hope will appear to be reasonably simple. The main point that we seek to make in moving this Amendment is that, even if the Government did not admit that many specialised skills were, and still are, necessary in loading and unloading liquid chemicals and liquefied gases, all the products mentioned in this particular Amendment, we should be interested to know why registered dock workers have been able to work alongside and, in many cases, in association with the specialist workers who are well qualified by their skills and training to handle what I might call these dangerous and often volatile cargoes. We hope that it would be reasonably efficient to have classified work which is carried out at present on the dockside or the quays.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, during proceedings on this Bill commented that

373
where there were vacancies for registered dock workers these vacancies should he taken up by the registered dock workers. But we would submit that there are certainly going to be no vacancies in these specialised categories, and we wonder what the noble Lord and the Government would have to say to this particular Amendment, because we understood that paragraph 15 in Schedule 3 does not cover the specialised skills in loading and unloading, and in piping ashore and to and from ships, these particular commodities. I beg to move.
7.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: I am surprised that this Amendment should have been moved. Indeed. we came to the conclusion that somebody had been looking at the wrong Bill, or that the Bill had been examined as it came through Committee in another place rather than after the Report stage. Strong criticism of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 was made in Committee in the other place. On Report, however, we submitted an entirely new draft in which we responded completely to the points that had been made in Committee. We thought that we had given the Opposition exactly what they wanted. That is the first reason why I am surprised that the Amendment should have been moved.
There is a second reason. In Committee in the other place we were criticised for the use of certain words, in particular the use of "bulk hydrocarbon oil". Those words having been severely criticised, we avoided their use in the new paragraph. In the Amendment, however, the words which we were asked to avoid have reappeared. Noble Lords opposite seem to be going round in circles and it seems clear that there is some misunderstanding here. Having said that, I will deal with some of the differences in words between the Amendment and the Bill. The phrase:
"Work with liquid chemicals, liquefied gases, bulk hydrocarbon oils and chemicals derived therefrom …".
would exclude all work with these substances. The Government think that quite wrong. Such substances are very often handled in cans or drums in a normal cargo-handling dock. If cans of paraffin or weed-killer are being handled in this way, it is entirely appropriate for registered dock workers and would be quite wrong to exclude them. Therefore, paragraph 15
374
refers to work at a site for the talk storage of the substances specified and will thus apply to oil terminals or chemical tank farms which arc normally established separately from the rest of the dock and which contain machinery and plant installations which required highly specialised skills.
The Amendment goes on with the phrase:
"… oils and chemicals derived from natural products including vegetable oils, natural rubber latex and other commodities shipped in bulk liquid form …".
It is open to doubt whether the intention is to exclude only the oils and chemicals derived from commodities or whether any commodity is to he excluded, if handled in bulk liquid form. it would seem to be the latter because natural rubber latex "is clearly not al oil or chemical derived from a natural product. We believe that wine, spirits, beer and non-toxic substances such as vegetable oils, which are handled in normal dock facilities by registered dock workers, would be excluded by the Amendment. The Government see no reason to exclude such substances from the potential scope of the Scheme. I might add that the words "ship or other vessel" comprehend the list of boats given in the Amendment. We therefore think that the Amendment would be a retrograde step and would lead us into difficulties of industrial relations.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I agree with h m that it is a complicated subject, although I had hoped that it would not prose more than a drafting Amendment. The noble Lord I think said that latex was not in the classification in the Amendment and that it would not be derived from natural products. I understood that it might fall into this classification. However what also concerned me was my understanding that the handling of latex required a considerable amount of skill at the point where latex in its different forms is unloaded or brought ashore. Hero there is a slight similarity with several of the categories of work which I mentioned when we were discussing Amendment No. 86, at which point we were talking about docker checkers and specialised and skilled checkers who were able to classify a particular product at the quayside before it was transmitted further

375
to the client's warehouse. I understand that this also concerns the importers and handlers of the material which is known as latex.
I moved the Amendment because we and certain sectors of the chemical industry were not entirely satisfied with the assurances that had been given in another place by the Minister. We understood that the Minister had not proved that several of the exceptions which he quoted were valid in this case. We also felt that bulk liquids of the type described in the Amendment required skilled and often specialised handling and, as I pointed out earlier, identification at the point of landing, either at the point of import or piping it away from land on to a ship at a tanker point. There may be a case for saying that dockers might be able to turn a handle and open a pipe or valve, but I am told that often further skill and considerable training is required.
Thus, I cannot say that we have been totally satisfied by the noble Lord's reply. I assure him that we were in no way attempting to go round in circles. The term "hydrocarbon oil" was mentioned by some of the concerns which have been in touch with us, and this question of liquid chemicals and liquid gases gave a great deal of concern to one company. I know that liquid chemicals and liquefied gases are mentioned in the Bill, but we understood, as did this company, that the processes whereby they are handling liquid chemicals and liquefied gases are not specifically covered by paragraph 15 as now drafted. This is a very technical process, as are all these processes. Having taken note of what the noble Lord said, I shall endeavour to acquire greater skill in chemistry before the next stage of the Bill, when I shall have more to say on the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.59 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
("17. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs in controlled temperature conditions.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to remove from classification the industry which, for want of a better
376
term, we would call the cold storage industry. Cold storage is an enormous industry which is spread right across the country. As far as we understand it, the Bill, for all its benefits, has certain defects and we believe that these are producing a great deal of uncertainty for all the companies operating in cold stores and ware-houses. We think that the Bill places future investment in the industry in jeopardy and puts it at risk, making the future more uncertain for people who might like to invest in certain areas of the cold storage industry.
So far as we can understand it, the Bill will not provide a solution to the problem of the docks and it has caused fear and alarm and will extend the problems that have been apparent in the docks in the past 10 years and more beyond the cargo handling industry, to the detriment of the nation. The proposals in the Bill represent a fairly major threat to the national interest as far as cold storage is concerned because cold stores now have a very large capacity and are capable of holding over 1 million tons of food. If any of these cold stores is subjected to the provisions of the Bill as it stands, we believe that there is a risk that the food stocks concerned could be in jeopardy when an industrial dispute affected one or more ports.
Secondly, there are the interests of the consumer. We believe that the extension of the Bill now proposed will increase the costs of handling and storing food and we can see no escape from a rise in prices to the consumer. Also, we believe that the Bill will harm the interests of the employees in this industry. It has grown very greatly in the last 10 years since 18th September 1967, which marked the end of casualisation. It has a very enviable record of industrial relations that is sadly somewhat different from the record of the docks. Of course we understand that there are problems of industrial relations in the docks, but we hope that those problems will not spread to outside industries. Unfortunately, we feel there is a risk of this happening with the Bill as at present drafted. We think that the proposals in the Bill threaten the record of good industrial relations in the cold storage industry and they have created great fears among the people now working in the industry. This is not just pure propaganda. There have been considerable representations made by the

377
cold storage industry within the last six weeks or so since the Bill was considered in another place. We believe that the fears expressed could be genuine—though we do not say that they are—and that there is risk and uncertainty.
We also believe that the Bill is affecting the efficient working of the cold storage industry because it is a very varied and sophisticated industry which is becoming more so every year. The industry does not provide mere freezing facilities; it does a lot more. It handles goods and, above all, the work force is having to acquire new skills and flexibilities. This was something that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, stressed that we needed. He hoped that the Bill provided it, but we cannot say that we agree with him. In the industry there is a great deal of inter-change between one job and another in the same warehouse.
We believe that the future of this industry will be much affected by the Bill because the proposals which it embodies create great uncertainty not just for the employees but also for the employers in the cold stores. We believe that the viability of many of the stores will be in doubt under the Bill as at present drafted. There is a risk that expansion and development of facilities may not go ahead and that employment opportunities will continue to be limited until this uncertainty is removed in one way or another.
The industry has grown a great deal in the last 10 years. Its capacity has expanded two and a half times, the acreage of farmland which is used for growing quick freeze foods has expanded in the same proportion and frozen food sales have trebled. Noble Lords will therefore see that this is a major industry which affects every family in the land. Apart from these figures, we also know that foods emanating from the cold storage industry arrive in containers and that containerisation, which has really taken off since 1968, has not necessarily shifted dock work to the cold stores themselves because there is no difference at all at the cold store between unloading a refrigerated lorry and unloading refrigerated containers. Therefore, part of the dock work has been eliminated.
Noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of traffic comes from overseas and is sent into cold stores—for example, South American meat and Australian
378
butter and cheese, which constituted a major part of the cold stork e capacity about 10 years ago. However, this has been replaced by supplies from sources much nearer home—for instance, EEC meat and dairy products and other foods such as home produced poultry and vegetables. I could give enormous numerical examples, but I shill not go into that now because it may weary the Committee. We recognise that: some of these cold stores were at or near or virtually on the quayside. They employed registered dock labour. Unfortunately, for various reasons and not entirely through the volition of the employers at the dockside, these stores have closed. I understand that all the cold stores owned and operated by the Port of London Authority have closed. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, might be able to say whether I was correct about this, but unfortunately he is not in his place. I hope that he will come back. The stores that have closed have in part been replaced by new stores within the dock areas, but today there are cold storage facilities far afield inland. This has arisen totally as a result of the growth of quick freeze vegetables. The development has arisen from the demands of the housewife, as we must appreciate.
As we see it, the Bill risks affecting such inland container cold stores because we believe that there is liable to be an increase in cost owing to the imposition of the levy payable by the employers who will be included in the Scheme. There is of course a risk of inflexibility resulting from the traditions of the dock workers who will be moved to the new stores and who will come under the aegis of the new Scheme. This, too, we believe risks increasing costs. I believe I have said enough to make it clear to the Committee that we feel that there is too much uncertainty and risk to this enormous industry which concerns the whole nation. We are not entirely convinced by the exclusions that have been written into the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned earlier that many things could be done by custom and practice b it that there were very often areas in which people felt that they should have rights. What we fear is that the Bill may give dockers rights to come to the cold stores. We are not against dockers who might wish to leave the port areas and work in cold stores in or around dock areas,

379
or indeed inland at a reasonable distance from their homes, if they wish to do so. But we wonder whether it is wise to allow dockers to have a right to come and work in the cold stores, which we believe would be the case if the Bill went through in its current state. I beg to move.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lyell on this matter. Overall, these cold stores are almost entirely concerned with food. There is also the mixture: at some times of the year the store is filled with home grown produce, which never yet has been known as cargo, and the dockers technically could only provide and expect the work which means either importing and bringing in food or exporting goods. In many of these stores, with the home grown produce that is frozen, and in other sections taking in imported food, there is a duality of interest between those who perfectly legitimately will be dealing with home grown produce, and those who will say that because a section of this comes in and is imported foodstuffs, they as dockers are entitled to handle it.
This activity has grown over the past 20 years into a highly skilled, highly complicated operation, with enormous capital expenditure going into the cold stores. Different sections of the plant operate at different temperatures for different commodities, and there is all the care that has to be taken in taking in the stocks so that the first in is first out, and later stocks are not put on top of some stocks which have been in for some weeks. Scrupulous timetables have to be kept because of the variation of the staying power and the lasting power of even frozen commodities, which vary in terms of the time for which they can he kept. It appears to me that yet again in another sphere the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, so sweetly puts the idea that the dockers would be denied the right, but does he not appreciate that by giving these rights in a dozen new spheres, and widening this into many spheres, he is deeply worrying many other skilled and genuine trade unionists in other trade unions who feel that their right will increasingly become the subject of a demand by others to take over their work?
380
I should like to mention just one other aspect of the matter; namely, the enormous pressure of consumer interests. I believe that the Minister for consumer affairs has an inquiry on foot at the moment about the period between food, even frozen food, being processed and its reaching the consumer; all the ramifications which require a staff dedicated to that type of work, a staff trained in it, knowing it, and which is flexible with all that is required, with the varying stocks coming in from home or abroad from time to time. There is the flexibility and the right, at least on any normal historical count, of having the right to deal with all the home produce. Therefore it seems reasonable that when the food gets to the store, the work of the store and the handling to and from that store should be under-taken by those who are specially trained for these very large and very costly centres.
Viscount ROCHDALE: I should like to support my noble friends on this Amendment. If ever there was an industry which ought to be exempted from classification this is it; unlike, shall we say, the development of containers. I can under-stand the point of view of the dock worker who sees his old-fashioned trade slipping away because this traffic is now coming through the ports in containers. I would not agree with him, but I can quite see his point of view. The containers are a substitute trade for the original way of handling cargo over the quay. But this is not a substitute trade at all; it is something relatively new. Historically it is true to say that only a relatively small part of this trade was handled by dock workers. But as my noble friends have pointed out, what we are now discussing really amounts to public cold storage. I realise that the wording in the Amendment goes rather wider than cold storage, but basically we are talking about public cold storage, and as my noble friends have said, this has developed quite enormously over the past 20 years.
It has developed for a variety of reasons, only partially due to dock work. It is due to the tremendous growth of the frozen food industry throughout the country as a whole. It has a relatively small labour force, about 5,500. It is a labour force which, as my noble friends have pointed out, is flexible, but at the same time is highly trained and highly

381
skilled and is working on full-time engagements. It is most important that the whole possibility of uncertainty which now exists should he laid aside and put to rest. The reason why this arises at all is that tremendous capital expenditure has already taken place. It so happens that not all of it, but a very large proportion of it, is within the present cargo handling zone, and that is why it is at risk.
I believe that the industry has a great potential for further development, but it is capital intensive and if it is to expand it needs a tremendous amount of further capital. While there is this uncertainty, there is a danger that this development will be delayed or held back: and as my noble friend said, this would be to the detriment not only of those intimately connected with the industry, but to every man and woman living in the country who increasingly uses frozen food.
Therefore I urge that this industry, which can show a fine record of service to the country, should be included in this part of a Schedule, the exclusion part. I believe that it would be of no consequence—it would do no harm—to dock workers seeking work, but would be of great benefit to those who rely, day in, day out, on the services it provides.
Lord WIGODER: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether he would he kind enough to resolve one difficulty which I cannot at the moment follow? It is this. Is the highly skilled work of trained engineers who are engaged in operating and maintaining expensive and complicated equipment classifiable as dock work under the Bill as it now stands?
Lord JACQUES: In our view it would not be classifiable because of the rigid tests which are in Clause 8. It should be remembered that here we have the two-stage procedure, and in our opinion it would never get past the first stage, which is Clause 8(4)(a), (b) and (c).
This Amendment would prevent classification of work in cold stores or cool warehouses, or even in sheds with warm temperatures which are used to ripen fruit. Furthermore, this would be the case even if such stores or sheds were situated on the dockside and the work involved was fully integrated with the work of loading and unloading ships because the store or shed in question was used temporarily while the goods were in
382
transit awaiting collection prier to transportation to a further destination. This situation occurs at present and is likely to continue to occur in the future. A transit cold store, for example, has fairly recently been opened on the Seaforth docks in the port of Liverpool. Such developments will continue to occur in the future because over 80 per cent. of all food by weight imported into this country is imported through t le existing Scheme ports. I should like the Committee to note that: 80 per cent. of imported food is imported through the existing Scheme ports.
Moreover, dramatic changes have taken place in the handling of imported refrigerated foods. In 1963 the Port of London handled 840,000 tons of refrigerated meat and dairy produce. Ten years later this was 313,000 tons. The cold storage which was there to back it up in 1963 was 20 million cubic feet, but by 1973 this had fallen to 5 million cubic feet. It had fallen to a quarter of what it had formerly been. The means of bringing about these changes did not always show the proper concerr for good industrial relations and full cor sultations which could have helped mitigate the difficult problems involved in the run-down of dock work in the Port o' London. The move by certain companies away from the London dockside led directly to the 1972 dock strike. It was for picketing cold stores in the vicinity of the port that the five dockers were imprisoned under the Industrial Relations Act for contempt of court, and there have beet several other cases in London of industrial action directed against cold stores which refused to enter into negotiations about the possible employment of dock workers.
One of the aims of this Bill, and indeed of the ILO Convention on Dockwork, is to ensure that in drawing up the local definitions of dock work account can be taken of technological changes on the employment opportunities of dock workers. We cannot accept the argument that because refrigerated foods now frequently reach cold stores in containers this has not meant a shift of dock work inland to the cold store. Cold stores away from the ports have always unloaded refrigerated lorries. However, they now also unload refrigerated containers. It is precisely because part of dock work has been eliminated by using an integrated

383
transport system to move the cargo from producer to consumer that it is necessary to include cold stores within the description of work which may be classified so that, if appropriate, dock workers may perform such work.
The noble Baroness talked of other trade unionists being concerned that their work may be taken away from them by dockers. That is not possible under the Bill. The Bill provides, first of all, that work can be classified only in the exceptional conditions which are described in Clause 8, and under Schedule 4 there is a two-stage operation for this. Then, in a later clause in the Bill there is complete protection for the people who are already doing the work. So I say to the noble Baroness that what she said is quite impossible under this Bill.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: The noble Lord is pleading in clause after clause for the conditions. Does he really think that some of the companies which have moved away from the docks at enormous capital cost would have clone so if they had not felt they could not get a proper service for their food when they were there? Does he really believe that the pressure will not be put on, once the opportunity is given for the dockers to say, "This is our work and we are going to have it"? They will use, as they have used in the past, their opportunity to stop the goods getting through unless they get the terms they want. This is what is terrifying people, and nothing in those clauses will help that situation.
Lord JACQUES: When the noble Baroness talks about their having to move away from the docks so that the work will not be classified, perhaps I may point out that, under the Bill as it is, if they move five miles away they are not classifiable, and under the Bill as amended if they move half a mile away they are not classifiable. So they have not got to move very far to be outside the scope of the Bill altogether.
Should this Amendment be accepted, then it would create a nonsensical situation in existing Scheme ports because the Scheme could not be applied to new developments on the dockside. It would moreover mean that instead of the orderly and sensible procedures laid down in the Bill for dealing with the proper application
384
of the Scheme outside existing port areas, this House would in effect be saying to the dockers, "Continue your picketing and any other means you have which are legal. We are not going to give you orderly and peaceful procedures for settling your problems". That is the issue before the Committee.
Lord WIGODER: I wonder whether I might revert for one moment to the question of engineers which I raised, because I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right in his answer. It appears from Schedule 3, Part I, as to the work which may be classified, that that includes,
"Work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo".
It is at the very least arguable, is it not, that a maintenance engineer's job is work done in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo; and therefore it passes that test? If one then goes back to page 11 of the Bill, to Clause 8(4)(a), it states:
"The Board may … determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work … is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …".
Is it not at the very least arguable that if at one time registered dock workers were unloading ships so that the cargo could be delivered, let us say, direct to the wholesaler, and that has now been replaced by a mechanised process under which the goods are sent to cold stores, then the work done at the cold stores is work done by way of substitution for other work previously done by the Registered dock workers? Is there not therefore a danger that these words could be interpreted, together with Schedule 3, as meaning that skilled, trained, qualified engineers will find their work classified as dock work, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would agree would be quite ridiculous?
Lord JACQUES: I do not think for one moment that the obstacles laid down in Clause 8(4)(a), (b) and (c) could ever be surmounted.
Baroness SEEAR: Following my noble friend, may I say that the point that is worrying us is how widely do you interpret "substitution"? If "substitution" is

385
to be interpreted as including the introduction of an advanced technical process which takes the place of what was pre-viously a manual process—and, after all, this is how a great many changes take place—then you would require new skills on that technical process, but it would still be "substitution", I should have thought you could argue. This new technical process has taken the place, is in substitution of, the work previously done manually by a docker. It is then substitution, is it not?
Lord JACQUES: I should not think for one moment that it is possible for it to be supposed that the engineer at a cold store is doing work which was formerly done by the docker. The docker has not been an engineer.
Lord WIGODER: It is in substitution for other work "previously done by …".
Lord JACQUES: I would not think that the engineer's work is in substitution. What we are getting at here when talking about substitution is work which was done at the dockside and is now being done away from the dockside. It is substitution of work that was being done by the docker. That is the significance there.
Baroness SEEAR: My question was a slightly broader one, as to whether when you substitute a mechanised process for a job previously done by a docker largely manually—not necessarily cold storage, but in any case of substitution—it is substitution. It may not have been meant to be when the Bill was drafted, but it is surely arguable that if you have introduced a mechanised process in substitution for a manual job, then the man doing it is operating in substitution of the previous job.
Lord BROWN: May I interject here? I am not very much in favour of this Bill but I believe my noble friend is right in this matter. It becomes a technical matter. I take it that Clause 8(4) is also governed by Schedule 3, Part I. Schedule 3, paragraph 1 says "handling cargo". It lays that down. The cargo is specified as goods which are to be shipped. An engineer working on plant in a cold store is not handling cargo.
Lord WIGODER: I was not referring to paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, the handling of cargo, but to paragraph 3 which seems to me to be much broader:
"Work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo."
Lord BROWN: Nevertheless, Schedule 3, Part I, is definitive and contains definitions. The deft ditions lay down what cargo means and Part I refers to the handling of cargo. That literally says:
"This includes any movement of cargo by means of manpower, machinery or lighterage."
If you include the engineer locking after a refrigeration plant in that, then I cannot possibly see that it could be included in the terms of Clause 8 or Schedule 3.
Lord LYELL: May I help the noble Lord, Lord Brown? Handling cargo does not cover the whole of Part I. Handling cargo is only paragraph 1. What the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was attempting to inquire about was paragraph 3. It seems to me that there could be a difficulty here. That says:
"Work in connection with storage or ware-housing of cargo."
I think that the noble Lord's copy of the Bill will be about the same as mine, and as I see it that is not part of handling cargo. Handling cargo is one of the categories, but work in connection with storage or warehousing is another.
Lord BROWN: You can destroy this argument by use of the reductio ad absurdum. If you interpret this Bill in that way then you can attach to almost any work almost any other work, a ad if you will say that handling cargo and work in connection with storage and warehousing of cargo includes the work of an migineer who is concerned with the construction and maintenance of a compressor for maintaining a refrigeration part, then anything goes in any Bill.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord could not have put it better. Those are the fears that have been expressed to us, and if the noble Lord thinks that this is scare-mongering and propaganda, he has explained it beautifully and briefly and much better than any of us could do it.
Lord BROWN: I resist the noble Lord's argument because I do not think you can interpret Bills in that way.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May we come back to the Amendment instead of the other possible interpretations. It seemed to me from the way, with the very powerful peroration, that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, ended his argument that he was dead against this proposed Amendment in any form. It would seem to me that this is not honouring the various statements that were made in another place.
Lord JACQUES: I never made any such statement.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord did not make any such statement, but he certainly did not say he was going to accept it. Is he going to accept it or offer to put something in its place? Perhaps I might remind him that in another place at Second Reading the Minister said:
"Long established warehousing, storaging, packaging and cold storage operations which are not related direct to work transferred from the docks and not connected with port operations would most certainly not be classified as dock work and therefore subject to the new scheme."
That is a very firm statement. At a later stage, the Committee stage, at col. 1482, Mr. Booth said:
"We hope to come forward at a later stage with an indication that classification would only in general apply in places where the overwhelming bulk of the work was classifiable work, where it was a majority activity. As a general rule that is what we seek, and we shall seek to apply that as much to cold storage as to any other."
I read those quotations as the Government in another place accepting that there is a special point about cold storage.
I shall not repeat to your Lordships what my noble friends, both on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches, have said which covers all the points as to why cold storage needs to have special treatment. There are only two fundamental reasons: one is its importance, because it handles the food supplies, and not only the food supplies from overseas but those from within the country as well; and the other is that experience has shown, and the Government in another place clearly endorsed this in my second quotation, that under any circumstance split labour is to be avoided if possible. I am sure that
388
experienced people like the noble Lord, Lord Brown, would agree with me that a split labour force with trades unions which have different traditions and terms and conditions can be very troublesome.
Those are the two particular points: one, the importance of cold storage in the storing of all sorts of food on which we all depend—and even in your Lord-ships' House we are allowed to go away for food from time to time; and, secondly, because one wants to avoid a split labour force. On the whole, a cold store is not one that will have more than a few jobs which would be registerable as dock labour. It is almost impossible within the provisos to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, draws our attention repeatedly that only a few jobs would be dock jobs, and therefore a split labour force is almost inevitable in the cold storage environment.
It would seem therefore that there is a very good reason for having an Amendment on these lines. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained that perhaps it was rather wide, and my noble friends might think that we could word it better. But, better still, perhaps the Government could endorse the undertakings which they gave in another place and produce a suitable Amendment of their own to back that up.
Lord JACQUES: I ought to reply to the last point first. The Government did this a long time ago, and it will be found in Clause 8(5)(c). I should now like to reply more fully to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The work of maintaining machinery is not included in Part I of Schedule 3. Therefore, it is not even potentially liable to classification. So far as paragraph 3 is concerned, we take the view that it is not the case that "work in connection with" would cover maintenance work. The words are used in the 1946 Act and have never been held to have such a wide meaning. In other words, we have had this problem for 35 years and it has not given rise to the kind of difficulty which has been referred to.
Lord WIGODER: Would the noble Lord help me a little further? Is there any decision that the phrases "work in connection with storage" or "work in connection with warehousing" excludes people working on machinery?
Lord JACQUES: Does the noble Lord mean in a court case? I could not give an answer off-hand, but I will find out and make sure that a reply is given to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord BROWN: I can assure the noble Lord, having had some experience of court cases over industrial action, that the wording "in connection with" does not embrace anyone who might have had anything to do with machinery or with the buildings, and so on. The contention put forward by the noble Lord that mechanical engineering people working with cold storage are in fact classified because of this wording "in connection with" as cargo handlers is very far out-side my own experience of a good deal of industrial law.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: If we turn to paragraph 6 of Part I, Schedule 3, referring to preparing ships for sea and the discharge of cargo, surely that wording could cover machinery, derricks and cranes on board, and so on? It seems extremely widely drawn, far too wide for me. I am referring to paragraph 6 of Part I:
"Preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo."
Lord JACQUES: I do not think that has anything whatever to do with this Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: What has happened is that earlier in the debate the noble Lord was arguing that "articles" embraced vehicles. I read out the specific things included in,
"Preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo",
and that certainly would include the operations of derricks. Therefore, despite the assurances the noble Lord has been giving to us, I am left in almost as much doubt as I was when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, first raised this point.
Lord BROWN: In paragraph 12, Part II, Schedule 3, we have the words:
"Such work on a ship as by local custom or usage is left to seamen on the ship."
No one can deny that looking after derricks on ships is something which by custom and usage has been left to seamen on the ships. I think that if the noble
390
Lord would read that paragraph again, he would have his doubts totally resolved.
8.43 p.m.
Lord LYELL: It seems that this particular Amendment has engendered a very lively debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced a very impressive array of figures, and he mentioned—I have noted it carefully and will retain what he has told us—that 80 per cent. of our food comes through Scheme ports. I hope he will be able to enlighten us further as to whether the food came in by container, on roll-on/roll-off vessels, by conventional means or whether it was put into cold store in or around Scheme ports. While I accept the accuracy of this figure, I wonder how that is latched on to his main argument. I know, of course, that the Scheme ports play a most important part in the import of our foodstuffs and also concern the food storage industry.
The noble Lord mentioned that the Port of London Authority have closed down all the cold stores, and indeed I mentioned the point myself in moving the Amendment. I wonder why all that happened. It seemed to me that employers did not behave irresponsibly and that they did not want to leave the docks. Something must have made them wish to leave the docks. I therefore wondered whether they had perhaps been wrong, in some cases, in following fir. trade. For instance, there has been a great increase in the use of frozen vegetables; this has grown very rapidly in the period we are discussing. The noble Lord mentioned 1963, and I wandered whether employers and the users of cold stores did the wrong thing in moving away from these particular areas since, as the noble Lord said, it was something that inflamed the employees which they saw what had been their traditional work leaving these traditional areas. I cannot think that is necessarily the case, but obviously there were considerable reasons to make the employers leave the docksides and remove their cold stores beyond the perimeter or coastline and certainly 3eyond the old five-mile limit.
The noble Lord ended by saying it was totally impossible that work could be taken away from the existing employees in cold stores and they had complete protection. He mentioned Clause 3(5)(b), but from my reading of that I do not see

391
that protection is provided nor does it seem to me to spell out the protection which the noble Lord says is inherent in this clause. However, I do not think we should turn this Committee into a court of law and attempt to argue that particular section tonight. The noble Lord tells us that the dock workers will work alongside the existing workers and I would ask him: Is it really intended, if the cold storage industry is to be classified, that dockers should go to some of the largest inland cold stores such as Peter-borough and Droitwich, which are certainly two of the largest inland cold storage depots?—because the employees at such cold stores are genuinely apprehensive that such will he the case.
According to our reading of the Bill, this is perfectly feasible and I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord has said has removed these fears from our minds. I do not know how the employees at cold stores would interpret the words of the noble Lord, but I think he was perhaps a trifle extravagant in suggesting that if we exclude the cold storage industry from classification there would be a consequential rise in industrial unrest and activity. That is certainly not what we intend, and I think perhaps that was a trifle extravagant. Possibly it was under-standable, but I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord has said quietens our fears. He may say that the jobs of the employees in cold store are assured, but that is only one half of the argument. If registered dockers who are not able to gain employment in or around the dock areas are to be offered vacancies, which may be theoretical vacancies, in inland or other cold storage depots, I am afraid the employers will seek to take other steps, as they may have taken in dockland since 1967–68, which has led to the removal of cold storage facilities from the quay-sides and the dock areas. I totally fail to see how the noble Lord has answered this question. People are afraid for their jobs: of course they are—
Lord JACQUES: May I tell the noble Lord that the protection of existing workers is not in Clause 8, but is in Clause 10.
Lord LYELL: We can probably have a fruitful discussion after the Committee
392
stage. But I believe the noble Lord said earlier that it was Clause 8(5)(b). However, I would stress that the noble Lord has not gone far enough in answering. He said that no work can be taken away, but I believe that if vacancies in cold stores are found for dockers that will make their present operation totally uneconomic, which will have a grave effect on the national interest as well as on the consumer interest. I have not been at all convinced by the arguments, but at this stage I should like to withdraw the Amendment. However, I must say that we look for a much more constructive series of arguments from the noble Lord opposite when we discuss this again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.51 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
(". The work of persons employed in a business where the work involves handling of goods ancillary to the carrying out of constructions or of dredging operations (as defined in Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very much concerned with the construction industry in and around ports and harbours. From our present reading of the Bill, it seems that certain construction work, which we believe ought not to be included as dock work, might be classifiable. In particular, there is the question of tendering for contracts, which may or may not be sizeable, around the coastline. When firms tender for contracts they will be required to show the Board why the work should not be considered for dock labour, which we think is a trifle harsh on them. The work carried out by these construction firms is not permanent, and it has been stated that they might be said to use casual labour, but most construction contracts run on for a considerable period, even up to 10 years. We believe that the criteria set out in Clause 8(5)(b) are a little too general in their application to the construction industry, and we are a little worried that the position of these firms will be inhibited when carrying out work in a dock area. Therefore, we should

393
like to hear what the Government have to say on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: May I first remind the Committee of the terms of the Amendment? It states:
"The work of persons employed in a business where the work involves handling of goods ancillary to the carrying out of construction or of dredging operations (as defined in Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975."
Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act (No. 2) Act 1975 defines "construction". It specifically excludes delivery of materials or equipment to sites. Whether or not the handling of goods will be construed as ancillary to construction operations would therefore depend on the normal meaning of the words. We therefore believe that this Amendment, if incorporated into the Bill, would certainly give rise to disputes.
We also believe that the great majority of the work concerned would be unlikely to be classified, because it would not satisfy the criteria of Clause 8(5). However, the delivery of materials for construction of off-shore oil-rigs, undertaken from ports, is certainly work which could be appropriate for consideration for classification. Some such work is done by registered workers now. There is other work which would be excluded from classification by this Amendment, which might well be appropriately done by registered dock workers. For example, we understand that registered dock workers handled the stone from the old London Bridge which was exported to the United States of America, but by this Amendment they would be excluded.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Can the noble Lord say whether the Bill in its present form would include as classified work, or exempt, the building of pontoons for a marina, or the dredging which frequently has to be carried out? At some of the marinas around the smaller ports they often have to bring in contractors, and have regular dredging.
Lord JACQUES: We are concerned here not with dredging but with the handling of cargo.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: What about the building of pontoons where materials have to he brought into an area which is not a commercial port, but is merely a marina port?
Lord BROWN: I declare myself as being a person who does not at all like this Bill—
Lord SANDFORD: You are not the only one.
Lord BROWN: But having failed to get it defeated or amended in a major way in another place, and having to accept the idea that dockers are to have preserved areas of employment, is it any use nit-picking around it? I ask your Lord-ships to look at this Amendment. You could say "all handling of goods ancillary to the running of canteens" or "to road making in docks" or "to building or repairing ships in docks". They would all be equally worthy of an Amendment similar to this. You could go on piling up the agony, because if you use the words "ancillary to" it can mean almost anything. We had the same argument over engineers, and if the words in the Bill are to be interpreted to include almost anything, then there it is.
You cannot word a Bill in such a way as to exclude these things; that is what courts of law are for. One knows perfectly well what are the precedents in these matters. The docks were not built yesterday. I was chairman of the Ports Modernisation Committee for two years and have heard all this stuff before, and to a large extent one has to go on what has happened before in interpreting laws of this kind. As I said, I am against the Bill, but must we waste time on nitpicking things like this, which will not help what it is intended to help? This type of Amendment would merely limit certain things, and because of that limitation would include all the rest. So I am against this Amendment, although I am not at all in favour of the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, but, alas!we are left with making the best of a bad job. There are hundreds and thousands of people whose interests are at stake, and we have to do our best to defend them.
Lord BROWN: With great respect—I do not mean to be insulting—the noble Lord is making the worst of a bad job, in one sense, because that would not at all achieve his aims. That would tend to include by omission all the things that the noble Lord does not want to include. That is the principle which always operates.

395
If you specify a lot of little things, then all those you do not specify are included.
Lord LYELL: Certainly they will be included under the definition of the Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head, but, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, this Bill affects thousands of people. They want certitude: that is what the law is about, I believe. If the noble Lord says, "We want a specific exclusion here; you are including thousands of other people", and if other people feel they are concerned or that their interests are affected, this is what another place and, indeed, this House in Committee is deliberating upon. We are seeking to discuss the Bill. The noble Lord says that this is a nitpicking Amendment. Perhaps every Amendment that we have put down is a nit-picking Amendment. Does the noble Lord accept that we should just say that we do not like the Bill, do a rain dance and go away? No. We believe in discussing this particular interest, and I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that it is nit-picking.
This was in the nature of a probing Amendment and we believed that it was well drafted and well founded. I cannot say that we are totally satisfied by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He mentioned one or two amusing and interesting examples. I am thinking in particular of the moving of London Bridge, which I should have thought could in no way be classified as dock work by custom, practice or any other method. Nevertheless, this is probably one very good example that the noble Lord might be able to use at a later stage where, by custom or practice, something has been tolerated. I think that the French language expresses it just like that: it is tolerated; it is permitted.
Lord JACQUES: I do not think that it is fair to say "tolerated". May it not be that the inherited skill of the registered docker is so great that those who took down London Bridge knew where to go to get the right kind of expertise?
Lord LYELL: I am indeed fascinated but I would not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. This may be one of a thousand exceptions. Nevertheless, we accept that the Bill excludes delivery.—Certainly we are
396
worried by certain aspects of the handling of these materials. The noble Lord has gone one-third or one-half of the way towards enlightening us on this Amendment. Therefore we seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, find out more and come back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
9.3 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 28, line 40, leave out ("18th September 1967") and insert ("10th February 1976")
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, beg leave to move this Amendment which we regard as one of the more important Amendments that we are seeking to make to the Bill. The effect of the Amendment will, we hope, he to substitute the date on which the Bill was introduced in Parliament in another place in lieu of the date in Paragraph 8(2)(b) of Schedule 4. This was the date, we understand, when the 1967 Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order came into operation. This was the date, as the Minister expressed it in Committee in another place, on which decasualisation of registered dock work was completed.
First, may we discuss the context of the Amendment? Schedule 4 seeks to amplify the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill, which in its turn permits the Board to recommend to the Secretary of State that work which is done at premises in a Dock Labour Scheme area, and previously the cargo-handling zone, should be classified as dock work if the work falls within a particular category of Part I of Schedule 3 which we have been considering. However, Part I of Schedule 4 deals with the consultations which have to take place before such a recommendation is made. Not only all employers who employ workers on this type of work but also all trade unions which are recognised by such an employer in respect of the work in question have to be notified. Then the Board have to consider any representations that are received from the employers or trade unions who may have been notified—or it might be persons acting on behalf of either the employers

397
or the trade unions—and also from any other persons who, in the Board's view, are interested.
During the Committee stage in another place an assurance was given that this would include the users of ports. It seems to us that the Board then have to tell all those who have made representations to them what work the Board propose to recommend should or should not be classified and then invite further representations. The Board also have to state what safeguards they recommend to the Secretary of State for the existing work force, whether they propose to recommend that any of the existing work force should not he eligible for Registration as dock workers, and why, and what they recommend should happen to the rest of the existing work force, but in particular for how long they should be put on the extension register.
Paragraph 8 was added to the Bill during the Committee stage in another place as part of a Government Amendment, following discussions with the TUC and several individual unions. We think that it goes some way towards allaying the fears of existing work forces in premises at which the Board propose to recommend that work should be classified as dock work, but unfortunately we believe that it does not go nearly far enough. The Secretary of State under—took on Second Reading to put down an Amendment, although he indicated that in his view it was not really necessary. Nevertheless, the Government put down an Amendment and paragraph 8 is the result. The paragraph gives a qualified independent trade union recognised by the employer in respect of the work in question the power to veto the proposed recommendation but only if the recognition agreement was made before 18th September, 1967, and also if this recognition has been in operation ever since.
Lines 42 to 47 on that particular page mean that the veto will not necessarily apply if different methods of handling cargo have been adopted. Let us take, as an example, containerisation or roll-on/roll-off, even if the employer has moved to other premises outside the particular port area. The Minister said in another place that 1967 was the year in which the first of seven berths of containerisation of freight were ready for use, but he
398
did not go on to say when they actually came into use. We are not sure when they did come into use, but we think it was certainly some time after 1970.
Nevertheless, the main point of the Amendment is that we regard as unsatisfactory the date, 18th September 1967, because containerisation only really began to get off the ground in 1968. As we believe this to be the case, the provision as set out now in the Bill would cut out from the exemption all agreements in respect of container bases and also many agreements which have been made in cold stores, warehouses and in other places of work which started work after 1967.
We think this is a very strange provision to come from this Government, because certainly we should not have expected them to interfere with agreements which have been freely entered into between employers and employees, let alone, as we believe is going to be the case, to favour one union against others. It is one thing for legislation to provide that from a given particular date no new recognition agreements shall be entered into on the part of any industry except in accordance with certain provisions, but it is quit e another thing to disregard or to cancel any existing recognition agreements which have been entered into quite legally and in accordance with the good labour relations practice which is endemic in that particular industry. We believe that the lea that we in this House and the Members of another place—and indeed the unions—are entitled to demand is respect for all re cognition agreements entered into before the date on which the Bill was introduced, giving warning that from the date of the intro—duction such agreements could—and often would—be overridden. We want to make it clear that if the date remained as it is in the Bill, the 18th September 1967, that would not necessarily mean that in no circumstances would recognition I agreements entered into after that date be overridden. I believe it was Mr. Harold Walker in another place who mentioned that the existence of the veto would be accepted and that indeed account would be taken of it.
Nobody—I hope not even in this House—would deny that in some cases this veto would and could be overridden. We believe that is wrong and we hope to put it right. Certainly to keep the date

399
18th September 1967 as it is at present written in the Bill could also lead to industrial friction, which we believe to be needless. Certainly it would not improve industrial relations because it would engender resentment as far as the existing work force was concerned in various premises which would be affected. We think this resentment would continue to grow and would fester. We also believe that the respect for recognition agreements which have been freely and legally entered into would come under heavy pressure.
The date that we have suggested in the Amendment, the 10th February of this year, is not of any particular significance. It might be earlier by a few weeks—perhaps a month of two—or perhaps a little later; but we think it is a reasonable starting point, it being the date of Second Reading, the first major consideration of this Bill, in another place. We hope this Amendment will promote good industrial relations, efficiency and fairness. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The Bill as drafted would give an independent trade union the right to veto the classification of work in long established warehouses, cold stores and other classifiable work in respect of which it has been continuously recognised since 18th September 1967. I would emphasise that "long established" are the operative words in that sentence. This date marks the completion of decasualisation with the introduction of the 1967 Dock Workers' Employment Scheme. Broadly speaking, it was also about this time that the farreaching changes in cargo handling techniques, which have revolutionised the industry, were beginning to take place, with consequential changes in the nature and location of dock work. It is not, and it has never been, the Government's intention that long-established operations, not related to work transferred from the docks, should be capable of classification as dock work. It is most unlikely that such work would be classified under the provisions of Clause 8. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 simply removes any such possibility when the union concerned objects.
This Amendment, if accepted, could frustrate a principle objective of the Bill. That objective is to make possible, when the Board so recommends and the Secretary of State so agrees, the classification
400
of work which registered dock workers were performing under the 1967 Scheme but which was transferred outside the port area and undertaken by unregistered workers. It would clearly be incompatible with the intention of the Bill that such work should be subject to automatic union veto.
The choice of the date, 10th February 1976, is presumably the date of the Second Reading debate in the other place. It would give the right of veto in respect of virtually all containerisation work, and work in certain warehouses and cold stores which has been the subject of such industrial relations trouble in recent years. This does not, of course, mean that the views of the trade unions concerned will not be taken fully into account. There is adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that a trade union which objects to the classification of any particular work has every opportunity to make its views known, and these would clearly carry great weight. However, it does not seem right that the Board should automatically be precluded by union veto from making a thorough examination of all the circumstances to determine whether or not to recommend that any particular work should be classified.
There may be cases when some conflict of interest exists which may not be wholly reconcilable to the complete satisfaction of all concerned. However, the Bill provides a sensible means, where none exists at present to procedures in Clause 8 and in Schedule 4, of seeking the best solution to many of the difficulties which have arisen through changes in the nature and location of dock work in recent years. The extension of the right of veto, as the Amendment proposes, could undermine these arrangements and prevent the introduction of orderly and sensible procedures to deal with very difficult problems, and would leave difficulties unresolved. It cannot be over-emphasised that the Trades Union Congress, in the form of its Transport Committee, gave full agreement to the principles of the Bill but said that it thought drafting Amendments should be brought forward to ensure the intention of the Bill, that long-established ware-housing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations which are not related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, should not be classified as dock work

401
and, therefore, not subject to the Scheme. The union veto was brought forward during the progress of the Bill in another place in response to that request. Those who have studied the Committee proceedings in another place will be aware that the Members of Parliament who are sponsored directly by the unions affected expressed their satisfaction with the Bill as amended.
Therefore, Amendment No. 107 proposes a change which has not been suggested by the trade unions concerned and which would, in the opinion of the Government, be less rather than more conducive to good industrial relations in the docks.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right in making rather an issue of "long-established". However, I should have thought that in a working life nine years is a pretty long time. It is just about nine years since I left the Navy and I have had three jobs since then. One of them was in a newly-established organisation. It was not in connection with the docks, but that is not the point because it might have been if I had been in a different environment. If, after this new job had been going for three years—and we started it from scratch and had to work out new ways of doing things—suddenly someone had come along and said: "Some of your jobs look as though they are classifiable as dock labour", we should have been very upset indeed.
It is not reasonable to look at this entirely from the point of view of the dockers and their long history. Of course their view has to be taken into account, and on Second Reading we made this point very fully. But it seems to me that it is almost detaching from reality to feel that someone, not today but in five years' time or even ten years' time, because the system rolls on, should be caught by this Bill, whether in the form in which it now is, or as it is amended before it leaves this House. However it may appear, it really does not matter in this context.
The whole procedure is very tight, even in the original form of the Bill. It means that a relatively long time will elapse before all the less important ports have been considered, and in due course possibly engulfed. Whether it be another cargo handling zone system or a dock
402
labour scheme system does not matter in this respect; both are possible under the Bill. People who work in dock areas, people who are trade unionist; in other types of trade, have said to me, "It is all very well; they are not interested in us now, but in ten years' time they might be."
If we leave the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, wants it to be left, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that something like 14 to 19 years after this magic date in 1967, someone will be told, "Oh well, yours is not a longestablished job"—even though he has been working that way for half a working life-time—" because the Bill says the key date is 1967. I know it is now 1981, but that is not long enough to count as a long-established job". You really cannot argue about what is so magic about 1967. The only magical thing about it is that it is the theoretical date of the end of casualisation. That is a point.3ut when we recast this in terms of people working rather than theory, history and taking ourselves back to the last century, and all sorts of other things that we do as we read about the docks, which the 11 of us have done who take part in these debates, we really want to think whether this is a reasonable date.
Personally, I would not support my noble friends on a precise date in 1976, any more than any other particular it date. But I would think it reasonable to have the date nearer to the present time, observing that nine years have gone by since the now key date in the Bill. In some people's terms, particularly if they are youngish men, that is a long time. It might be for the whole of their twenties. Noble Lords are a long way from their twenties in most cases, as I look round the Chamber, but if they cast their minds back, and if they had done the same job from the age of 21 to the age of 30 and someone had then said, "Well, old boy, your job is going to be altered into a dock one", and they did not want it to be—and it must not be presumed that they would—it seems to me that it is our reasonable to put this sort of time-scaly; on it. If noble Lords can think of a better date than the Second Reading in another place, by all means do it, but do not put it back much before 1976.
If the Bill becomes law in the reasonably near future, it will take a few months, if not years, before this is brought into effect

403
in whatever form. So it would seem to me that it is important to think of the attitude of the ordinary chap who is not a docker, nor the son of a docker, nor the grandson of a docker, who has not been brought up in that environment, and how he and his job will be affected by the Bill.
Lord BROWN: If this Amendment had read as follows, "It appears that the Board should have been so recognised by the employer and his predecessors at all times during the last ten years", I would have supported it. But it is quite a serious thing to give a trade union a right of veto over a proposal that has been approved by the Secretary of State and presumably by the Government; and to give that right of veto to what may be a trade union that has only been in existence just over a year seems to me to be going too far, and that is what the Amendment would do. I do not think the Amendment is sound at all. It should have implied giving a right of veto to a union which has been recognised for 10 or 15 years, or what-have-you, but not one that has been recognised for one year plus.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I take up the noble Lord's point very briefly. Is that not a little unreasonable? There are lots of new trades. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is a distinguished engineer and he would know this very well. There are lots of new trades which are now thinking that they ought to have trade union representation, and on the whole I applaud that. I think it is very unreasonable to make a distinction between a trade union that has been in existence many years as opposed to one which might have recently been established.
Lord BROWN: There may be lots of new trades, but not lots of new trade unions; in fact there are very few new trade unions. Reading behind this, one can see an existing trade union getting members in an old established location—we know how these things are done—and then getting the veto power because it has only got to be recognised for a year and a bit. I would say it is quite reasonable to suggest that it should have been recognised for ten years, and that will take care of the future.
Lord WIGODER: I do not want to be controversial at the end of an amicable evening. In order that I might be
404
accurate should we return to this point at a later stage, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help me by referring me to other Statutes where similar powers of absolute veto have been given to non-Parliamentary bodies?
Lord JACQUES: I will certainly look into that, but I cannot give the answer offhand. I would explain that this is not vetoing something which the Board has proposed and the Secretary of State has ordered; this is vetoing something which is under consideration by the Board. It drops the matter immediately because it has been vetoed. So it is not quite as bad as it was thought to be.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this particular Amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced a number of sound points, such as where there were long-established recognition agreements these could easily be, and indeed should be, accepted, but I am afraid I did not follow the logic of why newer recognition agreements should not be accepted. He made a sound point when he said that agreements which were long established should indeed be allowed, and he made a valid point again when he said that this veto by the trade union is going to be in respect of something which is merely proposed, but I must admit that nothing in his reply convinced me or some of my noble friends of the validity of striking out the power of veto which might be granted to another trade union, indeed to a long-established trade union.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, had a perfectly reasonable case when he suggested that there might be new wildcat or splinter unions which might wish to frustrate the Bill in this particular way, but I think the argument is just as reasonable where there is a long-established trade union but in, say, a new container store or a new area of work. This trade union might have perfectly good standing, and yet because the work at this new location had only been carried out for two years the power of veto would not be available to that trade union.
Lord JACQUES: May I explain that I did not use the term "long established" in relation to a trade union. I raised the term in relation to cold stores, and what-have-you.
Lord LYELL: I appreciate that, but the noble Lord commenced his reply by mentioning a long-established, I think he called it, recognition agreement. He did use "long-established" meaning nine years from October 1976 back to this arbitrary date. He accepted that our date was arbitrary, but we accepted that his was a little arbitrary. Nevertheless, the noble Lord produced a further argument saying that this Amendment could frustrate the Bill in its intention so far as the veto is concerned. But I wonder why should container bases and cold stores, or newer types of depot or work places be singled out as not being allowed to have this veto?
Lord JACQUES: Because it is dock work being taken away.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord says it is being taken away, and this is particularly arbitrary. Who is to say whether it has been taken away? We understand that whether the work shall or shall not be classified will be under discussion. Yet the noble Lord is saying arbitrarily that it has been taken away, and in that case we are not going to allow the trade unions to veto it. I thought that whether the work had, or had not, been taken away was under discussion.
Lord JACQUES: But it would not be under discussion if you carried this Amendment. What you are saying is that the trade union should be able to veto it. I say no, the trade union should not be able to veto it; it should be under discussion.
Lord LYELL: Why, then, is the trade union able to veto what the noble Lord called a long-established recognition agreement?
Lord JACQUES: Because the long-established places existed before the changes in techniques. They were there long before the present changes. They are not doing work in substitution for dock work. Many of the modern ones are doing work in substitution for dock work.
Lord LYELL: If the noble Lord believes that, will he be able to tell us what proportion of container bases in cold store areas which are going to be affected by unions not being able to use this veto have arisen as a result of new
406
technologies, and what proportion have arisen as substitution for dock work? I do not believe, and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, believes, that it is entirely 100 per cent. That is a valid point, and one he did not raise. He said that new techniques have been learnt since 1967, 1968, let us say, and that this is substitution for what has been accepted as, or what lie says is, dock work. I do not know whether it is what he says, or the dockers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and perhaps indeed the Transport Committee of the Trades Union Congress, that 12 unions have signed this. Nevertheless, I wonder whether we have got to the bottom of this particular Amendment.
I am not happy with being told that, because the new areas are in substitution for dock work, therefore they should not have this power of veto, which is a pretty powerful weapon. I am not entirely happy with that, yet the noble Lord has a point when he says that there are some areas which are indeed substitutions for what has been regarded as dock work. I am inclined to withdraw this Amendment at this stage, but I must way that I am not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I look forward to discussing this again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
9.35 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 109:
After Schedule 4 insert the folk wing new Schedule—

SCHEDULE

  PUBLIC INQUIRIES (NOTICES AND PROCEDURES)
  1. Where subsection (11) of section 5 above applies, the Secretary of State shall proceed in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule.
  2. The Secretary of State shall public do a notice that the draft Scheme, the proposal or the draft order (as the case may be) are available, stating where copies may be obtained and specifying a period of 40 days within which representations may be made to him about the draft Scheme, proposal or draft order.
  3. A notice under paragraph 2 above shall be published—

  (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the draft Scheme, proposal or draft order relates to ports in England, Scotland or to the and

  (b) in such local newspapers or in any other ways as appear to the Secretary of

  407
  State best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons interested;

  and shall specify a place where the draft Scheme, the proposal or the draft order (as the case may be) may be inspected, and copies thereof obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time in which and the manner in which any objections thereto may be made to the Secretary of State and, subject to paragraph 4 below, the Secretary of State shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice.
  4. The Secretary of State shall not be required to consider any objection which does not comprise, or have submitted with it, a statement in writing setting out the specific ground of the objection and particulars of any omission, addition or modification asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
  5. If there are no objections which the Secretary of State is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn—

  (a) in the case of a draft Scheme or order (either in the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, being modifications which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the character of the draft as published), he may lay the Scheme before Parliament or make the order (as the case may be); or

  (b) in the case of a proposal, forward to the Board for their consideration a copy of the report referred to in paragraph 8 below.

  6. Before preparing a new Scheme, the Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held.
  7. Where any objections are made as aforesaid and are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall cause an inquiry to be held by an impartial person and, where that inquiry relates to a draft scheme or order, the Secretary of State may, after considering the report referred to in paragraph 9 below, lay the draft Scheme before Parliament or make the order (as the case may be) in the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.
  8. Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply in relation to an inquiry held under this Schedule as they apply to a local inquiry held under subsection (1) of that subsection with the omission of the word "local" from subsection (4).
  9. The Secretary of State shall publish the report of the person appointed by him to hold an inquiry for the purposes of this Schedule.").
  The noble Lord said: I will, with the permission of the Committee, speak at the same time to my manuscript Amendment, No. 110, which is needed if it is to he possible to apply the new Schedule to the Principality of Wales. One could say that this Amendment is consequential because the broad idea of providing for a public inquiry was raised much earlier, in fact on the first day of the Committee stage on the Bill. But perhaps it is necessary on this, the fourth day in Committee, to remind noble Lords of the
  408
  way in which it is intended to fit the concept into the Bill.
  It is necessary first to go back to the debate on Amendment No. 9 to Clause 4—that appears at col.347 in Hansard—which was the point at which my noble friend Lord Gowrie and others first argued, and successfully, for the retention of the public inquiry procedure where draft dock labour schemes, proposals to the Dock Labour Board and draft orders were involved. The full range of matters under the Bill to which the procedure should, we believe, be applicable were set out in the debate on Amendment No. 32 to Clause 5; and that appears at col.446 of Hansard. That was accepted by the Government, will now be incorporated in the Bill as Clause 5(11) and is the main point of connection between this new Schedule and the main body of the Bill. That is how this Schedule is linked with the Bill and the Amendments which have paved the way for it.
  All I need reiterate are the arguments for making provision for public inquiries, which it seems to me are overwhelming. It has been considered necessary to provide for them up to now. The enlarged scope of the Bill, the wider powers of the Secretary of State and the wider geo-graphical range of the effects of the Bill would certainly require it, if it had not already been found necessary. Public inquiries are already common form for the proper handling of innumerable other issues of far less local import and impact than the ones we have been discussing. Without the use of public inquiries there is little or no scope for any proper exercise of public participation and, without a public and open inquiry, there will often be the suspicion that the Secretary of State has been subjected to improper pressures. Those suspicions may well be ill-founded, but they are the inevitable result of decisions on issues as sensitive as these if they are taken behind closed doors. As I said, the Amendment is really consequential and I beg to move.
  9.39 p.m.
  Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD then moved the following Amendment to the Amendment:
  In paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (a), line 3, after ("England") insert ("and Wales").
  The noble Lord said: This is the manuscript Amendment to which I have also been speaking. I beg to move.
  Lord JACQUES: I accept that the Amendments are consequential, but I think I should put on record that under the terms of Amendment No. 32 this Schedule is to apply to a proposal to extend the limits of the cargo handling zone referred to the Board under Clause 4(7). By another Amendment, No. 12, all the provisions of Clause 4 for a cargo handling zone and for extending its limits have been deleted from the Bill.
  Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will read what he said and it may be that we shall have to make some adjustments at a later stage.
  House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
9.40 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am deeply honoured to be given this opportunity and I hope I may be given others to address your Lordships. I am not the first Scottish Law Officer to speak from this Dispatch Box, but I believe I am privileged to be the first serving Solicitor-General for Scotland to address this House as a Member of it. I have attended many of the debates since I was introduced into the House and I hope that I may be permitted to say that I am professionally accustomed to a different type of forum where the forms of speech are perhaps more trenchant, direct and uncompromising than is the custom in your Lordships' House. However, I assure your Lordships that I shall try fervently and quickly to adopt the habits of this House and if, in the beginning and at moments of passionate concern, I lapse into an unduly acerbic tone, I would ask your Lordships to be indulgent, to reprove me gently and to regard such lapses neither as intended discourtesies nor as an argument for devolution.
The Bill serves two separate and distinct purposes which I shall try to explain.
410
Clause 1 increases the statutory limit on the borrowings of the two Scottish Electricity Boards from£1,200 million to£1,950 million. The two Boards plan their power station programme jointly on an all-Scotland basis, and there is a joint statutory limit on the borrowing required by both Boards to finance the programme.
In accordance with establish practice, the Bill makes provision for an interim borrowing limit of£1,500 million, and this figure may be exceeded only when an order to extend the limit has been made. Any such order is subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in another place. Depending upon the pace of investment by the Boards, the interim limit may either be increased directly to the final limit contained in the Bill or increased to a lesser amount, leaving the move to the final limit to be made by a later order. Borrowings against the existing limit of E1,200 million amounted to almost£1,100 million at the end of September; and it is now likely that the current limit will be reached well before the end of this year. It was originally expected that: the limit of£1,200 million would meet the requirements of the Boards until the end of the financial year 1977/8.
The need to increase the borrowing limit at an earlier stage has arisen because of inflation, because of price restraint policies which prevented the Boards from fully recovering their costs and because of the difficulty in determining in advance the level at which borrowing limits should be fixed. The Boards' borrowing requirements are determined mainly by the level of their capital expenditure and the extent to which this can be financed from internal resources. In turn, of course, the level of capital expenditure is determined by the Boards' forecasts of demand for electricity—and these forecasts have to be projected over a substantial period because modern power stations take at least seven years to plan and to build.
There are of course many fact ors which affect electricity demand, some of a purely Scottish or of a purely regional character, and others, such as the level of economic growth and price relativities, 'which are national in character. Noble Lords will appreciate that when the vagaries of the climate are added to the equation, the uncertainties involved in forecasting demand for electricity are bound to be great.

411
Earlier this year the Boards carried out a fundamental review of their forecasts, and this review led to a considerable reduction in the estimates that were previously forecast. The reduced estimates formed the basis of the Boards' capital investment programme which is described in their brochure Plans for the Future 1975–1982. During that period the Boards expect to finance nearly 40 per cent. of their capital requirement from internal resources, principally revenue surpluses, reserves and depreciation provision.
Following the Government's decision to phase out price restraint subsidies, both Boards made small profits in 1975/76, and they expect to be profitable again in the current year. But arrangements similar to those made under the provisions of the Price Code in April 1975 and April 1976, will apply next year, and the result will he to limit the surpluses available to the Boards. So, my Lords, you will appreciate that there will be little immediate scope for increasing the self-financing ratio by means of tariff increases; and the hulk of the proposed capital investment must be financed by borrowing.
The nuclear power station which the South of Scotland Electricity Board propose to construct at Torness is the principal item in the capital investment programme. This station, which could cost some£600 million at current price levels, is part of the Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor programme which the Government announced in 1974. The South Board, if I may so describe them, were given consent to the use of the Torness site in February 1975, and the station is now planned for commissioning in 1985. But no work on the construction of the station will be undertaken before the completion of the examination of the future of the Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor programme, an examination which we are carrying out as part of our overall review of energy policy. But whatever the outcome of that examination, there appears to be little doubt that additional generating capacity will be required in Scotland in the mid-1980s. We are therefore satisfied that the estimates produced by the Boards provide adequate justification for the increases in borrowing limits for which this Bill provides. May I emphasise that we are concerned here only with statutory limits.
412
Let me now turn to Clause 2. In 1967 primary aluminium production in this country met only 10 per cent. of our requirements and we had to import the rest at an annual cost of some£70 million. The Government of the day decided to examine the prospects for making import savings by promoting an expanded United Kingdom primary aluminium production capability.
The development of the new advanced gas cooled reactor nuclear power stations held out the prospect of providing cheap electricity supplies to aluminium producers. The 1968 White Paper announced that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board were engaged in negotiations with the British Aluminium Company on an agreement to supply power to the company's reduction plant at Invergordon for a period of approximately 30 years. A contract was negotiated, and under it the North Board undertook to supply the plant with electricity at a cost related to the expected cost of generation at the new Hunterston B Station, an advanced gas cooled reactor station, then under construction by the South Board.
The Government recognised that the risks involved for the North Board were very large in relation to that Board's turnover and resources. The Government therefore assured the Board that they would examine the position and its implications for the Board's other customers if substantial losses were to arise. In the event, large deficits have in fact been incurred in the Board's smelter account. There are three principal reasons for this, which I may summarise. First, all the AGR stations have run into difficulties in the construction stage and Hunterston B is no exception. Commissioning of the station has been delayed by more than three years, and as a result electricity has had to he supplied to the smelter from more expensive conventional sources. The losses on the contract resulting from this have had to be funded by borrowing at high interest rates.
The second problem which has arisen is that the assumptions made in 1968 about the level of output at Hunterston B are very likely to prove unduly optimistic. These assumptions were used as a basis for determining the contract charges, so provision must now be made for losses which may arise from this source during the remaining period of the contract. The third problem which has come

413
to light is the risk of corrosion of boiler components. This is a highly technical matter, but it is being dealt with by restricting the operating temperature of the reactor, and there is a consequent loss of output of the station. This is known as "derating" and for the time being the derating of this station has been set at 20 per cent. The need for continued derating is being carefully studied, but it is impossible at present to know what the long-term level of de-rating, if any, will be. The company cannot properly be expected to carry any part of the costs arising from the de-rating, which was unforeseen when the 1968 contract was entered into, so these costs will be treated as a charge to the North Board's smelter account.
My Lords, when it became clear that these problems would cause substantial deficits on the North Board's smelter account, the Government undertook the promised examination of the situation and concluded that the sums involved were indeed too large to be borne by the North Board without imposing an unacceptedly heavy burden on that Board's other consumers. The Board were therefore informed that the Government would seek the necessary statutory powers to provide for the deficits on the smelter account to be reimbursed. That under-taking is fulfilled by this clause in the Bill.
I should have liked to be able to give your Lordships an indication of the cost of making good the deficits, past and future, but because of the continuing uncertainties that I have described I cannot do so. The deficit at the end of the North Board's financial year 1975/76 was just over£39 million. Even if no new difficulties were to emerge to affect the performance of Hunterston B, the total deficit over the life of the contract would be unlikely to be less than£100 million. On the other hand, serious continuing problems over the operation of Hunterston B could, after allowing for inflation, cause the deficit to reach£200 million, or even more. My Lords, this is a very gloomy prospect, but I am happy to be able to say one encouraging thing, and that is that good progress is now being made with the task of bringing Hunterston B into operation.
The first reactor was commissioned in February 1976, and the South Board
414
expect that the second will be synchronised with the grid before the end of this year. In the few months since it started generating electricity, the first reactor: has already produced 75 per cent. of the output of both reactors for which the Board have budgeted in the current financial year. However, having said that, it would be imprudent to suggest that the station's problems have been overcome, a did because of the continuing uncertainty about the future performance of Hunterston B we have felt unable to insert a financial limit in the Bill. But may I emphasise that each payment that my right honourable friend proposes to make will be: Prescribed by an order which will be subject to Affirmative Resolution in another place,
My Lords, the electricity supply industry is passing through a difficult period, but in spite of these difficulties we are certain that the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board will continue, as. they have done in the past, to provide a highly efficient service—one which is of crucial importance to the economic and social well-being of the people of Scotland.
My Lords, I understand that it is one of the gentler customs of this House that when a new Member makes his first speech here it is spared too critical an assessment. That is a matter for your Lords sips, but for the Bill itself I ask no such indulgence. I commend it to your Lordships on its merits as a necessary measure of very considerable importance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
9.55 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it is one of the very pleasant tasks which occasionally fall to people in this House to answer debates on Bills. Very seldom, however, does one have the chance to answer a Bill at Second Reading when a Minister is making his maiden speech. When we have the combination of such a very pleasant personality and such a very useful Bill it is a doubly pleasurable task to be able to congratulate the mover of the Bill. It is a requirement of this House that one always says that one hopes to hear a maiden speaker again. In this case it is with sincere person so conviction that I say that. I know that in

415
any Scottish measures put forward by him he is supporting the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who is supreme in these matters on Scotland.
The Scottish team in this House for years has had on the Labour Benches the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who battled extremely well. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is still with us; we have Lord Kirkhill, and now we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The manner in which he moved the Bill was moving and appealing. I went to some trouble to check up with my honourable friends from Ross and Cromarty and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, about this measure and I found that they all basically agreed that it was a very sound measure. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who would have liked to be congratulating the noble Lord on this his maiden speech, as is known is unable to be here, and I am a very inadequate substitute. Nevertheless, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained this measure to us.
I was particularly happy to hear what he said—which was new—about the synchronisation with the grid coming on at Hunterston B. This is an investment in new generating capacity. We on this side often complain about Government money being thrown about. In this case there is no complaint at all; it is a wise investment. The quality of life in Scotland will be improved and, although the interest rates on£750 million plus£200 million will be more than nothing, at the end of the day there will be a reasonable return both on investment and in quality of life. It makes very good sense. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board needed this Bill to pass in order to honour its contract with the aluminium smelter in Invergordon. It is a sensible and very good thing. I believe we would have done the same had we been in power. I cannot say more than that, my Lords, can I?
My Lords, Clause 2 is slightly worrying as it is open-ended. But against the open-endedness of it we have the comfort that Parliament has to be consulted or the matter has to be put before Parliament and therefore we have the ability to limit too great an open-endedness. It is a late hour. We have been sitting late last week and will be late again this week.
416
This subject has been well discussed and we are in general agreement with this Bill. It is a very happy occasion—the maiden speech of the noble Lord, the Minister—and, having said that, I think I have said enough.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I feel I cannot let this convivial occasion pass without adding my welcome to the new Minister and my congratulations on his introduction of the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which is vital to Scotland, but I do not want to say anything about it at all. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I know little of it; but I know that it is a great pleasure to welcome a new Minister in this House. I was warned, I may say, by the Scottish Bar that a man of some ability and charm was coming to our House and that he should be welcomed and looked out for thereafter. Therefore I am very happy to add my congratulations to those which have already been given.
10 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should also like to add congratulations to the noble Lord, who succeeded in making what I thought was one of the dullest Bills I have read for a long time really quite interesting. The noble Lord has very wide and high experience in law, concerned particularly with the field of drafting—on which I believe Parliament could do a lot better than it is doing at the present time. If the noble Lord is able to add a little skill to that side of things he will certainly be performing a very important task for this House. I think it is an admirable scheme to bring into this House Scottish Law Officers if they are not Members of another place, and I hope the practice will he continued. I hope it will help him in his tasks as Solicitor-General. I am sure it will add strength to the Government Front Bench—and the more strength there is on the Government Front Bench, the more useful it is to this House. That is a burden which lies particularly on their shoulders.
This Bill in fact is a rather formidable one, and some of the figures quoted by the noble Lord I found rather disturbing But this is no time to go into the problems and I hope that some of the points which he raised will in fact resolve themselves. I should like to make one further remark.

417
This is of course a Money Bill and is therefore treated by us in a special way. Would it not be desirable in normal practice to have the words "Money Bill" somewhere on the draft of the Bill itself? It is true that it can be seen on the Order Paper which is before the House, but I would suggest that it is not unreasonable that a Money Bill should, in some way or other, be described as such. I suggest that, because there are occasions when Bills come forward and we are not always sure whether or not they are Money Bills. I think they should be clearly stated to be what they are. Finally, I will merely say that I hope the noble Lord will come to address us as often as he can. Of course, he will not address us unless he is told to and he will not address us if he is told not to. Nonetheless, I am quite certain that he will be very welcome when he comes.
10.2 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for his support for the Bill? That is the most important thing I have to say, because it is very welcome indeed for us to have such solid and unstinted support for the Bill from noble Lords opposite. On a personal level, may I also thank him again for his kindness and say that I hope it will continue to be extended to me when I speak from this Dispatch Box or indeed from the scat now occupied by him. But I do not expect that to happen within the period covered by this Bill, which takes us to 1982. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am not quite sure how to take his remark that he was told to look out for me, but I shall judge that in the light of subsequent events.
I should like, too, to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is a distinguished member of the same Faculty of Advocates of which I am a member. He has drawn attention to a point that I will certainly take up. I may say that in the original print of the Bill which came from the Commons certain parts were italicised, and that was perhaps a clue to the fact that it was a Money Bill. But it may well be that these Bills should be marked in a clearer way when coming before this House. I thank noble Lords opposite for what they have said, and I thank your Lordships in general for your kind reception.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD (GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT) ORDER 1976
10.4 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 11th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in force permanently certain provisions of the 1971 Civil Aviation Act which would otherwise expire at the end of March next year. Without the order, British Airways' public dividend capital would revert to interest-bearing loans and there would be no power to provide further public dividend capital.
Public dividend capital, or rather Exchequer dividend capital, as it was then called, was first given to BDAC 10 years ago. When the British Airways Board was set up under the 1971 Civil Aviation Act, this form of finance was still relatively novel. Provision was therefore made for the position to be reviewed after five years. A similar provision was made in 1969 for the British Steel Corporation's public dividend capital. Noble Lords may recall that, after a review in 1973, the legislation relating to the Steel Corporation's public dividend capital was made permanent in 1974.
International civil aviation has been through very hard times over the last two years, as a result of the oil crisis and the general world recession. British Airways have weathered the storm better than many other airlines, but for two years it has not been possible for them to pay a dividend. Before the oil crisis, however, BOAC, and later British Airways, had on average a remarkably good record of dividend payments, exceeding so 7 nearly 10 years the interest payments which would have been paid on equivalent loan finance. The first three months of the current financial year have seen the start of a recovery in British Airways' fortunes: there was a surplus of over£14 million compared with a loss of£2 million in the same period last year. This encouraging trend shows every sign of continuing, and there is reason to hope that within a couple

419
of years the airline will once again be paying good dividends.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place recently welcomed the increased role of public dividend capital in British Airways' capital structure. The Government also feel that this type of finance has an important part to play in the airline's capital structure, and that it is now appropriate to make the arrangement permanent. The order before your Lordships also perpetuates the duty of the Secretary of State to determine a target rate of return on net assets for the Board to aim at achieving. The Government have set a target of an average of 11 per cent. return over the four-year period up to 1978–79. This figure has been carefully selected so as to present a real challenge for the airline, but not so high that it would be impossible to achieve. Noble Lords will, I am sure, agree that in British
420
Airways we have an airline of which the nation can be proud. I am therefore pleased to commend to the House this order as an expression of confidence in its future. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved. That the draft British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 11th October, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his very brief explanation of this order, which is very vital for British Airways. We said that we would not sit late, and the order was made easy for us to under-stand. So I will merely say that British Airways need this money, and we need an efficient airline. I thank the noble Lord again for what he has told us tonight.
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.