Sitting of 14 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

    Prices Policy
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection which Minister in his Department is responsible for handling consultations on the proposed new prices policy.
    The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am primarily responsible. I have already had discussions with the CBI and the Retail Consortium and am meeting the Food and Drink Industry Council later this afternoon.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State accept that the reason why the prices policy is in tatters is that he applies different criteria to private industry and
    2
    the nationalised industries? What assurances can he give the House that, under the new prices policy, there will not now be a repetition of the squalid ignoring of the prices policy on gas prices by the Secretary of State for Energy?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not accept for a moment that the present prices policy is in tatters. As to the future prices policy, which was the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question, it is clear in the consultative document that the provisions of that policy will apply to nationalised industries as they apply to the private sector.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that workers who voluntarily take on austerity must be satisfied that the prices they pay are justified, in view of his right hon. Friend's decision to override the veto of the Price Commission on gas prices does he think that the increase in gas prices is what he would call socially accountable?
    Mr. Hattersley: The increase in gas prices was part of a decision taken in December concerning the economy as a whole, which has clearly made the economy a good deal more stable than it was. Many of the decisions within that policy were regrettable although necessary. I think that the gas price increase comes into that category.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that an increase in prices of this kind will affect working people in particular very badly? Will not the

    3
    Cabinet reconsider this matter? This is something which working people obviously are not prepared to accept much longer, which means that it will have a very bad effect on phase 3 of the incomes policy.
    Mr. Hattersley: I note what my hon. Friend says. Specific questions about specific details of the gas price proposal, to which I think he was referring, are not for me but for the Secretary of State for Energy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] However, I also understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about the Cabinet in general having to investigate and inquire into these matters, and I am sure that my colleagues will note what he has said.

    Industrial Clothing
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he has received representations concerning increases in the price charged for the cleaning or rental of industrial clothing during the last two years; and how many such cases he has referred to the Price Commission.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): I have received the representations of my hon. Friend on this subject and I referred them to the Chairman of the Price Commission.
    Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that pricing policy in this area should receive special and sensitive consideration? Is he aware that the Price Commission is suspected of too easily rubber-stamping substantial price increases, including the case to which I have drawn his attention, in which two price increases were allowed in one year, bringing the charge for one garment from 28p to 38p? Does he not think that that is excessive?
    Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission is empowered to investigate such increases and only to permit those which can be justified by allowable cost increases. I have no means of knowing, but I must assume, that the Commission satisfied itself that the allowable cost increases made a rise of this order inevitable.

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Giles Shawasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what steps he will take to encourage the reductions of costs by better use of resources in the nationalised industries; and how he will ensure consumers share the benefits.
    Mr. Hattersley: My proposals for prices policy after 31st July will apply to nationalised industry prices in broadly the same way as they would to other sectors. The new criteria will focus attention on cost reductions and better use of resources.
    Mr. Shaw: Will the Secretary of State please give some encouragement to the consumer in regard to the nationalised industries? How can the consumer believe that she will get a better share of the benefits of nationalised industries when, as in the case of gas, she is being forced to pay a price which is clearly not allowed by the Price Commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that decision runs quite counter to what is allowed in the private sector?
    Mr. Hattersley: No, I do not accept the hon. Member's judgment about that at all. As for comforts to the consumers, the position is very clear. We have now largely corrected the errors made in nationalised industry prices by the previous Government, and we can look forward in future to increases in nationalised industries' prices, which cannot altogether be avoided, being at a much slower rate than in the recent past.
    Mr. Adley: Why are there three Ministers, one Whip, one Parliamentary Private Secretary and only six Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber for Questions on prices and consumer protection? Have the right hon. Gentlemen's Back Benchers despaired of ever having their Questions answered?
    Mr. Neubert: Is it not clear that the impending increase in the price of gas is no more and no less than a tax on the consumer? If the costs of production are less, why should the consumer have to pay because the Government have failed to reduce their extravagant spending programmes?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He is implying that the gas price increase is intended to help deal with some of the economic problems, such as the reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement, that we successfully faced in December, when his party proposed more savage cuts. If we followed any of the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have made, that would affect the consumer a great deal more.

    Price Controls (Categorisation Limits)
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether the present categorisation of firms in the Price Code will remain the same under the new prices policy.
    Mr. Maclennan: The present intention is that the categorisation limits in the present price controls should not be substantially changed when the new policy comes into operation. This question will, however, fall within the consultations on the new policy proposals.
    Mr. Hodgson: In view of the continuing high level of inflation, does not the Minister agree that the qualifying level for category 1 firms should be raised a great deal, thus lifting a small part of the increasingly heavy burden that the Government have placed on small businesses and small business men?
    Mr. Maclennan: The category limits were last raised in August to take account of inflation. Too frequent changes would be unjustifiable.

    Inflation
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest figure for the rate of inflation over the last three months expressed at an annual rate.
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest monthly increase in the retail price index, calculated on a year on-year basis; and by how much the index has increased since February 1974.
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest three-monthly rate of price inflation.
    Mr. Hattersley: Over the three and 12 months to January 1977, the retail price index increased by 5·4 per cent. and 16·6 per cent. respectively. This brings the increase since February 1974 to 69·5 per cent. For what it is worth, the three-month annualised figure is 21·8 per cent.
    Mr. Grist: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel a sense of shame at that last figure as it has risen so much from the vaunted 8·4 per cent. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the last General Election?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not feel very much about that last figure, except what I tried to imply in my answer, that it does not have much statistical validity.
    Mr. Rost: As the Government's new anti-inflation policy appears to be to overrule their own independent Price Commission, would it not be better to scrap it?
    Mr. Hattersley: In overruling the Price Commission, the Government would apply a provision in the Act for which the hon. Gentleman voted. He must make up his mind whether he was wrong in voting for that overruling provision. I think that it was right and necessary, and it can occasionally be applied properly.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend understand fully that the £6 pay policy and its successor have not resulted in the dramatic fall in price increases and inflation that he and his fellow Ministers in the Cabinet supposed? What with unemployment almost doubling in that period, prices rising, the social wage being cut and there being no further investment, is there any reason to carry on with another round of pay policy?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that there is every reason to carry on. [Interruption.] Unlike some Conservative Members, my hon. Friend has asked a question believing, as I do, that it is a serious issue. My hon. Friend knows very well that the increase in the retail price index over the past six months has been largely the result of sterling depreciation. I have no doubt that, if we did not reach agreement on another wages round, sterling would again be in jeopardy and inflation would be a great deal worse.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. Does he not agree that inflation figures of 69·5 per cent. are a tremendous condemnation of what the Government have done in the past three years? Will he use this opportunity of expressing his abhorrence of total price freezes, which can do nothing more nor less than to increase unemployment from its present hideous level?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have already made it clear that in my view a total price freeze would be injurious to our industrial prospects and bad for the economy in general and working people in particular. As for the overall rate of inflation. I have no doubt that, if we remain resolutely committed to the policies we announced in December, the rate of inflation will begin to reduce in the summer and thereafter. I am sure that that is a right thing for us to do.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the high rate of inflation has been partly due to the common agricultural policy and to the fact that we are members of the Common Market, where food prices are much higher than anywhere else in the world? Is it not about time the Government renegotiated the CAP and stopped talking about renegotiation?
    Mr. Skinner: It is time we got out altogether.
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will agree that the position being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the negotiations in Brussels, which are concerned with prices next year, reflects our intention of being very tough during the discussions and having no price increases which would be injurious to our general economic policy. But I am sure that he also accepts that what has really affected inflation in this country over the past year is the sterling rate of exchange. I do not care to contemplate how sterling would have deteriorated in October and November of last year had we not been members of the Commons Market.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an inflation rate of 16·6
    8
    per cent., if he wants the year-on-year figure, or nearly 20 per cent., if he wants the three-month figure, marks a successful Government policy?
    Mr. Hattersley: I believe that it marks a policy which will improve with the summer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Summer?"] The Opposition must decide whether they want to support us in policies that will result in a gradual but continual improvement in the inflation figure. The effects of the December measures will soon work themselves through and there will soon be another wages round. When that is debated, the Opposition will have to decide which side they are on.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if there has been a rise or fall in the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom in the last six months; and how this compares with the trend in the other EEC countries.
    Mr. Hattersley: Over the six months to January 1977, the year-on-year rate of inflation in the United Kingdom has increased from 12·9 per cent. to 16·6 per cent. Exactly comparable information for other member States is not available, but to December the average rate of inflation for these countries was similarly on an upward trend.
    Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to statistics from his own Department, inflation has risen every month in Britain for the past six months, a very different pattern from that in Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, to name but six? Apart from the fact that we are unfortunate in having an ineffective Government, what is so special about Britain compared with the other countries of Western Europe?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am simply relying on the information that the Treasury gave the hon. Gentleman on 3rd March. One of the things that is special about us is that on the December figures our rate of acceleration is a good deal less than that of many of our partners.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what the other Common Market countries did when they participated in the recent IMF loan was to lend us the money in order for us to continue to buy their goods?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is somewhat of an over-simplification of what the loan provided. It also provided us with the wherewithal to go on selling our goods to Europe and to keep the British economy afloat. Without the IMF loan, the country would have been in a very difficult situation.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in a speech at Blackpool last April the Prime Minister boasted that on the previous six months' figures the rate of inflation had halved? Is the Secretary of State aware that if one takes precisely the same yardstick as the Prime Minister took then the rate of inflation has not halved or doubled but has trebled? Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long he expects that this country can go on with rates of inflation which are double and treble those of our main competitors?
    Mr. Hattersley: That extraordinarily selective use of figures does not excite me half as much as it clearly excites the hon. Lady. The figure is the year-on-year rate. The increase in the year-on-year rate has decelerated, and the hon. Lady will find that if she asks me or someone else that sort of question towards the end of the year the position will be appreciably improved.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the real thing that could damage this country would be if the prices of food, clothing and footwear which obtain in Common Market countries were applied here? We would be in a very serious situation indeed. That is why so many people from the other eight Community countries are prepared to come over here at the weekends in order to stock up and go back home because, despite our so-called inflation, the price of the goods that I have mentioned is much cheaper in the United Kingdom than in the EEC countries.
    Mr. Hattersley: Of course they are, and many of them are so kept by the green pound, which is something that we have to maintain and preserve. My hon. Friend well knows that all those people who come here are earning EEC wages and paying United Kingdom prices. I hope that we can get to the day when we,
    10
    too, will be earning EEC wages in this country.
    Mr. Marten: May 1, unusually, come to the help of the right hon. Gentleman in his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)? Is not one of the reasons why our inflation has gone up more than that of our Common Market partners, certainly the old Six, that the CAP and the transitional stages have forced up the price of food?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is certainly a factor, but statistically it is a small factor indeed compared with the major reason, which is the depreciation of sterling.

    Price Commission Reports (Sales)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many copies of the Price Commission's quarterly reports for the periods 1st June to 31st August 1976, and 1st September to 30th November 1976, were sold to the general public.
    Mr. Maclennan: Separate figures for sales to the general public are not available. The latest figures available show total bookshop sales as 1,192 and 1,078 respectively.
    Mr. Dykes: Are not those sales rather meagre? Incidentally, the report now costs £1·65 compared with the original £1. Was the Minister surprised that the Commission said that new code changes had made it impossible to draw up comparative profit figures, so that it was no longer making judgments about the future movement of profit margins? Is not that an astonishing assertion from a Commission that is supposed to bear in mind all factors when drawing up its price control policy?
    Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission's general conclusions, reported in its quarterly reports, are given widespread currency by the Press and other media following publication of the reports. The increased price of the second report reflects increased costs of production, which I understand have been considered most carefully by the Commission.

    Fuel Prices
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether his new proposals for

    11
    monitoring and control of prices will be applicable to fuel; and, if so, how they will operate.
    Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend's proposals for prices policy after 31st July would apply to fuel prices in broadly the same way as they would to other products, with such modifications as are necessary to reflect our Community obligations in respect of coal prices and the Government's special responsibilities for the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Hooley: I am not quite sure how to interpret that somewhat obscure and ambiguous answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that if, under the new system, we have a repetition of what we have at present in respect of gas prices, the whole system of price control, such as it is, will be brought into total disrepute?
    Mr. Maclennan: One of the principal aspects of the new prices policy, which is an improvement and a more effective method of price control, is that it will enable us to launch investigations to cover pricing practices and levels in all industries, including the nationalised industries. They will simply be judged against the provisions under the Price Code which enable the Commission to look behind the Price Code to the whole circumstances of the industry. I think that this will enable a more realistic check to be taken.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Is not the simple truth behind that bureaucratic answer the fact that the Government will monitor and control such energy prices as it is politically convenient to do so?
    Mr. Maclennan: If political convenience were the sole consideration, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would concede that it might not have been the Government's desire to increase the price of gas. But the economic justifications for having done so have already been spelt out by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rooker: Cutting through some of the waffle in the answer that we have just heard, may I ask my hon. Friend to state categorically that the new prices policy will not be subvented to the Treasury in the same way as with the present prices policy in regard to fuel?
    Mr. Maclennan: The Treasury is responsible—
    Mr. Rooker: Yes or no?
    Mr. Maclennan: —within the Government for the overall view of the management of the economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will, within the collective governmental framework, ensure that the consumers' interests are taken fully into account when arriving at a collective position. My hon. Friend and Conservative Members who complain of bureaucratic answers ought to accept and understand that the principal interest of the consumer at this time is in obtaining a stabilised rate of sterling, because it is the decline in the parity of sterling which is directly responsible for the price increases which are being complained of today. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that the measures taken in December have strongly contributed towards establishing the stability of sterling. The package must be judged as a whole by that test.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Minister aware that it really does not make sense for the Government to increase fuel charges across the board while at the same time subsidising a lot of people because they have put up prices too much at the same time as the nationalised fuel industries are not only making a profit but also profiteering at the general expense of the consumer?
    Mr. Maclennan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government have no intention of returning to the policies of the Conservative Opposition in subsidising the nationalised industries at tax-payers' expense and thus distorting their financial control.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how long he expects the present rising trend in food prices to continue.
    Mr. Banksasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what he expects the rise in food prices will have been from July 1976 to July 1977.
    Mr. Hattersley: The food index rose by 81·5 per cent. between February 1974 and January 1977. I am not prepared to forecast the rate of increase for the year

    13
    to July 1977 or to guess how present trends may change.
    Mr. Rathbone: Those statistics are worrying enough, as are the statistics which the Secretary of State gave me recently in reply to another Question. Can he reassure the country in any small way at all that the rate of increase of previous months and years will be decreasing during the coming year? Does he not appreciate that it is confidence in the present Government which is at the root of the price of sterling, and that the price of sterling is at the root of the price of food?
    Mr. Hattersley: Certainly the price of sterling is the main determinant in the price of food. Of course, the price and the value of sterling have appreciated considerably between December and now. The hon. Gentleman must himself interpret whether that is the result of improved reputations abroad of the present Government. The comfort I offer the consumer is that, if we can hold sterling at or about the present level, the adverse effects of October, November and December of last year will not reappear and food price changes will not be as bad as they were during that period.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that food prices within the Common Market are on average considerably higher than world prices? Does he not find it remarkable, in view of the rather hypothetical concern expressed by the Opposition about prices, that the only idea of policy that the Leader of the Opposition has made herself clear about is opposition to any idea of a price freeze?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is very true. My hon. Friend will have noticed, as the whole country has noticed, that while the Opposition have a great deal of criticism to offer about prices and prices policy they have nothing constructive to say about what they would do in its place. The Leader of the Opposition has said nothing positive during the six months that I have been in this job. If she has said it, it has been my misfortune to miss it. I hope that in the coming months we shall have a debate about prices and prices policy, if only to discover whether the Opposition have any policy at all.
    Mr. Banks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will hardly believe that the figure which he has given of 81·4 per cent. is the true figure for the rise in prices? Is not that an appalling indictment of what the Government have done and what the British housewife has had to suffer? When will prices stop rising?
    Mr. Skinner: When we get out of the Common Market.
    Mr. Hattersley: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question of when food prices will stop rising covers a spectrum of facts from when there ceases to be a shortage of coffee as a result of frost in Africa to when there ceases to be drought in England and when the pound continues on its stabilised path. My view is that all these things are a great deal more complicated than any Opposition Member ever pretends he understands or is prepared to make out.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the stress which my right hon. Friend has rightly put on the fall in the value of sterling accounting for price increases, may I ask whether he is satisfied that the public are aware of the impact of the sterling crisis upon prices? When there are major price increases in areas which directly affect the public most, will my right hon. Friend issue information explaining the extent to which that is the result of a fall in the value of sterling?
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall try to do that, but it is sufficiently difficult to educate the Opposition on these matters and I think that educating a wider public, albeit a less biased one, might be very much more difficult.
    Mr. Freud: If the purpose of consumer advice centres is realistically rather than, cosmetically to help to bring down prices, will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending these to rural areas, or possibly having mobile advice centres, so that people living outside cities may have the benefit of them?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure that the object of these centres is to bring down prices. Rather is it to provide information which is necessary and appropriate. The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the things that I have tried to do over the past year is to extend mobile centres that can go

    15
    for a time each month to rural areas. The more we can do that, the better. We have extended the grant for a year, and I hope that local authorities which feel that they want to abandon the centres will think again, because I agree that they perform a valuable service.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment, if not on food in general, on bread, which once again, according to The Times, has raised its head? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the resolution of the Price Commission that only a portion of the price discount is an allowable cost? Will he comment on whether that is a change from previous practice? Is it not a fact that manufacturers may recover cost of production globally and not just line by line, as appears to be the case for bakers?
    Mr. Hattersley: As I understand it, the Price Commission made clear to the bakers its position on recoverable costs. I discovered that the Price Commission made the position clear before the bakers adjusted prices after Christmas. That seems to be a decision for the Price Commission, and for it alone.

    Household Prices
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what further measures he plans to take to keep down household prices.
    Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend has published proposals for a more effective prices policy to succeed the present control powers when they expire on 31st July.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: As the Government have not had much success in keeping down prices, can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention to allow the Post Office to go ahead with its proposal to increase the letter and parcels rates? Can he say how much traffic the Post Office expects to lose by increasing these charges?
    Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission has vetted these proposals, and I understand that they are not out of line with the Price Code. Therefore, there is no case for the Secretary of State to intervene.
    Mr. John Ellis: With regard to the household price of food, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he has seen the figures produced by the National Consumer Council, in association with the Consumers' Association, which reveal that, leaving aside inflation, the Commission's proposals for this year—the last stage of the transition—will increase farm prices by 3 per cent. and that other measures that it is taking will lift the food bill for a family in this country by £600 million a year—that is, by 4 per cent. per household, or 70p on the average household? Ought we not to get out of the CAP, because those are the increases that we shall face, leaving aside inflation?
    Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is this afternoon engaged in negotiations on the Commission's proposals to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I shall be joining him there later. I think my right hon. Friend will understand that the proposals are still very much a matter for negotiation, and my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he believes that price increases for commodities which are in structural surplus are unacceptable to this Government.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman, on this one, deliberately eschew longwinded, bureaucratic and incomprehensible answers and say whether the new controls after July will be mild or severe?
    Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman fails to understand my answers, I am afraid that I am not wholly to blame.

    Accidents in the Home
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what are the latest figures available for the number of accidents in the home; and if he will break these down according to age and type of accident.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): Statistics provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that, in 1975, 5,081 persons died as a result of accidents in the home in England and Wales and 1,094 in residential institutions. I will, with permission, circulate details in the Official Report.

    17
    Fuller statistical information about home accidents will be provided in future by the Accident Surveillance System recently set up by my Department.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that home safety councils are operating on a shoestring, and that in view of the number of accidents there is an urgent need to provide greater resources here? Will he study the recent issue by the German Government of stamps dealing with home safety interests? Will he look at this proposal with a view to discussing with the Post Office the possbility of something similar in this country?
    Mr. Fraser: I shall look at that proposal, of which I have not heard before. We have recently increased the grant to RoSPA, and publicity on home safety is promoted by my Department, by local authorities and by many other bodies.
    Mr. Rathbone: Can the hon. Gentleman give statistics of how many accidents have been caused by the linkage of cookery machinery, ovens and fires to North Sea gas? What steps is he taking to minimise these?
    Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, but I cannot give those figures because the accident figures so far have been analysed by injury and not by cause of accident. The new Accident Surveillance System will give not only the injury but the causes, and we hope to get meaningful information from the statistics towards the middle of this year.
    Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his Department is already broken down by age and accident?
    Following is the information:

    ACCIDENTS IN THE HOME AND RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEATH BY CAUSE AND AGE GROUP—ENGLAND AND WALES 1975

    All Ages

    0–14

    15–64

    65 and over

    Home

    Residential Institution

    Home

    Residential Institution

    Home

    Residential Institution

    Home

    Residential Institution

    Accidental poisoning by drugs and medicaments

    …

    …

    …

    484

    13

    14

    2

    371

    10

    99

    1

    Accidental poisoning by other solid and liquid substances

    …

    …

    68

    3

    3

    —

    57

    3

    8

    —

    Accidental poisoning by gases and vapours

    …

    …

    …

    …

    123

    —

    11

    —

    62

    —

    50

    —

    Falls

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,530

    860

    43

    —

    340

    51

    2,147

    809

    Burns

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    593

    49

    103

    —

    164

    7

    326

    42

    Scalds and accidents caused by corrosive liquids

    …

    …

    …

    32

    3

    10

    —

    2

    —

    20

    3

    Electrocutions

    …

    …

    …

    …

    54

    —

    8

    —

    38

    —

    8

    —

    Inhalation and ingestion of food

    …

    205

    99

    72

    1

    92

    47

    41

    51

    Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

    …

    536

    26

    11

    1

    400

    13

    125

    12

    Other accidents

    …

    …

    …

    456

    41

    153

    1

    135

    25

    636

    25

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5,081

    1,094

    438

    5

    1,663

    156

    2,980

    933

    Consumer Credit Act
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is satisfied with the operation of the Consumer Credit Act.
    Mr. John Fraser: I believe that, when fully effective, the Consumer Credit Act will provide the protection for the consumer in matters relating to credit and hire which was intended.
    Mr. McCrindle: How soon will the Minister be introducing regulations requiring a full statement, when so-called 100 per cent. mortgages are being advertised, of the true rates of interest comprising such mortgage facilities? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a source of great concern to young couples in particular?
    Mr. Fraser: I understand that, and I have recently made regulations to determine the effective rate of charge for credit. I expect the advertisement disclosure regulations to take effect towards the end of the year.

    Distributors (Investment)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in what way he intends to encourage investment among distributors.
    Mr. Maclennan: The investment relief provisions of the present code already meet this need.
    Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not entirely satisfactory? Will he take account of the fact that there are two aspects to this? There is investment, which improves shopping facilities both for customers and for the staff working in retail outlets, and, far more seriously, there is the problem of providing sufficient working capital to accommodate continual price rises in the costs of materials and food being bought by retailers. That has to be financed. The Price Code must accommodate it.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Government recognise the force of some of the hon. Gentleman's comments. After changes were made to the Price Code in August, as a result of relief claimed under the investment relief provisions £355 million of investment expenditure was claimed.
    22
    I think that the hon. Gentleman's point Consumer Credit Act has been met.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the new prices policy consultative document it is clear that the distributors have been discriminated against in a big way? There is no relief for them of the same order as is given to manufacturing industries. As distributors have not been making excessive profits, and as they employ a high proportion of school leavers, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the amount of unemployment among school leavers that is likely to be created?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am satisfied that the proposals for the distributive trades in the consultative document will not impose a discriminatory or unfair burden on that section. I am equally sure that it is necessary to retain control of gross and net profit margins in the distributive trades at a time when working people throughout the country are accepting universally the need for restraint in their incomes.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the past 40 minutes we have been listening to a tirade from the Opposition about rising prices? Does he further agree that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) is carried into effect it will push up prices even further?
    Mr. Maclennan: I agree completely—
    Mr. Skinner: Say "Yes".
    Mr. Maclennan: Yes, and yes again. My hon. Friend has underlined the point made by my right hon. Friend that the Opposition's performance this afternoon has been wholly negative.

    Price Increases
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will introduce a statutory price ceiling beyond which additional price increases will have to be separately agreed with the Price Commission.
    Mr. Maclennan: Any uniform price ceiling might allow some companies higher price increases than would be justifiable under the investigatory system we have proposed, whilst it could prevent

    23
    many other companies from fully recovering cost increases and from raising the funds needed to support investment and safeguard jobs.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that that reply will be considered by the TUC to be totally evasive because, although some companies might benefit in the way suggested by him, they would be a very small minority? Is he aware that there is an overwhelming feeling within the TUC that there should be a return to free wage bargaining and that the only way in which that can be accomplished in an orderly fashion for phase 3 of wage policy is by having a fixed ceiling above which prices could rise only if the circumstances were considered by the Price Commission to be exceptional? Therefore, it would be possible to have a system of free wage bargaining against price ceilings which would bring about the distributive element in phase 3 for which we are looking.
    Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking forward to hearing the TUC's detailed response to his proposals. However, it has been made clear, and has been widely accepted, that the principal disadvantage of the Price Code as it stands is that it is not sufficiently selective, and it can enable companies which may comply with the provisions of the code to get away with exploiting consumers. The new policy will be much more effective in dealing with that situation.
    Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to a confused public why he does not propose to intervene to overrule the Price Commission in respect of the proposed increases in postal charges but has overruled it in respect of the proposed increase in gas prices?
    Mr. Maclennan: I did not intervene to overrule the proposals in respect of gas prices, nor shall I in respect of the Post Office proposals.

    Prices Policy
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many representations he has received about the consultative document on prices policy.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what consultations have taken place in relation to the new Price Code announced recently.
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what consultations he has held on proposed legislation involved in enacting the new prices policy.
    Mr. Hattersley: I have already held discussions with the CBI and the Retail Consortium and shall be meeting the Food and Drink Industries Council this afternoon. My Department has received representations from a large number of interested bodies. Discussions and correspondence on my proposals are continuing, and the outcome will be assessed at the end of the consultative period on 18th March.
    Mr. CanavanIn view of the justifiable demand of the trade union movement for tougher price controls, instead of just tinkering with net profit margins, why not try at least a temporary freeze on the retail prices of certain basic essentials, such as foodstuffs, fuel, rents and mortgage rates? Why on earth is coal specifically excluded from the mediocre proposals in the consultation document?
    Mr. Hattersley: I believe that a general price freeze would be wrong because it would not be in the interests of the economy and any prospect for expansion would be inhibited. My hon. Friend should not talk about a general price freeze as if it were TUC policy. It is not. The TUC's economic statement called for the ability to hold down prices by freeze on selected occasions, and that is one of the proposals which appears in my consultative document.
    Mr. Silvester: How does the Minister intend to prevent the new investigatory powers which he proposes in his consultative document from having an arbitrary effect on the firms which he proposes to investigate?
    Mr. Hattersley: First, if the legislation is passed there will be some general criteria which the Price Commission must observe; secondly, by the character and quality of the Price Commission; thirdly, by the necessity for the Secretary of State of the time to approve

    25
    what the Commission does; and, fourthly, by applying a parliamentary check to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend looking long and hard specifically at the blatant gambling which is going on in the tea market and making sure that the consumer is not being rooked in the same way as he is on coffee?
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall examine the possibility of the Price Commission considering the tea situation. But I am sure my hon. Friend knows very well that the main cause of the increase in the price of tea—as may turn out to be the case with coffee—is the increase in import prices, and that is something we cannot avoid.
    Mr. Channon: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he may well get the worst of both worlds with his proposed new Price Code? It will have no significant effect on prices, but it will make industries think that it will be used in a purely arbitrary way and, therefore, will frighten off investment in them.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not believe that it will frighten off investment. With the right sort of Price Commission, which is something I want to create, industry will have confidence in the common sense and objectivity of the Commission.
    On the other point, there is no possible statutory prices policy other than a general price freeze which can hold down all prices to a significant extent. As I do not believe that a general price freeze would be right, I do not even contemplate a prices policy which follows the rules that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. It is the general economic policy which must lower the inflation rate.
    Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many consumers believe that successive prices policies have generated more paper than benefits to them? Can he give those consumers a rough indication of the total benefits to them of successive pricing policies? Further, what steps is he taking to try to overcome speculation, in particular in the commodities market, which is in many respects undermining any hope there may be of getting popular support for prices policies?
    Mr. Hattersley: The quarterly report of the Price Commission lists proposed price increases which the Commission prevented from going ahead. This, according to my hon. Friend's standards and mine, comes under the heading of benefits to the consumer which we could publicise. However, I emphasise that nobody should pretend or believe that a prices policy can reduce prices in the way that general economic strategy can do so. It must be the general economic policies which bring down inflation to tolerable levels.

    Price Control Proposals
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will list in the Official Report those organisations which he has directly invited to comment on his new price control proposals.
    Mr. Hattersley: I have written directly to the TUC, CBI, Retail Consortium, Food and Drink Industries Council, National Consumer Council and Price Commission seeking their views on my proposals. My Department has also written to over 250 representative organisations and individuals. With permission, I will circulate details of these in the Official Report. In addition, some 4,000 copies of the consultative document have been issued in response to inquiries.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of hon. Members have been concerned that the representations made by consumer organisations as opposed to those made by producer organisations have not been weighed carefully enough in his Department? What steps is he taking to make sure that the views of, for example, the National Consumer Council are taken properly into account?
    Mr. Hattersley: I shall be consulting the National Consumer Council tomorrow when its representatives come to see me. Their offerings and comments will be treated in exactly the same way as those made at meetings with the CBI and the Retail Consortium last week. The proper importance of the council will be accepted in the discussions and its views will be taken into account.
    Mr. Marten: According to the Minister of Agriculture, the price of butter will increase this year to 72p to 75p a pound.

    27
    Will not that offend against the prices policy? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether British domestic policy or Community policy takes precedence?
    Mr. Hattersley: I really cannot go on answering questions that are not for me. The hon. Member must put down that question to the Minister of Agriculture.
    Following are the details:—
    LIST OF THOSE CONSULTED ON FUTURE PRICES POLICY
    CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT 22.2.77
    By the Secretary of State

    CBI

    TUC

    Retail Consortium

    Price Commission

    National Consumer Council

    Food & Drink Industries Council

    At Official Level

    British Hotel Restaurant and Caterers Association

    Motor Agents Association

    National Association of Holiday Centres

    Kinematograph Renters Society

    Independent Film Distributors

    Scottish Newspaper Proprietors

    Retail Food Confederation

    Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies

    Cinematograph Exhibitors Association

    Association of Independent Cinemas

    Periodical Publishers Association Ltd

    Association of British Launderers and Cleaners Ltd

    Consumer Campaign Committee

    Association of British Chambers of Commerce

    British Importers Confederation

    National Federation of Consumer Groups

    Federation of Wholesale and Industrial Distributors

    Food Manufacturers Federation

    Equipment Leasing Association

    Federation of Manufacturers of Construction Equipment

    Electronic Engineering Association

    Ford Motor Company

    British Independent Steel Producers Association

    National Federation of Builders and Plumbers Merchants

    The Brewers Society

    The Publishers Association

    Cement Makers Federation

    Council of Iron Foundry Association

    Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

    British Paper and Board Industry Federation ICI

    Chemical Industries Association

    The General Electric Co Ltd

    Issuing Houses Association

    Engineering Industries Council

    Road Haulage Association

    Multiple Food & Drink Retailers Association

    The Hundred Group

    Triplex Foundries Group Ltd

    Guest Keen & Nettlefolds Ltd

    28

    British Aluminium Co Ltd

    Bowater Scott Corporation Ltd

    Kimberley Clark Ltd

    National Consumer Protection Council

    Women's National Commission

    Association of Certified Accountants.

    British Chemical Engineering Contractors.

    The Scotch Whisky Association.

    Law Society of Scotland.

    Alcan Aluminium (UK) Ltd.

    British Federation of Hotel, and Guest Houses Association.

    Institute of Cost and Management Accountants.

    Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland.

    British Bankers Association.

    British Plastics Federation.

    British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Association.

    British Mechanical Engineering Confederation.

    Courtaulds Ltd.

    British Textile Employers Association.

    The National Chamber of Trade.

    Process Plant Association.

    National Federation of Engineers and Tool Manufacturers.

    Finance Houses Association.

    Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools.

    National Association of Steel Stockholders.

    Royal Institute of British Architects.

    Royal Town Planning Institute.

    Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

    Bar Council.

    Association of District Councils.

    Scottish Courts Administration.

    The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

    The Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar.

    Faculty of Advocates.

    Wholesale Grocers Association of Scotland.

    Albright and Wilson Ltd.

    The Timber Trade Federation.

    Multiple Tobacconists, Confectioners and Newsagents Group.

    Imperial Group Limited.

    Wholesale Tobacco Trade Association.

    Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain.

    Retail Confectioners Association Ltd.

    Co-operative Union Ltd.

    The Gin Rectifiers and Distillers Association.

    Scottish Grocers Federation.

    National Association of British Wine Producers.

    The Vodka Trade Association.

    Belfast and Ulster Licensed Vintners Association.

    The Federation of Retail Tobacconists.

    National Association of Cider Makers.

    National Federation of Retail Newsagents.

    The Wholesale Wine and Spirit Association of Scotland.

    Independent Wine Merchants Association Ltd.

    Scottish Licensed Trade Association.

    Scottish Tobacco Trade Federation.

    The Law Society.

    British Veterinary Association.

    Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.

    Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland.

    The Association of Consulting Engineers.

    29

    The Faculty of Architects and Surveyors.

    The Landscape Institute (Incorporating the Institute of Landscape Architects).

    The National Association of Estate Agents.

    Glasgow Property Owners and Factors Association Ltd.

    Institute of Registered Architects.

    The Association of Optical Practitioners.

    Guild of British Dispensing Opticians.

    The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.

    The British Medical Association.

    The Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers.

    The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

    National Federation for the Self Employed.

    Bank of England.

    Society of Industrial Artists and Designers.

    The Stock Exchange.

    Chartered Institute of Patent Agents.

    Institute of Actuaries.

    Faculty of Actuaries.

    Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators.

    Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers.

    The General Council of British Shipping.

    Federation of Bakers.

    Leeds Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

    Branded Furniture Society.

    National Television Rental Association Ltd.

    The British Precast Concrete Federation Ltd.

    Bradford Chamber of Commerce Incorporated.

    P & O.

    Metal Box Ltd.

    National Federation of Wholesale Grocers and Provision Merchants.

    Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies.

    Manbre Sugars Ltd.

    Joint Committee of Opthalmic Opticians.

    1972 Industry Group.

    National Association of British Market Authorities.

    Pilkington Brothers Ltd.

    Arthur Anderson and Co.

    Deloitte and Co.

    IBA.

    Committee of London Clearing Banks.

    Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

    The Wholesale Floorcovering Distributors Association.

    British Agrochemicals Association.

    Hire Purchase Trades Association.

    Committee of Scottish Clearing Banks.

    Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association.

    The Society of British Gas Industries.

    British Ports Association.

    National Ports Council.

    British Steel Corporation.

    Association of District Council Treasurers.

    BP Oil Ltd.

    Shell (UK) Ltd.

    Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd.

    Association of British Abattoir Owners.

    Association of Cereals Food Manufacturers Ltd.

    Association of Butter Blenders and Butter and Cheese Packers.

    Association of Fish Meal Manufacturers.

    Association of Malt Products.

    Automatic Vending Association of Great Britain.

    British Soft Drinks Council

    30

    British Sugar Corporation.

    British Sugar Refiners Association.

    British Association of Grain, Seed, Feed and Agricultural Merchants Ltd.

    British Maize Refiners Association.

    British Oatmeal Millers Association.

    British Soluble Coffee Manufacturers Association.

    British Association of Manufacturers of Bakers Yeast.

    British Association of Plant Breeders.

    The Cake and Biscuit Alliance Ltd.

    Cocoa Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance.

    Compound Animal Feedingstuffs Manufacturers National Association.

    Coffee Trade Federation.

    Confederation of Fried Fish Caterers Association.

    Dairy Trade Federation.

    Federation of Oil Seeds and Fats Association.

    Fruit and Vegetable Canners Association.

    Federation of UK Milk Marketing Boards.

    The Grain and Feed Trade Association Ltd.

    Health Food Manufacturers Association.

    Ice Cream Alliance.

    Ice Cream Federation.

    Lard Association.

    Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association.

    The Maltsters Association of Great Britain.

    Margarine and Shortening Manufacturers Association.

    National Association of Master Bakers Confectioners and Caterers.

    National Association of British and Irish Millers Ltd.

    National Association of Perrymakers.

    National Federation of Fish Fryers Ltd.

    National Council of Concentrate Manufacturers.

    National Seed Development Organisation.

    National Association of Creamery Proprietors.

    The Pet Food Manufacturers Association.

    Pre-Packed Flour Association.

    The Raw Fat and Bone Processors.

    Scottish Association of Master Bakers.

    The Scottish Association of Soft Drinks Manufacturers.

    Seed Crushers and Oil Processors Association.

    Tate & Lyle Refiners Ltd.

    Tea Buyers Association.

    Tea Trade Committee.

    The UK Association of Frozen Food Producers.

    Ulster Curers Association.

    Allied Grocery Distributors Ltd.

    British Potato Traders Consortium.

    British Poultry Federation Ltd.

    Cocoa Association of London Ltd.

    The Combined Edible Nut Trade Association.

    Spice Trades Section of the Food Manufacturers Federation.

    British Frozen Food Federation.

    British Association of Canned Food Importers and Distributors.

    Delicatessen and Fine Foods Association.

    Federation of Agricultural Co-Ops UK Ltd.

    Federation of British Port Wholesale Fish Merchants Association.

    31

    Fruit Importers Association.

    Honey Importers and Packers Association.

    Imported Meat Trade Association.

    London Chamber of Commerce Inc.

    Mace Marketing Services Ltd.

    National Association of Health Stores.

    National Dried Fruit Association.

    National Edible Oil Distributors.

    National Egg Packers Association Ltd.

    National Egg Producers and Retailers

    Association.

    National Federation of Fruit and Potato

    Trades Ltd.

    National Union of Licensed Victuallers.

    National Federation of Meat Traders.

    National Food and Drink Federation.

    National Union of Small Shopkeepers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Retail Fruit Trade Federation Ltd.

    Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations.

    Spar (UK) Ltd.

    National Joint Council of British Potato and Vegetable Merchants.

    Wholesale Confectioners Alliance.

    UK Provision Trade Federation.

    National Federation of Fishmongers.

    British Flower Industry Association.

    British Grass Crop Dryers.

    National Federation of Inland Wholesale Fish Merchants.

    Herring Buyers Association Ltd.

    Association of British Salted Fish Curers and Exporters.

    Hotel, Catering & Institutional Management Association.

    Industrial Catering Association.

    Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain.

    Rusk Manufacturers Association.

    Scottish Trade Flour Association.

    UK Flour Importers Trade Association Ltd.

    United Kingdom Rice Millers Association.

    The Bakers Allied Traders Association.

    British Caramel Manufacturers Association.

    British Glucose Manufacturers Association.

    British Modified Starch Manufacturers Association.

    British Starch Importers and Dealers Association.

    British Pearl Barley Millers Association.

    British Association of Feed Supplement Manufacturers Ltd.

    Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association Ltd.

    Ulster Sea Fishermans Association.

    Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

    Ulster Wholesale Grocers Association.

    Northern Ireland Fish Producers and Exporters Association.

    Northern Ireland Master Butchers.

    Northern Ireland Milk Alliance.

    Northern Ireland Retail Fruit Trade.

    Northern Ireland Retail Fish Trade.

    Northern Ireland Bakers Employers Council.

    Northern Ireland Hotels and Caterers Association.

    Irish Wholesale Fruit Merchants Association.

    North of Ireland Grocers Association Ltd.

    North of Ireland Wholesale and Export Meat Association.

    Northern Ireland Poultry Federation.

    Total 278 organisations.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his engagements for 14th March.
  Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his official engagements for 14th March.
  Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list his engagements for 14th March.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his official engagements for 14th March.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): Apart from my duties in this House, I have meetings today with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. Rost: As chief trouble-shooter and the expert on lavish handouts from public funds to the motor industry, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what advice he will give the Government today about British Leyland? Does he recommend another blood transfusion of taxpayers' money or the operating table, or does he intend to sit back and wait for a decent funeral?
  Mr. Lever: I do not know whether the hon. Member was expressing curiosity about British Leyland or whether he was anxious to emit a stream of well-prepared sarcasms. I shall assume that he is curious to have my views about British Leyland. Like all Government Ministers I am greatly concerned about Leyland's problems, but I have nothing whatever to add to what has been said on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
  Mr. Skinner: I get the impression that my right hon. Friend will be finishing up in Birmingham some time later this week as he seems to dabble in most of these matters. Will he go to the Treasury and ask his colleagues there how much money has been lost in taxes as a result of the setting up of the Bank of England lifeboat scheme a few years ago? Will he agree with me as an expert on financial matters

  33
  that the clearing banks and others taking part in this rescue scheme are setting off certain payments under it against tax payments that otherwise would be paid to the Treasury? Would it not be a good idea to publish the exact amounts lost to the Treasury arising out of the scheme?
  Mr. Lever: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is describing himself or me as a financial expert or whether he was referring to both of us. His question implies that he is dissatisfied with the operations of the Bank of England and the joint stock banks under the lifeboat scheme. In fact the scheme was organised by the Bank of England, and its most valuable and important effect has been to stabilise financial considerations in the City of London at a difficult time.
  Mr. David Price: When the Chancellor gives advice to the Government later today on the future of British Leyland, will he take account of the fact that the company is too centralised and too large, and that its factories are too big? While these factors may amount to economies of scale on paper, will he realise that the diseconomies in human terms are absolutely shattering? If British Leyland is to succeed it must be broken down, if not broken up.
  Mr. Lever: I will convey those views to the Secretary of State for Industry. The hon. Member will not expect exhaustive comments from me at the moment, and I hope that he will not be disappointed if his suggestions do not strike the Secretary of State with the shock of novelty.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: May I refer my right hon. Friend to my letter of 9th February 1976 complaining of injustice to one of my constituents, a Mrs. Moyles—a view confirmed in the report of Sir Douglas Osmond? Will he guarantee that the forthcoming report on the actions of the Chief Constable of Lancashire will not be shelved?
  Mr. Lever: This matter and any other matter will receive very careful, earnest and impartial consideration. None of these problems is ever shelved.
  Mr. Tebbit: Has the right hon. Gentleman been thinking today of possible cuts in Government expenditure? If so, as he
  34
  came in before the end of Question Time to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and saw the performance of all the Ministers on the Front Bench today, does he agree that that Department would be a very suitable subject for massive cuts in expenditure? Will he agree that by abolishing the whole lot of them he could achieve considerable expenditure cuts, as they have done nothing to keep prices down and they put up a thoroughly shameful show today?
  Mr. Lever: I certainly do not accept the disparagement of my right hon. and hon. Friends in answering Questions today. The fact that they did not give the hon. Member total satisfaction is not, to my mind, any proof of incompetence. If the hon. Member is searching for significant and valuable economies, he will not find them by abolishing that Department, whose administrative expenses are negligible.
  Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list his official engagements for 8th February.
  Mr. Lever: As well as meetings with my officials I spoke to a Financial Times conference on world banking.
  Mr. Canavan: Did my right hon. Friend tell the conference on banking that the four major clearing banks announced annual profits of about £700 million at the same time as the country was faced with a 17 per cent. rate of inflation and unemployment of 1½ million people, due largely to lack of investment in industry? Is it not time that the Labour Government implemented Labour Party policy by extending public ownership into banking, instead of setting up a "phoney" inquiry under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)?
  Mr. Lever: I gather that my hon. Friend is not satisfied with any impartial inquiry into the banking system. The only inquiry that would satisfy him would be one that guaranteed in advance a result that was palatable to him. I reaffirm, as I have done many times from the Dispatch Box, that it is not Government policy to nationalise the banks. The recommendations of the committee

  35
  remain to be seen. It will be a very thorough and careful inquiry, and if my hon. Friend has any information that is very telling or compelling in the direction that he wishes the Government to go he will have an ample opportunity to submit evidence to the committee of inquiry.
  Mr. Adley: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any time since 8th February to consider the unfortunate situation in which he appears to find himself in his Manchester, Central constituency? It appears that he is the latest Labour Member to suffer a putsch. Will he take comfort from the fact that, even if his new executive does not hold him in great esteem, many hon. Members in this House do, even though we do not always agree with him?
  Mr. Lever: I am grateful for the expression at the end of the hon. Member's remarks. I assure him that there has been no putsch in my constituency, and relations between me and my management committee continue to be warm and cordial even though there are often ideological differences of emphasis on certain points. None of this will detract from the esteem that the hon. Member was generous enough to express. It is shared by people of very different political opinions to his in my constituency, as it can be within the traditions of our political life in this country. I hope that will continue to be the case.
  Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend recall that on 8th February, while he did not explain the Labour Party's policy on public ownership of the banks, I certainly did? The international bankers—and the British bankers for that matter—did not receive the proposals with any enthusiasm. Therefore, there will obviously be a tremendous political fight to get our case over.
  Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in his time has treated certain aspects of party policy as something less sacred than the tablets of the law. Therefore, he will excuse me if I take the official policy of the Labour Party as sometimes not being completely compelling and that I have a right to express a dissident opinion. In regard to the experience, which I shared with him, in addressing the world banking
  36
  conference, it is true that my hon. Friend expressed forthright support for the line of the National Executive, which differs somewhat from Government policy as it stands at present. I did not perceive signs of immediate and urgent alarm on the part of the bankers at my hon. Friend's statement of his opinion. I must confess that I did not see any marked signs of enthusiasm for his proposal. That proposal is, none the less, one that can be debated, argued about and proceeded with or discarded according to the judgment of a wise Government.
  For my part, I fervently hope—and I am confident—that the Government will continue to regard as irrelevant to our purposes the wholesale nationalisation of our clearing banks. But that is a matter for democratic decision, via the normal democratic processes which I am sure my hon. Friend will do his best to shape in the direction of which he approves. I am sure he will not resent it if those with a contrary view fight as vigorously as he does in expressing his view.
  Mr. Costain: In view of the differences between the Government Front and Back Benches on the subject of our democratic processes, will the right hon. Gentleman advise his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to hold a General Election so that the differences will be settled once and for all?
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in supposing that there is any rancour or acrimony between my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and myself. It is possible to have differences of opinion on various items without in any way prejudicing the common agreement and purpose in seeking to improve economic and social conditions in our country. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) would be well advised to spend any surplus energy or emollience he possesses in soothing the interminable back-biting that goes on between Opposition Members. At least Labour has only one leader. The Opposition faces the difficulty of having one official leader and a number of unofficial candidates for the leadership. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he should look after the Conservative Party and let Labour Party Members resolve in discussion their own differences of opinion, wherever those exist.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (MORTGAGE RATES)
Mr. Walter Johnson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the building societies to reduce mortgage interest rates to 4 million people buying their own homes on mortgage".
I regard this matter as urgent and important because the building societies have given no undertaking that they intend to reduce the interest rate, despite the fact that the minimum lending rate was further reduced last Thursday. Therefore, there is no reason at all why the mortgage interest rate should not be reduced by 1¼ per cent.
Such a move would effectively reduce the cost of living for those 4 million people buying their own homes on mortgage. A person who is buying his house on a £10,000 mortgage over a period of 25 years would, if the interest rate were reduced by 1¼ per cent. save £9 a month.
This is a time when all people—we in this House, and those in commerce, industry, trade unions and in the Government—are doing our best effectively to reduce the cost of living. I regard the building societies' attitude as blatant disregard of the national interest, and I think that the matter is urgent enough to be debated immediately in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the building societies to reduce mortgage interest rates to 4 million people buying their own homes on mortgage".
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and have taken into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but the House knows that I am not called upon to give reasons for my decision.
38
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Tinn.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Are there 20 hon. Members on their feet?
Mr. Skinner: There are a lot more than 20.
Mr. Speaker: I am very slow in counting.
Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

LONDON DOCKLANDS (EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
3.35 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Fifth Report from the Expenditure Committee Session 1974 –75 (House of Commons Paper No. 348) on Redevelopment of the London Docklands, and of the relevant Government observations (Command Paper No. 6193).
This inquiry was undertaken by the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones). The Committee interrupted a long inquiry into the new towns and set up a short inquiry into the development of the docklands.
The Committee confined itself to three main issues: the public expenditure implications of redevelopment, the most suitable organisational structure for the purpose, and the implications for regional policy.
The Sub-Committee took evidence between January and March 1975 from all the people with special knowledge and interest in the London Docklands, including the Greater London Council, and the five boroughs particularly concerned. It took evidence from the Dock-lands Joint Committee which co-ordinates the activities of the six local authorities involved. It heard evidence from the Minister for Planning and Local Government, now the Minister of Agriculture, and also from officials of the Department for the Environment.
The Sub-Committee also heard evidence from two former Secretaries of State, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). A number of hon. Members representing docklands constituencies also give evidence, including the present Secretary of State for the Environment, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Therefore, one hopes that, since they take an interest in this matter and since the report contains a number of constructive suggestions, we shall have a short reply from the Minister today to the effect that sums of money will be made available following the Committee's re-
40
commendations and that its suggestions will be acceded to.
Almost all the Members of Parliament representing the area concerned gave evidence, including my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who now occupies the Government Front Bench. Evidence was also taken from R. Travers Morgan and Partners, the PLA, the Docklands Joint Action Group and the South-East Economic Planning Council.
Mr. Robert Mellish: My evidence was the best.
Mr. Boyden: Since we heard so much excellent evidence, my right hon. Friend's claim is a slight exaggeration. All the evidence was of an extremely high order.
Mr. Mellish: I thought my hon. Friend had forgotten to mention me.
Mr. Boyden: I mention with great pleasure the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I hope that he will intervene in this debate.
Mr. Mellish: Yes, I shall—very much so.
Mr. Boyden: The report was published in May 1975 and made these main recommendations: that the Secretary of State should give a firm indication of the amount of financial support he is prepared to give to docklands redevelopment; that planning authorities should be given guidance on priorities for major regional expenditure—that is to say, on the alloction of resources between new towns and the inner cities. We understand that a decision on this matter, and indeed a definitive statement, is fairly near.
I should perhaps declare a vested interest—in fact, two of them in conflict. I have a great sentimental attachment to the docklands because when I was a young man—which was a long time ago—I took a university tutorial class at Toynbee Hall. I grew fond of my students. They were good students, and they believed in putting into practice the matters that they were discussing. Several of them went off to fight in the International Brigade, for the Government side against Franco. Some of them were killed. But their prescience was well demonstrated because, not long after that, others of my students were killed and their

41
homes destroyed in the Fascist bombing that took place in the docklands.
I was sad that, when I went back to Toynbee Hall after the war, practically all the students had gone, for one reason or another, and the whole atmosphere of docklands had suffered a severe blow. I do not mean that the great community spirit, of which I was privileged to be a part, had gone, but there was such physical destruction that it was almost as though the community had to start again.
I did not have much to do with the docklands for many years after that. I used to fly over the area in a helicopter, and it looks better from the air than close up. I also took part, with the Sub-Committee, in a tour connected with this inquiry. I entirely agree with the comment that the Secretary of State has made in another document, in that he was appalled at the waste and dereliction in the heart of our capital city. That is one of the interests that I declare. I am in great sympathy with the people of the area because of the way in which developments have taken so long to get under way.
My other conflicting vested interest is that I have a new town in my constituency and I can make a great argument—as I shall probably have to do—to the Secretary of State that this new town is unique. Most hon. Members believe that their constituency matters are, if not unique, at least rather uncommon, but I hope that any extra money for docklands will not come from this town. I should agree to a small slowing down in development, but I those towns that are to have continued hope that this town is firmly on the list of expansion I am sure that the Minister will agree that this conflict of interest is one that impartial people can solve.
Mr. Mellish: No one is suggesting that money should be taken away from something else. The docklands area is well worth developing and there is no doubt that extra resources will have to be found. There has been a misnomer. Figures have been talked about by the Committee, and £2,000 million has been bandied about, but no one is suggesting that that money will be spent overnight. It will be spent over many years. Let us not get this out of proportion, because such an argument can continue and nothing will ever be done—not that we are doing much now.
Mr. Boyden: I am not trying to push the argument into that course. But I am sympathetic to the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and I hope that he will be sympathetic to mine.
The third recommendation is that the costs and benefits of surface alternatives to the proposed Tube line, the River Line, should be re-examined. The Dock-lands Joint Committee should continue to be responsible for redevelopment plans for the time being but it should be strengthened by the co-option of more members. The land acquisition disposal functions of the parent authorities under the Community Land Act should be delegated to the Joint Committee in respect of the docklands area. The Secretary of State has made a Press announcement, saying that he is in the process of considering setting up a joint land board to deal with this. Perhaps the Minister can give us some firm information about that proposal.
Another Committee recommendation is that retraining facilities for employment should be provided on a large scale. Again, a fair amount is already going on. Better bus and rail services should be provided as an immediate improvement, at a relatively small cost, to improve access to employment.
The Secretary of State replied to the Committee's recommendation and report in a reasonable time. It took him only three months and that compares favourably with the time that is taken by many other Secretaries of State. In August 1975 he accepted the Committee's recommendations generally. The last sentence of the Government White Paper read:
"Within the limits of the resources at its disposal, the Government will do all it can to help the redevelopment of Docklands to go forward with all speed."
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey agrees with that. In April 1976 the Joint Committee published "The Strategic Plan for London Docklands"—to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey referred—which envisaged the spending of £2,000 million over the following 15 years. After a short period of consultation, the plan was approved in July 1976. In August 1976 the Secretary of State announced his support for the Committee's proposals but was unable to promise

43
any additional resources. From time to time, the Expenditure Committee as a whole, and several of its Sub-Committees, have made fairly serious criticisms and strictures about the way in which successive Governments—and this is not a party point—have dealt with the economy and the financial contribution that afflict us most of the time. A committee investigating hospital buildings said that quick cuts damaged value for money. Other committees have said that such cuts are extremely damaging to the construction industry.
Here, I declare another interest, because I have a long-standing connection with the construction industry. There is no question but that of all the industries in this country that are going through great difficulties, the construction industry is having the greatest difficulties. It cannot work with stop-go—and mostly there has been stop. If all the recommendations of the Committee—that have been agreed in principle by the Secretary of State—were carried forward with more drive and supported by money, not only would great social advantages be derived in the docklands areas but there would also be great relief and help for the construction industry.
The main point made by the Expenditure Committee—and I am sure that this will come up again during the expenditure debate on Thursday—was that the cutting of capital expenditure as compared with current expenditure is bad for the docklands and particularly bad for the construction industry. I do not think that those of us who have perhaps rather idealistic ideas about the types of buildings that we want for schools, hospitals, houses or whatever, and who want much more activity in building, will ever achieve those ideas until all Governments—and the civil servants who advise them—come to the settled conclusion that there must be a steady development of building and a slowly rising market. But this development, if it is at all possible—and perhaps we need a building Keynes—should be much more sheltered from the effects of economic strictures and difficulties. The effect of the present expenditure plan is that capital expenditure will be cut by 18 per cent. while current expenditure will rise by about 1 per cent. during the next two years.
44
So much by way of introduction. I should like to thank Members of the Sub-Committee because this has been an extremely hard working Sub-Committee. We were most grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry, who chaired the Sub-Committee. Its report was completed in good time. Yet did not cut any corners. It has done what I have set out to do as Chairman of the Committee—to improve relations between the Committee and the Departments—with which it is particularly concerned. There is no intention to make the Committee the lackey of the Department, but rather to keep at them and to develop and keep the subjects is which the Committee is interested moving in the right direction.
We say some severe things at times and there is sometimes acrimony between Ministers and the Committee, but generally, the Committee cannot function unless there is confidence between the Secretary of State, Permanent Secretaries and civil servants in the work of the Committee and in building up their evidence. If a Secretary of State digs in his heels and refuses to give evidence, or gives only muted evidence, there may be a row in the House, but nothing will come of it.
Despite what has been written in The Guardian, I have been pleased at the way in which, with rather limited resources, the committees have been able to build up good relations over a wide area. I may have something more to say about that in the next debate.
It is wrong to minimise the effort and results of the Expenditure Committee, which does not imitate the lavishness and careerism rampant in American Congressional committees that produce reports which are no better than those of ours.
3.52 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for the kind things that he said about the work of our Committee and I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will wish to add their thanks. It is reassuring to note that the Sub-Committee has played some part in the overall objectives set by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for the Expenditure Committee as a whole. We hope to continue to play a part in our future inquiries.

45
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has set the wide scene of the debate, not only in terms of the Sub-Committee's recommendations but on the broader scene of the current economic situation. I shall be touching on some of these issues later. I am glad that the hon. Member mentioned the evidence of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). It was characteristically lively and he brought to our deliberations a great wealth of experience. The right hon. Gentleman need not be apprehensive about those of his remarks that I am about to quote. It was characteristic when he said:
"Therefore, I am talking very much from the heart and, I hope, with a bit of brain too."
May I add that he spoke with more than a grain of common sense as well.
The right hon. Gentleman also said
"here is a dramatic chance for a redevelopment of the area, not just for the people I have the privilege to represent but a chance for London, which I think is the greatest city in the world".
Many of us would join the right hon. Gentleman in that comment. I hope that the Committee responded to the right hon. Gentleman when he said, a little teasingly:
"With the knowledge that what I am about to say will probably be read by those interested I had better watch my words."
I am glad to say that he did not watch them too carefully and, in giving evidence, he gave us a thoroughly enjoyable hour or two.
The Fifth Report of the Expenditure Committee arises from evidence taken during the early months of 1975 and is contained in House of Commons Paper No. 348 which was published on 28th April. It was followed by the Government's observations in Cmnd. 6193 in August. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we were grateful to have such a prompt response to our recommendations and the observations contained in our inquiry.
The Committee was fortunate to have as its special adviser Mr. David Starkie, a university lecturer at Reading University. We just got our report out in time before he went on secondment to Perth to advise on highway problems in that part of Australia. He was away for about 18 months and has now returned. I am in
46
touch with him again and I hope that he will be able to help us with subsequent inquiries. The Committee undertook its inquiry in the context of the rising concern, both in London and elsewhere, about the increasing dereliction of the docklands area, which comprises 5,500 acres lying immediately beyond Tower Bridge on both banks of the river, extending as far down stream as Barking Creek.
It is common knowledge that the redevelopment had been considered during the Conservative Administration of 1970–74 and we were able to take the views of both my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and his successor as Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). The right hon. Member for Worcester in May 1971 commissioned the Docklands Report prepared by Messrs. R. Travers Morgan and Partners which was submitted early in January 1973—a commendable sense of urgency on the part of all concerned. It is well known that all five of the suggested alternative developments were rejected by the GLC and the five London boroughs involved with the docklands area.
The strategic plan published for consultation by the Docklands Joint Committee, which was established in January 1974, was published in March two years later—some five years after the initial initiative of the Conservative Administration of 1971. There is, I understand, little to see as yet by way of development and construction work.
The Docklands Development Team reported this month that the loss of the international trade mark at Southwark posed by the American company Messrs. Trammel Crow, which has deferred its plans for development, has been a considerable setback.
Since the summer of 1975, a total of 72 development applications have been approved, with 29 being deferred or refused. In round terms, approvals have been given for 980,000 sq. ft. of industrial and commercial use, 45,000 sq. ft. for offices and 20 acres for residential development. About 1,100 local authorities dwellings are now under construction or due to start shortly and planning is well advanced for other sites which should yield 1,400 dwellings.

47
In reply to inquiries, no indication is forthcoming of actual construction work, either in terms of a statement of completions or work under construction.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is quoting from something? He may be interested to know that more than 100 dwellings are under construction in my constituency, which represents half the docklands area.
Mr. Jones: I do not doubt that they are under construction. My information comes directly from the report of the Docklands Joint Committee and I do not think that I am underestimating what it has done. We have had no statement from the Docklands Joint Committee, in response to inquiries, about completions or work under construction. I am choosing my words carefully.
St. Katherine's Docks and the London Docks were closed in 1968 and the Surrey Commercial was closed in 1960. Messrs. Taylor Woodrow is to be congratulated on its development at the former St. Katherine's Docks. It is an imaginative concept executed to an excellent standard, both in design and workmanship, on a site made available by the GLC.
In commenting upon the present situation after a decade of procrastination, I do so, of course, in terms of my own judgment and I do not speak for my colleagues on the Committee. What I have to say is advisedly in the context of what has been achieved so far—so little in fact—and pays no regard to the optimism which has been a continuing theme down the years from those in charge of this vast undertaking. That is an optimism which in my view is incapable of fulfilment under the existing arrangements and in the present economic climate, unless new principles are accepted.
Commenting on the Sub-Committee's report, the Government say in paragraph 3:
"The redevelopment of the London Dock-lands is, of its kind, the greatest challenge of our time, Docklands covers 84 square miles, and is the largest area in London available for redevelopment since the Great Fire over 300 years ago. It is the largest urban area for redevelopment in Europe."
Paragraph 4 goes on to say:
"Although the timescale for the operation, and the cost remain to be worked out, there
48
is no doubt, even now, that both will be very substantial."
That is what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland emphasised.
In a report which appeared in The Times of 6th April last year, Mr. Percy Bell, the Chairman of the Docklands Joint Committee, is quoted as saying:
"We consider that the money can be found to do it, but it is not the committee's money, it is other people's, and they must take the decisions."
By that I think he meant the GLC and the five London boroughs, although it may involve other people including the Government.
Sir Reginald Goodwin, the Leader of the GLC it is said, refused, on the previous day, to consider the alternative strategy for the redevelopment of dock-lands and, when referring to transport facilities including those in London Docklands and Thamesmead, is quoted as saying:
"I am not so pessimistic as to accept that the Government will not accept its transport responsibilities. We are waiting for the final document on transport strategy, which I understand is likely to appear next June, and I am optimistic that it will conclude that the Fleet Line is in the national interest."
More recently in the Evening News of 4th March, Mr. Horace Cutler, the Conservative Leader of the GLC, is reported as saying that County Hall should begin work on the £200 million Fleet River Underground line. He will know that when the Department of the Environment representatives, where giving evidence to the Committee, in answer to Question 184 Mr. F. J. Ward, Under-Secretary, London Directorate, told us that the Strand to Fenchurch Street line—of which the new line is an extension—is particularly expensive. It will cost £50 million for 2 ½ miles of Tube.
Mr. Ward told the Sub-Committee:
"… in terms of total public benefit it comes out with a ratio of benefits to cost of about 0·3 to 1 for that 2 ½ mile section. That means crudely that you spend £50 million on 2 ½ miles of tube and at the end of the day you have a public asset worth £17 ½ million. The following stage from Fenchurch Street as currently being favoured through the Surrey Docks, the Isle of Dogs and Silvertown to Woolwich and Thamesmead is still at the provisional suggestion stage. I do not think that the line has been fully investigated yet."
He concluded:
"Before one commits an act of faith of this sort one needs to see the hard figuring carried a stage further."

49
The vast resources required to meet the plans apparently laid down by the GLC and the five London boroughs must bring in question how provision is to be made. At the opening of our inquiry—in reply to the initial question—Sir Reginald Goodwin said:
"We, as elected members, were quite convinced that given the will to work together, and given the measure of support that Government would give to a body of its own creation we could achieve as good, if not better, results."
That seems to imply that London is prepared to go it alone but that surely cannot be a realistic appraisal.
Considerable central Government funds will be required and, indeed, should be forthcoming in order to fulfil the high expectations of Londoners. All of us who live in the South-East, and, indeed, the nation, want to enjoy a sense of pride in the nation's capital and to raise from the present desolation an achievement for posterity of which we can all be proud.
This vast venture cannot be seen in the context of a parochial outlook which I fear is in evidence in the reply given by Sir Reginald Goodwin to Question 19 in our inquiry. He was asked:
"Are we driven into a situation in which each area of docklands is to be considered in relation to the borough in which it lies?"
He replied:
"Yes, I think so."
The excellent record of the administrative instrument—the development corporation—particularly in new town development and in expanded towns is well documented and acknowledged. Their introduction was on an agreed basis between the Government and the respective planning authority with representation by locally-elected members a common feature. Government funds totalling up to £2,250 million have been made available in the post-war years.
The idea of a development corporation was rejected by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement and Press release on 5th August last year when he said:
"We must all acknowledge present financial stringencies, and the fact that any shift of resources must be offset against expenditure in other areas."
If that were true seven months ago, how much more immediate and restrictive are Government policies today. Some sacred cows are even being sacrificed.
50
The emphasis by the Government, reflected in recent speeches by the Secretary of State, is now clearly on the rehabilitation of the disaster areas which post-war development has imposed on some of our inner cities. The social conditions in many places are a thorough disgrace, and in my judgment the major responsibility for those circumstances lies with the local authorities.
They should have recognised from the outset that new town development and the extension of their urban areas into green-field sites would inescapably lead to the rotting of the core of their cities. Clearly they should have ensured that the cost of redevelopment elsewhere should have had regard to the necessity of funding the inner redevelopment. That is the total cost of an exercise in the movement of population, and almost without exception it has gone by default.
In the case of London, population, industry and office development have been encouraged to move to the new towns. The serious position which has resulted is now recognised and belatedly steps are sought to redress the balance. We are faced with a situation in which vast assets have been created elsewhere at the expense of inner London. We should now be looking for a solution which has regard to the benefits, financial and otherwise, which have accrued in the new towns at the expense of job opportunity and environmental considerations in inner London. We should now be looking for "a shift of resources", to use the Secretary of State's phrase.
In terms of the vast assets created in the London ring of new towns—eight in all—according to a recent issue of The Journal, published by the Town and Country Planning Association, over 31 million sq ft of industrial floor space has been completed since their designation, in each case, up to 31st December last. In Corby, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Peterborough a further 10·9 million sq ft has been constructed, to which should be added 7 million sq ft of office accommodation and 7·5 million sq ft of shopping space.
Most of the new towns are thriving with prosperous communities living in a pleasing and socially rewarding environment, in contrast to so much of inner London and other cities. After allowing for infrastructure expenditure the asset

51
value in the great majority of cases is far in excess of the capital sum expended. It would be interesting to see an exercise undertaken with a view to providing an estimate of the current market value of the assets that are so far in excess, in the majority of cases, of historic values and which should be realised over a sensible period of years by sales to occupiers and institutional investors using the New Towns Commission as the vehicle.
The proceeds should be utilised for inner city renewal and redevelopment to make standards there acceptable in terms of job opportunity and living conditions, particularly for existing communities. I suggest that a policy on those lines could provide a means by which funds for redevelopment could be made available to London Docklands within the financial constraints that will be with us for the foreseeable future. I am suggesting a rollover of assets that would enable resources to be reused on schemes for which resources would not otherwise be available.
In two of the Sub-Committee's recommendations it is suggested that the Department of the Environment should, where a significant Government commitment may be involved, give firm guidance at an early stage about the possible range and/or phasing of public expenditure.
Paragraph 31 recommends that the Department of the Environment should give specific guidance on the level of public expenditure commitment for dockland and that the Government should state their intentions on the question of providing financial support. That statement is well overdue. I understand the dilemma which faces the Government, but let us look for alternatives. Surely that is what we are seeking to do.
The Government's response to these recommendations deals with the eligibility for normal forms of Government financial support for transport, housing and other purposes, and it goes on to say that there are
"no plans for special forms of support over and above these."
So when it says that central Government funds will be available, that is not supported in the response to the recommendations of the Sub-Committee's inquiry. Assurance is given, however, that the
52
"Department is prepared to discuss with the authorities concerned the pace at which resources are likely to be available."
I particularly took note of the point by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that capital expenditure for the two subsequent years is 18 per cent. down on the figures for the current year. How in that context can we see any prospect of resources coming from central Government funds for the redevelopment of docklands? When the hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties of the building industry I saw the Minister nod his head in agreement. But it is the Government's policy that is leading to difficulties for the industry. The Government are refusing to cut current expenditure and are crucifying the building industry as well as the whole of investment policy in Britain by not agreeing to substitute a reduction in current expenditure so as to maintain a level of capital expenditure in the two years ahead. When we hear therefore that the
"Department is prepared to discuss with the authorities concerned the pace at which resources are likely to be available",
that is just pie in the sky, and everyone knows that to be the case. It is statements such as that which illustrate the continuing uncertainty of resources available for the docklands area and emphasise the absolute necessity for an overall plan under which the resources would be assured.
How can the fulfilment of this vital and necessarily urgent redevelopment be contemplated against the background of a decade of delay and the inadequacy of resources at the disposal of the GLC and the five London boroughs? I hope that the whole question will be reconsidered on the basis of the realities to which I have tried to give emphasis.
4.13 p.m.
Mr. Robert Mellish: I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and the members of his Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee who have worked so hard to produce this report. I understand that they held 16 meetings and that they visited the docks area, taking masses of evidence. It is no easy task to compile all those facts into this very readable report. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and

53
his colleagues on their first-class scholarship.
It is said quite rightly that democracy is the finest system of government in the world. I do not quarrel with that, but I am getting fed up with being a democrat. Democracy provides an excuse for some people to do nothing for ages and ages. This debate is not the first on the subject of the docklands. I have forgotten how many times we have discussed it in some form or other.
When I was the Opposition Chief Whip—and a very good democratic Chief Whip I was—I was allowed to break precedent. My right hon. Friend then the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), allowed me to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box in a debate on London docklands. I said then—I think it was the first time it had been said at that stage—that I firmly believed in the establishment of a body like a development corporation in order to deal with this vast area.
It is as well to put on the record the enormity of this area. We are talking about eight and a half square miles, or 5,000 acres, of mostly derelict land which is now to be redeveloped. I would have thought that there was a very good case for establishing a development corporation. It would have finance from the Government and its membership would consist of representatives from evey local authority.
No one is or has been keener than I on local participation, but the idea that this corporation should be an abstract body consisting of strange people who knew nothing of London was never in our minds. However, the body was not to be established.
I wrote on the subject to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), calling his attention to this enormous derelict area. I said that something should be done reasonably quickly. He responded in what I regarded as a truly tremendous way. I still have the letter which he wrote back, thanking me, saying he agreed, and that he had instructed the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who was then a Secretary of State, to do something about the matter.
54
The right hon. Member for Worcester then established what afterwards became known as the Travers Committee. It took about two years to develop schemes which were all finally thrown away. I make no complaint about that. I do not believe that this argument should be conducted on a party political basis. We could have a lot of fun in that way, but that would be the wrong approach. We should not be trying to score cheap points when we have a chance such as this, a chance which we are missing badly.
Is this debate today to be a charade? Are we to go over the same ground again? Are we all to repeat that this is a wonderful chance, that it is the greatest opportunity ever known in our history, that this is where we could build the London of tomorrow, that this is a great chance and we must grasp it, a chance that no other country has? Are we to say once more that the River Thames is empty of traffic and that we must make the most of that? Are we to go through all that again and then be told that the Government are still considering the matter and that no statement of policy is to be made?
I am a very patient democrat, but if that happens it will show why I am getting fed up with democracy. Sometimes I think that I should have been made a benevolent dictator. You would have made a very good Parliamentary Secretary for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Only on condition that I was the senior partner.
Mr. Mellish: With your tenacity I have no doubt that that would have been arranged as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would certainly have made you my number one head man.
When I broke precedent and spoke from the Opposition Front Bench as Chief Whip I saw that a development corporation was the only way to get the scheme off the ground and secure Government involvement. It was not to be. The St. Katherine's Docks fell empty in 1968. My part of the area fell empty in 1970. Here we are seven years later still debating and having our arguments.
When I went before the Sub-Committee we had reached the stage at which we had to start getting some results, and that was why I bowed to the inevitable. There

55
is now the Docklands Joint Committee. Let it now work and let us give it some real teeth, some genuine power. The comimttee has worked hard. It is made up of good men who have tried very hard to produce what is in many ways an admirable strategic plan.
The intriguing factor is that the passage of time makes evidence false. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has not been a Minister for very long. I have had more experience on the Front Bench than he has, and I have lived with civil servants for a long time. I have great respect for them as a body, because they do a first-class job. But it must be understood that often they will give advice—particularly on planning matters—that proves to be a disaster in later years. I have suffered from that.
Let us look at the evidence that the civil servants gave. But to whom was it given? To the very Committee whose report we are now discussing. What did these bright characters say only two years ago? They said that they could not support the suggestion that the principle of industrial development certificates should be revoked, because they claimed that London was still in a very fortunate position with an average unemployment rate of only 3½ per cent.. All this is there in the evidence to the Committee. I had intended to sort out the relevant parts, but the information is there for anyone interested.
Unfortunately, London is no longer in that sort of position. The planners were wrong then and today's events have proved them wrong. That is the trouble. We have listened to too many stupid planners and theorists. All of us, both Labour and Conservative, have run London down as a result of taking their advice.
They said that London was bloated and had too much in the way of industry and resources and that it had to be reduced. As a result we now have a unique situation. The Secretary of State for the Environment, the lord and master of the planners, now has an unemployment rate of 14 per cent. Is there any civil servant now who would have the nerve to go before a Sub-Committee and argue that the unemployment situation in London did not justify special treatment?
56
That is what they said in 1975, but they would not say it today.
I should like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who spoke about his little old new town and said "Whatever you do in London, do not affect us". My answer is that London is in special need today, and those of us who represent London will keep on saying so loud and clear. We have no vast resources to give to places elsewhere—we have already done that. No one can accuse London of being mean or ungenerous to our friends in the North, in Scotland and elsewhere. The whole story is one of a continual running down of London.
Mr. Boyden: I can bear my right hon. Friend out on that, no doubt to his great surprise. I have been to numerous meetings with London people on this issue. Over the years they have been very generous to the North.
Mr. Mellish: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was stupid enough to take the advice of the civil servants. Every time I think about it, I wish I could turn the clock back. I went on my bended knees to 700 constituents and begged them to leave my borough. How stupid can a person get? I do not suppose I shall ever be a Minister again, but if I ever am, the last people from whom I shall take advice will be my so-called planners. Instead I shall use what the Almighty gave me—a fair amount of common sense and acumen. If one does things on a theoretical planning basis, one can make many mistakes.
The Minister who is to reply to the debate will recall a speech that he made when he was a humble Back Bencher, as I am now. I hope that he is using his own evidence today. He ought to be careful about the advice he receives from his civil servants. As a Back Bencher my hon. Friend rightly spoke out loud and clear for London. He was worried about his own borough of Greenwich. He was worried sick about the borough and its unemployment prospects. He saw the writing on the wall and said so, making his views abundantly clear. Since then, the problems have got worse, not better. I return to the basic statement of the case. If we are to have just another debate and to hear again everything that has been said before and we are then to

57
be told at the end that this is all very well, but the Government are not promising any action, this debate will be a charade and a waste of time.
I turn now to the subject of the Dockland Joint Committee. I screamed my head off in the past about wanting a development corporation, but I lost out. That is what happens once the old parochial politics gets going. Perhaps I should have carried on fighting, but I got out of the way and stayed out of the argument.
I told the House at that time that of course I knew I was getting parochial. I have moved away from my old ideas. I know that I should be concerned and worried sick about the constituency of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Members who represent the borough of Newham.
I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Worcester has joined us. I was saying some nice things about him, so he need not worry.
I know that I should care, but in fact I do not care what happens in Newham. I am concerned only with what happens in Bermondsey and Southwark, which contain about 540 acres of dockland, about one-tenth of the whole dockland area. But so far nothing has been built. We have acquired 134 acres, comprising 114 acres for housing and open space and so on, and 20 acres for industry. In that riverside area we own 1,200 existing homes.
Looking at the history of that area, we can see that that was a planners' mistake of yesteryear. This part of the constituency is called Downtown and is separated from the rest of the constituency by swing bridges and appalling traffic problems. Everyone who lives there is referred to as a Downtowner. In the 1920s Dr. Alfred Salter, a very great man who was a Member of Parliament, because local authority powers of acquisition were very limited and this area had been flooded when the River Thames swept over a small wall—later the authorities built a very large wall—promoted a private Bill to acquire the land. He built council flats, which at the time were a joy to behold. People came from all over Europe to see them. These council flats had separate toilets and bathrooms,
58
kitchens and the rest, and they are still very good flats.
But it was a terrible mistake to build them there. They should never have been built in that location. They are right on the river front near to lead mills, oil refineries and companies dealing with the disposal of dust and dirt. Everyone said when the flats were built that this did not matter, but it was a planning disaster and I do not think that I have ever held a surgery without one or two Down-towners complaining about the problems with which they are living.
I have seen the strategic plans for the area. The local strategic plan was to sweep away these homes and start again. I do not want to get rid of the lead mills or the refineries or the companies that dispose of dust and dirt. They are an essential and integral part of industry, and it is right that they should be isolated to do their jobs.
Another thing that the local authority did in the remit of the joint council was to acquire 134 acres for the Trammell Crow International Trade Mart. I never went there and never took any interest in the matter. Some people went off to Texas and were convinced that it was a good thing. I was not concerned about who actually went, but whether they would make any noise and whether they would be successful, and whether they would attract the sort of industries that ought to be there.
I understand that there was a possibility of the firm of Trammell Crow moving there, but this has been held up because the Americans who own the Company are not satisfied with the economic climate in Great Britain at the moment. I also understand that we are negotiating with the Port of London Authority for a further 90 acres.
There can be no doubt that the Dock-lands Joint Committee has been working to acquire land. Much land is now within its grasp. Do no let it be said that the committee does not have the land. In 1970 I said that the problem was to acquire land at a price that people could afford to pay, but my local authority now has the land.
We went in for a massive extension of public consultation—as I said earlier, I am getting fed up with democracy. I

59
went to a few meetings. The first meeting that I attended was told that we would have a great marina. I told the packed audience that I was not opposed to a marina, but I had been running surgeries in a constituency for 25 years and every point of view had been raised, but there had never been a complaint that people could not moor their boats. So we dropped the idea of the marina.
After that, I was more confirmed than ever in the view that we should have a development corporation. However, the idea of the marina arose so many years ago that I had almost forgotten about it and remembered it as I was speaking.
We had a public consultation exercise. We now have the strategic plan. As I understand it, much of the land is now owned by the local authority. I have seen details of the type of housing that the local authority would put on the 134 acres. I am impressed to this extent: the housing would certainly conform to what I have always dreamed of for this area. I do not want people, long after I am dead and forgotten, coming down the river in boats, looking at the area and saying "Local authority housing". Let us cut out that possibility.
Let us have houses with small gardens, houses painted in different colours. We do not want houses in the old council house brick style, so that a person who has opened one council house door has opened every council house door, so to speak. Let us have houses with roofs of different colours. Let us have gaiety and colour. After all, gaiety and colour do not cost much, pore money than drab housing. Let us not have council housing per se. Let us have imagination and houses built of such style and quality that people will really want to live in them. The strategic plan has convinced me that the local authority really has something of this kind in mind.
I am excited by another detail of this scheme. It may be only a pipe-dream, but I like people who have dreams. There was a suggestion that a shopping precinct would be built in my area and that it would be accessible by boat. That is not so daft. Why should not people in the locality use boats if they want to use them? It sounds fun. Of course, the precinct could also be reached by
60
roads designed and built. Why should not this be so?
Would it not be tremendously exciting if Londoners were able to use the river? Most of us in Bermondsey never saw anything of the river unless we worked in the docks. After all, the industry and the area were built for the Industrial Revolution. However, there is hope in these proposals.
I come now to the crunch. I have read very carefully the evidence given by the right hon. Member for Worcester two years ago and I fully agree with it. He said that there should be a development corporation. The right hon. Gentleman said—I fully endorse his evidence—that without a development corporation it would not be possible to have the type of schemes that my local authority wants, that the GLC wants and that, for example, Mr. Cutler wants. Incidentally, it is too early for Mr. Cutler to start playing party politics yet. There is another month before the GLC elections. We shall deal with that bright character when we get round to him. The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be a development corporation and that the solution was an injection of capital from the Government and guarantees of future capital from the Government.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will get involved in an argument about the transport plan. Mr. Freddie Ward gave a ratio of 0·3 to 1. How I love figures such as that. If I had been there when he said that, I would have given him "0·3", because it is rubbish.
London's Underground system virtually stopped dead at the end of the Victorian era. There has been little building since. It is a disgrace that there are vast areas of Lewisham, Beckenham and Catford with not one Tube station in sight. What experience of Tube stations have the constituents of my hon. Friend the Minister unless they come up this end? If they stay down where they are, they will never see one. The present situation is a scandal.
We want a River Line. To get it we need a firm guarantee from the Government that the money will be found in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is worried sick, but nobody is suggesting that the £2,000

61
million, or whatever amount is likely to be spent—these are only rounded figures—is to be spent immediately; it is to be spent over a period of 20 years.
It is absolutely essential that the Labour Government—or, if the Tories get in, a Tory Government—say to the Docklands Joint Committee "We will underwrite the transport system and find money for this year alone so that a number of essential works can be started." I am advised that if that were done a great movement would take place and that much more would be done.
If my hon. Friend the Minister denies that, he will have to spell it out and tell me what the local authorities can and should do which they are not now doing. I do not come to the House and attack the Government without being aware that at the local level I could make attacks if I wanted to.
Let us have a clear statement from the Government. If we can have an assurance that the Government of the day, conscious, as they must be, of the great chance that lies before us—there is no need to get too emotional about it again—will underwrite the transport proposals—the River Line—and be behind the Docklands Joint Committee, just as if it had been a development board, that will give these people the chance to do the job.
I come to a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and I speak with a difference of emphasis. A short time ago we attended a meeting of the South-East Economic Planning Council. I was very impressed. The Committee is composed of very able members under the chairmanship of Lord Porchester. The Committee questioned my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). They were in agreement with our sentiments when they said to us "We are the South-East Region. If there is to be a major contribution from our region to the docklands"—in other words, with a smaller amount of resources going to other parts of the region so that more resources could be found for the docklands—" we want an assurance that the body which will be running the docklands will be efficient and will be able to attract industry in its own right"—which development corporations always could and did.
62
I hope that the Minister will deal with this aspect of the subject. The Dock-lands Joint Committee must be a body with sufficient authority and prestige to be able to attract industry. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, it must be able to tell industry that it can have premises in the dock-lands at cheap rents. Why should not that happen? Why should people be able to go to Bishop Auckland at cheap rents? Why should not we have a preference now? Some of us now have 14 per cent. unemployment in our areas.
What is needed above all else is an injection not only of capital from the Government but of confidence from the Government that this scheme will now be started, that it will gather speed quickly, and that eventually we shall have the type of development of which we can all justly be proud.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: It has become fashionable for ex-Ministers of all Governments to admit that their records while they were Ministers were less than perfect. The cries of "mea culpa" rend the air. But no one lays the lash upon his own back with so much relish as does the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
If I may say so, the lash is well deserved. I think that he was Minister of Public Buildings and Works in those heady days in 1964 to 1965, when the Government actually introduced office development permits to drive office jobs out of London, because that was then the fashion. We were all persuaded to believe that there was an enormous concentration of work in central London and that we would have to push out work. Following the census in the mid-1960s and again in 1971 it became evident that London was declining and that job opportunities were declining at an increasingly rapid rate. In London industrial jobs are now declining at seven times the national average and office jobs at nine times the national average.
I was not a member of the Select Committee and I do not represent a dockland constituency, but no one who represents a constituency in inner London can fail to be concerned about the fate of this enormous area in inner London—eightand-a-half square miles, or 5,000 acres—which has been described as the largest

63
development site within a city in the whole world.
As I read through the Select Committee's report over the weekend I sensed that its flavour was almost historic. It was an out-of-date document. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey has reminded us that it referred to unemployment rates of 3½ per cent. and 4 per cent. There was an air of optimism running through it that something was going to happen, that we were on the threshold of some great change.
The Government went even further than the Select Committee, because in their conclusion on the Committee's report they said:
"The redevelopment of dockland will take at least 15 years to complete."
That was probably the high point of complacency of this Government. In August 1975 they said that the whole redevelopment of these 5,000 acres would take a mere 15 years to complete, yet now, two years later, work has not even started, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey reminds us.
If we look at some of the other things the Government have said we begin to see why. In paragraph 8 they say:
"The Government is already taking steps to bring local authorities more into its forward planning of public expenditure."
That was the prelude virtually to telling the local authorities, in the words of Tony Crosland, "The party is over", and that is really what the debate is all about.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bermondsey said about the Dock-lands Joint Committee. There were high hopes of it, but these hopes were all misfounded. I am afraid that dockland has become something of a political football. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) tried to do something about it, and he set the whole thing in motion. He tried to do what any senior Minister would do to get the ball rolling as quickly as possible, and he got the report quickly—indeed, I think that it was while he was still holding the post of Secretary of State for the Environment. As former Ministers will know, it is rare for that sort of thing to happen so quickly.
After the change in power at the GLC, the report was quietly put on one side.
64
The five alternatives put forward were rejected by the London boroughs and the GLC. There was a great deal of political motivation and bias in that.
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself, but I do not think that the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was very impressed with the report either.
Mr. Baker: I suspect that if my right hon. Friend had still been responsible in 1974 and 1975, something would have happened in the development of dockland because he was determined to get a proposal off the ground. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's strictures about the delays of democracy and the attitudes of planners have a lot to answer for in the decline of the inner city and central London.
But I believe that a sturdy realism should now dominate this debate. The figures for the redevelopment of dockland are somewhere between £1,000 million and £2,000 million over the long period. I do not believe that any Government of any complexion will find that sort of money for the development of dockland over the next decade. I say that because other hon. Members representing other parts of the country will demand their share of what is going around, and they will say "Why should London get more? It is still a very prosperous city."
They will overlook the fact that unemployment in Tower Hamlets is 14 per cent. and that London is not one huge champagne belt where the lucky and idle rich live. They will overlook the deprivation and the fact that jobs are being lost in London at a great rate. But they will also point out that in spite of this London none the less still accounts for half of the nation's transport subsidies and one-third of the nation's housing subsidies. By those standards those of us who represent London must accept that we shall not receive a disproportionate share of the nation's resources even if it is to develop something which obviously needs development, such as dockland.
Mr. Spearing: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a possible way of doing this without affecting the development areas, namely, by transferring the expenditure plans for the South-East of England, which are in the Government's

65
plans, to the inner areas of London, particularly dockland? That would not require any further expenditure and would not prejudice the health of any development areas.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is looking for too simple a solution. It is simply not possible, with all the complexities and conflicting interests of local authorities in the South-East of England, to say that we shall not be developing any other parts of the South-East, that it will all take place in Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, or Bermondsey. The Secretary of State for the Environment does not have adequate powers to enforce that. However, I shall deal with that point more fully when I make some suggestions later.
I was saying that I did not believe it was realistic to think that these sums of money will be made available in the course of the next 10 years or so despite the crying need of these areas. But what should be done? First, one of the principles to which we should try to stick in the redevelopment of dockland is that it should be a mixed development for social and cash reasons. I shall deal first with the social reasons.
The first constituency I fought in 1964 was Poplar. I became very familiar with that part of dockland, including the Isle of Dogs, Bow and Poplar. It was quite clear to me then that that was a one-stratum society, and now all the demographers and the Socialists prove this to be so. They can show that only one in 20 of the people in that area live in owner-occupied houses and only 4 per cent. of those working in that area have A-levels. That is totally uncharacteristic of the rest of London. The sort of groups that are necessary in any society—the teachers, the senior local government officials—have almost abandoned living in this area. To be brutally frank, they commute, and this was the trend in 1964.
I believe that the area of one-stratum society in the East End is about as representative of British society as is Belgravia. In the dockland, and in the East End, both north and south of the river, it is important to try to recreate a mixed community. This means a much greater encouragement of privately developed housing.
66
In 1964 some of us tried to set up a housing association in Poplar which would take land from the then Poplar Borough Council and develop it on a joint basis. The council's attitude was "No. This is public land, we shall develop it ourselves." But the council was not going to do that for five or ten years. That sort of attitude has damned East London and is still damning it over the development of dockland. This includes the reluctance to bring in private sector developments with all their benefits. I think that there should be mixed development, public and private, for social reasons.
There should be mixed development for cash reasons also because, as I have said, these vast sums of money will not be found by the Treasury. The Minister will not today pledge considerable sums of money over a long period, because he cannot do it—it simply is not there in the present economic situation. But I believe that a lot of money would be forthcoming in a mixed development.
I believe that the State's money should go to the infrastructure of dockland—for example, filling in the empty docks, supplying the drainage and the piling, and building a proper network of roads. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey mentioned Downtown. It is the same with the islanders of the Isle of Dogs. To get to many of these parts of dockland is almost impossible by public transport and difficult by road.
I believe that the Labour Party is thinking of moving its headquarters from Smith Square to Walworth, which is not all that difficult to get to. Yet one of the arguments against the move there is that it is too difficult to get to Walworth, although it is just across the river, turning left and going a bit south. But it is exceedingly difficult to have easy access to the dockland area, and we shall not get the economic regeneration of that area without easy road access.
There is the question of priorities in deciding where State money should be spent—for example, on the Fleet Line or the River Line. It is an imaginative concept, but I believe that if the River Line is built, it will be used essentially by passenger and not freight traffic. What that part of London needs, if small businesses are to be started and economic

67
activity regenerated, is good road communications that will take freight, not passenger traffic.
Therefore, if there is there a question of priorities—and we shall have to make a selection—my first priority would be a better road network in North-East and South-East London along the river banks before a rail system. In any partnership between public and private money, the public money should be spent on improving infrastructure so that development could take place.
Mr. Mellish: I do not want to overstate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely he is arguing in effect that the State should build the roads, the drainage, the sewerage and the rest while private developers, when it is all done, come in, do what they want to do and make their profits. Is he really arguing that that is how such a development should be carried out'? That would be like the situation after the Great Fire of London, when private enterprise took all the pickings.
Mr. Baker: As the passage of time brings the right hon. Gentleman closer to my point of view on this matter, I look forward to hearing him say precisely what I am now saying in five years' time. Who else can build drainage, sewerage and so on but the Government? They only can provide the infrastructure that is needed. The right hon. Gentleman says that private enterprise will cream it all off. I draw his attention, however, to the scheme "Riverside", launched by the Tower Hamlets Council. It is a tripartite scheme. The council has land from the Port of London Authority and its own holdings. It has done a deal with the PLA and a development company. They are partners.
The area covers about 500 acres just east of St. Katharine's Dock. The partners will work with the local council which has, at long last acted as a catalyst in putting together a consortium. The council will provide the drainage, sewerage and the rest, while the development company will do the developing, and they will split the profits. What is wrong with that? It is infinitely better than sitting on one's hands and saying
68
"We will not do anything unless we can do it ourselves."
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey says that his area of Bermondsey and Southwark has about 540 acres of dockland. My advice to him and the local council would be to get on with those 540 acres through the sort of deal put together by Tower Hamlets Council. They should not wait for a new town development corporation, because that could not exist for two or three years. They should not hope for greater powers from the Docklands Joint Committee, because it will never agree. The best thing that the Bermondsey-Southwark area can do is to form a joint scheme of partnership between private and public money and get on with the job. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman, because that is what should be done.
The scale of the opportunity should not bemuse us into believing that there has to be a massive organisation and a massive scheme to develop it. I do not believe that we are living in an age when such vast resources can be made available. I should like to see the individual boroughs getting on as quickly as possible with schemes like "Riverside".
I believe that the Government's attitude is changing only sluggishly towards the London problem. The Government must accept that there is a massive work haemorrhage and that something must be done quickly. The first priority must be to remove the inhibitions on the growth and development of jobs. I should like to hear the Government announce the abolition of industrial development certificates and office development permits in this debate. The Minister may reply that they are hardly ever operated now, but the fact remains that there is still a certain atmosphere and climate inhibiting development.
In looking forward to this area being redeveloped over the next 20, or 30, or more years I do not want to see it become a vast dormitory town where people just live and commute on the Fleet Line to work in other parts of London. We have to find a way of regenerating economic activity in inner London, and I am convinced that the most effective way of doing so is to stimulate the growth and development of small businesses. We shall not see large factories being set up

69
in Tower Hamlets, Bermondsey and Southwark, not even with a better road structure, and not even if we improve the infrastructure on the lines I have suggested. That is not going to happen.
We shall be deluding ourselves if we think that vast industrial conglomerate activities in the East End will be built, because it will not happen. One has to create conditions of spontaneous growth—the conditions under which dockland first developed between 100 and 150 years ago—so that small businesses, such as warehousing, engineering operations, printing and service works of all kinds are attracted there. They are not attracted there today, because of the gloomy atmosphere of decay and depression.
I am advocating a greater sense of realism in the development of this vast area in East London. Great urgency is needed. First, there must be a commitment by the Government of certain funds for basic infrastructure which can be specifically directed to specific boroughs, and, secondly, the boroughs should be told to get on with their joint schemes as quickly as possible so that we do not find ourselves having to have another debate like this in 10 years' time.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I intervene briefly because I was a member of the Sub-Committee which prepared this report. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) for the hard work he did as Chairman. I intervene also because I believe that, although the report now has some historic value, it is still of importance in relation not only to dockland but to other derelict areas in other towns and cities throughout the country.
I do not wholly agree with what the hon. Member for Daventry said about the treatment of capital development in new towns as against development in inner cities, but we should try to clarify our minds about the undoubted size of the commitment required not only by the dockland scheme but by comparable schemes which would be required in Liverpool or other big cities. We must consider what is practicable and what is not.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said about encouraging joint partnership
70
schemes between local authorities and private development, under suitable control. Many practical schemes have been worked out and I hope that they can go ahead.
I was therefore concerned at the proposal by the hon. Member for Daventry—although he was the Chairman of the Committee, he made it clear when he was speaking for himself—that the provision of capital should come from the resources of the new towns. That could be a dangerous proposal. New towns should not be regarded purely as competitors with the kind of redevelopment needed in the inner cities. I regard them as partners in a common enterprise. The new towns were devised originally to secure more humane living conditions in our big cities. They were meant not only to set new standards in greenfield sites but to encourage movement from the centres of population and industry in the older city areas so as to achieve better living standards and to attract some people back.
I agree that it is unrealistic to imagine, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) apparently does, that we could attract back to these areas the old heavy industries which were established there for all kinds of historic reasons. It is not practical, and perhaps not even desirable, to seek to attract back the modern versions of those industries.
The change has come about not through the planners attracting everyone into the new towns and denuding the older areas. The attraction of the new towns has made a relatively small contribution. The bulk of the movement was due simply to the death of many of the old industries and partly to the difficulties of operating modern industry in those areas. Transport and accessibility were important questions. The original attraction for industry no longer exists in the same way.
However, there is a real possibility of a much larger development of small-scale industry than some people think. Some recent experiences in Greenwich, for instance, show that. Perhaps much more could be done to encourage that development. I doubt whether the abolition of industrial development certificates would make any difference to that situation.
Mr. John Cartwright: My hon. Friend provokes me by referring to the experience of Greenwich, which, I would claim, has an impressive record in introducing new small firms. If he spoke to those in Greenwich who are responsible for that operation, he would be told that the whole IDC system creates the sort of climate which makes it difficult to move in even small firms, which are not affected by IDC controls.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Our evidence did not bear that out. There have, of course, been changes in the IDC procedure, weakening it from the point of view of some of us in the North but to the benefit of areas like the London Docklands. It cannot be said that even such difficulties as might have existed two years ago exist today.
I hope that the Government will not conclude that it has to be one or the other—that the whole concept of the new towns should be choked to benefit the older areas. There must be a proper balance, but it is unfortunate that one arm of the operation, which involves the development of new towns and of improving standards in the older areas, has not been properly followed through.
As the London Docklands strategy plan shows, one of the first priorities in redevelopment is the improvement of living standards so that people again may choose to live there with a reasonable balance of choice. The great exodus has been due not necessarily to the machinations of the planners but to the conscious choice of people who got fed up with the available standards—not only in London but in other cities—and who exercised their choice with their feet.
Our report refers to mobility. Environmental standards must be vastly improved. Not only must we attract people back, but we must give them greater mobility. The people in the area must make most of the decisions, but I question the concentration of all the effort in regard to mobility on the Underground going from east to west—the very heavy capital expenditure inevitably involved in the Fleet Line extension. This matter will have to be considered carefully, on reasonably accurate estimates of cost.
However, I should have thought that a great deal could be done to improve mobility from north to south so as to
72
avoid the assumption that London is a single-centre city. After all, is not London a series of centres, and do we not want it to be a series of centres? May it not be important to link with the better standards of living the mobility that can be given by immediately improving north-south communications as well as examining east-west mobility?
I end with the obvious and important point of employment, emphasising that a great deal can still be done with small industrial developments. The rest of Britain has a great deal to learn from whatever development takes place in this part of London, because so many other areas face comparable problems, though not necessarily of the same size. We are eager to develop new opportunities for employment but do not imagine that we can necessarily attract back some of the large-scale industry that may have been there in the past.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I agree with a number of points that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) made, and I shall return to one or two later.
It may seem a bit odd that I should be taking part in the debate. I was not a member of the Expenditure Committee, and I am not a London Member, but it is reasonable that outsiders should take part, for we are talking about our national capital, the inner city problem, which covers a number of areas other than London, and the allocation of national resources. As a taxpayer, I suppose that I have a kind of vested interest.
When I was shadowing the Department of the Environment, I became very interested in the subject of London dock-lands and spent some time trying to go round this, to me, surprisingly vast area. I made an effort to get to grips with what is a very complicated problem, and I emerged with the strong feeling that we could not simply allow the area to rot. When one visits the area one sees that it consists of different sorts of place and is not all one great big disused dockland. It has other land as well. One has the feeling that when industry has so nearly died there is a big risk that we shall create Pompeiis of the future, which would be intolerable.

73
I also had, and still have, the strong feeling that we shall not solve the problem by rhetoric. It is a good thing that we should declare our concern and commitment. We have all done that now, and need to move on to a more realistic view of what can be done and what may not be done. So far the debate has been good in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made a number of very pertinent and realistic points, as did other hon. Members.
We can see that the economic aspect is the heart of the whole problem. In the arguments about inner cities there has rightly been a shift of emphasis over the past decade. Ten years ago people talked very much in terms of bad housing, bad education and so on, which they seemed to see as the essence of the problem. I do not deny that such conditions exist and are serious problems, but we now have a clearer idea that we shall not cure all the social problems unless we can improve the economic heart of the places we are discussing. Therefore, one is bound to ask whether it is conceivable that we shall get a proper economic vitality back into the area, or whether the most that we can hope for is to provide a kind of subsidised propping-up so that conditions do not become too miserable and depressed.
We must recognise that it is a very difficult problem. When it thinks about setting up new factories, particularly the larger ones, industry has a preference for greenfield sites. It likes to go to places such as Milton Keynes, because it can have the size of factory it wishes with rather less bother than is involved in trying to carve out a factory in an existing city area. Transport is also a major problem. The truth is that the Milton Keyneses of this world are very well situated in terms of transport. Milton Keynes itself sits beside the M1 in the middle of England and has a major railway line running through it. Those are great advantages.
In trying to be realistic in thinking about what we can bring into the inner cities, we must approach the matter without a great harooch of dogma. We may want all forms of public transport. We must look carefully at the kind of transport that industry will want in such areas. If we start from the premise that economic
74
revival is the essence of the problem, we must make life tolerable for industry or encourage it rather than try to damp it down. I am therefore very suspicious of the GLC, which has a mania about transport and is wrong about transport in almost all respects, as far as I can see. I hope that ways can be devised to stop it imposing its dogmas on dockland.
The lorry is the crucial mode of transport. It is the lorry on which industry today depends. One can make stirring speeches about how all industrial traffic should be pushed back on to the railways, but everybody knows that that will not happen. We shall waste a great deal of time if we try to pursue an unattainable chimera.
We must also recognise that the people whom we want to attract into dockland and the people already living there, to whom we want to give an improved life, want to have motor cars. We should not allow puritanical dogma to stop people having something they want. The skilled working class—if I may categorise and generalise—want motor cars and roads on which they can drive them. It is a great mistake to try to shape policies which do not recognise those cardinal facts.
Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said, we must put the transport emphasis on the road system. One of the wiser recommendations of the Expenditure Committee was to call for a review of the public transport provision that was envisaged. The Committee said:
"We recommend that studies should be made of alternative proposals for a long-term dockland public transport system based upon existing surface lines and rights of way."
I do not claim to know the best possible public transport provision for the area. It may well be that the Fleet Line extension, the River Line, is the right answer. I am not trying to dismiss it, but the hon. Member for South Shields was wise when he gave a warning. There is a serious risk of going for something that sounds splendid and nice but turns out to be so expensive that nothing happens. That would be a tragedy.
We must learn from the bitter experience of a number of public transport systems across the world. We have seen in Newcastle the creation of a system that will be very unprofitable. A few years ago there were high hopes for the

75
Great Bay transport system in San Francisco and the surrounding area, but it is now seen to be a costly luxury. We must be very careful about embarking on massive fixed-line public transport systems when the attraction and flexibility of the lorry, motor car and bus are so strong. Let us think very hard about transport and not mouth platitudes.
I think that we are all agreed that our objective is to find a new life for the old docks and perhaps to go on to find a more positive and useful purpose for the further end of dockland, which I suspect belongs to Newham, the area towards Beckton, where there are green fields, though they are about the dirtiest one could ever expect to see. However, they constitute a sort of greenfield site rather than the large series of holes of which the true dockland communities very much consist.
We need, first, a commitment to reviving the true dockland areas, and then we need to think very hard but perhaps not very hurriedly about what to do with the dirty green fields towards Beckton. The best use for them may be for recreation, for golf courses, small holdings and allotments where we can grow our own potatoes—which is quite a profitable and wise thing to do in these times. It may be that that is all we can hope for.
Equally, it may well be that there are more positive uses to which those green fields can be put. They could provide low-density housing, which would relieve the pressures which still exist in the inner areas. We are always hearing from inner London Members about how they wish to seize tracts of land in the outer London boroughs in order to house their own population. But the outer London boroughs are justified in asking about the large tracts of land that exist in areas such as Beckton. Of course services will be needed and drainage will have to be undertaken.
Mr. Spearing: Perhaps I can save the hon. Gentleman some time. There is a £4 million drainage plan in operation and the draft Beckton plan, which has been published for consultation, contains some of the facilities that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, together with eight plans for 8,000 new houses. The actuality has outrun the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. But I have the feeling that plans and actualities are not always necessarily the same thing. But what I have suggested is a reasonable proposition, provided that people want to go and live there and provided that there is the money to build the houses.
Some hon. Members will probably have read the evidence of the Town and Country Planning Association, which rather wisely and in conformity with its ideals and traditions said that there was an opportunity for providing the low density garden-city type of housing that it has advocated over the years. That may well be the right answer. It may even be that these largish tracts of space which exist in the area provide some scope for the creation of new factories. If that is the case, well and good.
If our primary objective is the revitalising of the old dockland area, with the secondary objective of bringing these other areas into play, we have to ask ourselves what kinds of policies are likely to bring this about. The economic side is all-important. Probably the best thing that can be done to revitalise the economies of those areas is to have a national policy rather than a local or inelegant area-specified policy.
When I talk to smallish business men about what might encourage them to expand, they do not say that they want more subsidies and subventions or boards and committees and national enterprise boards and so on. What they want is to stop being pushed around at the present extent. They do not want to have unjust planning regulations which seem designed to stop them pursuing their trade; nor do they want more and more taxes which depress and demoralise them, or more and more seemingly well-intentioned legislation. They do not want to fill in more and more forms, questionnaires and census returns and all the other things which have smothered them in recent years. They simply want to be able to get on with the job of producing and making some kind of reasonable profit.
We should help business in those areas and in the rest of the country if we tried to produce rather more sensible policies in this respect than we have at the moment. We must encourage entrepreneurs. This is the kind of area in

77
which in a sensible society the entrepreneur would have full run. It is exactly the sort of situation where the entrepreneur has a major contribution to make to the modern economy. If we simply go on making life difficult for them, we cannot hope to expect them to do what I believe they want to do.
One must also have a sensible land policy. I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about the Community Land Act.
Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend does not need to.
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend says we do not need to. Some people would ask "What is the Community Land Act?" Nevertheless, it exists. During the passage of that Act, Opposition Members said time and time again that it would do absolutely nothing to benefit the inner cities. The Government pooh-poohed or ignored that view, but we were absolutely right.
Opposition Members perhaps underestimated the positive damage that the Community Land Act would do to the development of our inner cities. What the Act has done is to make the nationalised industries feel that there is no point in their selling the land on which they sit. Everyone knows that when we talk of dockland land we are not basically talking about land in private ownership. We are talking about land in the ownership of the Port of London Authority and the Gas Corporation. I should add land in the ownership of the local authorities. All those bodies have a long tradition of hoarding land, or believing that one day something will turn up which will make it valuable.
Such bodies are remarkably bad at selling land anyway. The Community Land Act has made that situation worse, because it leads the Gas Board and the PLA to believe that there is no profit in their selling land and, therefore, they do not bother. That is a hard fact that was repeatedly prophesied during the passage of the Act, and it is now seen to be perfectly true.
Another important point about land is that the system of valuation is cockeyed. We have reached a stage where it is cheaper to buy land in the greenfield sites around the new towns than it is in
78
the areas to which no one wants to go in the big cities. The reason is a little hard to fathom. It is partly a matter of expectations and the belief that one day land in the cities will suddenly be worth a lot. After all, it appears that the district valuers, who have to approve the sale of land by public authorities, take a too optimisitic view.
I sometimes think that we could do more for dockland, and the very large tracts of unused land in Liverpool, if we had a big auction and "flogged" the land. We might then achieve something, because people would buy it because they wanted to use it for some purpose rather than letting the land remain unused, as is the case at present.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman's contention that the Community Land Act has the effect of inducing authorities like the PLA to hold on to land is not borne out by the fact that, during the operation of the Community Land Act, the PLA sold a considerable parcel of land through one of its subsidiary organisations to the Tower Hamlets Borough Council, with beneficial results to both sides.
Mr. Raison: If the hon. Gentleman says that, I shall not quarrel with him. But is the hon. Gentleman sure that this was since the Community Land Act came into being?
Mr. Mikardo: Yes.
Mr. Raison: That may be an instance, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the employees of public corporations say that the Community Land Act is a deterrent to selling. It is a bit of a red herring, because many nationalised industries, which have had plans to sell off land in order to meet their debts and deficits, have been driven to a state of considerable despondency by the passage of the Community Land Act. We should let the market operate more than it does. It need not be totally laissez-faire, but we need an injection in the market.
No one thinks that the whole problem of dockland can be left to the market system and to private enterprise. There has to be some kind of guiding central management organisation. I do not believe that the present joint committee has got it right. I accept that the number of local authorities is enormous and almost all of

79
them have powerful and direct interests in the land in question. One has to have a system that will allow them to have a considerable say in all this.
Nevertheless, I believe—and it is the experience of those people professionally engaged in developing dockland—that the present structure is inadequate. There has been a discussion about whether one should establish a sort of a new town development corporation. Even if that had been the right answer originally, it is now a little too late to try to jump into that. Even so, it should be possible to develop some form of two-tier board. The top tier would be the board on which the local authority and the Department of the Environment were represented. They are providing the money and it is their land, so they should have an important say in setting up the strategic decisions that should govern the development.
Underneath that tier one needs an executive board that will have considerably greater powers than exist now because, after all, under the present set up it is fair to say that if any local authority wishes to put a veto on something, it is able to do so, and it is also fair to say that there is a good deal of referring back by the people who run the operation to the local authorities.
I do not claim to have a precise blueprint of how this will be done. I do not claim to be an expert in all these details, but I believe—and I am sure that this is borne out by many who have looked closely at the problem—that one must have a stronger executive organisation than now exists. We must be prepared to say "This is the framework within which you will work, but you must have a chance to get on with the job of delivering the goods".
Although the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is waving that orange document with great vigour and energy, and although there is a lot to be said for the London Docklands Strategic Plan—I am not quarrelling with the shape of the plan—I do not believe that the executive powers are strong enough as things are constituted now, and I have a horrible feeling that history will prove me to be right.
I move on to the next difficult question of who will pay for all this. There
80
are those who believe that London could pay for the whole thing, particularly if the Fleet Line extension were dropped out of the scheme. That is probably too optimistic. As a taxpayer elsewhere I should be happy if London could pay for the whole thing, but the degree of reallocation of resources within the London totality that would be required to bring this about is probably too great, and this is a matter partly of the hard, practical political side of all this. There is a big job and a lot of expenditure to be undertaken to bring all this about. Therefore, it seems that Government investment will be essential if the scheme is to work.
I am attracted by and sympathetic to the ideas advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) about whether it would be possible to make better use than we do now of the money that is at present locked up in the new towns. The new towns hold tremendous commercial assets. They have certain principles, such as that they will not sell freeholds, and so on. I do not think that those principles are necessary. I see no reason why commercial freeholds should not be sold in the new towns if that is the right commercial thing to do.
I do not want to tell the new towns how to manage their assets. I do not claim to know, but the possibility of selling freeholds and of making more out of these great public assets should be explored very hard, and if we could make more out of them, I should be happy to see a good slice of that directed towards this revitalising of London's dockland that we all believe to be deeply necessary and to be an opportunity that it would be tragic to miss.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. John Cartwright: I ought to declare an interest as I am a member of the original Docklands Joint Committee. On looking back, I am not sure that if I had that time over again I would go for the form of organisation that we then supported. Perhaps because I was then involved in local government I took a different view from that taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who, as he indicated today, is passionately in favour of a development corporation approach.

81
On looking back, I am not sure that we should not have done better had we had a development corporation. I think that my right hon. Friend is right in arguing that we should have had more resources had we had a development corporation, rather than going through the somewhat involved and tortuous democratic process of having five local authorities and the GLC involved in this joint committee. I think it is fair to say that we would not have had quite same degree of internecine warfare between the various members of the joint committee that we have had over the history of this development.
When my right hon. Friend was speaking, I was reminded of the original consultants' proposals. I remember the original 26 options that were put up, to our somewhat surprised eyes, way back in the early 1970s. The proposals contained some marvellous ideas. Industrial land was to be turned into open space, and open space was to be turned into industrial land, which no doubt would have meant work for working planners, but it did not seem a practical approach. There was the concept of an East London Safari Park. No doubt that would have brought joy to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), but it did not seem a practical solution to the problems of East London.
I look at this matter very much with the eyes of my own local authority, which has a substantial area within the docklands development area—a piece of land on which, sadly, nothing very much is happening, and on which nothing is likely to happen as part of the docklands development. In addition, it is a borough that is very much affected by what happens in the rest of docklands and therefore I support the case made by the Government in para. 4 of their observations where they say:
"Docklands is not self-contained, nor should it be: its development is part of the development of the five boroughs in which it lies".
That is an important point to bear in mind.
I look at this from the point of view of my experience at Thamesmead, because all the presentational razmataz that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey was recalling about the original dockland concept was present when Thamesmead was launched. It was
82
to be a great city of the twenty-first century for 60,000 people, rising Phoenix-like from the mud. Sadly, it has got stuck in the mud in recent times. The time scale has drifted in that case. It started in the middle 1960s, and it is stretching into the late 1980s and early 1990s. There is some problem of the relationship between the GLC and the two local boroughs, the two local education authorities, and so on, with all the difficulties that that involves.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made a point about the need for adequate private housing to get a housing balance in dockland. That is something that we had very much in mind when Thamesmead was launched. The original Thamesmead concept was 65 per cent. public housing and 35 per cent. private housing, but it is a sad fact of life that the 35 per cent. private housing has been difficult to get moving at all. Despite houses being offered for sale at favourable prices, and despite land being made available for private development at favourable prices, we have not seen a tremendous burst of enthusiasm for buying homes at Thamesmead, and my guess is that the same experience might be found in dockland.
I was a little unhappy at seeing the Government's reaction on the basis of making available adequate resources. In para. 9 of their observations they make it clear that there is to be no special form of support, but within the normal form of support the Government believe that
"important progress can be made piece by piece and phase by phase within the framework of the overall strategy."
Our experience of Thamesmead is that that is an excuse for the time scale lengthening out and for the whole drive, energy and purpose of the original concept being lost. In the case of Thames-mead, it has meant the whole original dream becoming something of a nightmare. Instead of being a new town, it has developed into nothing more than a sprawl of council estates.
New industry is crucial to the development of dockland and renewing the whole of life in the dockland area. The Greenwich example is fairly well known. In a ten-year period, it lost 20,000 jobs in manufacturing industry. On the other hand, it has fought hard to try to bring

83
jobs back to the area. A point has been made about the need to bring in more new small firms. The record of Greenwich over the past three years is one of attracting 120 new firms into the area. About £40 million of private capital has been invested.
That is an indication of what can be done by a local authority determined to hang on to its manufacturing base and to provide balanced employment for those it represents. It is a sad fact that the whole area of Greenwich within the dockland area is earmarked for industry, yet the greater part is totally sterilised because the gas board is grimly hanging on to 210 acres of it. The gas board is nothing to do with the Community Land Act. At some stage North Sea gas will run out. Therefore, the board may need a gas-making potential in the London area and it must hang on to its land just in case in 30 or 40 years it is needed for gas production.
But that is a tremendous blow to us because the Blackwall peninsula is an ideal industrial site, with tremendous development potential for industrial undertakings. It has good access to transport. The Blackwall Tunnel southern approach to the motorway runs through it. It has easy access to the river and is well away from housing. It is a natural industrial site on which could be replaced many thousands of the jobs which have been lost to the area. I therefore hope that the gas board's case for sterilising the land for generations will be severely tested.
I agree with hon. Members who have indicated that the success of industrial development in the docklands area depends to a large extent on a genuine relaxation of industrial development certificate control. I accept that the Government have moved some way in that direction, but if we are to change the climate of opinion, if we are to persuade industrialists that there is a home for industry, even if it is for small industries, in London, we must make a dramatic relaxation in IDC control as a means of making it clear that the climate has changed.
We must make it possible for those involved to be able to advertise the industrial potential of the docklands area. It
84
is absolutely crackers that London buses carry advertisements for Peterborough, for example, and we advertise throughout London the charms of Cumberland, Scotland, and virtually every other industrial location, but are denied the right to advertise the industrial development potential of the docklands. Provision in this respect is made in the general powers Bill of the GLC, and I hope that it will receive support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I welcome what the Expenditure Committee and the Government have said about the need for industrial training and retraining in the docklands area. It is clear that skills are in short supply, and this is a limiting factor in industrial development, but sometimes we ignore the results of the closure of firms. Some of the firms which have left were among the best trainers of young labour in the area. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) Harveys, which had a tremendous apprenticeship and training record, is very much depleted and facing virtually complete closure. In my constituency, at Woolwich Arsenal, there is one of the best appointed industrial apprenticeship schools that one can find for many miles. It is threatened by the closure of the workshops at Woolwich Arsenal.
Closures of that sort remove opportunities for industrial training of young people. I accept that the Government's skillcentres are being developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich will recall that he and I have been fighting for the Deptford skillcentre since 1968 when we were first promised it. It is now more firmly on the horizon, but it is still some way off. Skillcentre provision is to be made at Kidbrooke later this year and at Charlton next year. I welcome that. But all we are doing is seeking to replace the potential for training of many firms which have left the area.
I turn briefly to the question of transport. I support hon. Members who have said that the River Line is the key to docklands development. It is important as a demonstration of public confidence in docklands development as well as a necessary basis for that development. I hope that the alignment to be seriously examined will be the southern alignment, because it provides an important link

85
between Woolwich Arsenal and Thames-mead and a link between Thamesmead new town and its basic town centre at Woolwich.
Hon. Members opposite have spoken about the possibility of alternative bus services. My constituents in Thamesmead have minimal bus services. On Sundays they have no bus service at all.
The River Line could provide a major link between Thamesmead and Woolwich and between Woolwich, at a strategic centre for shops and offices, and the rest of Docklands. It could also ease congestion on the North Kent railway line, on which the trains are chronically overcrowded. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, it might give people in South-East London a Tube service of the type which is taken for granted by people situated on the more favoured side of the river.
I wish to speak briefly about road schemes. I am less enthusiastic about one of the major road schemes proposed in the Dockland study, namely, the East London river crossing. This is a proposal to build another tunnel at Thamesmead and to provide a motorway link with the A2. I wish to declare a parochial interest: the motorway proposal would eliminate about 200 homes, virtually all of them in my constituency. It would plough through attractive public space at Rockliffe Gardens and Oxleas Woods. Sadly, it would drive a wedge through the middle of the last working farm in my constituency. I should be sorry to see that cut in two.
All the benefits from the East London river crossing would go to people on the north side of the river. All the disadvantages, as the Docklands Joint Committee accepted, would be borne by my constituents through whose homes the road would run. It is fair to say that it would involve a substantial attraction of extra traffic through the East London river crossing, particularly if tolls for the Dartford Tunnel go on increasing at their recent rate.
What worries me most of all about this and other road schemes in the study is the degree of blight which affects an area when schemes are earmarked for post-1986, as is the case with the East London river crossing. We are told that the completion period from start to finish is 11
86
years. If we are talking about blighting an area for that sort of period, and if schemes are stopped dead simply because 10 years from now somebody may build a road, which may take another 11 years to complete, at a cost, on 1975 figures, of £87 million, while I am in favour of strategic planning, there must be a genuine and realistic forward parameter for the length of time that such plans can remain in being.
The people we represent who live in and around dockland are not all that impressed by strategic plans, by strategy documents, by glossy brochures and by paper produced in large quantities since this operation started. They take the view that that is no substitute for genuine, effective development on the ground. I support those who have said that we shall not get that development without a much greater sense of urgency and much more evidence of commitment by the Government.
5.49 p.m.
Mr. Michael Latham: I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) has said. Much of it reflected the motive which lay behind my thinking when I served on the Select Committee, which I still do. There are two reasons for my intervention: first, because I serve on the Select Committee; and, secondly, because for six years I was, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), a member of the GLC Housing Committee and, for three years, an elected member of the Westminster City Council. I was vaguely involved in London local government for six years.
When I was involved in London local government and during the time that I served on the Select Committee I was impressed by the feeling that a sea change was taking place in the thinking about London's planning. When I became a member of the GLC in 1967, there was, and perhaps still is, an expanded towns committee, whose job was to export people from London.
The whole thinking of the officials was still very much along the lines of that in the Abercrombie Report. This document of 1944 said that things would be much better after the war and that people should be moved out of the terrible areas of inner London into the green fields of

87
England. That was a very noble aim, but, like so many planners' aims, the reality proved very different from what was intended at the time.
It was not just London—the same problem occurred in many of the other great cities. Liverpool was another example of the inner city dying and the suburbs deteriorating and being vandalised. That does not make any sense. It is essential to turn back the tide of Abercrombie thinking when dealing with the docklands. We are simply spilling people all over the country and killing London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and other big cities. We must do something about that now. But the problem is that we are still thinking in the old-fashioned terms of Abercrombie while the world is passing us by.
During my service on the Committee, when we were conducting this inquiry I was depressed by the atmosphere of the political negotiations in London on this matter. This is not a party point. I felt, as did my colleagues on the committee, as we listened to witnesses, that they were all finessing for position. Each was concerned with his own interests and with making sure that whatever came out of the document would defend those interests. There was no wide overall view.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made it clear that in retrospect they felt that it would have been better to have had a development corporation. But, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, that is now water under the bridge. There is not going to be a development corporation and we must try to work within the existing system.
I asked several witnesses whether it was too late to set up a development corporation and to turn back the tide. But the more I listened to the witnesses describing all the difficulties that would follow, including getting a Hybrid Bill through the House, a Bill which would be bitterly contested, and the fact that the GLC would petition, the more convinced I became that turning back the tide would mean fighting a losing battle.
88
It was clear that we would have to work within the existing situation.
Let us look at the report of the evidence of the South-East Economic Planning Committee, the representatives of which said, in undoubtedly the most brutal statement that I have read:
"Firstly, there is not in existence at the moment any body which can take and carry decisions which may be unpopular in one or more of the boroughs or with the GLC."
I then asked how it would be possible to commend such a recommendation to Parliament—to set up a development corporation to take unpopular and difficult decisions. The Chairman, Lord Porchester, replied:
"The fact is that the new towns, including the first generation around Greater London, faced this very problem."
I pointed out that 15,000 people were already living in dockland. He replied:
"There are 30,000 in Hemel Hempstead. A new town corporation was imposed upon that community."
The argument that a development corporation would have been impossible to achieve in dockland was wrong. Nevertheless, the decision has been taken and we must live with it.
I wish to say a word about private financing. During the discussions Trammell Crow was still interested in the scheme, and that was about the only bit of private finance that was interested. Therefore, I was particularly concerned about the evidence from the Port of London Authority—one of the main landowners in the area. I asked a number of questions of PLA witnesses about the involvement of private finance. The fact is that it is possible to do a deal between the developer, the landowner and the local authority by which the infrastructure is provided by the developer in his costs. I said:
"In effect they are waving a stick over your head and saying, If you do not give us some proportion of the development profit by way of infrastructure contributions we will not grant planning permission'?"
The witness replied:
"That is how one gets planning gains in that context."
I then asked if it were possible to do it if the will were there, and whether there was a lot of interest being shown by

89
developers, such as Trammell Crow, in this project. Mr. Hughes replied:
"Not since the publication of the White Paper on land, but people are still coming to us with ideas which they would like to see carried out in the docklands area."
I asked him:
"In view of the fact that there is total bureaucratic control over the exercise, because the Docklands Joint Committee are working on it with the DOE, do you feel this means that developers who may come along with perfectly workable schemes will be prevented from getting on with them because they will not get planning permission since their schemes are in advance of the long-term plan which will not appear until next year?"
He replied:
"That is probably the case. We have not had people coming forward with plans in the last few months, whereas in the past we have had developers coming along full of ideas, but it is difficult to give all the reasons; we do not know them."
The thing that comes out of the testimony of the PLA—the largest landowner in dockland—is that there was a possibility of private investment, but that private investment will only go there if there is the political will. In listening to the replies of the witnesses I did not get the impression that the political will existed. The elected leaders of London now have our report. I hope that they will get on and do something about it.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Of the designated dockland area, no less than half is entirely within my constituency. In fact, two-thirds of my constituency is within the dockland area. Therefore my constituents are particularly affected by this report and these developments, more so than those of any other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) mentioned the plans of the GLC and the Abercrombie Report. I think that the Barlow Report before the war set the ball rolling. I was a co-opted member of the GLC planning committee and my main objection was to trend planning. Planners plan for all sorts of objectives. In the late 1960s the planners were planning for existing trends, greasing the skids for what was happening economically at that time. That is not always the best thing to do. Sometimes it is better to plan to change the economic gravity of the time.
90
The hon. Member for Melton also mentioned Hemel Hempstead. It may be true that Hemel Hempstead had 30,000 people in a single centre. The docklands have 5,000 people who are, related to many different places separated by the river and by industrial areas. Therefore, it is not right to compare a semi-green-fields situation in Hemel Hempstead with areas around dockland. Physically and historically the situations are very different.
We must look at this matter in three distinct sections. First, there are the physical and economic factors affecting the environment, and we must examine the essential nature of the present situation, secondly, there was the institutional and statutory framework; and, thirdly, there is the economic and social future. All these factors are bound up with money. Later in my remarks I shall mention some matters that seem to have escaped the attention of the Department of the Environment.
I am a little concerned that nobody so far has mentioned the Port of London as such. It has been mentioned almost in passing in connection with a surplus of land, as though its docks were no longer in operation. But the essence of the problem is that the land is related to the era of nineteenth-century port development and the development of port-related industries. I refer to areas such as those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who used the phrase "down-the-end areas".
Mr. Mellish: The phrase I used was "downtown".
Mr. Spearing: I was referring to areas along the river bank related to urban centres such as Poplar, West Ham, Greenwich and so on.
The Port of London can be compared with the chest in the sense that it is an area of interchange between land and water rather than dealing, as does the chest, with air and blood. So far, this debate has concentrated on the blood and not very much on the air. I wish to emphasise that the Port of London has a lot of life left in it yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo)

91
is concerned with the area around the West India Docks, which are maintained in operation and which work up river. I wish to see similar activity in the Royal Docks in my constituency. The essence of the matter is that the Port of London may have changed its nature, but it is still there. The business of East London, apart from basic manufacture and production, engineering and so on, is transport—namely, railways, roads and the port. Transport is our business, and I hope that it will remain our business, because London is still the largest port in the United Kingdom.
With the onset of new techniques, such as BACAT, Sea Bee and barges which can travel from Tower Hamlets right up the River Rhine, I hope that we shall reach a stage at which the port can remain stable and will decline no further—for there has certainly been decline. In the past 10 years a total of 15,000 jobs have been lost in my constituency. We are suffering redundancies in ship repairing, and we in the borough of Newham also have a housing problem.
I submit that the Government's response in paragraph 5 of Cmnd. 6193 is wrong. It there says:
"The Government … agrees with their conclusion that Docklands employment problems are symptomatic of a wider structural change taking place in London as a whole".
Although many things happening in London as a whole are exaggerated in dockland, I believe that it is the changes in the port and in port-related industries that have caused problems in East London. For this reason I hope that the Minister will agree that we need additional resources in the area. Therefore, I take issue with the Government and with their White Paper response.
Some hon. Members have cast doubts on the ability of the Docklands Joint Committee to fulfil the objectives that are common to all sides. Some have looked with nostalgia at the opportunities for a development-style corporation. I believe that this structure is the only one that will work. Urban centres related to dockland areas are way off the river and off the flood plain, and there are difficulties in east-west communications between the population. Therefore, we have a succession of garden back areas joined together by the river in the middle.
92
Co-operation among the boroughs has been remarkable because, for example, they have pooled their planning powers. Planning applications inside the dockland area are not now dealt with by the boroughs. They are remitted by the boroughs to the Docklands Joint Committee. A total of 114 applications have been dealt with and 1 million square feet of industrial space has been approved.
Furthermore, where a scheme receives a great deal of rate revenues the increase in the rate revenue is to be distributed by an internal scheme among the boroughs. This tends to avoid some of the internal rivalries that may be thought to be inherent among local authorities in adjacent areas. That is to the credit of the local authorities.
The authorities have already adopted Government recommendations and the Government have appointed many representatives from outside. For example, representatives from the City, and a chairman of a new town development corporation take part in the deliberations of the Docklands Joint Committee. Furthermore, the TUC is also represented. The committee acts more effectively than any other rival organisation.
Doubt has been cast on the action already taken by the Docklands Joint Committee. I believe that the committee has acted as speedily as it could in the circumstances. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that work on land drainage, industrial use and back-fill had not started. My information is that the work has begun. An imaginative riverside scheme at Tower Hamlets has been agreed and it is fully in accord with the strategic plan produced by the Docklands Joint Committee. It is not thought to be disadvantageous to the London boroughs, but is an acquisition in the area, as a recent television programme suggested.
A sum of £4·6 million from the Thames Water Authority was allocated for Beckton Marshes in regard to sewers and all the rest of it. Furthermore, by the end of the year 367 houses will be erected in Beckton's "dirty green fields", as they were called by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I would not refer to the area in that way. It is an imaginative scheme and when completed there will be 8,000 dwellings on that land,

93
2,220 of which will be either co-operatively or privately owned. In other words, there will be a mix of development.
Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Gentleman surely agrees that these matters move extremely slowly. I remember the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and I served on the Greater London Council Housing Committee and discussed these plans. That was in 1968—nine years ago.
Mr. Spearing: As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a delay, but it has not been the fault of the Docklands Joint Committee. The problem related to who should pay for draining the land. There has been a typically British compromise. Far from delaying the matters, the GLC stepped in and said that it would guarantee the orders for machinery, and in that way the scheme went ahead more speedily than otherwise would have happened. That is one problem that has now been solved. It was to some extent a disagreement between the borough and the GLC and, happily, it has now been resolved.
I turn to the problem of transport. I have a reputation in this House of not being a friend of new roads. I am not necessarily a friend of new large motorways to serve the dockland, but I am in favour of well sited relatively narrow roads without inter-sections to provide new routes to the docklands. That does not necessarily require large motorway standards. We must aim for routes that are not deleterious to the environment, but at the same time we must try to provide good through roads.
I suggest that that particularly applies to the link between the East Cross Route and Leystonstone, where I understand many houses are standing idle, vacant and ready to be demolished, and where there may be a possibility of a road scheme. I am referring not to vast motorways but to through roads to improve the environment. The same applies to the expansion of the Roding Valley route southwards to the Woolwich Ferry.
Mention has been made of the Fleet Line. There are other lines in dockland that are equally important. In my constituency the North Woolwich to Tottenham line has recently had its timetable revised by British Rail, and we are all thankful for that. That line could provide even better communciations than it does.
94
The most important point concerning industry—which I shall not mention because the subject has already been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright)—is that the dockland area is really part of the industrial and, travel-to-work area that stretches from Tilbury to Aldgate East and does not go much further west. The area is parallel to the Thames from London to Tilbury to Southend north of the River and along the North Kent line on the south side. Access to rail routes making a good journey-to-work area east to west is of paramount importance. This is where the Government's forthcoming White Paper on transport will be important.
So far the Government have not shown much realisation of the importance of transport for inner urban areas. But it is vital if they are not to remain as they are but to be rehabilitated. There must be proper transport services. The White Paper must take account of this and of not only the physical presence of the services, but the fares charged relative to the cost of a private car. That will be of great significance, particularly north of the Thames wehere over half of my constituents still do not own cars, do not wish to do so or, in many cases, cannot afford to do so. Therefore, public transport on the east-west line from Barking to Tilbury will be of great significance to the success of the docklands.
I now come to my last point. It will be longer than the others, but it is worth-while because it is concerned with money and resources, and they are the nub of this debate. The Government's response on finance to the Select Committee was disappointing. The Committee had said that the Department of the Environment should give specific details of the level of public expenditure commitment to dockland and that the Government should state their intention about providing financial support. That was contained in Recommendations 1 and 2 by the Select Committee. The Government's response was contained in paragraph 9 of their general observations. They said:
"Developments in Docklands will be eligible for the normal forms of Government financial support to transport, housing and other purposes. The Government has no plans for special forms of support over and beyond these."
On the face of it, that is a disappointing response. It means that there is no

95
special form of grant and no additional funds—no dockland development fund as such.
But what the Government said—as the Minister said when we discussed the strategy for the South-East in Standing Committee—is that there will be support for extra housing, transport and other purposes in so far as they are to be located in dockland. Therefore, the door was not entirely shut. The response was that there would be only the normal means of support available, but possibly to an abnormal extent.
The Government have opened a chink in the door. They have said that they will be using existing channels and not new ones. We say that if the Government are to use existing channels, they must put more finance down them. I hope that the Minister will go further down that road tonight than in the past.
The Minister knows that there is a possibility here, because I have raised with him in Committee a point related to the interim report on the development of the Strategic Plan for the South-East which was published in February 1976. We can read in it something that might almost have come from the time when the hon. Member for Melton was on the GLC. It recognises the development of:
"a limited number of major growth areas at varying distances from London, offering a wide choice of growth locations and using existing or planned urban settlements as bases for growth. Those closest to London would contribute to the planned development of the London metropolitan region and provide for workers and jobs unlikely to move over long distances. Those furthest from London would develop into relatively self-contained 'city regions'."
That was a year ago, although I know that the Government have not necessarily accepted the report.
One cannot quote maps but it contains a map which indicates that there would be a medium growth in the South-East, the Medway, and North in Kent, and major growth in South Essex.
If the Government are willing to underwrite the development, the resources must be available. My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Planning and Local Government agreed with me when answering a Question recently that surely he would have to balance the money going into expanding and new towns and
96
the amount reserved for the urban areas. He said:
"I agree that what we need is a proper assessment of whether we are using resources wisely in the inner cities as against the new towns, which I take to be my hon. Friend's point."—[Official Report, 5th November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 382.]
I understand there will be £200 million to £300 million available for the next three years. That was why I intervened earlier during the speech of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone. If money is available and if funds are to be put into the new expanded areas in the South-East, the funds can be put into the docklands instead.
Moreover, some of the hon. Members who represent those expanded areas want that to happen. During the Committee in which the Minister made his first appearance as a Minister the hon. Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and Ashford (Mr. Speed) agreed that they did not want development of new towns between their constituencies. During the Committee on Dock Work Regulation Bill the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) backed me, saying that such development was wanted in London and that it was not wanted in Eastleigh because there were already many people in that area. So there is a bipartisan view on this matter.
I hope that there will be a change in the Government's thinking. I know that a review is now going on and perhaps it will include the curious proposals that were an overflow of trend planning and rethinking in the late 1960s referred to by the hon. Member for Melton. The resuscitation of old town centres and areas of nineteenth century industry and growth is a world-wide problem. It is a problem recognised around the world—the Minister and some other hon. Members went to a conference in Canada on this matter.
We have here an opportunity in London and the South-East to put money into docklands, money that I have shown to be available. It would not be to the detriment of the development areas and the constituency represented by the chairman of the Expenditure Committee or even to the detriment of areas of Wales that now require work to replace the steel works closures. We can do this within the allocation for South-East England.
I do not think that the people of Milton Keynes would necessarily begrudge

97
losing expansion there to achieve prosperity in docklands. Milton Keynes is a pleasant place to live in already, although there is not much public transport because it is difficult to organise. I hope that the Government will now say "Yes, these resources are available. As a result of our reviews, we shall channel them into the dockland areas at the rate of £100 million to £200 million a year."
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) declared his interest by saying, quite rightly, that a little more than half of the area of land covered by the dockland development scheme is in the borough of Newham, a part of which he represents with so much dedication and distinction that we all admire him constantly. I declare my interest by saying that more than nearly half the people who live in the area covered by the dockland scheme—some 26,000 out of 58,000 people in the five boroughs—live in Tower Hamlets, a part of which I have the honour to represent, though with less distinction than my hon. Friend does his parish.
It has always seemed to me that a basic weakness of all the talk that has gone on about docklands from the very first days is that there has been considerable discussion about the land involved but very little about the people who live in the area.
These 26,000 people are a closely-knit community with a tradition of the sort of neighbourliness which people of my age experienced in their youth, wherever they lived, but which has tended to disappear in the suburbs and remains only in villages and East London. They are people with minds of their own. I am told that one Opposition Member spoke with a certain degree of contempt about the people living in the area, but I do not pay much attention to public school Tories expressing contempt for large numbers of their fellow citizens.
Mr. Arthur Jones: The hon. Gentleman is making a quite serious allegation. As only a few hon. Members on this side have spoken, the implication must be that he is referring to one of us. Perhaps he would be kind enough to name the individual.
Mr. Mikardo: We can look at the Official Report tomorrow. Then we shall all know.
It is because there is this densely-congested community, with a lot of people in a very small area and with most of the families having been there for generations, that we cannot simply foist things on them without taking their views into account. No, R. Travers Morgan and Partners, distinguished consultants though they are, and not even a Select Committee of this House, distinguished in its membership and assiduous in the fulfilment of its task as it was, can decide just like that on something which will affect the welfare of these 26,000 people without stopping to think what their views might be.
Reference has been made to the Travers Morgan study, with its beautiful options and its lovely coloured maps. The initial 26 schemes were whittled down to 18 and then to five. Everyone looked at those five and agreed that none was any good. We chucked them out. Hundreds of thousands of pounds and, more important, a couple of years' work were lost in the process. This firm of consultants is a skilled organisation of great distinction, but it made one big mistake. It talked to everyone in sight, but it did not talk to the people who live in the area. The consultants did not try to learn their views.
We had the pretty idea of producing schemes and then allowing for a process of consultation with the chaps. The chaps were to be presented not with a fait accompli but rather with a choice of several faits accompli—though their views would be taken into account. That is not the way to do it.
Planners do not always know best. Sometimes the chaps on the ground know better than the planners. I venture to repeat a part of the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee. It goes back 10 years or more to the trend planning of the GLC and even before that to the planning of the LCC.
Some people living on the Isle of Dogs objected to the fact that, because there was no secondary school on the island, their children had to go to the mainland, on an inadequate bus service or by bicycle, through narrow, winding and dangerous roads, in the morning rush

99
hour and had to repeat the process in the reverse direction in the afternoon rush hour. The people said that they ought to have a secondary school on the island. The Isle of Dogs is a bit cut off and has by far the worst transport problems in London. It probably has some of the worst transport difficulties in Britain outside the Highlands of Scotland and Mid-Wales.
Along came the planners from the education authority. They took into account all new building projected by the GLC and all new development projected by the borough council, together with land which was to be released in stages by the PLA, what was to be built there, how many people would come in and the sort of people they would be. Doubtless they put it all on a computer and they proved conclusively that there would not be enough children of secondary school age to justify even a three-form entry secondary school on the island. It was a masterly piece of work and the planners proved their case immaculately.
However, a few of the local people got together and did a magnificent job, knocking on every door on the island and taking a census of all the children. They added to that figure the numbers that were known to be coming in and proved that there would be sufficient children. They were right. Now, in the most beautiful site in London, at the southern tip of the Isle of Dogs, there stands a new, medium-size secondary school looking across the river to the lovely Wren buildings in Greenwich. It is going great guns and is about to be officially opened, as usual, a year or two after it started going great guns. The local chaps knew best.
Mr. Arthur Jones: I remember the school to which the hon. Gentleman refers from our visit to docklands. I am interested in what he says about its origins. I hope he recognises that the Sub-Committee consulted the local community. We saw Mrs. Brawne of the Joint Docklands Action Group, Mr. Connolly of the East End Dockland Action Group, Mrs. O'Keefe of the Greenwich Docklands Action Group—I remember her very well—Mr. Harker of the Lewisham Docks Action Group and Mr.
100
Harris of the Surrey Docks Action Group. We were aware of the need to take into consideration the points the hon. Gentleman is making, and we were anxious to do so.
Mr. Mikardo: I hope that it was not thought for one moment that my remarks about the unwillingness of some people to consult local folk reflected upon the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) is right. The Committee took opinions from everyone, including the people on the ground, very fairly. Other people in high places have not been as assiduous as was the Committee in taking into account the views of local people. Those who believe that we should do that through a new town-type development corporation are wrong. There is no comparison between dock-lands and Milton Keynes, for instance, which will finish up with 250,000 people on the basis of an original community of no more than 10,000.
Mr. Raison: Originally the Milton Keynes community was probably about the same size—or possibly larger—as the present dockland community.
Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) had been patient he would have heard my case. I was about to say that when Milton Keynes is finished only about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the people will be those who were on the ground when the project began and that over 90 per cent. of the people will be new to the area. That will not be the case in dockland, and certainly it will not be the case in the congested area of Tower Hamlets. The population now is about 28,000 and it will be the same when the development is complete. The overwhelming majority of the people who will be there at the end of the scheme will be those who are there now. That is why there is no comparison. That is why democratic institutions must be used.
I understand the criticisms made of the Docklands Joint Committee because it is a natural target. The way in which it is constituted lays it wide open to charges of rivalry and so on. In practice, after a pretty sticky beginning, it has done reasonably well. I do not know of any scheme that was desired by any of the five boroughs that has been vetoed as a result of opposition from the other

101
boroughs. I do not know of any scheme that was suggested to the joint committee by one of the boroughs that was not approved. It cannot inhibit action or be as much of a cockpit of rival interests as hon. Members have tried to make out.
The situation is also different in this area from that in the new towns which were built on virtually green fields. This area has suffered four successive forms of blight. I again apologise to members of the Select Committee for repeating some of the evidence that I gave to the Committee. I said that it was an area which for a long time—for more than a century—had what might be called socioeconomic blight. Between 1939 and 1945 it got a dickens of a lot of bomb blight—much more than its fair share. Then, some years after, it suffered from rehousing blight. Roads were stopped for a period, there was an awful mess as demolition took place and between demolition and reconstruction. Roads were changed, and people had to move kids into new schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) correctly said that we are now facing a threat from planners' blight—a blight that derives from an attempt to reach perfection. To be perfect is the enemy of the good in this case.
That philosophy means that one does nothing until one is absolutely sure that it is right. Since it takes many years to ensure that one is doing the right thing, one does not do anything at all for many years, and even then one does not do the absolutely right thing. The way in which to get on with the job is to bear the broad strategic aims at the back of one's mind. That does not mean waiting until one has the last blueprint worked out to the last detail or waiting until the last costing is worked out to the last decimal of a penny.
The development that is being undertaken by the borough of Tower Hamlets with a developer, Riverside (London) Ltd., is a cold, hard example of getting on with one part of a scheme. That has been done with the blessing of the Docklands Joint Committee and without damaging in any way the broad strategy plan.
There are two principal needs of the people in the area—not of the area but of the people who live there. Those needs are decent houses and work. As hon. Members have said, this is an area
102
of chronically high unemployment and of job losses running into tens of thousands with little or no replacement. The industrial development certificate scheme has been a slight hindrance to development and to new industry being attracted to the area. I do not say that it has been a major hindrance. I broadly agree with the conclusions of the Select Committee that the way in which the scheme was administered took the sharp edge off the harm that it might have done. Nevertheless, there is a psychological deterrent in having to apply for an IDC in one place even if one knows that the application will be treated sympathetically. Industries have a choice of two or three different places and, because they have to apply for IDCs in some areas but not in others, that weighs in their choice of areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East was right to say how nonsensical it is that advertisements asking people to come to an area can be used everywhere but Greater London.
There is great scope for small industry in the area. My hon. Friend referred to the splendid job that Greenwich has done in attracting industries to that area. Those industries mainly involve metal work to replace the large engineering aggregations that have moved out of the area. On our side of the river there is a tradition of small industries involving the production of consumer goods such as clothing and furniture, and people are willing to pay a little more for individuality and quality. In my area firms tend to concentrate on batch production instead of mass production. An example is the growth of firms involved in the reproduction of antique furniture. There are many opportunities for getting together such small-scale enterprises, in some cases, I should have thought, possibly as producer co-operatives.
In the end, however, it is all a matter of resources, and it does not matter through which channels they may come as long as they come. It matters not whether one calls the body a corporation of a joint committee, and it does not matter whether it is called, as a rather silly man suggested on television last night, Dockland Limited as though that makes a ha'p'orth of difference or produces a penny or an idea which would not otherwise have existed. Whatever

103
one calls it, in the end it comes down to a matter of resources. They must come in greater quantity than hitherto.
A number of hon. Members have been concerned during the debate with transport facilities in the area. They were right to have been so concerned because a great deal of the prosperity of the area and its attractiveness to people to live there and bring work to it depends on its transport facilities. I do not want to enter into the road versus rail argument, or the Northern Fleet route versus the Southern Fleet route argument.
London has one very wide road which carries very little traffic. It is the River Thames. It is much wider than any other road in London, but it carries much less traffic than any other road in London. It is much cheaper to maintain than any other road in London because it does not have to be dug up and resurfaced every now and again. Providence has given it a beautifully smooth surface along which traffic can pass with the minimum expenditure of energy because it has a very low friction coefficent. So what happens? We do not use it. We take it less and less into account when we are planning for the requirements of the community.
At the very time that the M4 and the M40 were being built with the idea of creating easy transport between South-East England and the West Country, South Wales and the Midlands, Brentford Dock was shut. It was a very good efficient little dock. If, instead of shutting it, it had been kept open and a spur road to the M4 had been constructed—there already was a branch railway line connecting to the main line—with the new barge-aboard ship developments there would have been on earthly reason why the dock could not have been used. Barges could have been discharged from ships in the Thames and sent up to Brentford, where their cargo would have been put straight on to road or rail transport to the West Country, Wales and the Midlands.
Shortly afterwards, Covent Garden market was moved to a site on the river at Nine Elms. At that time much of the imported produce for the market was unloaded in the Canary Wharf in the West India and Millwall group of docks. The produce was off-loaded landside on to
104
lorries. If those who had planned the Nine Elms Market had thought of using the river and had cut an access from it to the new market, all those tomatoes, onions and other produce coming into the Canary Wharf could have been offloaded waterside into barges instead. Just think of the lorries that have to chug along from Millwall to Nine Elms. There is no way of making that journey without passing through some of the most difficult and congested roads in London.
One tug pulling or one pusher pushing four barges is equivalent to 120 10-ton lorries. So at the very time that the great improvement was being made to move Covent Garden Market away from the Strand to a site at the side of the best, easiest and cheapest road in London, no move was being made to provide access to it from that road. Can anyone imagine a company building a hypermarket such as that at Brent Cross with an entrance 100 yards north of the Great West Road but with no access to it from that road? That is exactly what has happened with Nine Elms Market.
We seem perversely determined to choke the river with idleness. It is not too late to do a great deal to reverse that idiotic process. I wonder whether the Select Committee, which did such a good job of studying this matter, might have looked at what could be done to make better use of London's river. Not only dockland but the whole of London could benefit enormously from such better use.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for setting out the basic facts of this debate so clearly. I am sure that the House is grateful, too, for the friendly, kindly and skilful way in which he chairs the Committee. As a member of one of the other Sub-Committees who has to sit under his chairmanship, I am perhaps doubly qualified to say that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones), who was Chairman of the Sub-Committee, called for a much greater sense of urgency and asked the Government to act on this matter rather than merely consider what they were going to do. Many right hon. and

105
hon. Members have quoted the conclusion of the Government's observations. I think that it would perhaps sum up everything in that document to say that too much thought paralyses action.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) made one of his characteristic speeches. They are always full of sound common sense drawn from his deep knowledge of the area. He said something that very few of those who have studied the matter sufficiently would disagree with. It was that this plan could have been carried out by a development corporation which could have done all the necessary consultation, and that there would have been progress which we have not yet seen.
The time for that move is now probably past. But perhaps what we say may be learned by those who are having to think about the replanning of the docklands in Liverpool. Perhaps what I may call a self-destructing corporation might be set up which after, say, 10 years of operation could hand over control to local government. The sad thing that the right hon. Gentleman said was that he could not influence his own Government to act along the lines he had suggested. It is a sad thing and shows how little power any Chief Whip has when faced with the advice that civil servants give to a departmental Minister. This is no attack on the right hon. Member for Bermondsey but is probably something with which most Ministers would agree in their hearts.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey said that he would listen with great interest to hear what the Minister would say to one or two pieces of evidence that he himself gave to the Sub-Committee. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who is Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, told the Committee:
"But there is in the area a general feeling of impatience about the committees that are set up and produce reports and nothing happens, and so the years roll by."
I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich, now that he has more influence, will make sure that the years do not roll by without action. All Governments are getting the blame for doing nothing, which is a sad thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked us to examine all aspects of dockland redevelopment and
106
stated that we need to relate our hopes to the needs of industry, because industry will be able to generate what we need there. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) confirmed a view that many of us had that there has been an internecine battle which has marred progress over the years in dockland. I use the hon. Gentleman's words, not just my own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) pointed out the need for partnership between local government and how to obtain the finance for schemes in this way. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who always puts his points clearly and always puts his constituency interests forward, made some valuable points about transportation. These were developed, with a rather watery flavour, by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). but when he talked about the smooth surface of the Thames those who try to operate pleasure steamers do not think it is smooth when great lumps of wood go into their propellers.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow started by attacking something which he thought had been said by one of my hon. Friends. He thought that an unfortunate remark had been made denigrating those who live in the docklands, but I have been here throughout the debate and I know that no such remark was made. I suggest that he should attack instead his hon. Friend who told him, when he was not present, something which was not true. We thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for his expert advice, as an entrepreneur, on the disadvantages of the IDC system and for stating that even though companies might obtain IDCs they do not want to waste time and money going through the present bureaucratic process, even with the relaxations that have been made in London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made a point, which was picked up later in the debate, about the disposal of new town assets. On this point the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) disagreed with him. When there is a shortage of capital, we believe that to recycle the existing capital could be one way to get new schemes off the ground. What the hon. Member for South Shields said was hopelessly out of

107
touch with London's problems, as he might have gathered if he had looked at the faces of hon. Members representing London constituencies. He did not say much that was of help to the major problems of London, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) brought us face to face with the up-to-date facts.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I am wondering what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I talked particularly about the unreality of trying to bring back major industry to these areas, a view which was shared by other hon. Members. I said that this was a good rôle for small industry. I thought that this had been widely accepted.
Mr. Finsberg: I was talking about the hon. Gentleman's comments on IDCs and ODPs. If he rereads his words, he might feel that he did not say quite what he intended to say.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman read the report, which made quite valid and sensible comments about IDCs and ODPs?
Mr. Finsberg: Time has moved on, but the hon. Member for South Shields has not.
I move on to say something in general about docklands because there are major problems which have not yet been properly tackled. Dockland has planning blight, frighteningly high unemployment, plummeting rate revenue and appalling communications. There was talk of local authorities spending money on building up an infrastructure but getting nothing out of it. But they will get an expanded rate base. The shrinking rate base is one of the major problems of London, as the Secretary of State has said over and over again so rightly. This is a way of getting increased rates and doing something about the appalling conditions and the dilapidated housing which epitomise what the Secretary of State has called urban decay.
Despite academic protestations about such areas, however, the Government and the GLC have steadfastly seemed to ignore the vast development potential of docklands. The GLC has the land available for industry, housing, and recreational facilities and it offers the
108
opportunity to regenerate the whole of East London's economy. But the time-wasting and local government squablings—which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East mentioned—have been so immense that, apart from some superficial efforts at house building and the processing of planning applications, the plight of docklands remains roughly the same as it did when the Port of London moved to Tilbury in 1967.
The derelict grandeur of London's docklands is a melancholy tribute to the commercial glories of a vanished age. In their present state, the docklands are also a considerable tribute to the efficiency of economic planning controls. It was only by the rigid imposition of such controls that new development could have been stifled.
Docklands also offer an enormous opportunity to improve the housing and environmental conditions of East London. If the redevelopment opportunities are taken in an intelligent and imaginative spirit, and if new housing is constructed at sufficiently low densities and gives opportunities for a variety of tenure and ownership—as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey said, there should be opportunities for different colours and so on—the result could be not only to create new communities in the docklands area but to spearhead an attack on inner city deprivation.
Those responsible have neglected to do the most important work, which is the creation of a stable and attractive infrastructure and substructure. No one will come to docklands unless there are good rail and road communications or unless there are efficient public utilities. No new industries or jobs will be attracted to the area unless some organisation makes the effort to get them there. The docklands area cannot be looked at as a number of separate entities. If it is to succeed, it must be conceived as a whole, interdependent area which needs a policy which will deal with it as such, not as different areas. This does not mean overlooking the problems of areas such as the Isle of Dogs.
The problems of docklands are merely the problems of all London in a more acute and obvious form. London today is experiencing structural unemployment for the first time since the war. We have lost half a million manufacturing

109
jobs since 1961, today many labour exchanges in the capital city have unemployment rates of 10 per cent. and over, and 86,000 jobs were lost between June 1973 and June 1975.
As Simon Jenkins, in an earlier incarnation, said in The Times on 27th September 1976,
"How many people could be working in dockland if local councils stopped squabbling and started looking for new investment? Indeed, by allowing sites to be cleared of existing employers, and then stopping new employers taking their place, the GLC secures the worst of both worlds."
This raises the question of whether we need new resources anyway. Broadly speaking, there are two alternative strategies for the redevelopment of dockland. The first is to create a bureaucratic monolith, with vast injections of public money, which would seek to plan on an unprecedented scale and to oversee the development of every detail of the new docklands. The second is to relax the existing planning controls and to allow the natural economic rhythms of a great city to work their beneficient effect. I have no doubt which of these strategies we should adopt. The planners did not kill docklands—the old docklands were killed by economic evolution. But the planners did ensure, by channelling all new development through the rigid system in docklands, that docklands should stay dead.
There is every evidence that planning can stifle, thwart and distort economic development, but there is no evidence that planning can stimulate such development. What the planners ought to do and can do for docklands is to provide the necessary infrastructure—new roads, new tube lines—and then get out of the way.
The GLC, in its budget for next year, will raise £50 million through rates, which will be used to defray capital expenditure. This is money which is available, and will continue to be available on an annual basis, without affecting any other policies on housing, transport and so on over and above that which the GLC spends on cripplingly high subsidies. This money has been available for use. But I fear—here I regret that I must be political—that it has been the will and the initiative of the Labour Party at County Hall that have been absent. Even Paul Beasley, the leader of
110
Tower Hamlets Council, according to a report in The Times in January, said that the money for docklands could be
"made available from normal local authority financing'. No special Government assistance would be needed."
I am certainly not calling for any special Government help for London. All I am saying is that we should remove the disabilities that now affect London where we are unfairly disadvantaged.
I fear that the Labour Party, which when in Government has professed concern about stopping inner city decay and which in the GLC is said to be committed to arresting and reversing the death of the inner capital, has done nothing. London cannot afford to wait for a flicker of activity. The dereliction in dock-lands must be stopped now.
The way to effective action is neither complicated nor impossible financially. It is, however, necessary to free the development of docklands from the bureaucratic inertia and general deterrent that the GLC has become to any kind of employment or residential regeneration in London.
It requires, first, the establishment of the infrastructure by improving road and rail communications, thereby increasing the catchment area of people and freight. All impediments to growth must be removed—IDCs, ODPs—and the Location of Offices Bureau, which now sends firms out of London, must be accepted to have outlived its usefulness or be turned, if it is to remain, to concentrate on helping inner London instead of hindering it. There must also be sensitive and varied population mixes in employment opportunities, housing and leisure, coupled with the need for the contribution of private financial investment and property development companies in partnership with the local authorities.
In short, because of the GLC's non-commitment to installing the infrastructure of redevelopment, commerce and industry, which had and still have vast amounts of money to invest if there is an end product for them, have come up against bureaucracy. They have vast amounts to invest, but they will not commit their resources until the infrastructure is there. There must, therefore, be a definite, positive policy to attract the money that is available, which will encourage growth and potential.

111
We have heard a lot this afternoon in this useful debate. There is little that divides the two sides of the House, except, perhaps, the political strategy which at present is being followed by the Government and by the GLC. The attack on the present political strategy has not been confined to this side. Fairly harsh words have been used by Labour Members. What is quite clear and is apparent from every quarter is that London cannot afford to wait any longer. It has already waited for far too long.
Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of infrastructure and he called for action. Does he back the Leader of the GLC Opposition who says that he will go ahead with the Fleet Line, if he is given the power, without waiting for Government assistance? Would such action simply be borings in the ground?
Mr. Finsberg: I had concluded. I do not wish to bore the House any longer.
7.5 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I want rather belatedly to thank the Expenditure Committee for its report. As the House knows, the Government made their response to the report about 18 months ago, and both the report and the response have been to some degree overtaken by events—by the publication of the Dock-lands Strategic Plan and by the Government's response thereto.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who recently came into the Chamber, wished that he had been able to be present for the whole of the debate and to respond to it. I know that every time the subject of docklands is mentioned my right hon. Friend reacts positively.
The criticism has been made by several hon. Members who have taken part in this debate that progress has been slow, that things are getting bogged down in committees or that progress is likely to be frustrated by committees failing to agree or to reach speedy decisions. I contest that. I simply do not think that it is true. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said that democracy is an excuse for some people doing nothing. As I hope to show later,
112
that is certainly not true in the case of dockland. If it later becomes true, perhaps we shall have to think again, but the Government believe that the present structure is satisfactory. Progress to date, as I shall seek to demonstrate later, has been much better than some have been prepared to admit.
I repeat that I shall want to argue that later, but first I want to say something about organisational structure, a question which arose at several points during the debate. The suggestion has often been made that we need a corporation akin to a new town development corporation, a body that would be able to act speedily and decisively. I reject that proposition now, as I did in my evidence to the Sub-Committee. I see the attraction.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey has a dream of certain things he wants to see happening in dockland. In his speech today and speeches he has made on other occasions he has described possible imaginative schemes, such as being able to shop by river. I do not believe that the speed with which the job could be done and the sensitivity with which it could be done would ever be achieved if we set up a body such as a new town development corporation.
There has been repeated mention of one matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) put it very well when he talked about the degree to which communities living in dockland need, through their democratic representatives, to be involved in the development of any plans if we are to move along the right lines. I made that very point in my evidence to the Sub-Committee.
Dockland is not a well-defined or an easily defined area. It is an artificial area in the sense that a large part of it is related to its hinterland. Each of the five boroughs is associated intimately with that part of each other borough which is called dockland. I go further and say that the dockland round the River Thames is the heartland of much of the economic and social life of East and South-East London, whose constituencies many of us represent.
I return to the argument about delay. The Travers Morgan consultants foresaw 1978 as the starting year. The DJC did rather better; its strategy was complete

113
in July of last year. Only a month later the Government were able to approve it and give it their support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey was critical of what he thought to be the delay, but he at least admitted that the Docklands Joint Committee's planned strategy was admirable. I do not believe that one can honestly say that the committee has moved slowly. In some respects it has done remarkably well.
New town development corporations have been held up in this debate as absolute paragons of speed and decisiveness, but it cannot be said that even they, when laying down their plans at the beginning of their designation, have moved very much faster than has the Docklands Joint Committee in this case. What is more, there is a great difference between the complexity of the situation which the Docklands Joint Committee faced and that which the development corporations faced even where the corporations were in partnerships in, for example, Peterborough or Northampton. The complexity of the situation inevitably means that it will be more difficult for the committee; it is likely to take longer, and it may even be difficult in some cases to get everyone to agree.
I believe that it is absolutely right to follow the strategy which we have followed. Where 55,000 people, represented by many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, are directly affected, and where there are clearly defined and active communities, it is vitally important that we recognise that fact and also that those communities are part of a far wider industrial structure than just the dockland area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), who was a member of the Docklands Joint Committee, referred to the arguments that went on part of the time between the local authorities, and the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), referred to local authorities squabbling. The fact is that the GLC and the five boroughs have sorted out their difficulties and their disagreements and have come to a unanimous conclusion. The House ought to pay some tribute to that. It is a pretty remarkable achievement for boroughs as diverse as that, north and south of the river, to be able to achieve a common
114
strategy. For that reason, I believe that there has been a considerable achievement.
Many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate would agree that the key to dockland redevelopment lies in restoring economic life and purpose to dockland. Concern has been expressed about the loss of jobs and closures of firms that have supplied the life blood of the area. I cannot think differently because I represent a constituency currently faced with no fewer than 1,000 redundancies. I can tell the House that the Government are fully seized of the problem, and the statement which my right hon. Friend made last August demonstrated a significant shift in Government policy.
Many hon. Members have said that much of dockland redevelopment will be dependent upon the activities of the small firms. The rise in the IDC limit means that more than 40 per cent. of firms coming to dockland do not need to apply for IDCs. From the arguments we have had so far, that seems to be the very kind of industrial activity we want to attract. In that direction, I am convinced that an enormously important contribution has already been made.
Certain criticism has been made of the fact that so far it has been attractive to firms to move to new towns and that the Government have seemed ready to assist or to encourage them to do so. But it is important to recognise the significant change which my right hon. Friend made by his statement last August, in that now the dockland area has the same level of priority as the new town corporations for attracting industry. It is second only in priority to assisted areas.
Lastly, I think we should recognise the important change that has now been made in the issue of speculative IDCs to enable the replacement of obsolete facilities. As a consequence of the speculative IDCs being granted, a major new industrial estate has been started at Beckton and some 2,000 jobs are expected to be provided in the longer term. It is likely to be the forerunner of many more. Therefore, I think that the Government have already made a major contribution towards the industrial development of the area.

115
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East also mentioned the importance of training, and I would agree with that. He mentioned some of the needs of industrial training which, I think, will be fulfilled in the near future. Perhaps I can correct him on one constituency point concerning Harvey's which is an important centre of training. There is certainly no danger to the training centre in our borough. He and I are agreed that a considerable tribute should be paid to our own borough for the example it has given to other boroughs by its helpful industrial policies which have gone a considerable way to attracting no fewer than 4,000 new jobs, which would not have otherwise been there. I know for a fact that other boroughs in the dockland area are already showing signs of following the example set by Greenwich in employing an employment development officer and in the helpful assistance that a local authority can give—but which has not always been given in the past—to the development of industry within its own area and to providing bady needed employment.
The key to development in terms of jobs and housing lies in the issue of land. That is why I am glad that the constituent authorities of the DJC have agreed to the formation of the Docklands Land Board which will operate under the DJC's direction. It will be the first such board to operate under the Community Land Act. It will have powers to acquire and hold land, to enter into leasehold partnerships with private developers, and, acting jointly with local authorities, to operate as an industrial development agency. We hope that the board will be in operation by Easter.
I believe that that development is valuable to industry and to housing whether public or private, but even in advance of the formation of the board, the DJC is already carrying out preliminary work, and the Government have agreed to its acquisition of about 220 acres for redevelopment in line with the docklands strategy—that is, four sites for a mixture of public and private development.
I stress that docklands, along with other inner city areas currently under review, will be accorded priority. Therefore, I do not think that there will be an adverse
116
effect on land acquisition in docklands under the Community Land Act as a result of the present continuing economic constraints.
I want to say a word about the way in which the Government's docklands policy fits into the inner city policy as a whole. My right hon. Friend's committee, which is studying the future of inner city areas, regards dockland as a major and vital part of those studies. They have been carried forward very urgently. We hope that the Government will be in a position to make a statement in a few weeks. As the House knows, the Government's consideration represents a major departure from the post-war consensus, criticised in this debate, on the dispersal of the population from our cities. The policy of dispersal is far less relevant now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The criticism heralds a new approach which has received wide support from our cities. London Dockland was extensively developed in the Victorian period, and its concentration of economic and social problems now need to be tackled.
On the economic front, it is partly a matter of investment and of providing modern industrial premises to replace those which are now obsolete. It is partly a matter of providing encouragement to small firms, and partly a question of providing conditions which make these areas attractive and potentially profitable in terms of sites, road access and labour force. At the same time, it will be necessary to relieve immediate social stresses, continuing the attack on longstanding housing problems and concerning ourselves more than in the past with the contribution which the health services, the education service and the social services make to the wider environment of an area.
My right hon. Friend's committee is considering whether the main programmes of the central Government and local government should to a degree concentrate on selected inner urban areas, and whether some new form of partnership may be required, involving the central Government and local authorities, to get the right mix of measures in an individual area and to co-ordinate the necessary action. The experience of the Docklands Joint Committee itself may have something to teach other parts of the country

117
as an example of local authority co-operation with a certain degree of Government involvement.
In the present economic climate, no extra money is available waiting to be earmarked for inner areas of cities. Any extra expenditure will have to come from within the totals of public expenditure that have already been set, but there is room for reallocation both within local authority budgets and in Government programmes. I believe that this approach is entirely compatible with the approach adopted by the GLC and the five London boroughs responsible for the dockland area, which have evolved both an appropriate sense of priorities and an appropriate working mechanism in the joint committee.
I take a more optimistic view than certain hon. Members about the future. I end by saying that I genuinely mean my thanks to the Sub-Committee for its report. There is no doubt that, in the long-term thinking about dockland, the report and the way the Sub-Committee considered evidence has been of great value, and this debate in itself, with the comments that have been made, will be taken seriously by the Government in their own consideration of inner city policies so far as they affect dockland.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Fifth Report from the Expenditure Committee Session 1974–75 (House of Commons Paper No. 348) on Redevelopment of the London Docklands, and of the relevant Government observations (Command Paper No. 6193).

CHRYSLER UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED (EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
7.23 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Eighth Report from the Expenditure Committee Session 1975–76 (House of Commons Paper No. 596) on Public Expenditure on Chrysler UK Limited, and of the relevant Government observations (Command Paper No. 6745).
This report is the result of six months of very intensive work by the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. It worked extremely hard. It held more than 50 sittings, examined 150 witnesses and received more than 100 memoranda. There was a special feature about the way it operated. It took a great deal of its evidence on site. It visited all the Chrysler United Kingdom Limited manufacturing operations in Great Britain. It talked to the workpeople and to the management. It toured the factories and it took formal evidence ft om witnesses against their own surroundings—the factory, the company office and the works canteen.
My experience of the Defence Sub-Committee has shown me that witnesses are often a good deal more forthcoming when they are examined in their home territory. The Defence Sub-Committee has found this to be so particularly in relation to Service chiefs who have been examined, for example, in Germany or Hong Kong. The Trade and Industry Sub-Committee has now discovered that this is a very effective way of getting the best evidence.
There is, however, one small technical hitch. It did not apply in this case but it should be mentioned. This is the archaic custom of the House which enables the Shorthand Writer to the House to control how shorthand writers are deployed overseas. I have given evidence on this to one of the Houses's Committees and I hope that before very long what I suggested to it will be seriously considered by it and adopted by the House. It is an archaic custom, smacking a little of the eighteenth century, and to some extent it impedes the taking of evidence overseas. However, that did not apply to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee's work for this report. I merely thought

119
that it would be useful to put the point on record at this stage.
The Trade and Industry Sub-Committee's inquiry was also somewhat unusual in the sense that, instead of taking a fairly broad subject, as many Sub-Committees do, it made a detailed and intensive study of one particular case. This exposed the members of the Sub-Committee to particular burdens—for example, of travel and very heavy sessions. They were extremely well served by the specialised advisers they co-opted.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boyden: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's endorsement. Those advisers included economists, accountants and management consultants, and this has become a very good feature of Sub-Committee work. Nearly every Sub-Committee these days has one or more expert advisers, and one of the striking things is that the leading experts in the land are prepared to act as special advisers to our Sub-Committees in the different subjects, taking very modest pay and suffering considerable personal inconvenience. This is a suitable occasion for me to pay tribute to the whole range of specialist advisers who have helped us over the last year or two.
From our point of view the system is both economical and flexible, and no one can say that the Expenditure Committee is extravagant with public funds when making its studies and reports. There is certainly no feeling that we should try to imitate the Congressional style of having elaborate staffs and perhaps producing what is, I should think, a somewhat conservative impasse from time to time simply because the staffs are there and have to be employed. At the moment, many of our Sub-Committees are making excellent investigations with extra assistance to our own very good staff. I must emphasise that I am not making any criticism of our Clerks in the House, who service our Committees on the procedural side and are devoted. The combination of permanent staff and temporary advisers has been most effective.
This inquiry needs to be considered against the background of previous in-
120
quiries by the Sub-Committee. The Expenditure Committee for some time has had an interest in the spending of public money in the private sector and has looked at a number of matters there. The major inquiry which, in a sense, led to this one was into the motor industry as a whole. The Sub-Committee began it in 1975. Its main interest then was British Leyland. The Sub-Committee was particularly worried about some of the procedures that the Department of Industry had followed and was critical of some of the ways in which the money in relation to British Leyland was spent. It turned with a certain sense of anticipation to the investigation of the Chrysler financial transactions, rather in the hope that the Secretary of State had taken some notice of its previous investigations and recommendations. The Secretary of State, of course, will answer for himself, but the Committee is inclined to think that the Department has taken notice of the British Leyland recommendations and investigation. The Committee is much more pleased with several things about the right hon. Gentleman's reception of this report and his reaction to it.
The Committee thinks that there has been much greater cost-effectiveness in relation to the Chrysler subsidies. It makes a marked distinction between the slight and rather dismissive reply which the Government made to the report on the motor vehicle industry as a whole and the careful and detailed reply to this report. That is one of the bases on which the Committee thinks that the Government have taken notice.
However, on behalf of the Expenditure Committee as a whole, I must say that it is not good enough to take eight months to make a reply. The only crumb of consolation is that, when it was announced that this debate would be held today, the Department hurried up and has produced the White Paper which we have before us rather more quickly than it would otherwise have done. That, however, is a small thing compared with the eight months' delay.
I make this general statement. We have just been debating a report on which the Department of the Environment made its answer in three months. I do not suppose that that led members of the Committee to throw their hats in the air, but three months is much better

121
than the time that many other Government Departments take in making their replies.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I think we should notice that the eight months that it took to produce the Government's response to the motor vehicle industry worse than the much-criticised time of five months taken to produce the response to the motor vehicle indsutry inquiry. So response time seems to be lengthening rather than, as we might have hoped, shortening.
Mr. Boyden: I am grateful. As a general comment, if the Department is having some difficulty in covering the whole of a Committee's report, it would be more courteous and helpful if the Department issued an interim reply, producing the full reply later. In any case, eight months was far too long for producing a main reply.
I pay tribute to the Chairmen of the Committee, originally my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). Until his ministerial appointment, he was Chairman of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee when it was inquiring into the motor industry and British Leyland, and he chaired half the inquiry which we are now discussing. He was an ebullient Chairman who worked his Committee very hard, but I am delighted to say that its members responded very well to his drive and hard work and that they have done a substantial job over the last two years or so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, then took on the chairmanship of the Committeee and also followed with very hard work and penetrating analysis all the material which came before it.
Perhaps I might repeat in the presence of many of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee something that I said in the last debate. One of my objectives as Chairman of the Expenditure Committee has been to develop good relations between the Sub-Committees and the Secretaries of State with whom they deal. At the end of the day, if a Secretary of State is not satisfied that the Committee is doing good work, or if he refuses to give evidence, or gives very limited evidence, there is little that the Committee
122
can do. We can have a row in the House, but at the end of that the Whips usually deal with the situation or the row runs into the sand.
It is not the intention to make the Committees lackeys of the Departments. No one who has read the last few reports could think that that has been so. But is it very important that a Committee should have the confidence of the Secretary of State and his senior officials, and vice versa. Although there has been some acrimony over British Leyland and Chrysler UK, I think that at the end of the day much better relations have been established. I think that the Committee has helped to push forward the proper expending of public money, and I thank its members for what they have done. I hope that the Secretary of State will feel inclined to say the same.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley)indicated assent.
Mr. Boyden: I see that my right hon. Friend agrees.
This is unrewarding work in many aspects. Few of our constituents, I should think, care a damn whether we are on the Expenditure Committee. There is little publicity in the sense that many hon. Members want it, and it is hard work. At the minimum hon. Members meet once a week, and they are then called to meetings of the main Expenditure Committee to consider the reports of other Sub-Committees. I am grateful that there are in the House not quite 49—there are one or two backsliders—but a couple of score of hon. Members who give their attention, their brains and their energies to these matters and who forward the cause of good government in the process.
7.36 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I hope that it will be convenient if I indicate at this point the Government's view on the Eighth Report of the Expenditure Committee. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will wind up the debate if there is time. We do not have much time, so I shall try to keep my remarks to the minimum.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) that the Committee worked extremely hard and did a thorough investigation.

123
We found it helpful and useful, although the House will not expect me to agree with every criticism that the Sub-Committee has made.
I take full personal responsibility for the delay in replying. Detailed work went into responding to the Committee's criticisms, conclusions and recommendations. I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to welcome our response. I shall look into the possibility, in future, if it is practicable of my Department issuing an interim reply. I certainly intend to establish good relationships with the Select Committees that call the Department of Industry to give evidence.
I am certainly glad that the Sub-Committee did not dissent from the decision which the Government had to take in December 1975. The report and our reply deal with past decisions. Although I shall say something about the past in a moment, I should like to say a little about how important it is to consider what has been achieved since January 1976 and what the prospects are for the future.
It is now 15 months since the House gave its assent to the Government's plans for assistance to Chrysler United Kingdom. The company undertook an unprecedented reorganisation; substantial changes were made and they were accomplished rapidly. The management and work force developed a detailed and invaluable dialogue about future plans and proposals; this has provided the material for the planning agreement between my Department and Chrysler which was signed last Wednesday.
While all this was going on my Department developed a working relationship with Chrysler, which is giving a real and effective insight into the company's operations. I myself have met the management of Chrysler United Kingdom frequently to review progress and I keep in touch with the Chairman of Chrysler Corporation, Mr. Riccardo. There can be few companies in which the Government, management and workers are so well informed about what is going on or are so closely in accord about what must be achieved. Eighteen months ago the future of Chrysler United Kingdom was very uncertain, and the livelihood of many thousands of workers was in jeopardy. In many ways the progress since then has been considerable.
124
A great deal still remains to be done, and neither the Government nor the company are complacent, but a great deal has been done to build a solid and reliable foundation on which the restructuring of Chrysler's British operations can move forward. The new production line to produce Alpines at Ryton for the domestic market was installed in record time. It came on stream on schedule, and the cars have been well received in the market. They are rapidly establishing a high reputation for quality. A new foundry has been installed at the Stoke engineering plant, which makes all the power trains for United Kingdom produced cars, including now the Alpine, as well as other components, including some for French production. A major face-lift has been carried out on the Avenger and production transferred to Linwood. A new car has been designed, and production will commence at Linwood in the summer for introduction later in the year. Arrrangements have been made to increase the supply of kits to Iran and the integration of the United Kingdom operation into Chrysler Europe has proceeded.
These are solid achievements. No less important, however, is the improved industrial relations climate, even taking account of current problems. In 1976, Chrysler lost 80 per cent. less working hours through industrial disputes than in the previous year, despite the upheaval of physical reorganisation. These encouraging improvements stem from the company's realistic approach to communications and a genuine and sustained effort to inform the workforce and to take its views into account.
The present problems at Linwood are a set-back. It is essential that the dispute should be solved very quickly, because Chrysler has the market demand for its products and success depends on satisfying the customers.
The House has been concerned about Chrysler's financial progress. The House will recall that the maximum potential commitment to the company was £162½ million by way of loss subvention, loans and guarantees, but already it is clear that the Government's actual expenditure will be substantially less. Of the total sum, up to £50 million was available to cover 1976. Subject to final audited accounts, just over £41 million will be

125
required. That is more than the estimate of £40 million made at the beginning of last year, but, if we take into account the effects of the depreciation of sterling and other factors which could not have been anticipated in January 1976, we see that financial performance has been in line with the expectations of the turn of the year 1975–76.
I must say that the failure to achieve production targets on the Avenger at Linwood and to a lesser extent the Alpine at Ryton have contributed to the losses. A lack of cars to sell has affected penetration of the United Kingdom and export markets. Even so, Chrysler sold more cars in Britain last year than the forecast in the Government plan. But, against that, more of these cars came from France than was planned. Export figures were much more disappointing, largely as a result of delays in re-introducing the Avenger in Europe. Commercial vehicles performance was not in line with expectations. This was due partly to the demand situation and partly to the loss of confidence at the time of the difficulties. All this has obviously influenced the financial position.
Comments have been made about the profits for 1976 announced by the Chrysler Corporation a few weeks ago. But I find that the attacks on the Government make a change from the suggestions made in January last year that we had taken a lame duck as a partner. I remember being cross-questioned very closely on this point when I went to the Sub-Committee. We believed at the time we came to the arrangement with the company that it would be able to meet its obligations. The recent figures serve to confirm that we have a viable partner, willing and able to play its part in turning Chrysler United Kingdom round.
Mr. David Madel: The Secretary of State mentioned that what had been expected of the commercial vehicle side had not quite been reached. Can he say anything about possible Post Office orders for Chrysler commercial vehicles?
Mr. Varley: I have the commercial vehicle figures somewhere in my notes. There has been a substantial order for the Dodge van manufactured in the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may say more about that a little later.
126
I was making the point that the Chrysler Corporation has sold more cars than it expected within the terms of the 1976 agreement with the Government, but has not sold quite as many commercial vehicles as expected, because of the matter of confidence and other factors which are well known to hon. Members and which were examined by the Committee.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reason for the Government's having to step in with the necessary finance last year was that the Chrysler Corporation's financial position was such that it could no longer be the main provider of money to Chrysler United Kingdom? Now that the Corporation is making record profits, is there any reason for the Government to continue to be in a position where they will underwrite with taxpayers' money losses which may be made by Chrysler United Kingdom over the next two or three years?
Mr. Varley: We hoped and expected the Chrysler Corporation to recover when in 1975–76 we made a deal with the corporation, details of which were laid before the House. We must stand by that deal, and we do. We do not envisage that the agreement will be renegotiated by either side. A substantial subvention has been paid for 1976, but we hope that the agreement to share losses in 1977 and 1978 will not have to be put into effect—it may, but we shall not know until later in the year. We hope that Chrysler United Kingdom will start to make profits this year, but we shall have to see how matters develop over the year. But I do not envisage that the Government will change their plans. As a result of the Chrysler Corporation's activities and the turn-round of its fortunes—
Mr. Michael Grylls rose—
Mr. Varley: I had better continue, because I can now give some precise information to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), who asked about commercial vehicles. The Post Office has ordered 1,600 vehicles from Chrysler, at a cost of £2¾ million. If the hon. Gentleman would like more information, I shall see whether I can obtain it for him if he drops me a note.

127
We see a profitable Chrysler Corporation giving strength to its counter-guarantee to our underwriting of the £35 million loan provided by a consortium of clearing banks and to our guaranteed loan of £28 million. More especially, the strength of the Chrysler Corporation will enable it to give greater support in the long term to the foundation on which we are helping to build. We are trying to secure this and to make a sound arrangement for Chrysler United Kingdom.
I am sure that most hon. Members will agree, as I think the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee agreed, that the success of Chrysler in Britain depends upon successful integration with the company's European operations.
Over the past months real progress has been made in this direction, both organisationally and in products. The new small car from Linwood, the 424, will be in the showrooms of Europe later this year. This will mark an important step in this integration, and the Europeanisation of the commercial vehicle range is well under way as well. This integration would not have made sense if Chrysler Corporation had not demonstrated that it was a viable and prosperous partner.
A feature of European integration is, of course, cross-sourcing of parts. The Sub-Committee examined this carefully in connection with plans for the Alpine. Good progress has been made towards the target of 57 per cent. United Kingdom sourcing for this car. Final decisions on the possibility of complete United Kingdom production will be taken towards the end of the year. If this course is taken it will clearly make a worthwhile balance of payments contribution. In my view it would not go against the principle of integration, taking into account the likelihood of sourcing components for French Alpines from this country.
The success of Chrysler United Kingdom in getting a proper share of the overall European market will, of course, depend upon its ability to meet demand. This cannot be achieved without continuity of production. Much of the work of the last 15 months could be wasted if targets are not achieved, productivity is not improved and dealers need to look elsewhere for products to sell. This is not
128
just a matter of avoiding disputes or strikes and stoppages; it involves consistent performance and good management as well.
Integration is not simply a question of organisation and finished products. Components have an important rÔle and the sourcing of Alpine parts in Britain provides opportunities for supplying the same parts to France. As I have said, this is already happening with components from Stoke and I am sure that the component industry will not be slow to recognise its opportunities.
Another helpful development has been the special effort which Chrysler has made to draw the attention of United Kingdom component suppliers to opportunities which exist in the Corporation world-wide. This is further potential benefit stemming from the closer integration of Chrysler United Kingdom in Europe and within the corporation as a whole. That is the situation of car production.
I would say a few more words about the commercial vehicle situation. As I have pointed out, this is less satisfactory. Confidence in Chrysler as a supplier was badly eroded in 1975 and restoring it is proving more difficult than was expected at the time of the Government agreement with Chrysler. But the re-organisation of the commercial vehicle operation and the model programme has gone ahead according to plan and United Kingdom built vehicles will form an essential part of the company's European range.
The Chrysler management has demonstrated to me that it is tackling the problems here as urgently and energetically as it can. In this sector demand is the problem. With cars we can sell more than there are available, so we have a different problem altogether.
Mr. Madel: I am sorry to interrupt a second time. Will the Secretary of State remember that much depends on the uninterrupted supply of components into Dunstable not only from Chrysler but from others, such as Rubery Owen? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how vital it is to have peaceful industrial relations among the component suppliers?
Mr. Varley: I do not disagree with that at all. Interruption in supplies badly

129
affects not only Chrysler but other major car manufacturers. I hope that the situation with regard to some supplying companies can improve. But the components industry, as hon. Members recognise, has a very good record not only with regard to supplying the home market but also supplying export needs.
The key to the success of the rescue lies in meeting production targets and satisfying dealers and customers at home and abroad that their requirements will be met on time with reliable vehicles. I am encouraged to learn that Chrysler has got this arrangement with the Post Office. I had better make this correction straight away. I said earlier that Chrysler had secured orders from the Post Office to supply 1,600 vehicles. It is slightly smaller than that—1,300 British-made Dodge vans—but the value of £2¾ million is the same.
The capital investment programme agreed under the Government plan has gone ahead well. The House will appreciate that it is not possible for me to reveal commercially confidential information. But I can say that the long range plans up to and beyond 1979 envisage the possibility of even greater investment in Britain than was forecast in January 1976. These plans will depend upon performance, and they will not involve any additional demands on the taxpayer. All this will of course mean more jobs in the future.
At present about 19,000 people work for Chrysler with a further 1,500 to come in Linwood from April when a second shift is introduced. This is especially welcome in West Central Scotland and provides the creation of new opportunities there. Apart from capital investment and management, the wholehearted co-operation of the work-force is obviously essential to good results. The discussions leading up to the planning agreement are a significant step towards creating a better understanding.
Workers representatives in Chrysler know in detail what the plans, constraints and targets are. They have been told that again and again within the planning agreement discussions and the joint consultative procedures that exist in the company. Their representatives have stated in public that suspicions have been allayed and the basis for future relation-
130
ships established. When I say "their representatives" I mean the trade unions' representatives. Chrysler's efforts, and those of its workers representatives, are to be commended.
It goes without saying that a well-informed work force is seen by everyone in Chrysler as a prerequisite to success. The progress so far achieved by Chrysler since January 1976 has been real and encouraging. The company now has good new or updated products on sale or on the stocks and markets that want these products. The first objective of our assistance has been achieved. There is still a long way to go. Losses of production for any reason could undermine the prospects of long-term success and the situation can rapidly change if there is a loss of production for a sustained period. The Government have established machinery which ensures that we are fully informed of progress and difficulties. Our understanding with the company's management and workers' representatives enables free discussion in an atmosphere of what I believe to be trust.
Mr. Grylls: Will the Secretary of State try to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) about the losses of £40 million under-written by the Government for 1976? Does not the right hon. Gentleman now recognise with the benefit of hindsight that he was taken for a ride by Mr. Riccardo? It would have been much better to have written into the agreement a clause saying that in the event of the Chrysler Corporation making a huge profit—it did, of £251 million—we the British taxpayers would not have under-written the losses? Surely, with the benefit of hindsight that would have been sensible.
Mr. Varley: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with any hon. Members on either side of the House who say that. Clearly they have not read the report of the Select Committee which said:
"… the fact that Chrysler Corporation were fully prepared to withdraw—and indeed, as the Secretary of State for Industry told us, it became clear during the negotiations that withdrawal was the course of action Mr. Riccardo had actually recommended to his Board—meant that the pistol was certainly loaded."

131
Those are not my words, but the words of the Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and on which there were distinguished Opposition Members.
Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman sits down he will give some attention to the formidable criticism of the Committee and refer at least to the conclusion of the advisers to his Department that Chrysler United Kingdom would not be viable—a conclusion which the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee adopted as its own. Surely in a debate on the Expenditure Committee's report and the Government's answers to it the right hon. Gentleman will refer to these basic isues between the Government and the Committee.
Mr. Varley: I have referred to that. I said at the beginning that I was glad that the Sub-Committee did not dissent from decisions that the Government had had to take in December 1975. I could have quoted chapter and verse for the Expenditure Committee's conclusions and our response to them and how they coincided with our views and the views that we took at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee made serious criticisms and reached different conclusions. I want to conclude my speech so that others can take part in the debate, but I want first to quote from paragraph 276 of the Expenditure Committee's report. The Committee said:
"On the basis of Chrysler United Kingdom's progress so far, and of our examination in Chapter VIII of the prospects for success, we regard the Secretary of State's views of the company as being substantially justified."
The Committee said in paragraph 295:
"It could be argued that the Government concluded the right agreement for the wrong reasons."
I accept that that is what the Committee said, but it also said that, given the facts at the time, there was no alternative but to go ahead with the agreement that we made. We could go over the ground in great detail, but I do not think that that would necessarily advance the case for taking the action that we did.
Last year, when I recommended our proposal to the House, and which it
132
accepted by a fairly large majority, I was cautiously optimistic. I am glad to see that the Committee found that view justified. I am not pretending that Chrysler United Kingdom is out of the wood. It depends on getting continuity of production to satisfy the markets and making sure that it gets its operations fully integrated with Europe. That, really, is the key to the matter.
The House backed the Government's decision in January 1976. Substantially, the Committee has examined the situation and come to the conclusion that the Government had to reach the agreement that they did. When I made that recommendation, I was cautiously optimistic about Chrysler's future. I concede that by no means could we say that the operation has been an entire success—for all the factors that I have given—but I remain cautiously optimistic. I hope that Chrysler United Kingdom will succeed for all those who work in the company, and I hope that that view is shared by the House.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the major function of this sort of Expenditure Committee debate is not to argue whether a decision which is irrevocable should or should not have been taken, but to see what lessons ought to be learned, and whether those lessons should have been learned earlier.
It is in that context that I start by expressing great disappointment that after the considerable criticism to which the Department of Industry was, in my view quite rightly, subjected for taking five months before it produced a truly pathetic response to the Committee's report on the motor vehicle industry, it has now taken eight months to produce its present response, and it did that only when the threat of a summons to bring the Permanent Secretary before the Committee to explain the Department's dilatoriness was in the offing, not to mention the debate that was coming on in the House.
It is in that context that the reality of parliamentary discussion becomes relevant. The House will remember that the day before the climactic Chryslerevents on the Floor of the House the Government, who had long promised the House the CPRS report and had it ready so that it could have been produced, said, under pressure, that they would place one

133
copy in the Library in the next day, four and a half hours before the debate was due to begin. It was only when the Speaker was asked to arrange for the Librarian of the House to produce several hundred copies of the report so that Members could see it before the debate that, with ill grace, the Government agreed to release the CPRS report. Even so, as the report ran into more than 140 pages it was not possible for the House to digest it properly before the Secretary of State asked the House for its considered opinion.
One can only come to the conclusion that the Government intended deliberately to deprive the House of the information, and the comment that appears on that subject in the Government's response is almost insolent. It is that the House was very lucky to get it at all and should be grateful, not that it should be critical of the Government's deliberately withholding information that it needed to do its duty to the country and to itself. I hope that we shall not again have a similar paragraph in a Government response to an utterly justified criticism in that context.
Another lesson that we should learn is about the relevance of forecasting, because one of the matters that the House had to consider in that climactic December was whether the Chrysler operation would jeopardise the British Leyland operation. It will be remembered that the CPRS report, which the House had so little opportunity of studying, had identified the great problem of over-capacity, particularly in the volume car section of British output.
It was in that context that the Secretary of State told the House on 15th December that if the Chrysler rescue operation went through Chrysler car production capacity would be reduced by 25 per cent. What the Select Committee found was that, far from capacity being reduced by 25 per cent., it has been increased by nearly 15 per cent. This is relevant because the fear that the Committee had that we might be robbing Peter to pay Paul is manifestly true in the case of British Leyland.
It is undoubtedly the case that the reason for British Leyland's pathetic sales is industrial troubles. It is not able to produce the cars for which there is a
134
willing market. Nevertheless, it is a serious matter when a Secretary of State, having deliberately deprived the House of information until the very last moment, gives information that is not just misleading in quantum, but is totally in the wrong direction—a reduction of 25 per cent., instead of an increase of about 15 per cent. That was specifically misleading to the House, and it is at least possible that some hon. Members might have taken a different view of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals had they known that the Chrysler rescue would produce an increase of 15 per cent. in its car-making capacity.
The Government's response is a considerably weightier one than the triviality which greeted the report on the motor vehicle industry, and I should like to acknowledge that progress. However, what a pity it is that paragraph 31 of the Government's response indicates that the most important matter of all—the financial consequences of the agreement—either is not understood by the Government or the Government are incapable of reading three paragraphs of the Select Committee's report. There is no other alternative, because it is said in paragraph 31 of the Government's response:
"In contrast the cost to Government is said to be £72·5 million, but this assumes that CUK make losses in 1977–79 to the full extent covered by the Agreement and losses in 1976 reaching £60 million."
That is not what the Select Committee said in its report, which is why I say that it is a pity that the Government either do not understand the financial consequences or are incapable of reading the three paragraphs on the subject—188, 189 and 190—in the Select Committee's report, because the Select Committee said in paragraph 189:
"If CUK shows the small profits forecast in 1977–79, and if losses in 1976 do not exceed £40 million, then the reorganisation of CUK will effectively have been achieved at an expense to the company of only £10–£12 million (for the Alpine)".
That is a true statement of fact; it is absolutely undeniable. We now know that the losses have exceeded £40 million, so the 50 per cent. share comes in on top of the £40 million.
If we take this in conjunction with the failure of the Government—which is acknowledged in their response—and of Chrysler to cost the effect of a fall in the

135
sterling exchange rate on the profitability of importing cars and a large proportion of the components from France, it will be seen that the taxpayer is providing a disincentive to Chrysler to enter stages 6 and 7 of the Alpine C6 programme which would be totally sourced from Britain.
It would appear from Chrysler's interim statement that the company attributes part of its losses to the falling exchange rate causing greater expenses than it expected on importing a large proportion of the Chrysler C6 from France. However, under the loss-splitting arrangement for the £20 million above the initial £40 million loss, the whole of which is funded by the British taxpayer, if there is an extra loss above that £40 million the taxpayer pays half of it. We do not know the figure—we have no means of knowing it—but it may well be that if Chrysler had been able to source the whole of the C6 Alpine in the United Kingdom there would not have been the extra £2·8 million loss, of which the British taxpayer will have to pay £1·4 million.
To continue with the Government's failure to understand the financial consequences, the Select Committee went on to say in paragraph 189:
"However, unless Chrysler Corporation defaults on its £63 million liability, HMG's total financial commitment is the loss funding of £72·5 million. CUK assets secure the remaining £27 million".
The Government comment that that is misleading. They say in paragraph 31 of their response:
"On the former assumptions about profitability the cost to Government would be £40 million in 1976–79 not £72·5 million".
The Committee never said that it would be £72·5 million. The paragraph continues:
"on the other basis CC's costs would be £42·5—£44·5 million, not £10—£12 million".
The Committee never said that they would not be. The Government add:
"Furthermore CC bear responsibility for all losses in excess of those specified in the Agreement".
Indeed, the corporation does, and the Select Committee's report said nothing to the contrary. This is what makes me suppose that whoever drafted this unhappy, would-be riposte either did not under-
136
stand the Government's contract, or had not read the Select Committee's report.
I conclude by referring to the comments in paragraph 296 at the end of the Select Committee's report because, as I have said, it is important to learn the right lessons—that is what an Expenditure Committee should be about. The Select Committee stated:
"However, by no stretch of the imagination can the events leading up to the agreement with Chrysler be said to form a glorious chapter in the history of the Government's industrial policy. There are three main elements involved in avoiding a repetition of these events: the use of sound and precise criteria (including the quantification of social factors—which is an element lacking in the present criteria) before decisions are taken; the anticipation by Government of the imminence of an application for assistance, with its corollary that all the relevant information to enable a rational decision to be taken should be available in good time; and the timely provision of such information so that Parliament can exercise proper judgment on the basis of known facts".
What militates against those three recommendations? First, a ludicrously slow response by the Government to Select Committee reports militates against them. If the Department were incapable of producing its response for eight months, surely it must have been because it had not studied the report adequately. Otherwise we must assume that it was capable of replying to it or of issuing its response, but merely unwilling to do so.
Secondly, on the question of anticipation, the Select Committee's last report on the motor vehicle industry should have put the Department on notice that Chrysler was in danger. Despite the Department's protestations, it is amply clear that the Department did not read the danger signals in time. Moreover, to conduct an exercise of that kind when the exchange rate was already falling rapidly should have alerted the Government to extrapolating movements of the exchange rates both ways and ascertaining what the effect was likely to be on Chrysler's fortunes, as the taxpayer was underwriting its losses.
There are two aspects of the interrelationship with exchange rates which are, to an extent, unique to Chrysler. First, 50 per cent. of its exports were tied to the Iranian contract in such a manner that alterations in exchange rates adverse to Chrysler could not automatically be recouped. Secondly, as at last year, the

137
only new model for the immediate future, the C6 Alpine, was to be largely manufactured in France. Both factors were known to the Department before the crisis descended, before the moment of decision arose, and yet their relevance clearly was not appreciated by the Department until the Select Committee highlighted them in its examination of Chrysler's witnesses, which occupied more than 90 questions.
In that context it is quite clear that Mr. Hunt and, to a lesser extent, other Chrysler leaders did not realise the potential effect on their own profitability that the movement in the exchange rate would incur. They had assumed that the dollar parity would remain at $2·02 cents, but it certainly was not that when the agreement started to bite.
These are the lessons that we should learn, but they depend on the willingness of the Government to co-operate with the House of Commons. I quote once again:
"The timely provision of such information so that Parliament can exercise a proper judgment on the basis of the known facts."
It was within the Government's power to publish the CPRS report in good time for it to be adjusted. The Government chose not to do so. The proper -course of action would have been to apologise to the House, not to say that the House was lucky to have had the report at all.
Before I sit down I pay tribute to the specialist advisers who gave generously of their time at considerable personal inconvenience. I also pay tribute to the competence, hard work, and flair of the Clerk who served our Committee, his assistants, his secretaries and typing staff.
It was unfortunate that one complete morning's evidence was lost for ever because the authorities of the House decided to use tape recording equipment rather than a stenographer. As the equipment was never turned on to record what was said, the whole of one morning's evidence was entirely lost. I mention that because it should be borne in mind when the House considers whether apparent economies of that kind are really worth making.
I am glad that, however belatedly, eight months after the full Committee offered this report to the House, time has been given to debate it.
8.23 p.m.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-
138
Hyslop) in the course of his speech made some characteristically pugnacious remarks. Hon. Members listening may wonder how the hon. Member and I, as senior member and Chairman, respectively, of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, get on in the proceedings of the Committee. Let me say straight away that membership of the Sub-Committee, however versatile and diverse, still provides a very remarkable exercise in House of Commons harmony.
The report before the House is the unanimously agreed report of the Sub-Committee and each of the members of that Committee has made his own very effective contribution to the report. I echo the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) about my predecessor as Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who for many years served as a member of the Sub-Committee and gave greatly of his particular expertise.
Similarly, I pay tribute to two other hon. Members who took part in the inquiry into Chrysler and who have since left the Sub-Committee—the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). Both gave to the Committee over many years of their particular experience and talent in the course of our investigations. The other hon. Members who served are listed on the Order Paper tonight and the House will appreciate that we covered the whole spectrum of political thought in the House and worked together extremely well as a team.
This harmony in the Committee was assisted by the very hard work done by the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Rogers, whose efforts held the work of the Committee together. Without his work and that of his assistants and specialist advisers, our efforts would have come to nothing. The names of the specialist advisers are listed in paragraph 7 of the report, and during the Chrysler inquiry we were able to draw on new expertise not previously engaged. We are grateful for that help.
I will not go into all the salient features of the report, which includes 296 paragraphs, at length. But I will reinforce what has been said: the Committee came to the conclusion that the Government had no other option than to reach the

139
agreement they did with Chrysler in January 1976.
In the course of our inquiry we looked at all possible alternative course of action, and every one revealed particular difficulties or stumbling blocks. This meant that the course taken was the only feasible one, however much it has been criticised and however much some hon. Members may regard it as undesirable and second-best. It was the only decision that any reasonable person could take when faced with all the complexities of the situation.
Despite the Committee's general agreement about the final decision, it was very critical of the way in which the whole crisis around Chrysler arose and how the negotiations were conducted. We do not think that during the years 1967–75 either the Chrysler Corporation or Chrysler United Kingdom did much to strengthen the company's position in this country. The potential to achieve integration with Chrysler's operations in Europe was in no way realised, and we did not think that any attention was paid to this. Long before 29th October 1975, Chrysler should have given the Government more warning of the real extent of its difficulties in the United Kingdom. This meant that when the final crisis arose, and following the Press conference held by Mr. Riccardo in Detroit, the Government inevitably were taken by surprise. Therefore, they were at some disadvantage in the negotiations that followed.
It is interesting to examine the Government's reply, which has just been published. We have heard a good deal in this debate about the time taken for that reply to be published. I shall confine my remarks to saying that the reply is a good one, since it deals thoroughly with the content of the report. The House owes the Department a debt of appreciation on the fact that its reply is a great improvement on the last reply issued by the Department following our earlier inquiry.
The Department accepts some of the criticisms and points made by the Committee. In other respects the Committee stands corrected, because it did not have the full information when it reached its decisions. We have now at least established a proper dialogue between the
140
Committee and the Department which, I hope, will benefit both in the national interest.
There are some new pieces of information provided in the response from the Department of Industry. It is encouraging to note that in paragraph 3(e) of the response we are told that the Iranian National Industrial Manufacturing Company has now decided to invest a further £25 million in facilities for the assembly of Chrysler United Kingdom cars in that country. That information gives encouragement on the overall position of Chrysler United Kingdom.
Paragraph 9 of the Government's reply contains an astonishing sentence, which reads as follows:
"In early 1974 the Department recognised the likely problem of future over-capacity in the United Kingdom car industry structured as it was at that time, and Chrysler's weak position in such a situation."
If that happened in early 1974, almost two years before the publication of the CPRS Report—which we were given to understand was the first time that the problems of over-capacity had been thoroughly analysed and studied—why did the Government take that line in respect of British Leyland, whose crisis intervened between the beginning of 1974 and the later period in 1975? There is something a little strange about that sequence of events.
I move to paragraph 18 of the Government's response, in which the Department defends the length of time taken in the negotiations with Chrysler following the announcement at the Detroit Press conference. The Government defended the fact that they had taken so much time. As the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, I feel that the Government have missed the main point of our criticisms. These criticisms relating to the progress of the negotiations were not just as to the length of time taken but related to the way in which the negotiations were almost conducted in semipublic.
I wish to refer to paragraph 114 of the report. We are told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Indusry told the House on 15th December 1975 that the negotiations
"must take place in a confidential atmosphere".

141
The Committee's report then states
"It was clear that this did not happen. The Government were in an embarrassing position at the start of the talks. The length of the negotiations, and the lack of security which attended them, did nothing to retrieve the situation."
I turn to the last sentence of paragraph 155:
"The Government's declared intention to keep the negotiations private and confidential was in practice not achieved, with the result that it was from the media that both the House of Commons and the work force first learned of the outcome."
Those were the criticisms made by the Committee about the course of the negotiations. I think I am right in saying that the Department's response contains no reference to that line of criticism. That was perhaps understandable, because undoubtedly the officials who helped to compose the response were in no position to comment on leaks which may have occurred in the negotiations.
I move on to paragraph 37 of the Government's reply, to which reference has already been made. I think it was the hon. Member for Tiverton who spoke about this. In the first sentence of that paragraph the Government say:
"In his statement to the House of Commons on 16th December 1975 the Secretary of State for Industry referred to a reduction in CUK's capacity of 25 per cent."
Please note that it refers to capacity being reduced. Later in the same paragraph, however, the last sentence reads:
"The investment at Linwood in paint facilities has removed certain restraints and the total capacity for cars and commercial vehicles is now greater than it was prior to the implementation of the SLT/C6 Plan. This capacity has not of course been wholly utilised and there has been a reduction in output of the magnitude referred to by the Secretary of State."
In that paragraph there is total confusion between capacity and output, and, therefore, the criticism of the Sub-Committee in that respect still stands.
The Secretary of State has said that the important thing—following the agreement between the Government and Chrysler—is to consider how far there has been progress that will improve the future prospects of Chrysler United Kingdom. In the Sub-Committee's report some doubt was cast upon the future viability of the company, but at least we now have the planning agreement that was finalised last week—an agreement that both the Gov-
142
ernment and the Committee hope will carry the real commitment of those engaged on all sides of the company's operations.
I also note the arrangements that have been made for continued monitoring of the company's problems by the Department. I particularly note, in paragraph 39 of the Government's reply, the arrangements that have been made for professional accountants to scrutinise whether Chrysler United Kingdom is being subjected to adverse transfer pricing within the Chrysler Corporation. The importance of this aspect of Chrysler's activities was underlined by the recent publication of the figures to which reference has been made tonight—namely, that in 1976 Chrysler United Kingdom made a loss of £42·8 million while Chrysler Corporation made a profit of $423 million. Considering that it was the poor performance of Chrysler Corporation in 1975 that precipitated the whole Chrysler crisis in this country, the latest figures provide at least food for thought. The Sub-Committee intends to seek further information about those figures.
The Sub-Committee regards itself as having a continuing rÔle in these matters. We do not intend to slave away at a report, to publish it and to put it on the shelves and then look back with pride at what we have done. The work of any Select Committee, particularly the Expenditure Committee, must be one of continuing monitoring and continuing influence on public policy, a rÔle in which the taxpayers' interests are defended throughout. In order to be effective in this, the Sub-Committee intends, though it will mean a tremendous burden on our members and staff, never to leave any subject alone. We shall never let matters drop. We hope that in pursuing this course we shall be able to perform the rÔle of this House in relation to the government of this land more effectively.
8.40 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Sub-Committee on an excellent report. I am encouraged to learn from the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) that the Sub-Committee intends to keep its teeth in the subjects that it has taken up. That is good news, but I suggest that the Sub-Committee will

143
have to develop not only its analytic skills, but its capacity to pin Ministers, of whatever party, against the ropes when it has legitimate criticism.
It is because of the failure of the Government's devolution Bill that we have this opportunity to discuss the Sub-Committee's Report a mere eight months after its publication. The House should not kid itself: if the devolution Bill were still going through, we should probably not have had the chance to discuss the Report for many months. It was only because of the imminence of the debate that the Government were persuaded to bring before the House their inadequate answer to the formidable analysis of the Sub-Committee.
Mr. Boyden: That is not correct. The Department had agreed to publish the Report on 16th March. It did not know at that time about this debate. The Report was brought forward by a few days, for which we are grateful, so that the House should have the papers in time for the debate.
Sir K. Joseph: Then I withdraw that part of my criticism. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) is Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, the value of whose reports lies not only in the analyses contained within them, but in the degree to which those analyses can be brought home to Ministers in subsequent debates.
The Secretary of State, whom we all like, gave a bland reply to this excellent report. He wrote off the criticism with what was virtually a public relations exercise for Chrysler as it is today. We all understand the right hon. Gentleman's problem. He was in favour of a quite different solution to the Chrysler crisis, but he was overridden in Cabinet and now has to defend the consequences of a decision with which he did not agree. It is wrong for the Secretary of State to suggest that the Sub-Committee concluded that the Government had no alternative but to rescue Chrysler United Kingdom in the way that they did.
The report is a well-drafted document and Chapter XI, which is headed "Conclusion", is succinctly and incisively written. At no point is it possible to adduce that the Sub-Committee agreed
144
with the Government's decision. The report says that it could be argued that the Government came to the right decision, but the Sub-Committee does not make that argument or come to that conclusion itself. Indeed, I shall come later to a crucial point on which the Sub-Committee and the Government reached totally different conclusions.
The debate gives us an opportunity to look even wider at Chrysler than did the Sub-Committee in its report. There is some common ground between the Government and the Opposition and between the Government and many hon. Members opposite. I think that we all agree that this country will not prosper and have high levels of employment unless industry and services are competitive. The Prime Minister emphasised this in his brave spech to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool last year. There was also sanctified by the Government at the Chequers meeting last summer the view, which we share, that there is a need to encourage industrial and commercial success.
The argument that many of us wish to add to those of the Sub-Committee is that the habit of rescuing companies that are in trouble is extremely damaging both to the competitiveness of our businesses and to the encouragement of success. Rescues are enervating and debilitating. If there is no prospect of rescue, companies are forced in their own interests to put their own houses in order. If they cannot do that, it is possible, through the well established mechanism, for the resources used in those companies to be redeployed as humanely as practicable into a use that the public will welcome and employ.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that in the course of this operation many thousands of people will unfortunately be put on the dole. Presumably it is not practicable to be humane and to keep such people in work.
Sir K. Joseph: No fewer than 376,000 people joined the unemployment register in September 1976. In that same month 367,000 people left the register, ceased to be unemployed, and became employed. In other words, there is an enormous torrent of people changing jobs, some voluntarily and some involuntarily. We

145
deceive ourselves if we think that by the occasional dramatic rescue we alter this redeployment of labour, which must go on if standards of living are to be raised, for both pensioners and those at work.
The habit of rescue enervates and it is that habit which this Government are constantly encouraging. In a recent Adjournment debate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) spoke of rescue as normal. The habit of rescue blocks the improvement that firms will carry out for themselves, with the help of those who work for them, if they do not have the hope that they will be rescued by the taxpayer. Rescues can create what the Sub-Committee vividly described as pensioner firms that become dependent upon the taxpayer.
Last week in the debate on Leyland I said that I thought that British Leyland needed rescuing from the British Leyland rescue. I said that the British taxpayer needed rescuing from British Leyland. Today I go further and say that Britain needs rescuing from rescues.
This is not—or should not be—a party issue, because rescues are not Socialism and nor are they capitalism. They are opportunism. The Chinese might call them capitulationism. They are a weak response to a crisis. They are not necessarily the constructive response that the well-meaning believe them to be, because of the debilitating and wrong expectations that they create.
I should like in this general chorus of approval of the Sub-Committee's work, a chorus with which I agree, to make one small criticism. It would have been an even more powerful report had the Sub-Committee asked itself one additional question, which is "Where is the money for the rescue to come from?" The moment one inquires into the source of the money one is led to realise that every penny that the Government will provide comes in one form or another, directly or indirectly, from the taxpayer. That money is taken from the taxpayer, either directly by raising taxes higher than they otherwise would have been, or by borrowing, with a consequent increase in interest rates and service charges, and the consequent pre-emption of resources away from the private sector.
146
Then, somewhere, invisibly and unnoticed by newspaper reporters, people are being thrown out of jobs. I put it as strongly as I can by saying that in order to save Peter's job it is almost always necessary to sack Paul. Peter is rescued only at the expense of Paul. Peter is generally in a firm or industry with strong trade union muscle, and Paul is in some small firm with no headline-creating capacity. Peter is rescued often in a precarious job that will not last, and Paul is sacked from a job that would have been sustainable if only taxation, interest rates, or inflation had not been so high.
Until recently I was practically alone among politicians in making this argument. However, I see in this month's issue of the National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review a scholarly article on just this subject of the unemployment consequences of employment subsidies. I venture with diffidence to suggest to the Sub-Committee that when it follows up this inquiry it examines where the money comes from.
I turn against this background to Chrysler United Kingdom, which I am sure is a well-managed part of a well-managed world operation. But however well-managed it is, its European activities are small in a world of giants. Its market share is bound to be crucial. Its sales per model and its sales per employee will count very seriously. It is with this in mind that we have to take account of the CPRS judgment that this country already has an over-capacity in car making and an overmanning in car production.
It is in this market, which is also the slowest growing market in the EEC for cars, that the Government have spent taxpayers' money to prop up Chrysler United Kingdom. We must ask ourselves, as the Sub-Committee asked itself, whether the initiative was sensible or stupid, whether the money was well spent or whether it was money down the drain.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I quite follow and substantially agree with my right hon. Friend's argument in terms of the economic effect on other industries. However, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 164 from which he will see that the Sub-Committee

147
looked quite deeply at the cost to the taxpayer of the alternatives? The Committee did not ignore that aspect.
Sir K. Joseph: That is a separate point. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Sub-Committee considered what would be the apparent costs of not rescuing, but it did not consider the implications of the cost of rescuing.
On the point covered by paragraph 164 I venture to suggest that the Sub-Committee swallowed whole the arguments of the Treasury and the Department. They regarded the unemployed man as being bound to remain unemployed for an average of a year. Even at this moment the average period of unemployment for those who are unemployed is, I think, six months. It is a fallacy to think that labour released from one employment is, as it were, a lump of labour that remains permanently unused. There is an intense and constant redeployment taking place.
When redundancies were invited at Linwood, 50 per cent. more men volunteered to be redundant than were required. That is evidence that the men themselves do not feel that they are doomed to longterm unemployment if they lose their job or choose to be redundant.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there had been mass redundancies in Chrysler they would have been concentrated geographically around the areas of Luton, Dunstable, Coventry, and West Central Scotland, already areas of high unemployment? Their opportunities for alternative employment would thereby have been less than the average national opportunities.
Sir K. Joseph: It follows from the concentration of labour in a vulnerable firm that more people will have to travel to other firms, just as they travel to their present firm. One possibility that the Government should consider most seriously is easing the housing situation so as to facilitate mobility. The housing situation in Scotland is made far worse than it need be by the fact that so many houses are in the possession of local authorities rather than private landlords, and thus, because of the subsidised rents, they are occupied by families for an infinity of time. This
148
is a situation to which both parties have contributed.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a place like Rhondda 80 per cent. of houses are owner-occupied, but this does not seem to help to cure the problem of unemployment?
Sir K. Joseph: There is a special problem when owner-occupiers live in a company town and the company, in this case a coal mine, ceases to need their services. That is a problem that should be met by imaginative Government policies to help owner-occupiers in such towns.
The crux of the issue before the House is whether the money will prove to have been well spent. For that it is no good just looking at the present position. The Government's pledged contribution from the taxpayer towards the new model looks after the next couple of years or so, but what happens when the taxpayers' funds come to an end? What happens if there is not enough profitability or cash flow, or if productivity has not risen to the necessary levels for there to be sufficient cash in Chrysler United Kingdom to sustain the heavy investment necessary to keep the company viable in the 1980s?
I draw the House's attention to paragraph 293 of the Sub-Committee's report. When considering whether the company would be able after 1979 to finance a continuing model programme as well as repaying the loan, the Sub-Committee stated without qualification:
"We do not think that Chrysler United Kingdom will be able to generate such funds."
The Sub-Committee went on to ask whether it was not very likely that the Chrysler Corporation would again turn to the British taxpayer. That is the question to which the House has to turn its attention. It is the question on which the Government, after overruling the Secretary of State, came to a positive conclusion and the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee was sceptical to the point of coming to a negative conclusion.
We are in an even better position than the Sub-Committee, because after a few more months we can see more of the performance of Chrysler United Kingdom. We can welcome the fact that for some

149
months there appear to have been better labour relations. It looks to a sceptic—I am a sceptic about rescues—as if the psychological effect of the real risk of closure altered industrial relations for some time. It looks as if that happened. I have read tributes by the management to the changed relationships. However, I fear that the climate is changing before our eyes and, although I know that productivity has crept up, I must ask the Minister whether productivity is yet anywhere near what it needs to be to generate the volume of output and the cash flow to provide the profit on which Chrysler United Kingdom is counting.
We have been told in the evidence that what Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler United Kingdom need to maintain a viable operation in this country is no miracle in connection with productivity, but simply steady, continuous output, the same as they tend to get from their other spheres of operation. What is the trend in cars per man per year—that is, in productivity—and in the steadiness and continuity of output apart from the particular problem affecting Linwood at present?
I turn quickly to the question of the planning agreement which the Secretary of State announced only last week. I myself am not in favour of planning agreements. I think that an attempt to freeze forecasts and plans in a turbulent and incessantly changing world market is a mistake. However, the planning agreement is a chosen instrument of this Government, and I must ask the Minister to answer two questions.
First, granted that the planning agreement is not to be published, because it is said to contain confidential information, why is it that the newspapers seem to have seen it? Why is it that The Times, for instance, and other papers that I have seen purport to publish details from the planning agreement? Why, if newspapers are to see the planning agreement, should not Parliament see the planning agreement?
The second question that I hope the Minister will answer is this. What is the relationship of the trade unions to the planning agreement? We are told that they have been given and have welcomed a great deal more information. That is a positive benefit. The Secretary of State said today that the planning agreement
150
"is closely in accord with what the trade unions know has to be achieved". That is fine, too, as far as it goes, but I have read in the newspapers that, far from the trade unions being committed in any way to the planning agreement, they not only refused to take any part in the signing of it—I am not quite clear whether they were meant to be involved in signing it—but, when asked questions about the degree to which they were committed to the productivity targets in the planning agreement, they said that they were not committed at all, that productivity was entirely a matter for negotiation.
I am one who recognises the very legitimate self-interest of trade unions and trade union members. I acknowledge that self-interest as one, and one only, of the major motives at work in any society, but one hopes that the self-interest is enlightened self-interest. I believe that we can hope that the trade unions will see the improvement of productivity as being in the enlightened self-interest of themselves and their members.
The fact is that, unless productivity improves, unless profitability is good—and these realities, these imperatives, are blurred by rescue operations—we shall, at the Government's instigation, be bleeding healthy companies in order to go on feeding what may prove in Chrysler United Kingdom to be a lame duck. I would argue that the Government are on the wrong tack in their habit of rescue. I would argue that the lessons of British Leyland, and perhaps the lessons of Chrysler, are lessons that ought to be learned by the Government. Ministers have bitten off far more than they can chew in their industrial strategy. That explains in part the delays and the incompetence. Ministers are overstretched. Taxpayers are overtaxed. Industry is overmanned.
We know that the Government changed their mind. We know that they rejected the advice of their industrial advisers who warned them that Chrysler United Kingdom would not be viable. We know that the Cabinet overruled the Secretary of State, and we know that the Government ignored their own criteria for industrial intervention. We only hope that they will learn the rapidly emerging lessons of their own failures and reconsider their own rescuing policy.

151
Finally, we ask that the Secretary of State should use sternly and firmly the power that he still has, that is, not to release taxpayers' money to Chrysler United Kingdom unless and until he is satisfied that the trends of productivity and profitability are on the lines that were laid out in the agreement. The least that the rescued can do is to try their best to become viable. But those who work in companies that are rescued will not think it necessary for them so to behave if they believe that the money from the taxpayer will come automatically however they behave. We say to the Secretary of State that, even if a wrong decision has been made, much can still be saved for the taxpayer if he uses his powers firmly.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Secretary of State made the welcome claim that the work force of Chrysler United Kingdom is now conspicuously well informed about the nature of the company's business and the important factors in it. The Secretary of State's correct claim was a great tribute to the work of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee in producing the report, because it is largely from the report that the information was first made available to the work force and to the public. The Sub-Committee is to be congratulated on that.
I thought that the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who was Chairman of the Sub-Committee, perhaps reduced its credibility when he claimed that it worked and reported in total harmony. To deny what I detected as a splendid tension running through the concluding paragraphs, and to make the unlikely claim that, for instance, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in the end was in harmony with the hon. Member for Goole, rather detracts from the credibility of this splendid Sub-Committee.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I should have said that there was unanimous agreement that this should be our report. There were many moments of debate within the Sub-Committee about exactly how the report should be worded, but the final wording was totally agreed.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.
Mr. Wainwright: I entirely accept that the report was unanimous, but the hon. Gentleman went a little too far by suggesting that the report in some way endorsed the rescue operation, although criticising the manner of it. I do not find that endorsement in what I describe as the admirably tense and extremely well-argued concluding section of the report.
I hope that we shall have some enlightenment from the Minister about the Secretary of State's claim that the Government are now extremely well-informed about Chrysler. The Secretary of State was admirably strong today, much stronger than he has ever been before, on the matter of integration. This was a welcome development. But if his words are to have any meaning, surely the Government must ask themselves whether they are sufficiently well informed about the financial state of Chrysler Europe as well as Chrysler United Kingdom.
"Integration" is a strong word. If Chrysler United Kingdom in, say, a couple of years is looking for funds to develop new models, which will then be essential to Chrysler Europe, it is of immense importance that the Government should be informed of the financial affairs from quarter to quarter of Chrysler Europe. So far, there has been no indication that they are. It is a difficult subject, because Chrysler Europe does not exist as a corporate entity. I raise this question at the outset. When discussing such a vital aspect, we must be told by the Government just how they view Chrysler Europe and hope to encourage its development as a corporate entity.
Time being short, I shall confine myself to two concepts which I regard as of immense importance to this rescue operation and which I do not think are in any sense clarified by the long-delayed response from the Government—the concepts of viability on the one hand and of integration on the other.
The Government use the world "viability" in the most elastic fashion to meet any particular situation which they think it happens to fit well. The Sub-Committee, in its splendidly-written report, which has not elicited the same standard of prose from the Department, has given a clear lesson in the meaning

153
of "viability". In paragraph 293, the Sub-Committee recommends that
"a profitable operating position must not be confused with long-term viability. Chrysler United Kingdom must be able not only to show profits, but to be able to generate sufficient funds after 1979 to finance a continuing model programme as well as repaying their loan."
I would like to hear how Ministers respond to that striking statement. They should also indicate whether they are going to be caught napping again. As the hon. Member for Goole made clear, they were caught napping by the pressure that Chrysler United Kingdom was so skilfully able to put on them, pressure which precipitated the rescue operation. Are the Government to be caught napping again in 1979? As I said in the original debate on the proposition for a rescue operation, I do not believe that Chrysler United Kingdom will be in a profit-making situation in 1979. They will not be truly viable.
On the question of integration, the Government have been quite inadequate in their response to the pointed question posed in the report. The Secretary of State's concept of integration, even after his stronger words today, which were welcome, still seems to dwell upon the receiving end as though integration was of great importance to Chrysler United Kingdom because it would mean that it was receiving technological, design, tooling and marketing help from the rest of the worldwide Chrysler operation. But to me, and still more to those whose jobs depend on Chrysler United Kingdom, the most important consideration in integration is to make it a means whereby Chrysler United Kingdom becomes an indispensable locked-in unit of the world-wide Chrysler operations.
If integration merely means that Chrysler United Kingdom benefits from and is aided by the world-wide organisation, it will be a continuing lame duck. We have heard nothing today to indicate that integration is proceeding in a way which gives the United Kingdom operation an indispensable position in the whole Chrysler world-wide scheme.
The Sub-Committee was right to point out that the continual boasting that it was hoped that eventually the Alpine would be made wholly of British components and from sources entirely in the United
154
Kingdom seemed on the face of it to conflict with the object of integration and did nothing to ensure that Chrysler United Kingdom became such a locked-in part of world-wide Chrysler that it could not possibly be ditched or neglected by the parent company, as happened in the past. I hope that the House will be enlightened tonight on those two matters.
I do not accept that the report endorses the rescue operation, but in the most useful way it shows points at which the Government may be helped to make the best of a very bad job.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Clemitson: There is a sense in which the Chrysler rescue deal was a shotgun marriage. It was born out of crisis. In the words of the Select Committee, it was hardly the most glorious chapter in the Government's industrial strategy. It may well be true that Chrysler International got a pretty good deal. But those of us whose constituencies contain Chrysler plants or small firms which rely to some extent on Chrysler contracts—the Under-Secretary and I visited one in my constituency only last week—had to support the rescue, for the straightforward reason of employment.
It may be true, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said, that rescues are enervating and debilitating. But unemployment is an enervating and debilitating alternative, and that is what would have been in store for many people in Chrysler and the other companies.
Sir K. Joseph rose—
Mr. Clemitson: I will not give way, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because time is short. I realise that he would not accept that argument but would also talk about redeployment of labour. But if Chrysler had disappeared, there would have been one fewer car producer and it is debatable whether those remaining would have filled the gap. The chances are that the gap would have been filled largely by the foreign car makers, which have already captured 40 per cent. of our market.
Too much government is reactionary in the proper sense of the word: Governments of all complexions spend far too much time reacting to crises. That is the nub of some of the Select Committee's

155
criticisms. But we can react constructively only if we have certain structures. That is another point at which I would part company from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. The market, whether it is the labour market or any other, is far from being perfect: it does not work.
It is far to early to make a definitive judgment on whether the rescue has been successful, but there have been some hopeful signs in the first year. We have seen a financial performance in percentage terms not that far off target. Chrysler has been the first in the field with a planning agreement. We on this side have been pressing the Department for long enough about the lack of planning agreements.
Here again I part company from the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand planning agreements, the idea is to have not a frozen, rigid plan but a rolling plan, which is constantly being reviewed. The trade unions should be involved to the maximum in this process, and I welcome the involvement which I understand they have already had in the formulation of the Chrysler planning agreement.
There appear to be hopeful signs on the employment front. There has been a vast improvement in the industrial relations record, as measured through days lost because of strikes. There are hopeful investment signs.
But I want to raise one or two questions. First, there is the problem of supplies, mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). The commercial vehicle side of Chrysler, with which I am particularly concerned, was badly hit by the Rubery Owen dispute. That side has been hard hit over the years—although, to be honest, not in recent months—by the failure of Perkins to supply enough diesels. I should like my right hon. Friend to say something about the problem of supplies.
There is a need for longer-term planning and thinking. I gather that the company has made the point that as part of their side of the planning agreement the Government should provide more detailed and more frequent economic forecasts. What has my right hon. Friend to say about that?
156
There is also the problem of how we fit a planning agreement with one company with planning agreements with other companies in the same industry. How do we have planning for the industry as a whole? That raises an enormously complex issue.
Companies are becoming more integrated over national boundaries. As this is happening, particularly in the tie-up with other European countries, how do we ensure that we in this country gain as much as we lose, whether in quantity of work, skills, design work, or whatever? This is a significant matter in my constituency, where we have not only Chrysler but Vauxhall, with similar problems arising there.
The agreement was not the one which might have been worked out if there had been more time or more favourable economic circumstances, or if we had had certain structures by which the Government could deal with such problems. But a number of my constituents directly or indirectly depend upon Chrysler for a living, and their hope is that the company will not only prosper economically but that the start which has been made in planning for the future on some kind of joint basis will develop and grow.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. Hal Miller: I shall be brief, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) wishes to speak before the Minister winds up the debate. In the time available I shall try to deal with two aspects which have been touched on already and to deal at greater length with the question of the Government's rôle.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) referred to the fact that the Secretary of State's disagreement with the Chrysler rescue was obvious at the time. He did not go on to speculate why. I wondered whether it had anything to do with the fact that Chrysler was a privately owned, American, multinational company.
There are some significant aspects to what I have just said. First, the Iranian contract would not have been continued unless the Chrysler Corporation itself in America had been willing to guarantee the performance of the contract. Secondly, there is the multinational

157
aspect. At least this evening the Secretary of State admitted that the success of Chrysler was wholly dependent on its integration into Chrysler Europe.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Liberal Party spokesman said about the lack of Government information or control with regard to the fortunes of Chrysler Europe which, in fact, has no independent existence as such. But the fact remains that the success of Chrysler in this country stands or falls with the success of the European operations as a whole.
It is not without significance that the Economist Intelligence Unit report refers specifically to the fact that that success would be largely based on the success of the French company which had provided most of the basis for possible advance. But the Government have not so far given any indication of the future viability of Chrysler Europe or of the possibility, which must have been examined, that sufficient funds will be forthcoming to produce the next generation of models, and whether these funds will be generated internally for Chrysler Europe to produce the plan. Both the Economist Intelligence Unit and the CPRS agreed that there is serious overcapacity in Europe and that by 1980 we must look forward to several further changes in the structure of the motor industry in Western Europe. Indeed, many of us would think that such a change in structure is about to take place in British Leyland.
The Sub-Committee's report and the Government's document on industrial strategy both mentioned planning agreements. We had a great deal of discussion about the nature of planning agreements, the possible benefits and disadvantages and the rÔle of Government when the Industry Act was being considered in Standing Committee. I have been in discussion with the company about the planning agreement which has been signed, as the White Paper tells us, by both the company and the Government. May we be told the significance of the fact that the agreement was signed by the Government? To what are the Government committed? The industrial strategy refers to commitment on both sides. Does that mean both sides of industry in that company, or does it mean the company and the Government?
158
It is the lack of confidence in the Government, to which I shall return, that has reached right down to the shop floor and made things so very difficult in British Leyland. The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) pointed out the difficulty of reconciling planning agreements between companies in the same sector. In its report the Sub-Committee pointed even more to the apparent difficulties should the company's plans not conform to those of the Government.
During the debates on the Industry Act I made it plain that I thought we should be providing the means for sectoral plans rather than individual industry plans. There was already the basis for this in the work of the little NEDCs. What was so unsatisfactory about the little NEDCs—the one on the motor industry reported long ago—was that even when the NEDC had been set up there was a Government and industry departmental working party. Governments of both complexions have significantly failed to do any of the things agreed to be necessary for industry in this country. Above all, they have failed to provide as stable an economic environment as possible.
I come to the third part of my remarks. What is the Government's input into this planning agreement? Have they been considering with the company the strategy for the motor industry as a whole in view of the over-capacity in Europe and the probability of structural change to which I have referred? Have the Government been discussing with the company the question of new mini models? Here I agree with my right hon. Friend. Is this a case of the Peter and Paul principle? Is the Chrysler Mini to be successful on the basis of Government money, merely at the expense of a possible failure of the Ford Fiesta, privately invested, or perhaps even the Leyland Mini, if that is to be produced, also financed by the taxpayer? What is the Government's view, and was it made available to the company?
I now come to consider what the company has been asking for from the Government in this planning agreement. This refers to the need to bring down interest rates and to have some stability of exchange rates. There must also be some stability of domestic demand and some reduction in taxation to provide the incentive which the Government have so far

159
failed to provide, particularly in British Leyland. Are we to take it that the Government are committed to providing some incentive for people by means of a reduction in taxation and by allowing differentials? As we understand it, those are the things that are provided for in this planning agreement.
Just what is the extent of the Government's commitment? What is meant by the Government signing this agreement? Those are the real questions that must underlie the success of any enterprise in this country. We are not concerned with just the motor industry in these actions of the Government, although it is significant that in this planning agreement it is the Chrysler company that is calling for things to be done, just as thousands of people in British Leyland have been calling for action, without being heard. We wish to know what response the Government will make.
The case for a planning agreement being needed is not proven. My right hon. Friend referred to leakages. Indeed, the Financial Times on Monday of last week was uncomfortably specific. I was informed by the company that it was suspected that the leak came not from the unions, I am happy to say, but from the Minister's Department. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to confirm how leaky his Department has proved to be.
9.33 p.m.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made it clear that his alternative to the Chrysler rescue and, indeed, to the British Leyland operation would have been to allow them to fold up, in the hope that in the course of time, and "as humanely as possible", as he said, both the labour and the resources would be redeployed There is a certain logic in the right hon. Gentleman's case. The only trouble with it is that in real life things do not work that way.
In real life, the market economy is not a system of perfect or even adequate competition. In real life, also, consumers cannot express their needs and requirements entirely through their individual operations as customers. There is a need to have a means for the community to
160
express a choice as to how resources should be deployed. I am not saying that in any spirit of posing the community against the individual, but rather as an expression of individuals joining together to express communal needs.
My constituents working at Chrysler will not be very impressed by the hope expressed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that their period of unemployment would have been relatively short. It is completely irrelevant to say that the average length of unemployment is six months. That is bad enough; but I shudder to think what the situation in Coventry would have been if British Leyland and Chrysler had been allowed to go to the wall, as the Opposition wished.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): And Alfred Herbert.
Mrs. Wise: Yes, and Alfred Herbert. The average length of unemployment in Coventry would have been far longer even than the year on which the calculations were based. Therefore, although what the right hon. Gentleman said was logical—he and his party opposed the Chrysler rescue—my constituents would not have been well served had the Opposition been successful in opposing it.
However, that does not mean that I regard rescues as being desirable in themselves. There I agree with the critics. To shudder from crisis to crisis and hastily pick up the pieces is not an adequate rôle for government to play; nor does it lead to satisfactory results. That is why we must find different structures in a different economy with different motive forces. It does not mean that the Government's actions in this case are to be condemned.
The Select Committee chose a particular line of criticism with which I completely disagree. Dealing with the question of confidentiality it said that there was too much leaking. It stated in paragraph 115 on page 57 of its report:
"There was clearly understandable resentment among the work-force at the fact that while the Government and Chrysler had agreed to keep their discussions secret the progress of those discussions, and, more reprehensibly, the Government's own deliberations, received wide publicity."
I do not think that that was the cause of the apprehensions among the work

161
force. The work force objected not because there were leaks, but because nobody properly and officially consulted it. The Government negotiated with management. The Government were willing to speak to Back-Bench Members. The company was willing to speak to Members. It seemed to the work force throughout a large part of the proceedings that nobody was prepared to talk to it. Ultimately, the Secretary of State met the shop stewards and some discussions took place, but that was at a quite late stage.
The disgruntlement of the workers had nothing to do with any demand that the negotiations should be more secret but rather was the expression of a demand that the workers should be involved in the negotiations. That is quite different from what the Sub-Committee said. Here I support the workers' criticisms and not the Sub-Committee's criticisms. Government and negotiation by leak clearly are undesirable, inefficient and wrong in many ways, but the proper substitute is not more secrecy or tighter security but openness and proper consultation with all those involved. I think that ignoring the workers was a legitimate complaint that could be levelled at both the company and, at least in the early stages, at the Government.
The Sub-Committee asks that the criteria for rescue should be
"Sound and precise, including the quantification of social factors."
I am not quite sure what the Sub-Committee wants. Judging from the statement on page 23 it seems to think that commercial factors are subject to precise quantification. I challenge that.
The report says:
"The concept of 'social benefits' of assistance is one which is not capable of such precise definition as is the case with the commercial factors involved in an assessment of viability."
I do not believe that commercial factors are capable of precise quantification. I think that inspired—or uninspired—guesswork is a much more accurate description of commercial judgment. If the desire for quantification leads to an unwillingness to give full value to the importance of social factors, that would be a step backwards.
162
The Sub-Committee also says on page 24:
"However, other costs (in the Chrysler case such things as the political importance of the Iranian contract, and the need to secure the acceptance of A New Approach to Industrial Strategy) will frequently be a matter of wider political judgment, and in such cases there will be the suspicion that short-term expediency has overruled commercial judgment."
I hope that in considering these matters the Government will not take the view of the Sub-Committee that commercial judgment is to be God in such a situation. Commercial judgment is just as subject to error and just as much influenced by short-term expediency as is political judgment. I deny that there is anything inherently better or more worthy in commercial judgment than in political judgment, or that it is more capable of being measured correctly. In that issue I am more on the Government's side than on that of the Sub-Committee.
I notice that the Government's response to the report includes a specific reference to transfer pricing. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Department of Industry has asked that particular attention be paid to this as part of the monitoring arrangements for the agreement. I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied that adequate methods of assessing the danger or occurrence of transfer pricing have been worked out. I wonder how close an eye the Department has kept on this matter, because there are genuine difficulties in assessing whether transfer pricing is taking place.
In the very nature of things there can be no true price discipline between two subsidiaries of the one organisation. They are not buyer and seller in the normal terms of the market, and the discipline to which they would otherwise be subjected does not exist. This is a very important issue. Can the Minister indicate how it is being tackled? It seems to be absolutely essential in considering the national interest.
I wish finally to refer to the subject of industrial relations. The Committee's report quotes a management spokesman as saying:
"The change in attitude by our unions was a complete revelation. I cannot praise them too highly. They are playing an active vital rÔle in all the changes now going on. The result is that we are right on target with all our programmes."

163
The Committee's report added that it welcomed the change in attitude on the part of the work force,
"which may in some quarters be the result of a genuine fear that Chrysler Corporation may still withdraw from the United Kingdom."
I regard the inclusion of that statement in the Report as, to say the least, a great pity. It appears to give credence and credibility to those who think that workers respond most of all to threats, particularly to threats of unemployment. There was no justification for including such a comment in the Sub-Committee's report.
The management's tribute to the work force, although gracious, takes a liberty in the sense in that it assumes that the need for a change in attitude lay on the side of the workers. My constituents certainly would say that the need for a change in attitude lay particularly with management. I am glad to see in the report and in the Government's reply a number of references to the increased amount of communication now taking place. I believe that good communications, and certainly the exchange of information, are necessary. But I hope that it will go much further and will mean real involvement in decision-making, and not simply the idea that workers should be passive recipients of information.
I am very critical of the Sub-Committee's report which is fair neither to the Government nor to the workers. Although I am also critical of the Government's reply, I must say that if these matters had been left to the Conservatives Coventry would now be a desert.
9.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Although we have had a somewhat truncated debate this evening, I do not believe that our discussion has suffered because of brevity. Hon. Members have made many points in concise terms. My problem lies in seeking to reply to all those points in the limited time that remains to me between now and 10 o'clock. I can only tell the House that if there are any points of detail that remain to be dealt with I shall attempt to deal with them with hon. Members in correspondence.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the Government should have known that Chrysler
164
was in danger. In a sense, that is at the heart of the communications between Government and industry. I shall come a little later to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) about planning agreements. These considerations raise the question of how far the Government should be able to rely on the advice and information received from industry, particularly when the Government go to industry and pinpoint problems. In many cases they are given information which at a later stage is proved to have been complacent. Questions about this should properly be put not to the Government but to the company in terms of the rôle that it played at the time.
If we examine the record, we see that the Government made every effort to focus the company's mind on the problems as we saw them. The fact that we failed to do so may not be entirely the fault of the Government. Indeed, all this has focused attention on the need for planning agreements and the monitoring of the operation that is now under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) referred to this point in his speech. Indeed, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that he wanted to be sure that the Government would not be caught napping again. The Government want to be sure of that too, because it could be a rather expensive operation. In this sense, monitoring is a useful aid to the Government.
We monitor against performance criteria and not only with our own expertise. We also use outside consultants, and we have Coopers and Lybrand, an eminent firm, supporting us. We receive monthly statements, in absolute terms and in terms of variation of plans. The statements cover such categories as sales, production, exports, capital expenditure and finance. In addition there is a constant flow of management information and our departmental monitoring team has virtually daily contact with Chrysler management. Therefore, there is now a very different relationship in terms of communication between the Government and the firm The details must remain commercially confidential, but I am sure that hon. Members understand why this is so
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs Wise) referred

165
to the problem—which is recognised internationally as being difficult—of transfer pricing. Under clause 7 of the agreement with the firm there is a requirement that transfer pricing should be conducted on the accepted arm's-length basis, but I recognise the accounting difficulties of determining exactly what that is. The basis that is used must be disclosed to the Government, and the company must explain the way in which it arrives at pricing. For example, we have had an investigation carried out by Coopers and Lybrand into the way in which the components for the French Alpine cross the borders and the financial arrangements for that. On this analysis, we are satisfied that proper and acceptable accounting procedures are being applied. The aim of the monitoring, as of the planning agreement, is to avoid putting the company into a sort of straitjacket.
To some extent the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East pin-pointed not only his own worry but that of industry about Government participation. There is an idea that the Government are asking industry to be locked into an unchangeable situation. That would be utterly unrealistic, and we recognise it as unrealistic in the monitoring and the planning agreement. Therefore, in our monitoring of the company's plan we accept that circumstances change and that, in the light of circumstances, modifications may be required, but we expect to have the case demonstrated and proved to us.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East went out of his way to state his not surprising opposition to the whole concept of planning agreements. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller) said that we should not go further than sectoral planning. This is a real quandry for Governments of either political complexion. Up to now both parties have, in various forms, indulged in national planning or national assessment of industrial and economic trends, and we have both gone through to the sector via the NEDC. We now have sectoral working parties, but our attempted planning and industrial guidance has foundered at sectoral level because decisions are not taken at that level. One can set a framework, but one must break from the sector to the key firm that can make a decision that can
166
lead to implementation—or partial implementation—of the recommendations of the sector working parties. That is the rÔle that we wish for the planning agreement. That is the next stage ahead.
I recognise that there are doctrinal differences between the two sides of the House on this matter, but I am trying to explain why we regard it as a logical extension of the attempts by various Governments to have greater communication between industry and Government. We are trying to get that communication through the sectors down to the decision-making points.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that he was also against planning agreements because a firm which entered into an agreement was frozen into a particular situation. It is not our intention that agreements should be unchangeable. It would be irrational for us to make such a condition.
If Opposition Members consider the basis of the planning agreement, they will appreciate that, although it outlines parameters for 1980 and beyond, the detailed work is for this year, and it recognises that we have to roll the process forward in the light of experience and conditions at the time.
Sir K. Joseph: I trust the Minister will make sure that he answers the questions about leaks and the trade union attitude to planning agreements.
Mr. Williams: Time is short, and I was going to make those points. To my knowledge, there has been no leak from the Department. If there were, the Secretary of State and I would strongly disapprove, because we place a high value on confidentiality.
I know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has only just moved to his job as Opposition spokesman on industry, but if he looks at the original White Paper dealing with planning agreements he will find that trade unions were not to be parties to agreements. The provisions dealing with the passing on of information were designed to improve communications and ensure a consensus of approach for the future within industries.
The right hon. Member made some rather strange statements. He suggested that companies should be allowed to put

167
their own houses in order and he implied that it did not matter if they failed to do that and, therefore, collapsed, because resources would then be gainfully employed elsewhere. That is an interesting philosophy, but it differs from the philosophy followed by the Cabinet of which he was a member when it saved Rolls-Royce and Govan Shipbuilders. The right hon. Gentleman may dissociate himself from those decisions now, but he was a member of the Cabinet which took them and they are decisions of the same type as that taken on Chrysler.
The right hon. Gentleman said that a torrent of people are changing jobs every month. He is correct, but many people change their jobs because they want to do so, and that is rather different from having to change a job or having no job at all. Many people change jobs because they have been employed in seasonal occupations or in temporary jobs in, for instance, the building industry. There are many reasons for people changing their jobs, but they are all quite different from cutting off job opportunities in a wide area which is implied in the type of operation in which the right hon. Gentleman would indulge.
Clearly, the Opposition would have allowed Chrysler to collapse, and if they were in power and the situation occurred today they would still allow the company and all the firms that supplied it to collapse. They would be willing to accept all the difficulties and repercussions that would result in the Midlands. I suggest that the people of the Midlands should ask themselves how they would fare if the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East were administering industrial policy now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Eighth Report from the Expenditure Committee Session 1975–76 (House of Commons Paper No. 596) on Public Expenditure on Chrysler UK Limited, and of the relevant Government observations (Command Paper No. 6745).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ashton.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As hon. Members will know—although Ministers are supposed to forget about it—county council elections in England and Wales are due to be held on Thursday 5th May. Elections to the Greater London Council are to take place on the same day. District council elections in Scotland are to take place on 3rd May and in Northern Ireland on 18th May.
  The limits on expenditure by candidates at local elections in Great Britain are laid down by Section 64 (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1949, as amended. The reason for having such limits on candidates' expenses is primarily to ensure that all candidates and all parties can fight on equal terms and without undue expense. The limits for local elections have been raised twice since 1949 to take account of the fall in the value of money. For example, they were raised by the Representation of the People Act 1969 and, except for the limits for elections to the Greater London Council, by the Representation of the People (No. 2) Act 1974.
  The Government have received many representations from many quarters that the limits have been overtaken by inflation and that unless they are raised they will present serious difficulties to candidates at the forthcoming local government elections. We therefore consulted the main political parties and the local authority associations on the basis of a proposal to raise the existing limits to take account of the decline in the value of money since April 1974, when the Representation of the People (No. 2) Act 1974 received Royal Assent. That is the basis of the Bill.
  The GLC election expenses limits have not been raised since the Representation of the People Act 1969. That was because when they were considered in 1974 they were thought to be adequate and did not

  169
  need to be adjusted. We have therefore considered that it is right to raise the expenses limits for the GLC elections on the same basis as for the other authorities to compensate for the decline in money values since 1974.
  There is almost unanimous agreement for the Government's proposals. That does not mean that the present arrangements are necessarily ideal. There are other ways in which calculations can be made. The present basis, however, was considered by the Speaker's Conference in 1965, and that conference made no recommendation that altered the principle—namely, that there should be a lump sum to take account of expenses that did not vary with the size of the electoral area while adding a variable amount which increased the limit according to the size of the electorate.
  Although we recognise that there may be some other differences of principle, we believe that it is right in general terms to set up a new Speaker's Conference to consider that, amongst other things. The Bill is an emergency action to ease the situation that will occur in May unless action is taken.
  I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. They lend themselves to a brief summary. The limit on a GLC candidate is £200 plus 5p for every four entries on the register. That is to be raised to £320 as the lump sum with an additional 2p for every entry on the register. That is 60 per cent. increase. The new figure has the incidental effect of making it slightly easier to calculate the maximum lump sum that may be spent.
  Clause 1(1) of the Bill raises the limit at any other local government election in Great Britain. It raises to £72 the standard amount in each area, together with 1½p for every entry on the register. This is slightly less than the 60 per cent. laid down for the GLC elections. It has the advantage of simplifying the formula and only slightly reduces the amount which would be 1·6p per elector. These latter limits apply to county and district elections in England and Wales, community council elections in Wales, and parish council elections in England. The limit also applies in the regional, island area and district council elections in Scotland.
  I have not so far referred to the limit on candidates' election expenses in the
  170
  City of London. It has been customary to keep these in line with limits applying elsewhere, and that is done by Clause 1(2).
  Clause 1(3) deals with candidates' expenses in Northern Ireland elections. Its effect is to bring them into line with those for local elections generally in Great Britain. Hitherto the limits on candidates' expenses have been set under Northern Ireland legislation, but in practice they have never exceeded the limits laid down for Great Britain. Provision has been made in the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977 to raise the limits in Northern Ireland to those laid down under existing legislation for Great Britain.
  Since the Order in Council which contained this provision also contained a number of other vital matters for the 18th May elections, it was not possible to hold back the legislation on expenses or to anticipate what will be done in the Bill. To ensure that the limits in Northern Ireland remain in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom, we have had to resort to the unusual practice of revoking Article 7.1 of the 1977 order. In the circumstances of this particular case, however, I am sure that the House will readily agree that that is the right thing to do, and it will ensure that there is equality and justice for the conduct of the elections in Northern Ireland on 18th May.
  In short, therefore, the Bill is presented with a wide degree of all-party support here. Its basic reason is the urgent necessity to make sure that the election campaigns are adequately financed, and that is why I hope that the House will give the Bill a speedy Second Reading.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Sims: The Opposition are happy to support this modest Bill. We agree, of course, that with the increased cost of paper, envelopes, postage, printing, and the hiring of rooms and halls, the existing limits are clearly unrealistic. It is right that there should be limits, but it is difficult to run a proper election campaign on a very tight budget, and these increases will afford flexibility both to candidates and agents.
  The Minister of State knows that my party would have preferred that the

  171
  figures should take account of the difficulties of small wards. After all, the costs per elector are much more in a ward of, say, 500 electors than of 5,000, particularly when it comes to printing costs. We accept the proposal as reasonable, however, and we think that the increases are about right.
  Let me draw attention to one point. It is a pity that, whilst taking account of inflation as it affects Section 64, the Minister has not taken the opportunity to amend similarly Section 61(2), which reads:
  "Every payment made by an election agent in respect of any election expenses shall, except where less than forty shillings, be vouched for by a bill stating the particulars and by a receipt."
  The Bill takes account of inflationary movements since 1969. That figure of 40s. originally appeared in the 1949 Act. Bearing in mind that receipts are now relatively rarely given, and certainly not for particularly small amounts, and bearing in mind the amount of paper work involved in accounting for quite trifling sums, I wonder whether the opportunity might be taken to amend this section.
  I would have thought that if £2 was an appropriate figure in 1969, a substantially higher figure would be needed now. No doubt the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury can advise a revised figure. I would have thought a minimum of £5, but perhaps £10 or £15 would have brought the section into line.
  The Opposition have no wish whatsoever to delay the Bill. We are anxious to expedite it so that it can complete its passage and receive the Royal Assent before the May elections, as the Minister indicated. But between now and Committee stage will the Minister look into the possibility of adding a further brief clause effecting the modest amendment that I have advocated? I should be very willing to put down my own new clause by Committee stage, but I suspect that the drafting of the Minister's Department would be a little more accurate than mine.
  I refer to one other apparent anomaly in the law which particularly concerns local government elections but not parliamentary elections. It is quite obvious
  172
  that in wards and districts represented by two or three councillors an agent may represent two or three candidates. The election addresses and other literature may relate to all three and meetings are held to promote the cause of all three, and at the end of the day there is one lot of election expenses whether there is one candidate or three. But the agent finds that he cannot submit composite returns of election expenses. He has to split every election expense into three, obtain three separate receipts for every cost incurred, and so on.
  If one return covering all the candidates for whom the agent acts were acceptable, I cannot think that that would upset any principle on which electoral law is based, but it would certainly make life easier for election agents, a body of men and women on whom we rely strongly and for whom we all have a special respect. I have no wish to press the point at this stage, but I hope that it will be considered.
  I also hope that we may very soon have a Speaker's Conference. If I interpret the Minister's remarks aright, I think that that appears to be the case. I hope that the conference will consider the expenses of candidates at parliamentary elections. There are several features that need to be looked into, not least that a candidate's personal expenses have to count towards the maximum allowable figure. I wish the Bill well and ask my hon. Friends to support it.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. George Thompson: In former times I would not have considered it appropriate to make a contribution to the debate, but I have found in the past two years that if one is present and does not say anything it will be assumed that one is not here.
  I am well aware of the sanctimonious humbug from Scottish Members from other parties who hold up their hands in horror if there is no Scottish National Party Member here. Now it is my turn to say that none of them is here either. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always regarded you as being removed from the hurly-burly of political battle and the expressions indulged in by other hon. Members.
  My party welcomes this modest increase in expenses. It is obviously

  173
  necessary to limit expenses in elections, because some parties draw their funds from trade unions, others could draw apparently unlimited expenses from big business and from the wealthy, and others draw their expenses from the widow's mite and other modest contributions from our supporters.
  Mr. Bruce George: Into which category does the hon. Member come?
  Mr. Thompson: The widow's mite. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Sir Hugh Fraser?"] There is only one real widow amongst them all, compared with the millionaires to be found in much larger numbers on the other sides.
  It is necessary to provide for election expenses, otherwise candidates would not
  174
  be able to give their message to the electorate. It is equally necessary to take account of inflation and increases in the cost of paper. That is a good reason why there ought to be more planting of trees in this country, to provide more paper much less expensively.
  It is very pleasant to have a short Bill to consider at this time of night, so I shall keep my remarks short and to the point. I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ashton.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  LOW-INCOME FAMILIES (FUEL COSTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. George Rodgers: For some time I have been anxious to focus attention on the impact of high fuel costs on low-income families. In recent weeks many householders of very modest means in my constituency, particularly in the Astley Park area, have received quarterly electricity bills of well over £100. I find this quite frightening. We are advised that the price of gas is to increase by a further 10 per cent. This is a totally unnecessary surcharge—it is certainly unnecessary commercially—which is being imposed at the dictates of the Treasury and the International Monetary Fund.
  The upward surge in the cost of light and heating has brought distress and misery to many families. Indeed, it was only when I commenced to gather material for this debate that I began to realise the extent of the calamity.
  It has long been my plea that in a civilised society there are a small number of basic entitlements that are the right of every person—sufficient to eat; adequate shelter and clothing; medical attention at time of sickness; and a reasonable degree of warmth and light. I do not even advocate that these facilities should be provided without the recipients making a proper payment wherever that is possible. However, I am adamant that no one should be deprived of these necessities because of poverty or misfortune. Nor should the price of any one of these items be so high that it denies someone the opportunity of purchasing the other essentials to which I have referred.
  The price of fuel is now so high that many families have to make savings and sacrifices in food and clothing to meet its cost. I contend that this situation cannot continue. It is high time that bold steps were taken to remedy the situation.
  I recognise that the Government have
  176
  introduced various measures to ease the difficulties facing the poorer section of the community. The simple truth is that these measures are totally inadequate in face of the massive increases that have taken place in the price of coal, gas and electricity. Many families are overwhelmed by the enormity of the additional costs that have come about at a time when wages and salaries are severely restricted and when prices that they pay for other essential commodities have also dramatically increased.
  There are substantial gaps in the new code of practice adopted by the gas and electricity industries to prevent the disconnection of fuel supplies in the case of hardship. The code is the Government's response to recommendations from the Department of Energy and the National Consumer Council that the industries' powers to disconnect should be curtailed and that domestic debts for gas and electricity should be collected through the courts.
  The major provision of the code is that there will be no disconnection in cases where a consumer pays regular instalments large enough to save for the next bill and to pay off the previous one within a reasonable period. This period will be the period before the next bill arrives, leaving about 10 weeks to save up for two bills. A rule-of-thumb method to calculate the size of the weekly payments is to multiply the current bill by two and divide by 10. If a bill for £42 has just arrived and cannot be paid, the weekly payment to avoid disconnection will have to be about £8·40 a week. Most poor families living at or just above the supplementary benefit level will find such savings impossible.
  The code also provides that disconnection will be delayed for at least 14 days where the consumer applies to the social services department or the local social security office for help. A consumer will be recommended to apply to these offices for help if the family receives supplementary benefit or family income supplement, if the breadwinner is unemployed, or if there are children aged under 5. But there will be many families in these categories whom neither the social services nor social security can help. The social security office can help only if the family

  177
  receives or could receive supplementary benefit. The social services department can help with money only where there are children who may otherwise have to be taken into care. Social services departments have limited amounts of money for such help and many have already run out. After the 14-day delay many families with children will still be disconnected.
  Another paragraph of the code prohibits disconnection of pensioner households during the winter but during the rest of the year pensioner households may be disconnected. If they cannot afford the weekly instalments and the bill remains unpaid, they may not be reconnected during the next winter.
  Finally, tenants will continue to be disconnected if the landlord supplies them with electricity through coin boxes and his own supply is cut off for non-payment. These gaps in the code reflect a belief within the industries and within the Government that help from the Welfare State must be possible in all cases of genuine need. The code is designed to delay disconnection until that help is found. But for many families power is simply too dear for the poor to afford. Many families will be without a supply again this winter.
  Less than three weeks ago an employee of the Family Service Unit was able to collect, within a few hours, information about no fewer than 25 cases in which the liaison procedure had broken down one way or another. Nearly always the problem revolves round the system of preventing fuel disconnections taking place by the voluntary deduction scheme. Unfortunately, poor families are suffering deprivation in other areas because such a large proportion of their income is used to meet fuel bills. The standard of living of these families is inevitably reduced to an unacceptable level.
  Perhaps I may illustrate this important point by giving a few examples from different parts of the country. In Manchester, an unsupported mother with five children has £23 per week on which to live, after deductions. Again, in Manchester there is a family with three children, all under 5 years of age, and their gas and electricity supplies have just been restored. After deductions, that family has £12 per week on which to live.
  178
  In Leicester, a single-parent family has £12·45 on which to survive, after deductions, and there are four children in the household. Yet another single-parent family in the same town, with three children, all under the age of 3, is left with £11 per week after deductions for rent and £8 for electricity payments. There are also many examples that demonstrate that the 50p-per-week-off-arrears rule is not being adhered to.
  There are many instances in which deductions for future bills are obviously too high, taking into consideration the appliances being used. An old-age pensioner in Newcastle has £3·50 a weak, for electricity, deducted from his supplementary pension, and he has only electric light and a television set. It is particularly worrying when it is obvious that the amount being deducted is too high, yet it is almost impossible to have it reduced.
  This fact is well illustrated by the case of Mr. Smith, from Newcastle, He has an 18-month-old daughter and an invalid wife. He has £4 per week deducted towards his gas bills, and it was proposed that this should be increased to £5 per week. Because he had made his own calculations, he knew that this was too much, but he could not convince the gas board or the DHSS. When he told the local office that he refused to have £5 per week deducted, the office immediately informed the gas board, which sent a disconnection notice. On the appointed disconnection date, the local Right to Fuel Group formed a picket outside Mr. Smith's house with the intention of refusing entry to the gas board official. The result was that Mr. Smith was not disconnected and proper consideration was given to the amount deducted from his weekly benefit. Instead of being raised the deduction was reduced, from £4 per week to £3·50.
  One of the reasons behind the introduction of the liaison procedure was to prevent people who received supplementary benefit having their fuel supply disconnected. People can still be threatened with that, despite having weekly deductions made from their benefit.
  There is an example of an unsupported mother with six children in Birmingham—the youngest child is 18 months old. Mrs. Jones was having voluntary deductions made towards her gas and electricity bills. When the bills, for £12·50 and £25, respectively, arrived in mid-November,

  179
  she knew that she had sufficient savings with the DHSS to pay both immediately. She took the bills to her local office at once, but four weeks later she received a disconnection notice from both gas and electricity board. She telephoned the DHSS several times, but got no satisfaction. In desperation, she approached a social worker who had to make 13 telephone calls to the local DHSS office before payment was made. Payment was sent to the boards more than six weeks after the bills were received.
  I accept absolutely that some families run into trouble because the head of the household is a poor manager and is unable to cope with the grim circumstances that I have mentioned, but there are few people who could easily cope with the problems that afflict a single-parent family with three, four or five young children. The strain must become almost unbearable. The family deserves and requires understanding and support rather than criticism and condemnation. In any case, what sort of society is it that would abandon people because they prove inadequate in the face of grinding poverty and constant adversity?
  On 25th February the Supplementary Benefits Commission produced a far-reaching report on "Heating Costs for Pensioners". It contained the encouraging news that, whereas in December 1971 200,000 heating additions were being paid to supplementary pensioners, the figure has now risen to over 1 million, despite a considerable drop in the total number of supplementary pensioners. None the less, it was disturbing to read in the survey that there may be a further 250,000 supplementary pensioners who qualify for the extra heating additions but are not receiving them.
  In my view a vigorous campaign should be undertaken to advise these pensioners of their entitlement, even if it means the recruitment of additional staff. Most sensible people would concede that these new employees would be usefully and gainfully employed.
  Of equal importance are the needs of the elderly who do not qualify for supplementary benefit. Indeed, only 23 per cent. of those over pensionable age are drawing supplementary allowances, and nothing can be done by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to help the
  180
  remaining 77 per cent., many of whom are very little better off than those receiving supplementary pensions. Thousands of disabled people with special heating needs do not receive supplementary benefit.
  I turn now to the electricity discount scheme, which will enable householders who receive family income supplement or supplementary benefit to claim a rebate of 25 per cent. from the charge for electricity used in one winter period. Clearly, any programme designed to help those at the lower end of the income scale warrants applause, and I pay tribute to those responsible for this enterprise.
  Even so, I must say that the project has many curious and contradictory aspects. Many millions on low incomes cannot possibly benefit from the provision. A great many pensioners and a great number of those unemployed will receive no help whatever from the scheme. The concession, of course, does not apply to charges for gas supplies. Should anyone on supplementary benefit or family income supplement have a coin meter that the landlord empties he will not be eligible for the 25 per cent. discount, despite the fact that he almost certainly pays more for his electricity than most, and certainly those who are sub-tenants or who are in possession of mobile homes are not eligible.
  People will not qualify, either, if they pay a landlord or housing association directly for the flow of electricity. Nor will they receive the discount if they pay for central heating with their rent.
  When I investigated the sensationally high electricity bills presented to my constituents living in a new housing development near Chorley, I was shocked to find that housing construction is still allowed to proceed with only one source of fuel provided, even when it would be simple and straightforward to install both gas and electricity. It makes one wonder whether we are really concerned about the efficient utilisation of energy.
  There is much that can be done to conserve our supply of power and at the same time assist those who can no longer absorb and accommodate the ever-soaring cost of fuel. I suggest an immediate six-point plan to arrest a deteriorating situation.
  First, there should be a fair pricing system for domestic consumers and an

  181
  end to the very advantageous terms for the supply of fuel that have been made available to many sectors of industry.
  Secondly, there should be realistic heating allowances for pensioners and the disabled, and assistance for all low income groups, including the unemployed.
  Thirdly, there should be a nation-wide programme of home insulation to prevent the casual loss of heat that is at present, tolerated. An enterprise of this nature would pay for itself in a comparatively short time and could provide useful employment for many who are without work.
  Fourthly, we should give urgent priority to the development of the slot meter that will accept plastic tokens, which it subsequently sheds. This would provide a popular system of making payments and would discourage meter thefts.
  Fifthly, there should be a ready How of comprehensible information about people's rights and entitlements under a code of practice or through the DHSS.
  Sixthly, the present method of disconnection without reference to the courts should be discontinued.
  I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to the members of the Right To Fuel Campaign and the National Council for One-Parent Families who have worked hard to keep all hon. Members well informed on this subject. I am grateful for their deep concern for justice and reform in this field.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) for allowing this brief intervention and congratulate him on the constructive way in which he has presented the case. I want to reinforce his arguments.
  I have been much involved in this problem, having brought in a Ten-Minute Bill to remove the powers of the electricity authorities to disconnect. It went the way of so many Ten-Minute Bills, but it gained the attention of Ministers and the organisations to which my hon. Friend referred.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the gaps in the present schemes. There is also inadequate social service provision to help people to meet their urgent needs when disconnection occurs. In my con-
  182
  stituency interviews recently, I heard of a woman with four children who was offered the use of candles in place of electricity in those circumstances. This was not long after a tragedy not far from this place, in which the use of candles led to young children being burned to death. I cannot lay the blame at the door of social service departments; it is simply that their resources are inadequate.
  The six points that my hon. Friend made form a constructive plan to overcome many of these problems. The proposed increased charges for gas will mean that the next round of bills, certainly in the winter, will create a serious problem for the elderly, the single-parent families and the 1½ million unemployed. Therefore, my hon. Friend's points must be taken seriously by the Minister. If next winter is severe, bills that have doubled so quickly will be even higher, and these problems will be even more serious than they are now.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I very much welcome this debate on a subject that is of great concern to the Government, as it is to all hon. Members. Although I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), this problem goes well beyond the concerns of my Department, into energy policy and pricing, housing and housing standards for insulation, and, inevitably, public expenditure. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friends in the Departments of Energy and the Environment to the specific points that are of concern to them.
  Our concern is, essentially, twofold. First, we want to ensure that people, particularly old people, who make up a large part of the poorer section of the community, are warm enough. Secondly, we want to enable poorer people to pay for the heating they need.
  The Government fully understand the concern felt about steep increases in fuel prices since 1973, but there is no easy escape from the effects of pay settlements in the coal and power industries and big rises in the price of oil. The country could not protect itself from the dramatic increase in the price of oil demanded by the oil-producing countries. More recently the Government took a decision to phase out subsidies in order to end a situation

  183
  in which prices bore no relation to costs of supply and production and which had led to serious market difficulties. That is why there have been price increases in the domestic sector since March 1974 averaging 50 per cent. for gas, nearly 70 per cent. for paraffin and heating oil, 100 per cent. for coal and coke, and 125 per cent. for electricity.
  However, these increases need to be kept in proper perspective, because when one looks at the position over a longer period one finds that there is a different story. From 1970, fuel prices overall have risen in real terms by only 9 per cent., although I recognise that it is the size of the actual increases, concentrated in a very short period, that has created so much difficulty.
  Reluctantly, I have to say that further increases are coming up for 1st April. Gas prices will go up by an average of 10 per cent. Coal prices also will be going up at the same time—15 per cent. on coal and smokeless fuels—though rebates available up to 30th September will substantially moderate these increases. On electricity, the Government have before them proposals from the area boards for new tariffs to take effect in April.
  Everyone has felt the impact, each quarter. But the increased cost of fuel presents many people with a choice—what to give up to pay for it? Can they use a little less fuel? Should they invest in some form of insulation, or a heating system that is cheaper to run? The fact that they have such a choice also gives them a breathing space. For people on low incomes the same choice hardly exists, or if it exists it is only in a crueller form, as a choice between necessities—between fuel and food. Even the comparatively modest outlay on loft insulation may be beyond their reach. Certainly, a different form of heating is, even if this were possible. But in many cases it is not. These people live in rented accommodation, or cannot change from an all-electric system.
  Nor is it just a question of finding the money for fuel. It is also a question of the method of payment. It is in many ways an unfortunate piece of timing that these price increases have followed a general switch from pre-payment, coin-in-the-slot meters to credit meters, where the bill comes in once a quarter. Of
  184
  course, credit meters have great advantages. They are more secure from burglars. They are, for example, more easily read. They can be sited outside the door of the flat. They do not fill up. There is no problem about running out of shillings. But they demand a certain skill in budgeting over a considerable period—a skill that may not be possessed by some consumers.
  I hope that this necessarily brief account will indicate the Government's clear recognition of the problems—problems that have to some extent been moderated by a succession of fairly kind winters. We seem to have had another one this year, and have eyed the eastern United States with some apprehension, but greater relief.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Not up in the North.
  Mr. Deakins: I take the point. I cannot help feeling that we are overdue for a really harsh winter.
  What, then, have we done to alleviate these problems? Principally, we have increased social security benefits. Compared with the rates in October 1973, when the previous Government last increased them, the rates in force since November 1976 are 96 per cent. higher. Since October 1973 prices have risen by about 78 per cent. So the purchasing power of pensions is about 10 per cent. higher than it was then.
  The prices index includes the increase in fuel costs, and it is worth noting that the index for pensioner households has closely mirrored the general index. Since the Government took office there has also been a dramatic increase in the number and level of heating additions to supplementary benefit. The number of these additions has more than doubled in three years, so that now over 1 million claimants get them. The rates have gone up by 133 per cent. since 1973. We know that—as the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission made clear recently—there may still be some people who are not getting an addition but who in fact meet the criteria. But the numbers getting additions are rising steadily, and we are doing our best to ensure that additions go to all those who are entitled to them.
  We have put out a poster for display in post offices and doctors' surgeries

  185
  setting out the criteria briefly and inviting claims from those who think they may be entitled. We are also asking local office staff to bear the possibility of heating additions particularly in mind when they work at cases. We are considering what other administrative measures might be taken to improve take-up, and will not hesitate to take any practical steps to improve the take-up of these additions even further. There are also other steps that the Supplementary Benefits Commission takes. It can make exceptional needs payments to help with fuel bills in certain circumstances—for example, where a claimant has moved to a home with a new heating system and has not yet learnt how to manage it economically, or budget for the bill, or where there has been a period of unusually severe weather. There were about 48,000 such payments in 1975, averaging £22·70.
  In many cases, though, there are not the sort of exceptional circumstances that would justify a lump sum payment. The commission and the fuel authorities therefore negotiated arrangements, which came into force last February, designed to avert disconnection where this would cause hardship—broadly, cases where there are young children, sick or elderly people in the household. An amount equal to estimated weekly consumption plus 50p towards the arrears is deducted from the claimant's benefit each week and paid over to the fuel board. If after two years there are still arrears outstanding, the commission will consider clearing these by a lump sum. These arrangements are not the perfect answer. There are cases in which the amount of supplementary benefit paid on top of other income is insufficient to cover current consumption. There are cases in which fuel consumption is very high, and deductions have to be correspondingly high if the debt is not to get bigger.
  There are failures of liaison between social security offices and fuel boards, inevitable with large organisations under heavy pressure. Criticism of the scheme along these lines tend to highlight a small proportion of extreme cases. To put the thing in perspective, I remind the House that in the first three months of these arrangements over 14,500 claimants were put on to this system of direct payment. In the same period roughly the
  186
  same number of exceptional needs payments for fuel were also made.
  My hon. Friend cited a particular case in which there is a high level of deduction. He suggested that the direct payment arrangements are causing hardship. But what if there were no direct payment arrangements? Either the claimant he mentions would be saving for herself the same amount from her benefit each week—very likely more—as the fuel boards, with no prospect of settlement of the balance after two years, would perhaps seek a faster rate of reduction of the arrears than 50p a week, or her electricity supply would be disconnected. Let us not forget that this is exactly the choice facing those in full-time work.
  There is a third possibility, of course, that the Supplementary Benefits Commission should simply pay the bills of all their claimants who get into difficulties. But in exercising their discretion, the commission must have regard to the limitations put into the Act by Parliament and restrict such payments to cases in which the circumstances are exceptional. I have already indicated the sort of criteria that the commission considers, and these are set out in more detail in publications such as the Supplementary Benefits Handbook. I would add that a policy of simply settling the bills of those who get into difficulties would discriminate unfairly against those claimants—the great majority—who do manage on their incomes. It would also encourage them not to manage. And it would be widely resented by those not on supplementary benefit, whether in work or not, to whom such assistance was not available.
  There are no easy answers to this problem, especially where the claimant's fuel consumption is high. To suggest that the direct payment arrangements are causing hardship is not a fair response. Our experience has been that these arrangements have proved of great value to a very large number of claimants in averting disconnection. The commission also uses its power to make lump sum payments for such things a simple draught-proofing, curtains and floor coverings.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the code of practice on disconnections and

  187
  fuel payment procedures. This document was produced by the gas and electricity industries, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not expect me to answer for these industries on how they interpret it in detail. But I should perhaps explain one thing. Under the direct payment arrangements for supplementary beneficiaries, the normal amount deducted each week towards the arrears is 50p—it may be more, but only where the claimant has larger resources or actually asks for it to be more. Those not on supplementary benefit, or to whom direct payment cannot apply, have to make their own arrangements with the fuel boards for paying off the arrears. In these cases it is up to the boards to fix a rate that will recover the debt in a reasonable period, consistent not only with the spirit of the code but with their commercial objectives. The Government regard this code as a measure to help people avoid debt and prevent really needy people from being disconnected for non-payment of fuel bills. As the code makes clear, however, a continuous assessment of its working will be made and the Government will be watching closely to see what its impact has been this winter.
  Moving away from strictly social security provisions, we have taken another important step. In December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced the details of a scheme costing up to £25 million to pay a 25
  188
  per cent. discount to recipients of supplementary benefit and family income supplement on one of their winter electricity bills. The Government recognise that this scheme has been criticised and has elements of rough justice about it, but it is providing a useful measure of help to a large number of people among those who find the greatest difficulty in paying their fuel bills.
  As to the methods of payment, a wide range is now offered by the industries. Both gas and electricity have budget payment schemes, so that credit customers can pay by monthly instalments. In most areas and regions stamps can be purchased from showrooms and used towards payments of bills. In some cases weekly and monthly payments are accepted. The industries are working as rapidly as possible to make all their schemes available in all areas. The industries have also agreed that in appropriate cases they will provide a pre-payment meter, provided it is safe and practical. Perhaps I could add here two points. First, it is in the field of methods of payment—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pu ant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Price Control
  Price Control
  Profits
  Profits
  Prices (Policy)
  Prices (Policy)
  Bread
  Bread
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Butter
  Butter
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Advertising
  Advertising
  Petrol Retailing
  Petrol Retailing
  Metrological Control Systems (Report)
  Metrological Control Systems (Report)
  Duty-free Shops
  Duty-free Shops
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Associated Engineering Ltd. and Serck Ltd.
  Associated Engineering Ltd. and Serck Ltd.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Private Prosecutions
  Private Prosecutions
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Rhodesians
  Rhodesians
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Prisons (Expenditure)
  Prisons (Expenditure)
  Terrorism Prevention
  Terrorism Prevention
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Debt Evasion
  Debt Evasion
  Overseas Visitors
  Overseas Visitors
  Gas Explosions (Communications procedures)
  Gas Explosions (Communications procedures)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Contingency Funds)
  Local Authorities (Contingency Funds)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Panel Inspectors (Guidance Notes)
  Panel Inspectors (Guidance Notes)
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Water (Boreholes)
  Water (Boreholes)
TRANSPORT
  District Council Bus Undertakings
  District Council Bus Undertakings
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Bus Grant
  Bus Grant
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Training
  Agricultural Training
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Pigs (Subsidy)
  Pigs (Subsidy)
  Ice Cream
  Ice Cream
  Grants
  Grants
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Departmental Staff and Costs
  Agricultural Exports
  Agricultural Exports
  Calves
  Calves
  Tea
  Tea
  Sheep Rearing
  Sheep Rearing
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Historic Remains
  Historic Remains
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Community Associations
  Community Associations
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Pay)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Pay)
  Records (Confidentiality)
  Records (Confidentiality)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Carbines)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Carbines)
  Terrorists (Convictions)
  Terrorists (Convictions)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Under-Secretaries of State
  Under-Secretaries of State
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Departmental Staff (Dispersal)
  Departmental Staff (Dispersal)
ENERGY
  Coal Mining
  Coal Mining
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Coal Supplies
  Coal Supplies
  Gas Explosions
  Gas Explosions
  Windscale
  Windscale
  Policy
  Policy
  Gas Reserves
  Gas Reserves
  Dounreay Reactor
  Dounreay Reactor
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
SCOTLAND
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authorities (Contingency Funds)
  Local Authorities (Contingency Funds)
  Luggiebank (Traffic Census)
  Luggiebank (Traffic Census)
  Shellfish Landings
  Shellfish Landings
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Population
  Population
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Births and Deaths
  Births and Deaths
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Open University
  Open University
  NOVO AND SECOND GENESIS
  NOVO AND SECOND GENESIS
  COURT PROCEEDINGS (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S CONSENT)
  COURT PROCEEDINGS (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S CONSENT)
RESTRICTIONS ON PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS" POWERS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS" POWERS
  PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS
  PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Open University
  Open University
  School Classes (Size)
  School Classes (Size)
  Education and Industry
  Education and Industry
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages (Inspection)
  Wages (Inspection)
  Penygroes
  Penygroes
  Remploy
  Remploy
  European Trade Union Institute
  European Trade Union Institute
  Lambeth
  Lambeth
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
  Youth Employment Subsidy
  Youth Employment Subsidy
  Wales
  Wales
  North-East England
  North-East England
EMPLOYMENT
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
INDUSTRY
  Factory and Office Building
  Factory and Office Building
  Scott Lithgow Ltd.
  Scott Lithgow Ltd.
  Post Office Board
  Post Office Board
  Post Offices (Rural Areas)
  Post Offices (Rural Areas)
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
  Development and Intermediate Areas
  Development and Intermediate Areas
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Anglo-Venezuelan Railway Corporation
  Anglo-Venezuelan Railway Corporation
  Wales
  Wales
  Alcohol
  Alcohol
TRADE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Bankruptcy (Advisory Committee)
  Bankruptcy (Advisory Committee)
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Heathrow (Fourth Terminal)
  Heathrow (Fourth Terminal)
  Companies Registration Office
  Companies Registration Office
  Steel Bars (Anti-Dumping Application)
  Steel Bars (Anti-Dumping Application)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zambia (Rhodesian Schoolchildren)
  Zambia (Rhodesian Schoolchildren)
  Romania
  Romania
  Helsinki Final Act
  Helsinki Final Act
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Bermuda (Governorship)
  Bermuda (Governorship)
  Dominica (Independence)
  Dominica (Independence)
  Diplomatic Missions (London)
  Diplomatic Missions (London)
  Schoolchildren (Costs)
  Schoolchildren (Costs)
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Helsinki Agreement (Belgrade Conference)
  Helsinki Agreement (Belgrade Conference)
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
WALES
  North Wales Expressway
  North Wales Expressway
  Rates
  Rates
  Cwmbran
  Cwmbran
  Geriatric Units (Powys)
  Geriatric Units (Powys)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
DEFENCE
  RAE Transport Command
  RAE Transport Command
  Children's Education (Allowances)
  Children's Education (Allowances)
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Aircraft Landing Systems
  Aircraft Landing Systems
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  NATO-Warsaw Pact (Strengths)
  NATO-Warsaw Pact (Strengths)
  Departmental Car Service
  Departmental Car Service
  Army Youth Teams
  Army Youth Teams
  Cadets
  Cadets
  Royal Air Force (Pensions)
  Royal Air Force (Pensions)
  Admiralty Board (Receptions)
  Admiralty Board (Receptions)
  Royal Navy Presentation Team
  Royal Navy Presentation Team
  Pensions
  Pensions
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Analgesics (Sale)
  Analgesics (Sale)
  British Leyland Disputes (Benefit Payments)
  British Leyland Disputes (Benefit Payments)
  Surgical Operations (Waiting Times)
  Surgical Operations (Waiting Times)
  Children's Regional Planning Committees
  Children's Regional Planning Committees
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
  Frauds and Abuses
  Frauds and Abuses
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Prisoners (Rents)
  Prisoners (Rents)
  Widowed Mother's Allowance
  Widowed Mother's Allowance
  Residential Homes (Children and Young Persons)
  Residential Homes (Children and Young Persons)
  Maintenance Payments
  Maintenance Payments
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Cushion Car
  Cushion Car
  Invalidity Pensions
  Invalidity Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Novo and Second Genesis Housing Associations
  Novo and Second Genesis Housing Associations
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Counter Clerks
  Counter Clerks
  Dentists' Patients
  Dentists' Patients
  Vaccination and Vaccine Damage
  Vaccination and Vaccine Damage
  Hospitals (Southern England)
  Hospitals (Southern England)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Surgeons (Hospital Allocations)
  Surgeons (Hospital Allocations)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Assessments and Appeals
  Tax Assessments and Appeals
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Dividend Control
  Dividend Control
  Income Tax Returns
  Income Tax Returns
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Employment (Northern England)
  Employment (Northern England)
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Construction Industry (Sub-contractors)
  Construction Industry (Sub-contractors)
  Widowed Mothers
  Widowed Mothers
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Imports
  Imports
  Tax Refunds
  Tax Refunds

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

COHO SALMON OVA
Lord KILMANY: 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 in view of widespread and repeated protests against the granting of a licence to import 20,000 Coho salmon ova from the Pacific coast of North America to the West of Scotland with possible danger to stocks of Salmo Salar in British rivers, this licence will be reviewed forthwith not only with regard to the danger of disease but also on ecological grounds.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be reviewing the granting of this licence on disease grounds when he has fully considered the views of those who have been consulted. As I explained in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, on 22nd February, the licence was granted in terms of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. That Act relates only to the prevention of the spreading of disease among salmon and freshwater fish. While I appreciate the noble Lord's anxieties from an ecological standpoint, there is no statutory basis for reviewing the licence on those grounds. My right honourable friend is, however, looking further at the statutory provisions.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I take to be encouraging. Will he bear in mind that, arising out of it, there is a tremendous weight of responsible opinion who regard this experiment as a very real risk? Surely our own
1260
Salmo Salar is such a precious asset that we are not entitled to take a risk at all.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I should stress to your Lordships' House that only a provisional licence has been granted. The fish are disease-free and under very strict conditions of quarantine.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of, and will he bear in mind, the dangers which have arisen from introducing foreign species into other countries; for instance, the introduction of the rabbit into Australia, the rat into New Zealand and the terrible depridations which the mink has made in this country? Another example is the grey squirrel. Will the noble Lord impress on his colleagues the dangers that could arise from the introduction of a voracious feeder such as the Coho salmon into the Scottish waters?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, no firm conclusion has been reached in this regard, but my right honourable friend's scientific advisers are giving active consideration to the Coho salmon in its natural habitat at this moment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Lord make sure that no risks are run in this matter, for the following reasons: first, because of the great amount of legislation that exists to protect salmon in Scotland which would be undermined if there were real risk; and, secondly, because of the enormous amount that the salmon contribute to local government finance through ratings?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern. I can assure him that the quarantine premises are, as I have indicated, part of a research establishment, and all effluent is being chemically sterilised. In addition, my right honourable friend's scientific advisers are free to move in for examination at any time.

COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY
2.40 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 consultations have been or are to be held with what organisations or persons, with a view to making appointments of members to the Commission for Racial Equality.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has invited names for consideration for appointment to the Commission for Racial Equality from a wide range of organisations representing the ethnic minorities. He has in addition invited the CBI, the TUC, and the National Association of Community Relations Councils to make suggestions.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that simply to ask these organisations to submit names to him is not the same as having consultation, which implies face-to-face meetings with organisations concerned and asking for their opinions on the names which have already been submitted to him? Further-more, would the Minister agree that many of the most important decisions regarding the administration and structure of the Commission for Racial Equality are being taken before the appointment of the commissioners? In these circumstances it may well be apprehended that it is more difficult to find persons of proper calibre who will agree to serve on the new organisations.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not know that I would accept the first part of the noble Lord's question. It is perfectly reasonable to consult a significant number of organisations to ask them for their views on membership of this organisation. It is the normal way in which Governments proceed and, as I indicated during the Committee stage of the Bill, we are anxious to obtain the help and assistance of these organisations. On the second point, obviously a number of preliminary decisions are being arrived at by the chairman and deputy chairman-designate of the Commission. But the Commission will not be fully constituted until its members are announced. Therefore, all the questions of major policy for the Commission will be made by the full Commission when it is eventually appointed.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the scepticism which has existed in the past, does the Minister agree that it is important to secure the co-operation of the ethnic organisations? After the invitations by letter have been sent to these various organisations, would it be possible to consult with the major ethnic organisations about the appointments which are made as a result of the replies received?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am not sure that I would be right today in giving any support to the proposition that we should clear with a number of listed organisations the names of the people whom the Home Secretary eventually decides to appoint. I will certainly draw that matter to my right honourable friend's attention. During the Committee stage of the Bill we made it clear that we were anxious to obtain the advice of the representatives of the ethnic minorities, and that has been done.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, may I ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that "the natives" should be represented on this Commission?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, when we discussed the Bill at Committee stage I think it was announced that a fairly well-known "native"—the then well-known Member for Cambridge—had been appointed chairman.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the long delay in making final appointments to the Commission is causing a great anxiety to the present staffs of the Community Relations Commission, the Race Relations Board and those in the field working for the CRE, whose work is at present in limbo? What assurance can the noble Lord give the House that all urgency is being attached by the Government to arriving at conclusions and setting up the organisation?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord has suggested, I am well aware that there exists some perfectly natural apprehension on the part of the staffs of the organisations. My right honourable friend is anxious to deal as speedily as possible with this complex matter; he is determined to press on with it with as much despatch as possible consistent with getting the judgment right.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: TELEVISION PROGRAMME
2.44 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: 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 the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 applies to or governs the policy of the BBC regarding programmes which feature cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal; and if so whether the "Taste for Adventure" programme featured in Radio Times for showing on 3rd March is in breach of the terms of the 1937 Act.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it would be for the courts to decide whether the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 in any circumstances applied to television programmes of the kind described in the Question the noble Lord has asked, and it would be improper for the Government to express a view. The House will know that the broadcasting authorities have sole responsibility for the programmes included in their services: it is for them to ensure that, so far as practicable, programmes do not offend against good taste, are not offensive to public feeling and have regard to the laws of the land. With regard to the programme to which the noble Lord referred, the BBC tell me that announcements were made immediately before and after the programme was broadcast.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my opinion it only adds to the gravity of the offence when the BBC, before and after a programme, have to say that the scenes portrayed on the film would be unlawful if performed in this country? Are we next to have a film of a bullfight in this series of "Taste for Adventure"? It seems to me that this series is entirely misleading if the intention is to show treatment of animals which is unlawful in this country and then to describe it as a "taste for adventure". Will my noble friend at least convey to the BBC the displeasure of one noble Lord over their irresponsibility in showing this programme?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that Hansard will do the job far better than I when it appears tomorrow morning. I will certainly ensure that the attention of the Chairman is drawn to what my noble friend has said. As he will appreciate and as the House will realise, this is a matter for the BBC and not for the Government.

AIRCREW OFFICERS: GRATUITIES
2.46 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm that many short-service aircrews joined the RAF under conditions that promised them the right to leave after eight or 10 years' service with a tax-free gratuity of £2,750 or £5,000 respectively; and if so whether they will give an assurance that in any new pension scheme there will be no attempt to alter retrospectively the conditions under which these aircrews joined.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there are some 450 aircrew officers in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force on special pensionable commissions with an option, falling after April 1978, to leave after eight or 12 years' service with tax-free gratuities, currently £4,155 and £5,000 respectively. As has been stated in another place, the payment of these gratuities after April 1978 is under urgent review in the light of pensions legislation. I must make it clear, however, that no decision on the lines of some recent newspaper reports has been taken, and that Her Majesty's Government are taking fully into account the views which have been expressed on this matter in both Houses.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, arising from that reply, for which I thank the Minister but which I found disturbing, may I ask this question? Why should the Government have to take time to consider a clear issue such as I have tried to put in my Question, as to

1265
whether or not they will honour obligations entered into when these young men joined the Services? I choose my words carefully, but may I say this? It seems to me that the Government have not yet made up their mind whether or not to double-cross these young men as regards the conditions on which they originally entered. Why should the Government not be able to say today that they have come to a decision and they will not "rat" on their previous promises?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are aware of the concern felt in both Houses of Parliament on this subject. The Prime Minister has asked for an urgent report from the Secretary of State for Defence, agreed with the Department of Health and Social Security and the Civil Service Department. This is a most delicate issue, but it is not being ignored.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept it from some of us that, without adopting the extravagant language of the noble Lord who has just spoken, it would seem to be utterly intolerable and impossible to go back at all on this obligation? I may be knocking at an open door, but may I re-emphasise, so that there shall be no doubt in the minds of the Government, that any attempt on any grounds whatever to go back on this would receive the utmost opposition, I would hope, of all of us in the House?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, since the advertisements offering these gratuities to aircrew officers have been appearing in the Press up till 1975, why should the Government wait a moment longer before publicly dismissing what appears to be a thoroughly disreputable expedient?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I say, the whole thing is under urgent review, and I would——
A noble Lord: Why should there have to be a review?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Because there has been a piece of legislation which may be in conflict with the contracts entered into with these young officers.
Viscount SLIM: My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to say what attitude the Government are taking to continue the recruitment of this very fine type of officer in both Services and what recruiting officers are now saying to such people about their future and possible terms of service?—because it is my view that this is no way to go about recruiting aircrews or good officers of any kind.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think we must be clear that this is a comparatively small group of officers who have an option. I am not saying that this makes their interest any less important; I am simply saying that it is a somewhat exceptional group of officers who have three choices open to them: to take a pension, to leave after eight years, or to leave after 12 years. It is a very flexible arrangement. But there are 4,000 non-pensionable short service officers who fall outside this area of discussion, and who are not affected. I agree with the noble Lord that the type of young man attracted is of a very high quality, but this really does not affect the issue. It is not the quality of recruitment; it is fairness of treatment which is concerning your Lord-ships' House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell his colleagues, the Ministers concerned, that if the Government decide not to honour this undertaking to pay the gratuities they will be undermining the whole system of fixed public service employment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are not trying to shuffle out of their obligations. As a result of legislation, there has been a conflict between a contract entered into with a limited number of officers and future pension policies. We have a conflict of interests and, as I said, the Government are concerned and the Prime Minister is himself studying the problem.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, if the Government did, in fact, go ahead with this proposal, would they now be in breach of contract?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in so far as I—not being a lawyer—understand breach of contract, I would agree with the noble Lord.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Government have already got out of a large part of their obligations merely because of the results of inflation? If they are also to get out of the rags and tatters of what is left, it is quite breathtaking.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House why the Government are unable to give a categorical assurance that, whatever legislation indicates, these people will be no worse off than they would be as a result of the undertakings they were given when they joined?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are a reasonable group of people discussing the future of some very valuable officers, and obviously their interests will be considered very carefully.

JOB RELEASE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la, and to be printed.
COVENT GARDEN MARKET (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
2.53 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Other amendments relating to retirement pensions]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) Regulation 7 of the Social Security (Widow's Benefit and Retirement Pensions) Regulations 1974 shall be amended by adding in paragraph (a) after the word "80" the following words" or was so resident for at least 10 years in the previous 20 years not-withstanding the age, being beyond 80, attained by him when that period expires".")
The noble Baroness said: Pensions for the over-80s, to which my Amendment refers, were introduced by the last Conservative Government to help a quite specific group of people who were, by their age, excluded from joining the national pensions and insurance scheme in 1948. There were, therefore, a small number of people who were not eligible for any kind of retirement pension, and it is a group of people which is diminishing in number each year, simply because of old age and death.
In another place, my honourable friend Mr. Newton moved an Amendment in terms somewhat similar to this, to cover certain people over the age of 80 who have been unable to fulfil the residence qualification of living in this country for 10 years until they were 80 years of age. The Amendment has now been redrafted in order to meet the criticisms made by a Minister in another place, and I hope very much that the Government will consider this matter favourably. When the Amendment was originally debated in Committee, it received a tied vote. The chairman's casting vote meant that it fell, and it was raised again on Report. But, as I say, my Amendment is designed to meet the criticisms which the Government Minister made at the time.
When I talk about pensions for the over-80s, I am of course using what is known as the conventional shorthand on this matter for those who are eligible for these pensions. As I have already indicated, they are people who were not eligible to join the scheme when it was originally introduced, because they were too old, and there is a diminishing number of them. But the fact is that you cannot qualify for a pension unless you have been continuously in this country for 10 years, and if you reach the age of 80 before you have had 10 years' continuous residence qualification you are not eligible for the over-80s' pension.
I understand that when this Amendment was introduced in another place the Government Minister replying to the debate on Report raised two objections to it. The first was that the Amendment as drafted would have conflicted with our obligations under the Treaty of Rome, because it referred to various residence qualifications. Therefore, in order to get over this difficulty, I have taken out what I gather were words which would have offended against the Treaty obligations. I hope very much that, having taken them out, the Government will not now say that the whole matter is so wide that it will apply to almost anybody in the world. But I thought I must explain why I have taken them out, and have deliberately not drawn the Amendment narrowly. It is in order to get over this point.
The second reason given for not accepting this Amendment was on the grounds of cost. Of course, in this case—and I appreciate the Government's difficulty very much—it is very difficult to know precisely how many will be eligible. What we do know, however, is that if those people who are here have no other source of income at all, they will of course be eligible for supplementary benefit, because they would clearly not be allowed simply to languish completely poverty-striken somewhere or other. So if they received the pension for the over-80s, a certain amount less would need to be spent on supplementary benefit, and there would be a saving.
The difficulty is in getting the exact figures. On re-reading the report of the debate in another place, I see that the number of people concerned is estimated to be about 3,000, and we calculate that the cost would be about £500,000. I hesitate to rest too much of the case on the figures, because in a later Amendment which I shall be moving I shall be asking the Government to come forward at a given date with much more precise figures about the total number of pensions and the cost of removing the earnings qualification. One of the difficulties we have found is that so many of the figures that we have been given have proved to be completely inaccurate. I am not trying in any way to blame somebody for this, but it means that to rest a case entirely on the figures given is very unfortunate.
I feel certain that, were we not in the present economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, this is the kind of Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would wish to see incorporated in a Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Such a Bill should cover groups of people whose needs are not met in any other way, and this I believe to be a particularly unfortunate group of people. They are very elderly; they are not eligible for qualification in the first place; they are excluded from the pensions for the over-80s; and they are almost certainly dependent upon supplementary benefit.
This Amendment would represent a diminishing cost for the Government because the number of people in this category is bound to grow less each year. The Government would not be committing themselves to a cost which would increase extensively in the future. I hope very much, therefore, that the Government will favourably consider the Amendment. I beg to move.
3.2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not propose to indicate to your Lordships what the Amendment does, because the noble Baroness has set it out very clearly. As the noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out, a similar Amendment was introduced by the Opposition in the Commons. The noble Baroness claimed that a problem arises only in the case of people who were too old to enter the National Insurance scheme in 1948 and whose numbers diminish each year. The cost of the Amendment would also diminish year by year.
I should make it clear, however, that the Amendment of the noble Baroness relates to Category D pensions. These, as she rightly points out, are payable from the age of 80, even when the person concerned has been able to contribute to the scheme, provided that his personal contributory pension does not exceed the level of the standard rate of the D pension scheme. It is the Category C pensions which are payable to persons who were over pensionable age in 1948 and, therefore, ineligible to contribute. However, that particular group of people must be, in the case of men, in the region of 93 years of age and, in the case of women, in the

1271
region of 88 years of age. Therefore few claims now arise. However, Category D pensions will continue to be awarded for the foreseeable future as the people concerned reach the age of 80.
To award these pensions, as the Amendment requires, to people who do not satisfy the residential conditions on their eightieth birthday, but who do so there-after, would cost the Exchequer an estimated £500,000 a year. Although this will not be accepted by a large number of your Lordships, I am bound to say that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to save money. I shall probably also be saying that to the noble Lord, Lord Banks. We have to keep this point in the fore-front of our minds.
As a matter of principle, the Government have no objection to the main purpose behind the Amendment. We know that the matter has been ventilated to a considerable extent in another place. In 1975 the noble Baroness's right honourable friend there, Sir Geoffrey Howe, was in correspondence with the then Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security and, as she pointed out at the time, she thought it right that we should consider the whole matter at a later opportunity. During the discussion in another place the estimated cost of £500,000 a year was challenged as being too high, but this is the most accurate estimate that can be made on the admittedly limited evidence available.
The noble Baroness has said that we are frequently suggesting costs to your Lordships' House which, if I understood her correctly, are not borne out; but I have yet to be given one example of the estimated cost of something turning out not to be correct. These estimates are made not by members of the Government but by independent people. Of the additional people who would qualify if they were paid on the more relaxed basis proposed in the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, it is thought that there are approximately 1,000 who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit and who would qualify for the Category D pension. We have to take that situation into account.
Rather than effect a transfer between one State benefit and another, which is one matter, here are a thousand people
1272
whom we have reason to believe are not drawing supplementary benefit and who would be eligible. The extra cost cannot be accommodated within the Government's programme. As I said a moment or two ago, one of the main purposes of the Bill—it is unfortunate, and we acknowledge that it is unfortunate—is to enable us to save as much public expenditure as we can and ensure that the money which we save can be used, and is used, for other matters which, rightly or wrongly, the Government may well feel should have greater priority.
The noble Baroness will be interested to hear, because she will be very interested in Amendment No. 13, that the Government propose to accept that Amendment, which again will cost a considerable amount of money. If we have to make choices and pay some kind of regard to priorities, we would sooner the money went in that direction, which would provide a non-contributory attendance allowance for handicapped children who are with foster parents. We shall come to that Amendment in due course.
As I have said, the Government have no objection in principle to the proposed Amendment, but it is a matter to be implemented when resources are available. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. I trust, however, that noble Lords will not assume that the Government are being intransigent this afternoon with regard to all the demands made upon them. As I say, we intend to accept Amendment No. 13, which I think shows some evidence of the Government's good faith in matters where we consider that there is perhaps greater priority.
Lord JACQUES: I appeal to the Opposition to act a little more consistently regarding public expenditure. We have a debate on economic affairs every two months or so. The Opposition Front Bench and its Back-Bench condemn the Government for excessive public expenditure. One speaker after another condemns the Government. However, in the interval of two months before the next debate hardly a day passes without the Opposition proposing increases in this or that form of public expenditure. Seldom does the Opposition make any suggestion about where a reduction should be made. I believe that the Opposition

1273
should be more consistent than they are at present regarding the general principle which they lay down in economic debates. If not, the public should be told where the inconsistency lies.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has tempted me to intervene in the debate once again and to speak on a matter which I had not really intended to raise this afternoon; but since he has raised it, I feel obliged to reply to him. I have not normally taken part in economic debates but, as he has asked me to list some of the things which the Government have done which I think are going to cost the country a lot of money for very little public good, I will tell him something in regard to the Department of Health and Social Services. Not so long ago, in the autumn, we debated here the Health Services Bill which, by the phasing out of pay-beds, on the lowest possible estimates will lose the National Health Service £20 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has just said that this Amendment will not cost more than £500,000 a year. But suppose it costs £750,000 a year; one of the places that money could have come from would have been encouraging people to pay for a bed in hospital and then the money would have been obtained in another way; that is, from those who could afford to pay for a bed and those who wanted to. However, the Government have chosen not to do that and the result is that this particular group of elderly people, over 80 years of age, cannot help themselves and are not going to get the help. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not going to intervene in this debate again in regard to this matter, because I can assure him that there is plenty to be said on our side.
Lord JACQUES: In the case to which the noble Baroness has referred, this Government, being truly democratic, acted in accordance with what appeared to be public opinion.
Baroness YOUNG: On that point, I do not think there was a single public opinion poll which substantiated the Government.
Lord PLATT: I should like to ask one question. If, as I understood from the
1274
noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, 1,000 of these people are not drawing supplementary benefit, they are presumably supporting themselves in some way. I suppose some of them are paid for by their families, others have private means; if they become eligible for a pension, like others of us who become eligible for a pension it will be added to their income and income tax will be charged upon it, so that the total expense to the Government will be considerably less than they estimate.
Lord SANDYS: In support of my noble friend Lady Young I think it should be said that the terms of eligibility as set out in the Amendment are extremely narrow. We believe, and we have every reason to think that it is accurate, that the numbers eligible will be between 2,000 and 3,000 people. We are quite ready to accept the figure which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, gave us this afternoon; that is, that approximately 1,000 people over the age of 80, who are not receiving supplementary benefit at present, fail to satisfy the existing residents' conditions.
We believe that figure to be reasonably accurate, but we should like to say from this side of the Committee, very clearly indeed, that when we come to it Clause 4 is the main money clause in the Bill and under that clause the Government, in reducing the terms of the earnings rule of 1975, are seeking to save a great deal of money. If one turns to the debates in Standing Committee in the House of Commons, one notices at once the wide variation between the figures offered by the Government and those offered by the Opposition. Straightaway we query a substantial number of figures which were brought forward by the Government at that stage. It is quite clear that this concession, which seeks a very minimal sum of money in terms of the total public expenditure on pensions—namely, £500,000—is one which we shall consider very carefully in present economic circumstances. I am particularly glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that our Amendment No. 13 is going to be acceptable at a later stage, but I believe that the Government should give greater thought to this category of eligibility.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I cannot help noble Lords on their Amendment which

1275
is before the Committee at present and there is nothing more I can usefully say which will in any way help the situation. In my enthusiasm to let the noble Baroness, Lady Young, know that the Government were minded to accept her Amendment No. 13 I ought to have said, and I did not do so, that we could not accept it with its present wording. What she is seeking to do the Government propose to accept, but I am advised that the present wording is not suitable drafting and we should be happy to table the appropriate Amendment with a view to doing what the noble Baroness has in mind. We can deal with that when we reach Amendment No. 13.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, a question on this Amendment. One wants to see old people independent and able to lead their own lives. With this help a number of them would be able to do this who at the moment have to be given help in other ways, such as subsidised meals-on-wheels, subsidised home help services and so on. Is it not as long as it is short? If they do not get this help they will have to have it in another way. Would it not be better for them to have help in this way as of right rather than having to apply for extra things such as meals-on-wheels paid for by the Social Services?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sure the noble Baroness is not suggesting that that piece of community service, albeit done by the local Social Services department, is not often reliant upon the tremendous support it receives from voluntary organisations; I doubt whether we should be able to have meals-on-wheels in this country to the extent that we do if there was not such wide support coming from the voluntary organisations. What I am trying to say, quite simply, is that there is nothing in principle between the Government and the noble Baroness who has moved this Amendment. I am saying that it cannot be done in the present financial atmosphere, knowing, as we do, that it will cost another £500,000. This is something for the future—one would hope the very near future, but it depends upon the financial atmosphere.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady
1276
Faithfull and Lord Platt on this Amendment and I am very grateful, of course, for the attitude that the Government are taking by saying that there is no disagreement in principle between us about this matter. My noble friend Lord Sandys explained that when I referred to the inaccuracy of the figures, I was speaking largely about the numbers that the Government have estimated for those who would be affected by the earnings rule; but I shall be returning to that matter in a later Amendment. The fact is—as I am sure the noble Lord will confirm—the figure of £500,000 is an estimate: it might of course be more; on the other hand, it might be less. We simply do not know about that. One of the difficulties of basing the entire argument on money is that it is just an estimate so that we do not know how much it will cost. I find it deplorable that we have reached the stage at which we cannot afford this relatively small sum of money—in the context of Government expenditure it is so very little—to help this group of elderly people.
However, in order that I may put myself right at least with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, if not with other Members of the Committee, may I say that we on this side of the Committee have acted with great responsibility. I think the Government have reason to be grateful to us for the attitude we have taken in regard to this Bill, when we could so easily have made a great deal of Party political capital out of the taking away of rights which under this Bill Parliament has already given to people.
We have indicated in another place, and I indicated at Second Reading, that we are not opposing the principle of this Bill and that under the economic circumstances we have to accept what is to happen. For that reason I shall not press this Amendment today, but I hope very much that the Government will look at this matter again so that, when circumstances allow, precisely these groups of people, who are frequently in very pathetic circumstances, can be helped. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, if their income was sufficiently great they would in any event be taxed on it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has indicated, they will in any event be eligible for other services of every kind which they might be able to pay for if they had this particular pension.

1277
However, as I do not intend to press this matter to a Division today, I only hope that the Government will consider it as soon as economic circumstances allow. I might conclude by saying that I am very grateful indeed to hear that the Government are prepared to accept Amendment No. 13. I quite understand that it is not drafted correctly; Amendments never are, in my experience, drafted correctly. I shall be quite happy for the Government to bring forward an Amendment which meets the point, and return to it when we get to that stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Alteration of earnings rule]:
3.20 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 6, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We are dealing here with the subsection which amends the Social Security Act 1975 so that the level of weekly earnings at which the earnings rule will start is not raised in April of this year from £35 to £50, as originally planned. This Amendment would permit that rise. As has already been said this afternoon, this is the main expenditure-reducing clause in the Bill, and we are told that it saves £45 million net or £60 million gross. It is clear that all Parties, including the Government, are committed to the phasing out of the earnings rule, so there is little argument in principle so far as this Amendment is concerned. We are told that we must have this clause as it stands in order to save that amount of money—in order to save £45 million. We must do so, but not because there is no money in the National Insurance Fund. There is an estimated surplus this year of £932 million, and the estimated surplus next year will be £888 million, after allowing for this particular rise to £50 per week in the earnings rule limit. So we are thinking in terms of the saving of £45 million net, £60 million gross, and there is a surplus of £888 million, to which the £60 million gross will be added if the clause remains as it is now.
Of course, the reason for doing this is that building up this reserve is a convenient means of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement I said on Second Reading that I thought it was a misuse of the National Insurance system to employ it for this purpose, but since then I think we have had grounds for believing that the saving may not be necessary at all. Since the Bill had a Second Reading in this House I have read in the Guardian of 8th March, in a report by the paper's economics correspondent, these words:
"Treasury officials yesterday admitted publicly for the first time that they have over-estimated the likely size of the public sector's borrowing needs this year in the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund last December."
The report goes on:
"As a result of the miscalculation the borrowing requirement is now likely to be smaller in this financial year than was officially expected when Mr. Healey made his public spending cuts in December."
Then two days later, on 10th March, the same paper's business editor wrote:
"Fresh evidence that the central Government borrowing requirement"
—and the central Government borrowing requirement covers 90 per cent, of the public sector borrowing requirement—
"will fall dramatically below Budget forecasts is contained in figures published yesterday by the Treasury."
The business editor went on to say:
"On present showing the public sector borrowing requirement could undershoot the Budget forecast by anything up to £2,000 million."
We are here considering £45 million. The stage would certainly appear to be set for important reductions in direct taxation in the forthcoming Budget. I thought it right in view of the changed situation to put down this Amendment, which would allow the limit to rise to £50 as originally intended, so that the noble Lord could let us know whether he thinks this cut in expenditure of £45 million net is still required, and, if so, why? I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, the Amendment would delete subsection (1) of Clause 4 of the Bill, which has the effect of amending the provisions of the Social Security Act 1975, under which the earnings limit is due to rise to £50 a week on 4th April this year, and, instead,

1279
maintaining the limit at its present limit of £35. Clause 5, however, provides for the figure of £35 to be increased annually in line with the general movement of earnings, and it is intended that the first such increase will be in November of this year, when the £35 earnings limit will be increased; I cannot say by how much, but undoubtedly it will be increased by a few pounds. The financial effect of Clause 4(1), as modified by Clause 5, is to secure a public expenditure saving of £45 million in 1977–78, after allowing for a lower income tax yield, and in view of the urgent need to secure such savings we consider that it is absolutely essential to keep to this provision.
The noble Lord has referred to the necessity for his Amendment because, he says, in recent days or recent weeks the Government have discovered that there will be far greater savings than were envisaged at the time we were having discussions with the International Monetary Fund. But, in spite of that, the amount of money which we shall have to borrow is still very considerable, and there must be a moral obligation on any Government, so far as they possibly can without imposing and inflicting a hardship upon people to any marked degree, to save as much money as possible. I was tempted to say—although I hesitate to use the word when talking about the noble Lord, Lord Banks, but I cannot think of a different one—that there must be on his part some misconception of how the National Insurance Fund works in practice and how it relates to public expenditure and Government revenue as a whole. I apologise for the use of the word "misconception" but I just cannot think of a better word. One knows that Lord Banks's knowledge and expertise in this field is probably unrivalled in your Lordships' House.
The annual reviews ensure, broadly, that income from National Insurance contributions and Treasury supplement is sufficient to meet the anticipated benefits and administration costs of the Fund and to provide a small margin to allow for short-term fluctuations in income or expenditure. But variations in the principal factors affecting the Fund, such as earnings, prices, unemployment and benefit loads, will alter the balance of costs either in the direction of extra surplus, as in recent years, or towards
1280
a deficit, which I think the noble Lord will recognise we had in the 1960s. It would be folly to suggest that a surplus in one year could be used to finance a permanent improvement in National Insurance provision. Were surpluses used in this way it would inevitably increase the future burdens of the working population.
Although National Insurance is, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has stressed, a self-contained system, it cannot be considered in complete isolation from the requirements of the economy as a whole and, in particular, the impact of National Insurance Fund receipts on the public sector borrowing requirement. The reserves and surpluses on current account of the National Insurance Fund are invested by the National Debt Office in Government securities. This means, in effect, that the surplus money is lent to the Government and it gains interest for the Fund. But what is much more important is that it reduces the amount which the Government need to borrow from other sources to finance their overall borrowing requirement. Because the National Insurance Fund is part of the public sector, transactions between it and the Government cancel out in calculating the public sector borrowing requirement.
With public sector borrowing at its present very high level—and I do not think that anyone will dispute this—the existence of a large surplus on the National Insurance Fund is of great economic assistance, though it is not intended to be a permanent feature of economic management. But when one is in the situation that we are in at present one must look at every source in order to save money.
I have said before to your Lordships that despite the financial situation in which we find ourselves, we are paying out about £10,000 million a year in benefits of one kind or another. It is an enormous sum. Any Government would be behaving irresponsibly if at every turn they did not save whatever money they could. It may well be that that is not acceptable to a number of people. One must bear in mind that when the Government came to power the earnings limit—and I speak entirely from memory—was about £13 a week. From 1974 to the present time it has increased to £35 a week. What does it mean? Whereas

1281
we had an enormous number of people retiring at the age of 60 in the case of women and 65 in the case of men because the earnings limit was fixed at £13, today, with the earnings limit fixed at £35, more and more people are deferring retirement because they can continue to earn a considerable sum of money. We do not quarrel with that.
We say that at present we believe £35 to be a realistic figure. Further, we say that in principle we are wedded to getting rid of this at the first available opportunity. However, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the Government disagree on when the first available opportunity should be. The noble Lord naturally believes that it should be done next month. We say that it should not be so soon, but we have undertaken what to me seems to be a very acceptable compromise—that the £35 should be increased in line with the general movement of earnings, and that the first such increase will take place in November. As I say, I cannot tell what the general movement in earnings will be by next November, but obviously the figure will be such that it will mean an increase in the £35. I ask your Lordships to accept that as being necessary at this stage. After all, it is a very good compromise between the £35 and the £50. In principle there is nothing between the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the Government. Because of that, and because the Government are going some way towards meeting this situation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will feel able to accept the position as it is at present and will not press his Amendment.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: The Committee should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for raising this issue, because it goes to the heart of the Bill. Clause 4(1), which removed what Parliament put into the 1975 Act—namely, the right to earn £50 a week before the pension was reduced—is now to be removed on the ground of public expenditure. The noble Lord, of course, is an authority on the whole question of the National Insurance Fund, so I shall not follow him in that argument.
However I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will answer this question before we complete the Committee stage of the Bill. If the reason
1282
for removing the £50 is exclusively the need to save money, what will he do if—and, as I understand it, under Clause 5 the Government have agreed to dynamise the earnings rule—the Government are unable to control inflation next year? Does that mean that once again those in retirement will be the worst hit, or does it mean, on reading the 1975 Act, that the Government will simply be able to look at the earnings rule and, to quote Section 125(2):
"The Secretary of State shall estimate the general level of earnings and prices in such a manner as he thinks fit and shall have regard…"?
Under Clause 4 shall we be giving up what Parliament had agreed and really buying a bit of a pig in a poke?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: I am grateful to my noble friend for emphasising so clearly the requirements for economy in the public sector and in particular in the realm of public expenditure. It does not lie in the mouth of anyone who has pursued, as a matter of public policy, the necessity for making urgent and even more stringent cuts in public expenditure, to make any plea on behalf of an exception. The pressure generated upon the Labour Government, in particular by the Conservative Party, for even more drastic cuts has been so considerable that it would be a little incongruous if we now had pleas for exceptions to be made in individual cases.
I must say that I thought my noble friend glossed over, as being a matter of not overmuch importance, the colossal error that was made by the Treasury in computing the public sector borrowing requirement during the present year. If I am not mistaken, the error is rather nearer £2,600 million than the £2,000 million that has so far been admitted and to which eloquent attestation was made by the Treasury official attending a Select Committee the other day. My noble friend should not imply—and I do not say that he has implied this—that errors of this magnitude are of no account, and that they are of no material significance to the position. After all, if the Press is to be believed on this—and the Press has given this subject copious coverage—there has been a terrific argument as to whether the public expenditure cuts should be £1,000 million or £1,500

1283
million, all based on the incorrect assumption that the public sector borrowing requirement was about £2,600 million more than it in fact was.
I do not expect my noble friend to give me an answer this afternoon, because this must obviously lie close to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must be complaining bitterly that he is being misled by the Treasury on this whole question. When this matter comes to be reconsidered either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or indeed by the Cabinet as a whole, as it must be when the Budget formulation is taking place, some account ought to be taken of the position of people affected by this clause of the Bill. If a person has been an insured contributor all his life and reaches a retirement pay pension age when he is entitled to the normal pension for which he has been subscribing, it is of material significance to be told one day that you can earn up to £50 a week extra without reducing your pension, and then thereafter to say suddenly: "I am afraid you can no longer do that in the light of the current economic circumstances. Your position is now going to be worse."
Therefore, while appreciating the significance of what my noble friend said—and he has put the Government case adequately and fairly based on a public sector borrowing requirement that is now in fact much less—I sincerely hope that he will convey to his right honourable friend the widespread feeling that if there is to be a reassessment of priorities following the discovery of these colossal errors, this is one of the items that should be reconsidered, and that is all I ask. It bites particularly so far as self-employed people are concerned. Self-employed people, although they pay significantly less premiums per week than the remainder of the population, also have a very restricted benefit under the national social security scheme.
When they get to the age of 65, or whatever age the self-employed may select, the prospect of being able to continue in some other gainful employment is a very tempting one indeed. This House, and the other place, ought to encourage them to continue in gainful occupations that are of service to society and bring some benefit to themselves.
1284
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will convey to his colleagues the concept that although perhaps it would be unwise to amend the Bill at this stage, at least some consideration ought to be given by his colleagues when the inevitable, or at least we hope inevitable, reassessment of priorities takes place in the light of changed circumstances.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I obviously did not make myself clear, but I thought it was implied in what I said that the Government would do precisely what my noble friend has just said. When there is a reappraisal of the situation the Government are committed to getting rid of the earnings rule limit. I thought I made this clear. I do not want to go over the ground again. It may well be true that the public sector borrowing requirement in the immediate future will not be nearly as large as perhaps the Treasury and other Members of the Government thought it was going to be, but do not let us take too much comfort in that fact. The fact is that it is still going to be rather considerable, as noble Lords opposite know. They are frequently reminding us of the size of it. I come back to what I said, therefore; that is, that we have to save money wherever we can.
The noble Baroness raised the question of what the Government would do under Clause 5. Clause 5 is quite unambiguous. It requires a compulsory review of the earnings rule each year in accordance with the movement of earnings, and taking into account the movement of earnings so the amount of the earnings rule will be increased year by year. I do not think I can go beyond that. The noble Baroness raised the whole question of inflation. Whatever the inflation rate may be, the fact is that earnings have increased fairly substantially year by year and have tended to increase faster than prices. The limit is going to be increased in line with earnings. In the circumstances, I think this is a reasonable compromise between the present £35 and the intention of everybody eventually to get rid of the earnings limit.
Lord BANKS: The noble Lord in his reply said that he thought I was under a misconception with regard to the nature of the National Insurance Fund and the way in which it works. If tomorrow he

1285
carefully reads what I said earlier this afternoon I think he will not find any misconception about the way the National Insurance Fund works. I did not, for example, suggest that we should use the whole surplus, the whole £888 million that is estimated for next year, or the whole £3,000 million to £4,000 million which has accumulated in the National Insurance Fund at the present time. I suggested that we should use £45 million out of the £888 million, and I do not think that that is being imprudent or is a sum which, in the absence of any other considerations, people would think it was rash to spend out of a surplus of that amount. The noble Lord says that the Government must save whatever money they can save, but of course you can carry that principle on and on. In this subsection of the Bill they are withdrawing a benefit they have already given. They could of course withdraw other benefits, and save money in that way. That argument is not a satisfactory one, and they must present a case for this particular cut on its merits.
The noble Lord said that there was an urgent need to save, but I pointed out—and it was forcefully emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—that the Treasury have over-estimated the public sector borrowing requirement. I mentioned a figure of £2,000 million; the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned a figure of £2,600 million, and that makes a considerable difference. It is true that the borrowing requirement still remains large, but are we to have no tax reliefs? Is the rumour that we read continually in the papers that there are likely to be taxation reductions of anything from £1,000 million to £1,500 million entirely wrong? If there are to be cuts of that kind in taxation, ought not something which is already on the Statute Book and agreed by Parliament to have priority over those cuts? That is the point I am making this afternoon.
This short debate which we have had on this Amendment has served a useful purpose in so far as it has made it quite clear that the economy argument has to be used with a certain care, and cannot just be plugged without any real consideration of what is actually involved and of the changes which have taken place in the situation. I hope that there will be a reappraisal, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, suggested, and perhaps not
1286
so far in the future as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, seemed to say when he responded to what Lord Bruce of Donington said. I realise that involved here are wider considerations of economic policy which will inevitably affect this matter, and that it might be too much to expect that the noble Lord should be able to answer this afternoon. I hope we may return to it; and because it has these wider considerations and because it needs on the part of the Government a rethink which they may not yet have carried out, I would in the meantime beg, leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Review of earnings rule operation
. The Secretary of State shall review the operation of the earnings rule for retirement pensioners and the wives of retirement and invalidity pensioners and the cost of its abolition, including the extent to which it acts as a disincentive to work, and shall lay a report of his review before Parliament by 31st October 1978.
The noble Baroness said: An Amendment in these terms was moved in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Jenkin. I have slightly rewarded it, but I make no apology for tabling it again because, having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said about discrepancies in the Government's estimates of the public sector borrowing requirement, it is clearly valuable to turn our attention to some of the estimates on which the whole of the Bill is based. There is no doubt that there is great public interest in the whole question of the earnings rule. Indeed, the debate which I initiated a few weeks ago on the subject of retirement has brought me an enormous number of letters, a great many of which are directly concerned with the earnings rule. My Party has pressed very hard for an alteration of the earnings rule and we can claim considerable credit for the fact that it now stands at £35 a week. But the country cannot afford to have people, who could be working, not working because of the earnings rule, particularly as the proportion of the elderly in the population will increase.
As I indicated on Second Reading, we on this side of the Committee will not oppose the principle of Clause 4; indeed, we have accepted the alternative that has been put in Clause 5. However, we cannot just let the whole of the argument rest on the different figures of cost that have been given at different times. The whole reason for having Clause 4 at all is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, to save money, and the money that Parliament voted in 1975 by allowing retirement pensioners to earn up to £50 a week before the pension is affected is to be taken away and something else put in its place which must, if it is to be a saving of public expenditure, be less advantageous to the pensioner than what would have been provided in 1975.
We on this side believe that we are taking a very responsible attitude in this matter because we recognise the seriousness of the present economic situation. Thus, what we are now asking in this Amendment is that the Government shall review the operation of the earnings rule and bring forward a report of the review by 31st October 1978 so that by that time we shall have had at least a year of the operation of the Bill to see how it is working, how it affects the numbers of pensioners who are working and what is its cost.
I do not want to take the Committee through all the detailed arguments which were well set out in another place, but in support of my argument I wish to comment on two groups of figures of Government estimates which have been shown in the past to be completely inaccurate. Largely as a result of Opposition pressure, the Government produced in January of this year a document specifically relating to the earnings rule and in it the document makes clear:
"That deferred retirement statistics for 1973 and 1974 were wrongly interpreted previously to suggest a fall in number which we now think unlikely to have occurred".
And:
"Assumptions have been altered in a number of important respects from that used to provide the estimates."
For example, the Government now say that 180,000 people deferred retirement in March 1976 as against the previous figure given to Parliament of 120,000, which is an error equivalent to £70 million
1288
or £75 million a year, rather more than the present Bill is alleged to save by preventing the earnings limit from going up in April. I do not wish to comment further on that; it is always difficult to get accurate estimates, but when the whole of the basis of the argument is a question of financial estimates it is vital that the estimates should be accurate.
The other reason for amending the earnings rule has been the major cost which is attributable to wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners. Since a Parliamentary Question was put down on this subject on 23rd February 1977, the Government have referred specifically to a survey carried out by the Office of Population Census Surveys into prolonged sickness. This survey covered illness for periods of one month, three months, six months and 12 months, and concluded that in all four samples between 65 per cent, and 71 per cent, of the informants were married men. However, in the paper submitted by the Department of Health and Social Security for this Bill it was stated:
"If the proportion of invalidity pensioners at each age were married, as in the population as a whole, then about 85 per cent, of the 373,000 male invalidity pensioners in May 1975 would have been married. However, as the invalidity pensioners include some who have been sick for many years, it is thought likely that a rather lower proportion would be married men than in the population generally. It has been assumed that the proportion married is 10 per cent, less than the population as a whole."
There is clearly a disparity between the two statements. If the OPCS survey is correct, then the number of validity pensioners not claiming allowances for their wives is 22,000 as against 52,000 given in the DHSS paper. I quote these two examples only to show that there is some discrepancy in the figures that have been given; and, after all, those figures are the basis for the Bill.
When my right honourable friend put down a similar Amendment in another place the Government were not prepared to accept it, and they gave three reasons for not doing so. The first was that everybody was agreed, the Government and the Opposition, that the earnings rule must go, and so there was no need to review its operation. I do not believe this is an argument at all because, although we are all agreed that the earnings rule must go, if the basis for not keeping to

1289
the £50 is the economic situation, we could wait for a very long time before the economic circumstances are such as to justify the total abolition of the earnings rule. I suggest that to say that simply because we all want the earnings rule abolished there is no need to call for a report on the figures is rather like asking everyone to wait for Godot, and I think we shall wait a very long time before we get a result.
The second reason given was that it would create extra work for the Department. I recognise that this may be so, but if the Government will have to review the working and will have to review it each year in the light of the movement of prices so as to keep the earnings rule dynamised, they will already have to do quite a lot of work; they will have to review the numbers of pensioners. They already have a great deal of the information before them and I believe that this is such an important matter that it is an issue to which the Department should give priority. It is very relevant to the third reason for not accepting that the Minister gave in another place which was that members of the Opposition could put down Parliamentary Questions. Of course, that is perfectly true. Anybody can put down a Parliamentary Question and, indeed, can put down a great many Parliamentary Questions, but I should have thought it much more sensible for the Government to produce a report which was fully thought through than for the Opposition to be required to put down a whole series of Parliamentary Questions, all of which will require a great deal of time for their reply. I do not see how one can argue, on one side, that something is going to take up more time and, on the other, encourage the Opposition to put down Questions which will automatically require a great deal of time for their reply.
This is not an Amendment that requires the expenditure of more money, but it is a serious Amendment and is designed to make quite sure that the Government are monitoring the operation of the earnings rule and are bringing a report to Parliament by a given date. I believe that this is in the interest, above all, of the retirement pensioners themselves and of the wives of retirement pensioners who are affected by this, but I also genuinely believe that it is in the best interests of this or any Government to have accurate
1290
information before we consider this matter again, as we must inevitably do, at some date in the not too distant future. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I cannot think that any useful purpose would be served by dealing with a whole mass of figures to which the noble Baroness referred. There is obviously a difference between the noble Baroness and the Government on the question of figures and all I can say is that we have provided a great deal of explanation as to how the figures have been arrived at. My recollection is that a copy was sent to the noble Baroness and to other noble Lords. I must repeat that the estimates are the best that the Department of Health and Social Security and the Government Actuary's Department have been able to arrive at, based on known facts and the most up-to-date information available as regards the many factors involved. The Government actuaries have no vested interest in this: they are an independent group of people whose arm is not twisted by the Government or by any Department of Government. Their responsibility is to examine the situation in the light of the facts known to them and the facts that emerge from their own inquiries, and to inform the Government accordingly. That is precisely what the actuaries do and it does not matter which Party is in power: one must accept the facts that are given.
Lord PLATT: May I ask for clarification? Why must we accept the facts just because the actuaries are independent of Party? If they have made a mistake, they have made a mistake. We do not have to accept the facts just because the actuaries are free of Party influence.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not quite follow what the noble Lord is saying. If he is saying that I might consult a top ranking medical consultant and not accept the advice he gives me, there must be something wrong with me. I go to an expert in order to get best possible opinion and the Government Actuary stands in that relation to the Government.
Lord PLATT: I cannot accept that kind of thing. Were they wrong or were they right? Top consultants can be wrong. We all know that.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is nice to hear that from one so expert in the field and so close to it. However, it is all very well people getting up and throwing out things like that, but I wonder what evidence the noble Lord has that the Government actuaries have been wrong in this matter. Or is this just conjecture on the part of the noble Lord? We are saying that we have no reason to believe that the Government actuaries are wrong. What I want to do is to deal with the matter which is before your Lordships. As I understand the situation, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, are asking for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the earnings rule and lay a report before Parliament. I imagine that the expectation in putting down the new clause is to assess the cost of bringing the earnings rule to an end. If the Secretary of State undertook this kind of investigation, the hope would be that he would find that less public expenditure was required than he had so far supposed and, consequently, would be more willing to announce a timetable for the ending of the rule.
Let us look at the matter on the information that we have and on the information that the noble Baroness herself has. There is no reason whatever to suppose—and the noble Baroness knows it—that a review carried out by October next year would come to any different conclusions from those which Ministers laid before the Standing Committee on the Bill in another place. These showed that to end the earnings rule would involve a gross cost to the national fund of something like £200 million, with an offset by an income tax yield of £60 million. The Government do not, if I may say so with the greatest respect, need to carry out a formal review of the rule in 1978 in order to emphasise that abolition is, and remains, their long-term intention. The proposed review would therefore serve very little purpose but would add considerably to the work of the Department and of the Secretary of State. That is something that we should find very difficult to undertake, always assuming that it would serve some useful purpose, and we are by no means convinced that it would.
I also believe that a review would not make funds available for the abolition of
1292
the earnings rule. Nor do we think that it would bring forward the date at which the abolition could be afforded. The wording of the new clause does, however, mention the alleged disincentive to work presented by the earnings rule and supporters of the clause doubtless feel that too little weight has been given to this factor in the Government's thinking so far. In this connection, it is relevant that the first results of the full-scale survey which is being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be available at the end of the year and more detailed analyses will follow in the first half of 1978. This should provide much of the information which noble Lords opposite are seeking about the considerations which most influence the work patterns of people over pension age, without, I submit, the need for the special review called for in the noble Baroness's new clause.
If we felt, quite sincerely, that a useful purpose would be served by undertaking a review of this kind, the fact that the Government want to see the end of the earnings rule would make them only too pleased to undertake it notwithstanding the amount of work involved. But we feel that we must know a great deal more in the future than we do at present, and that is why we feel that the review into the reasons for retirement which is being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will give us far more and more detailed information covering a much wider field than any review which my right honourable friend could undertake himself.
4.10 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord came to the point only in the last few sentences of his reply to my noble friend. My noble friend was saying that there seems to be evidence to show that the damage thru the disincentive will do in money terms could well be greater than the saving that would be brought about by this. She then went on to say that she would tolerate the risk of the damage being greater from the disincentive if she could see that there was a reasonable chance of the earnings rule being abolished in the reasonably near future. She recognised at once the extra work which would be put on the Department and on other

1293
people to get the review. She then went on to say that from her reading of the situation she cannot see any speedy ending of the earnings rule if the conditions which have brought about the change which we are now putting forward are the reasons for wanting to amend the actual terms.
If the noble Lord can say that within a reasonable period—and I should say two to three years—he could see that the earnings rule is likely to go, and that conditions would be such for that to happen, then I would have accepted the answer that he has just given to my noble friend. But what if this is likely to go on for three, four or five years? After all, the problem here is deep-seated and there does not seem to be any speedy way of getting out of it. If it is going on, then we ought to be told more authoritatively than the noble Lord has done so far whether the disincentive of maintaining the rule will be more damaging than the money saved. If the disincentive is more damaging than the money saved, and it is continued a minute longer than needed, then the chance of getting out of our economic doldrums will be made even more difficult because one is removing, because of the disincentive, one of the contributions that could get us into a position where we could afford to do away with the whole lot.
I should have thought that my noble friend's Amendment is a very reasonable one, if this general basis which we have been considering has any strength at all. There is no question at all of suggesting that the actuaries are not doing their job. There is no suggestion that the Government themselves are deliberately turning a blind eye to facts that are known. But we know that in this field it is very intricate and that general atmosphere as well as cash considerations comes into the whole situation. The noble Lord knows that if someone is given a date by which he has to put in a report, he is more likely to get on with it and keep up to date than if it is merely left to him to do his best in his own way. I have found in business—and the noble Lord must have had this experience, too—that with the best will in the world one is doing what one thinks is one's best in getting on in order to get certain information to hand. But if that information has to be produced by a specific date
1294
that has the effect of making certain that it is produced.
I should have thought that the noble Lord would not be showing any kind of weakness if he were to have second thoughts, and he said that he would be prepared to look at this question again. If the disincentive carries with it he damage that it may well do—and my noble friend has suggested that the damage from the disincentive will be quite considerable—then one is really removing from oneself one of the arms for fighting out of the general economic doldrums which we are in today. I should have thought that this proposal was reasonable and that it was not necessary to prove the case specifically in order to ask the noble Lord to accept it. If there is even a suggestion of a risk of the disincentive being as damaging as it might be, then the Government have a duty, without showing any kind of weakness, to make the situation absolutely certain and crystal clear; and the nearest that one can get to that is through having a review in order to see that we are doing the right thing.
4.15 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support the Amendment and all that has been said by my noble friends Lady Young, who introduced the Amendment, and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who has just supported it. Both stressed the need for accurate information. This is what we are so short of at present. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said, "There is no reason to believe that the Government Actuary is wrong". We accept that in so far as the information supplied to the Government Actuary is the information on which he has based his calculations. But there is a quite basic problem here, and I should like to go into a little more detail about it because I believe that the Actuary has reached a conclusion which is not in line with what we believe to be the case.
I do not in any way impugn his motives or the integrity of the office, but I believe that the information has come through inaccurately. I say this because up to 1974 the task was not so difficult because it was reasonably easy to maintain a check on the number of those who were to defer their retirement. This was based on the weekly flat rate insurance contributions. However, after 1975 it was no

1295
longer possible to make this assessment with any accuracy whatsoever because all the contributions were earnings-related, and therefore it was not possible to select out of statistics anything which would bear any accurate relationship to a change in trend.
So what has been supplied to the Government Actuary? We believe, though we have no reason on which to be able to prove it, that they are projections; they are the best estimate that the Government can provide. The tool which the Government used to provide these estimates—that is to say, the fiat rate weekly contributions—and the statistics which come from that are no longer available to the Government. So they are compounding their problems by having no current source of information.
I believe that the problem is a deeply serious one because the Government have failed to detect an underlying trend; namely, the great desire of large numbers of those of pensionable age who wish to continue work. I believe that the inaccurate assumptions are very serious here. There is an assumption here that 85,000 wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners are in work. The Government from their own statistics would not at the moment be able to tell us about that, but we believe once again that the information which they have supplied to the Government Actuary has been based upon assumptions on which very serious doubt may be cast.
I should like to refer to what the late Mr. Brian O'Malley said in the House of Commons on 29th January 1975, as reported at column 469 of the Official Report. He said this:
"…if the earnings rule were abolished numbers of people who in present circumstances might well retire would not then retire."
January 1975 is over two years ago, and the late Mr. O'Malley then recognised something which the Government at present are unwilling to recognise to such an extent; namely, this very substantial desire among people to continue in their work. I think that the inaccuracies of the situation demand a review of the position, as proposed in the Amendment, and I do not believe that the Office of Populations Statistics and other means of providing the material will be an adequate or sufficiently speedy a solution to the problem.
Lord BANKS: I feel that the Government should accept this Amendment. After all, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have gone a great deal further towards the Government position with regard to the earnings rule than I was prepared to go, and they have accepted, at any rate for the time being, the economy argument, which I was not prepared to accept. I think it is quite understandable, in these circumstances, that they should want some kind of guarantee that the whole subject will be a matter for discussion in Parliament within the foreseeable future. I also think it is quite possible that the circumstances will be entirely different 18 months from now. We have suggested this afternoon good grounds for believing that the situation is very different from what it was thought to be when we had the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House only a fortnight ago, I think it was; and if mistakes can be made and situations can appear different in so short a time, it is not unreasonable to suppose that matters might be very different in 18 months' time and that it would therefore be worth while tying the Secretary of State down to a review of this kind at that time.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think I can add a great deal to what I have already said. I will certainly, for my own information, take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has made about the Actuary's information being inaccurate, and I will read in Hansard tomorrow what he has had to say. But at Second Reading I said that the number of people over pension age who were deferring retirement had actually fallen considerably, from about 218,000 in November 1974—a level which had remained fairly static since 1971—to around 135,000 today; and I acknowledged that my figure of 135,000 was provisional. What it means is that people over pension age will be left as free as they are now to undertake either full-time or part-time employment if they wish to do so. It also means that persons at 60 or 65, depending on their sex, will, by and large, take their pensions when they can if they are not prevented from doing so by their earnings; and that a higher earnings rule limit in fact leads to more people drawing their pension and thus to greater public expenditure.

1297
On the question of disincentives, the point is that we have no evidence whatever that the earnings rule at the level at which it now is—namely, £35 a week, dynamised from this November—acts as any disincentive. I would have thought that all the evidence was to the contrary. To those pensioners who have already retired but work part time, the people to whom the rule applies for five years after minimum pension age, one has to bear in mind that £35 a week is a great deal of money even now; and I do not see how the question of it being a disincentive can be made out.
I think the only other thing I want to do is to call your Lordships' attention to what I said a moment or two ago concerning the review which is being undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The Amendment, as I understand it, wants a review undertaken by October 1978. I said to your Lordships that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will in fact be publishing an interim report to my right honourable friend at the end of this year, and the survey will probably be completed by the middle of next year. We shall therefore get, presumably much sooner than the date mentioned in the Amendment, a good deal of information which will help us to come to a conclusion on this particular matter.
Lord BYERS: I do not want to prolong this debate more than a couple of minutes, but I am just asking myself whether the Government attitude on this is a sensible one. It seems to me that if we are all committed to getting rid of the earnings rule at some time, then we ought to be having fairly regular reviews so that we know exactly what is the up-to-date position. What the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has asked for is something in about 18 months' time. In 18 months' time many factors will have changed: certainly the pay policy will be different, the inflation rate will be different, and we are led to believe that the taxation structure and rates will be different. All these are important factors which affect a decision on phasing out the earnings rule. The picture may be worse or it may be better, but at least the Government ought to know this; and, at the very best, this census that the noble Lord has referred to can be only half the picture.
1298
What we really want is a working document on which we can say, "Taking into account all the things which affect this decision, are we now in a position to say, 'Yes, we can abolish it' or do we have to wait for another two years?"
Baroness YOUNG: I am most grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, In putting this Amendment down I felt I was merely asking for something which would be of benefit to the Government and to everybody else who takes a serious interest in this very important subject—and I am very grateful for the most helpful remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Banks. The fact is that, in the past, the estimates have not been very satisfactory. I am not in any way intending to pin the blame or suggest the blame should be pinned on any particular person at all, but the fact is that this is a very serious matter indeed; and if one looks no further than the provisional estimates that the Government gave in relation to those deferring retirement, in March 1976 they were said to number 180,000 and in the autumn of 1976 this figure had dropped to 135,000, which suggests that there is some difficulty in getting very accurate figures.
As my noble friend Lord Sandys has already drawn to your Lordships' attention, the fact is that the figure in relation to working wives has altered very considerably, and as the number of working wives very much affects the total amount which will be saved by not having the £50 limit, it is very important to get an accurate figure on that. But most of all, I think, we need to know in the future what the cost is going to be in relation to the economic circumstances of the country; and although I think the information coming from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will of course be valuable—it has been very useful in the past—it is by no means the whole of the story. After all, if it proved not to be as expensive as the Government now think, then, who knows, they might be able to consider the pensions for the over-80s; and if it is more expensive, then we shall know what the cost to the county is and we shall all be able to form much better judgments.
My Amendment does not commit the Government to any extra expense. It obliges the Government to have a look at

1299
this whole question and to look very carefully at what the costs are going to be; and, although the noble Lord has said that the Government Actuary does the work and is non-political—something which of course I accept entirely—the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will know that the estimated surplus for the National Insurance Fund in 1976/77 was first of all estimated to be £389 million and was then estimated to be £932 million, so it does
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
show that a lot of estimates vary considerably. I think this is such an important matter of public interest that I will press my Amendment and test the feeling of the Committee on it.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Onslow, E.

Alport, L.

Effingham, E.

Platt, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Porritt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Amulree, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reigate, L.

Arran, E.

Gainford, L.

Robbins, L.

Auckland, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Avebury, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sackville, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

St. Just, L.

Barrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Byers, L.

Hawke, L.

Sligo, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stamp, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strachclyde, L.

Clwyd, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Mills, V.

Trefgarne, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monck, V.

Vickers, B.

De Freyne, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Westbury, L.

Derwent, L.

Northchurch, B.

Wigoder, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Bacon, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Soper, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fletcher, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wigg, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McCluskey, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gifford, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 11 [Mobility allowances for certain persons eligible for invalid carriages]:
4.35 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("; or
(d) would have been, by virtue of any of the preceding paragraphs, a person to whom this section applies but for some error or delay for which in the opinion of the Secretary of State the person is not responsible and which is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State within the period of one year beginning with the date of the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I am hoping that this is a matter in which we shall all be in agreement. This Amendment has been put down to meet a commitment given in another place. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 11(3) define those beneficiaries who have reserved rights under the health service vehicle scheme and who may be allowed under the clause to switch, if they choose, to the new mobility allowance. Noble Lords will know that the vehicle scheme is provided under Section 33 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
The Government believe that Clause 11 as at present drafted covers all those beneficiaries who have reserved rights and who consequently are entitled to exercise the option to change over to the mobility allowance. Nevertheless, concern was expressed during the earlier passage of the Bill and by the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled that there may well be deserving cases who would have met the terms of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (3) but for some error or delay for which they were not responsible. It was thought those cases might well come to light once the legislation came to be implemented. The Government therefore agreed to put down an Amendment giving the Secretary of State a safety net to catch cases of this kind which are brought to his attention within a reasonable time limit. The Amendment as put down is wide enough to achieve this effect. It is purely beneficial and I ask your Lordships to accept it.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, rightly foreshadowed agreement from this side of the Committee. Category 3 beneficiaries, with a tricycle or a private car allowance, in particular, might conceivably have fallen through the
1302
net. It so happens that this was being discussed in another place on Report on 14th February this year only two days before the debate in this House on the Snowdon Working Party Report on the Integration of the Disabled. I then mentioned to your Lordships there had that day in The Times appeared an article in regard to discussions which had taken place between Ministers in regard to new arrangements and the loan plan whereby the mobility allowance could be commuted. It is quite clear that this new arrangement which the Government have reached will have some benefit and we believe it goes some way towards meeting the point raised in Standing Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Amendments of Supplementary Benefits Act 1976]:
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 8, leave out ("notwithstanding that the contribution is not actually made").
The noble Lord said: Under subsection (1)(a) of this clause the parental contribution received by a student must be taken into account in assessing him for supplementary benefit. I do not object to that. However, subsection (1)(a) also states that such a contribution, if prescribed, must be taken into account whether or not it is actually made. The Amendment seeks to remove the qualifying clause, notwithstanding that the contribution is not actually made. The supplementary benefit is intended to deal with actual situations, not notional situations. It is a form of emergency first-aid and that cannot be refused to someone because notionally they should have received it from someone else. A Department of Education and Science survey indicated that 73 per cent. of students do not receive the full parental contribution.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether he agrees that this Amendment is right in principle. On Second Reading the noble Lord advanced administrative arguments in sup sort of the provision in the clause. But is it only on administrative grounds that he would object to the Amendment? Are the administrative difficulties insuperable? For example, would it not be possible to say that parents should pay their contributions to the local authority, as they do

1303
their rates, and that the local authority should pass on the contribution to the students? The parents who did not pay could be proceeded against by the local authority. The student who had not received his parental contribution could then apply to the local authority for a certificate which he could present to the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
I fully realise that that suggestion would be beyond the scope of this Bill. But perhaps if this Amendment were passed it would encourage the Government to introduce such an arrangement. In any event, in moving this Amendment, I draw attention to the absurdity of including what is not paid as if it were, and make the suggestion that the administrative problems are not as great as has been suggested. I beg to move.
Lord GIFFORD: I wish to give some support to the Amendment and the sentiments behind it. I speak as having taken some cases on the Supplementary Benefits Act on appeal as a practising lawyer. The law on this aspect of supplementary benefits for those students who are engaged in full-time education has been considered recently by the courts in the case of Atkinson. I am sure that we are going to have further references to that case. Mr. Atkinson was a student who succeeded in the Court of Appeal in obtaining benefit to the full amount of his requirements and, in doing so, caused some confusion to the Department. There are some Amendments to be taken later which deal precisely with the implications of this case. One of the arguments used by him on appeal was that his parents had the means to support him but he was saying that they were not supporting him.
The court in its judgment made quite a sensible answer to that. It said: the Department is entitled to take the view, prima facie, that if a student's father or mother has the means to support him, then the likelihood is that they will support him in the vacation. This case turned on the vacation grant. But, of course, the student can bring evidence before the Commission or Tribunal to show that he is not receiving that support. If he bring such evidence, he may be entitled to a full grant. It is much better, surely, for benefit to be received on the basis of
1304
someone's actual needs rather than on the basis of rules of thumb or notional contributions which can cause hardship in the particular case.
The whole scheme of the Act—and I will be returning to this in later Amendments—is to give to the Commission and, on appeal, to the Tribunal, the utmost discretion and flexibility in the way it is applied. Discretion and flexibility are not possible when there are regulations which lay down arbitrary provisions forbidding the Commission to grant benefit even when the claimant is not getting the notional contribution. It is unfair and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can answer the points and criticism raised.
4.48 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My noble friend Lord Gifford is quite correct. We will return to this matter in much more detail later. I do not want to have a rehearsal for that at this stage. I can indicate what is in the mind of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to my noble friend Lord Gifford. As we see it, the effect of this Amendment would be to frustrate the proposal to give statutory backing to the Supplementary Benefits Commission's existing practice of taking into account the assessed parental contribution whether or not paid. I repeat the word "assessed".
In giving the background to the Government's Amendments to Clause 12, I believe I can make it clear that for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to make good any part of a contribution that a parent has been assessed as able to make—and I repeat, that a parent has been assessed as able to make—would, in the Government's view, be to undermine the whole concept embodied in the Education Acts and Regulations, that the cost of higher education, where appropriate, should be shared between the parent and the State. The Commission should not be asked to shoulder a burden which Parliament has deliberately placed elsewhere.
There is little doubt that replacement by supplementary benefit in the vacations of any alleged shortfall in the parental contribution would be an attractive proposition and would lead to a rapid

1305
growth in the numbers of claims from students. I believe the Amendment would frustrate the existing practices of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Perhaps I am being unduly suspicious, but it is really an open invitation to students and parents to go into collusion and say that the parent does not pay.
As I have said, we believe it would lead to a considerable growth in the number of claims from students. It is estimated that additional expenditure in benefits could be as much as £6 million annually. There would also be additional administrative costs, and a burden would be imposed on the Commission's officers which would be intolerable and would mean that their ability to provide a proper service to the old, the sick and the unemployed would be seriously impaired. The Government's argument on this matter is not based entirely on administrative difficulties, but these would nevertheless be very real, because if a student came along and said: "My parent has not paid although he is supposed to pay", and if the Supplementary Benefits Commission had to carry out some kind of investigation to see whether the parent had or had not paid, that would be an intolerable burden upon them. It would be necessary for the Commission to check the position and to assess how much, either in cash or in kind, was being contributed by the parent. I shudder to think of the amount of work involved. The task of evaluating a contribution given in kind—for example, clothing or maintenance in some form other than money—would be virtually impossible.
If this Amendment is put down, as I am sure it is, out of concern for those students who, although their parents are assessed as being able to contribute, suddenly find themselves in difficulties because for some quite unforeseen reason the parents are not able to pay, then the Amendment is unnecessary because the Commission can help, pending a reassessment of the grant by the local education authority. That happens already. We realise that there are exceptional circumstances, and the Commission tries to meet them. Therefore, in cases of genuine hardship, provision already exists for the Commission to give help through the exercise of its discretionary powers in an exceptional situation. However, I would ask the noble Lord to look
1306
very closely—and I am sure he will do so—at what might happen if this Amendment were accepted by the Government or, if pressed, accepted by your Lordships. It would impose an almost impossible task on the Supplementary Benefits Commission when there are several thousands of such applications. Many students could no doubt say, with some degree of truth, that they are not getting the allocation that has been made for vacational purposes.
It is a problem. I rather like the method which has been suggested by the noble Lord and I wish somebody would look at it, because obviously something has to be done to clarify the situation in a way that would be both workable and acceptable. But as things are at the moment, I do not think any reasonable person would say otherwise than that the Supplementary Benefits Commission could not function in any way other than the way it functions at the moment. For those reasons, in a sense with some reluctance, I must say that we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord and I would ask him whether he feels that he could withdraw it.
Baroness YOUNG: Before the noble Lord, Lord Banks, replies, in view of the fact that we shall be going over this ground on several occasions during our debate on Clause 12, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has based his arguments for not accepting the Amendment on the fact that there could well be collusion between the student and his parents, and the parents do not pay their part of the grant in order that the student can claim supplementary benefit, could he tell us what evidence he has for that assumption? Secondly, and rather more importantly, may I ask what discussions there have been between his Department and the Department of Education and Science on this matter?
I understand the point about the administrative difficulties that will fall on the officers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission if they have to investigate fully each case. But the difficulty for the student, on the other hand, is that if he does not get money from his parents he is without money altogether. There is evidence to show that the level of grants has not in fact kept pace with the rate of

1307
inflation. Further, the students may not be able to get vacation work, so he is then in a very difficult position indeed—and of course it is the poorest students who are worst off. I suspect, in fact, that in many cases it will be the girls who will be even worse off than the men.
This is a serious matter, and I think the Government need to look at it very carefully. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, who is left to argue a very difficult brief indeed, but I would ask him, before we conclude all our discussions on this part of the Bill, whether he could tell us how much consultation is going on between the two Departments and how he expects some students who will find themselves in an extremely difficult position are going to manage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I cannot say off the cuff what discussions are going on at the present time or what is planned for the future, but I will certainly find out and at some stage during these proceedings will give the information to the noble Baroness and your Lordships. I hope I did not say that we had evidence of collusion. The noble Baroness asked what evidence of collusion there was. What I hope I said was that it could give rise to that kind of situation; and of course it could. But I hope I did not say that we had any evidence that such a thing happens.
We must face the fact that at the moment the parents, under the various Acts, have a responsibility—not only a moral responsibility, with great respect, but a financial responsibility, as the noble Baroness knows better than most people among us. There is a financial responsibility, and I think any Government Department has to think twice before having an arrangement, or accepting some kind of arrangement, whereby a person could be assisted twice for the same purpose. That is possible; and apart from other difficulties there is also the difficulty of establishing whether or not a student is receiving the allocation that should be received from the parent. It is because of those difficulties, and because there is a responsibility on the parents at the present moment, that I suggest we ought to think very carefully before taking some step that could release them from that responsibility.
5 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: I must confess I feel very great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, over his reluctance to accept this Amendment. I think that prima facie it constitutes some incentive to collusion, and for that reason I believe that we have to think twice before urging it on the Government. On the other hand, I feel equally strongly that the ambiguity which exists in present practice can bear very hardly on students who, for some reason or other, not collusively, have repudiated dependence on their parents and find themselves in need. It seems to me that, whether or not the Amendment is considered, that side of the question deserves very serious consideration at some stage.
Lord SLATER: I have listened most attentively to the discussion on this issue. My noble friend Lord Gifford described himself as a lawyer, and talked about those who are responsible for giving further consideration to applications for increases in benefit, against the decision of the local authority. No one has said anything in support of those who are responsible for making a decision in the first place.
My experience in local government taught me that there must be confidence in those who are first responsible for giving consideration to an application for student grant, in order that someone may go on to college or university. But it seems to me that more or less everything that has been said has decried the usefulness and intelligence of those people in local government who are responsible for the administration of this sector. They have been decried for not having the ability, and it has been said that if a student wants to get assistance, without depending on his parents, he must apply to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I want to support my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell who has endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to put forward the case on behalf of the Government, and I take my stand in support of the local authorities who are responsible in the first place for dealing with student applications.
I am not speaking without knowledge of this subject, because my daughter had to apply for a student grant before she

1309
went to college. I was working at the coalface at the time, and I had to pay my contribution towards my daughter's grant. But from what has been said one would think that the students of this country are being treated so badly that there is no outlet whatever for them, and that some parents are not facing up to their responsibilities in the way they should. They say that they would like the best form of education, but they are not prepared to make any kind of contribution when they are called upon to do so.
Lord BANKS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for drawing attention to the legal case, which is the basic reason why this part of the clause appears as it does in the Bill; and I am glad to have his support for the assertion that it is the actual situation which supplementary benefit should help, and not the notional situation. It seemed to me that the principal objection, if not the only objection, of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was one of administration, and I see that within the scope of the present arrangements there would be administrative difficulties for the Supplementary Benefits Commission. But I suggested a special arrangement, with the local authority collecting the parental contribution and passing it on to the student; the student being able to claim a certificate from the local authority if he did not receive the parental contribution, and the local authority being able to proceed, against the parent if they did not get the contribution, just as they would if they did not get the rates. That suggestion seemed to appeal to the noble Lord, and I hope that he will draw it to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. That is one solution.
Another solution is to abolish parental contributions altogether for adults; and that second one is the one which I prefer. Either of those two solutions would be acceptable to me, but I appreciate that both would involve legislation quite beyond the scope of this Bill. The Department of Education would clearly be involved and would have to take the initiative. For that reason—though I think it has been reasonable to stress this matter, and to point out what a paradoxical and absurd situation it is—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 12, line 21, at end insert—
("(2A) Subject to subsection (7A) below, regulations under the preceding provisions of this section may be so made as to take effect from the commencement of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.").
The noble Lord said: We have reached a stage in the proceedings which brings us to a very important clause, and I wonder whether I may ask your Lordships—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks—whether they feel that I can speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11 together. This is not because I want to save time, but because to some extent they intertwine and overlap. In introducing these Amendments, I think it would be helpful—it will take a little time, but I will not be unnecessarily long—if I gave the background to those subsections of Clause 12 which deal with students.
The Government agree in principle with the views expressed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission on their Annual Report for 1975, that supplementary benefit is not an appropriate form of income support for students. But to change the student support system so as to make recourse to supplementary benefit unnecessary in every case would not be possible without unacceptable implications for public expenditure. In these circumstances—and the Commission fully agrees with this—the principle cannot be realised. What the Government have done, under the new arrangements announced by the Secretary of State in February 1976, is to concentrate the vacation maintenance element in the student's grant into the two shore vacations at Easter and Christmas. During these vacations, students now have an income equivalent to the supplementary benefit entitlement for a single non-householder, and only a minority with special commitments should still need supplementary benefit. In the long summer vacation, when no provision will be made in the grant for maintenance, any student unable to support himself by working will be able to claim supplementary benefit.
Where this Bill comes in is in regard to the Commission's long-standing practice of taking full account of the contribution which parents are responsible for making under the education legislation towards the cost of their children's maintenance, and allowing no disregard on the student award. The Commission does this because to ignore any shortfall in the parental contribution would be to act contrary to the student grant scheme and assume a liability which Parliament, we feel, has properly placed elsewhere. To disregard any part of the student award would be to provide twice over for the same purpose and, in our view, would be an improper use of money—one might almost say a waste of money.
The Commission's use in this way of its discretionary powers to deal with exceptional circumstances has now been successfully challenged in the Court of Appeal. May I make it quite clear that the whole purpose of Clause 12(1) is to give statutory backing to the Commission's long-standing practice. As I said a moment or two ago, unless this is done the additional burden on public funds could amount to as much as £11 million per annum, apart from the serious staffing implications of having to deal with a greatly increased number of claims, and having to determine whether or not a parental contribution has been made either in cash or in kind and then for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to try to place a value on that cash or kind.
I should make it clear that the rules to be laid down under the Act and regulations will be the same as before. No change of policy will be involved. The object is solely to put the policy on a proper statutory basis. In particular, students who are disabled or lone parents will continue to get supplementary benefit on the same terms as before: that is, if the parental contribution is not being made it will not be taken into account, and students who are disabled or lone parents will get a disregard of £2 on the maintenance element of their grant.
Your Lordships will see that Amendments introducing a new subsection (2A) to Clause 12 contain a power to ensure that regulations made under Clause 12(1) and (2) may be made so as to cover past cases, I want to emphasise that point
1312
so that we know exactly what we are doing. This is essential if the Commission is to be protected against the impossible task of looking again at cases which have been settled since the supplementary benefits scheme came into being over 10 years ago, in 1966, which would bring its current work on meeting urgent need almost to a halt, if not to a halt.
I should make it clear that the purpose of the new subsection (7A) is to ensure that the legislation does not have the effect of nullifying the judgment of the Court of Appeal in relation to the particular case which was laid before it. The Bill also seeks to deal with a general issue which arose in the judgment of the Court of Appeal to which I have referred. The court ruled that the wording of the Supplementary Benefits Act was not such as to enable the Commission to use its discretionary powers in relation to classes of cases as distinct from individual cases. I think one could argue that the whole judgment revolves around this. This has left the Commission in the position of having an extremely shaky statutory basis for a wide range of its policies and for the payments that it makes in connection with them.
Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which consolidates a similar paragraph in the 1966 Act, gives the Supplementary Benefits Commission power to increase or, in the case only of a supplementary allowance, reduce the benefit entitlement which would otherwise be arrived at in order to take into account any exceptional circumstances. The Commission uses this power not only in relation to the exceptional circumstances of an individual but—may I say this very carefully—also in relation to categories of cases. As I understand it, the decision of the Court of Appeal was concerned with categories. Therefore, when we are thinking of what the judgment of the Court of Appeal really is, it is in relation to the Supplementary Benefits Commission using its discretion in relation to categories.
All that we have heard about in the judgment of the Court of Appeal—and it is natural that it should be only in relation to the person who sought their judgment—is the question of the student category. Indeed, it is inevitable that discretion should be exercised in this way in a

1313
scheme such as supplementary benefits which deals with millions of claims a year. You must have categories; you cannot deal with millions and millions of claims on the basis of individuality. That is what this Government and every Government since 1966 have beein doing, thinking that it was right for them to do it and that they had the power to do it.
May I give two examples. The Commission awards substantial heating additions at standard rates and special diet additions of set amounts to fairly wide categories of claimants meeting specified criteria, such as illness or infirmity, or for accommodation that is difficult to heat. At present, over 1 million heating additions are in payment and there are about 300,000 additions for special diets. On the other hand, this power has also been used on a much smaller scale to reduce or to deny benefit to some categories of claimants whom it would be anomalous to support from public funds.
If noble Lords would like an example, I hope they will feel that a good one is overseas visitors who have been allowed into the country on condition that they will not be a charge on public funds. It seems perfectly reasonable that in such circumstances the Supplementary Benefits Commission should say, No; these overseas visitors have been allowed into the country on condition that they will not be a charge on public funds. However, I ask your Lordships to keep in mind the whole question of categories; if you cannot help one category you cannot help the others. It really is, as I see it—although I may be wrong, and if I am wrong my advisers will be very quick to tell me—all or nothing.
As I have indicated, the judgment of the Court of Appeal would lead to additional expenditure in some areas, possible hardship in others and a breakdown of confidence in the supplementary benefits scheme. This must be so. Urgent action has to be taken to retore the position—let me put it as simply as I can—to what the Commission had hitherto thought it was, and the purpose of our proposed subsection (6A) is to restore the position to what the Commission had hitherto thought it was. It has been found necessary, as with the previous Amendment relating to students, to ensure that this Amendment has effect in relation to past
1314
cases, otherwise there is a real possibility of old cases being reopened, so disrupting the work of local offices in trying to help people who are currently in need. This simply restores the situation to that which successive Governments have for so many years thought existed, and in my view right from 1966 every Government thought that the Supplementary Benefits Commission had that power.
I should make it clear that no claimant will suffer any detriment because what has happened in the past was concerned with a situation which existed then. It is not a continuing situation; it is a situation which was over and done with at that period. Consequential Amendments to Clause 21 of the Bill ensure that the provisions embodied in the Amendments now being made to the Bill shall come into force on the passing of the Act.
I have tried to set this out briefly. Probably I have been too brief because this is really a very important clause. All that the Government are asking—and I am sure that it must command the support of everybody in your Lordships' House—is to set out in this Bill in no uncertain manner what the Government have always thought the position to be since 1966 and to give clearance—for want of a better word—of the actions taken, regardless of the Government in power, since 1966. In the circumstance it seems to be reasonable.
I merely ask your Lordships also to keep in the forefront of your minds the consequences if the Amendments were rejected and if the Supplementary Benefits Commission in the future have to act in accordance with the decision of the Appeal Court—and we are not quarrelling with their judgment. What we are saying is that we want this Bill to set out clearly what we thought was the law since 1966; and that if we cannot deal with the student group, we cannot deal with a good many other groups in the community, who are probably the groups in the greatest possible need, in the way that we are dealing with them at present. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure we have all listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said in connection with this series of Amendments to Clause 12. I was grateful to

1315
him for telling me in advance of his intended Amendments and of their general effect. I have now had the opportunity to study them much more closely than I had done when we had our original conversation, and I am bound to say that, although I appreciate that the intention behind the Amendments is to put the position vis-à-vis students and the Supplementary Benefits Commission into the relationship which the Government thought they had before the Atkinson case, the way it is being achieved seems to me, to say the least of it, to be doubtful legal practice.
I recognise that the immediate important matter is for students to know where they stand in relation to the Supplementary Benefits Commission because the effect of Clause 12 and the debates in another place has been to take away from students their right to supplementary benefit during the Christmas and Easter vacations, and now this is designed further to prevent anybody who might have raised their right to it, following upon the court case, from doing so. It has the merit at least of stating what the Government's position is, so that the student knows.
However, from the point of view of a student it is bound to be regarded as a very unsatisfactory position. The fact is that innumerable categories of people have been quoted to support the students' case. But the student is unlikely to read Hansard, I should think, and he is unlikely to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission to find out what the relationship of his grant, the parental contribution and his rights to any assistance from the State may be. The most unsatisfactory situation of all is that when I asked the noble Lord, in connection with an earlier Amendment, what discussion there had been on this matter between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science, at least to the noble Lord's knowledge there appeared to have been very little. He is going to write to me on this point and it really is necessary for students to know whether what has been assumed to be a practice up to now is going to be taken away from them in the middle of their course; and they should know how they are to be affected.
The Amendments smack very much to me of the same kind of retrospective
1316
legislation that we have had over the matter of students' fees, where the student embarks on a course and finds that the fees have gone up and if he is in the unfortunate position of supporting himself he is in very great trouble indeed. There is a great deal of evidence coming from the universities to indicate how great the trouble is in this regard.
If I understand these Amendments correctly, what the Government are saying is that this is retrospective legislation going back as far as 1966 as the regulations apply to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1966. I was not quite sure what that Act of Parliament is, because when I went to the Printed Paper Office to get a copy of the Act in order that I might try to under- stand what was going on, there was no Act so called. But there is one called the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966. I take that to be the one to which the Amendment in fact refers. I hope I am right about that. Of course there is a great deal in Schedule 2 on benefits for other people which no doubt are also affected by the Government's regulating powers.
It seems to me to be a doubtful practice to have retrospective legislation, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what precedents there are for introducing this type of legislation, and exactly how he sees it working for these different subsections. I hope he will consider favourably Amendment No. 12 standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Sandys, that any regulations made under this section will be by way of Affirmative Resolution, so that at least both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to look at them and to comment upon them before they become law.
What I think is most unfortunate of all about these Amendments is that by having this kind of retrospective legislation we bring Government and, if I may say so, Government Departments, into disrepute. The constant shilly-shallying about the Department between students and the Supplementary Benefits Commission, the uncertainty of the position, the changes that the Government have undergone in these last weeks, make it very difficult for a lot of individuals. As the noble Lord knows, many of them are not supported by their parents when they should be, their grant has not kept

1317
up with the rate of inflation and they are unable to get vacation jobs, and they will find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. I take it that if they are in a destitute state and their situation can be proved, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will help them out. I hope the noble Lord will tell us whether such is the case, because if it is not then I think we are in great difficulty.
From this side of the Committee we have already indicated that we do not wish in any way to go against the principle of the Bill, but I am bound to say to the noble Lord that this is an Amendment which, although we shall not divide the Committee against it, is not one about which we feel very happy and we believe it sets a very dangerous legal precedent.
5.30 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: I accept whole-heartedly the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell on the matter of categories. I did not understand or agree with the judgment of the court when they said that it was in some way improper to treat a category of people as being an exceptional case. I think my noble friend can also carry me with him on the rest of the Amendments if he can tell the Committee a little more about the regulations which are to be introduced. What I hope he can tell us is that the regulations will not preclude the Commission from acting in a case of exceptional need.
In other words, taking the case of students, they are regarded as a category of exceptional people, but within that exceptional category there will be exceptions. There will be people, as the noble Baroness pointed out, who will be in very severe and sometimes destitute circumstances. What we do not know from Clause 12 as it now stands is whether these regulations will provide for an absolute embargo on the payment of benefit to persons within the category or whether the regulations will themselves be subject to the existing paragraph in the first Schedule to the Bill, paragraph 4, where in exceptional circumstances what would be the normal calculation of resources and requirements can be overridden and amounts of extra benefit can be awarded. If the flexibility of the Commission and the discretionary power to deal with exceptional cases is to be
1318
preserved in the new regulations which are to be made, then it seems right that the Amendments should go through in the form that they are.
Lord COLLISON: May I say a brief word about this. I was chairman of the Commission, as your Lordships know. I simply want to assure the Committee that the Commission and its officers acted in absolutely good faith in taking the attitude that they took in the past to this matter. It has always been assumed that it was their right and indeed their duty to act in this way. Although I am not there now, I can clearly imagine the dismay which overtook them when the court found as it did. Indeed if this Amendment were not accepted, it could lead to innumerable other cases being brought forward. I can understand one's dislike of an Amendment which perhaps smacks of restrospective action, but in this case, in my view, it is absolutely necessary; we would be doing wrong if we were not to accept the Amendment.
I could talk about the Commission's power to take action in exceptional circumstances, but I will leave that to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. I wanted to make it very clear, and to make the point, which I am sure your Lordships all accept, that the Commission believed that what they were doing was right and are dismayed now to find that the court took a different view. I would underline the necessity of putting this right, even if it does smack a little of retrospective action.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am very surprised at the attitude which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has taken in this matter; I really cannot see why she cannot give wholehearted support to what we are trying to do. I know that retrospective legislation is something which the vast majority of your Lordships dislike.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is all very well to say, "Hear, hear", but there is retrospective legislation which is abhorrent and there is retrospective legislation which is not going to harm anybody or be detrimental to anybody. The whole point is that all that is involved here is restoring the law to what successive

1319
Governments have thought it was ever since 1966. I have said this several times this afternoon. The Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 was formerly the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, as the noble Baroness pointed out. No one's rights are being threatened. The noble Baroness said she did not know what authority there was for it, whether this kind of thing had happened over a period of time.
The only example I can give is that it has been done in another place on a number of occasions where persons have been elected Members of Parliament—I think I am right about this—and it has been found that for some reason or other they were not qualified to sit. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who indicates that I am right. It has been found in some cases that persons were holding offices of profit under the Crown or something like that, and legislation has been passed to make it possible for them to continue to sit. There was nothing objectionable in that. There is nothing objectionable in this.
The regulations will not preclude the the Commission from dealing with truly exceptional cases. It retains powers—as I thought I had pointed out very clearly—to deal with urgent need. Clause 12 does not take away students' entitlement to supplementary benefit. The student now gets more of his maintenance grant in the short vacations, and, therefore, needs less supplementary benefit. In the long vacation there will be no maintenance element whatsoever in the grant, and if the student cannot find work he will be entitled to more supplementary benefit. So he is not going to be harmed by this at all. But we are concerned that we should be able to restore the law to what successive Governments thought it was. It seems to me to be a perfectly normal way of doing it. It is not reprehensible. In this case it really is not objectionable.
Lord BANKS: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord one question. I am not quite clear whether claims are going to be prevented from being made as a result of this Amendment which is proposed by the Government. I understood, from what the noble Lord, Lord Collison, said, that claims might ensue if this were not done. If that is so, it
1320
would seem to me that this legislation will in fact affect some people's rights, if it prevents them from making claims that they otherwise would have made.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think there is any point in my hiding—I am not very good at that anyway—the possibility that if this legislation does not go through claims in relation to past applications may be made. If noble Lords are really worried about that, perhaps I may explain what the situation is. A number of people over the years have applied for supplementary benefit and on those occasions at that time did not get all the money that it could be held they might have been entitled to. But that is to deal with a situation long since past. Is it right to do anything about it now, when perhaps many of them would probably no longer be students? I think we have to face this fact.
We have to consider the position during the Easter vacation. Clause 12(1) will restore the position to what it was thought to be before the Court of Appeal judgment. However, until regulations can be made—and they cannot be made immediately—the Supplementary Benefits Commission will have to treat students' claims in accordance with the law as it has been declared by the judgment in the Court of Appeal. This means that for at least the first part of the Easter vacation students will be allowed a £4 disregard on income from the grant or from parental contributions. The Commission will also ignore any assessed parental contribution which is shown not to be paid.
The Court of Appeal held:
"It should, in our judgment, be open to a student claimant to satisfy the Commission or the Tribunal, if he can, that his parents, for some reason, either cannot or will not make up his local authority grant to the level of the full grant."
There is a responsibility on him to do so. The judgment continues:
"We recognise that the onus of establishing such a claim would be a heavy one, and that the Commission or Tribunal would be fully justified in examining any such claim with suspicion."
The Commission will therefore require positive proof that a parent has not made his contributions. Assuming the regulations under Clause 12(1) are made, student claims for the latter part of the Easter vacation will be assessed in the same way as that which applied before

1321
the judgment was given in the Court of Appeal. I can give your Lordships no more notice than that. However, I am a little concerned that there should be a doubt in your Lordships' minds that we should not proceed by clearly stating the law as we have always understood it to be since 1966. It seems to me that there is no valid reason why we should not do it as from that date.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. If the decision which finally complicated all this came from the Court of Appeal, what advice was tendered to successive Governments on the 1966 Act? Shall we be allowed to see the advice? This is extremely important, if the matter arose only as a result of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It is a rather extraordinary matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is not a question of advice. In 1966 Parliament, in its wisdom or stupidity, passed the 1966 Act which sets out the powers given to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Among those powers the Supplementary Benefits Commission had power to disregard certain matters, to ignore other matters and in exceptional circumstances to provide exceptional benefits—I listed a few this afternoon (I do not know whether the noble Baroness was present)—to the aged, the sick and so on.
Like every other Bill, that Bill went before both Houses. Parliament accepted that the Supplementary Benefits Commission should be able to act in this particular way in a whole variety of circumstances. Parliament was quite satisfied that the Supplementary Benefits Commission could act for a class, a group or a category—those are my words. There was no doubt in Parliament's mind that the Supplementary Benefits Commission could do that. Parliament accepted that there was no other way of dealing with millions of people other than by dealing with them on a class, a group or a category basis. That was never questioned by anyone. Parliamentary draftsmen and Government legal advisers quite clearly saw what was intended, and they believed that this was right. It was only when this ex-student appealed to the Tribunal—and incidentally the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Supplementary Benefits
1322
Commission—and his appeal was refused that he went to the Court of Appeal. The judges there said that in their view the Act did not entitle the Supplementary Benefits Commission to act for or deal with a specific group of people and that such people must be dealt with as individuals.
There was no question of advice being given. In 1966 Parliament saw quite clearly what it wanted to do and all successive Governments since have accepted that that was the law. The judgment of the Court of Appeal merely says that the Supplementary Benefits Commission cannot deal with a group as a whole but must deal with individuals. I imagine that a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal can be found in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord SLATER: From listening to my noble friend it seems that one of the strongest arguments that he has presented to noble Lords has been on retrospective payments. I began to wonder low often I had heard that and how often I, along with others, had made application for retrospective payments and been turned down. On this occasion we find that the Government, through the Minister, are prepared to allow retrospective payments. It is something that should have been done before. Therefore, they seek to amend the mistake that they made on that particular occasion and they have instructed their Minister to press for this Amendment to the Bill. This House would be amiss if it does not accept the recommendation that has been made by my noble friend.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point of principle about retrospective legislation. I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that we on this side of the House will not oppose these Amendments and that, for the reason that he has given, we shall accept them. Apart from anything else, I understand that if they are now carried and the situation is not as the Government intend it to be under their present legislation the public expenditure cost would be about £11 million. That is the underlying reason for the Amendments.
One can appreciate the need to move these Amendments, because without them

1323
the Bill could not become law in the way in which the Government wish following the Atkinson case. We are concerned about the legislation because, from the point of view of the student, the Government are using the Bill to put right various complexities surrounding the whole question of student grants and maintenance. This in itself is a subject for a major debate and I do not intend to launch into it today.
However, I think I am right in saying that one of the items in the equation is that now students fees have all increased and it is the Government's intention that tuition fees will be covered by grant, even when the Government grant is only at the lowest possible scale, that in itself will cost about £3½ million of public expenditure. All sorts of sums of money are involved. Some of the things which the student had expected to receive have been removed by the Bill—some part of the way through his course. He was upheld in the judgment in the Atkinson case and this puts the situation back not to what the student thought it was but to what the Government believed to be the law of the land.
This is a serious matter. Although we shall accept these Amendments, it casts doubt in the minds of the public—in this case the students—as to what the circumstances are when they embark on various courses, the increase in fees and now the taking away of supplementary benefits at Christmas and Easter. Whatever may be the merits or otherwise of this legislation certain students will be adversely affected by it. It is retrospective legislation. I take the point that someone who was a student in 1966 should not claim. Nevertheless, it is not a desirable form of legislation. The Government, and in particular the two Departments concerned, should conduct a thorough-going examination of student grants to discover what proportion is supposed to cover the vacation, otherwise a sense of injustice will hang over this whole matter. As I have already indicated, we shall not vote against these Amendments, but they raise a doubtful principle. Although we accept it, we do so not because we like it but because we have to in the circumstances.
Lord ROBBINS: Might I just say to the noble Baroness that I am in complete
1324
agreement with her that students at the present time, whatever their disgraceful antics in various quarters, have a real grievance in the way in which prospective fees have been changed. But I think that there is a shade of difference between drastic action of that sort and this rectification of administrative difficulties which seems to be involved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I doubt whether many students making their plans in the past have taken into account the state of the law in this respect, its ambiguities and so on, whereas I have absolutely no doubt at all that some students contemplating their future in regard to fees—not all; I do not wish to identify myself with many of the absolutely unjustifiable complaints that have been made—have a genuine grievance over the way in which this momentous subject has been handled. However, I do not think that the analogy is completely correct as regards the matter immediately under consideration.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We are in danger of using this as a kind of umbrella to discuss all sorts of matters that, if the Committee will allow me to say so, are quite irrelevant. Many of us would express many views which the noble Baroness and perhaps the noble Lord have expressed about certain conditions generally affecting students, but we are here concerned only with the authority and the power of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. So far as I know, since 1966 there has never been any attempt by anyone to say that the Commission acted improperly or illegally in using their discretion in either one direction or the other. If I am wrong I shall come back and say so, but to my knowledge there has not been any official complaint from any student organisation about the misuse, if you like, of the powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It only came to light as the result of one student bringing an action—which was undoubtedly to his credit. What we are trying to do is to state the law in the future as we understood it was in the past.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in the above subsections or in any regulations made in pursuance of those

1325
subsections shall prejudice the position of handicapped students and, notwithstanding the above subsections, regulations shall authorise the payment of benefit in circumstances in which physical sensory or mental disability would be likely to preclude the obtaining of temporary employment during any vacation.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. The purpose behind this ought to be perfectly clear. It is concerned with disabled students. I have had the opportunity, as I am sure other Members taking part in the Committee stage of this Bill have had, of re-reading the proceedings in another place. This matter of disabled students was raised on Report, and under the procedure there was no reply from the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made it absolutely clear that disabled and handicapped students will be eligible for supplementary benefits, but it would be helpful to have a full statement of this on the Record and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us one.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As I explained in moving the Government Amendments, the position of handicapped students will, even without this Amendment, be fully protected. Like other students they will still be able to claim supplementary benefit if they are unable to find temporary work in vacations, provided that their income falls short of their supplementary benefit requirements. The Supplementary Benefits Commission's normal practice up until now has been to treat disabled students in some respects particularly favourably, and the regulations made under Clause 12 of the Bill will continue that practice. In particular they will ensure that in the case of a disabled student no account is taken of an unpaid parental contribution, and the £2 disregard will continue to be given on the disabled student's pay. In view of what I have said—and I am sure that the Committee will accept what I have said—the Amendment is unnecessary. If the noble Baroness agrees with me, I hope that she will see fit to withdraw it.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. When I spoke earlier I meant to ask him whether he would also confirm that, in the case of some local education authorities who pay an extra grant to cover students' particular disabilities, this will not be
1326
included in the calculation for supplementary benefit. This is a matter which is of great importance to the students. If the noble Lord cannot give me an answer right away perhaps he could write to me on this point. I must apologise. The Committee moved on slightly faster when I moved the Amendment, and the note I had on this point was not to hand.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I can give the noble Baroness that assurance.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. I believe that in drafting our legislation it is often necessary to emphasise the obvious. The noble Lord may well say that this is an unnecessary Amendment because it is taken care of in the Amendments he has just proposed. However, we would to well to recognise the wise words in the Finer Report on one-parent families; we should recognise—certainly your Lordships' House recognsised—the wisdom of the Snowdon Report on integration of the disabled; we should also recognise the problems of educational handicap which have been raised in a series of debates in your Lordships' House. I shall re-read with pleasure the speeches of my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Alexander of Potterhill on this, subject because I believe there is a need for a declaratory clause of this nature. My noble friend Lady Young has put forward something which could very well assist those who are attempting to interpret the legislation, and to point out the value of the particular clauses and Amendments which the noble Lord has just moved.
Lord ROBBINS: I should like to urge the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to accept this Amendment. I am convinced by the statement that he has made, as always in sincerity and in truth, but I think that it would be a reassurance to many people if such an Amendment were in the Bill. I cannot think that anything that he has said indicates a disadvantage in writing it into the Bill. I suggest that it would give the Bill more credit if it was there in black and white.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I said—at least I thought I said—that we had the powers to do this earlier on, and that we

1327
are going to do it. Many people, including many of your Lordships, complain of too much legislation, too many pages of legislation, too much going in, and too much going on the Statute Book. Is it really necessary, when a Government come along and say, "We already have the powers to do it. We are going to do it", that one should write such a provision in? It would mean that legislation would become almost impossible. Bills would increase in length when, in point of fact, in every Bill there is provision for regulations. Governments give assurances, and I think it would be difficult for any Member of your Lordships' House to say, where a Government had given such an assurance, they had not carried it out. I would think that this is sufficient.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Lord will recognise that new legislation in the sense he is describing it brings new powers with it; sometimes we think there is too much of that sort of legislation. In this instance we are talking about the need to explain legislation which exists so as to avoid the need for it having to be sorted out and explained later, perhaps even to having to go to court to get a Lords of Appeal decision. In other words, we are not talking about new legislation in the sense that the noble Lord was describing it.
In this case the powers already exist, and my noble friend has explained the need to make an Amendment of this kind to ensure that the Bill is more easily understood. The Minister has admitted that this is not new, that no new powers would be introduced and that the powers already exist. For that reason, why not break new ground here—I should like to see more new ground of this sort broken in the future—and make quite clear what we are doing?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It will be made perfectly clear in regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has had a great deal of experience of Government and knows that what appears in a regulation is just a valid as it is in an Act of Parliament. We cannot put everything in legislation without substantially increasing the volume of legislation. Here the Government are giving an undertaking that they already have the power and therefore
1328
do not need new powers to take this step; in other words, the Amendment is not necessary. Why, then, pursue what is unnecessary?
Baroness YOUNG: I am pleased to have all this firmly on the record. I am grateful for the support I have had on the Amendment, which is not one I intended to press today, and I shall not do so now. It is important for us to see the regulations, and I shall return to the subject when we discuss my Amendment No. 12. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.2 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In section 3(2) of that Act (which relates to supplementary benefit to meet exceptional needs) there shall be inserted at the end the words ("and may take into account any requirements which would otherwise fall to be excluded under section 1(3) of this Act.")")
The noble Lord said: We move away from the question of students and come to another source of confusion in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. It arises out of Section 1(3) of that Act which says:
"The requirements of any person to be taken into account for the purposes of this Act do not include any medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental requirements."
Section 3(1) of the Act says:
"Where it appears to the Commission reasonable in all the circumstances, they may determine that supplementary benefit shall be paid by way of a single payment to meet exceptional need."
There are two ways in which one might interpret those two sections taken together. On the one hand, one might say they mean that normally the Commission cannot take into account medical requirements, but that exceptionally a single payment could be made to cover such a requirement; or, on the other, one might say there is general discretion to meet exceptional needs, but medical requirements are ruled out. A recent court decision, this time in the Divisional Court, held that the second interpretation, the more rigid one, was correct.
The purpose of my Amendment is to make it clear that the Commission's discretionary powers to meet exceptional

1329
need could be used in cases where medical requirements—medical and the other surgical, optical or dental requirements—are in issue. Normally, medical requirements are taken care of by the National Health Service without charge and there is no need to claim supplementary benefit for them. Sometimes that is not the case. The court case in question concerned osteopathic treatment recommended by his consultant doctor to a man suffering from severe pains in his back. Osteopathic treatment is not available under the Health Service and it was being paid for privately.
A tribunal held that it was a genuine case of need and that a payment should be made to cover the cost. It was perhaps a rare case, but it was a genuine one. Other cases, perhaps not so rare, of medical requirements which the Commission might wish to meet, include a special dietary need which cannot be met through chemists and which requires extra expense. That might well be a medical requirement, because there is no explanation in the Act of what a medical requirement is. There might be other cases, cases of extreme urgency; cases where forms of treatment not available on the NHS might be exceptionally justifiable.
The hallmark of the Supplementary Benefits Act is its flexibility. Even people in full-time work, at school or on strike may receive benefit in a case of urgent need. It is not right, I suggest, to rule out one arbitrary form of requirement—people with medical requirements—and therefore I commend the Amendment as being in accordance with the general flexible approach of this legislation.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I wish at the outset to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Gifford for writing to me giving details of this particular case and the background information together with a copy of the judgment, which I had not seen. My noble friend's Amendment to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 would enable the Supplementary Benefits Commission to make single payments, known as "exceptional needs payments", of benefit for requirement otherwise excluded by Section 1(3); namely, medical, surgical, optical, aural or dental requirements.
1330
It arises, as my noble friend said, out of a recent hearing by the Divisional Court of a successful application by the Commission for an order of certiorari quashing a decision by a supplementary benefits appeal tribunal in Peterborough to award £200 to a claimant, Mr. Ernest Albert Dobson, for private osteopathic treatment in London and associated travelling expenses. I think my noble friend represented Mr. Dobson at the hearing.
The Government cannot accept the Amendment. The Divisional Court's judgment clearly confirms that the effect of the legislation is what was intended to be, and as it has always been interpreted by the Commission; namely, that any requirements which a claimant has for medical requirements are not to be met from the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. The reason for this exclusion is that the NHS provides a comprehensive system of diagnosis, treatment and care to meet people's health needs and has its own system for relieving those on low incomes from those charges that are made; for instance for prescriptions, dentistry and optical requirements.
My noble friend said that the treatment required was not available under the National Health Service. I confess that that surprises me because, again trusting to memory, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services recently set up a committee comprising a large number of medical experts to look into the cause and treatment of back pain, and I thought there were two doctors on that committee—my understanding is that there is at least one—who are osteopaths. But I may be wrong. I shall have to look into it. It car not be accepted as part of the function of the supplementary benefit scheme to make private treatment of whatever sort available to those on supplementary benefit. To do so would be, in effect—and I ask your Lordships to consider this very carefully—to create a special group who could get private treatment at the expense of the State. That would be the effect of the Amendment.
My noble friend's concern arises out of a case involving osteopathic treatment, but his Amendment would also enable payments to be made for all manner of treatment such as expensive private dental

1331
treatment, elective surgery or some of the services of less standing in fringe medicine. The staff of the Supplementary Benefits Commission would, if they were to keep any sort of control over these payments, be involved in all manner of questions about the desirability, utility and cost of particular forms of treatment—questions which they are simply not qualified to deal with. There would also be an overlap between the provision of the National Health Service for relieving people of charges and the meeting of those charges by the Commission.
I come back, however, to the point that I made first. I believe that it would be highly undesirable to create a special group which could get private treatment at the expense of the State whereas others who were not in receipt of supplementary benefit could not get treatment. In view of the little that I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before my noble friend speaks, I noted—I hope, correctly—that the Minister said that the special dental, optical and other treatment was not given through the Supplementary Benefits Commission but through the National Health Service. That may be true but there is an area of confusion here because, certainly among elderly people, it is commonly assumed that one gets dental assistance only if one is receiving supplementary benefit. So, though it may all come from one source, it is assumed to come through the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I have come across quite a number of these cases. I wonder whether my noble friend can clear this point up, because it seemed unfair that an elderly woman who is living on a pension should pay full price for spectacles whereas one who receives supplementary benefit got them very much cheaper, if not entirely free. The two things seem to be allied; certainly they are in the minds of the recipients.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should need to look at this matter and perhaps get some further information from my noble friend.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I believe that the argument of the noble Lord,
1332
Lord Wells-Pestell, against the Amendment is absolutely correct and ought to be accepted, but, while he is looking into the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, it might well be that he could use his influence to ensure that osteopathic treatment on the advice of a doctor is included in the National Health Service. I agree that this is not the vehicle to bring this about but it may well be that, since the matters are allied, the noble Lord's influence can be brought to bear to have this point considered.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: What I was saying was that I should like to look into this question because my impression is that there are in the medical profession a large number of doctors who are qualified osteopaths. I should have thought that, if such treatment was necessary, it could be made available. But I should have to go into this.
Lord GIFFORD: On that last point, as I understand it, there are a few registered medical practitioners who are also osteopaths, but of course the majority of registered osteopaths—who are now quite a dignified profession of long standing—are not registered medical practitioners, so they do not qualify for the National Health Service. Having said that, whenever I hear a judgment in a court of law my instinct is to appeal it, but when I hear the answer of my noble friend on the Front Bench my instinct, at least this time, is to accept it and not to appeal any further.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I wonder whether I may very gently mention a passage from Standing Orders. If I am right in thinking, as did his noble friend, that he actually took part professionally in this matter, it is normally considered undesirable that the matter should then be pursued by him—as, indeed, by accountants or by any other professional persons—in this House. I have often been gravely tempted to do this myself, but it is actually dealt with in Standing Orders and it is said to be undesirable. I do not wish to rebuke the noble Lord; it is only that I so often find myself in this position and have to restrain myself. Perhaps the noble Lord would have it in mind.
Lord GIFFORD: I was not aware of the Standing Order and I apologise to the Committee. I shall not do it again.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that I ought to assume some responsibility. I knew that my noble friend was going to raise this point. As I said, he wrote to me and I knew of his connection, but I took this—I cannot speak for him and would not dream of doing so—as illustrating a matter which he felt ought to be put right. It was on that basis that I made no comment.
Lord GIFFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
("(6A) Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to that Act (adjustment for exceptional circumstances) shall have effect and, subject to subsection (7A) below, be deemed always to have had effect, as if at the end there were added the words " and for this purpose the circumstances of a case may be treated as exceptional if it falls within a class of case the circumstances of which are exceptional.").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this Amendment and, if your Lordships will permit me to do so, I should like to move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert—
("(7A) Neither subsection (2A) nor subsection (6A) above shall affect any decision substituted or to be substituted for a decision quashed by an order of a court made before 4th March 1977.").
The noble Lord said: For the same reason, will your Lordships allow me to move this Amendment formally?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
6.19 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Retrospective amendment of Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 c. 20.
. So far as subsections (1) to (2A), (6A) and (7A) of section 12 of this Act apply with
1334
respect to periods before the passing of this Act they apply also with respect to periods before the commencement of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, but as if for this references to that Act and Schedule 1 to that Act there were substituted references to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966 and Schedule 2 to that Act.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 11, and, with your Lordships' leave, I beg to move formally.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 12:
At end insert—
("Provided that any regulations made pursuant to section 12(1) which relate to a period before the passing of this Act shall be made by statutory instrument which shall not come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 12, which amends Amendment No. 11. The intention of my Amendment is to provide that the regulations will be by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament and not by Negative Resolution. We have had a very full discussion about Clause 12 which, as I believe the whole Committee will recognise, is a very complicated matter. As a result of our discussions, there seem to me to be two important matters that will arise on the regulations, One is the matter of disabled students. I did not press my Amendment to a Division for a number of reasons, not least of which was the Government's wish not to enlarge the Statute and the undertaking that the needs of disabled students would be covered by regulation. However, if the regulations are simply by Negative Resolution, there will be no opportunity to discuss this matter because it is only possible to vote against Negative Resolutions in their entirety. It is not possible to have a debate upon them as it would be under the Affirmative procedure.
That is one group of people who would be covered by these regulations and it indicates how important it is that these regulations should be dealt with by Affirmative Resolution. However, Clause 12(1)(a) refers to those students "attending a course of full-time education". Nowhere is this defined in the Bill and, as the noble Lord will know, this is not a very satisfactory definition. For

1335
example, it might be thought that a full-time course of education was one for which there was a mandatory award, but in fact there are at least 29 courses of full-time education for which there are no mandatory awards but only discretionary awards. Under the present circumstances, discretionary awards are, not surprisingly, being cut and it may be necessary for the students to have additional help through supplementary benefit. Even if they have a right to claim supplementary benefit, it is very important that they should know the circumstances, how it will affect them, and how these provisions will affect those who are in full-time education on discretionary grants.
The noble Lord has already indicated that while considering this Bill he does not wish us to stray into the whole area of education, yet in this particular clause the two are intimately connected and it is very difficult to separate them. I do not wish to take us right off the course of supplementary benefits and on to education, but I use this case merely to illustrate why I think the regulations are important and why I think that both Houses of Parliament ought to have an opportunity to debate them. It is for that reason that I have tabled the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to say a few words in case the noble Lord may be committing himself a little against accepting the Amendment. He rebuked me—it was a charming rebuke, as is usual with the noble Lord—for suggesting in what I had to say that a regulation was not as good as part of an Act. He said that one is as good as the other, but this is not so unless the Resolution involved is affirmative. If it has been accepted after debate, then I would accept what the noble Lord said when he rebuked me a minute or two ago—that the regulation should stand as firm as, and be accepted almost in the same light as, part of the Act itself, but not in the case of a Negative Resolution. So I hope that the noble Lord will carry through in action what his words seemed to imply when he replied to me only a few minutes ago.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I note the noble Lord's comments and observations. We are in some difficulty here. The
1336
Amendment, if accepted, would in effect delay the implementation of regulations made under Clause 12(1), and in our view, rightly or wrongly, we must have some account as to the speed of the process and this could not be done if the Amendment is carried. I gave your Lordships some indication why we want to be able to deal with this matter very quickly. As I have explained, the purpose of the new clause is to restore the position relating to students and others to what it was thought to be before the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Atkinson v. the Barnsley Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal (I have not mentioned this before), to give it statutory backing. If regulations relating to students were delayed because of the Affirmative Resolution procedure, it would be necessary to continue to apply the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal, and one would have to apply it in that way probably throughout the whole of the Easter vacation, and again we are a little worried about the cost of it, which we think would be in the region of £2 million.
Furthermore, in these circumstances the work of local social security offices, we feel, would be seriously disrupted by continuing claims and by students seeking to have claims for earlier vacations reviewed to the prejudice of the generality of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's claimants. I suggest that the aim of your Lordships should be—I say this kindly and not in any sense as a kind of directive—to assist the Commission in its effort to restore its practices to what they were. This Government and previous Governments have always considered those actions to be the right ones; and it is for that reason that I say to the noble Baroness that the Government must resist her Amendment. I hope that that will convince her, and that she will feel that in this matter the Government are being reasonable. The only thing I can do is what I have done; namely, to put before your Lordships briefly and in clear and precise terms our reasons for saying why we cannot accept the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: Will the noble Lord tell us whether the reason for not accepting the Amendment is the delay that it would cause? In parentheses, I should like to remind him that the

1337
Easter vacation has begun at some universities this week, and so if we are waiting for the legislation to be passed before the start of the Easter vacation it is in fact too late for some universities. But will the noble Lord tell us what is the delay in having this procedure rather than the procedure that he has suggested?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: While the noble Lord is thinking about that, at the risk of advertising one's ignorance I would say that I should have thought that the Affirmative Resolution could be quicker than the Negative. The Negative Resolution has to lie on the Table for a certain number of days to make certain that on the last day it is generally acceptable, whereas if the affirmation was obtained on the first day the regulation is framed. By accepting this procedural way, it could be quicker.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: At present I am not convinced that the noble Lord is correct, but if it is of any help I should be prepared, subject to the consent of the noble Baroness, to look at this matter and let her know within the next day or two our comments and observations. I know that there is a time factor here. I do not want to write too many letters. The noble Baroness said that I had earlier promised to write to her on a matter but in fact I did not do so. I said that at some time during the proceedings I hoped to be able to give her the answer. But if what I am now suggesting is acceptable to the noble Baroness I would certainly take into account what has been said. I will look at Hansard tomorrow to see whether what the noble Lord has also said is likely to help the Government rather than hinder them.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful for the offer to look at the matter. I think that the cause of the delay is very relevant, as are the facts of the situation, and I hope that on looking at this matter the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment. But, if he does not, it is a matter to which we can return at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Social Security Act 1975
.—(1) In section 35(6) of the Social Security Act 1975 after the words "for whom accommodation is provided" there shall be inserted the words "other than with a foster parent or with foster parents".
(2) Any regulations made pursuant to the said subsection of the said Act insofar as they prohibit payment of attendance allowance in respect of foster children are hereby annulled.
(3) For the purposes of this section "foster child" means a child in the care of a local authority under any enactment mentioned in section 11 of the Children Act 1548 who is boarded out with a person or persons to live in their dwelling as a member of their family under the powers conferred by section 13(1)(a) of that Act; and the terms "foster children", "foster parent" and "foster parents" shall be interpreted accordingly.
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland for the words "any enactment mentioned in section 11 of the Children Act 1948" and "section 13(1)(a)" there shall be substituted respectively "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" and "section 21(1)(a)".
The noble Baroness said: During consideration of an earlier Amendment I was very glad to hear that the Government are willing to accept this Amendment. It has the support of the all-Party disablement group, and it is not in any way a Party political matter. As the noble Lord will know, it can be achieved at relatively little cost. It has now been estimated that it would cost about £200,000 per annum. But much more important than the cost of the Amendment is that it is right that severely handicapped children who cannot be brought up by their own parents should not languish in institutions if there are foster parents who are willing and able to lock after them. If we are talking about comparative costs it should be borne in mind that it is estimated that in a local authority community home it costs approximately £70 a week for a child to be looked after, whereas if the child is in the care of foster parents the cost can be as little as £9 to £12 a week. So in fact the public expenditure gain is very great indeed.
What I believe is an injustice at the moment is that whereas parents with a severely handicapped child are able to claim the attendance allowance—and because they are able to claim the attendance allowance it is tax free—foster

1339
parents who foster a child cannot claim the attendance allowance even if the child is severely disabled and they are dependent upon the local authority grant. As I understand the position, the amounts of money involved may be somewhat similar, but in certain areas tax officials have taxed the local authority grant whereas the attendance allowance is tax free.
My Amendment seeks to rectify this anomaly. I am very pleased indeed that the noble Lord has said that he will accept the Amendment. Perhaps I should say before he says it that I accept that the Amendment is not correctly drafted; Amendments drafted by anyone other than Government draftsmen never are correctly drafted. But I am very pleased to hear that he accepts the principle here and that he is prepared to bring back Amendments correctly drafted to meet the principle that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may be permitted to do so, I merely want to ask the noble Baroness what her reaction is to what I am about to say. We had a discussion on Amendment No. 7, which she moved, on the question as to whether this should go in the Bill or whether the Government should use existing regulation-making powers to achieve this result. The Government can do this—I am now talking about Amendment No. 13—by using existing regulation-making powers to achieve the result that the noble Baroness wants. I should like to have her comments and observations on this matter before we pass on to the next Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I am bound to say that this is a matter which I had not considered before, and it is one that I shall need to think about. Perhaps, just as the noble Lord will speak to me in the next day or so, I might speak to him. Clearly, if it can be done, and done quickly, by regulation, this is in general, for the reason that he has given, a sensible way to proceed. I think that one wants to know that the point is going to be covered and, once again, that we shall have an opportunity, if necessary, to debate the regulations. It is very difficult, just being asked a question like this, to consider all the features of the case. That is
1340
my first reaction to the noble Lord, but I shall give him a definitive view tomorrow or the next day. For the convenience of the Committee, on that understanding from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 13 to 17 agreed to.
6.33 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Calculation of guaranteed minimum pensions preserved under approved arrangements
.—(1) Where an occupational pension scheme ceases to be contracted-out and guaranteed minimum pension rights or accrued rights to guaranteed minimum pensions under the scheme are subject to approved arrangements (as defined in section 44 of the Pensions Act for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section) for their preservation, then, except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, section 35(5) of that Act shall have effect, unless the prescribed person otherwise elects in the prescribed manner, as if the following words were added at the end thereof: " except such an order made in any of the tax years comprised in the period of five years ending with the tax year in which the scheme ceases to be contracted-out; and as increased by 12 per cent. for each of those five tax years except any in which an order under section 21 of this Act was made which did not relate to the factor and any in which such an order was not made and would not have related to the factor if it had been made ".
(2) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) above shall have effect with prescribed modifications in relation to a scheme which, immediately before it ceased to be contracted-out, contained provisions authorised by section 35(7) of the Pensions Act.
(3) In this section expressions used in Part III of the Pensions Act have the same meanings as in that Part.
The noble Lord said: This is where we begin to enter a field full of mines and trip-wires, so far as I personally am concerned, but I look in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, because I hope he will feel that in this Amendment the Government are acceding to a request made by the pensions interests. I have a very long note on this Amendment, and I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Byers, feels that I should use it except to say that the subject-matter is extremely complicated and it is difficult to explain it without setting out the

1341
background in some considerable detail. If your Lordships feel that I can move the Amendment shortly, bearing in mind that we are acceding to a request made on behalf of the pensions interests, I would be very happy to do so; but if your Lordships feel I ought to go into it deeply, again I will. I beg to move.
Lord BYERS: There is no doubt about the fact that this clause will be warmly welcomed by those who have to deal with pensions. I think the real point is that when the 12 per cent, limitation was first announced—and it is referred to in this new clause—there was a good deal of concern that it applied only for the purpose of calculating certain State scheme premiums, and there was a considerable body of feeling among the pensions experts that it should also apply for the purpose of calculating the guaranteed minimum pension. These proposals were put to the Government some time ago, and I am delighted and very grateful to them for having accepted the view that was put to them and for bringing forward this new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Other miscellaneous amendments]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 18, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("(which relate to a person whose service in contracted-out employment ceases before he attains the relevant scheme's normal pension age) ").
The noble Lord said: Subject to your Lordships' consent, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 18 and 19 together. These are purely consequential drafting Amendments necessitated by subsection (7) of Clause 18, which was incorporated in the Bill at the Commons Report stage. I think that is all I need say so far as these Amendments are concerned, and I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 18, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) In section 40(3) of the Pensions Act, after the words " the rule has taken effect" there shall be inserted the words " except that the rule may also accord priority, on a winding
1342
up occurring after an earner has attained normal pension age, to liabilities of the scheme in respect of pensions and other benefits to which he will be entitled on ceasing to be in employment or to which the earner's widow or widower or any dependant of the earner's will be entitled on the earner's death.").
The noble Lord said: Once again, as I understand the situation, the Government are acceding to a request made by the pensions organisations, and I am sure this Amendment will find favour on the other side of the Committee. I think it merely indicates that we have a Government who are open to reason and argument. It is the end result that really matters; and, that being the case, I beg to move.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before the Question is put, may I raise one point? It is not on this Amendment at all, but I cannot see any other way of raising it, and I thought that if I mentioned the point now my noble friend might get the answer before the end of the proceedings. On page 17 we have some fascinating words. We are told that, in future,
"for the words 'she is cohabitating with a man as his wife' there shall be substituted the words 'she and a man to whom she is not married are living together as husband and wife'".
I am very curious to know what the difference is, if any.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It may be one of semantics, but I will find out and let my noble friend know before the end of the proceedings.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.39 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 19, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In section 28(1) of the Pensions Act there shall be inserted at the end the words ' so as to embody the best practicable estimate of the average of the cost referred to in paragraph (a) above'.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said we were entering a complicated area of minefields and trip-wires. Certainly I will attempt to pick my way fairly delicately through this area and through these obstacles, but the purpose of this brief Amendment is this. Section 28 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, I understand, is what we might call the master Act, and, as I understand it, Clause 18 of this Bill, for the main part,

1343
is amending various sections and subsections of the Pensions Act 1975. The object of this brief Amendment is to write into Section 28 of that Act, which I understand deals with the alterations in Class 1 contracting-out contributions, the same provisions as are contained in Section 46 of the Pensions Act. Perhaps Members of the Committee may not be aware, as I was not, that this particular section deals with actuarial tables. However, I believe that a connection between Section 28 and Section 46 exists thus: that Section 46(2) contains fairly close provisions detailing a standard actuarial table which embodies whatever appears to the Secretary of State to be the best practical estimate of the average cost of providing any one of three rather complicated premiums. First, there is something called the "accrued rights premium" or, the alternative, as a variation on this, the "pensioner's rights premium". Then there is the different form of the "limited revaluation premium". All of these, I understand, are a form of premium where a contracted-out earner requires to re-enter the Government scheme. The different nomenclatures for the premiums are apposite to differing circumstances.
I understand that all of these three premiums require very careful calculation and close scrutiny both by the Government Actuary and by the Secretary of State. I think we should also remember that these three premiums concern the return of the contracted-out pensioner to the Government scheme. We believe that it is right that great care should be taken; but I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us some indication why the Secretary of State should not exercise what we regard as equal care and precaution when altering the rates of contracted-out Class 1 contributions as set out in Section 27(2) of the Pensions Act 1975 when using the provisions of Section 28(1)(b). This is the subsection to which my particular Amendment applies. I apologise for the seeming complication of this particular Amendment. I understand that it is fairly simple and I hope that the Committee have found it so. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will not misunderstand me when I say that I have
1344
found it difficult to understand what he wishes to achieve by this particular Amendment. As the noble Lord will realise, I have taken advice on this but that has not helped me a great deal—and in saying this I am not being critical of the advice; for I am always in the happy position of being given the best possible advice, which is a good thing for me and, I hope, for your Lordships. It is a question of what the noble Lord had in mind when he put down this Amendment and what he thought it would achieve. This is my difficulty. I think I ought to be frank about it. That is not being critical of what he has put down.
Section 28 of the Pensions Act lays down the procedure for regular reviews of the contribution reduction for the contracted-out which will initially total 7 per cent. of earnings in the upper band. Subsection (1)(a) requires the Government Actuary to report on the contracted-out contribution percentages applying at the time and on any changes in the factors affecting the cost of occupational pension schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions, and the Secretary of State is then required, as I understand it, in subsection 1 (b), to report on whether he considers that, in view of the Government Actuary's report, there should be any change in these rates of contribution. This rather formal procedure, and particularly the specific reference to changes in the factors affecting the cost or occupational schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions, was provided for especially to allay the fears of the pensions interests that the terms for contracting-out might be worsened at some future date for reasons other than the need to revise the underlying acturial assumptions.
It may well be that the Amendment is intended to ensure that where the Government Actuary demonstrates in his report that the costs of providing guaranteed minimum pensions have gone up, a draft order in respect of a compensating adjustment in the contracting-out terms (that is, the size of the contribution abatement) will follow as in subsection (4). But the discretion given to the Secretary of State in subsection 1(b) as to whether there should be a contribution change and, if so, what change, I am advised, would be untouched by the Amendment. On the other hand, the reference to the "best

1345
practical estimate" in the noble Lord's Amendment might be an expression of doubt as to the efficacy of the Government Actuary's reporting. I am sure that noble Lords will go away thinking that I have "a thing" about Government actuaries and the treatment thereof.
Neither thought, could, of course, be entertained by the Government. There could be no question of the Secretary of State not exercising his discretion reasonably, while the accuracy of the Government Actuary's impartial uprating should not be doubted. Parliament laid down the Secretary of State's responsibility under the section and the intention was plainly that changes in the terms for contracting-out would be as a result of the specific advice of the Government Actuary within the terms of the section, and not otherwise.
I was going to quote the whole of Section 28(1)(a) and (b) but I shall not do so. But when one looks at Section 28(1)(b) and adds the words that the noble Lord has put down in his Amendment then I say, with respect, that I do not think it does anything that is of any value or of any help. I hope that the noble Lord will feel on reflection, or perhaps after looking at Hansard tomorrow, that that might be so.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I shall be happy to reflect on it. The noble Lord would agree with me that I would be very happy with the actuarial calculation. It was just this aspect of discretion on the part of the Secretary of State to which the noble Lord alluded. It seemed that there was a slight inconsistency in my mind and in the mind of one or two other people as to the difference of the words I had put in my Amendment including "best practical estimate of the average of the cost" which is expressed. We understand that this is some kind of criterion and guideline again allowing the Secretary of State to use his discretion but, we understood, within these parameters. We thought that these parameters might be and are apposite to Section 28. However, I think that the noble Lord has given us enough on which to reflect. I would not wish to pursue this at much greater length tonight and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 20, line 12, after ("which") insert (", as amended by subsection (7) of this section,").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment and mentioned that it was consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.50 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 13, leave out ("the scheme's normal pension") and insert ("pensionable").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In section 47 of the Pensions Act, in subsections (1)(b) and (8)(b), for the words " state scheme premium" there shall be substituted the words " contributions equivalent premium.").
The noble Lord said: The Government have introduced this Amendment to express more clearly the intended scope of Section 47 of the Pensions Act. I think I can take it briefly. This section enables an employer to recover part of the cost of paying a contributions equivalent premium from any refund of occupational scheme contributions the employee may receive. Broadly, a contributions equivalent premium may be paid by an employer to the National insurance Fund when an employee leaves contracted-out employment before the scheme's normal retirement age and has completed less than five years' contracted-out service.
The effect of payment of the premium is to remove the scheme's liability for a guaranteed minimum pension for the employee concerned and to buy him back into the State scheme as though he had never been contracted out. A contributions equivalent premium is in fact a straight adjustment of National Insurance contributions. As is set out in Section 47(2) of the Pensions Act, its amount is arrived at by calculating the difference between the contributions that would have been payable for the employee if he had not been contracted out and those that were actually paid in the contracted-out employment. This difference covers

1347
both the employer's and the employee's share of the contributions. Section 47(2) therefore allows the employer to make a corresponding deduction from any refund due to the employee in respect of the employee's share of that difference.
It has been suggested that the employer could have a similar right of recovery under the terms of the section when he pays other types of premiums such as a limited revaluation premium or an accrued rights premium. This was never intended, and in fact would result in some very anomalous situations. A limited revaluation premium results in the State taking over responsibility for part of the revaluation of a guaranteed minimum pension which the scheme would otherwise have to provide. Accrued rights premiums transfer the responsibility for the guaranteed minimum pension to the State scheme. In these circumstances, there is no reason why scheme rates should provide for refunds of contributions in respect of alterations in the arrangements for guaranteed minimum pensions, and it would be inappropriate to provide for deduction from any refund relating to pension rights in excess of that minimum.
The intention of this Amendment is thus to make it clear—and I accept that it is very difficult for those of us who are children in this matter—that the employer's right of recovery under Section 47 of the Act relates solely to contribution equivalent premiums. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.54 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert—
("(12A) In clause 33 of the Pension Act (which provides for requisite benefit for an earner who wishes to contract out of an occupational pension scheme), after subsection (1)(b), there shall be inserted the following—
"Provided that the Board may at their discretion issue a contracting-out certificate notwithstanding that the scheme does not, at that time, contain rules or amendments to the rules complying with the detailed requirements of the Act, so long as the Board are satisfied that a formal commitment has been entered into, that rules or amendments to the rules which comply with the requirements of the Act will be adopted within such period as may be laid down by the Occupational Pensions Board.".")
The noble Lord said: I tabled this
1348
Amendment to deal with a problem which I raised on Second Reading, the problem which occurs from a strict interpretation of the 1975 Act in connection with the various detailed stipulations concerning the benefits necessary for contracting out. As I pointed out, in practice very few schemes will be able to produce full and final rules by the operating date, which is April 1978. Even if they could, I do not think that it is reasonable for the Occupational Pensions Board to be expected to deal with them in detail before then. What I think is needed, as I said on Second Reading, is an interim method of documentation.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Occupational Pensions Board the discretion which it needs. There is a precedent for this, I am told, in that the Superannuation Funds Office of the Inland Revenue have allowed interim procedures to be adopted for many years now. At present the only place where the kind of details that are required can be recorded would be the explanatory booklet, announcement or notice issued to employees. But these documents, quite rightly, have been written in a "chatty" style, and it would not be appropriate for them to contain the formal detail more appropriate to the rules booklet. Even if the detailed material were included, again I do not think that the Occupational Pensions Board would have time to examine it in detail.
The Government may take the view that those that have to deal with these matters in pensions are getting unduly nervous; but I can assure them that those people have a great deal of experience and they are worried. In their view, unless some interim method is adopted, there is going to be a much more serious log-jam towards the date of April 1978 than has hitherto been predicted. This Amendment would allow the requirements of the Act to be met by a short, generalised commitment in interim formal documentation followed by the final document within a time to be set by the Occupational Pensions Board.
I mentioned one other alternative, which may commend itself to the Government. If the Government would consider giving an assurance that Clause 63(2)(g) of the main Pensions Act 1975 would be used to include a regulation-making power

1349
to allow the addition of more streamlined systems of documentation, this would avoid the need for my Amendment. If the Government could give an assurance that Clause 63(2)(g) can be used, and that they will use it in order to get something done in the way of more streamlined procedures and interim documentation, I should be only too happy to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have a very long note on this Amendment and I do not know to what extent I should use it. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, has, I believe, received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board. I do not know to what extent that letter has helped. Perhaps it has not helped as much as the noble Lord hoped. But I can say—and I hope that the noble Lord will say whether or not it is helpful; if it is not, one must approach it in some other way—that the Department, in conjunction with the Board, will keep a close watch on the situation as it develops during the coming months. If it appears that regulations under Section 63(2)(g) will be needed, these will be made. Any such easement, if it proved necessary, might well need to be subjected to restrictions, and the requirements of the Board here would be ascertained. For this reason, easement through regulations would be more appropriate than a general discretion, without any limitations, based on a "formal commitment" as in the Amendment. If that is helpful, I will stop there. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, knows he has access, as everyone has, to the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board and I will certainly draw the chairman's attention to what the noble Lord has said tonight. Subject to anything the noble Lord says, I will leave it there.
Lord BYERS: I should like to say, first, that the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was extremely helpful. I think the best thing I can do is to say that I will study in Hansard what the noble Lord has said and, if necessary, I will write to him. In fact, I think he goes as far as I can expect him to go at this stage. If he does not, I will come back to him personally, but in the meantime,
1350
in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: It is seven o'clock!
Lord LYELL: Before we consider this Question, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whom I warned before the debate of two minor points that I wanted to raise with him, could give me some form of explanation. If so, I should be very grateful. I should like to refer the noble Lord and indeed the Committee to subsection (7) of Clause 18, where there is a change in two sections of the Pensions Act 1975. In both sections it seems that the words, "the Scheme's normal pension age" are to be replaced by the words, "pensionable age". Those two sections deal with an earner's guaranteed minimum pension and also the limited revaluation premium that we had explained to us in connection with an earlier Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. Those two minor changes, as set out in subsection (7), may not be of the greatest importance, but I have my doubts and therefore I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, either now or at some later stage, could give some indication of the meaning of the changes and how those words affect the two sections in the Pensions Act.
The second point I wanted to raise concerns subsection (11) of the same clause, on page 19 of the Bill as we have it. There seem to be two fairly substantial amendments to Sections 44 and 45 of the Pensions Act. It seems that the Bill's amendment to those sections differs in one major respect from the regulations as they are set out in the Act. It is that Section 21 of the original Act shall be considered as a factor with the earnings factor whether a Section 21 order was in force before or after the scheme terminated. I am worried about what Section 21 purports to say. It appears that the first three subsections are the most important ones. They lay down what the Secretary of State shall consider and what action he shall take in relation to earnings and earnings factors, when comparing

1351
those items with long-term benefits. In the fifth and sixth lines of subsection (3) we find that the Secretary of State:
"…shall…lay before each House of Parliament…an order directing that those earnings factors shall,…be increased…".
I could not find any provision in Section 21 where the Secretary of State would make an order which is not concerned with earnings factors. Would the noble Lord be able to let me know the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (b) as amended in the Bill, as they affect Sections 44 and 45 of the original Act?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am rather embarrassed, because I have given an undertaking that these proceedings will finish at seven o'clock. I do not want to prolong them. If the noble Lord would not think me discourteous, I can answer him and indeed I have the answers to all the matters he raised but I wonder whether he would allow me to write to him. If so, that would save an appreciable amount of time. There are only three more Amendments remaining to be dealt with. I imagine that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 will not be moved and if the noble and learned Lord will give me two minutes, I can move Amendment No. 22 very briefly and we can complete our proceedings on this Bill.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 22, line 25, after ("7") insert ("12(1) to (2A), (6A) and (7A), 12A, 13").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to add subsections (1), (2), (2A), (6A) and (7A) to Clause 12 and also Clauses 12A and 13 to those provisions which come into force on the passing of the Act. The whole purpose of them is to bring Clause 13 into force on Royal Assent. The clause provides part of the powers under which regulations for the recoupment of benefit from Industrial Tribunal awards are to be made by the Secretary of State for Employment. Since it is intended that those regulations should operate from May 1977, it is desirable that Clause 13 should be
1352
brought into force on the passing of the Act, so that there would be adequate time for their making, laying and being brought into operation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 24.
Page 22, line 31, at end insert ("and section (Amendment of Social Security Act 1975") shall come into force on 1st September 1977.").
The noble Baroness said: Can the noble Lord give an assurance that if he considers the Amendment to meet my Amendment No. 13 it will come into force with the rest of the provisions of this Bill?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Will the noble Baroness let me communicate with her on this?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes. With that assurance, I shall not move the Amendment.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
7.10 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I rise only to protest against the way in which this Bill is being treated. There is a very thin House. It is now ten minutes past seven. I daresay that there are about to be discussed some of the most important Amendments. From what I can see of them, it is quite likely that some noble Lords will wish to divide the House. It is obvious that no kind of serious or proper view of the House can be obtained in the present circumstances, and I must protest against this procedure with all the vehemence in my power.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I regret, as much as the noble and learned Lord does, the fact that we are beginning at this stage of the evening. But we have devoted, and rightly so, a substantial amount of time to this measure. I do not think seven o'clock is an unreasonable time at which to begin consideration of this Bill, and I think we must get on with it. We have taken, very properly, a lot of time with it and we must try to conclude the discussion of the Report stage. We are now indeed on the third day—again, no complaint at all is being made about that—and I feel it is not unreasonable for the Government to ask for consideration of this matter at this time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Offences made triable only summararily, and related amendments]:
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 39, leave out lines 32 to 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill has the effect of lowering the penalties for male soliciting and making the offence triable only summarily. My Amendment is to restore the status quo, and I can only hope that it is so drafted that, if carried, it would do that. Of course I would welcome the first part of the proposal in the Bill to lower the penalties, if it did not carry with it, as it obviously must do, making the offence triable only summarily. I feel, and so do the greater majority of those representing homosexual public opinion in this country, that this produces a great many dangers and troubles. But they are content—if that is the right word—or prepared voluntarily, to put up with the higher penalties, if only they can have the right to go for trial before a jury, because they feel that only in that way can the danger of wrongful decisions, and indeed of more prosecutions, be avoided.
I think everyone in this House would agree that, looked at in one way, this is a minor offence and should come into that category. Indeed, it probably ought to end up merely as part of a new offence of public nuisance. Although regrettable and deplorable, this offence does not do any very great harm, nor, on the whole, do the courts and informed
1354
opinion put very much weight on it. But it is not minor from the point of view of the person concerned, and this is so in a way totally different from any of the other offences which are named in this Schedule. It really can be calamitous from the point of view of the person concerned. It can involve loss of job, although it has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to do the job. I know that there is a right of appeal against that, but, nevertheless, it is a very real threat. Only recently, there was a case of someone being fired from a job merely for coming out and admitting to being a homosexual. It can, of course, cause the break-up of a marriage. It can cause the greatest distress to other people in a person's immediate entourage and family. As I say, I believe that it is incomparable with anything else in the Schedule.
The James Committee, on which this part of the Bill is based, said that the criterion should be seriousness in the eyes of society. There are two arguments which could be made against that, and which I propose to make. The first is that a very different situation is raised when, although in the eyes of society the offence may not be great, it still remains a very serious offence in the eyes of a considerable proportion of society; and that is so with this offence today. Secondly, I am glad to know that the Government have not entirely followed James. Small thefts have already been taken out of the Schedule. The principle has been breached, and I suggest that, as part of this welcome flexibility, so it should be in this case.
Prejudice exists very much and very heavily in this matter, and it is no wonder that accused people in cases of this kind often wish to be judged by magistrates, rather than by juries. We all know that magistrates do their very best to be unprejudiced, but they cannot always overcome prejudice. It is one man as against 12. Very often, particularly in certain parts of the country, magistrates are coming up against a large n umber of these cases. They tend to get rather tired of them and say, "There is too much of this going on ". There is also the situation that a very great many of these cases depend entirely upon police evidence, and it is often almost impossible to deploy a defence unless one knows what the prosecution case is to be. As I am

1355
sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will know, there have been a number of cases where the accused was acquitted because the defence was able to make the rather detailed measurements, to investigate timing and to prove that the accused could not have committed the offence. So for those reasons I suggest that we should think again about this offence being in the Schedule.
I can see various objections which the Government may make to this Amendment, such as expense and time. I do not want to be overly cynical, but I think that if we did not carry this Amendment there would be many more prosecutions and I should have thought that the consequences would just about balance out. There is the principle of the James Committee's Report, and the principle established; but, as we have seen, that has already been breached, and I do not think this point about whether a certain section of society regards an offence as extremely important has been sufficiently considered.
There is also the other point that this merely brings about equality for the sexes, in that it reduces the level of the offence to that of prostitution. The answer to that is that, as a matter of practice, prostitutes are cautioned, but, also as a matter of practice, men soliciting do not appear to be. It is a difficult area, but it seems to me that the arguments of humanity are overwhelming in this case and, to give the Government their full due, all the other arguments are only finely balanced. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this occasion to see whether the Government can exercise the necessary humanity to guard against injustice in a case where the danger of it seems to be rather more than is usual. My Lords, I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I support this Amendment. When I was a young barrister, a highly respected Queen's Counsel whose practice was almost entirely in the criminal courts, in which he had spent his life—sometimes prosecuting, sometimes defending—said to me: "Nothing would ever persuade me to go into a public convenience in Central London. The risk of finding two plain clothes men there, who had recently been asked by a superior officer what they had
1356
been doing lately as they had not produced any results, is not a risk which any sensible man would take. If my bladder was bursting", he said, "I would sooner pee in the streets ". He may have been wrong and times may have changed, but the position of an innocent man who is not a homosexual, faced with two plain clothes men and their notebooks—note-books which, as my noble friend Lord Gifford reminded us at the Committee stage, the Court of Appeal has said it is quite in order for them to compile together jointly—is full of difficulty. When asked: "Are you really suggesting that these two officers of unblemished character have invented something which never took place at all?", if you are wise you say, "No, I am only suggesting that they are mistaken". Sometimes the circumstances are such that you cannot do that, but if you can, you do so, because otherwise you know how embarrassing the case would be to the justices. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Phillips will accuse me of bias against justices because everybody in the country knows that I am an enthusiast about justices.
The point was put in a letter to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich which the Law Society—they have no axe to grind as between prosecution and defence—sent to him on 10th January. The Law Society were dealing with assaults against the police, but in my submission the reasoning is the same. They said:
"…in offences of this kind, the complainant, that is, the constable assaulted, is likely to be well known to the local magistrates' bench, so that many, perhaps most, cases will in any case have to be brought in, or referred to, courts outside the district in which the assault occurred—though this could be a magistrates' court, we think that, taken in conjunction with the other reasons for trial on indictment, it is an argument for trial in a Crown Court ".
If it is so embarrassing to the local magistrates—one can well understand that this may involve a police officer upon whose evidence they have been accustomed to rely—and if on the evidence they feel driven to find that he has invented something, what will they do when he gives evidence before them in another case the next week, and the week after that, and the week after that? Therefore, as the Law Society say, more often than not the case will have to be referred to some other magistrates' court.
I am not so much concerned with the homosexual as with the person who is

1357
not a homosexual. In any system of justice occasionally innocent people must be convicted. Of course, the ordinary man has no idea what the case against him is when he is charged with soliciting in a public convenience; he has never heard such a case. It is an unpleasant subject, but legislators have to know what happens in real life, and in fact the evidence may vary a great deal. They may say, "You were masturbating while standing at the urinal, to draw attention to yourself as a homosexual". They may merely say, "You smiled at the man next to you, who appeared to be annoyed"; or, "You spoke to somebody who appeared to be annoyed"; or even, "While you were in the convenience two men came out who appeared to be ruffled"; or, "You went into a WC cubicle and they, stooping down on the floor, saw that something or other was happening in there ".
It is practically never the case that the people who are said to have been annoyed are called. It is the policeman who arrests you who is called. It is the individual policeman who decides on a prosecution, and he prosecutes. The individual policeman presents the case, gives the evidence and cross-examines you. Perhaps this is the high-water mark of the deficiencies of not having in this country an independent prosecution service.
Therefore, I respectfully support the Amendment, first because the House has already decided in Committee that the gravity of the offence ought to be taken into account. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, for any ordinary man this is a much graver offence than stealing a book from a bookshop. Secondly, as things now stand, the innocent man gets no notice at all of what he is supposed to have done. He does not know what he is supposed to have done until the policeman goes into the witness box. He cannot give prior instructions to his solicitors as to what the cross-examination ought to be, because the next moment he is in the witness box himself. Thirdly, there are relatively few cases—certainly as compared with assaults on the police—amounting to only about 600 a year which are divided between the 97 Crown Court judges sitting in 200 to 300 different courts. Fourthly,
1358
unlike assaults on the police, this is depriving a man of an existing right which he has.
I have most carefully considered everything which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said at the Committee stage. He said that you are rather better off before magistrates than before a jury, because if a jury convicts you, you have "had it"; whereas if the justices convict you, you have a right of appeal, and this is a re-hearing. This seems to me to leave the facts of life out of account. I am assuming that the case of a man who is not a homosexual and who has been wrongly convicted gets into all the local papers. The boys at the school where his two sons are being educated are told by their fathers that they must on no account go to this man's house and that they had better be very careful not to become too friendly with his two boys. Three months later, in some distant Crown Court, the man is acquitted; but the fact is not even published in the papers and for years a great part of the local population will say, 'Oh yes, that is the man who was convicted as a homosexual".
The only other point which my noble friend makes is that this was a Working Party recommendation which was accepted by the James Committee, on the footing that there is no reason why this rather minor offence should merit more than three months' imprisonment, that that would put it on a par with women, soliciting—which on the grounds of sex equality is right—and that as a consequence the man would lose his right to trial by jury. It is not, with respect, the same offence. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has pointed out, a woman found soliciting on the streets is not prosecuted until she has been warned three times. This is a very sensible arrangement, because it enables her to speak to the welfare and probation officers who will try to persuade her to adopt another mode of life. A man soliciting another man is a wholly different offence. It would be the same offence if you were comparing it with women soliciting women. So far as anybody knows, there is about the same proportion of women with homosexual inclinations as men. Therefore, if it were a case of women soliciting women it would be the same offence, but to say that it is the same

1359
offence as women soliciting men is quite unrealistic.
On all these grounds, particularly because it is depriving men who may be entirely innocent of the right to trial by jury which they at present have, I support the Amendment.
7.29 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, when we discussed the matter during the Committee stage, I indicated to the House that the Government would look at the question in the light of what had been said, although I emphasied that I could give no commitment, so far as the future was concerned, that we would change our views. Indeed, we have reconsidered the question of the appropriate mode of trial for this offence, but we have come to the conclusion that the Bill as drafted is right and that this offence should become triable only summarily.
If I may deal with the points raised by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner, who always speaks persuasively, I am bound to tell him that although he made a number of gracious remarks about magistrates—and indeed I recall his period of office as President of the Magistrates' Association—the criticisms he makes of magistrates in relation to this particular type of offence (and, I understand, in connection with the next Amendment as well) are central to the whole function of the magistracy. I sat for a time as a magistrate. Of course I knew the policeman who often gave evidence; of course the policeman was cross-examined; and of course those prosecuting for the police said, "Why should this policeman tell lies about this particular matter? What conceivable reason has he for so doing?" That does not arise just in cases of this sort; it arises across the whole area of the administration of justice in magistrates' courts; and on that particular point I am bound to say that I did not think my noble and learned friend was as persuasive as he is on so many other questions.
The situation at present is that this is a hybrid offence which is punishable on summary conviction by up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of £100 and on conviction on indictment by up to two
1360
years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. The accused may insist on a jury trial if, but only if, the immoral purpose is the commission of a homosexual act. That is so because of an express provision in Section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act of 1952 as amended.
As has been made clear, the Bill as drafted makes the offence a purely summary one with no right to jury trial but with very much reduced maximum sentences of three months' imprisonment and a fine of £200. The effect of the Amendment would be to make the offence triable either way and in consequence to increase the maximum penalties to slightly more than the existing penalties. In other words, the accused would be able to claim jury trial but would run the risk of up to two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine if he did, and would also be at risk of up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of £1,000, and this for an offence in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, describing the offenders, said: "They do not do very much harm". If that is the scale of penalties for offenders who do not do very much harm, it seems to me that penalties of that description are slightly out of keeping with the gravity of the offence as described by the mover of this Amendment.
The penalties which I have set out are the penalties for all "either way" offences tried summarily under the Bill and these penalties are very much higher than those proposed in the Bill under the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the purely summary offence and, as I have indicated, actually higher than the penalties for the existing hybrid offence. The choice therefore is between putting the offence in the "either way" category with high maximum penalties or summary trial with very much lower penalties. In the view of the Government the high penalties are not justified either when compared with the penalties for the existing offence of soliciting by female prostitutes—a point touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—or in the light of present-day attitudes of society towards homosexuality.
An additional point was raised and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is not with us because on the

1361
last occasion he raised a question concerning acquittals in contested cases for this particular offence. I have written to him and in view of the fact that he is not here I think it is only right to tell the House what the results of our researches have been. I am sure that they will at least give pleasure to my noble friend Lady Phillips because the situation is this. In 1975, of the 627 people who were tried in the magistrates' court, all but 43 pleaded guilty. Of the 43 pleading not guilty, 33—or 77 per cent.—were acquitted by the magistrate. These are the people who one is always told are much more likely to accept the evidence of the police uncritically. In the Crown Court, of the 40 who were tried, 28 pleaded not guilty of whom 17–61 per cent.—were acquitted. I do not believe that an acquittal rate in the magistrates' court of 77 per cent. supports the contention that magistrates are more likely to believe police evidence than that of the defendant.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me I should like to ask one question because I have asked his office but I have not had any reply. It is divided between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts: where in these figures do I find the cases in which the man is wrongly convicted in the magistrates' court and acquitted in the Crown Court?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend indicating that he had written to me about this?
Lord GARDINER: No, my Lords; I communicated with the noble Lord's office.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, but, as he will appreciate, I cannot answer the question.
Perhaps I may sum up in these terms. In proposing that this offence should become triable only summarily with much reduced penalties, the Government are giving effect to the recommendations of two separate bodies. The first is the Working Party to which my noble friend alluded, on vagrancy and street offences, which recommended last year that the maximum custodial penalty should be
1362
reduced to three months, bringing it into line with the maximum penalty for soliciting by women prostitutes, which also is a purely summary offence; and, secondly, we have the view of the James Committee that with a substantial reduction in the penalty there is no longer any reason why the offence should continue to be triable on indictment, bearing in mind of course that it will remain open to anyone convicted of the offence in the magistrates' court to appeal to the Crown Court where the proceedings take the form of a complete re-hearing of the case.
In short that is the view of the Government. I think it is right for us to maintain our position that for offences of this sort the range of penalties should be sharply reduced and they should be triable summarily only. The effect of this Amendment is certainly to give the right of jury trial but also to carry with it a scale of penalties which in our view is wholly inconsistent with the type of offence.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about this problem. It is a problem which has given me a lot of reason for thought and it is a problem about which I dare say I have as much experience as anyone in the House; probably that is not very much in the case of any of the noble Lords who have spoken, and certainly my experience is nor very much, although not quite as small as one might expect because over 50 years one has heard and taken part in trials of this kind. Of course I would agree (subject to the criticism I am about to make later on) with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that the consequences to a man of being convicted of this offence are certainly more serious than are the consequences to a woman convicted of soliciting for the purposes of ordinary prostitution. I believe that to be the case and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has asserted it and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has asserted it and I do not want to dispute it.
Then one goes on to think of one or two other factors. If the case had been made out that such a man as is charged with this offence had a better chance of acquittal in front of a jury than in front of magistrates I am not sure that if would

1363
not have gone along—again subject to criticisms I shall make later—with those two noble Lords who have supported the Amendment. But in fact the evidence is the other way and the figures cited by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, seem to me to be much more than significant: they are virtually conclusive: 43 pleading not guilty before magistrates; the percentage of those pleading not guilty who were acquitted, 33 out of 43, three-quarters or 77 per cent.; before juries, 28 pleading not guilty, 17 acquitted—only 61 per cent.
The fact is, and I believe it to be true, that there are cases where magistrates are more likely to convict than juries and there are cases where juries are more likely to convict than magistrates. They are not an absolutely identical tribunal in every class of offence but these figures really establish what I have always believed, that the rather sophisticated person who knows the world, who becomes a magistrate, is very much more likely to acquit and disbelieve the police than the jury, and in my experience, which is limited but not altogether negligible, the average random voter—which is what the juryman is—has a great deal more prejudice against those who are charged with this offence than a magistrate has. Therefore, not only has the support for this Amendment not got evidence in its favour, but I believe there are conclusive reasons for believing the ocntrary to be the case. That is the first thing which has to be said about the Amendment.
Next, one must look at it in principle. Before the Act of, I think, 1969, when sexual offences were abolished as between consenting males in private, there was a good case both for severe penalties for this offence and for sending it to a jury at the option of the accused, because it was intrinsic to these offences, or almost every one, that the person soliciting was soliciting the other person to commit with him what was then intrinsically a criminal offence; in other words, he was inciting the commission of a crime. When a female prostitute approaches a man she is doing nothing of the kind. She is inciting the man to do something which may be morally reprehensible but which is in no sense a crime at all; namely, to have sexual intercourse with her.
The position since 1969 has been virtually the same in relation to the male
1364
solicitor; he is soliciting an adult male to commit with him in private what, if committed in private, is no longer an offence, in the opinion of Parliament. I do not say that I wholly agree with the policy of Parliament in that, but in fact the position of the male solicitor since 1969, or whatever the exact date of the Act was, has been put on a par by Parliament, quite deliberately as a matter of policy, with the female prostitute soliciting in a public place. Therefore, there can be no reason for differentiating between the two. I must say, speaking from some experience of political life, that when one came to discuss with women's organisations the situation of the female prostitute charged with a solicitation offence it was always a matter of grievance to them that the male prostitute, although subject to higher offences, was in fact treated in a different, and, as they said, a superior way.
I want to deal with one or two of the other arguments which have been put forward in support of this Amendment, because I really think they are fallacious. In the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that what he called—I forget the exact phrase he used—homo-sexual public opinion was prepared to take more severe penalties in order to get trial by jury. Quite frankly, I have never accepted the view—the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, will remember that I had this battle with her in relation to motoring offences, when I was Lord Chancellor—that in order to give trial by jury it was legitimate to impose maximum penalties which the offence did not deserve intrinsically. This is intrinsically a bad principle of criminal jurisprudence and nothing that one says can really justify it.
Secondly, one of the reasons why the acquittal rate may be substantially much lower in front of a jury than in front of magistrates is the one I have dealt with; that is, because I sincerely believe that the random voter has more prejudice against the man in the dock in respect of this kind of offence than has the rather more sophisticated type who is a lay or professional magistrate. But the other reason is precisely the one which for some reason the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, gave for supporting the Amendment; that is, that the accused

1365
is prosecuted, and, therefore, cross-examined, by a professional prosecutor and not by an incompetent policeman. It is undoubtedly most extraordinary that people should continue going to trial by jury, facing a much lower rate of acquittal, in order to get their clients cross-examined by a professional prosecutor instead of an incompetent policeman—and policemen, believe me, are incompetent at cross-examination; they are not good cross-examiners, and a lot of people get away for precisely that reason.
There is one other remark I want to make to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. They have both said, and I accept, that the consequences to a man of conviction for this offence can be extremely serious. I have never defended homosexual conduct. I think it is a corrupt and corrupting offence. But it ought never to carry social consequences, beyond the consequences of prosecution and conviction, for this particular offence, which is not a particularly corrupt or corrupting example of it. If you want to reduce the social consequences of conviction for male solicitation, the very worst thing you can do is to build it up into a jury trial where the man is given the whole panoply of the law. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on the social consequences pending trial. Of course, they attract those consequences, but that is almost necessarily true, whether the man opts for trial by jury, or whether, as he was positing in that particular case, he is convicted by the magistrates and then opts to appeal. The consequences are the same; the delay approximately identical.
Therefore, although I recognise the sincerity of both noble Lords who have put forward this Amendment, I believe that the Government are right; that is, that the balance of argument, whether you look at it from the point of view of principle or whether you look at it from the point of view of practice or of seriousness or humanity, is wholly the other way.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I should have thought there was all the difference in the world between a person who has elected trial by jury, and, therefore, has not been tried at all, and a person who
1366
has been convicted, and having been convicted is entering an appeal and is hoping eventually to be acquitted. I should have thought those two things were about as far apart as any two things possibly could be. What I was intending to say was that I do not think very much of a percentage deduction drawn from a sample of only 43 cases. 1 should have thought that was far too small a sample from which to draw any accurate reliable percentage at all.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, before he sits down, the boot is on the other foot. The case was put forward without a ha'porth of evidence by the two supporters of the Amendment that magistrates were more likely to convict than juries. The burden of proof is on them to support their assertion.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, it is a very difficult question. I only want to say that, so far as I am concerned, it seems a question of whether somebody should be allowed to opt for jury trial, at the risk of getting a worse penalty and his name in all the papers, of whether he should be allowed not to. If I were a homosexual, which I am not although you may not believe me, I might have the greatest difficulty, because, unlike the gentleman referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I have often been into public lavatories. I have not been arrested but questioned by a plain clothes detective in a mackintosh for running down a street with a typewriter which I had bought. I was catching a train, and I tried to convince him that I had the receipt in my pocket. I could not find it, of course. I then found out his number and tried to put the boot on the other foot; he admitted that he had no evidence. Of course, the moment I had left him I found the receipt in my pocket. I do not believe that if one goes into statistics of this kind it is really relevant; otherwise one would go on a I night. "Tell me not in mournful numbers"; this has the greatest chance of success.
Is it not a policy of a great many people in this House that people should not be treated as children unless they are children. Then they must be defended. But someone who is fairly or unfairly accused of

1367
something in certain cases should have the right to go to a jury. I am inclined to think that this is one of the cases that should not be included in the Schedule. I may be wrong, but I say that entirely on the ground of allowing people a choice to make up their minds whether they have committed an offence which may or may not be serious. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that very often it is a serious offence. However, I believe that that is the fundamental principle.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, following the speech of the Minister and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I shall not attempt to gild the lily. I should like to make a small contribution on a general point. Whatever the offence, it is unlikely that magistrates become any more tired, cynical or dispirited than judges. I hope that I can establish at the beginning of my remarks that that it is not a very good argument to advance. I have heard that advanced several times and it is a totally fallacious argument.
Anyone who has sat in a Crown Court is always amazed by the fact that the jury, who are, presumably, drawn from an unsophisticated or an unlearned source, are expected to sit, sometimes for long periods—on one occasion in my experience they sat on a particular case for 21 days—and are never given the opportunity—I do not know why—to make any notes. They are expected to rely totally on their memories despite the fact that the learned judge takes notes, and when I sit on the bench I take notes. Anyone who imagines that the jury brings in the verdict must be suffering from a delusion. The judge directs them and unless they have an extraordinarily good memory, they are bound to be very heavily influenced by his decision.
I appreciate the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner about magistrates' Certainly the cases of this type of which I have had experience in central London—and they are quite frequent—do not appear to be couched in quite the terms that the noble and learned Lord described. There always seems to be more than one occasion when the accused has been followed; two plain-clothes men appear to have followed the
1368
individual for quite some time. I deplore the waste of time and skilled manpower. However, cases do not appear to have been brought in the way in which the noble and learned Lord described—just one appearance in a public lavatory and a policeman who gave evidence using his notebook.
Magistrates are our peer group and I am deeply indebted to the Minister for the figures he gave which we shall be able to use and re-use. Perhaps we shall be able to have figures for each of these particular offences which have been described. I believe that this is a minor offence and that the case for publicity is diminished when such a case comes before a magistrates' court. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it is highly unlikely that one will see the same policeman every day on every case. There is quite a good chance that one will not know the policeman nor in any way be guided by his evidence. I heartily support the Government in asking for the rejection of the Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I think that there is at least general agreement about one matter; namely, that the penalties are absurd. We have had an extremely good debate on the merits of this Amendment. I still maintain that, although I am distrustful of pressure groups in principle, because they tend to overstate their case, and although I am much more trustful of them when they are on the defensive rather than when, in certain cases, they are on the attack, this is a question where they are on the defensive. I still hold very strongly to the view that if they think these admittedly absurd penalties are worth keeping, then they are putting a very strong case, taking into account their records and experience, for my Amendment.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that it is wrong to have penalties which are too great for such an offence. However, we are merely discussing one imperfection of the law against another. If we left the status quo as it is, we should have one imperfection; if we pass this Amendment we should, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, have another. There are all sorts of ways of getting round this. The way that I should choose is that in cases of this kind no case should be

1369
brought without the evidence of a member of the public that he or she had actually been offended. Such an amendment would cut across the whole matter and would solve many problems. However, that is not before us. The Bill is before us.
I am cheered by the figures that have been given—I am impressed by them. I agree with my noble friend that perhaps the sample is not that enormous and I am not certain that in this case the burden of truth is on this side. Nevertheless, I am impressed by the figures. The Government have made out a reasonable case, although I am not completely convinced. I should be most grateful if the Government would answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and possibly write to him and to me about it. The noble and learned Lord asked about the figures for acquittals in the Crown Court on appeal from magistrates' courts. With that reservation and the reservation that I may have to raise the matter again at another stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.57 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 68B:
Page 41, leave out lines 30 to 38.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to make the offence of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty triable either way instead of being, as in the Bill, triable only by summary trial. A similar Amendment was moved on Committee by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He was satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and withdrew the Amendment. I was not.
We are now dealing with a wholly different kind of offence from that dealt with in the previous Amendment. First, it is an offence which the James Committee considered should be triable either way. At paragraph 156 of its report the Committee said:
"There is a case for abolishing this offence altogether, on the ground that the general assault offences would be adequate to deal with assaults on the police, the fact that the victim was a policeman being an aggravating feature which can properly be taken into account in considering the appropriate sentence."
1370
Having rejected that as being properly unacceptable to public opinion, the Committee went on to say:
"Where the case is contested there is often a straight conflict between the evidence of the defendant and that of the police; if there is such a conflict, it can be said that the prosecution has a special involvement in the case and that therefore it is particularly suitable for resolution by a jury."
It is, of course, the case at present that this offence does not carry with it the right of the defendant to elect for trial by jury. He can go for trial by jury only upon the election of the prosecution. Of course it will be said by my noble friend Lord Harris that to accept this Amendment would increase the burden of the Crown Courts. It would. However, in this Bill we seek to classify in some kind of correct and permanent manner the various offences and the modes of trial which are appropriate for them. We really must go back to first principles on this Amendment and consider the basis on which this classification is to be made. I adopt, and I believe the Government adopt, the principle which was the basis of the James Committee's Report, and it is set out in paragraph 41:
"For the purpose of determining whether a offence should be triable on indictment the primary consideration must be the seriousness of the offence in the eyes of society."
What of the offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty? Let us first see what the Judiciary say about it. In the Court of Appeal in 1975 there was heard the case of Coleman, and this is what was said by the Court presided over by Lord Justice Lawton:
"When the police were trying to do their important job of maintaining public order, people who deliberately used violence in order to impede them must expect immediate custodial sentences. There should be no exceptions save where the mitigation was wholly acceptable."
There could not be a more trenchant view expressed of the seriousness with which at any rate the Judiciary regard this offence, and I have heard those sentiments echoed by judges and magistrates throughout the country.
One cannot say that this is in any sense a minor offence. That it is not a minor offence is reflected in the penalties actually imposed. In Criminal Statistics for 1975, at page 222, are set out the various terms of imprisonment imposed by magistrates for various offences. For assault on a constable there is a total of 579 immediate prison sentences, of which some 248

1371
were sentences of over three months. If one looks down the column, particularly the over three months column, and at all the other offences which are to remain summary offences after this Bill is passed, there is nothing which comes anywhere near assault on a constable in respect of the numbers of prison sentences imposed. One sees that drunkenness with aggravation has a heavy total of 523 prison sentences, but most of them are very short.
By any criteria of seriousness this is an offence which ought to be triable either way, and one fears that the only criterion which is keeping it a summary offence is the criterion of expediency. At Committee my noble friend Lord Harris gave a reply which smacked to me of woolly, and dangerously woolly, thinking. He said among other things:
"There is no reason for saying that a jury is a better tribunal for establishing the truth than is a bench of lay magistrates."
Let us remember what this Bill is about. If this sentiment expressed here were correct we need not bother about juries at all but could have every offence triable by magistrates. It is no disrespect to the magistracy to say that if they by and large are a good tribunal, a jury is a better one, and where serious offences are at stake then the better one must be one that at any rate has an election in the defendant. My noble friend backed up his argument by quoting the same table of statistics showing that a greater proportion of persons were acquitted in the magistrates' courts on this offence than at the Crown Court. So it seems they are, but those statistics are of no value in this deliberation because the offences that go to the Crown Court are offences of a very different order. They are offences which the prosecution has chosen to take to the Crown Court, and the prosecution has chosen to take them often because they are offences of seriousness, often because they are offences which the prosecution considers it can prove and on which it has a good case, and often because the offences are of a particular class which are linked with other offences.
On Committee I raised this question of what is going to happen when a person is charged, as is very common, with, one, an offence which is triable either way, and two, the offence of assault on the police, and he elects to go for trial on the offence
1372
triable either way. My noble friend Lord Harris wrote to me indicating that inevitably there would have to be two trials, and there was no way in which one could have both offences triable by a jury. Two trials—perhaps that is right; but it is another reason for making this offence triable either way.
I would ask the House to look carefully at this offence, to re-examine the arguments of expense and expediency that will be put forward. No doubt there are other offences which could be made triable summarily. I do not want to anticipate a later Amendment, but perhaps certain offences of the possession of very small quantities of drugs could be made triable summarily only. At Committee I put forward various arguments from my experience as to the injustice done by keeping this offence triable summarily only. I will not repeat those arguments. They are already on the record. However, they are additional arguments which I commend to your Lordships. I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House about this, but I think that the House should know what I should have told it if I had been able to be here at the Committee stags of the Bill, and which it was not told, and that is the view of the Law Society which they have previously communicated to the Home Office. The Law Society, after all, have enormous experience in these fields, and as a whole are sensible people. They said:
"On this offence we support the recommendation of the James Committee that the present law whereby the prosecution can elect trial on indictment but not the defendant is indefensible "—
the House will remember that that was the James Committee's word: indefensible—
"and that it should be changed so that the defence also has this choice. There are in our opinion several reasons for special treatment of this offence and why it should not at this moment in particular be reduced to a summary offence only.

"(a) The offence is currently under consideration by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and no change should be made until their conclusions are known other than to bring it into line with the general rule on intermediate offences.

"(b) In offences of this kind the complainant, that is, the constable assaulted, is likely to be well known to the local magistrates' bench so that many, perhaps most, cases would in any case have to be brought in or referred to courts outside

1373
the district in which the assault occurred. Though this could be a magistrates' court, we think that taken in conjunction with the other reasons for trial on indictment it is an argument for trial in a Crown Court.

"(c) The James Committee observed that in cases of this kind there is often a straight conflict between the evidence of the defendant and that of the police. If there is such a conflict it can be said that the prosecution has a special involvement in the case and that therefore it is particularly suitable for resolution by a jury. We support this view strongly.

"(d) We think that public opinion probably attaches a special significance to assaults on the police and would support these being the subject of a separate and perhaps more serious offence.

"(e) We also think that the police should be consulted before this offence is in effect demoted, and if they would like the separate offence retained in recognition of the special risks to which they are exposed, we see no reason why this should be denied."

I would ask the Government again to take these views into account. On the last point, which again was not mentioned when the position was considered in Committee, would my noble friend tell us whether I am right in saying that the police superintendents have made the strongest protest to the Home Office about this crime being demoted to a purely summary offence?
8.10 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am trying to find out the answer to the question which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner just put to me. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation, which of course represent both the overwhelming proportion of uniformed ranks and the chief police officers, have expressed themselves in support of the Government's position in this matter. I am bound to tell Lord Gardiner that. We had a quite prolonged debate on this matter in Committee and I then expressed the view, which I repeat, that the Government do not believe it right to make an Amendment on the lines of that proposed, and there is nothing we have seen in the situation since then that has made us in any way change our views.
I will first discuss the scale of the matter and then come to the arguments which have been adduced tonight and on the previous occasion. Let us have no doubt about it that if the Amendment were carried it would, as the James Committee indicated, be likely to result in substantially more of these cases going for trial to the Crown
1374
Court on the defendant's election. In 1975 there were 12,000 cases of this offence, of which 1,400 were committed for trial at the Crown Court, presumably for the most part at the wish of the prosecution. This is inevitably a difficult matter, but it is estimated that if the accused is given the right to choose trial by jury, up to twice as many people—that is, an additional 2,000 cases or more —might elect to be tried at the Crown Court.
This is an important factor—I do not regard it as a conclusive one—which must be taken seriously into consideration at a time when there is very substantial pressure on the Crown Courts. But if there were a fundamental argument of principle which points in the opposite direction, then clearly the Committee should accept that argument. I do not believe that any such argument was deployed on the last occasion, nor, with respect, do I accept that one has been deployed tonight.
The question here is whether the defendant should have the right to claim a trial by jury. Underlying this—it has been put with substantial candour by my noble friend Lord Gifford and by Lord Gardiner—is the argument that magistrates, who are daily accustomed to seeing police officers giving evidence before their court, will tend to accept police evidence in assault cases rather than the evidence of the accused. I apologise for repeating it, but I think it only right to return to the point——
Lord HALE: My Lords, would my noble friend permit me to intervene at this point?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to deal with this issue I will gladly give way to him. The point I made in answer to my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker on 26th January was that the statistics showed that of the accused who pleaded not guilty in the magistrates' court, 27 per cent. were acquitted, and of those who pleaded not guilty in the Crown Court, 20 per cent. were acquitted. My noble friend has tried to answer that point today, but, with respect to him, I do not believe he has succeeded in discharging the onus of proof which was on him in this matter, as the noble and

1375
learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said it was on the last matter.
Those who claim that people are less likely to get justice from a magistrates' court must not push on one side quite as brusquely as my noble friend did this evening, evidence which appears to show precisely the contrary. At the moment one is marginally more likely to be acquitted in a magistrates' court than would be the position in a Crown Court.
Lord HALE: My Lords, my noble friend is on the very point I was about to make. I agree there is always a fear, remembering that justice must be seen to be done, that in a local court the Judiciary may know, or think they know, a great deal about the parties to the case, and there is a fear, even if it cannot be fully justified, that they may take their knowledge into account. But of course they can take it into account both ways. They may have a very deep distrust of a particular constable; a constable who possibly has been severely assaulted may be an unpopular constable. They may know quite a bit. In a case which depends so much on personal evidence—and, as my noble friend said, a case which the Judiciary insists must be regarded as having potentially very serious factors—there is a case surely for feeling that either side, the individual constable or the individual defendant, may feel that justice is better served by a completely independent court.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I hope that any court would be an independent court, my Lords. As I have indicated, it appears that the magistrates have been more likely to throw out cases of this sort. I must repeat this point because those who favour the Amendment tend repeatedly to push it on one side. It is vital to bear something else in mind, and that is the view of the James Committee in this matter. The figures of the acquittal rates in contested cases which I gave in answer to Lord Gordon-Walker were not available to the James Committee. It is of course impossible to say what view the James Committee would have taken if they had had that information. I am simply saying that it is not an unimportant factor to remember that they did not have the opportunity to consider that information.
1376
One of the problems which the James Committee faced was that of penalties. It is true that the James Committee recommended that the offence be triable either way. Their recommendation was, however, qualified by the rider: unless the maximum penalties are severely curtailed. They have been, as I said specifically in answer to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, with the approval of the police organisations. Incidentally, I have attempted to elicit information about the attitude of the Superintendents' Association, but I have not been able to find any information to confirm what my noble and learned friend put to me. I will continue to try to find out, but I suspect that I shall not be able to discover the information before the end of tonight's proceedings.
That is the position which I put to some extent on the last occasion. During the debate we had on that occasion, Lord Gifford raised the question of linked offences. That is the situation where, if the Bill goes through in its present form, in future an assault on the police is charged at the same time as an offence which is to be tried at the Crown Court. My noble friend suggested that in these circumstances the assault charge should also be chargeable on indictment. As I indicated when I wrote to him, this is not a problem peculiar to the offence of an assault on the police; it could apply in many other cases, and I think it would be a very difficult matter to say that we should deal with assault cases on the police in one way and adopt a totally different method in cases affecting some other charge.
The James Committee specifically considered a proposal that a magistrates' court, when committing a person to the Crown Court for trial, should have power to commit him for trial at the same time in respect of any related summary offence. While recognising that such a procedure would avoid the existing difficulties of whether to try the purely summary offence before or after the Crown Court trial, the James Committee pointed to other difficulties which this would create. They said:
"It is fairly straightforward for the Crown Court, when sentencing a person for one offence, to consider at the same time the sentence for other offences which would usually be related, since this adds little to the work involved."

1377
They went on:
"It is another matter to make provision enabling summary offences to be tried by a judge and jury."
It would add significantly to the already heavy burden on juries if they were required to try a string of minor offences, and moreover offences which in other circumstances were not considered sufficiently serious to justify jury trial. The witness statements and documentation would have to be prepared as for an indictable offence, counsel on both sides would have to be briefed in relation to the summary offences and, in the event of an appeal against conviction of a summary offence, the defendant would presumably be entitled to go to the Court of Appeal. These seem to us powerful arguments against making special provision for linked offences—whether in relation to assaults on the police or some other summary offence—and while we would probably all agree that there may be some circumstances where it may be desirable for the two offences to be tried together, the Government's view is that the remedy would be worse than the disease.
I should just like to deal with one other point raised by my noble friend; that is, the question of the penalties imposed by magistrates' courts in dealing with assaults on the police. My noble friend very kindly indicated to me that he was going to raise this question, and he pointed out today that a very high proportion of those who were convicted in magistrates' courts were sentenced to imprisonment and that a high proportion of these received sentences of over three months.
Let me begin by saying that the statement is only true if motoring offences are left out of account because the table on page 222, which I have no doubt that my noble friend has studied, lumps all motoring offences together in a total of 1,730 and this includes a very high proportion of sentences of immediate imprisonment for the principal offence of driving while disqualified. So that is a point on the factual basis of what my noble friend said. It is perfectly understandable and I would accuse him of no error. It is simply the way in which the figures have appeared.
If we leave aside driving while disqualified, in terms of the absolute number of offences the next most numerous
1378
groups are assaults on the police, drunkenness with aggravation, drug offences and frequenting by a suspected person with intent to commit an arrestable offence. But, when these offences are repeated to the total number of prosecutions brought for each of the offences I have just named, the differences are far less striking. For assaults on the police the total was 4·8 per cent.—less than 5 per cent.—who received an immediate sentence of imprisonment. For frequenting by a suspected person with intent to commit an arrestable offence, the percentage was significantly higher. It was 7·4 per cent.
When we come to this question about the length of the sentences of imprisonment, it is certainly true that over half the sentences of immediate imprisonment imposed on people convicted of these assaults are for two months or more, but that is also true of social security offences and, indeed, of the offence of possessing an offensive weapon. Hence, that particular feature of the case is not quite so peculiar as my noble friend no doubt imagined. All I should like to do before I sit down is to repeat that, in our view, it is reasonable in all the circumstances to treat this matter as a summary offence and to say that I believe that that is justified given the argument which I put to the House this evening.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sit s down, I wonder whether he can answer one question. We are all devoted to law and order and to seeing that justice is seen to be done, and I am wondering whether it would not be better in the interests of the police—and, after all, they are a very special category in our society, certainly so far as the courts are concerned—for any case brought by the police or against the police to be heard other than in their own petty sessional division. I should have thought that to be able to go to the Crown Court or, indeed, to another court outside their division would be in their own interest. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what he thinks about that.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I never like giving answers off the cuff to questions of that sort but, in my view, I would not favour a proposal of that kind. It would seem to me that to treat this particular case in the particular

1379
manner which the noble Baroness has suggested would be quite inappropriate. I do not believe that the figures that I have given indicate that there is a degree of prejudice among magistrates against people charged with this offence. I repeat, the evidence that I have given in answer to my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker indicates that one is less likely to be convicted of this offence in a magistrates' court than in a Crown Court. I do not believe that there is any basis for the fears which, perfectly understandably, have been expressed in this matter. Accordingly, I would not favour a proposal on the lines put forward by the noble Baroness.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, one of the problems of moving an Amendment late in the evening and to a sparse House is that it is difficult to know how far what one says is receiving support or otherwise. In answer to one or two of the points made by my noble friend Lord Harris, I believe that there is a fundamental principle here; that is, the principle that an offence which society considers to be a serious offence should carry with it the right to trial by jury. Something was said about the onus of proof. I am not sure how far it is useful to be to-ing and fro-ing the statistics of convictions and acquittals in the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts. I prefer the evidence of my experience and I believe that, of these very many people who plead not guilty and are convicted in the magistrates' courts—they number some 1,000 to 1,200—a number will have been wrongly convicted and a number, had they had the right to trial by jury, would have exercised it and would, with the more thorough investigation that can take place before a jury, have been rightly acquitted.
So far as the criminal statistics are concerned, we can all bandy figures backwards and forwards, but the fact remains that more people are sentenced to terms of imprisonment—usually long ones—for this offence than for any other offence that is to remain summary. This is not an Amendment which, because of the importance of the issue involved and the numbers of people concerned, that I am prepared to withdraw. I shall take the sound of the House and see what support I get.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.28 p.m.
LORD HARRIS of GREENWICH LORD HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No 69:
Page 43, line, at end insert—
("HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC ACT 1974 (c. 37)

20. Offences under section 33(5) (continuing contravention of improvement notice, prohibition notice or court order).

Section 33(5).

For the words from "liable" to "£50" substitute "liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100".

£50 for each day on which the contravention continues.

£100 for each day on which the contravention continues.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment is largely self-explanatory. It increases from £50 to £100 the maximum daily fine which may be imposed for a continuing offence against regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 44, leave out line 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the offence of bigamy. As your Lordships will recall, the offence of bigamy has always been one triable only on indictment. Until very recently, the offence was one which was only triable in the court which we used to call the assize court. In recent years, it has been possible for this offence to be tried in the circuit court.
The purpose of the Amendment is to eliminate change in this respect and to leave the position that bigamy should be an offence triable only on indictment. I moved an Amendment in the same terms on 10th February and, when I had given the reasons in support of the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Donald-son, said in his reply that it was not a case of crucial importance and suggested that if I were content not to press the Amendment his noble friend could think about the matter again. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, then made a speech in support of the Amendment, and a speech also in support of the Amendment was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I began to make a brief reply and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said:
"May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I have promised reflection."—[Official Report, 10/2/77; col. 1329.]
I acknowledged that and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The reasons why I advance the Amendment can be stated with brevity. I am sure that it will be agreed that the offence of bigamy is one that may vary very greatly in its gravity. There could be some offences of bigamy which approximate in gravity to the offence of rape. In many cases of bigamy difficult questions of law may be involved. To allow the
1382
present position to remain rather than to make this change would I think have virtually no effect upon the purpose which we all wish to advance; namely, the purpose of relieving the Crown Court of work to the greatest extent possible.
I should like to remind your Lordships that some of us who have taken some part in these debates have favoured the main parts of the Bill which put into effect the Report of the James Committee, though we have demurred in regard to one or two matters where we have thought that points of principle are involved. For example, there was the provision which would have withdrawn the right to trial by jury in cases of theft if the amount involved was below a certain amount. That was an example of a question of principle that was involved.
We now have figures showing the number of cases of bigamy that come before the court, and it is remarkable to see how in recent years that number has greatly diminished. The James Report told us that in 1959 there were 89 cases. I regarded that as a surprisingly small figure. The James Report further told us that by the year 1974, 27 persons had been sent for trial. Again that struck me as being a very surprisingly low figure, and we were told in the James Report that of the 27, seven persons received sentences of immediate imprisonment and eight received suspended sentences.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was able to give us further information, and he gave us the figure for the year 1975. Again we note the remarkable diminution in the number: 18 cases in the year 1975. He told us that of that number, seven only received sentences of immediate imprisonment and in six cases there were suspended sentences. I should like to submit to your Lordships what these figures show. In the first place they show that if these cases were to be dealt with by magistrates, and only by magistrates, magistrates would in the nature of things not be in a position to acquire or to possess any accumulation of experience as to the appropriate way to deal with these cases. A result of that would inevitably be that it would be an embarrassment for magistrates to have to decide as to the appropriate course to follow.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in his speech on the former occasion pointed out with great force, if I may respectfully say so, that one of the main problems in cases such as bigamy is to decide, once guilt is established or where guilt is acknowledged, what is the appropriate course to follow. The noble and learned Lord said that if these cases are to be dealt with only in magistrates' courts there might well be peril that magistrates, lacking the experience which others might possess, might on occasion pass sentences that were too severe. It may be indeed that magistrates would not wish to have the additional burden of trying these cases, very, very few in number as they will be.
It was also said on the previous occasion that the offence of bigamy is probably not today regarded by the public as being as serious as the public formerly regarded it. That is probably so. I think also that it is unfortunate that it is so. But if this offence is for the future to be capable of being summarily dealt with, though of course only within the powers that the magistrates would possess on considering a particular case, then as an offence it would be downgraded and it would be made to the public to appear that the offence lacks the gravity that it surely possesses. So I submit that to make this change will not really advance the purpose that we all applaud, and in itself this change would be contrary to the fitness of things. I beg to move.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, this Amendment was fully discussed in Committee, and on that occasion, as indeed on this, it was argued that the offence of bigamy is never suitable for trial by magistrates because the legal issues are likely to be too complex. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has pointed out, the Government promised reflection on this. The Government have reflected, but remain of the view that while some cases will present complex issues many, per haps most, do not. Equally the Government recognise, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, that magistrates may rarely have a case and that therefore it may be that they could face difficulties on sentencing.
1384
But that may well apply to an individual Crown Court judge.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has just reminded us, there were in 1975 only 18 cases, and there are many hundreds of judges who may sit in the Crown Court, and for every one judge who has to pass sentence in such a case there may be 40 who do not encounter such a case. Where the magistrates are in doubt they may commit for trial at any time up to the conclusion of the case. It therefore seems to us that the magistrates should not be obliged in every case to send the case to the Crown Court, and as was pointed out in Committee the plea in bigamy cases is usually one of guilty. So the Government have concluded, after due consideration of the views which were expressed at Committee, that they should prefer the recommendation of the James Committee that bigamy should be triable either way, and I would urge the noble and learned Lord not to press the Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY LEBONE: My Lords, I am very disappointed indeed in that reply. I do not want to go into the matter of whether the questions of law are sufficiently frequent or sufficiently difficult to take the case, on a contested plea, to the Crown Court. I think the argument there is fairly evenly balanced, though on balance I would have agreed with my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. But where I think the Government have not given due consideration to this is on the question of sentence. I think there is a genuine danger of aberrant and over-severe sentences by inexperienced benches of magistrates. I simply do not accept the Government's reply that some Crown Court judges—who, after all, can be appointed only after ten or more years' experience at the Bar—are so incompetent that they cannot approach the matter with a real professionalism which magistrates cannot ordinarily show. For those reasons, if the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches presses this Amendment, I shall support him.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, for once I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has said. I do not

1385
assume from the brevity of the Government's reply that inadequate consideration has been given to this particular proposal, but I must say that the reasons advanced for rejecting what my noble and learned friend has so persuasively urged seem to me to be wholly inadequate. It cannot be maintained that to let bigamy cases be dealt with as they are now will appreciably add to the burden on the Crown Courts. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I shall have no hesitation in joining my noble and learned friend in the Lobby should he seek to divide the House on this point.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, what is the Government's real object in resisting this Amendment? Is it really in order seriously to relieve the burden upon the Crown Courts? Because we are dealing with an infinitesimal number of cases, and it is not going to have any noticeable effect upon the work in the Crown Courts at all.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may answer that question and the other points that have been raised. First, it cannot be argued, I have not argued and I do not argue, that the Government defend their
8.52 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 45, line 23, leave out paragraph 19.
position on the basis of the burden on the courts. The Government rest on the recommendation of the James Committee and upon the other reasons which I gave; namely, that the great majority of cases, certainly, and it appears most of the cases, are unlikely to raise difficult questions of a kind with which the magistrates cannot properly deal. I certainly do not suggest, and I hope no one will attribute to me, the words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, used. I do not suggest that the judges are incompetent, or "so incompetent", at all. What I suggested, and what I think the figures establish, is that very few Crown Court judges can have any experience of sentencing in relation to bigamy.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I find that an astonishing suggestion having regard to their previous experience at the Bar.
8.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 70) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Avebury, L.

Long, V.

St. Just, L.

Barrington, V.

Lyell, L.

Sandys, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seear, B.

de Clifford, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Northchurch, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Blyton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Brimelow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

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

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gifford, L.

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this relates to the offence of complicity in suicide. I moved an Amendment in Committee to the effect that the law should remain as it is. It was said that consideration would be given to this matter. I have reason to think that consideration has been given to it, with the

1387
result that this Amendment is going to be favourably viewed. If that is so, then your Lordships will be spared hearing me utter anything further. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government have given further thought to this matter in the light of the views expressed in Committee. Although the James Committee evidently thought that this offence is not so serious as to warrant trial at the Crown Court in every case, they did not argue the point in any detail. In view of the very small number of cases involved, the Government are prepared to recommend that the House accept this Amendment. I should add that it will require a matching Amendment to remove the offence from Schedule 3.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having, for once, changed their mind. I am quite sure that it is a change in the right direction but I must say, frankly, that I do not regard the carrying on of these debates at this hour of the night, with such a thin House, as at all a good way of improving our criminal law. In the light of the last Division, I am confirmed in the protest I made to begin with. It is sheer incompetence on the part of the Government that they have to do this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.54 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 45, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am sorry to move this Amendment at this late hour. I think it is an important Amendment—perhaps more important than the last two Amendments that the House has considered. I share the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, about the undesirability of the House considering this matter on the Report stage of this important Bill in such a thin House. I am not in the least satisfied that there is such urgency about the passage of this measure through the House that this belated procedure is in the least degree necessary.
I moved a similar Amendment to this in Committee and I make no apology for
1388
moving it again. It is an Amendment to remove the provision making burglary in a dwelling, where entry was obtained by force or deception or by the use of any tool—and mark these words!—or where any person in the dwelling was subjected to violence or the threat of violence, triable summarily. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was responsible for most of the recommendations which were enacted in the Theft Act 1968, recommended against making this offence triable summarily. If your Lord ships care to look at it, you will see that in paragraph 184 of their report they said that cases which came within this category make up one of the two most serious categories of burglary, or at least:
"those in respect of which the objection to summary trial is strongest."
That was a very responsible committee. It reported in 1966. I do not know how many cases there were of burglary in 1966 which came within that category. I suspect that there are a great many more now.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who was replying to the debate, said that there were 9,249 cases of burglary in dwellings where entry was made by force or deception. He did not state, according to Hansard—and I do not recollect that he did so—what year he was speaking about; but he went on to say he did not know how many of those cases came within the category now under consideration. We were not given any information then—and I do not suppose it is available now—as to the number of cases where burglary was effected in a dwellinghouse where violence was used or threatened towards persons in the dwellinghouse. It would be interesting to know how many cases there were of that category.
I accept that in these days the number of those cases may be considerable. I recognise, too, that the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment will mean that the Crown Courts are not relieved of the burden to the extent that this Bill proposes; but I believe that, having regard to the gravity of offences within this category and their prevalence, this is not the time when it should be made triable summarily. This is not the time to denigrate the character of the offence and make it look less serious than it is.

1389
I need not dilate upon the distress that this crime causes. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, said that in serious cases it was the practice of her court to commit straight away. If that is the usual practice throughout the country, and the practice remains unchanged, I recognise that the non-acceptance of this Amendment will have little effect. But I fear that if the Bill is passed in its present form it will mean that many of these most serious cases of burglary will be dealt with summarily; and I do not think that is right.
My Lords, in Committee I said that I understood it to be the case that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had been urging Crown Courts to pass substantial custodial sentences for this offence even on a first offender, and that 18 months had been suggested as a maximum sentence. No observation was made in reply with regard to that, and I take it to be the case that that has been the view urged by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Now, as a result of what happened last week, that sentence can be passed on those who commit offences in this category and who are under 21. I suspect—and it will be interesting to know if the Government can confirm—that a great number of these very serious offences, serious in the consequences on the people affected, are committed by persons under 21.
I think I have the support of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) as well as the view of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that offences in this particular category are extremely serious. As I say, in my view their prevalence is such that they should not be downgraded at this time. I am not going to assert that magistrates are too ready to assume jurisdiction, because I do not think that that is likely to be so when they know the full circumstances of a case. But I have known of cases where, at the instance of the police, magistrates have exercised jurisdiction in cases which clearly should have gone for trial.
I remember one case which occurred when I was Lord Chancellor. A bench of magistrates were dealing with a case summarily which shocked public opinion throughout the country. There was a considerable fuss about it which led to
1390
inquiry and a lot of criticism of the magistrates. What emerged upon inquiry was that it was at the instance of the police that the case was dealt with summarily by the magistrates, that the bench had not been fully informed as to the circumstances, and one of the circumstances which was relevant to the decision to deal with the case summarily was that at the time when the case would have been heard, if committed for trial, some of the police witnesses would have been on holiday and would have had to be recalled.
I do not wish to blame the police; there may be cases where, owing to the pressure on police time, there is a great argument for dealing with a case speedily and disposing of it quickly in the magistrates' court rather than incurring the trouble of attending at the Crown Court, possibly in a few months' time, and the taking up of police time on that.
I am not for one moment suggesting that magistrates would too readily assume jurisdiction; but I fear that if this Bill is carried in its present form, one may well see the police asking for cases to be dealt with summarily. If they do that, it will require a strong bench to say that that should not happen. We have had one Division tonight, my Lords. I feel strongly about this Amendment. The reason put forward by the James Committee was that the present law led to an anomaly. They pointed out that a person breaking a window to gain entry would be triable only on indictment, while a masked intruder entering through an open door would not. I do not think it is ever difficult to find instances where anomalies might arise, however unlikely, but the existence of such an anomaly does not seem to me to have produced any cogent reason whatsoever for making burglaries where violence to a person in a dwelling was used or threatened triable summarily.
If those cases were excluded and made not triable summarily, then, in a spirit of compromise I should be willing to accept the Bill with the extraction of that part from the proposal in the Bill; that is—to make it quite clear—that if cases where violence was used or threatened to persons in a dwelling remained triable only on indictment and were not triable summarily, I should be prepared, only because it is perhaps a late hour, to agree to the other

1391
part of the Bill remaining unamended. I say that in a spirit of compromise. If the noble and learned Lord who is going to reply is not in a position to give an answer to that tonight, then that might be a reason which would justify my putting down this Amendment, or some similar Amendment, on Third Reading. Having remained here until this late hour, I hope that it will be possible for the Government to accept that suggestion, in which case I will withdraw the Amendment and seek, with the aid of the Government, to put down an Amendment to give effect to it on Third Reading.
I put that forward as a reasonable compromise. I do not know the number of cases which would be involved, and I suspect the Government do not either, where burglary has involved the use of violence or threat of violence in the past year to persons in the dwelling. I beg to move.
9.6 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, when a similar Amendment was moved in Committee, the Government undertook to reconsider the appropriateness of making this offence triable either way in the light of the views which had been expressed. On that occasion, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said it would not be desirable to allow magistrates to try these burglary offences at a time when they were becoming more prevalent. He has repeated that view today. He also added then, as he did today, that the Court of Appeal had been urging the Crown Court to pass substantial custodial sentences for them, even on a first offender, and I am not going to challenge that way of putting it.
The Government have given very careful thought to what was said on that occasion; but, despite the noble and learned Viscount's argument, we still favour the James Committee recommendations. My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge referred in Committee to two very powerful arguments which weighed heavily with the James Committee and to which the Government also attach great importance. I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of these. The first is the one to which the noble and learned Viscount referred: serious
1392
anomalies have arisen from the subdivision by the Theft Act 1968 of the offence of burglary in a dwelling. It is indeed anomalous that a person who enters an unoccupied house by breaking a window to gain entry must be tried at the Crown Court, while a masked intruder who walks in through an unlocked front door can be tried summarily with his consent.
Secondly—and I think this must be set against what the noble and learned Viscount urged upon your Lordships—there was a wide measure of agreement among those who gave evidence to the James Committee that all burglary should be triable summarily with the consent of the accused. As well as the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society and the London Magistrates' Clerks' Association, they included also the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society. Those are not opinions lightly to be tossed aside.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, were there any opinions from judges?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I cannot quote the opinions of judges, my Lords.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, have they been consulted?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the Lord Chief Justice was asked to comment upon the noble and learned Lord's remarks about what the judges urged, and he confirmed what the noble and learned Lord said.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but could he say whether there is any judicial opinion which supports the proposal that they should be triable summarily?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am not able to say that to this House. The Government are not, however, seeking to devalue the seriousness of this offence or to suggest that it should not, in appropriate cases, be dealt with severely. Let it be understood what we are saying. Like many offences which are already triable either way, the offences in this category vary very considerably in gravity and there are some cases which would be

1393
suitable for summary trial. In effect, the noble and learned Viscount is urging the House to say that there are no cases that are suitable for summary trial. We do not believe that the Government's view will result in very serious instances being tried summarily because we think the magistrates will make sure of that. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Baroness Macleod of Borve, observed during the debate in Committee (column 1333) that:
"Magistrates do not even attempt to hear a case if serious damage has been done to property or people."—[Official Report, 10/2/77.]
I am surprised, to put it no higher, to hear the noble and learned Viscount suggest that the police sometimes opt for the smaller penalty in cases where a higher penalty ought to be provided.
It is difficult to be precise about the numbers of people prosecuted for the particular kind of burglary covered by the Amendment, because separate figures are not available from the Criminal Statistics. My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge referred in Committee to the fact that in 1975 some 9,749 people in all were committed for trial for burglary in a dwelling and, in reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder (column 1333), he undertook to try to find out how many of these cases were contested. I understand that the number of people who were actually dealt with in 1975 in the Crown Court (as opposed to being committed for trial in that year) for burglary in a dwelling was 8,648 of which 812 (9 per cent.) pleaded not guilty. Of these 46 per cent. were acquitted.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord possibly tell us how many of that number were juveniles?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am sorry, my Lords. I was going to come to that subject because the noble and learned Viscount asked a question about persons under 21, but I cannot give the incidence.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, can he tell us, in view of the increase in attacks on the person, how many of those burglaries were accompanied by attacks on the person of unfortunate victims inside their property?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I have not been asked before for those details and I do not have them. I am not sure whether they are available, but certainly they are not available through me tonight, and I am sorry for that.
I will come to the matter of violence in a moment or two, but, to take the magistrates' courts, the total there was about 15,000, of which 887 (6 per cent.) pleaded not guilty and 65 per cent. were acquitted. As has been said, however, we think it likely that the people prosecuted for the offence to which the Amendment relates will be a significant proportion of those dealt with by the Crown Court for burglary in a dwelling and, therefore, to make the offence triable either way, as the Bill proposes, will have an impact on the distribution of business.
I said I would say something about cases involving violence, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, specifically mentioned cases where persons in the dwelling-house were threatened with violence or where violence was used. If that is to be the consideration which weighs with noble Lords then it could be considered, although I cannot give any commitment on that. No doubt, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, it would be possible to draft the Bill SO as to except specifically those cases but, as he would surely recognise, that would create some complication, since in would involve the creation of yet another subdivision of the burglary offence. So looking at the Amendment as it stands, and having considered all the arguments, the Government remain of the view that there are good grounds for upholding the James Committee's recommendation that the offence be made triable either way. I hope that in those circumstances the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, after that reply I do not feel able to withdraw my Amendment. So far as the main part of it is concerned, we have had a discussion of that and the noble and learned Lord has really repeated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in Committee. But if he could be a little more forthcoming about the violence proposals, then I should feel disposed to take a different course. It is not creating

1395
a third category, or another category, of the offence of burglary. If you take the course which I have suggested the actual offences will remain the same. We are not at all amending here the offence of burglary. The noble and learned Lord seems to be under a misapprehension with regard to that. What we should be doing is saying that offences of burglary in a dwelling-house, where violence is used to a person or threatened to a person, would not be triable summarily.
If the noble and learned Lord says that he is disposed to recommend to his colleagues acceptance of that proposal, which I think will not be unduly difficult to draft, then it will be possible to leave this matter now and come back to that proposal on Third Reading, because I think that that goes to the heart of it. I do not myself think it can be right to say that where burglary involves violence, or the threat of violence, it should ever be triable summarily. Could not the noble and learned Lord go a little further than he did in his speech?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I answer on just two points? First, what I intended to say (and I hope I did not say it incorrectly) was that the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount, in relation to offences where violence or the threat of violence was involved, would necessarily mean the creation of a fresh sub-division of the burglary offence, and courts and others would have to distinguish between these different categories of the burglary offence. Secondly, I cannot go so far as to recommend for acceptance the proposal which the noble and learned Viscount has produced today. As I understand it, it was not produced before today and all I can do is to repeat what I have
already said, that the Government will consider the matter. But I cannot give any commitment on it.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, may I put one lay voice in here. I do not pretend to be a lawyer. In my youth, very few burglars applied violence to the person, but over the years we have seen more and more violence applied. I would beg the noble and learned Lord to appreciate how many people, living in isolated circumstances or alone, consider the circumstances quite different if somebody breaks a window and filches their belongings—although it is sad; it is heart-breaking—from where violence is applied. Where old ladies are tied up or coshed on the head, they expect the Government—even if that means an extra piece of legislation—to define the slick-handed burglar as quite different from one who is prepared to wield an iron bar in attacking an old lady, and who ties her up so that she may starve or die before somebody finds her. They regard very strongly indeed, and feel desperately anxious about treating it lightly, this new trend in burglary which brings in violence. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the Government will feel able to consider the demarcation line which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, put forward. We should think again, even if it means an alteration to the general legislation on burglary, because burglary with violence must be regarded as a new and unhappy classification which is growing.
9.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Northchurch, B.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Seear, B.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Faithfull, B.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Young, B.

Falkland, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.]

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Phillips, B.

Brockway, L.

Kagan, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Segal, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

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

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gifford, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

9.26 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 45, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I move this Amendment with some degree of confidence. On the last Marshalled List of Amendments I had this Amendment down and I saw to my astonishment that an Amendment to the same effect had been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as a separate Amendment and it took precedence over mine. I could not understand that, except on the basis that he was unprepared to join with me in moving this particular Amendment, but now that he has added his name to mine on this Amendment I move it with the utmost confidence and without any fear that it will lead to a Division. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): Amendment proposed, page 45, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (b)—is that the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount is moving?
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I am so sorry; I have been speaking to the wrong one.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am relieved that the noble and learned Viscount has been so candid in saying that. For an alarming moment my colleagues and I assumed that all our papers were in even more undistinguished disorder than is normally the case.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, mine were in a state of disorder and I apologise to the House. The Amendment I am moving is No. 73:
Page 45, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (b),
and I can move it quite shortly. This is
1398
the proposal to make the offence of handling stolen goods from an offence not committed in the United Kingdom triable summarily. I have myself not known of any charge of that character being brought. It is an offence which is defined in the Theft Act 1968, and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Edmund-Davies pointed out in the course of the debate in Committee, it was not very enthusiastically recommended by the James Committee that this should be triable summarily. He cited this passage from their Report—paragraph 132:
"We assume that the Committee thought that it should not be triable summarily because of the difficult questions of law that might arise. We accept that for this reason the offence should usually be tried on indictment, but several witnesses have suggested that it should be triable summarily and we do not think that it is necessary to exclude the possibility of summary trial altogether."
It can hardly be regarded as an enthusiastic recommendation for summary trial for this offence. I cannot believe that there are many offences of this character tried by the courts and that it would add appreciably to the burden of the Crown Courts if they were left triable on indictment.
Under the Theft Act in every case where this charge is proffered it must be proved that the stealing amounted to an offence "where and at the time when the goods were stolen ". If I understand it correctly, that must mean that it must be an offence against the law of the land where the offence was committed. The Act itself does not say what the offence must be, but I assume it must be an offence equivalent to our offence of theft; the section of the Theft Act does not say so. However that may be, it seems to me that in almost every case where this charge is brought proof of foreign law is necessary to establish guilt. Where you get questions of proof of foreign law, then indeed questions of considerable difficulty may arise in the magistrates' courts. I think it would be

1399
much better to leave it where it is for the few offences which come within this field. I do not propose to take up any more time in outlining this. There being so very few offences involved—perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give us some figures—I hope on this occasion he might be able to accept this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, moved a similar Amendment in Committee, though it was not discussed in detail. I will not repeat the arguments which my noble friend, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, put up for the previous Amendment and which I have mentioned again, some of which apply to this Amendment as well. In recommending that these offences should be triable either way the James Committee realised that the offences should usually be tried on indictment but they did not wish to exclude the possibility of summary trial altogether. I should have thought that one can properly have confidence in the magistrates. They have the power under the provisions of this Bill to send a case for trial to the Crown Court at any time up until the end of the prosecution case, and one would have thought that if in fact there were cases of difficulty that would be their fate. But one should not exclude the possibility of summary trial altogether because there must be at least some cases, perhaps many cases, where there would be no difficulty in law at all.
As there was no indication in Committee of widespread or vigorous opposition to their recommendations—even the noble Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, who was the only noble Lord to speak specifically to this Amendment, said he "could not pretend to be very excited about it"—the Government do not consider in these circumstances that grounds have been made out for amending the Bill in the way proposed. Accordingly, the Government are inviting the House to support the James Committee in this matter. In these circumstances, perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would consider not pressing this Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY- LEBONE: My Lords, I am starting to feel
1400
that the noble Lord is beginning to treat this House with less than the consideration to which it is entitled. He says that he thinks that there are a good many cases, or might be many cases, in which magistrates would be content to deal with this rather unusual offence themselves. How many? How many cases altogether have taken place in the last 12 months? The noble and learned Viscount on the Cross-Benches asked the question: he has not been told the answer.
The trouble is that what the Government have done throughout is to have the debate at a highly inconvenient time, to Whip their own supporters and not to take the real feeling of the House. I warn the Government that they are building a great deal of trouble for themselves on Third Reading by this attitude. This is the third time I have had to complain of Lord McCluskey's approach to the very reasonable Amendments moved from the Cross-Benches. I must tell him frankly that we on this Bench are profoundly dissatisfied with the way in which noble and learned Lords have been treated. If the Government go on like this, we shall see to it that they will learn better on Third Reading.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I might reply to what has been said. I regard what the noble and learned Lord has said as being absolutely and totally unfair to me. He constantly reminds noble Lords who speak from this Bench that they speak for the Government and then singles me out by name. To put the matter in that way is totally and utterly unfair. Secondly, he is quite wrong in saying—I do not know what justification he has for such an assertion—that the Government have a Whip on this matter. The Government have no Whip on this matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I said that simply because the noble and learned Lord said that the Government did not propose to accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. If that does not mean that there is a Government Whip on these proceedings, all I can say is that ordinary Parliamentary language has no meaning at all. I point out to the noble and learned Lord that I have seen whipping on the previous Amendment

1401
upon which he allowed the House to divide. In each case two Government Whips were acting as tellers. That means that there is a Government Whip on the proceedings, and it is idle for the noble and learned Lord to say that it is not so because we have seen that it is.
Lord HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I may speak as I do not have to ask for the leave of the House. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there is no Government Whip on the proceedings which have taken place this evening. I believe that on one occasion during the Committee stage of the Bill there was. The position as regards today's proceedings and, I believe, last week's proceedings, is that there has been no Whip on Back-Bench supporters of the Government.
Lord HARLSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, in each case the tellers have been Government tellers.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, what I say happens to be the truth, as I am quite sure he will accept. Although the Government have expressed a clear position and have, of course, supplied Whips because it is a Government position, the fact is that all Back-Bench supporters of the Government have been told that there is a free vote.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, with the leave of the House——
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I was in fact speaking when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rose. I think I had obtained the leave of the House to reply when the noble and learned Lord intervened.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I certainly did not intend to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. This is becoming rather disorderly because we have had a whole speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, intervening. Although I do not want to stop the noble Lord speaking a third time—I certainly will not refuse leave if he wants it—to pretend that what happened was an intervention by me when we bad been listening to a vigorous speech by his
1402
colleague sitting next to him, is almost as absurd as to say that when there are Government tellers there is no Government Whip.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with respect, I was on my feet speaking when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail sham, stood up. I sat down as a matter of courtesy. With the leave of the House, my third and last point is simply as follows. In relation to this type of offence it must be plain to any lawyer or layman that, when it comes to a question of handling goods stolen abroad, there would be some cases in which difficult legal questions arise and there would be some where there would be no difficult legal questions at all. That is the point I seek to make and it lies behind the recommendation of the James Committee that in some such cases one should allow summary trial.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord answer the question which the noble and learned Viscount from the Cross-Benches asked and which I have repeated? Can he tell us how many cases of handling goods stolen abroad have been tried in the whole of England and Wales each year?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with out notice I cannot answer that question.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, that is very disappointing because we suspect that the number of cases a year is very small. If the Government's purpose here, as elsewhere, is to try to relieve the work load upon the Crown Courts, if we are dealing with a very small number of cases it will not relieve the work upon the Crown court to any noticeable extent. So it hardly seems worth not passing this Amendment.
9.40 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, one thing I hope will be beyond all controversy, and that is that I hare not had any Whips on. I do not intend to enter into that controversy. I mist say that I do not regard the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey; who I recognise is speaking for the Government and I assume speaking to the Government brief, as in the least degree

1403
satisfactory. I hope that we shall not hear many more of that kind of reply. It is not good enough to say that one does not know how many of these offences have been involved at all. Statistics are surely available. There are officials in the Box who ought to be able to provide the noble and learned Lord with the information if he has not got it ready at hand. There has been plenty of time to provide it. My suspicion is that there have not been 10 of these cases in the last year, but the noble and learned Lord is unable to say.
We are dealing with this matter at a very late hour of night. I put forward on the last Amendment an alternative which I thought was a reasonable com promise. It was not, with great respect, adequately dealt with at all. I have put forward a proposal now which cannot affect the main purpose of this Bill. We are dealing with it at a very late hour of night. I do not think that it is usual or the practice of the House on Third Reading to put down Amendments which have already been discussed in Committee and on Report, but I am not at all sure that in these circumstances, taking this at this very late hour of night, and in view of the total inadequacy of the reply, that one would not be justified in raising this again on Third Reading. I shall take advice upon the point. I am certainly not going to withdraw the Amendment, but I will not ask the House to vote upon it.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments. I think there has been some misunderstanding here. Whatever arguments there may be on the merits, I do not want the House to go late on this matter and I understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, feels strongly about this. I thought there was a very good attendance here at this time of night. As a matter of fact, I am certain that if honourable Members in another place were debating this Bill there would be fewer people there. No doubt in another place there may be a smaller attendance than in the Lords, because I always feel that on legal matters the Lords excel. I take note of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said, and I should like this debate to
1404
conclude reasonably. We could go to Amendment No. 74A, which I think would suit the convenience of all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.43 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 45, line 44, leave out paragraph 23.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment I moved a few moments ago out of order. I will not take up time by saying what I said then, except to repeat that I am very glad that after the controversy the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I can unite in supporting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 3 [Offences triable either way by virtue of Section 16(1) or (2)]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 49, line 15, leave out paragraph 32.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, indicated that he wished to propose that the Report stage be now adjourned.
Lord PEART: Yes.
Moved, That the Report stage be now adjourned.—(Lord Peart)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I think he has taken a wise decision. I ought to say that we do not in the least mind staying up late. I do not think that anyone could accuse me of any want of diligence in the service of the House, but I felt that the House was not doing justice to itself and that this late debate, after the intricate and complicated debate on the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, was not doing the House credit. That is why I objected to going on with it.

RETURNING OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
9.45 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill transfers responsibility for the conduct of Parliamentary Elections in Scotland to the local government service. It replaces provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1949 under which the returning officer in a Parliamentary Election is the sheriff principal, who is a member of the Judiciary. The Bill provides that the returning officer's responsibility will be vested in the local government officer who acts as returning officer at elections to region and island councils and provides that the supporting administrative machinery for returning officers will come from the local authorities instead of the sheriff clerk service, which has carried out this duty on a voluntary and non-statutory basis.
It may be helpful if I trace briefly the background to the changes now proposed. Serious difficulties in operating the present electoral machinery have arisen mainly because the sheriff, in discharging his statutory duty as returning officer, has by tradition naturally looked to his own sheriff clerk and his staff to assume the practical administrative responsibility for organising and running Elections. Given that this work has never formed part of the official duties of sheriff clerks and their staff, it is a tribute to their loyalty and sense of duty that they have efficiently performed the task over many years, though latterly under increasingly severe strain. These strains have become the more evident with the steadily increasing workload of normal sheriff court business to the stage at which, during the two most recent General Elections, very real difficulties were experienced in a number of areas in providing key senior staff.
The pressure for change has come primarily from the sheriff clerk service and it has had to be recognised that the additional workload which Elections engender over a short and intense period is, in modern times, incompatible with the service's basic duties, which relate essentially to the organisation and running of court business necessarily geared to pre determined timetables. In the light of these very real practical problems, consultations were initiated with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the
1406
sheriffs principal, the sheriff clerk service and the political Parties in Scotland with a view to determining the most appropriate arrangements for the future.
An obvious possibility was to transfer responsibility for the organisation of Parliamentary electoral machinery to local government staffs who have, of course, considerable practical experience of running local government elections on a continuuous basis. They were in fact made responsible for polling machinery in Scotland in the circumstances of the EEC referendum in 1974. On that occasion the machinery operated most satisfactorily, in spite of occurring at a time when the local authorities were in the throes of their own reorganisation.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities indicated that the local authorities would be agreeable to taking on the duties of organising Parliamentary Elections and the general balance of opinion among other interested parties also favoured this solution. The local authorities were very definite that, in the event of such change, the returning officer should be the returning officer for region and island council elections, with an entitlement to call on the support of local government staff in the districts. The possibility of the sheriff principal continuing to be the returning officer with local government staff organising elections on his behalf was also canvassed.
As was perhaps to be expected, however, neither the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities nor the sheriffs principal themselves considered that an arrangement of that kind would be at all workable in practice. They took the view that it would be most unsatisfactory from the point of view of both the local authorities and the returning officer if the latter was obliged to discharge his responsibilities through key staff who were not responsible to him in the course of their normal duties and working in an entirely different organisation. The most practical solution, therefore, was to adopt the proposal to appoint as returning officers those local authority officers or returning officers at regional and island council elections and to place a duty on all local authorities to make officers available and to assist them in discharging their responsibilities.
Put simply, that is the background to the Bill. I do not think that, at this stage,

1407
I need describe each clause on an individual basis, but I would emphasise that the Bill gives effect to the views of those most concerned with providing the electoral machinery; namely, the sheriffs, the sheriff clerk service and the local authorities as expressed through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
9.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining concisely the aims of the Bill. As he probably knows, I was aware towards the end of 1973, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland, that the sheriff clerk service and their staffs were finding it more difficult to carry out the duties that they had been performing in relation to elections because of the many other functions and the increase in their work that took their time. They expressed their doubts towards the end of 1973 as to whether they would be able to continue to do this work. The equivalent service South of the Border has not done this in recent years.
In the event, during the 1974 Elections, help was drafted in in certain areas from the Scottish Office because of the inability to carry out all the work by the traditional methods. However, I should remind the House that many extra staff had been employed on a temporary basis in order to man polling booths and carry out the counts and that many of these were local government officials as well as bank clerks and others. The responsibility for being returning officers and supervising elections in Scotland none the less lay with the sheriffs and the sheriff clerk service. The object of the Bill is to transfer that responsibility to local government.
The sheriffs principal, the sheriffs and the sheriff clerk service have carried out the duties extremely well in the past. I am sure that all who have been connected with elections would agree with that. I know that there are a great many people in Scotland who are sorry, or who will be sorry when they hear that this change is taking place, that the sheriffs will no longer be the responsible persons. In
1408
another place a change was made at the Committee stage which would have left the responsibility with the sheriffs. They would still have been the returning officers, though the work would have been carried out under their supervision by the local government staff. I myself think that this would have been the best solution. It would have been the one preferred by most people in Scotland who were used to the sheriff being the returning officer and who understood this traditional system. In the event, that was reversed at the Report stage in another place and the Bill was restored to its original form.
I do not intend to return to that or to pursue it again for it was discussed at some length in another place, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, one question at this stage. Can he tell us what would happen if there were to be an Election before the Bill is enacted and before the arrangements for which it provides can be made? For example, if there were to be a General Election in May, it seems unlikely that the Bill would have completed its passage or that the new arrangements could have been made. I know that the Prime Minister has dismissed the idea of an early Election and I am sure that I am only speaking theoretically. None the less, one ought to know whether the arrangements are adequate should there be an Election in the near future. After all, two months must be a long time in politics. So I hope that the noble Lord can assure us that provision has in the meantime been made to cover the situation satisfactorily before the Bill, with the new arrangements, enters into force.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's brief response to my earlier comments. I wish to emphasise again that the proposal which was made in the other place and subsequently defeated did not of course carry the assent of the sheriffs principal themselves, and that was always a difficulty. With regard to the very unlikely possibility of a General Election occurring in the next two months, I can give your Lordships the assurance that an adequate electoral service at this level will be forthcoming.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1977
9.56 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1977, laid before the House on 24th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1977, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to renew the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 for a period of 12 months beginning on 25th March.
As the House will recall, it is now nearly 12 months since the 1976 Act was passed, the Act which repealed and re-enacted with Amendments the Act of a similar name passed in 1974 in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham public house explosions. During these 12 months terrorist activity has continued, although I am glad to say that it has been at a much lower level than in 1975 and the early part of 1976. In all the circum stances, the most appropriate course would be for me to give a brief summary of the overt terrorist activity in Great Britain since the enactment of last year's Act.
Just under a year ago, on 27th March, soon after the 1976 Act was passed, an explosion occurred at the Ideal Home Exhibition in London. Eighty-five people were injured and one person subsequently died. As the House will recall, this was the last incident in a series of terrorist attacks on London and the Home Counties in the early months of 1976. Then, in May 1976, a series of eight letter bombs were sent to some well-known people and several civil servants. Fortunately, these attacks did not result in any casualties. After these attacks there were no more terrorist incidents in Great Britain for the rest of the year. But the lull ended suddenly early this year, when on 29th January some 14 devices exploded in shops and other premises in the Oxford Street area of London. No casualties resulted, but there was, as will be recalled, extensive damage to property.
Then, on 2nd February, an explosion occurred in a Department of Employment office in Liverpool, and in a subsequent search a quantity of material was found in a house in the city. This included over 10 lb. of high explosive, 17 incendiary devices assembled ready for use, seven electric detonators, other bomb-making material and a ·38 Smith and Wesson revolver and 24 rounds of ammunition. Two men were detained after these discoveries and have since been charged in connection with them.
I turn now to the Act itself and the use which has been made of it. I think that noble Lords may find it useful if I go through the cumulative statistics of cases under the 1974 and 1976 Acts up to 1st March this year, and I shall note separately the cases dealt with under the 1976 Act. I will deal first with exclusion orders. As noble Lords know, an exclusion may be made against a person whom the Home Secretary is satisfied is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or who is attempting or may attempt to enter the country for this purpose.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and his predecessor have made 95 exclusion orders in total, of which 20 have come under the 1976 Act. In addition, six orders in total (including two under the 1976 Act) have been made by the Lieutenant Governors of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, as they are empowered to do. Nineteen people in total (including two under the 1976 Act) against whom orders have been made have made representations against the order, and five of the orders in these cases, all under the 1974 Act, have been revoked. Four orders have been revoked for other reasons. Eighty-one people in total (including 20 under the 1976 Act) have been removed, 58 in total (including 14 under the 1976 Act) to Northern Ireland, and 23 in total (including six under the 1976 Act) to the Republic of Ireland. Eight orders in total have not been served. In five of these cases the person concerned was, and is believed still to be, outside the United Kingdom. In two other cases the persons concerned were charged with murder, and the then Home Secretary revoked the orders before they were served.

1411
In the remaining case the person concerned was returned to Northern Ireland on a warrant, and the order was revoked before it was served.
I turn next to the powers of detention, exercisable under Section 12 of the Act, which replaced Section 7 of the 1974 Act. This power enables the police to detain a person who is reasonably suspected, either of having committed an offence under the Act or of being concerned in terrorism. The period of detention must not exceed 48 hours, but can be extended by the Home Secretary for a further five days. The extended period enables the police to make comprehensive inquiries and to carry through forensic science tests. A total of 796 people, 253 of which were under the 1976 Act, have been detained under this power. In 250 cases, 49 of which have arisen under the 1976 Act, extensions of detention have been authorised. The Home Secretary personally sees all applications for extensions unless pressure of events makes this impossible, in which case the decisions are taken by me. Under the Act, people can also be detained at ports by examining officers, on arrival or departure. A total of 1,637 people, 765 under the 1976 Act, have been detained under this power.
The final statistics I am able to give the House are the charges which have been brought for offences under the Act. Three people were charged with offences arising out of the 1974 Act. A further 98 people in total (including 21 under the 1976 Act) have been charged with offences following detention under the Act. These 98 include eight charges of murder, three of attempted murder, 12 of conspiracy to cause explosions, seven of unlawful possession of explosives, six of conspiracy to possess or procure explosives with intent to endanger life and six offences under the Firearms Act 1968.
It has been argued by some of our critics that because only a small proportion of those detained under the Act are charged or excluded, the Act is therefore being abused by the police or, it is sometimes argued, is unnecessary. We reject this argument. The Act is intended to help the police in dealing
1412
with terrorists. The appropriate test is therefore not the number of charges but their nature and gravity. The list of charges I have given contain some of the most serious offences in the criminal law, including murder, attempted murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. This, in my view, is a clear indication that the Act is being properly directed and is making a significant contribution.
Charges themselves would not justify this Act. It is not designed to ensure that all those detained under it shall be charged with some offence, however trivial. The powers are to deal with and prevent terrorist activity, and should be judged in terms of their effectiveness in this respect. It would be absurd to say that every person detained under the Act and subsequently charged with a terrorist offence, could not have been detained without the Act. But the police consider that without these clear powers they might have been in difficulty as regards obtaining the necessary information in time, or indeed at all. One other point on charges. We have not so far made available information on the outcome of charges, for the reason that it is not held centrally and would have to be obtained by reference to each detailed case. My right honourable friend is well aware of the interest shown in the outcome of these charges, and is asking the police to see whether further information could be made available.
It has been recognised from the beginning that these powers entail a very real cost in terms of civil liberty. To some people this cost has always seemed too great, and I respect this view. Sometimes the suspicions of the police cannot be substantiated to the degree necessary to justify prosecution or an application for an exclusion order. However skilful the police may be in exercising their powers, there are bound to be difficult cases. The police cannot know when they begin their questioning what the results will be: if they could, the powers would not be necessary at all. But the Statute clearly lays down the kinds of cases for which these powers may be used. They relate only to terrorism, and only to reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism. Anything else is improper and illegal. If, but only if, the police have information which leads them to this reasonable suspicion, they would be failing in their

1413
duty if they did not follow it up in accordance with the powers which Parliament has provided them.
We come now to the main question that faces us in the renewal of the Act. Is the degree of threat great enough to justify this course? As I said earlier, terrorist activity in Great Britain has been at a much lower level since the passing of the 1976 Act than in the preceding period. This could give rise to the view that preventive measures which were thought necessary when the threat was self-evident should be dismantled as soon as the threat ceases to be obvious. I think this view is misplaced. Some might have said a few weeks ago, after some eight months without a terrorist attack, that the threat had gone away. But this belief would have been ended by the events in London and Liverpool at the end of January. A quiet period may merely serve the terrorists as a cover under which to prepare their next attack, and to bring in people and explosives. My experience—and I have been concerned with these matters closely for over three years—is that a few months of calm can be just as full of danger as the times when bombs are going off. The terrorist hopes that the vigilance of our people will slacken. It is then that we need to keep these powers readily available, to act on any information that may come in. The judgment we have reached is that we must maintain our precautions at a high level, and that the powers under the Act remain necessary.
My Lords, in making that judgment, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has taken account not only of the extent of terrorist activity here but also of the continuing threat, based on his assessment of the continuing danger. He has had regard to the statements made by prominent members of the IRA who have made no secret of their intention to maintain their campaign of violence here. My right honourable friend has also taken account of the intelligence available to him. Moreover, it is necessary to stress that no Home Secretary, contemplating what powers might be necessary to deal with terrorism in Great Britain, can ignore the continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend has taken considered police advice on whether the Act should be continued. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and
1414
the Association of Chief Police Officers believe that the Act should be continued and that it has a major contribution to assist them in their efforts in dealing with terrorists. In view of this advice and my right honourable friend's own assessment of the current position, he has come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to allow the powers to lapse.
I should like briefly before finishing to draw noble Lords' attention to the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Order 1977. This is a minor modification of the supplemental provisions which will make no difference to the controls operated at ports. It is intended merely to establish beyond doubt what was always the intention in the order. Under Article 13, an examining officer at a port has the power to make arrangements to control the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers to and from Ireland. Some doubt has been cast on whether these controls can be treated as standing arrangements, or whether they have effect only if invoked on every separate occasion that a ship or aircraft arrives from or leaves for Ireland, and the amendments merely establish that standing arrangements may be used.
The order I am moving today was approved in another place on Wednesday, 9th March. I hope noble Lords will take the same view and agree to the renewal of the powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1977, laid before the House on 24th February, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
10.13 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this order. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the conditions which operated in 1974 and 1976, when this Act was first introduced and then amended, are still the same. I agree that since the Security Forces consider that it has made a major contribution in the fight against terrorism, then it must be continued. I should like to say that so far as I am concerned the success that the Security Forces in this

1415
country have had in combating this particular variety of terrorism is a most satisfactory situation because they definitely suffered from a major attack.
In this Act the power that appears to worry most people is the power to detain for seven days those who are seriously suspected of being involved with terrorism. I should like to comment tonight on that issue. In a liberal society, if we are subject to an attack, we have temporarily to suspend certain freedoms. If they are suspended, then errors may occur if those liberalities were worth having in the first place. If the police have proper information, and if that information is accurate, then the chances of errors being made are more remote than otherwise they would be. It is for that reason that I believe the power of the seven days' detention is a vital part of our fight against terrorism.
At the same time as providing the police with these powers to detain, we in Parliament have separately protected the public from the abuse of these powers. We have provided the public with an ability to complain against police brutality, assault and even incivility. This Act covers Northern Ireland. I speak from experience about Northern Ireland, and I can say that the Royal Ulster Constabulary system is among the most vigorous in the United Kingdom for investigating complaints.
Since the police have the powers to detain for seven days to investigate and the public have the protection, we have to do our best to ensure that the climate of opinion must allow both to work freely within the context Parliament has decreed. Indeed, I feel there is a great danger at the present time in Northern Ireland that the machinery for the public to complain could result in frivolous complaints clogging up the work of the police and preventing their carrying out their main duty, which must be at all times to protect the innocent citizen.
It is in that context that protests have been made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my honourable friend Mr. Airey Neave in another place about the broadcast on BBC television. The BBC interviewed two complainants
1416
concerning alleged cases of brutality, serious assaults. During that interview, it was highlighted that these two were Roman Catholics and it appeared to be conveyed that because they were Roman Catholics they had been specially sought out and specially interrogated.
During that half-hour interview, the BBC made it quite clear that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had been invited to comment upon the matter, but the complainants' complaints had already been referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary organisation and were being investigated, and so the Royal Ulster Constabulary felt it was improper for them to appear. The two men who were interviewed were men from my own county and, indeed, from an area very close to me. Fermanagh is a very special county in that in all the years of violence the Royal Ulster Constabulary has remained totally in charge of security and of policing. At all times the Army in fact have been in aid of the civil power and have not taken a dominant role. In other words, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was totally in charge of internal security; and for any organisation—and especially the BBC, as part of the Establishment, if not part of the State—to show a religiously divisive programme for that length of time, knowing that what was said was not going to be rebutted, concerning two men from an area which had been shown quite clearly to be under the control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, so that by and large the impartiality of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was challenged, was, in my view, a very serious affair for our area, let alone the rest of the country.
The reason given was that the truth must be told. At this stage I should like to remind the House that the IRA are a tiny minority. They have been put before the ballot box time and time again and have been wiped out; and so they continue to try to use the bullet. Therefore, we have to ask the question: At what stage does a part of the State Establishment provide them with a plat form from which to give their view? I should like to ask the Government—and I have given the noble Lord the Minister notice of this through the Northern Ireland Office—the following question. Accepting that the BBC is

1417
independent and that it has now con descended to have another look at its guidelines, ought not the Government to take powers to see that when a case has been referred to those police investigatory procedures to which I have referred, comment should not be allowed? Because these reports which are made by the police investigatory procedure go automatically to the DPP. The moment they arrive on the DPP's table, they become sub judice. So although, technically, before that time they may not be sub judice, from the police point of view they are in an area where they should not comment.
Therefore, I believe that the Government should see to it that the moment a complaint of serious brutality or assault is officially lodged, it should be declared the equivalent of sub judice. I am not suggesting that the law should not be observed. I am not suggesting censorship. I am merely suggesting that the police should be judged by the courts and not by television.
We have all seen the most appalling examples of cases being judged on television. Everyone knows the effect—and I have seen it myself, time and time again—when somebody appears on television to take a certain stand, and the interviewer says, "We have asked the other side to comment, but no comment is forthcoming from them. They have refused to appear." This has a terrible effect on the viewers. They automatically feel, quite definitely, that the person who has not appeared is guilty. It does not matter if the BBC says that the Royal Ulster Constabulary can come forward at any stage. The case is already lost. You can never catch up on what has gone before. It is sheer hypocrisy for anybody to think that that is justice, and of course trial by television is never meant to be justice.
My honourable friend Mr. Airey Neave and the Police Federation—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, heard the comment of the Police Federation in Northern Ireland tonight—said earlier that the television interview would provoke the IRA to murder. Tonight they issued a complete condemnation of that in very strong and forthright terms. Anyway, the warning which they both issued has sadly proved but too right and, as your Lordships all know, a policeman was murdered yesterday.
1418
Another policeman and a policewoman were injured. And today, as I left home—and I think that this is an accurate paraphrase of what they said—the IRA claimed that since the Royal Ulster Constabulary had been shown by the programme to be what they are, the IRA would step up their campaign against the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army.
The policeman who was killed was a young man who came from my local police station, and he looked after my district. The men who were interviewed came from my district. The bruises which they had on them—if they had any, and I do not necessarily accept that they did—will heal, but that young man is dead, from which there can be no recovery. The other policeman who was involved was very well-known to me, and if I speak almost with passion I am sure your Lordships will appreciate why. He was a very special friend. Both he and his father have always been friends of my family.
At this stage, I should like to pay a special tribute to the Lisnaskea team of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They really did distinguish themselves, and when the story is fully told I am sure that everybody in this House will salute them, as I salute them and as I salute the whole Constabulary. I do not believe that any police force has ever stood such a prolonged attack with such credit. They are very great men, and I should like to say great women as well, as the story will tell.
There is no doubt in my mind that at the moment there is a cleverly orchestrated campaign to try to discredit our Security Forces. This is a campaign which in the last years has come and gone like a tide, and we are now on a tide which is coming in very strongly. Some people contribute unwittingly to that—I hope that that is what happened in this programme—and some people contribute willingly, but there is no doubt that there is a concerted effort to discredit our forces at this moment, at a time when, in my view, they are doing extremely well and may be succeeding to a great extent. If the Government do not do all in their power to prevent this, we shall nullify what we are providing tonight by these extra powers.

1419
It has been said that two battles are going on. One is the bombing and killing; the second is the propaganda battle. In conventional wars, armies capture territory but in guerrilla wars—and we are in the middle of a guerrilla war—they capture the minds of the people. It is that battle which we have to win. It is fair to say that the advent of television, with its immediate impact, is the one new factor which has made possible the prolongation of this particular campaign. Therefore it must be used with care but not censorship.
In ending, I should like to support my honourable friend. I am sure that we must change our approach. We must change our laws so as to enable the Security Forces to win. We must protect witnesses and give the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to schedule, in or out, all offences within Northern Ireland. Not so long ago we dealt with a transport problem in which the question of black taxis within Belfast was involved. I do not believe that during that period you could have obtained a conviction in front of a jury for any black taxi which was using red fuel. It is a terrorist-type of offence. In the battle of minds our present Secretary of State speaks with conviction and determination. If we could persuade him to do more to change the law, we should win more quickly. I support the order.
10.27 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Viscount in his remarks because, if I may say so without the smallest hostility, I cannot help feeling that some 95 per cent. of what he said had absolutely nothing to do with this order. I should also say that if any of us speak tonight against the provisions that this order would extend it does not for one moment indicate that we have any less feelings of abhorrence of the violence, in all its forms, than those who speak in favour of it.
When the 1974 Act came before your Lordships, in the very exceptional circumstances that existed at that time I was able to give it limited support, although I expressed reservations about the necessity for the use of exclusion orders. Since that time I have watched the
1420
operation of both the 1974 and the 1976 Acts with increasing concern and I now feel opposed to both of them and to the continuation of the 1976 Act under this order.
I am not particularly concerned about Part I which deals with proscribed organisations. Members of Loyalist paramilitary organisations have been excluded from Northern Ireland under the Act; therefore it would be possible to make a case for including certain of the Loyalist paramilitary organisations, such as the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos, among the organisations proscribed. But I under stand the argument that although those organisations are doing great mischief in the Six Counties and have been involved in terrorist activities in this country, by which I mean Great Britain, they have not caused death or damage to property.
However, Part II of this Act involves—and I do not think anyone has attempted to deny it—a most serious curtailment of basic democratic rights and principles. I ask your Lordships to consider what it must be like to be one of the men who have been detained under it, and let us remember that in 92 per cent. of cases the man was completely innocent. He is picked up, perhaps as he is returning from work; he is taken to the police station; he is not charged with any offence; he is not told what offence he has committed; at all stages he is denied any legal assistance, and no word is sent to his family or to those who are near him to say that he has been detained. His wife and his children at home just know that he has not come home, and it has been established that in many cases the family have been ringing up hospitals and making inquiries to find out what has happened. Of course they do not know, and they may not know for a week. In 250 cases—in 10 per cent. of the cases, and that was in every case where an extension was asked for—without exception the 48 hours was extended, and the old-fashioned, now forgotten, belief that a man is innocent until proved guilty has gone by the board.
A curious matter on which I hope the Minister may be able to comment is that, although those are the circumstances that exist in England and Wales, if under this Act a man is detained in Scotland, the

1421
circumstances are different. If he is detained in Scotland he is permitted to have legal assistance and his family is immediately notified. Why can this possibly be so? When a man is picked up like this, why cannot he be informed as to the reason? Why cannot he have legal assistance, and, above all, why cannot his family be notified? I can see no reason for not doing so. At least two of those courses are possible in Scotland. If they are possible in Scotland, why should they not be possible in England and Wales?
My feeling is that this Act could only be justified in extremely serious circumstances, and I do not believe that they exist today; and even if the Act is justified, then it has to be judged by its results. Looking at the figures—and the Minister has already given those that were quoted in another place a week ago—I wonder whether we can think that they are in fact justified. I may have made a few minor errors of arithmetic, although I do not think I have. Out of 2,433 men who have been detained under both Acts in 28 months, only 109 have been charged with offences, some of them very minor; 58 have been excluded to Northern Ireland, where they have been released and no charges brought against them; 23 have been excluded to the Republic of Ireland, and under the 1974 Act 15 have been returned to Northern Ireland and charged there, and three have been returned to the Republic of Ireland and charged there. That means, as I have indicated, that 92 per cent. were released and were completely innocent.
If we look at the average figures during that period, the average number in each category per month, we find that the situation is getting worse, not better. We find that more or less the same number are being detained in Great Britain every month, about 85, but whereas under the 1974 Act five a month were being charged with offences, now the figure is two and a half; and whereas under the former Act just under three were being excluded to Northern Ireland, now just over one is: and whereas one a month was being excluded to the Republic now one every two months is being excluded to the Republic. So although the numbers being detained remain much the same, the numbers who are being charged or
1422
excluded are well under half the figure per month.
Given figures like this, it is wry difficult to avoid reaching one of two possible conclusions: either the police force must be exceedingly incompetent because in so few cases is their reasonable suspicion justified, or if that is not the case, the Act must be being used to gather information from completely innocent people who have been detained solely because they have a connection with Ireland. What other explanation can there be? How can it happen that all these people are being detained and when their cases are looked into in 92 per cent. of the cases there is absolutely no reason for having detained them?
The Secretary of State told another place last week that neither he nor the police would claim that some of the serious charges which have been brought against those detained could not have been brought without the Act, and my noble friend said something along very similar lines a few minutes ago. I reach the conclusion that those who are charged with these offences—I am not talking about the ones who are excluded, because usually no action is taken when they get to Northern Ireland or the Republic—could have been charged anyway, because how does this Act help the police? What knowledge does this Act give the police to enable them to proffer these charges which they could not have acquired just as well if the Act did not exist? The only other suggestion is that the fact that these men can be detained without charge for a week and interrogated in whatever way the police use, means that admissions are secured that otherwise would not have been obtained.
I want to refer just briefly to Part III of the Act, which is the control of entry into Great Britain. One curious statistic is that out of these 2,433 who have been detained, 566—which is over one-fifth of the total—were detained on Merseyside. Of those, 16 were excluded and 43 were prosecuted for alleged offences. However, in every case the prosecution failed. So we have a situation on Merseyside where 97 per cent. of those who were detained were detained without any reason whatsoever.
Owing to the Aer Lingus strike, I happened to arrive in Liverpool last

1423
Saturday morning. I do not often take the boat and Saturday morning is a very bad time to take it because it is full of football supporters. The boat was packed with teenagers—15, 16 and 18-year olds—in their Everton and Manchester United colours. Everyone who was on board that boat had to establish his or her identity before he or she was allowed ashore. I mention that because it is curious that, although these precautions are taken at Liverpool, nothing comparable exists if one chooses to arrive at London Heathrow. The last time I came by plane, which was about two weeks ago, I was careful to be the first off the plane and watched everyone going through security. The security officers sought identification from only one passenger, and that was me.
I have said that I oppose this legislation. I should like to put to the Minister a question that has been asked in another place. Will he agree to set up an inquiry by a commission or by a group of qualified persons, into the working of both these Acts over the past two years? I think that there are grounds for serious disquiet and that such an inquiry is, in the circumstances, essential.
10.44 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not think that any Member of this House, with its toleration, will charge those of us who oppose this order with having any sympathy with violence in Northern Ireland. I take rather an extreme view of this. Without endorsing all that has been said by the noble Viscount on the Opposition Benches, I have deplored the fact that our media, including our television, have given prominence to those who were associated with violence, either on the side of the IRA or the paramilitary loyalist organisations. I am a journalist and I am in favour of the freedom of the media, but I regard the action of the media in interviewing those who are known to be associated with this violence, as an action which goes beyond toleration. Those they have interviewed have been sometimes associated with actual violence; if they were so associated then they were criminals under our law.
Having put that view very strongly, I want to say that I am deeply concerned
1424
about the repudiation of civil rights under this Act. I believe that personal liberties and personal privacy are at the very heart of democracy. One of the few reasons for the maintenance of the House of Lords as it is is the fact that on these issues of personal liberty this House has often taken a stand which has been a precedent for our legislation. It is entirely on those grounds of civil liberties and personal rights that I regret this order which maintains this Act.
I have read carefully the long debate on this issue which took place in another place. I want to admit at once that I could not follow in detail all the statistics which were given by my noble friend Lord Harris in his opening speech. But from what was said in another place I do not think that there is any doubt about the facts that under this Act 2,250 persons have been detained. They could be detained at police decision for 48 hours; they could be detained for five more days with the consent of the Home Secretary.
I was moved in reading the debate in another place, concerning how, when persons have been so detained, their families have often been left in absolute ignorance. Wives and children do not know the whereabouts of their husbands and fathers. I have also been impressed by the fact that often during that period of detention legal representation by solicitors has not been allowed. I regard that fact alone as a repudiation of personal and civil liberties in this country which we ought not to tolerate. But then one goes to the further extraordinary fact; that only 90 per cent. of the 2,250 persons who have been detained have actually been charged.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: The noble Lord has it the wrong way round, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should have said they have been charged with offences.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: The noble Lord still has it the wrong way round, my Lords.
Lord BROCKWAY: Am I expressing the figures wrongly?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord means that 8 per cent. have been charged while 92 per cent. have been discharged and therefore not charged.
Lord BROCKWAY: I thought I said they had not been charged, my Lords; I thank the noble and learned Lord for putting me right. In any event, in my view this state of affairs is an absolute outrage from the civil liberties point of view. Not only is this vast majority not charged but of those who are charged very few are charged with any offence relating to violence in Northern Ireland; they are charged with other offences such as wrongful possession of motor vehicles, tax evasion, drug offences and other matters including wasting the time of the police. In other words, this Act against terrorism in Northern Ireland is being used for offences which could surely be dealt with irrespective of the Act.
Another fact concerning me about this Act is the power to exclude suspects in one part of the United Kingdom from another without trial or right to appeal. Noble Lords are aware that I have often taken up in this House cases of Commonwealth immigrants who have been excluded from our country. But they have greater rights than under this Act are allowed to British citizens. When one hears of a deportation at Heathrow and one telephones the Home Office, the deportation is immediately stopped until consideration has been given to the case one is putting forward. And after that, if the case goes against the immigrant, he has a right to appeal to a tribunal. That is not allowed to British citizens in this country who are ordered to be deported from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
Then there is the strange fact that whether they are deported to Northern Ireland or the Republic, in both cases they are absolutely free from action when they get there. One must seriously consider whether the advantages of the Act in preventing violence in Northern Ireland are not outweighed by the disadvantages to civil liberties and personal freedom in our own country.
I was disappointed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Harris in which he
1426
made no reference to the fact that in another place the Home Secretary himself had indicated that he was disturbed by certain aspects of this Act and promised an examination of it. In another place, my honourable friend Mr. Ian Mikardo suggested four conditions for such an investigation. The first was that it should be a thorough inquiry. The second was that it should be an independent inquiry, not limited to those connected with the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office. The third suggestion was that there should be publication of the conclusions of the inquiry, and the fourth was that those conclusions should be considered in regard to the maintenance of this Act or some of its provisions.
I draw attention to the fact that the Home Secretary made some response to this proposal for an inquiry. He said first that it would not be another Gardiner investigation. He said secondly that he would look at certain aspects but that there was no question of a political decision by an outside committee. He said thirdly that he could not consider the terms of reference for such an inquiry without further investigation. Next, he said that he wished to provide reassurance and information about the working of the Act. Lastly, he said—and I regard this as of the greatest importance—that he fully understood that anything done would have to be done in an independent fashion. He promised to make a Statement to the House.
I ask that when a reply is made to this debate tonight there shall be a reaffirmation of the Home Secretary's acceptance that, in some aspects, this Act is so doubtful that there should be an investigation. I ask the Minister in his reply to say definitely that he will give an assurance upon these points. The reply of the Home Secretary that the inquiry should be in an independent fashion is rather vague. I ask Her Majesty's spokesman to say that an inquiry into the doubtful aspects of this Act shall be by an independent committee. The reply of the Home Secretary in another place was not adequate to satisfy many of those who are my friends, and I hope that the spokesman for the Home Office will be able tonight to make a statement that will satisfy those of us who are so critical of this Act.
11 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I have just returned from Belfast late this afternoon, having spent a week visiting many parts of Northern Ireland, engaged in completely non-political work. I went there because I was invited to go on behalf of a charity of which I have been chairman for a good many years. In the circumstances, I feel that I ought not to let this opportunity pass without paying my own humble tribute to the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is being carried out under the most appallingly difficult conditions.
It would not be fair to detain the House at this late hour; but while all the impressions of my visit are still fresh in the mind, I would earnestly ask my noble friends on this side of the House (many of them dear friends of many years standing) how far some degree of restriction of individual liberties is necessary where there are at stake innocent and very valuable human lives, which are in no way involved in any of the horrors that are occurring today in Northern Ireland. These regulations may be instrumental not only in saving these innocent lives but also in bringing sooner an end to the horrors that have to be endured, day in, day out, by our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to influence my noble friends. I do not ask them to change their own very strongly-held principles of individual liberty. We respect them, we admire them for it. All I ask is that they weigh very carefully, at this appalling stage which the affairs of Northern Ireland has reached, how far they ought to do anything that will hinder the saving of very valuable innocent lives. Even at this late hour, I am impelled to say that I feel very largely with my noble friends in the sentiments they have expressed; but I also feel very strongly that these have to be set in proper perspective, in view of the tragedies that are happening at this very moment in Northern Ireland.
11.3 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, I need take only a few minutes to express my opposition to the continuance of the order, following the speeches of my
1428
noble friends. I speak as one who cherishes human rights and civil liberties both abroad as well as within these shores, and experience abroad and within these shores shows us that the worse the crisis which besets society and the worse the attacks upon it, the more vigilant we need to be to uphold the rights of the individual, and not to be stampeded by the crisis of events into curtailing and abusing those rights.
Experience abroad as well as within these shores also suggests that the more draconian the emergency legislation that is passed, the more it is abused and the more bitterness is created among those who are the victims of its abuse. In answer to my noble friend Lord Segal, I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich in his speech did not give us any evidence that this Act was saving lives. The powers to arrest and detain under the Act are powers to arrest on the reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism, and those powers exist under the ordinary law. My Lords, what I ask, in common with my noble friends, is; do the Government care about the 2,300 people who have been detained, to no avail, under this Act; whose lives, and the lives of their families, have for short periods been shattered, and whose reputations have suffered? Do we care? Are we to institute any kind of inquiry into the uses and abuses of this Act in the past three years? Those are the questions I ask. I oppose this order.
11.5 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I would not have intervened at this very late hour but for the fact that I think it is right that, late as it is, the views of those on these Benches should be taken into account because we represent a very great number of people in the country. Whether or not we represent a majority I will not venture to say, but I feel that even at this late hour I have a right to speak for them and a duty to speak for them. At the same time, I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I again protest at the mismanagement of Government business today, that these two long debates should have taken place after the Committee stage of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This is perhaps in some

1429
ways the most important of all, although the Criminal Law Bill was of great importance, too. I must ask the Government, on a Monday, not to put business of this kind at the end of the evening, because it is not fair to the House and it is a frivolous approach to important issues which have to be discussed.
Having said that, my Lords, I must say to the Government that I think they would have been failing in their duty had they not prolonged this unpleasant Act. I say it because, although I recognise, of course, that until recently there has been a lull in IRA activity in Great Britain, I am personally persuaded that that lull is only temporary; and I accept the view which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that both the statements of the IRA and their political supporters and the events of January indicate that that view is the correct one. I must of course dispute with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and others who have spoken from what I might call the mountain below the Gangway, the view that this Act is primarily concerned with the prevention of terrorism in Northern Ireland. That may be important; but the Act is also concerned with the prevention of terrorism over here. Indeed, this, I think, was, in its origin, its primary purpose.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that it is all very well, from the safety of his family seat in the Republic, for him to come over here to tell us that our legislation is unnecessary. I think he must face the fact that we are the objects of attack, and he is speaking from a safe position; and it ill-becomes him to lecture us on the measures which we think necessary for the protection of our country here, either in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. I believe I speak for the immense majority of people in this country when I tell him that his intervention on this matter is greatly resented.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have great appreciation of the noble and learned Lord, but I feel that on reflection he will very much regret that intervention in reference to Lord Kilbracken.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I certainly do not regret it, and I shall not regret it on even
1430
greater reflection. This is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has completely misunderstood the feelings of this country, and, in my opinion, abused the position which he holds as a resident of the Republic, telling us what we ought to do and insinuating that we are doing wrong. I do not like to be lectured by him and I do not like to see even this Government lectured by him. Having said that, let us go on a little further.
Lord KILBRACKEN: May I reply to that, my Lords? First, I certainly appreciate fully that this Act has its principal application in Britain, and not in Northern Ireland. May I further say that if he thinks I am living in perfect safety eight miles from the Border, he is mistaken.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be living in perfect safety. There is nothing I less desire than any insecurity on the part of the noble Lord; but I must say that he comes from the safe side of the Border, as anyone living on the Northern side will clearly realise.
My Lords, I must go on to say this. It is all very well to talk about vigilance and civil liberties. I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I can claim to be as keen on civil liberties as are the three noble Lords who have spoken against this Motion. We are, but I think we must get our priorities right. I can remember, not very many years ago, the explosion at Aldershot. I think that that was a little before the legislation which we are discussing today, There was a little boy of eight whose mother worked in an Army barracks and got blown up by a bomb. I wrote to the aunt who was looking after the little boy after his mother had been blown up and killed. "He doesn't understand," said the aunt. Nor did I; because I think it is useless to talk of preserving the peripheries of civil liberty when the heart and of civil liberty, which is the right to live, is being challenged by those against whom this legislation is aimed.
I quite agree that a number of people, completely innocent, have been detained in one way or another, but I think that they are under a duty to their fellow citizens to put up with it during this present crisis so long as we are being made

1431
the victims of this wicked conspiracy and attack. I certainly do not resent the limitation on my own liberties which, curiously enough, have been quite considerable when I have chosen to travel across St. George's Channel. I do not mind being searched. This is a gross intrusion on my privacy, but I do not mind it because I like to think that these precautions are being taken for the preservation of the life and liberties of my fellow subjects.
My Lords, I think we have got our priorities right and they have got their priorities wrong. The idea that you will preserve liberties in this country by making it more difficult for the Executive Government in a situation like the present is, I think, an entirely mistaken one.
I should like to add this. I ventured to say when the last Statement on Northern Ireland was being made—and this is too late an hour to go into it in detail—that I think the situation there and here is likely to deteriorate. I think that before long the Government must make a move. It may have been true that for months they were justified in letting the situation drift along and prosecuting under the law the people who were found guilty under the law, so that they could be shown to be upholding the rule of law and getting a large number of people convicted. But I think the political situation now demands, if they do not wish the political situation to deteriorate both here and there, some fresh initiative on the part of the Government. In giving my whole-hearted consent to this disagreeable measure, which I believe to be necessary, I ask the Government to carry back some of the disquiet which some of us feel on this side of the House about the absence of movement in this field.
My Lords, I do not want to say more than a word about the speech of my noble friend behind me, because what we are discussing today is, of course, not the BBC but the continuance of the Act for another 12 months. But I should like to say this for the consideration of those who are responsible for broadcasting. It is absolutely right that they should be independent of Parliament and independent of the Government in the judgments they make about what should be put on
1432
the air and what should not. But they, just as much as Parliament, Government and Opposition, are public figures and must be a little less sensitive when they are criticised because they are just as much legitimate targets as we are. We are entitled to say what we think about them, no less than they are entitled to say what they think about us.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? Does that apply to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, whom I think it has been suggested should have no right to lecture us as we have been lectured tonight—much too strongly? I only ask that for information.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I was not talking about the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, at that stage; I was talking about the BBC. I had left the noble Lord opposite, attractive as the subject of discussing him has always been to me. The BBC must be a little less sensitive. If it be the case—and this is what I was about to say when the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches interrupted me—that the BBC put on the air allegations against the RUC before they had been investigated, and while those complaints are being investigated, and, therefore, to which a reply cannot be made, I think they were guilty both of a great error of judgment and a considerable injustice to the RUC.
I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—and I am glad to acknowledge his wisdom in saying it—that it is a great mistake to put yourself in the position of interviewing those who are expressly associating themselves with illegal activities. There comes a time when inevitably not only is this undesirable but, in the end, illegality will take place as a result of those associations. I think that they are very unwise indeed to pursue some of the activities which they have, and I am entitled to say it without any accusation of wanting to censor them. They are legitimate targets of criticism just as much as I am and just as much as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is. My Lords, I have taken up too much time of the House; I only intervened to say that the Conservative Party, at any rate, will support the noble Lord in what he proposes.
11.17 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, let me begin on the point on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, ended; namely, the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the comments made by my noble friend Lord Brockway, and what the noble and learned Lord said about the programme on the BBC. All three noble Lords have expressed their views unambiguously. The Home Office has a responsibility for the appointment of governors to the BBC and the appointment of members of the Board of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. In so far as any Government Department is charged with any clear responsibility so far as broadcasting policy is concerned, it is the Home Office. That being so, I do not think it is appropriate to comment. Nor would I, if I were speaking for another Department, make a comment so far as Government are concerned on a matter of this sort. This is clearly a matter for the governors of the BBC.
All three noble Lords have expressed their views, and I agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. The BBC and the independent programme companies are in the arena just as we are. If people feel that there has been a grave error of judgment—as clearly some feel that there has been in this particular episode—it is for them to raise the matter publicly and argue it out, and that has been done in this House. I am quite sure that the BBC will take note of what has been said. I repeat, I do not think it is appropriate in this or any other matter for members of the Government to make comments about particular programmes. I think that there is a real risk of politicians becoming involved in day-to-day matters of broadcasting policy. I think that most noble Lords will agree that it is wise for Ministers to stay away from this.
The report of the Annan Committee will be produced in the fairly near future, and although I do not know what particular recommendations it will be making, one point which I know has been a matter of debate while the Committee has been sitting has been the question of complaints. It may well be that the Annan Committee will make some recommendations in this matter which may be of some assistance
1434
to the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough.
Turning now to the order, the noble and learned Lord described it as a disagreeable measure; and I would agree with him. Also, in my view, it is an essential measure because, with great respect to my noble friends who have spoken this evening, quite rightly emphasising their anxiety in this matter, I believe that one really has to look at the other side of the balance sheet, Over 60 of our fellow citizens have lost their lives as a result of attacks by the IRA in British cities. I do not wish to take an unfair advantage over anybody, but I can still remember going down to Kensington Church Street the evening that Captain Goad was killed while defusing a bomb which somebody had left outside a shop in the hope that it might maim some innocent passer-by. When we are faced with men and women who are capable of acts of that sort, I think it behoves the Government of the day to recommend powers to Parliament to deal with them. My noble friend Lord Gifford referred to "cherishing human rights". The most supreme human right is the maintenance of human life itself, and it is indeed the objective behind this legislation which we have before us.
I will deal in passing with a number of the points that have been made, but the central question between my noble friends and myself is the estimation of the threat which this country is facing. I have indicated the level of casualties which we have had in the past, beginning with the 21 people who were killed in the public house bombings in Birmingham, where bombs were left in the hope that they would kill the largest number of people. As a result of that, the 1974 Bill was passed through Parliament in a matter of days. The question may be asked: would it have made any difference if we had not had a Bill in 1974? I can only answer my noble friends by saying this—and I accept in advance that they will not find the answer a satisfactory one, but I must speak from my own personal knowledge of the matter. For the last three years, I have been dealing with this question in the Home Office; that is, the attacks made by the IRA on this side of the Channel. All I would say to my noble friends is that it is my view—and, what is rather more important, it is the view of every senior police officer

1435
I know and for whose professional judgment I have a high regard—that without the powers which are conferred in this Statute, there would have been substantially heavier loss of life in British cities.
Of course, my noble friends may complain that it is easy for me, speaking from this Box, and may ask how I can possibly establish that. All I can say to that is that we are faced with a clearly defined threat. In the last two and a half to three years, the police—far from being incompetent, if I may say so, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested—have in my view achieved more remarkable success than any other police force in the developed world, at a time when they were facing the kind of problems they have. In many cases, for example in the cases of the Metropolitan and Merseyside police, criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken—forces with substantial manpower shortages, which have had to deploy large numbers of men at very short notice indeed to deal with this grave terrorist threat—those forces feel that, without the legislation which Parliament has thought it right to give them, the terrorist threat would have been a great deal more difficult to contain than they have found it.
My noble friend Lord Brockway said that it was indeed a serious matter—and I entirely agree with him—to exclude a person from one part of the United Kingdom to another. He is quite right, and it is indeed a serious matter. Neither the noble and learned Lord nor I have suggested for a moment that there is not an infringement of civil liberties here. Of course there is. It would be an absurdity to pretend that there is not an invasion of human rights here. The question, however, is a different one and it is this. With fewer than 100 exclusion orders made in the period since the end of 1974—I come back to this again—it is our view that without these people being excluded there would have been substantially heavier loss of life than there has been. I can say this on the basis of my personal knowledge of these people. That is a fact which the House must take into account.
It would be a most serious matter if Parliament wished to withdraw the
1436
exclusion powers conferred by this Statute. It would, for instance, mean that if the power were withdrawn tonight, or in the next few days, all the people who had been excluded would, of course, return to this country, and I wonder very much how many of our fellow citizens in this country would regard that as a sensible and responsible position to take in the Legislature.
Lord KILBRACKEN: My Lords, could the Minister explain this? The great majority of these desperadoes have been sent to another part of the United Kingdom; namely, Northern Ireland. How do the people in Northern Ireland feel about having these murderers running loose in the country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, they probably find it particularly disagreeable, but the position is that, as a result of a complaint made by, I think, Mr. Powell in another place on the occasion of the last Act going through Parliament, it was decided that there would be a reverse exclusion process so far as Northern Ireland itself was concerned. We conceded that point, and a number of these people have been excluded to Northern Ireland where many of them have their homes, while others have been excluded to the Republic of Ireland. The fact of the matter is that the provisional active service units which have been operating in this country have come either from the Republic of Ireland or from Northern Ireland. That is a simple fact. Whether or not that is true, is not a matter for debate. All the evidence which has appeared in public print demonstrates where provisional active service units come from, and it is right for us to return those people from whence they came, because by doing so people in Great Britain do not get killed. That is the simple fact which Parliament must recognise, so far as the existence of these powers is concerned.
My noble friends Lord Kilbracken and Lord Brockway raised a question about the Home Secretary's speech in the House of Commons, when they discussed these powers a few days ago. It is absolutely true that my right honourable friend then stated that he wants to consider ways of looking at the working of this Act, before corning to Parliament again in a year's time if a further renewal

1437
then proves necessary. This is in recognition of the fact that the powers in this Act—however necessary and well justified they may be—inevitably, as I have already indicated, involve a measure of infringement of our civil liberties, and should therefore be scrutinised with the utmost care. It does not in any way—and I must make this clear—imply any criticism of the general way in which the police have operated these powers; nor, of course, does it imply any weakening of the Government's resolve to provide for the full powers and support which may be necessary to deal with terrorism.
In conclusion, I must assure the House that the request for the renewal of the Act is not in any way an automatic action on the part of the Government, but a carefully considered decision. It is with regret that I moved this Motion, a regret which I know will be shared by all those in the House, but it is not yet time to dispense with this Act. I believe that it has helped, and will continue to help, in the fight against terrorism, and I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accord it their full support today.
11.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place and I declare that the Contents have it.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Petition against, from the Archway Improvement Association, Haringey, Friends of the Earth and Muswell Hill and Fortis Green Residents Association, withdrawn.
  CIDER TAX
  CIDER TAX
  AGRICULTURAL CENSUSES AND SURVEYS BRANCH
  AGRICULTURAL CENSUSES AND SURVEYS BRANCH
  GLASSHOUSE SURVEY
  GLASSHOUSE SURVEY
  CONCORDE: NOISE LEVELS
  CONCORDE: NOISE LEVELS
  TRI-STAR: BRITISH AIRWAYS LEASING
  TRI-STAR: BRITISH AIRWAYS LEASING
  THETFORD MINES, QUEBEC: MEDICAL ADVISER'S VISIT
  THETFORD MINES, QUEBEC: MEDICAL ADVISER'S VISIT