Sitting of 28 February 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL (By Order)
  ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest details of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): At 9th February, there were 1,445,863 people registered as unemployed in Great Britain.
    Although the seasonally adjusted figures have fallen for the fifth successive month, the Government are taking positive steps to secure a more rapid fall in unemployment. Details of the new youth opportunities programme and special temporary employment programme are being announced today.
    I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Education and Science hope that all concerned—employers, unions, local authorities, the education service and voluntary bodies alike—will give this important initiative their maximum support.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the youth employment programme is of great importance to all people? Will he give the House an assurance that there are enough funds available to make the programme a reality, particularly for Greater London?
    Mr. Booth: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern, particularly for the success of this programme in the London area. I can assure him that on the budget allocation for 1978–79 Greater London will receive £8·1 million to fund the youth opportunities programme in that area.
    Mr. Arnold: What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of sectors in the economy in which employment is still rising? Is it his view that the underlying trend is still upwards?
    Mr. Booth: It is the case that as of now there is still a strong possibility that the increase in the number of people in employment may not be sufficient to offset the additional number of people who seek jobs, particularly during the period of the summer school leaving. Therefore, the trend is very difficult to predict at present and may well depend upon the success of the youth opportunities programme.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Newham, we have a stress area with a number of problems, too many to enumerate but including unemployment? We have a scheme for a new court to be established, in which all the money and everything could be agreed upon, and someone, somewhere has stopped it.
    In view of last night's debate and in view of the Government's always claiming that they are going to do something to help deal with unemployment, why instead of stopping work where there could be employment, do not the Government introduce new schemes? Here is something that should help to solve the unemployment problem. Will my right hon. Friend discuss it with the Ministers concerned and tell them to get their fingers out?
    Mr. Booth: I assure my hon. Friend that I discuss with all my Cabinet colleagues the job implications of their own Departments' programmes. But the programme that I am announcing is of particular relevance in my hon. Friend's area in obtaining jobs for young people, and a general increase in the building programme would not automatically bring about the solution of the problem of young people's employment.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition give a general welcome to the youth opportunities programme announced today and to the special temporary employment programme? We shall be studying the details with close attention.
    Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to correct the inaccurate information that he gave more than a month ago about comparative unemployment figures? He failed to correct them when I asked him to do so last time during employment Questions. I hope that he will correct them today.
    Mr. Booth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to the youth opportunities programme and shall be only too willing to furnish him and his hon. Friends with all the details of the programme that they might require. I hope that that will ensure continuing support for the programme.
    I very much regret that the figures that I quoted previously as being comparable were not. They were not adjusted to take account of national definitions of unemployment. Those were figures from an OECD table that I quoted to the House. I should have checked them to test their basis. I have written to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) apologising to him for this error, and I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the House for having inadvertently misled hon. Members.

    Employment Protection Act
    Mr. Bulmerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on the operation of the Employment Protection Act.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): From time to time my right hon. Friend has informal talks with the Chairman of ACAS about various aspects of the operation of the Employment Protection Act.
    Mr. Bulmer: Will the Minister confirm that neither the Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) nor the Bill introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to amend the Act has the support of the Council of ACAS?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the confirmation that he seeks, because the Council of ACAS, which is responsible for determining the policy of that body, has declined to express a view about either Bill.
    Mr. Thorne: When does my hon. Friend expect real progress to be made on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is presently in Committee?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that Opposition Members will have regard to that matter, because after three or four sittings we are

    217
    still on Clause 1, and that will cause some anxiety to those who have other Private Members' Bills waiting to enter that Standing Committee.
    Mr. Madel: Did the work that the Minister's Department commissioned with Industrial Facts and Forecasting Ltd. last year include an assessment of the way in which Schedule 11 of the Act was affecting the general level of inflation? If no such assessment was made by that organisation, will an assessment be made this year?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot answer that question without notice. I shall see exactly what the terms of reference were, but I doubt whether they included a commitment along the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests, though I am prepared to reflect on what he said.
    Sir A. Meyer: In view of mounting evidence that the Act is stifling more jobs than it is creating, particularly in small businesses, will the Government, instead of taking cover behind two Private Member's Bills, introduce their own Bill to increase the exemptions from the application of the Act?
    Mr. Walker: We have said that we are prepared—after a reasonable period of experience of the working of the Act to see how it is applying. I refute the hon. Gentleman's allegation about mounting evidence. I am prepared to accept that there are mounting complaints, but they are a different matter from evidence. Most of the complaints are not about the Act but are about the unfair dismissal provisions introduced by the Industrial Relations Act 1971.

    Temporary Employment Subsidy
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that 10 remains a realistic minimum number for eligibility for temporary employment subsidy.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): Yes, Sir. Although we appreciate the difficulty that this causes, to reduce the threshold further would need substantial increases in staffing if long, damaging delays in the processing of other claims were to be avoided.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister reconsider that, because it is very unrealistic today to have to have 10 unemployed people before one can receive a TES? Secondly, as industry in the same area seems to suffer the same sort of fate at the same time, will the hon. Gentleman consider accepting TES applications from a number of firms which form themselves into a co-operative?
    Mr. Grant: We feel that any further reduction in the threshold would bring in a large number of applications for what would be a relatively small number of jobs saved, and would cause considerable administrative problems and add to the backlog with which we are now dealing. However, we shall look at the hon. Gentleman's latter point.
    Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend agree that the threshold level could be academic for many workers in the clothing, textiles and footwear industries if the European Community gets its way? Will he advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make clear to the bureaucrats in Brussels that we shall not end the TES until there has been a thoroughgoing review of the multiplicity of employment subsidy schemes in all the other European Community countries?
    Mr. Grant: My right hon. Friend has made the Government's views very clear in Brussels, as in this House. At this stage I cannot add to what he has already told the House.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in areas of high seasonal unemployment, areas of tourism, and so on, the scheme has not worked all that effectively so far? There are examples where it was applied initially and then withheld for a subsequent season. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter so that next season there will be an opportunity for concerns in tourist areas to maintain a nucleus of skilled people through to the next season and improve their performance?
    Mr. Grant: I understand the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but it is a temporary employment subsidy scheme and has a limited duration, although there is now a supplementary addition to the scheme.

    Closed Shop
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts, so far as the closed shop is concerned.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I have received several, but detailed analysis of these representations could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Gow: Does the hon. Gentleman think it fair and right that British Rail should have dismissed without compensation 40 of its employees who refused to join a trade union and two more of its employees who withdrew from a trade union in consequence of the provisions of the Acts?
    Mr. Walker: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House repeatedly that it is not for the Government to say what the terms of the union membership agreement should be. These are entirely within the collective bargaining process and are determined between the employer and union. However, I have pleaded on several occasions for those who enter into union membership agreements to apply them in a reasonable and tolerable way, and I hope that that is the practice that is followed.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend realise that when we meet our constituents in our surgeries we find that the worst type of problem is that of those workers who do not join unions and then face a legal action the costs of which they are unable to meet? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues do all they can to encourage all workers to join the appropriate trade union?
    Mr. Walker: I give my hon. Friend the promise that I shall do that, and have been trying to. One area of common ground between both sides of the House in industrial relations is the desire to see the growth of collective bargaining, which I believe should be based on strong trade unions.
    Mr. Hayhoe: As the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act places a duty on the Government in terms of a Press charter, will the Minister ensure that the draft Press charter
    220
    brought before the House contains a provision making clear that journalists must have some exclusion from the operation of the closed shop?
    Mr. Walker: Among the obligations placed on my right hon. Friend and myself in preparing the charter is to take fully into account the Act from which it stems and its provisions in relation to the establishment of union membership agreements.

    Productivity Schemes
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many self-financing productivity schemes are currently being monitored by his Department.
    Mr. Harold Walker: My Department has been informed of about 520 productivity schemes which the employer concerned has confirmed to be fully self-financing.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Minister satis-field that 69 staff in his Department, with a number of other duties, are enough to monitor these schemes sufficiently closely to satisfy those who are not the beneficiaries of such schemes that they are genuinely self-financing?
    Mr. Walker: Whether their number is adequate, the staff are hard-pressed but coping very well. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to them. As to the extent to which the schemes are self-financing, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that while the policy is voluntary the vetting of self-financing productivity schemes is conducted in relation to the paragraph 16 sanctions. I hope that in addition the hon. Gentleman has seen the Written Reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, which shows the role that the Price Commission will have.

    North-West Region
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment rate in the North-West of England.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): At 9th February the unemployment rate in the North-West Region was 7·5 per cent.
    Mr. Goodlad: Does the Minister agree that the trend in the North-West is exceptionally worrying? Is he aware of the small share of European Investment Bank loans which has been received in the North-West and the very low level of European Regional Development Fund aid for unemployed persons received by the North-West as compared with other areas? Will he make representations to ensure that this is rectified in the future?
    Mr. Golding: Of course the situation is very worrying, but what is important is the amount of money put into the region, and not its sources, and £400 million has been put into the North-West region as financial assistance in the five years up to March 1977. As the House well knows, we made it clear to Brussels that the North-West has been heavily dependent upon the temporary employment subsidy.
    Mr. Loyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts being made by his Department to reduce unemployment in the North-West are being undermined by decisions, as in Merseyside, that will lose 3,000 jobs at a stroke? Does he not agree that it is time that he discussed with his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet the contradictions that exist between these two forms of action?
    Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend discusses these problems constantly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The Government must leave it to British Leyland to take commercial decisions on its own account.
    Mr. Silvester: Has the Minister seen the article in The Guardian of today, which suggests that, like the job creation scheme, the youth opportunities scheme in Merseyside may be being handicapped by the weight of the requirements from bureaucracy and the additional staff being employed? Will he look into that area and see that this programme is not being handicapped?
    Mr. Golding: I have not read The Guardian today. I have been at the Birmingham partnership meeting, and travelling back. I have not had time to read it.
    Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that for structural and geographical reasons, the North-West, comparatively, has deteriorated more rapidly than any other
    222
    region? Will he, therefore, channel a greater concentration and share of Government resources and, indeed, of Common Market grants, and Government contracts and other aid into these older urban areas, upon which the wealth of this nation was originally founded?
    Mr. Golding: We do not want to talk about a league table for comparing regions. What is important is that we give as much assistance to each region as possible to deal with the problems of unemployment and industrial decline.
    Later—
    Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a reply given to me by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, he said that the decision in relation to the 3,000 jobs to which I had referred was a matter for Leyland. However, I understand from a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry that there are at the moment proposals being put forward by Leyland as part of a corporate plan which ultimately will go before the National Enterprise Board and eventually, I suppose, will be considered by some Cabinet committee. Therefore, it is misleading for the Under-Secretary to say that this is a British Leyland decision and out of context—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is really putting forward an argument which no doubt he would have liked to make at Question Time. It is not a point of order for me to resolve.

    Pay Settlements (Government Action)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what he estimates will be the effect on employment of the enhancement of the Government's activities concerning the blacklisting of companies considered to be in breach of the pay guidelines; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated effect on unemployment of the operation of the revised arrangements for the Government's voluntary incomes policy black list.
    Mr. Booth: The current pay policy and the steps that we are taking in support of it are essential if we are to beat inflation and beating inflation is essential if we are to maintain and increase employment.
    Mr. Adley: Do not jobs depend heavily upon investment? Does the Secretary of State think that the black list will contribute or will not contribute towards the creation of that climate of investment which has been clearly identified by the Wilson Committee as having a great deal to do with certainty, which is hardly likely to be assisted by the Government's black list?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly accept that jobs are dependent to a considerable extent upon investment, but the advice that I and other Ministers are receiving as to the private sector's intentions with regard to investment suggests to me that it will be more prepared to invest if we have a lower inflation rate than if we have a higher one.
    Mr. Marshall: Does not the Secretary of State's answer this afternoon suggest that he is not monitoring at all the effects of blacklisting on employment? From recent exchanges in the House, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the problems of the electrical and road haulage contracting industries, and of the John Lewis Partnership and the impact on it of reduced tendering opportunities for health authorities and local government. What is his estimate of the lost opportunities and what is his Department doing about it?
    Mr. Booth: I do not have to institute a special monitoring procedure. Since the House passed the Employment Protection Act, every firm that declares 10 or more redundancies has to notify my Department. On the basis of that information, I know that no redundancies have been brought about as a result of the Government's having applied discretionary measures in terms of their pay policy.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In a recent court case, the Attorney-General was quoted as saying that it is not the Government's intention to interfere in any way with a legally binding agreement. What is the definition of a legally binding agreement?
    Mr. Booth: I think that I had better call upon my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to answer that question. However, I have looked at the court case to which I believe my hon. Friend refers, and for that purpose any contract entered into between the employer and a union or between employer and employee is a binding agreement upon them. What we had to consider was whether it would be proper to apply a discretion for any purpose other than persuading people in this situation to renegotiate agreements. We decided that it would not be proper. Therefore, we do not use discretionary powers to seek to bring about a breach of such an agreement.
    Mr. Viggers: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the blacklist provisions a main contractor is responsible for the conduct of his subcontractors and that in a fiercely competitive industry, such as the electronics industry, where one can buy from this country or abroad, the safest action for any main contractor is to buy from a foreign supplier?
    Mr. Booth: It is certainly the case that under the discretionary procedure following from paragraph 16 of the White Paper, a major contractor has to pass on similar conditions to sub-contractors, but there is nothing unique in that. The provisions of the fair wages clause also pass an obligation from main contractors to sub-contractors. I have not heard of that being used as an argument for buying supplies from abroad rather than in this country.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the "model" capitalist economy of West Germany has had a low level of inflation but that the unemployment rate there is now well above 1 million and is rising steadily? Is that not a clear indication that what we require are socialist policies to deal with our unemployment problem?
    Mr. Booth: I certainly accept that the experience of West Germany shows that a low rate of inflation in itself is not enough to solve problems of unemployment. However, whenever the opportunity has arisen, my right hon. and hon. Friend and I have urged West Germany to use certain other advantages that it

    225
    has had as a result of a low rate of inflation to expand its economy to the advantage not only of its own unemployed but of world trade generally.

    Job Release Scheme
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the workings of the job release scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Golding: I am satisfied with the workings of the current job release scheme, but my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 30th January 1978 that we plan that it should be extended—in a revised form—for a further year until 31st March 1979.
    Mr. Hicks: Does the Minister agree that in this nationally agreed scheme, involving both the CBI and the TUC, it is totally unwarranted for local trade union officials to object to the release of a man who has been a lifetime member of the trade union movement? Is not the Minister abdicating his responsibility in refusing to intervene?
    Mr. Golding: No, because when we introduced the scheme we made it absolutely clear that the release would be dependent upon agreement by the employer and the trade union concerned. We have had one objection from a trade union district secretary; several from employers.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that earlier retirement is not only socially attractive but also a very real way of combating unemployment. Does he agree that his scheme would be doubly attractive if the upper age limit were reduced well below the age of 64? When, in the interests of flexibility, will this be considered by his Department?
    Mr. Golding: Whether or not early retirement is attractive depends on how much one is given in that retirement. I think that the question is one of cost. If enough were given to me, I would retire immediately.

    Young Persons
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current balance, as between boys and girls, unemployed in the 16 to 19 years age
    226
    groups; and how this will be affected by the Easter school leavers.
    Mr. Golding: On 12th January, the latest date for which such figures are available, there were 142,337 boys under 20 unemployed in Great Britain, compared with 132,485 girls. It is not possible to say precisely how this position will be affected by the Easter school leavers, but it is estimated that about 37,000 boys and 34,000 girls will be leaving school this Easter in England and Wales and will be available for employment.
    Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Can he say what special steps the Manpower Services Commission is taking to train girls in industrial skills, since there is a shortage of skilled workers in industry that is constantly creating a bottleneck in development?
    Mr. Golding: Special facilities have been made available by the Manpower Services Commission to the Training Services Agency for the training of girls. In addition, a great deal of emphasis has been placed upon the work experience programme, in which girls have had a disproportionate number of places.
    Mr. Scott: Is the Minister aware that there will be widespread concern over this morning's announcement about the youth opportunities programme, to the effect that there are still no guidelines for the recruitment of the persons who are to train the young people involved? Does he realise that the programme is designed to start on 1st April and that all we have had today is information that should have been produced last November? Will the Minister put a rocket behind the Manpower Services Commission?
    Mr. Golding: One reason why decisions have been delayed is to do with the consultations that hon. Members and Ministers have had with the Manpower Services Commission over its original proposals. I shall, however, pass on to the Commission the hon. Gentleman's disquiet.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite what he has said, one month before it is due to start there are still no guidelines to assist those who are to run the schemes? Is he aware

    227
    of the report today of the difficulties with the training workshops? Does he realise that there are problems with the employment induction schemes and the skill-centres? Is he further aware that many of us are concerned that the Government's objectives in this programme may well not be realised?
    Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend has pressed on me time and again the need for there to be local involvement in decision-making. The area boards have just been established and are just meeting. There would have been criticism in the House if guidelines that were too firm had been laid down covering the local people and allowing no expression of their views.
    Mr. Freud: Since the youth employment subsidy is ending on 31st March, may I ask the Minister to confirm that all of those who were previously eligible for that subsidy will be included in the new youth opportunities programme, which we all welcome?
    Mr. Golding: Those who were included in the youth employment subsidy will be included in one scheme or another— either the youth opportunities programme or the special temporary employment programme.
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss youth unemployment; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Booth: I frequently meet the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss a wide range of issues, including youth unemployment.
    Mr. Haselhurst: What contingency plans does the Secretary of State have for dealing with the problem of youth unemployment if, as seems likely, looking at the prospects for employment in this country, the youth opportunities programme announced officially today, however welcome, is unable to match up to the realities of the position?
    Mr. Booth: The youth opportunities programme is based upon the best possible calculation that can be made of the needs of young people leaving school this year. It will bring about a doubling of provision in the 16–18 age range, produc-
    228
    ing about 240,000 places. Our experience of job creation and work experience programmes indicates that, with the improvements that the Government brought about in the youth opportunities programme, this will assist the vast majority of young people in obtaining work.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, welcome though the statement that he has made is, what the Government ought now to be considering is a massive refurbishing of all our social services, particularly the National Health Service? This will involve the spending of a considerable amount of public money. Is he aware that by so doing the Government will be calling the Tories' bluff, since they want unemployment to be reduced but insist that the Government must not indulge in any form of public spending?
    Mr. Booth: I agree with the implications of my hon Friend's question. It is the case that over the past 10 years a large part of the diminution of employment in our manufacturing industry has been offset by the increase in employment implicit in the raising of the standards of social services. I urge hon. Members to consider that, if they wish to press this line for dealing with unemployment—I shall listen to it sympathetically—it cannot be squared entirely with the calls for massive reductions in taxation.
    Mr. Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the success of the youth opportunities programme depends to a large extent on voluntary organisations and voluntary effort? Is he aware that there is immense frustration among those organisations because they have still not been told the basis on which they are expected to work, starting on 1st April?
    Mr. Booth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The success of the youth opportunities programme depends to an enormous extent on the support it receives from the voluntary organisations, employers, unions and community bodies. It is not my experience, going round the country and talking to these people, that they are unaware of the seven main elements of the programme. Many of them have already had discussions with people in the local manpower services committees to work out the ways in which they can operate within the programme.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham garage proprietors are being forced to wait for many months by the Road Transport Industry Training Board before receiving a response to requests for sponsorship for apprentices? Is he further aware that in many cases employers with a good apprenticeship training record have been disappointed in their requests for financial support this year? Does he agree that this is discouraging youth employment and adding to Birmingham's already difficult problems? Will he undertake to look into this question?
    Mr. Booth: I shall certainly undertake to look into this matter. We have been trying to give priority to increasing the number of apprenticeships which can be run by the award and training grant system. If there is a particular problem in that area, we can bring our Department's resources to bear upon it.

    Scotland
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many officials in his Department are responsible for dealing with measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Golding: The number of staff employed on the measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland which are directly administered by my Department is 22.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister realise that it is now four years to the day since the Labour Party won the last General Election on the slogan
    "Back to work with Labour."?
    Now that the level of unemployment in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom is higher than at any time since the 1930s, should not the Government admit to the British public that they cruelly deceived them?
    Mr. Golding: The Labour Party has not deceived the people of Scotland. The Labour Government have worked hard, through special measures, to reduce the incidence of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mrs. Bain: Irrespective of the number of people employed at the Department dealing with measures to reduce unemployment in Scotland, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that the
    230
    doubling of unemployment figures since February 1974 is totally unacceptable? Does he agree that the solution to the problem lies in bringing forward a reflationary Budget which will expand Scotland's manufacturing base, which has declined by 9·3 per cent. since the Government came into office?
    Mr. Golding: I agree that the unemployment figure is unacceptable. The level of reflation must depend upon how much inflation the people of Scotland will be prepared to suffer.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister not ashamed that, despite being elected in February 1974 on a pledge to reduce unemployment—I have that pledge here—the jobless total in Scotland has almost doubled, to 200,000? Since the Government's policies are clearly not working, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Employment would be willing to hold a special convention in Scotland of small and large firms, to take their advice on the way in which investment might be improved and employment increased?
    Mr. Golding: The Labour Party manifesto is one of those documents that I do know about. What was very clearly said in the manifesto was that the first priority would be given to the fight against inflation.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Employment what extra efforts, in view of the continual high level of unemployment, he is making to assist those registered disabled persons at present on the unemployed list.
    Mr. John Grant: I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that it has recently published its development programme of employment and training services for disabled people over the next 5–10 years. The programme includes a substantial number of proposals for improvements and developments and gives indications of relative priorities. The Commission is also carrying out a long-term campaign encouraging employers to adopt the six major guidelines of "Positive Policies", the guide to employing disabled people which was issued in May 1977 to about 55,000 employers. The job introduction and capital grants schemes are also assisting, although take-up has been disappointingly slow.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that, because of persistently high levels of unemployment, those disabled people without jobs are becoming increasingly disheartened and disenchanted? Although the difficulties can be admitted, does he not think that in the present circumstances he owes it to them to initiate a much stronger drive than the one he has enumerated, which is aimed at 5–10 years hence?
    Mr. Grant: No. I think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Although I talked about the development programme for disabled people for 5–10 years hence, the positive policies are not aimed at the long term but are being implemented now and will have a continuing effect. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular methods that he would like to see adopted, he may, of course, suggest them. Some people think that greater enforcement is the answer, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would go along that road.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that every time I call for the prosecution of employers who are breaking the law with regard to the disabled quota system I am told that the Department prefers persuasion to prosecution? Is he further aware that in 1976 the Department prosecuted 2,000 workers who fraudulently claimed unemployment benefit? Why do the Government adopt double standards? Why cannot they either prosecute all lawbreakers or none?
    Mr. Grant: Our reason for taking the view that persuasion is better than coercion is that that is the advice that we have had very strongly from, in particular, the National Advisory Council for the Employment of Disabled People. That body is expert in this field. It represents disabled people and has on it representatives of employers and trade unions. At present, when more positive policies are being implemented, it is right that we should give that line of approach a fair wind. But the quota system will be reviewed by the Manpower Services Commission before the end of 1979, and perhaps we shall have to look at the question of harsher methods of enforcement.
    Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figures of disabled unemployed.
    Mr. John Grant: I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that on 12th January 1978, the latest date for which figures are available, 148,688 disabled people were unemployed, of whom 74,992 are registered as disabled.
    Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister accept that these figures indicate the disastrous failure of his policies for the disabled unemployed?
    When are we to receive the review of the fares-to-work scheme which has been undertaken by the Minister's Department since February last year? Does he appreciate that the Manpower Services Commission, in many of its expensive advertisements, is not including any reference to disabled people?
    Mr. Grant: I do not think that it is true to say that it is a disastrous policy. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair unless he tells us what sort of measures he would like to see adopted.
    I hope to be in a position to announce very shortly the changes in the fares-to-work scheme. We want to get away from complicated means-tested schemes of the kind which exist. I expect that before the summer is out we shall have a new scheme in operation.
    Mr. Terry Walker: As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to him about this problem. As a short-term measure, could not some moves be made with local authorities to make sure that they employ their quota of disabled persons? Many of these authorities—as in the case of those around Bristol—are certainly doing so.
    Mr. Grant: I have pressed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take further action to draw the attention of the local authorities to the low level of compliance with the quota, but it is only fair to say that although there is a lot of criticism of the public sector in this respect, we are not able to look at figures for the private sector. I have carried out a small experiment in the private sector among opinion formers as employers, and have asked to see the figures of the national newspapers, television companies, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and leading trade unions and employers' associations, as well as the Conservative Party Central Office, the

    233
    Labour Party and the Liberal Party, although the Liberal Party, with only 18½ employees, does not have an obligation. I hope that we shall be able to get permission to publish the figures.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will the Minister be a little more frank and admit that the reason why the Government do not wish to use their statutory powers to pursue employers who are in breach of their obligations under the Act is that the Government, as the largest employer in the country, are overwhelmingly again and again in breach of their own statutory obligations?
    Mr. Grant: No, that is not so. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, as always, is reading sinister motives into a situation when such motives do not exist. I have already given the reason. We have had independent advice—which is more than one could say for the hon. Gentleman's advice—that we should follow a policy of persuasion at this time.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: In view of the last reply, will the Minister give a definite assurance here and now that every one of the Government Departments and every one of the Ministries is carrying out the statutes? If he is unable to give such an assurance, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Grant: Of course, I cannot give such an assurance. I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Department of Employment Gazette of the Official Report. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would listen for a moment, I would point out that there would not be enough registered disabled employees to go round anyway, if they were all found jobs.
    Mr. Hannam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not raising the matter at the time that I received the answer from the Under-Secretary of State, but his answer was improper and misleading, in the sense—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to save the time devoted to Questions to the Prime Minister, I ask the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) to make his point a little later.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Viggersasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28th February 1978.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Viggers: Will the Prime Minister. as part of his official duties, comment upon the continuing shameful unemployment figures? Is he aware that youth employment programmes and job creation schemes do nothing to solve the underlying problems creating unemployment? Does he accept that there is one thing that he can do to regenerate British industry and get people back to work, and that is to regard Thursday's by-election results as a vote of confidence?
    The Prime Minister: The programmes announced today by the Manpower Services Commission are particularly important for all young people between the ages of 16 and 19, because the hope is that they will give either some form of training or further education to all young people who are unemployed beyond a certain period of time.
    As I have often explained, it is the case that the Government have saved several hundreds of thousands of jobs, against the will of the Opposition, who have voted steadily against all the plans to help the shipbuilding industry and the textiles, furniture and clothing industries. That is not surprising because, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) constantly tells us all rescues and subsidies are harmful. That is why, if there should ever happen to be a Conservative Government, unemployment in this country would certainly soar by at least 1 million.
    Mr. John Garrett: Will my right hon. Friend spend some time today in preparing a speech on the benefits brought to our culture and our society by immigrants, recent or otherwise, and thus say something to allay the genuine fears of a community which has been made to

    235
    feel most unwelcome by bigots and vote-catchers?
    The Prime Minister: I had thought until a few weeks ago that it was generally agreed that the immigrants in our society had brought a great many skills, certainly in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Conservative Government encouraged coloured nurses to come here, as well as coloured bus drivers and coloured Underground drivers. Now, coloured doctors are here. I always thought that this was generally accepted. If it is not now accepted, let me utter one word of warning to anyone who wants to dispute it—those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister use some of his time today to consult the Secretary of State for Industry and the Leader of the House to ensure that we have an early debate on the Select Committee's report on the British Steel Corporation? Is he aware that this industry is losing about £10 million a week, and that Parliament has a duty to debate as soon as possible the sum and also some of the judgments in the report?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady has given me no notice that she was raising this question. I do not know why a simple statement of fact should give rise to such jeers from the Opposition. It does not, of course, arise out of my official engagements for today.
    It so happens that I have gone into this question with some care. The Government are conducting a very deep review of the situation in conjunction with the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions. It is right that the House should have the opportunity of debating this matter. I suggest to the right hon. Lady that it would probably be more helpful to the House if she awaited our review, which will be completed certainly in time for a statement before Easter, although I doubt whether it will be in time for a debate before Easter.
    However, we are talking about a very wide range of deep-seated problems. The Government will probably need to introduce a Bill in due course. If the right hon. Lady allows us to complete this review, I suggest that we could have a debate on the Bill or any other proposal, including the report of the Select Committee. I
    236
    believe that that is the best way to proceed.
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are also talking about the loss of £10 million a week, about the judgments in the Select Committee report, and about its recommendation that there should be a debate as soon as possible, preferably before the Minister's statement in March. These are all serious matters. I would have thought that both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry would be anxious to have this debate as soon as possible. That is what I am asking for.
    The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Lady that we are most anxious to have that debate in the House, because, in addition to all the issues that she has raised, we are talking about many tens of thousands of jobs and their future.
    For that reason, as well as for the future viability and size of the industry, it is important to have a serious debate on the matter. Incidentally, I shall be interested to hear what the Conservative Opposition's view is about the size and structure of the steel industry.
    Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Conservatives were in power we would soon have no steel industry, no shipbuilding industry and no motor car industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, who is reinforcing a point that I have constantly made. If the policy of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is carried out, the steel industry would be wound up next week.
    Mrs. Bainasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 28th February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
    Mrs. Bain: Bearing in mind the commitment in the British Labour Party's manifesto during the British General Election in October 1974 that Scotland would have a development agency receiving extra funds in order to reflect North Sea oil revenue, will the Prime Minister today

    237
    take time to read the report published by the Scottish Council (Development & Industry) yesterday, which advocated that Scotland should have two and a half times its population quota from revenues because of the special needs of Scotland? In view of the hideous unemployment position, and the Government's statement that there would be no special oil fund for Scotland, can we expect, prior to the Garscadden by-election, an early reversal of the Prime Minister's own decision?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the report, but I did read the Press accounts in the Scottish newspapers this morning. They form part of my daily diet, especially on Question days. I remind the hon. Lady that the Scottish Development Agency has had an allocation for its budget of £200 million which can be raised by order to £300 million. The agency has already spent or committed £88 million. Between 56,000 and 65,000 jobs relating to North Sea oil have already come into play in Scotland. With regard to the future, what obviously has to be borne in mind is the benefit which Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom should receive from the oil bonus that is now coming.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are duty bound, at this stage anyway, to honour the Beswick recommendations with regard to the steel industry and that any change in those recommendations must be by agreement between the Government, the British Steel Corporation and the trade unions involved?
    The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment on the Select Committee's report at this stage, because it is for the Government to prepare—as we shall—a proper reply to the Select Committee which pays due attention to these things, and to do it in a regular way, as we do with all Select Committees.
    With regard to the future of what are called Beswick plants, I speak from personal experience in my own constituency, where a great many jobs are likely to go as a result of negotiations. If the Government had pressed the British Steel Corporation to adopt a process of closing down its plants without consultation and negotiation on which undertakings have been given there would be chaos in the steel industry today.
    Mr. Cormack: Bearing in mind that this is the fourth anniversary of the Labour Government's accession to power—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One minute's applause is enough celebration.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the Prime Minister tell the Queen this evening how many of her subjects have gone "back to work with Labour"?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. It is, of course, true that there are more people at work in manufacturing today than there were at the beginning of this decade. It is also true that there are a great many more people offering themselves for work than there were at the beginning of this decade or, indeed, in 1973. In case Conservative Members have not noticed the revolution, that is to say there are a lot more women offering themselves for work now than there were in those days. I ask the House to take this point seriously. I would be grateful if the Queen were not associated with this kind of question.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am hardly known for my sycophancy on these matters, but may I commend the views of my right hon. Friend both in expressing the hope that there will be a comprehensive statement about the steel industry before Easter and in emphasising the fact that no changes can take place in that industry without consultation and, I hope, the full-hearted consent of the workers in that industry? Will he also accept that there is no solution to the problems of the industry in the views of people like the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition who believes that the only answer is to butcher it wholesale? Nor is there an answer among the ranks of those who believe that we can outlive the present crisis and have a viable steel industry without taking courageous decisions with regard to manpower and investment. The two run together. I realise that the Conservative Opposition are not interested—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be fair. There are only two minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time left.
    Mr. Kinnock—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is cutting out another question. That is what it amounts to.
    The Prime Minister: Those of us who have followed the fortunes of the steel industry for many years have felt that one of the remarkable changes has been the estimates about the production that was likely to take place in this country. I have seen a great many figures bandied about with regard to countries like Korea and Japan, as well as many countries of the Third World, suggesting that the future of the steel industry in Europe in particular and in this country certainly is very different from what it was expected to be 10 years ago. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, a question which I hope will be taken seriously is what should be the proper size of the British steel industry, and what should be its future—or are we to take it that the Conservative Opposition want to wipe out the whole thing irrespective of the consequences?
    Mr. William Clark: In view of the Prime Minister's claim that there are now more people in manufacturing than in 1974 will he be kind enough to say why production is lower than it was in 1974?
    The Prime Minister: That is a consequence, as I have said so often at this Dispatch Box, of our low productivity [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition really are like a rather backward class on occasions. I am only quoting from "The Right Approach", which is the Bible of the Opposition. However, they may be in such a silly, giggly mood that they will laugh at anything. It is well known that, as "The Right Approach" said, for 30 years our productivity has lagged behind. It is not a matter with which the Government can concern themselves directly. But through the industrial strategy, with the wholehearted aid of the CBI and the TUC and against the constant derision of the Opposition, people are at work every day in the factories and trade unions to try to improve the situation, and God help us if the Conservative Party ever came to power and tried to reverse that.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (LEGISLATION)
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will see that on the front page of today's Order Paper there is a whole series of what are known as blocking motions relating to Private Bills. This device is well known to everyone in the House as being one which hon. Members in any part of the House may use in order to stop a Private Bill from proceeding for at least a certain period of time.
However, there is another problem in respect of which we are not able to use procedures which are available to deal with other Bills and in respect of blocking motions which do not appear on the Order Paper about such Bills as the Government's proposed Electricity Bill, which is not being brought before the House because of the antics and blocking motions in private by the Liberal Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In this new constitutional situation, where a Liberal spokesman in this House—Penhaligon or—hooligan, or whatever his name is—is stopping this proposed Bill from appearing on the Order Paper, since you are able at the appropriate moment to give time in the House for debates to take place on these Private Bills, I want to know why we are prevented from having a proposed Government Bill debated and voted upon as we wish. We want to see more jobs created as a result of the Bill's provisions being implemented. I want to know what powers we have to see that the Bill is brought before the House so that we can consider it, resolve it and get the necessary jobs arising from it.
Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I know nothing at all about this matter and that he must pursue it in the normal way with his right hon. Friends.
Mr. Skinner: I have done.
Mr. Speaker: I realise that I am very often the last resort.

WEATHER DAMAGE (WEST COUNTRY AND WALES)
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Pursuant to Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Secretary of State for the Environment to reply to the third part of priority Written Question No. 90W yesterday in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton, namely, whether the Government will reimburse local authorities the costs of dealing with the effects of the blizzard in excess of a penny rate and whether these payments will apply to the cost of repairing the damage done to road surfaces."
The matter is specific because widespread damage has in fact been caused to road surfaces in Devon and elsewhere by the recent blizzard and the ensuing floods.
The matter is important because the damage to road surfaces is of a nature which literally endangers the lives of those travelling on them.
The matter deserves urgent consideration because, until local authorities know whether expenditure on making good this damage will rank for 75 per cent, central Government grant pari passu with other allowable expenditure resulting from the effects of the blizzard and the ensuing floods, they cannot plan and execute the necessary operations with the speed necessary to minimise risk to life and property.
With reference to paragraph 4 of Standing Order No. 9, the Minister of State, Department of the Environment accepted ministerial responsibility for answering Questions about such compensation by his statement to the House on Thursday 23rd February. By failing to refer in any way to this specific and important matter either in the statement which he appended to his Answer to the aforesaid priority Written Question yesterday, or in his Answer to that Question, the Minister has brought about a situation wherein only by the
242
operation of Standing Order No. 9 can this specific and urgent matter be
"brought before the House in time".
I quote from paragraph 4.
I submit respectfully that this application complies with the requirements of Standing Order No. 9 and is proper to be discussed thereunder. I request respectfully, further, that because of the urgency of the matter, you, Mr. Speaker, should exercise your power to order that motion to be debated at 7 o'clock tonight.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), with his customary courtesy, not only gave me notice that he proposed to make this application but gave me the details of what he intended to say this afternon, so that I had full opportunity to consider the matter.
The hon. Member wishes to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Secretary of State for the Environment to reply to the third part of priority Written Question No. 90W yesterday in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton, namely, whether the Government will reimburse local authorities the cost of dealing with the effects of the blizzard in excess of a penny rate and whether these payments will apply to the cost of repairing the damage done to road surfaces."
It is for me to decide not whether the matter is to be debated but merely, as the hon. Member asks me, whether it shall have prority over the business for this day and be debated tonight.
I have considered the hon. Member's statement, but I regret that I cannot accede to his application.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That the matter of the Reorganisation of the Housing Executive, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Ann Taylor.]

COMMUNITY LAND ACT (REPEAL)
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Community Land Act 1975.
This is a short, straightforward Bill which has one clause. This clause reads:
"The Community Land Act 1975 is hereby repealed."
If it should go through the House and another place unamended, it will be the shortest Act of Parliament ever to reach the statute book. It sets a precedent for less complicated legislation—a goal that is dear to the heart of my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition.
The Community Land Act replaced the Land Commission Act 1967, but it comes from the same Socialist stable. We should note the comments of the celebrated Left-wing diarist, Mr. Richard Crossman, who said of the 1967 Act:
"The Land Commission was a total failure. It was one of our great disappointments. It was going to be one of our great Labour institutions. It was going to solve the price of land, but the problem is worse than ever."
Thus Mr. Crossman on the Bill that was introduced while he was Leader of the House.
We do not know who is the current diarist in the Cabinet, but the man best qualified is Mr. Crossman's literary executor, the Lord President of the Council. I predict that he will reach the same conclusion about the Community Land Act as his predecessor in his post reached about the Land Commission Act.
According to the Long Title of the Act its purpose was
"to enable local authorities and certain other authorities to acquire, manage and deal with land suitable for development, and to make other provision for and in connection with the public ownership of land."
It is two and a quarter years since the Act received Royal Assent. It is true that there have emerged from it thousands of civil servants employed centrally and locally and an expenditure of millions of pounds. But virtually no land has emerged for development. The Act imposed on local authorities powers and duties that they never sought. They had no experience of these powers, and no desire to carry them out, but they were
244
laid upon them because of the perpetual failure of Socialists to recognise the superiority of a nationwide property-owning democracy over the collectivist concept of community land.
The Bill was introduced by the present Minister of Agriculture. He claimed that the Act would be the total solution to the land problem. But the plan received a heavy blow in December 1976, when guidance note No. 12 announced that the previous borrowing limits for local authorities to buy land had been reduced from £76 million to £38 million for 1977–78 and from £102 million to £64 million in 1978–79. It was stated that if local authorities did not actually use the loan sanction that they had been granted by the end of 1977, the permission to borrow the money would lapse.
The five-year rolling programmes were scrapped and local authorities were told to adjust their staff to the new austerity arrangements. By then, 225 district councils, 36 county councils, all the London boroughs and two special planning boards had submitted provisional five-year rolling programmes to the Secretary of State. A great deal of abortive staff work had taken place, for which the Minister refused to compensate local government, although the fault was entirely his, and there was a great waste of both time and money, which was predictable and predicted.
At the end of the first financial year local authorities had spent only half of the £24 million for which loan sanction had been granted. This left £12 million unused, approval for which has now lapsed. In England in the first full year of operation of the Act, 1,571 acres were acquired of which 832 acres were bought for housing. But only 32 acres were resold to developers. The acquisition cost £6·25 million, but receipts were only £295,000.
The statutory Community Land Accounts of English local authorities, which include staff costs as well as land acquisitions and disposals, showed a deficit of £1.7 million in 1975–76 and of £18·2 million in 1976–77. Thus, in the first two years of State trading in land there has been a £20 million deficit for the taxpayer.
The Act was supposed to accelerate the supply of building land and speed up

245
the house-building programme. It has had precisely the opposite effect. Planning delays already add hundreds of pounds to the cost of new houses and the Act has made things worse. There have been ominous signs that the shortage of building land will lead to fewer homes and higher prices. It is true that there has emerged from the Department of the Environment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices vast quantities of Government paper. Indeed, the bureaucracy does roll on.
Nine orders and regulations have been made jointly by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales. In addition there have been four other English orders, 14 English directions, 30 English circulars, six Scottish orders, two Scottish directions, 29 Scottish circulars and two Scottish publicity directions, five Welsh guidance notes, and two Welsh directions to the Land Authority. Much of this is incomprehensible and contradictory, describing not the situation existing in the real world but only the theoretical machinations of a frenzied ministerial mind.
The House should know something of the paper that is pouring out of No. 2 Marsham Street under the auspices of the Community Land Act. I refer to the guidance note of 7th September last year which was headed
"Community Land Notes, GNLA/14—Application for Loan Sanction."
It said:
"Dear Sir, The enclosed note contains fresh guidance on the submission of applications for loan sanction under the community land scheme."
It goes on:
"Discussions between the Department and the Local Authority Associations suggests that there may be some misapprehension by authorities about the criteria set out in paragraph 12 of GNLA/12 and the exceptions in paragraph 14 of that Note. The following paragraphs contain further guidance, and these points should be read in conjunction with GNLA/12."
You may think that that is from a horror comic, Mr. Speaker. It is not. It is the sort of thing that comes from the Department of the Environment. The guidance goes on:
"Authorities will new have had an opportunity to study the Government White Paper `Policy for the Inner Cities'."
In a more sinister way the final paragraph says:
246
"Long-term, speculative land-banking must necessarily continue to be ruled out at this stage in the life of the land scheme".
I underline the ominous words "at this stage".
It is clear that the Act has failed dismally to achieve the objectives of these orders. It is clear that a fresh approach is required and that this fresh approach has, as its essential precondition, the repeal of the Act.
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Allaun: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to oppose the Bill and to make three main points. First, there is a vital need for the Act and the development land tax which is part of it. Secondly, many Conservative leaders have a financial interest in wanting to end the Act and reduce the tax. Thirdly, far from repealing these measures, we should greatly strengthen them by stopping the massive exemptions.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said that this was a short Bill. I hope that the House will give it short shrift. We are dealing with the classic case of a real conflict of interests between great land owners and ordinary families seeking a home at a reasonable price or rent.
The Act came into being to defeat the landowners' ramp. Take the case of a plot of land eight miles outside London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or any other great city. The local council builds roads to it, and gas, electricity, sewers and water are laid on. A factory is built nearby and, all around, the population grows. One day, the council gives planning permission to build on that land and overnight a potato field can turn into a gold mine. The value of the land can increase 100-fold within 24 hours. For example, Lord Wimborne inherited from his father 350 acres of heath land worth £120,000. Planning permission was obtained and he sold the land to Poole Borough Council seven years later for £7½ million.
The effect on house prices is startling. Let me give the House some sensational figures. The cost of land adds £5 a week to the average rent of a new dwelling in

247
Britain—before a single brick is laid. In outer London, it adds £7 a week and in inner London no less than £18 a week. These figures are for 1976 and are the latest available. They were given to me by the London Boroughs Association after a survey that it had carried out.
There is a Socialist maxim which should be the guiding principle for anyone who believes in fair play. Where the value of land increases not through the efforts of the owner but through the efforts and needs of the community, that increase in value should go back to the community which created it. Labour holds that the way to achieve this is through public ownership of all development land except that of owner-occupiers. This was the first aim of our community land proposals. The second was to ensure that land was used to meet the living needs of the people and not just the profits of property speculators.
It was the racket in land prices and the unearned gains of the speculators which made this a popular pledge in our 1974 election programmes. Land prices trebled between 1970 and 1973. Conservative Members may say that the land price bonanza could never return. Unfortunately, that is not so. Prices are rising again and fast.
Several HON. MEMBERS Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
Mr. Allaun: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Eastbourne and I hope that his hon. Friends will have the courtesy not to interrupt me.
In The Sunday Times on 12th February, under the headline "Land prices top £80,000 for an acre", there was a report which read:
"Land prices are reaching levels not seen since the days of the property boom, and look sure to soar to new heights.
Gough Cooper recently tendered for a site at Loughton, Essex. It bid £80,000 an acre, almost double the price it would have fetched a year ago, but it went for £86,000 an acre.
Laurie Barratt, Chairman of Barratt Developments, agreees that prices have gone above £80,000 in the most popular areas of the South East."
Allowing for 10 houses to the acre, that means that land alone adds £8,000 to the cost of each house.
Although Winston Churchill once bitterly attacked land profits, the Conservative Party is the landowners' party.
248
Many Conservative leaders are great land owners, and I am not referring solely to the House of Lords.
In 1954, Mr. Horace Cutler, the present Conservative leader of the Greater London Council, bought some farmland in Hampshire for £12,500. The local council has since given planning permission and Mr. Cutler has turned his investment into £2 million. There are other speculators, too. No wonder there is such strong pressure in certain quarters against the Act and the tax.
The British Property Federation and its spokesmen, the Conservative Party chiefs, are exerting great pre-Budget pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I always sleep with the Estate Times under my pillow. It recently devoted its front page to outlining their demands. There have already been far too many exemptions from the tax and there must he no further gifts to the landowners in the spring. On the contrary, the gaping loopholes must be closed.
The main argument of the hon. Member for Eastbourne was that the supply of land is drying up. If that is so, it is because landed property owners are deliberately withholding land in the hope of squeezing the public more tightly and getting even more exorbitant profits, should the Conservative Party win power and remove the Act and cut the tax, as it says it will.
However, even the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) in a recent article has had to admit that the land authority for Wales set up under the Act, and whose chairman is Baroness White, a former Labour MP, is doing well. He wrote.
"There is a reasonable success story. The Land Authority for Wales seems to be doing quite well so far."
Finally, I come to my criticism of the Act, which I hold as fiercely as Conservatives hold theirs, though for diametrically opposed reasons. They want to see the Act repealed. I want to see it properly applied. The Act has not been implemented as we intended because concession after concession has been made to the landowners. That is why the Act has not brought the benefits that it could, and should, have brought.
That is also why Labour men are pressing the Government to implement our scheme fully. As some of us on the

249
Labour Party land working party warned against before the Act was published, land in builders' stocks and land on which planning permission has been obtained is exempt from the Act and the tax. Yet these two categories comprise nearly all the most suitable land needed in the next three years.
There are other exemptions too numerous to mention here today, such as allowing a man and his wife to make £20,000 a year in development value without paying any development land tax at all, or excluding land on which up to 10 houses may be built.
Next, consider the current use value of land such as dockland that has been disused for 10 years or more. What is its value? Nil, we said, or at the most, agriculture use value. However, district valuers are classifying it as industrial land and valuing it at anything up to £20,000 an acre.
We have the public expenditure cuts so beloved by Tory Members. Such cuts have drastically reduced the amount that local authorities are allowed to spend on land purchase. Lastly—doubtless to
reinforce
the public expenditure cuts—came the guidelines stating that all land bought by councils must be resold within two years, and all industrial land within three years.
It is not that public ownership has failed, as Tory Members are saying. On the contrary, it has not yet been fully applied. That is what I am urging. Let us not repeal the Act, let us implement it as intended. I suggest that Liberal Members remember Lloyd George's "Land for the people" aims and vote accordingly.
This is the issue of landed property versus the people. Conservative Members are on the property side and Labour Members are on the side of the people. We do not pretend to be neutral. We support the millions of victims. I ask all non-Tory Members to throw out this reactionary Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes, 177, Noes 189

Division No. 127

AYES

4.01 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Eyre, Reginald

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Farr, John

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

Fell, Anthony

Jopling, Michael

Awdry, Danie

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Kershaw, Anthony

Banks, Robert

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Bell, Ronald

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Forman, Nigel

Knight, Mrs Jill

Berry, Hon Anthony

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Knox, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Freud, Clement

Lamont, Norman

Blaker, Peter

Fry, Peter

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bottomley, Peter

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Lawrence, Ivan

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Goodhew, Victor

Lawson, Nigel

Braine, Sir Bernard

Goodlad, Alastair

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Brittan, Leon

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Brooke, Peter

Gray, Hamish

Lloyd, lan

Brotherton, Michael

Grieve, Percy

Luce, Richard

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Griffiths, Eldon

Macfarlane, Neil

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

MacGregor, John

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Grist, Ian

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Buck, Antony

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hannam, John

Marten, Neil

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Haselhurst, Alan

Mates, Michael

Channon, Paul

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mather, Carol

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Hayhoe, Barney

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Cockcroft, John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mawby, Ray

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Hicks, Robert

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Cope, John

Hodgson, Robin

Mayhew, Patrick

Corrie, John

Holland, Philip

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Costain, A. P.

Hooson, Emlyn

Mills, Peter

Crouch, David

Howell, David (Guildford)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Molyneaux, James

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Montgomery, Fergus

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Durant, Tony

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Dykes, Hugh

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

James, David

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

Neubert, Michael

Elliott, Sir William

Jessel, Toby

Newton, Tony

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Royle, Sir Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, John (Harrow West)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Trotter, Neville

Page, Richard (Workington)

Shepherd, Colin

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Pardoe, John

Silvester, Fred

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Pattie, Geoffrey

Sims, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Sinclair, Sir George

Wakeham, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Walters, Dennis

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Warren, Kenneth

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Weatherill, Bernard

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Speed, Keith

Wells, John

Raison, Timothy

Spence, John

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Stainton, Keith

Wiggin, Jerry

Rhodes James, R.

Stanley, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Steel, Rt Hon David

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Younger, Hon George

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Tapsell, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Mr. Nicholas Ridley and

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Tebbit, Norman

Mr. Ian Gow.

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Newens, Stanley

Allaun, Frank

Grant, John (Islington C)

Noble, Mike

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Grocott, Bruce

Oakes, Gordon

Armstrong, Ernest

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

O'Halloran, Michael

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Hardy, Peter

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Harper, Joseph

Palmer, Arthur

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Park, George

Bates, Alt

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Parry, Robert

Bidwell, Sydney

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pavitt, Laurie

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Heffer, Eric S.

Price, William (Rugby)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hooley, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Huckfield, Les

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Buchanan, Richard

Hunter, Adam

Rooker, J. W.

Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon & P)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Roper, John

Campbell, Ian

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rose, Paul B.

Canavan, Dennis

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Carmichael, Neil

John, Brynmor

Rowlands, Ted

Cartwright, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ryman, John

Clemltson, lvor

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Sedgemore, Brian

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Conlan, Bernard

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Kaufman, Gerald

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cowans, Harry

Kerr, Russell

Skinner, Dennis

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Crawshaw, Richard

Lamborn, Harry

Snape, Peter

Cryer, Bob

Lamond, James

Spearing, Nigel

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Spiggs, Leslie

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Litterick, Tom

Stoddart, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Luard, Evan

Stott, Roger

Deakins, Eric

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Strang, Gavin

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McCartney, Hugh

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Dempsey, James

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Doig, Peter

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Dormand, J. D.

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Maclennan, Robert

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Eadie, Alex

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McNamara, Kevin

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Madden, Max

Tlnn, James

English, Michael

Magee, Bryan

Tomlinson, John

Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)

Marks, Kenneth

Torney, Tom

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Tuck, Raphael

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Urwin, T. W.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Varlsy. Rt Hon Eric G.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mendelson, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Flannery, Martin

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrlde)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mitchell, Austin

Ward, Michael

Forrester, John

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Watkins, David

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Molloy, William

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

Moonman, Eric

White, James (Pollok)

George, Bruce

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Whitlock, William

Gilbert, Dr John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Wigley, Dafydd

Golding, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Gould, Bryan

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Graham, Ted

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

252

253

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Woodall, Alec

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Woof, Robert

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mr. David Lambie.

Question accordingly negatived.

CROWN AGENTS (TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY)
4.12 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to what extent there were lapses from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74 described in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents (HC 48 of 1977–78).
Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have not selected the amendments on the Order Paper.
Mr. Rees: Following the debate on the Report of the Fay Committee on 5th December last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th December the Government's decision to establish a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
The Fay Report brought out with clarity the circumstances that led to the need to make special financial assistance available to the Crown Agents.
The Government concluded that a further inquiry should be held to consider where the blame lies; and the House decided that this must be a public inquiry.
Accordingly, we are proposing a tribunal under the 1921 Act which will have the ample powers given by that Act to carry out the thorough investigation which is required. As my right hon. Friend said on 8th December, the purpose of the tribunal will be to deal with lapses in accepted standards of public administration. The Government believe that the concept of "accepted standards" will be readily understood and will be preferable to some finely drawn legalistic concept.
The wide inquisitorial powers of such tribunals are quite different from other legal proceeedings and require special safeguards for people whose conduct is
254
in question. One safeguard lies in the composition of the tribunal. The White Paper of 1973—Cmnd. 5313—giving the then Government's response to the Report of the Royal Commission under Lord Salmon, accepted the principle that the chairman should be a person holding high judicial office. It also expressed the view that when a tribunal is inquiring into the conduct of members of a particular service, profession or calling, or where it is required to deal with issues of a specialised, technical nature, it should include members other than lawyers with experience or qualifications relevant to the subject of the inquiry.
The Government have followed these principles in considering the membership of the tribunal, which will comprise a judge of the High Court and two distinguished non-legal members.
Other safeguards are to be found in the six cardinal principles set out in the Royal Commission's Report. I thought that if I were to remind the House of those six principles, that would be the most important matter in what I hope will be a brief speech. The principles are as follows.
Before involving any person in the inquiry, the tribunal must be satisfied that there are circumstances affecting him which the tribunal proposes to investigate; that is, people must be protected against any unnecessary involvement in the inquiry.
Before being called, a witness should be informed of allegations against him, and the relevant evidence.
A witness should be given adequate opportunity to prepare his case, and of being assisted by legal advisers. His expenses should normally be met out of public funds.
A witness should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel, and of stating his case in public at the inquiry.
He should be able to call material witnesses, if reasonably practicable.
He should have the opportunity of testing any evidence affecting him by

255
cross-examination by his own legal representative.
The Government endorse these principles, as the previous Government did in their White Paper of 1973. I shall be drawing them to the attention of the tribunal, and I am confident that the tribunal will have regard to them.
With regard to the third principle, concerning legal representation for the people involved in the inquiry, I should make it clear that, since the 1921 Act has not yet been amended in the way that the Commission proposed, the decision whether to authorise legal representation for any person rests with the tribunal itself under Section 2(b) of the Act.
The Government will invite the tribunal to be guided in this matter by the Royal Commission's recommendations, as accepted in the 1973 White Paper, and to adopt the practice envisaged in the White Paper of ascertaining and prescribing the particular issues in which an applicant for representation is to be regarded as an interested person.
We intend also to authorise the tribunal to announce at the preliminary hearing that the Government will be prepared to pay on an ex gratia basis the reasonable costs of individuals on legal representation allowed by the tribunal in relation to the issues prescribed by it and subject to any recommendations the tribunal may make.
The House knows the background to the inquiry which was so clearly set out in the Fay Report and was debated on 5th December. It is a public inquiry. I suggest that it would be right to adopt this resolution now and let the tribunal begin its work.
Mr. Hal Miller: The Home Secretary has spoken of the ample powers and inquisitorial nature of the inquiry. On the subject of the safeguards, will he confirm that he will draw to the tribunal's attention the view not only of the Government but of the House, that the six principles should be adhered to and that for public servants involved there will be the right of representation by a lawyer of their choice at public expense?
Mr. Rees: I thought that I had already made that clear. If I failed to do so, yes.
4.18 p.m.
Sir Michael Havers: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Opposition welcome the motion, but the welcome is slightly muted by the delay since the intention disclosed by the Prime Minister last year? In particular, we welcome the method by which the Salmon safeguards are to be built into the new inquiry.
I think that it is implicit in the terms of the motion, but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would confirm that the bodies referred to by the Minister of State for Overseas Development in her statement on 1st December, which were in the original terms of reference for what was then to be the Aarvold Inquiry—the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Exchequer and Audit Department—are included within these terms of reference.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: I welcome the Government's decision to accept the view of the House of Commons to set up the inquiry. I was a little concerned about the delay since the Prime Minister made his statement, but I understand that there are good reasons why all this time has passed before the announcement was made.
I want to make only one additional comment on this occasion. It is a matter both of fact and of principle. When the Prime Minister announced before Christmas that he had accepted this decision, he spent a little time pointing out that the House would have to judge later whether it had made the right decision. He was concerned about possible prosecution in the courts of the people involved. I should like to put on record, because I believe this to be the proper occasion rather than when the Prime Minister made his comment, that I do not believe there is anything in my right hon. Friend's doubt. This was a matter which I considered carefully and on which I took advice before I moved my original motion. It had already been decided in high Government circles that there would

257
be no further prosecutions beyond the three mentioned. One of those persons had already died on the day on which we had the original debate.
It would therefore be wrong for any hon. Member to try to cast doubts in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, and even more important the nation, that we were in any way rushed in our decision to set up a tribunal. There is no question of large numbers of prose cutions not taking place because of this tribunal. They were never intended.
It is essential that this action is not thought to be taken in a spirit of vengefulness. As I understand the situation, there are two grounds for the tribunal. They are, first, to make it clear that all those who engage in practices and individual actions that are wrong will he shown up. They will be named and the nation will know who they are, Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the purpose of the operation is that in future everyone will know, in high and not so high places, that nothing will be done in secret that will not come out later. That was my main purpose when moving the original motion.
Nothing will be last by this procedure. If it is carried out fully, as I am confident that it will be, the gain for the nation will be considerable. Although I am a little dissatisfied with the delay, I welcome the Government's willingness to accept a decision of the House of Commons without hesitation.
4.23 p.m.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I rise to express some regrets and reservations about the motion—principally about the 1921 Act. As an Officer and now a Member of the House, I can remember many occasions when this Act has been invoked. Whenever that happens it arouses considerable apprehension among hon. Members. Although the 1973 guidelines and the safeguards have improved the situation, the Act has not been amended.
I strongly support the proposition that this should be a public inquiry but I had hoped that it would be a parliamentary inquiry. One does not wish to criticise distinguished judges and experts, but there are certain occasions—and this is one of them—when the House of Commons itself is fully entitled and qualified
258
to seek accountability from public servants on deeds and misdeeds against the House and the public.
Too often over the last 10 to 15 years the House too easily has permitted major inquiries to be conducted by outsiders. There is the supposition that the House does not possess the expertise to conduct such inquiries. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that this issue is one which should be referred to the House of Commons. It involves deeply our responsibility to our constituents and the accountability of Ministers to the House. I wish that that had been the decision of the Government.
I assume that there will be no Division. I shall support the motion only with profound regret for a missed opportunity.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I endorse almost everything said by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I feel exactly the same as he on this issue. Too often are we in the habit of allowing other people to do the work for which we are paid. We allow others who are not paid to do it for us and often they do not do the job as well as we could and should.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who has done an excellent job with his Committee. I Should have preferred that his Committee, rather than a legal Committee, did this job. I think my hon. Friend's Committee would make a good job of it.
I agree that there is tar too much cover up going on. This is a motion for further cover-up. The reason for the delay is to let the old-boy network get on with it, square it up and have it sorted out in a proper way. The motion does not mention what action should be taken against those who are found guilty of lapses, nor did the Home Secretary make a comment on that. The matter will go on for weeks and weeks and for months and months. I am sure that it is hoped that by then most of us will have forgotten about it, that by that time some of those involved will have reached retirement age, will have been conveniently put on retirement or passed on to other jobs—probably better jobs—and everyone will say what a good job was done. I object to that.

259
I should have preferred the Home Secretary to carry out the promise that was made at several elections, in the manifesto, at the Labour Patty annual conference and to the TUC to introduce a freedom of information Act. If there were such an Act we, and the general public who pay our salaries, could have investigated this matter long before any of this happened. We could have had the opportunity to ask for persons and papers. The Home Secretary and the Government have dodged that. There was a pledge from both sides that we were going to do something.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is nothing in the Labour Party manifesto nor, I hope, said by the conference that tells us that the best way of seeking information is to set up Select Committees, have cosy relationships with the people on the other side and produce reports which recommend the sacking of people who produce Labour votes and Labour Members.
The Select Committee on Overseas Development started with the Crown Agents. It was a cosy little set up, and those hon. Members who were so vigilant—so they say—suddenly found that it was too hot to handle and they dropped it. We should not have any fancy ideas about Select Committees being able to handle this.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cannot have been listening with his usual attentiveness.
Mr. Skinner: I was listening very carefully.
Mr. Lewis: What I said was that I should have preferred the Home Secretary to carry out the Labour Party policy laid down in our manifesto and promised by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary—that there should be a freedom of information Act. That would have allowed the general public to investigate such matters. That would have been better than a Select Committee, judges or Members of the House of Commons. Once the public get their teeth into something, there is no old-boy network between the two sides because the public are interested in knowing what goes on. I want to see the public let in on these things. Let
260
us give the public the opportunity to sift information.
We are debating whether we should set up a tribunal. Under a freedom of information Act we should have the right to information in the same way as we now have the right to go to Somerset House to look at company documents. Any person would be able to go along and, by paying a nominal fee, ask for all the papers and documents on the Crown Agents. They could have done that long before this issue had reached its present stage. The matter would then have been publicised.
But what is to happen under this procedure? As one of my hon. Friends said, the Official Secrets Act bars us. It is no good my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) shaking his head. I have had this year after year. When a civil servant does not want to divulge anything he simply refers to official secrets—
Mr. Michael English: Not to a tribunal. My hon. Friend has got it wrong.
Mr. Lewis: I have not got it wrong.
Mr. English: Under this Act there is no privilege by which a civil servant can refuse to answer one of the tribunal's questions.
Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is talking about this matter—
Mr. English: That is what we are supposed to be talking about.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, that is what we are discussing.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am saying that I do not think that it is good enough. I have said that I would like to see an alternative to it.
My alternative is that rather than support this procedure the Home Secretary should implement the promise he has made on several occasions to introduce a freedom of information Bill. There would be no need for this procedure we are now embarking upon. There would be no question of any civil servant pleading to this or any other tribunal the existence of the Official Secrets Act as civil servants do when

261
anything difficult or compromising for Governments take; place. Sometimes civil servants say that they cannot provide information because it could not be obtained even at disproportionate cost. Or they employ some other dodge.
I believe that this is another cover-up. It will be a cover-up because this matter will be swept around and the tribunal will take so much time that when it publishes its report, the report will be innocuous. No action will be taken of a definable nature against those responsible. Some people may be pensioned off and some may be given other jobs. If this were a question of Mrs. Smith stealing a bottle of milk from a supermarket, she would not get off like this. Top people in top places can and do get away with it, and they will get away with it here. I am not happy with it.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: The real point at issue, however, is not whether we do something in relation to the people responsible for this matter that happened in the past. That may or may not happen. It would be deplorable just to do that and to forget at least to deal for the future with what has gone wrong.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I congratulate on accepting the will of the House in setting up this tribunal through this motion, to confirm that in dealing with the Crown Agents the tribunal will have the power to look at any person in any Government Department—the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury or the Exchequer and Audit Department—who may have had a relevant connection with these events from 1967 onwards.
I say that advisedly because I tabled a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development in the House before Christmas asking to whom the Crown Agents lent money, other than their principals, and from whence they obtained that money, other than from their principals. The Answer has proved difficult to come by, but through no fault of my right hon. Friend, who courteously invited me round to her Ministry and showed me such information as was available to it. The blunt truth is, as the Answer in Hansard last week by my right hon. Friend shows, that there were no proper
262
accounts of transaction involving million of pounds.
One is therefore bound to ask whether it was by accident or intention that those accounts were not kept. That is clearly a matter that the tribunal will have to inquire into. But one must ask what the auditors, the Exchequer and Audit Department were doing not to notice the absence of proper accounts. This is a serious question which covers much more than just the problems before us. I do not want to go into the details at this stage, but I do want the Home Secretary to confirm that these terms of reference enable such inquiries to be made.
Lastly, on that same point, it will take many man-hours of work by accountants to endeavour to reconstruct accounts which do not necessarily wholly exist. That will need considerable resources in financial and human terms. I do not know what will happen in this case, but certainly since the Treasury itself must in part be a subject of this inquiry, it would be intolerable if someone in the Treasury were to tell the tribunal "No, you may not have the necessary money or resources to investigate this matter properly." I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that the chairman of the tribunal can take on board the fact that no reasonable request for financial or human assistance in accountancy or other respects will be refused.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps I may briefly refer to what I said in my intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) when, in a rather hurried fashion, I was reminding the House that the Crown Agents had been dealt with by the Select Committee on Overseas Development. The situation had reached the point where people such as my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) realised that very little progress was going to be made by this so-called high-ranking Committee, with the result that they registered their votes accordingly.
We all know that had it been left to that Committee—and one reading of the evidence shows this—we would not have reached the conclusion that we are

263
reaching today. For that reason I disagree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). He may be well versed in what happens in this place, being an ex-Officer of the House. But my evidence, limited as it is, tells me that very little comes out of here when all is trapped within the belly of consensus. The truth emerges when there is conflict and when there are two sides to an argument and those two sides are clearly opposed to one another.
In these cosy little Select Committees very little emerges, except, as in the case of the recent Select Committee report for which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) was partly responsible, a Tory policy which he and his colleagues—
Mr. Russell Kerr: Stop talking bloody nonsense.
Mr. Skinner: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston does not like this, but it is necessary to put our cards on the table. I am saying forcefully that the Select Committee could not have done this job in a proper fashion, and so it is as well that it is being dealt with in the manner now proposed. That is why so many of us voted for this type of inquiry.
That is not to say that all of us—and I am certain that this applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)—will be highly satisfied with the kind of inquiry that takes place. We are always sceptical of such matters, but we say that the arrangement now proposed is the best that we can get in the circumstances. It may be that the outcome will be long delayed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said. We all understand that. We all know that involved in this particular argument is a lobby that is much more powerful than, say, the widows, the disabled or the pensioner. The lobby involved here is the most powerful lobby in the land. It cuts across the Treasury, the City and the Bank of England—all highly formidable institutions. I know only too well that when the members of that kind of establishment get together and decide on a certain course of action, the chances of too much emerging are more than a little remote.
264
We do not want to be wide-eyed and innocent about the outcome of this tribunal. I am worried about the outcome. I take the view that my hon. Friend expressed that this long delay may result in people who are involved in the matter being let off.
I say to the hon. Member who spoke from the Conservative Back Benches, the hon. Member for Cambridge that the House is not very good at dealing with these matters, except on sporadic occasions such as this. But at doing a continuing job the House is not very good.
When we dealt with the Poulson matter, the almost last vestiges of the Poulson inquiries in respect of certain hon. Members, there were many millions of people outside this building who thought that we had done a terrible job on that night, that we had failed to measure up to our task.
Mr. John Mendelson: Certain hon. Members voted on party lines.
Mr. Skinner: There is no doubt about that. Certain people were wined and dined in various places before the vote. That is another story.
I am not suggesting that the House as a whole could deal with the matter on a continuing basis. But I am fearful of what might take place. As I have already indicated, there is a powerful lobby at work. Those of us who have been vigilant in this matter will have to be on our toes all the time in trying to ensure that the outcome is one that is proper and aboveboard.
Since the previous debate, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was mainly responsible and which was in many respects a credit to his activities and those of a few others of us, many people have made suggestions and put forward information about aspects of the Crown Agents and about where the money has gone. One of the things that we have not been able to establish is precisely what happened to some of that money. We have had discussions with people concerned about what happened to English & Continental and the role played by the Crown Agents. We have discussed how somebody managed to get

265
hold of 8,000 plots of land which are not subject to development land tax.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now discussing the matter for which the tribunal may be set up. It is not in order for him to go into these aspects which such a tribunal will investigate.
Mr. Skinner: I understand that the pressure is on. I am getting to some of the difficult subjects and some of the detail which I hope will be properly sifted by the tribunal on how that transfer or that asset-stripping was done in the fashion in which it was and who has got hold of what is generally reckoned to be a £30 million company. All these matters and the role played by the Crown Agents have got to be brought out.
That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I took the opportunity of raising the matter, because I am fearful that some of these matters will not be raised unless some of us continue to raise them in this forum, where at least on some occasions we cannot he stopped from doing so. In view of matters such as the Slater Walker business and the way in which taxpayers' money has been used for that, I am bound to be sceptical about what will happen to this tribunal. More than £30 million—some would say as much as £70 million—of taxpayers' money was used in that exercise.
For those and many other reasons based upon my experience in this place and the way in which in particular the two Front Benches can come together on matters such as this, I am naturally concerned about what will be the outcome. Consistent with the role that I have played in this affair, I shall at all times be concerned with what is really happening about this tribunal. It is on that basis only that I welcome it. I shall continue to hold a close watching brief, as I hope many other hon. Members will.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. George Cunningham: I was not one of those Members who supported the idea of a further and public inquiry into the Crown Agents affair. That was because I suspected then, as I suspect now, that the outcome of this further inquiry will be to decide that it is not possible or not fair to blame individuals. That may not
266
turn out to be the case, but I think that it will.
I suspect that the tribunal will say that there was such a prevalent attitude of non-interference with the Crown Agents' affairs over a long period of time, shared by all Whitehall Departments, the Bank of England and so on, that it would be invidious and unfair to pick out individuals who happened to express that commonly accepted view towards the Crown Agents and say that they were to blame for the £100 million that has been lost. Whether that is a right view to take, I am not saying, but there is something to be said for it. That is likely to be the outcome of this new, prolonged and no doubt expensive investigation.
Since we are to have such an investigation, there is one point that I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to answer. The motion limits the tribunal to inquiring into lapses in normal standards, and so forth
"in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74".
In other words, the activities of the Crown Agents, other than on own-account, are excluded from the concern of the tribunal.
I think that we are all assuming that the tribunal will be looking mainly at the possibility of corruption by individual members on the staff of the Crown Agents, the possibility of lapses in proper supervision by officers of the Crown Agents, by the Treasury, by the Bank and so on. All of those faults, if they are found, will apply as much to the Crown Agents' activities on behalf of their principals as they do to own-account dealings.
Clearly, if an overseas principal gave specific instructions to the Crown Agents to place a certain amount of money in certain investments there would be little opportunity for wrong behaviour by the Crown Agents' staff. But principals did not only put money with the Crown Agents with such specific instructions. The Crown Agents invited deposits from principals and were left with considerable discretion as to what was then done with it. That was not own-account dealing. That was the larger part of their dealings, which was on behalf of overseas principals.

267
Therefore, I do not think that it is right to exclude any wrong-doing of the kind defined here which was done in the course of the activities of the Crown Agents on behalf of overseas principals. However, I see the difficulty in a public inquiry of bringing all that out in public when it concerns relations with independent countries and the like overseas. That is one of the reasons why some of us are doubtful about the idea of having a public inquiry.
It is almost impossible for the tribunal to distinguish between the administrative faults which relate to own-account dealings and those which relate to other dealings. If the tribunal finds evidence that a certain official in Whitehall did not sufficiently look over the shoulder of the Crown Agents to see what they were doing, surely it will come to the conclusion that that did or did not happen generally in relation to the Crown Agents.
As we have drafted this motion, if the evidence before the tribunal happens to relate to activities on behalf of principals, the tribunal will have to leave it aside. It will, nevertheless, be evidence of maladministration, carelessness or whatever on the part of Whitehall, but the tribunal will not be free to inquire into it and report upon it. I think that that is a mistake, and it needs to be looked at.
If the tribunal found that that was an impossible or highly undesirable limitation upon its freedom of action, I hope that the Government would be prepared to receive representations from it to that effect, and then perhaps to bring an amending motion to the House.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I intervene briefly not in connection with the tribunal's terms of reference, or to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said about the nature of the tribunal, but as a consequence of the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who said that the Treasury, the City and the Bank of England constituted the most powerful lobby in the land and would seek to distort the outcome of the inquiry.
I suppose that in some sense the Treasury and the Bank of England are
268
my constituents, in that they are set within my constituency's boundaries. But there are plenty of people on the Government Front Bench who can defend those institutions. I have a constituency responsibility to defend the good name of the City of London, and I intervene to defend that good name, as I did when the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) initiated the debate before Christmas.
The Parker Tribunal on the bank rate leak in 1957 fully investigated the affairs of the City of London. In the debate in this House that followed that inquiry, Lord Butler, one of the most distinguished of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, remarked that no one but a knave or a fool would impugn the integrity of the City of London. I take that view today.
I have every confidence that the tribunal will bring out anything that should be brought out and needs to be brought out in the inquiry. Though I hold no brief for all individual members of the City of London, I have every confidence that the good name of the City will emerge unscathed.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I do not object to the Home Secretary's moving the motion. I think that he has met the wishes of the House in this regard, but I am sorry that we had to have this kind of tribunal, because I think that it will go on for a long time and that it will be dated at the end. In circumstances of this kind I should much prefer that the people concerned could be dealt with by the Minister or whoever else is involved, that those people should simply be shot out and the matter dealt with in that way.
We forget that the Crown Agents did a very good job for this country over many years. The situation that arose in relation to the Crown Agents has also arisen in private and public companies and public corporations at times in the past. It needs to be dealt with swiftly rather than slowly.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), I should have preferred the matter to come to a Select Committee if the Minister could not deal with it swiftly. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover

269
(Mr. Skinner) that a Committee might not be able to deal with it adequately. But that is a criticism of the Select Committee procedure. If we accept the hon. Gentleman's view, we had better get together and make sure that we tighten up that procedure so that it proves to be effective in an investigation of this kind. In so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge suggests that the House could deal with such a situation, I believe that he will accept that we should improve the Select Committee procedure to see that it is as effective as we think it is in the United States.
It is in everybody's interests that the inquiry should not be too slow. The Home Secretary should suggest to the chairman that it should be as swift as possible, that the matters are dealt with briskly, that there is no prolonging of evidence, that there are no weeks or months of delay. If that is done we might be able to make a judgment on the report. But if the inquiry goes on for months or even for two years, I doubt whether we shall be able to reach a proper judgment, and probably it will be a new House of Commons by then.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply.
I say to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) that of course speed matters, but it also matters that there should be a thorough inquiry, so that at the end people will feel that everything has been brought out to the public eye and a judgment can be made on it. I agree that the report may well not come to the present House, even if this Parliament lasts well into next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) talked about a cover-up. I am confident that the terms of reference are right. The delay in setting up the tribunal was to see that they were right. It was not simply a matter that was similar to drafting a motion for a party meeting or an occasion of that kind. It had to stand the test of time and be looked at by my right hon. Friends. Different views were put forward.
I do not apologise for the delay, for which I was responsible and which did not involve any other aspects. I feel con-
270
fident that we have the matter right. I shall return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I say now merely that the terms of reference are right and that when hon. Members learn the names of the three men on the tribunal I think they will agree that they are men who will clearly understand what the House requires.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was unfair at least in one respect—the question of relationships between the Front Benches—to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development. In my view—and I have read all the papers in recent weeks—she has performed a most important task since the return of this Government. What my hon. Friend said about cosy relationships was extremely unfair to her in view of the work she has done.
Mr. Skinner: While my right hon. Friend and many other hon. Members will accept that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has done a job that they regard as first-class, my experience tells me that what happens in this place is that there is a relationship between the two Front Benches over and above anything that may occur between the Government Front Bench and our Back Benches. That does not apply only to this matter of the Crown Agents. It applies to everything.
I am prepared to lay a bet that the motion was put down only after consultation with the Opposition Front Bench. It certainly was not put down after any consultation with people such as myself and others on the Labour Back Benches. So I say to my right hon. Friend—he may not like it, but he will have to lump it—that on all these matters there is an ongoing relationship between the two Front Benches on all matters brought before the House. He cannot tell me any different.
Mr. Rees: When my hon. Friend asserts that I shall have to lump it when he says that the motion was shown to the Opposition, I tell him that that is not true—
Mr. Skinner: I will bet that the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) knows the name of the chairman.
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is completely wrong about the terms of the motion and the members.
Sir M. Havers: I did not know anything about the terms of the motion. I would also point out to the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that when the Minister of State made her statement I was the first to say in the House that I disagreed with the secret form of inquiry and I asked her to consider the matter. Speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I urged that there should be a public tribunal under the 1921 Act, against the then indicated wishes of the Government.
Mr. Rees Mr. Rees rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In view of the denials, I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be quite anxious to withdraw his allegations.
Mr. Skinner: I am withdrawing nothing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is withdrawing nothing. I thank the hon. Member.
Mr. Rees: Whether or not my hon. Friend withdraws them, he is wrong on this issue.
Mr. Skinner: My right hon. Friend says that, but I do not agree.
Mr. Rees: With regard to the other aspect concerning other forms that the inquiry could take, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), it seems to me, looking back over the history of this problem over the years, that the House itself and the various committees that have looked at this matter in a variety of ways have not exactly been successful. Perhaps on that basis alone it was right to move to the 1921 Act, with all the problems that arise in doing so. On an aspect that has been mentioned, proceeding under the 1921 Act will not cause a division on party grounds.
My hon. Friend the Member for New-ham, North-West at least shows again why it would be better to deal with the matter in this way rather than through the House of Commons. No one could say that he would approach this with an open mind. Indeed, when he says that I
272
have put in my manifesto or that my party's manifesto contains an official information Act, he is wrong. It is a reform of the Official Secrets Act, which is a different matter.
However, because my hon. Friend has raised this subject today, I simply say that it would be a mistake to just look at how the official information legislation works in other parts of the world. When I served on the Franks Committee many years ago, we investigated this matter. It is a nice title, but at the end of the day right hon. and hon. Members might end up with only as much information as they get now. What is far more important is the policy of the Government of the day with regard to the information that they wish to give Parliament. That is by far the best approach.,
However, after my hon. Friend saying what he said about me having stood for an Official Information Act, I must tell him that whatever developments might take place on that—and I have an open mind as to how that might develop—what he said this afternoon was wrong.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I withdraw it, and I apologise to my right hon. Friend. It is true that I lumped him together with the TUC and the Labour Party, which did come out for this. It is true that the manifesto refers to the Official Secrets Act. I accept that. However, when my right hon. Friend says that we might find it difficult, is he not aware that we now have a ludicrous situation in which British citizens have to go to America to use the American information legislation to get information which should be available here, so that they can publish it? They can get information from America but they are banned from getting it here.
Mr. Rees: I am sure that there are funny things in this world. My hon. Friend knows many of the funny things that happen. I suspect, however, from my days at the Ministry of Defence, that that is absolutely true, but I do not believe that it is because of the Official Secrets Act that it happens in that way.
I come to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). The terms of reference are wide enough to deal with the various departments—I use that phrase in the generic sense—that he mentioned. They

273
are also drawn widely enough to deal with the aspect of cost. We leave it to the chairman of the tribunal, but there is no objection on the part of the Government. Certainly nothing will be raised to the effect that money is a bar to carrying out the investigation properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is absolutely right when he says that what we are investigating is the own-account operations of the Crown Agents. That was what we were asked to do. if there are other moneys involved in the own-account of the Crown Agents, I think that it will turn out that some of the worries that my hon. Friend has raised this afternoon will be dealt with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has been assiduous in this matter. He initiated the debate under Standing Order No. 9 some weeks ago. With regard to criminal and civil proceedings, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is not making any decision until he has consulted counsel for the tribunal.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development, the Minister concerned with the Crown Agents, is confident that the Crown Agents are now in an excellent position. She deserves much of the praise for that.
On this motion, we are looking at the past, and it is for the good of the body politic that we get the truth of this matter. The terms of reference are designed for that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to what extent there were lapses from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74 described in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents (HC 48 of 1977–78).

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVI SIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  HOUSING SUPPORT GRANTS: FIXING OF AGGREGATE AMOUNT
  5.5 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State far Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'State' to 'shall' in line 1 on page 2.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
  '(3A) In the event of the Secretary of State and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities being unable to agree on an estimate of the amounts mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) above for any year, either party may request that the estimates be submitted to arbitration by a procedure to be agreed by both parties'.
  Mr. Brown: This amendment replaces an amendment that was carried in Committee. The subject was discussed fully in Committee. It is certainly an important matter. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. Central (Mr. Cook) said that he was concerned to ensure that a total sum of housing support grant is not simply imposed by the Secretary of State on local authorities. He wanted to prevent any arbitrary reduction of total grant by a Secretary of State assuming, say, his own lower estimates of expenditure and higher estimates of income.
  As we have gone into this matter fully, I would suggest that it is enough for me to say that it is not entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. The Bill spells out the elements of calculations that he must take into consideration in setting the amount of grant, and he is committed, through subsection (3), to consultation with local authorities.
  We have recently discussed this question with representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and

  275
  they are satisfied with my assurances that the Secretary of State would fully consult local authorities before settling the amount of housing support grant, and the right medium of consultation would be the Convention, even though COSLA would not be specifically named in the legislation. There is only one association at present and that is reflected in the wording of the Bill. We would certainly reflect the Convention's views in the report that would accompany the HSG order each year.
  Our commitment to working with local authorities is well borne out by our record of joint working with COSLA over the past two years or so, particularly on housing support grant and on housing plans. I pay tribute to how helpful and constructive the Convention has been. Therefore, I think that Amendment No. 1 is essential.
  Amendment No. 4 is identical to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend in committee. I am afraid that, as before, I cannot accept the amendment. I have stressed the responsibility of the Secretary of State for estimating housing support grants. I think that it should be made clear that the only proper arbiter in this dispute would be the House of Commons. I thought that that was something which we in the Committee were all agreed was desirable. That is because it is to the House that the Secretary of State would be answerable.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said in Committee, the dispute, if there should be a dispute, would be a political matter and, therefore, it would have to be resolved in a political arena.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Simply for the record, my constituency is Aberdeen, North. I hate to be associated with South Aberdeen.
  Mr. Brown: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. That is the first clanger that I have dropped today. I thought that I said Aberdeen, North. However, in any case, as my hon. Friend pointed out, if there were a dispute it would be a political matter and should be resolved, therefore, in a political arena.
  I give the House this assurance, which I have already given to the Convention. If there is disagreement between the Sec-
  276
  retary of State and COSLA on the basis of the estimates, the Convention's views will be indicated in the report that accompanies the order. I am not suggesting that we should get into an industrial relations situation, but I am, more or less, hinting that if there should be disagreement, it will be registered and shown clearly in the report that will accompany the order.
  If there was independent arbitration, it is fair to ask whether we should assume that the House would automatically accept the findings of arbitration. That would have the effect of the House merely rubber-stamping decisions that have been made outside in a non-political arena.
  Certain hon. Members who were on the Committee will agree that the Government went a long way towards meeting this objective of open government. We provided that the order be laid in draft. We provided that a variation order could not be combined with a main housing support grant order. We undertook to allow the maximum period for scrutiny by laying the order many months before money became available. Having made these improvements—not concessions, because we are all at one in the attempt to increase opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—I hope that the House will accept my explanation, carry Amendment No. 1 and reject Amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I wish to speak particularly to Amendment No. 4, which stands in my name. This amendment seeks to place in the Bill an amendment which I moved in Committee. In Committee the paving amendment was carried but the substantive amendment, moved at the subsequent sitting, was defeated. We are now in the position when the Minister is moving to delete the paving amendment and I am seeking to insert the substantive amendment, the principle of which was accepted in Committee.
  It is appropriate, at the outset of our consideration of this Bill on Report, that we should be faced with amendments which go to the heart of the Bill. What we are faced with in this Bill is an attempt to provide by legislation that housing subsidies will in future be settled not by legislative means but by what might be described as Executive action—by means of an order drawn up by the

  277
  Government and laid before the House. We had a very full debate on this matter in Committee. We debated it for the best part of two hours.
  The point that came consistently through our debate was that there was considerable unhappiness, I believe shared on both sides of the Committee, with the existing procedures for dealing with orders laid by the Government. The fact is that such orders are likely to be debated for only one-and-a-half hours, probably late at night or, if they follow the pattern of the rate support grant order, probably on the last sitting day before the recess. In the course of those one-and-a-half hours probably half of the time will be taken up by the Front Benches, leaving at best a couple of Back-Bench speakers from either side of the Chamber. Further, no amendment can be tabled to the order and at the end of the debate the House is faced with the invidious task of deciding whether to approve the order with all its defects or to reject it and any benefits that it may confer. In other words, the House is faced with a decision whether to approve the order or grant of some kind or whether to make absolutely no housing support grant available.
  That position represents a false choice. We have been through that exercise with the rate support grant order. In 1976 the House was faced with precisely that decision. The appropriate response, given the inadequacy of our procedure for considering orders laid before the House, would be for us to sit down and consider the procedure by which we could best evaluate housing support grant orders. In Committee I attempted to table an amendment which would refer those orders to a Select Committee which would have the power to call witnesses and ask the Serjeant at Arms to secure papers, should that be necessary. In the event—and this will not come as a surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that amendment was not selected because it went beyond the subject matter of the Bill and it would not be competent for us, either in Committee or on Report, to attempt to alter the procedures of the House to provide for a more thorough surveillance of housing support grant orders than exists for any other form of order laid before the House.
  Given that we are unable to change the procedures by which the House tests
  278
  the orders laid before it and given this widespread dissatisfaction with those procedures, it is only proper and right that we should turn our minds to discovering alternative checks and balances which can be put in to provide proper scrutiny of whatever grant is proposed by the Secretary of State. If we cannot do that through this House, regrettably, we must seek another forum in which it can be done. I say at once that I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said. I believe that the right place for the arbitration to be settled should be this House, if we could find a proper procedure by which to do it. Even now my objection to the Government amendment and my motivation in putting forward my amendment is precisely that I am dissatisfied with our procedures. If only we could find an alternative procedure to strengthen the present methods I would not seek to write into the Bill the provision for independent arbitration.
  5.15 p.m.
  In default of such improvement we have to consider some form of independent arbitration. The main reason why I do so is that I am doubtful about the extent to which the consultations with COSLA will be meaningful. The one thing we have learned during the course of the past two years in debating the rate support grant negotiations is that COSLA negotiates from a position of weakness. It is entirely dependent on the Government for its money. It has no sanctions which it can impose if the Government take a position inimical to COSLA's interests. What I seek to do in my amendment is to provide a small sanction which COSLA could exert in the course of those consultations, namely, the threat that it might take the final settlement to arbitration.
  I would not imagine that COSLA would seek to use such a threat every year. I would not imagine that it would go to arbitration more than once in a decade. Nevertheless, as a final sanction that eventual backstop would be there and would exercise some form of check and balance in the course of the annual negotiations. Without that I very much fear the effect of this legislation in giving quite so much widespread discretion to the Secretary of State of the day, whoever he may be. It is appropriate that we should

  279
  remind ourselves that the Secretary of State may not always by my right hon. Friend.
  If I were confident that my right hon. Friend would be with us for eternity and that there would be no constitutional shake-up which might devolve this function to another forum, that there would be no subsequent General Election which might threaten my right hon. Friend's tenure in office, or that there might never be some unfortunate virus which struck down my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who might be replaced by someone who might initiate a tremendous shake-up of ministerial posts—if I could be sure that none of these things would happen, I would have much more confidence in the procedure we are considering because my right hon. Friend has been reasonable in Committee and has made maximum efforts to consult those of us who were on the Committee.
  What we are doing is legislating for these powers to be held by the man who holds the office of Secretary of State. That may well be, at some point in the future—we do not know how long—a person other than my right hon. Friend. I hope that the House will consider the principle put forward in the amendment and will come to the same conclusion as that of the Committee when it reached a decision on these amendments.
  There is an additional point. When the Committee reached its decision on the group of amendments it did so before receiving the submission on the Bill from COSLA. At the time we understood that COSLA had been fully consulted and entirely accepted the principle of the Bill. Subsequently, after we examined this group of amendments, we received the COSLA submission. I believe that I am correct in saying that the COSLA comment on Clauses 1 to 3 was that while it accepted the principle of change it nevertheless registered unease about the replacement of a fixed form of subsidy, which provided certainty, with a new form of subsidy which could be changed from year to year. I hope that the amendment standing in my name will go a considerable way towards removing the unease expressed by COSLA.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Member for Edin-
  280
  burgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is aware, we supported his amendment in Committee because we thought that it raised an issue which should be considered. We share the fears of COSLA about replacing a known system of housing subsidy—one laid down in legislation and understood by local authorities, one which cannot be removed by Government action—with a procedure whereby the Secretary of State can fix an amount annually which he thinks should go to Scottish housing. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would agree that this is the position. We are getting rid of a system embodied in legislation and replacing it with a system which requires a blind confidence in the Secretary of State and his commitment to Scottish housing.
  In other words, we are giving away something which had a guarantee and replacing it by a pig in a poke which depends on the commitment to housing of the Government of the time. This is the main reason for which we supported the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central in Committee. The only assurance that we had at the time was that of the Minister, who said, in effect "Don't worry. We will look after Scottish housing. We have already shown by our policies and our commitment that we will do that." I think that at the time there were some Labour Members who accepted that assurance. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) appeared to think that the assurance was all right, given the Government's commitment to housing.
  Since that debate I have been looking through the housing plan presented by the Government at the time of the General Election and at what has happened since then. As a result, I am even less confident now than I was previously about the Government's ability to deliver a sensible housing policy. Every Labour Member—and in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—will be aware of the basis on which the Government were elected. I quote from the manifesto of the Labour Party. Speaking of the Conservatives, it said:
  "In 1970 they promised us better housing, yet the housing figures for 1973 were the most disastrous for Scotland since 1959, When the last Tory Government was in office."

  281
  The manifesto went on to indicate that the new Government's plan was to
  "put new emphasis on the expansion and improvement of housing in Scotland. We shall not let up until that aim has been achieved."
  Here we had the Labour Party picking, for very special reasons, the worst year for housing—in other words, the figure for 1973—and saying that a Labour Government would expand housing on that basis and would not rest until an improvement had been achieved. But only yesterday, by fortunate accident, we had from the Government their housing figures for 1977. I looked whether there had been a dramatic expansion on the disastrous figure for 1973. I found that, far from there having been a leap forward from the figure of 30,003 in that very low year, the figure of house completions last year—I am sure that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will be horrified to learn this—was only 26,772.
  Instead of there having been a massive expansion or improvement, we find that the only record being beaten by the Government is for the number of unemployed Scottish building workers. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire will also want to protest about that.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman give a breakdown of the figure of 26,772 into those local authorities which are controlled by the Tories and those which are controlled by the Labour Party?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that would be in order in discussing these amendments.
  Mr. Taylor: I think that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is simply trying to excuse—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is now introducing something which smacks of electioneering. Let us get on.
  Mr. Taylor: Certainly. I think you are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in saying that we should leave it, but I am sure that when we come to the General Election the people in Scotland, who have been so shamefully misled on housing and who have found the Government's housing policy to be a disgraceful shambles, will take note of the fact. There can
  282
  be no question that the estimates, plans and proposals of the Government on housing have turned out to be a shambles, because we have a figure of house completions for 1977 which is well below the figure for a disastrous year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and many of his colleagues will find great difficulty in justifying to their constituents the shameful record of the Government. As I said earlier, the Government's real achievement is to create a record number of unemployed building workers.
  In these circumstances we have to ask, in relation to the amendment, whether we are quite happy to accept the assurance of the Government and the good will of this rather confused housing Minister, who means well but is not able to achieve anything for Scotland. One of the problems that we have nowadays is that we find ourselves faced repeatedly with nice, pleasant, smiling and well-meaning Ministers who are trying to do their best but who are not succeeding in achieving anything. Things only go from bad to worse. The one exception is the Secretary of State for Scotland. He manages to get Scotland into a very serious situation without even trying to smile.
  The only assurance that we have, therefore, is the Government's good will. We were very unhappy about this question in Committee. The only thing which reassures us now is that we are quite convinced that the Government's tenure of office will not be a very long one, and that when the legisation comes into effect there will once again be a Conservative Government in office, and that they will deliver the goods on housing to the people of Scotland. We are proud of our record in that respect. Although the amendment gives considerable powers, freedom and scope to the Government—
  The Deputy Speaker: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland is now smiling broadly.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, but he will not be smiling for long. The one thing which reassures us—and which, I am sure, will reassure sensible Members such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central—is that the freedom of action that we are giving to the Secretary of State will apply

  283
  also to Conservative Governments. We are sure that when we have a Conservative Government, with the freedom of action which the clause gives, Scotland will have no fears whatsoever.
  We wanted to have the amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central debated and discussed, but as we have, on the one hand, the assurance of the likelihood of a Conservative Government being returned to power, and, on the other hand, the strength of feeling in Scotland about the Government's housing policy—it is so strong that it might make the Government budge—we shall in those circumstances be happy to accept the Government's amendment. As I have indicated, that is basically because we are convinced that either there will be a change of Government or the sheer force of public opinion in Scotland will oblige the Government to adopt a better housing policy than they have in recent years.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: One cannot but admire the effrontery of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I suspect that beneath the common man approach that he brings to everything is a secret desire to be ennobled and to sit in another place along the corridor. There could be no better forum for the grand old Duke of York, who marches his troops to the top of the hill and, as soon as he sees someone approaching, rapidly goes back to where he came from.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I think that Humpty-Dumpty would be more appropriate.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman is able to make the speech that he has just made and then say at the end of it that he will support the Government's amendment. But, as we know, all things are possible to the hon. Member for Cathcart as long as he is able to get up and waffle.
  Mr. Taylor: I should have made it clear that our position is that we shall not resist the Government's proposal. It would be very difficult for us to support the Government on anything relating to housing, because their record is quite shameful.
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has put the record straight. He can only oppose and cavil, but for
  284
  once it seemed that he was actually about to do something positive. Now it appears that he will remain seated on the Front Bench when the Division comes. He will not be leading his troops anywhere. There must be a title for that sort of behaviour but I cannot think of it at the moment.
  I will not go over the story which we went over in Committee, but the fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), even after having had time to think about it, has not come up with a positive form of arbitration. Before I agree to write anything into a Bill which leads to people being appointed from outside the political arena to arbitrate on housing policy, I want to know what that arbitration procedure is to be. I still stick firmly to my remarks in Committee that if there is a conflict between COSLA and the Government, the final decision will be a political one, and therefore it must be settled in this House.
  In Committee my hon. Friend put forward the names of one or two people whom he thought might be the arbitrators. He mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is a former Secretary of State for Scotland. I would not wish to cast any aspersions on my right hon. Friend, even if he is not here. I would not dare do any such thing. The other name mentioned was that of Sir George Sharp. Again, I have nothing against Sir George Sharp, but I do not believe that anyone from outside is the right person to arbitrate in political matters.
  I think that the amendment is defective in achieving the purpose which my hon. Friend seeks to achieve. He is really saying that the head-on collision between the Government and COSLA will happen only rarely, but that when it happens feelings will be running very high, and that the Secretary of State will dictate arbitrarily what is to happen.
  The amendment says that the arbitration procedure has
  "to be agreed by both parties".
  If the Government wanted to be tough they could say "You can accept this clause if you like". But COSLA, being one of the parties, may request that the matter goes to arbitration. If the Government do not agree to the arbitration procedure we are no further forward.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Government can rest on their position by saying, "All right, unless you accept this, we shall not agree to the arbitration procedure and, therefore, there will be no money". I do not think there is any way around the problem that will arise if and when the decision is reached that there is insufficient money to go round and for housing to get its fair share—whichever Government or whichever Assembly takes the decision that only so much money is available.
  There is no way in which any individual arbitration machinery can resolve that problem. It can only be resolved politically. I would rather stick to this than write something into the Bill which I believe would be totally ineffective at the end of the day.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 20 leave out 'and'.
  The Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23 at end insert'; and
  (c) the latest information available to him as to changes in the general level of earnings which would affect the amount of relevant income which could reasonably be expected for that year.'.
  Mr. Brown: Amendment No. 2 is a purely drafting amendment to pave the way for Amendment No. 3, which requires the Secretary of State to take into consideration the latest available information on the general level of earnings. These amendments arise out of an undertaking that I gave in Committee in response to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). That amendment was withdrawn when I undertook to look further into the matter.
  I pointed out the technical difficulties of drafting such an amendment in a nonrestrictive way, in other words, to leave room for genuine negotiations between the Secretary of State and the Convention of Scottish League Authorities.
  Amendment No. 3 accomplishes this and establishes the principle that the Secretary of State must take into account changes in the general level of earnings before estimating the aggregate relevant
  286
  income of local authorities each year. Subsection (6) provides that the HSG order should be accompanied by a report of the considerations which have led to it. This report would have to explain the estimate of relevant income by reference to information on changes in the general level of earnings. I hope that satisfies the undertaking that I gave.
  The Government believe that earnings provide the most appropriate and reliable indicator of people's ability to meet the cost of their housing and that this is a key factor in determining the level of relevant income which local authorities can reasonably expect to receive.
  The amendment is not restrictive. It makes clear that earnings must always come into the reckoning. It does not rule out other relevant factors. I hope the House will accept that this fulfils the undertaking that I gave in Committee.
  It gives the local authorities an important assurance that the level of relevant income will always take into account changes in the general level of earnings.
  Mr. Jim Craigen:Will my hon. Friend indicate whether he was talking about the general level of earnings in terms of the United Kingdom, the regions or the sub-regions, because there may be considerable variations?
  Mr. Brown: Obviously I would not attempt to pronounce on that. It is one of the factors that will be part of the discussions on the relationship between earnings and relevant income. I do not think that we can separate the United Kingdom level of earnings. I know that Scottish earnings have risen, and in some areas are higher than in most other parts of the country. Nevertheless, I am giving a general assurance about the level of earnings.
  Given the skills and knowledge of COSLA, if there is any way in which it can seek to exploit an increased commitent by the Secretary of State, I am sure that it will be able to deploy the arguments in favour.
  I am making it clear, and giving the assurance, that the Convention will be free to ask for further factors to be taken into account. I believe that will cover the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Given that assurance, I hope

  287
  that the House will accept the amendments.
  Mr. George Younger: Far be it from me ever to look a gift horse in the mouth. The Minister has clearly tried to meet one of the points which several hon. Members made in Committee. It is extremely interesting that the Minister has decided to accept this point about taking into account the level of earnings.
  He may recall that when we discussed this at considerable length in Committee, the discussion centred around taking into account not only earnings but prices. There was some discussion about whether it should be earnings and prices and what the balance between the two was.
  The fact that lay behind this discussion was the truly sobering fact that in the past three years—for the first time in the memory of any of us—the actual level of earnings went up by less than the increase in prices. For most of our lifetime the reverse has been the case. Certainly, during the years of the Conservative Government, it was invariably the fact that the level of earnings went up by more than the level of prices and that the general standard of living of the people went up as a result.
  Yet it is now a Labour Government who are having to come forward and admit that in considering the housing support grant for the future it would be the level of earnings rather than the level of prices that would be taken into account when assessing how much a local authority can expect to get in revenue.
  I believe the Minister has been enabled and encouraged to accept this change because, from his experience of government over the last three or four years, earnings in many ways provide a more favourable statistic than prices. Since prices were allowed to rise further, the standard of living of every person in the country dropped as a result of the Government's policies.
  I accept that this is a genuine attempt to meet the wishes of the Committee. We are obliging the future discussions on housing support grant to take into account
  288
  the level of earnings. But the level of earnings alone could be very misleading, particularly if a future Labour Government were to pile yet more taxation on the back of the ordinary working person as they have done so conspicuously and successfully in the last three or four years. If they do so, then even the level of earnings could be a misleading figure because net earnings are what matters to ordinary people, not gross earnings, which the Labour Government will take more and more of in taxation.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: A great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said is suitable for a propaganda speech but not for a speech in the House of Commons, where the Chancellor in this financial year announced £1,000 million tax cuts. That cannot be said to have added to taxation.
  Mr. Younger: I do not think the hon. Gentleman wants me to go too far into that argument. He will be more aware than anyone that the average family's tax burden under this Government has gone up from £8 to about £17. A figure of £1,000 million off taxation is absolutely nothing compared with what has been put on. It has been estimated that there would have to be five times that amount deducted before this Government were even back to the level of taxation under the previous Conservative Government.
  In the context of this amendment, we are grateful to the Minister for agreeing that the level of earnings will be taken into account. But we hope sincerely that there will not be many more months of Labour Government giving rise to a further reduction in the standard of living of the ordinary manual worker—a reduction which, as I say, has not happened previously since the 1930s.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert
  ';and
  (c) the latest information available to him as to changes in the general level of earnings which would affect the amount of relevant income which could reasonably be expected for that year.'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 2

  APPORTIONMENT OF HOUSING SUPPORT GRANTS
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 13, leave out from 'prescribed' to'; and' in line 14.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may consider Amendment No. 8, in line 24, at end insert—
  '(2A) The Secretary of State shall also take into account as a matter of priority any substantial element of dampness in local authority houses which constitutes a hazard to the health and welfare of the tenants and their families, in determining the said proportion payable to a local authority.'
  We may also consider Government Amendment No. 9.
  Mr. Brown: These amendments concern the basis on which aggregate HSG is to be apportioned. Amendment No. 5 deletes the requirement that the method of apportionment should include weightings for sparsity and density of population. Amendment No. 9 establishes a broader requirement that the method of apportionment must have regard to any special needs affecting housing expenditure. Amendment No. 8 deals with dampness, and perhaps I shall be allowed to say a word or two about that later.
  The Government amendment arises because of an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and accepted by me, but qualified or conditioned by the need to look at the specific wording. In Committee, we were all in sympathy with this attempt to draw attention to the special needs of the different areas and to take account of any factor which required special attention. In spirit, we all supported the hon. Member's amendment. However, since the Committee stage, the Government have had discussions with COSLA on this specific matter, and I have been persuaded that the hon. Member's amendment is defective in some respects.
  The reference to weightings is too restrictive, and it may be that the words which were included in the amendment—
  "the needs of sparsely and densely populated areas"
  —would give the impression that these were more important than some other
  290
  matters which would obviously need to be taken into account in the calculations. In other words, COSLA has impressed upon us that a reference to special needs rather than mentioning the specific point about sparsely and densely populated areas would be more appropriate than an incomplete list of factors, two of which were mentioned in the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Fife, East.
  I repeat that the Government accept the spirit of the amendment moved in Committee. I suggest merely that the form of words in the Government's amendment clarifies to some extent what we are after, satisfies COSLA and, I am sure will satisfy the hon. Member for Fife, East.
  I turn to Amendment No. 8. This is a most important subject. Dampness in some houses in Scotland is a serious matter. I am under no illusions about the importance of this, but we are not debating the problem of dampness or condensation. I am being asked in an amendment to try to include specific reference to this subject which in turn can influence the apportionment of housing support grant.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Government appreciate the seriousness of the problem. However, it is difficult to define precisely serious condensation and dampness. We have no precise figures about the number of houses involved. I doubt whether anyone has. For the people whose houses are seriously affected, the problem is troublesome and distressing. In fact, that is a total understatement. It is all very well for us to say that there are not many houses affected in Scotland—and that is true—but to the individual whose house is seriously affected it is a total disaster. Therefore, I hope that I can carry both sides of the House with me.
  I am not condemning local authorities. I am urging them to treat this matter as a serious problem and to treat it sympathetically. We recognise that it can involve additional expenditure on local authorities by way of supervision costs in investigating complaints, identifying causes, devising remedial measures and advising tenants about how best to cut down condensation, the additional repair costs of redecoration or of installing equipment to extract moist air, and capital investment—
  Mr. Younger: Does the Minister accept that the whole trouble about this is that the vast majority of local authorities make out that dampness is condensation in order that they do not have to do anything about it? It is that which drives people absolutely mad.
  Mr. Brown: I do not go so far as to condemn all local authorities and say that they are passing the buck. I am not as extreme as the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in his condemnation of local authorities. However, I can see that there is a tendency to blame the tenant.
  Mr. Canavan: Too much.
  Mr. Brown: Probably too much, and I think that a local authority is entitled to blame a tenant only when it has itself satisfied the tenant that any structural defect in the building has been put right or that the installation of extractor fans has been completed.
  I have experience of this problem in my constituency, and I know how difficult it is. But local authorities must take on board the need to deal sensitively with people who are genuinely distressed about the state of their houses. It is no exaggeration to say that sometimes people lose all pride in their houses simply because they do not seem to be able to find any solution to the problem.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Can the Minister explain why there is dampness at all? My house is not damp. Why should anyone else's be?
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member cares to invite me along to his house one evening, I shall try to give him the benefit of the little expertise that I have acquired. However, I should not like the House to regard the hon. Member for Edinburgh. South (Mr. Hutchison) as an eccentric. He is not. He makes a very valid point. I do not know anything about the salubrious district in which he lives, but I know all too well that two identical houses with no defects, occupied and well-heated, can be quite differently affected. One can be quite free of damp, whereas the other can have black fungus growing in it. That can easily happen in a house occupied by a family who are not short of a bob or two, and I assume that that would apply to the hon. Mem-
  292
  ber for Edinburgh. South. Even in a house where people have gone to extreme inconvenience and sacrifice to ensure that it is adequately heated—and it is not cheap to do that nowadays—there may still be this problem.
  It is a serious matter, and all that I can say on behalf of the Government is that, with these new arrangements, if an authority wishes to spend money on putting right structural defects, installing extractor fans or doing any of the remedial work which it thinks necessary, in future it can be capitalised and will come into the reckoning for grant.
  This is a big improvement. I am not saying that it is enough, and I am not saying that it will satisfy every authority. But once we get the provisions of the Bill better understood by some local authorities and by elected members the financial inducement will be such that authorities will be encouraged to attend to the problem, which is very serious.
  Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister comment on the variations in practice which arise over the investigation of dampness? In private sector housing the environmental health department make the investigations—the old sanitary inspectors. In public housing it is left to the housing management department. There is often a loss of faith in the process. I got the impression earlier that the Minister was tending to play down the awesome problem of dampness in local authority housing.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend does me an injustice. On the contrary, I have urged authorities to pay more attention to the problem. There are all sorts of wee men who come around with meters and stick things in walls, and then say that nothing is wrong. I am not making a party point. Previous Administrations have had the same problems and no one has yet come up with a perfect solution.
  There are many ways in which local authorities can help. They can look at rent levels and take account of them if they fail to find a solution to the problem.
  In recognising the importance of this amendment—I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and some of his colleagues are particularly concerned about

  293
  this problem in Edinburgh—hon. Members must realise that it strikes all authorities, irrespective of who is in control. I hope that they will approach the attempt to find a solution on the same basis. I believe that this legislation will encourage local authorities to tackle the problem.
  Sir John Gilmour: The Minister was kind enough to tell me last week of the alteration he proposed to make to the amendment that I moved and that was accepted by the Committee. I fully understand his reasons for making the alteration, and I certainly accept the spirit in which he has made what I hope will be an improvement. I hope that the House will be prepared to accept it.
  I hope that the Minister's amendment goes to the second "and" in line 14. If it goes only to the first "and" it leaves out the word "sparsity" and leaves in the word "density", which might mean that one needed to be very dense in the head to get the subsidy. I hope that it goes to the second "and".
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Yes, it does. There is a semi-colon somewhere that is very relevant. I am told that we have it right.
  Mr. Canavan: I want to make a few remarks about the amendment relating to dampness in council houses. All of us have had a large number of complaints from constituents about allegations of dampness. I had a communication this morning from the Strathkelvin District Council, which covers part of my constituency. The letter said:
  "A number of detailed surveys recently carried out on council houses reveal a substantial measure of condensation in a majority."
  Many tenants in my constituency think, rightly or wrongly, that "condensation" is a euphemism by the housing authority for dampness.
  Some housing authorities go so far as to blame tenants for dampness and condensation in their houses. I know of one director of housing, covering one local authority in my constituency, who recently attended a public meeting of tenants complaining about dampness. This director said that the tenants must accept the responsibility themselves and went on to list three main reasons for dampness. These were the boiling of kettles, the use of paraffin heaters, and breathing. Is
  294
  anyone seriously suggesting that to get rid of dampness or condensation council house tenants should stop boiling kettles, stop using paraffin heaters and even stop breathing? This seems to be the limit of the constructive thought that we get from some directors of housing.
  Unless there are initiatives from local authorities themselves, the Minister should step in either with guidance or with instructions. It is in this respect that the amendment is very relevant.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Basically I quite agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). However it is perfectly true that condensation can be caused by a number of factors and everyone knows that in certain climatic conditions one can get heavy condensation unless one takes steps to avoid it. The problem is in mixing up condensation with dampness, because this is very wrong.
  Mr. Canavan: Yes that is true, but I have had constituents coming to my surgeries on Saturday mornings complaining about dampness in their houses. They have produced smug letters from the local authority saying that it is not dampness but condensation. I have gone along to some of these places and I have seen the wall-paper hanging off and black fungus growing on the walls. It is quite intolerable that local authority tenants, or anyone else, should be asked to live in such conditions.
  I think that there is a lack of expertise among some housing authorities in detecting the reasons for dampness or condensation. Part of the reason could be the design and structure of the housing. The standard of architecture and design of some local authority housing leaves a lot to be desired. We need a bit more variety in local authority housing schemes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is not in order in talking about types of housing scheme on an amendment dealing with dampness and condensation.
  Mr. Canavan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the structure of a house has a great deal to do with the problem. An amazing number of local authority houses have been built without chimney

  295
  or flue. Ventilation is very important. Tenants should be able to choose the type of heating they want and if a house is deprived of a chimney or flue from the very start they are limited in their choice. This applies especially in mining areas where tenants get concessionary coal and they deeply resent it if the only house that they are offered is one without a chimney. A chimney is also good for ventilation and lack of proper ventilation can be a contributory cause of dampness.
  Similarly, lack of satisfactory insulation can be relevant to the problem of dampness. It is important to realise that this problem is not confined to old houses, but applies also to many houses built recently. I know of houses less than 10 years old which are subject to grave problems of dampness.
  6.0 p.m.
  Another point relevant to the problem outlined in the amendment is the type of heating in houses and the cost of heating There is an amazing disparity in the costs of various types of heating. Tenants often have virtually no choice and sometimes have to use a fuel that is unsuitable for the structure and design of their houses.
  There is even a wide difference in the costs of different types of solid fuel. The difference between the cost of bituminous coal and solid smokeless fuel is fantastic. Many tenants in my constituency cannot afford smokeless fuel, yet the Secretary of State and local authorities are implementing smokeless zones and forcing tenants to use smokeless fuel.
  Unless these tenants decide to break the law—and some may be tempted to do so—they have to either freeze or buy paraffin heaters or calor gas stoves and these are not ideal heating for the family or for getting rid of condensation and dampness.
  I was disappointed that after a local inquiry just over a year ago, the Secretary of State decided not to repeal the Bannockburn smokeless zone order, which I regard as a major contributory factor to dampness in Bannockburn. I know what I am talking about because I live in a local authority house in Bannockburn and I know how the tenants feel.
  Instead of giving merely a negative answer to the overwhelming majority of tenants who wanted the order repealed, the Secretary of State might at least have offered some money to the local authority to enable it to provide adequate fireplaces and alternative appliances that could burn smokeless fuel efficiently and at an economic cost to help alleviate the problems of dampness which have a serious effect on people's health.
  My experience is that the houses most affected by this problem are those heated by electricity. Many tenants who moved into all-electric flats were initially pleased to have central heating for the first time in their lives, but the enormous escalation in the price of electricity recently has meant that they simply cannot afford to use the central heating and they, too, have had to buy paraffin heaters and calor gas stoves, with the result that they have suffered serious condensation and dampness in their flats.
  It is about time that local authorities, particularly those carrying out renovations, thought not only of ripping out fireplaces, but of installing central heating throughout the whole house and I hope that the Government will give them financial assistance for this work.
  I have been shown around the homes of many of my constituents and I find that the problem of dampness is most acute in rooms which are empty during the day and which people cannot afford to heat properly. I hope that the Government will give every encouragement, including financial inducement, to local authorities to instal central heating. This would go a long way to alleviate dampness.
  A copy of the letter from Strathkelvin District Council has been sent to the Scottish Development Department and I hope that the Minister will look at it personally and will not fob it off to his civil servants or allow it to gather dust in St. Andrew's House. The letter says:
  "The Council are calling positively for a national compaign as regards condensation."
  I wholeheartedly support him in in this.
  I am sure that this council is not alone in saying that the majority of its tenants are complaining about dampness. We need a national programme of co-ordinated research and study into this problem so that proposals can be brought

  297
  forward and appropriate action taken. But all this will be impossible unless we get adequate resources from the Government.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to be able to follow in debate the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He was right to take these matters seriously. The Minister said that, to the best of his knowledge, the problem was not widespread, but that is not the evidence from my constituency.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I did not say that. The problem is geographically widespread, but it affects only a relatively small number of houses compared with the total stock. However, I did say that for those people who are affected it is a major disaster.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the Minister, but what he has just said is still not supported by the evidence from my constituency. The Pilton damp action group says that 50 per cent. of the houses in West Pilton suffer from dampness in varying degrees and that 137 houses are priority cases. Edinburgh District Council's housing committee has funds to deal with only 100. This will lead to all sorts of complications about how to choose which 100 of the 137 priority cases should be dealt with.
  The purpose behind the amendment is the principle it raises, namely, that something must be done as a matter of priority for council houses in Scotland where dampness constitutes a hazard to health. One has only to go into the council houses where young children are living and see the black marks on the walls and the dampness seeping through the walls to realise that this must inevitably have an adverse effect on the health of the children.
  Last year, the Pilton damp action group in my constituency was formed under the leadership of Mrs. Brenda Lipscombe because 50 per cent. of the houses were suffering from dampness. The group held meetings and the tenants affected filled in forms and sent them to the environmental health department and the local clerk of works. When this did not produce any final results, they got in touch with other damp action groups in
  298
  the Edinburgh area and wrote to the Secretary of State on 23rd May inviting him to visit the council houses and see the dampness. He replied in a way that did not satisfy them and he did not make more funds available. I do not think that the offer to visit the houses was taken up by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary.
  The group conducted a survey of the problem in West Pilton to discover the extent of dampness and it was realised that many of the tenants were using paraffin heaters because they were considerably cheaper. The problem with these heaters is that much of the heat goes out of the windows because high ventilation is required.
  The group made two requests. First, that there should be rent and rate reductions for the tenants; and, secondly, that full compensation should be paid for the damage to tenants' property caused by dampness. The Under-Secretary replied to these points in a letter to me on 24th October. He said:
  "I very much sympathise with the situation of tenants who are suffering from dampness, but this represents a housing management problem which is firmly the responsibility of Edinburgh District Council."
  The purpose of the amendment is to provide that there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to take this sort of matter into account. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary is sympathetic, but the tenants want more than that; they want positive action.
  As the Minister confirmed in his letter, the building research establishment at East Kilbride also conducted a survey in Edinburgh. After that survey, the district council made application for capital expenditure. Certain sums were made available, but they do not cover the total spent on the dampness.
  Considerable concern has been expressed by local councillors and Mr. Jim Carson, a Scottish National Party councillor, has written a full letter in this connection which has been sent to the Minister.
  One of the problems in Edinburgh is that the council is upgrading older houses. Many of the best houses are the older houses. Some of those that have the dampness are the newer houses. That is why we need to establish what causes dampness.

  299
  The problem is not solely an Edinburgh matter. The Scotsman reports today that anti-damp rent strikers in the Gorbals have withheld between £30,000 and £40,000 in rents and a campaign spokesman has said that incalculable damage has been done to health, and the anger and despair felt by tenants who are still living in damp conditions are best summed up by the fact that an increasing number are withholding their rents.
  I uphold the law and its enforcement in all circumstances. However, as Macaulay said, suppressing disaffection without suppressing the cause of disaffection is like removing a rattlesnake's rattle but leaving its venom intact. It is not enough merely to tell those who are defying the law and refusing to pay their rent that they must pay; we must remove the cause of the disaffection. I suggest that that should be done by making a determined attempt to treat the matter with priority.
  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that Macaulay, whom he quoted, was an Edinburgh Member of Parliament in the nineteenth century? That indicates that the problem has continued for rather a long time.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Craigen: I welcome the amendment as it applies to special needs and offers rather more flexibility.
  I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that there is a growing need in the Glasgow area for the provision of more sheltered housing. A special need that should be borne in mind by the Scottish Office when it is considering and drawing up the terms of the aggregate expenditure is the problem facing some local authorities where the age structure within communities has so altered that there is a steady requirement to increase the supply of two apartment houses, and especially sheltered housing.
  As for dampness and condensation, if I seem to be carping it is not so much at my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State but at the impression that seemed to exist about 10 minutes ago that they do not present a problem in a number
  300
  of areas. Obviously living habits differ even within flats within one multi-storey block. However, building materials have differed remarkably in the past decade. Some of the problems that are arising stem from the use of new building materials that have been used without adequate testing over a period.
  I support the amendment as it introduces the problems of dampness and condensation as special factors in the calculation of the housing support grant. Surely we cannot overlook the extra expenditure that dampness causes when considering rents. That applies to central Government and local authorities and to all tenants within a local authority area who are having to meet the cost of remedial work.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I speak specifically to Amendment No. 8, which relates to an acute and widespread problem in Scotland. The widespread nature of the problem is clear as various hon. Members have referred to the problem as it affects their constituencies in Stirlingshire, Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is an acute problem throughout Scotland. Hon. Members have given us examples of how dampness and condensation create practical problems and difficulties for individual households. The Under-Secretary of State can count on all-party support for the amendment. There seems to be a general air of sympathy towards the attempt to meet the problem. Therefore, in tackling it the hon. Gentleman may count on broad all-party support.
  Sympathy is not enough; we require cash and action. The Minister has said that the problem may be related to a situation such as that caused by influenza as it is so widespread. If that is so, let us have the serum and let it be applied. As I have said, cash and action are required in calculating the housing support grant and in dealing with the problem of condensation and dampness. I suggest that the Minister should think about instituting a national research programme—in other words, further to define the problem and to think through solutions that can be applied.
  Cash should be given to local authorities through the housing support grant. I hope that the Minister will take into account the need for extra money to implement new techniques that are appropriate to meet and defeat the problem.

  301
  When considering the cash that is given to local authorities, I hope that the Minister will give attention to house design and the materials that are used. We must look for new designs and new materials that are suited specifically to the Scottish climate and Scottish needs.
  Above and beyond the debate, there is a case for special grant aid to meet the specific problem that has been outlined. That should be backed up by a national campaign to draw the attention of local authorities and everyone involved to the need for action to be taken immediately to help those who are faced with the problem.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Minister has said that few people are involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what is known of the problem—for example, the number of houses involved and the number of people involved.
  When dealing with these problems, it is often found that those involved are those least able to help themselves. They are often the ones who are most acutely affected. The problem sometimes affects houses that are occupied by low income families, or by old people. When electrical installations provide the heating, it is possible for such families to build up massive fuel bills, which hit hardest those with lower incomes.
  I refer to the individuals who have contacted the Government. For example, there is Jim Carson of West Pilton. I appreciate the mention given to him and his efforts by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Apart from individuals, the Strathkelvin District Council has tried to draw the problems of its district to the Government's attention. It is a national and widespread problem.
  There is a need for some financial mechanism to take into account, in terms of rents and rateable values, the problems created by condensation and dampness. I ask the Minister to tell us whether he is willing to take the problems into account in those terms.
  I ask the Minister whether it is possible at Government level to take these problems into account when considering the cost yardstick. There is a problem as regards new house building where,
  302
  because of the strictures of the indicative cost system, we may be inbuilding structural defects in house construction. I hope that the Minister will give specific attention to that matter.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what he intends to do in dealing with the matters that I have mentioned. I hope that more cash will be applied to meet the problem. There is a need for a national research programme and new techniques. There is a need for new house building materials and designs to be applied to meet the problems that have been raised during the debate. I accept the amendment in the hope that if the House accepts it the Government will be forced into action to meet a specific problem.
  Mr. James White: I take up the matters raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
  I say again that it is high time that the Glasgow District Council stopped robbing people by demanding rents and rates when, as in the district of Priesthill, there is not merely dampness but flooding. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I must tell the House that he was kind enough to visit the area some time ago. However, to my way of thinking the area is a ghetto. I have been to places such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and I have been round Blackhill, but no place compares with Priesthill. Notwithstanding the severity of the problem, nothing ever seems to be done about it.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said about our house building record. I had hoped that some of the terrible houses in Priesthill could be bulldozed and that the residents might move into Darnley. However, the Conservative Party and the nationalists on the Glasgow District Council brought about a dramatic cutback. That policy was applied to house building and to houses nearing completion, despite the fact that the people of Priesthill desperately wanted the houses to be built.
  For the past seven years I have been fighting this cause. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to promise me some help today. I have had visits from officials from the Scottish Office, the

  303
  Strathclyde Regional Council and the district council. It is rather like visiting the Berlin Wall: everybody comes and looks but nothing happens.
  Yesterday we discussed the subject of law and order. I am not surprised that there should be lawlessness, hooliganism and vandalism in places such as Priest-hill. It is not unusual for whole streets to be without lights and for doctors and ambulance men to go around with torches.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member realises that we are not having a wide ranging debate. This is not yet the Scottish Assembly.
  Mr. White: I sincerely hope that I do not have to wait for the Scottish Assembly in order to get something done. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  For the sake of people in Priesthill, I hope that the Minister will indicate how we can lean on the district council to get something done about the problems in that area.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to intervene briefly in the debate, because I did not serve on the Committee and I have not had the benefit of listening to earlier discussions on this matter.
  Dampness and condensation are matters of genuine concern to many of my constituents. I agree with the Minister that, although this problem may be relatively widespread in different areas, we must keep it in perspective. However, the problem of dampness affecting an individual's house is a matter of great concern. Those with experience of property will know that dampness is difficult to diagnose and to put right.
  I have had recurring problems brought to my attention in my constituency. Fortunately, with the exception of one area that I should like to mention, the problem has affected only individual houses. In most instances the housing authority, through its property services or housing department, has been sympathetic and helpful. Unfortunately, in some cases, it has taken months, even years, before the problem has been satisfactorily resolved.
  304
  Generally, I think that a great deal requires to be done by way of giving advice on the prevention of dampness and condensation. Someone who does not have practical experience of property may think that dampness is due to external factors—perhaps to the construction of the building—when it is in fact due to the use of certain types of heaters and so on. Therefore, before waiting for the complaints to be made, advice should be made generally available to tenants on the best forms of heating and ventilating for their houses. If more general advice on this matter were available, some of the problems could be prevented.
  I welcome the amendment and Amendment No. 8. Dampness is not restricted to older houses. For example, there is a relatively new housing development in the village of Auchenblae in Kincardineshire. The houses were built only two years ago. They are in a somewhat exposed position, but they were built to modern design and standards by a well known firm of builders. I visited a number of those houses just over two weeks ago. I was appalled to see in various places in those houses black mould at wainscot level on the ground floor and at ceiling level in the bedrooms on the upper floor. There was dampness in living rooms, bedrooms, cupboards, on walls, stairways and in lobbies. It was most disconcerting. A number of the tenants had moved from older property into this new property expecting to find much better conditions than they had left. For some young couples these were their first homes. One has to meet people in these circumstances to appreciate how galling and discouraging the situation is.
  These problems have been reported to the local authority and various investigations have been carried out. However, I was appalled by the advice that was given. I know that it was meant to be helpful and constructive, and I am not criticising the local authority. However, the tenants were advised to put ventilators in cupboards and to fit electric fans to help extraction and so on. Various tenants had not tried these methods, but they did not feel that it was their responsibility as they were paying rent and rates. They were the first tenants of these houses and they wondered why these suggestions should have been made to

  305
  them. Other tenants had tried heating at a high level—the houses are heated electrically—while others had put in ventilators, but still the problem persisted.
  I know that the local authority has this matter in hand. Indeed, I am in touch with the housing manager. Knowing the constructive way with which he deals with complaints, I am sure efforts will be made to find a solution and that action will be taken.
  I raise this matter because it demonstrates that we are dealing with a problem that arises not only in older property but in new property. With the benefit of building regulations, modern experience and so on, one would have thought that this kind of difficulty could have been overcome.
  It is right that we should discuss this matter in the House of Commons. It is also right to try to introduce it into measures such as the one under consideration in an endeavour to resolve it. I know that any action that can be taken by the Minister will be greatly appreciated by my constituents.
  Sometimes these problems in technical terms are slow of resolution for very good reasons. We should be kidding ourselves if we thought that they could be resolved easily and quickly. But this is a problem for the occupier in terms not only of nuisance but of expense for redecoration, damage to clothing, furniture, curtains, carpets and so on.
  It is an absolute waste of resources to build new houses only to have these problems arise. Dampness and condensation affect the fabric and reduce the value of houses and eventually lead to expensive repairs having to be carried out. A little extra money spent on construction—for example, to ensure that houses are properly insulated—will at the end of the day save not only money, but a great deal of distress to many people. I appreciate that money is required to help those who are in difficulty now, but I hope that the lesson to be drawn from the debate will be that we should devote more thought and money to the construction stage in order that we may at the end of the day save more resources.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for North
  306
  Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). However, he made one comment which probably surprised many hon. Members, namely, the suggestion that new houses were less affected by dampness and condensation than old houses. I think that the experience of many hon. Members is quite the opposite: that new houses are more affected by dampness and condensation than old houses.
  In modern building there should be no excuses for dampness. The construction methods and materials that can prevent dampness are or should be known. The main problem in my constituency in multi-storey flats appears to be condensation.
  The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns suggested that there should be a national campaign and investigation into the causes of dampness and condensation. I am sure that a great deal of investigation is going on, but I suggest that experimentation nationally must be encouraged. By nationally I do not mean only Scotland. The problem affects the whole of Britain, as a recent television programme clearly showed.
  6.30 p.m.
  I do not know the solution. I am familiar with the building industry. I have spoken to many people who have had experience of this in the building industry and one hears a variety of solutions. One old builder, for whom I have great respect, believes that the real reason, particularly in modern housing, is that there is no flue and that there are fitted carpets. He believes that that is why old houses do not suffer from so much condensation. There may be something in what he says.
  Compensation is not enough for those who have suffered this great inconvenience. There are houses in my area which inspectors have examined and treatment has been given. The houses have been redecorated and after six months they are back where they were. People who hope that they will be able to live a reasonably comfortable existence are in dread that the damp will start again, that fungus will start growing and that paper will come off the walls. I say, not that there should be no compensation, but that there must be a fundamental examination of the causes of the problem.
  Hon. Members have referred to the different local government departments which might be concerned. It could be the sanitary inspector, the environmental health inspector or the housing manager. No one cares a damn who looks after these matters. The person concerned does not care whether the official comes from one department or another or what hat he wears. People expect action to be taken by the council.
  Mr. Craigen: I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. When I raised this matter earlier it was because people often complain about the buck-passing between different departments of a local authority and about the buffeting they experience when pursuing a claim.
  Mr. Carmichael: That is what I am saying. The involvement of different departments is for the convenience of the local authority. If there is buck-passing, it should be sorted out at a high administrative level and ordinary people should not have to put up with it.
  I have sympathy with Amendment No. 8, but it only papers cracks—if I may use such a phrase in this debate. We need an intensified campaign to investigate condensation. Dampness in a modern house is normally caused by neglect in building. The only real problem is that of condensation. I hope that the building research people will deal with it now.
  Mr. Rifkind: The Minister said that the problem of dampness was like influenza in its geographical application. But the reaction from both sides of the House suggests that the disease is reaching epidemic proportions. The problem is more serious than the Minister accepted. He said that the concentration of dampness was not substantial in any one particular area and that the number of houses affected was limited. We can give examples from our constituencies.
  I refer to the situation in the Firrhill Estate in my constituency where the tenants' association took a survey of 260 flats. In that survey there were over 200 complaints about dampness. If that occurs in one small part of Edinburgh it is not difficult to work out the extent of the problem throughout Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I appreciate the debating technique of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), but it is grossly unfair and does nothing to satisfy those who are affected to take a sample from a place where the incidence of damp might be high. It is not typical of other housing schemes, even in Edinburgh. It is unfair to say that this applies in all the council estates in Scotland.
  Mr. Rifkind: The Minister has declared himself to be ignorant of the facts. We are giving examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) told the House about an area in his constituency where 50 per cent. of the tenants have damp problems. A long-term survey in a block of flats in my constituency showed that 200 out of 260 tenants complained of dampness. Complaints have come from Oxgangs, Wester Hailes, Saughton Mains, Calders and Broomhouse. In virtually every council estate damp action groups are complaining about serious damp. There is a substantial problem in Glasgow where literally thousands of tenants are complaining. Many of them have withdrawn their rents in protest. The problems exist in every part of Scotland. Virtually every city south of the border also has this problem. It is a serious problem which has a heavy concentration in the areas that hon. Members have mentioned.
  One of the difficulties is to persuade local authorities to accept responsibility. In my area and elsewhere local authorities have suggested that the problem is caused by the fault of tenants. They say that the problem is not caused by water penetration or construction but by the methods of heating used by the tenants. I find it difficult to acknowledge that that is an explanation for the extent of the problem.
  No doubt if many individual tenants heated their homes properly the problem would be solved for them. But there is no doubt that the problem of the severe dampness in local authority houses is not confined to bad tenants. Many exemplary tenants have tried to carry out reasonable suggestions only to find that the problem is as serious as ever. It is wrong to suggest that this is caused by the habits of tenants.

  309
  To a large extent, the problem is concentrated on council estates. If the difficulty were caused by the heating habits of the occupants, one would expect to receive representations and complaints about dampness from owner-occupiers and private tenants as well as from council tenants. Virtually every representation that I have received has been from tenants of local authority housing. They all suggest that the housing is the cause of the difficulty.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: If a house is privately owned the owner would be unlikely to write to his Member of Parliament about it. An owner-occupier would endeavour to deal with the problem himself. One should not make comparisons of that kind.
  Mr. Rifkind: I take the point. But if this were a severe problem to owner-occupiers, we should be aware of the fact. It exists in individual cases. Some private tenants and owner-occupiers have complained of dampness. But largely the trouble is restricted to local authority housing. We could be certain that if it existed on a substantial scale in owner-occupied dwellings there would be many representations to us.
  I must offer my congratulations once more to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who has now taken his place on the Government Front Bench. I congratulated him in a previous debate on moving an amendment on behalf of the Government when the Minister was not prepared to move it himself. He now appears to have followed the logic of his own argument and has crossed the Floor in a limited sense and in perhaps a premature way.
  Mr. Younger: Surely the point my hon. Friend is making on this amendment is that with privately owned houses the owners do something about dampness, but with council houses no one does anything about it.
  Mr. Rifkind: Certainly the local authorities have failed to respond adequately to the problem in their properties. There has been considerable discussion about the advice that local authorities have given to their tenants for dealing with the problem. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, before he assumed his present elevated position, pointed out
  310
  that in at least one case tenants had been advised that if they stopped breathing that could solve the problem of dampness and condensation.
  Another curious proposition put to tenants in my area and elsewhere in Scotland was that they should switch on all the heating and leave the windows open, and that over a period of weeks or even months the condensation would disappear. I am not sure how many tenants would be prepared to put their heating on for 24 hours a day. In a strictly technical sense, this proposal might have dealt with the problem, but I notice that the local authorities have not volunteered to pay the heating bills of the tenants concerned.
  Three courses of action are required to deal with this matter. The local authorities must accept that in a substantial proportion of their housing stock there is a severe problem of dampness which is caused not by the heating habits of the tenants but which relates to the structural conditions of the properties. Secondly, there is a powerful case for saying that where a local authority tenant is prevented from using part of his house because of dampness he should not be expected to pay the full rent for that house. The landlord, whether a private or local authority landlord, undertakes to provide a house for a tenant. If a quarter, a fifth or a third of that house cannot be used, as is the case with many houses in my constituency, it is not just or proper to expect payment of the full rent for the property.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I understand that the hon. Member is skilled in valuation matters. Does he accept that in valuation determinations by the valuation appeals committees account can be taken of dampness in houses, and that the valuation can be adjusted accordingly? Is it not the case that one of the prime areas of evidence that the committees take into account is whether there has been a rent deduction before that? The two systems are built into each other, and the committees can make spot reductions in valuations to take account of extensive dampness.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member is correct. The problem here is that the local authorities maintain that the dampness is caused by the tenants, but they refuse to consider the possibility of a rent

  311
  reduction, and therefore one would have to pin the responsibility upon the local authority before a rent or rates reduction could be made.
  The Government must bear some responsibility in this matter. The problem is a national one and it would take a large amount of money to rectify the situation. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect the local authorities to meet the full cost themselves.
  When I raised this matter with the Minister he replied in a letter dated 10th October:
  "If there is a need for capital expenditure, proposals will be put to the Scottish Office who I am sure would be ready to consider as sympathetically as possible a reasonable and satisfactory scheme."
  I am glad that the Minister said that because it indicates that the ball is firmly in the local authorities' court to bring forward useful and sensible proposals. The Minister has gone as far as he can at this stage to indicate that the Government would respond favourably.
  If the local authorities or the Government run out of all other ways of trying to resolve this problem, they could consider a suggestion made by a lady of 70 who wrote to me saying:
  "Why not study Eskimo igloos and houses in Lapland? It would not surprise me if they have some cheap, simple solution".
  I commend that suggestion to the Minister if all else fails.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: When I raised the matter of dampness in our discussions on this Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee, mine was a lone voice pointing out the problems faced by many tenants in all parts of Scotland. I am sure that in many homes in Scotland there will be some rejoicing that in the House of Commons many hon. Members appear to be drawing their different experiences together and that there might now be some recognition of the fact that a problem exists. More than anything else tenants suffer from the problem of dampness, the problem of keeping paper on the walls and the problem of the mildew that appears on their clothes, in cupboards and so on. When they manage to arrange for someone from the clerk of the works department to call, he takes a quick look round, says that it is conden-
  312
  sation and goes away again, acting as though that resolves the matter.
  I am sure that my experience is no different from that of other hon. Members. When one goes to a local authority and raises a specific case, the authority carries out an investigation, makes checks and puts special meters against the walls, and says that the problem is not of dampness but of condensation. But I wonder whether we are speaking about the same thing. It may be that the experts have a different view of condensation from me. I cannot for the life of me believe that some of the conditions I have seen are caused simply by condensation.
  I was intrigued by the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) that it may not be the construction of the house that is at fault but the fact that tenants now have floor coverings that give much better protection against draughts and that there are no flues as there used to be with coal fires.
  Judging from my experience, thousands, if not tens of thousands of tenants are suffering from this problem and they do not know which way to turn. I suspect that the local authorities do not know what to do either, which is why they say "This is just one of those things. There is nothing wrong with the construction of the house." Like other hon. Members, I have heard the advice offered to tenants that before going out they should leave the heating on full blast and open the windows. They are told that after two or three days the problem will go. Perhaps it will for a short while, but when the tenants revert to their old habits, it will simply return. Anyway, who could afford to leave the heating on in that way at this time of year? Who would leave the windows open on most housing schemes?
  If there was a serious study of the problem, at least tenants might think that their views were being taken into account. In Mastrick in Aberdeen and in Northfield there are streets in which the tenants' associations have been fighting for years to get something done. The city council, which is the local authority, has made up its mind that houses there—they are not new houses, although they are not very old—should have foam pumped into the wall cavities

  313
  to stop the penetration. That is clearly an expensive scheme. The city council is talking in terms of £100,000, which is for only a small part of the area, and there is no guarantee that the idea will work.
  We should therefore take this matter very seriously. The Government should take account of these problems in allocating finance because, as I said in the Grand Committee, I have a sneaking suspicion that in five to 10 years we shall have the same problem of repair and maintenance in multi-storey flats. It will be very expensive.
  I hope that the Government will seriously take this into account and will urge local authorities to deal with the matter seriously. I hope that they will not simply fob off the tenants with the age-old cry that it is condensation. That will no longer do.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: There is no doubt, to judge from the contributions made from both sides of the House, that there is complete agreement that the problem of damp is a ruinous and an often deeply distressing matter. Equally, it is clear from what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate that he entirely recognises the problem, as do the Government.
  The question that we face is whether it is necessary, and what difference it would make, to write the amendment into the Bill. Is the Minister satisfied with the vigour with which local authorities are tackling the problem? There has been considerable evidence from both sides of the House that individual Members, irrespective of party, are not satisfied with vigour with which the local authorities have been tackling the problem. One wonders to what extent this Government or previous Governments have leant on local authorities to try to get matters dealt with more quickly.
  Does the Minister receive many approaches from local authorities asking the Scottish Office whether it can give assistance, technical advice and so on in dealing with what practically everybody seems to suggest is an almost intractable problem? We have been falling back on solutions ranging from stopping breathing to opening all the windows and putting the heating on. That is not
  314
  exactly a sign of a technological, sophisticated, advanced age.
  Therefore, one wonders to what degree the Scottish Office, which is at the beck and call of the Minister, has the expertise with which to advise local authorities. Although in the Bill we are talking about money, and the amendment seeks to write into the Bill that in considering the disbursal of money the Minister as a matter of priority should give special attention to the question of dampness, it is not only a question of money. It is a question of being able to deal with the matter in the correct way. We can spend a large amount of money and make no difference. Therefore, I should like that point to be clarified a little.
  Is the Minister, if he receives requests of that kind, able to respond effectively? If local authorities say "Help us. We have this damp problem", can the Scottish Office effectively assist them?
  A number of Members asked how widespread the problem was. Every hon. Member has experience of dampness in one form or another, either limited or quite large, in his or her own constituency. I have experience of the problem in Inverness, Fort William and Skye. To some extent, it seems to come in cycles. There are periods when there is evidence that dampness exists quite largely and then it does not arise so much for a period.
  On the other hand, there are examples quoted by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) mentioned some a minute ago—of dampness having persisted for many years, and it does not seem to have been tackled.
  I should like the Minister to give us any general information about how widespread the problem is. This would presumably be a matter which would determine how much money should be allocated and what priority should be given to tackling the problem.
  Finally, I come back to the amendment. This is what we shall have to decide about at the end of the debate, apart from expressing what I think is a general degree of disturbance at the problem and the persistence of the problem of dampness. We are, after all, on the same side, as far as I can see. The Minister is not being accused of introducing

  315
  damp as some sort of deep-dyed Labour policy. This is a problem which has existed for a long time. The question is whether the amendment would make any effective difference or whether in any event the Government are determined to tackle a problem of long standing with considerable priority.
  Mr. Hector Monro: The problem of dampness has been a curse to local authority housing for years. It has been a constant complaint of Members of Parliament, of whatever constituency. I am glad that Members on both sides of the House have tried to bring home to the Minister the seriousness of the problem.
  It is significant that most hon. Members who have spoken come from the East of Scotland where there is a low rainfall and low humidity. Those who, like myself, come from the South-West have to face the problem of twice the rainfall and a very much higher humidity, which does not help with solving the problem that we are talking about. Many hon. Members have been to council houses and seen the fungus, whether black or green, and the ruined wallpaper and ruined ceilings and mildew on furniture, often with good tenants who look after their properties. The housing departments try to give advice, always seemingly based on the famous word "condensation".
  As hon. Members have said, the remedies for condensation are varied, but on the whole they are inefficient and unsatisfactory. It is right that there should be pressure from hon. Members on the Minister to come up with a very much higher standard of advice from the Scottish Development Department. Do his architects have consultations with the building and construction industry?
  Surely, in 1978, we can begin to appreciate the problem and to find out how best to tackle it, perhaps in the end through much more satisfactory advice to tenants. The Minister can set an example tonight in what could be worked out with his technical advisers. He could give help in a physical sense through financial resources to improve buildings, as so many of them are under 25 years old. What advice will he give on design to be put into the plans for the new housing to be built this year and there-
  316
  after? We must make a positive effort to stamp out this problem as soon as possible.
  I hope that the the Minister realises hon. Members' anxiety because the technical advice has not been forthcoming from the Scottish Office Development Department to local authorities. I hope that he will work out advice to be given to tenants on what to do with the houses that are presently suffering from damp, a matter which is within the resources of the average tenant to tackle. We cannot just go on talking about turning up the heating and opening all the windows. That is not practical advice in Scotland today.
  I hope that the Minister has got the message. We are not best pleased about all this and we want something constructive to be done about it.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall be very brief as the problem of condensation and dampness has been covered by other Members. The problem is to be found in every constituency, and mine is no exception.
  I should like to ask the Minister what effect his proposed programme of 40,000 houses per year to be improved by way of proper insulation will have on the condensation problem. Are those matters linked in the Government's mind? Do the Government think that any relief will be given to the tenants of those houses which are particularly afflicted by condensation if the insulation programme goes ahead at the speed envisaged by the Minister?
  Does not the Minister accept that one of the problems stems from the all-electric houses? Does he not feel also that the cost of electricity is having an impact on the tenants of those houses, as they cannot afford to burn the same amount of electricity as they could four or five years ago because of the terrific escalation in the cost of electricity by comparison with the cost of other fuels in that period?
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This has been a very useful debate. Although the public would not always give us credit for this, it reflects the contact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have with the problems that confront people.

  317
  I do not think that even an independent Scotland would guarantee that the problems of condensation and dampness would be solved overnight. The debate has reflected the concern and frustrations felt by many tenants in trying to deal with the problems. I am not making excuses, but we have had many suggestions about causes and possible cures. The question "Is it dampness or is it condensation?" shows the difficulties in deciding what the problem really is and thus seeking appropriate solutions.
  7.0 p.m.
  I think that 12 hon. Members have contributed to the debate and the only one who referred to the amendment was the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I am left with the responsibility of trying to persuade the House whether the matter should be included in the calculations for the distribution of housing support grant. We are not debating the problem of dampness or condensation or the amount of Government money involved. We are debating merely whether in distributing Government support we should take into account, as Amendment No. 8 says,
  "any substantial element of dampness … which constitutes a hazard to the health and welfare of the tenants and their families".
  I am sorry that I must be pragmatic here. What is a "substantial element of dampness"? Who would define it? Would we have arbitration between the Government and local authority as to how many such houses should be calculated as having a "substantial element of dampness"? What constitutes
  "a hazard to the health and welfare of the tenants and their families"?
  That might vary according to the family and the size of house. I am not minimising the problem but looking at the practical aspects.
  Mr. Welsh: Instead of asking questions, why does not the Minister give the tenant the benefit of the doubt?
  Mr. Brown: I do not know what that means, but it sounds absurd.
  Mr. Welsh: It should be clear whether a house is suffering from damp. The hon. Gentleman is nit-picking. It should be obvious to those involved.
  Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any experience
  318
  of the matter. It is not so obvious to the tenant or the authority what is causing the trouble, whether it is dampness or condensation and to what extent a contributory factor might be the family's life style—for example, their inability to provide the heat that might help to improve matters, however understanding we might he about that inability. I am not suggesting that heat would necessarily cure the problem.
  Is it suggested that we should distribute more housing support grant to one authority than another on the basis of what a tenant says? I shudder if that is what the future Government of Scotland will base their decisions on. Evidence can be disputed, even in a court of law.
  The amendment, if not technically defective, would introduce two specifications into matters that are covered by special needs. I am under no illusions about how the House feels. I am not satisfied that local authorities are tackling the problem with the vigour that it demands. It is one of the biggest problems in the whole of housing in Scotland. I even wish the authorities would consider slowing down normal modernisation to deal with it.
  If I thought that money could solve the problem I would urge local authorities to spend money to cure dampness rather than to provide someone with a new kitchen unit. There is no comparison. One can put up with an old sink for another few months. To the extent that I could lend any weight to a campaign on those lines, I would give it.
  Various suggestions have been made, but I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. However, I am more than willing to consider asking authorities to indicate in their housing plans the extent of the problem. This might encourage them to make an assessment.
  I do not like bandying figures across the Floor of the House. That is why I picked up the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) when he gave the example of almost 90 per cent. of houses in one small area being affected. When we are talking about almost a million local authority houses we do not know what is involved. It would be wrong to speak of 50 per cent. or anything like that figure being affected by dampness.

  319
  I am more than willing to discuss with COSLA the encouragement of local authorities to include the matter in the preparation of their housing plans—the plans for this year are almost coming up again—to see whether that would be a means of drawing attention to the problem and tackling it.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) asked whether help had been given. The Government have given assistance with electric heating bills to low-income families, those in receipt of family income supplement, supplementary assistance or supplementary pensions. But that is not enough. It is not merely a financial problem.
  I hope that I shall have the backing of the House in whatever action we decide to take to encourage, exhort or cajole local authorities to pay more attention to the problem. Government money is available. I have explained that the change in the Bill should help to attract a Government contribution.
  It is for the local authorities themselves to do many of the things that hon. Members have suggested. They have complete freedom to reduce the rents, but that would be a defeatist approach. They have complete discretion to carry out many of the suggestions that have been made.
  I have already explained why the Government and COSLA do not want written into the Bill specific references to any particular problem. The debate has drawn attention to a particular problem, which will to some extent be reflected in management and maintenance, where factors are built in to take account of such matters. The proposals in the Bill are correct.
  Provided we have the determination, in association with the local authorities, to tackle the problem, I think that we can give priority to providing the resources, however limited they might be. It is certainly a problem that affects too many people in Scotland.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have spent a long time talking about dampness and may have forgotten the valuable contribution made to the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in getting the Minister to adopt an amendment to take account
  320
  of the special problems of special areas. My hon. Friend advanced a very important argument in Committee, which undoubtedly led to the Minister's making a major change in the Bill.
  All speakers, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) have emphasised what a desperately serious problem dampness is. It has been emphasised, quite rightly, that it means fungus and rooms unused and that it means for many people living a life of virtual hell in their council houses.
  The second thing that has been emphasised is the frustration of hon. Members. We have had discussions on this matter previously. We have heard the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raising the matter on previous occasions. Ministers have expressed concern. Previous Conservative and Labour Ministers have urged local authorities to do something about this dreadful problem, but the fact is that precious little seems to be done.
  We should bear in mind the experience of all hon. Members who visit the homes of those who are suffering from the problem, who are just about getting to the end of their tether, and who set up groups and committees which meet councils and Members of Parliament, when it still seems that nothing appears to happen. We still have the same men coming around with the same machines and the same advice about condensation.
  Earlier in the debate I pointed out that under the Government there had been a substantial reduction in the building programme. It is down to 26,000 houses. From what the Government say, it appears that there will not be an expansion but probably a further contraction in house building. Therefore, what we must say to the Government, and what the whole House must say, is that we must not have just another discussion tonight, with a few more generalisations to the Minister about what needs to be done, and assurances about the determination of local authorities. We need to do something tonight and to have something inserted in the Bill that will be an indication to local authorities that they must prepare a plan of action and do something about it.

  321
  In the amendment it is suggested that we should say to local authorities that they will get more or less, dependent on their dampness problem. It is necessary that the Government should announce a crusade over the next two years, during which there will be an endeavour by the Government, using their resources under the Bill, to ensure that dampness is eradicated from Scottish council homes. I believe that this could be done by ensuring at the beginning that more money was given to those authorities that wanted to deal with their problem, and those authorities that had not dealt with it would suffer in their grant latterly. In other words, we must use the discipline of the Bill to ensure that something is done.
  When we are considering a housing Bill and when there will probably not be another such Bill for a long time, we should endeavour to do something about the problem of dampness. The Opposition amendment makes a contribution to its solution in making clear to local authorities that we want a crusade against dampness. We want urgent action taken by local authorities, and if such action is not taken there will be consequences for local authorities.
  My experience and, I suspect, the experience of all those who have spent some time in the House, is that if we just give general assurances in the House, nothing much happens. We want to put statutory obligations into the Bill, or some kind of statutory restraints, and this is the only way of ensuring action by local authorities.
  In the circumstances, although I accept what the Minister has said about certain technical defects in the amendment, in the light of the general view of the House tonight, I believe that it would be right for us to write this amendment into the Bill. If the Government can in another place make some other suggestions as to how we can have a guarantee of action on dampness, let them do that. But, in
  view of the strong feelings that have been expressed this evening, it would be unthinkable that we should finish the debate without having made this alteration in the Bill.
  This is a useful amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 16, at end add:
  '(1A) The report accompanying a housing support grant order in accordance with section 1(6) of this Act shall contain a table showing the estimated amount of grant payable to each local authority for that year.'.
  I move this amendment to fulfil an undertaking given in Committee, which arose from an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The amendment originally moved by the hon. Member referred to the likely grant to be received by each authority. I accept that the thinking behind that, to have required the actual entitlement to be specified, could delay the laying of the order and the report. What I am now suggesting is "estimated" rather than "likely". I hope that that will satisfy the suggestion contained in the original amendment.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am most grateful to the Minister for this improvement in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 3, line 24, at end insert:
  '(2A) The Secretary of State shall also take Into account as a matter of priority any substantial element of dampness in local authority houses which constitutes a hazard to the health and welfare of the tenants and their families, in determining the said proportion payable to a local authority.'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 146.

  Division No. 128]

  AYES

  [7.15 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Peter

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Richard

  Channon, Paul

  Arnold, Tom

  Bottomley, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

  Clegg, Walter

  Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Cockroft, John

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brooke, Peter

  Cope, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Costain, A. P.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Crawford, Douglas

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Dunlop, John

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Scott, Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Emery, Peter

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Colin

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Luce, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Farr, John

  MacCormick, Iain

  Silvester, Fred

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Fox, Marcus

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Speed, Keith

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Marten, Neil

  Sproat, lain

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Mather, Carol

  Stainton, Keith

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Gray, Hamish

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter

  Tebbit, Norman

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Hector

  Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thompson, George

  Hannam, John

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watt, Hamish

  Holland, Philip

  Neubert, Michael

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nott, John

  Wells, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hurd, Douglas

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas

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

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Younger, Hon George

  Jessel, Toby

  Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Rhodes James, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Peter Morrison and

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Sir George Young.

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Madden, Max

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Magee, Bryan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Bates, Alf

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Beith, A. J.

  Ford, Ben

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Forrester, John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Molloy, William

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Freud, Clement

  Moonman, Eric

  Boardman, H.

  Golding, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moyle, Roland

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Newens, Stanley

  Buchan, Norman

  Hardy, Peter

  Noble, Mike

  Buchanan, Richard

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Ogden, Eric

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cartwright, John

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Pardoe, John

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Park, George

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Huckfield, Les

  Parry, Robert

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Janner, Greville

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cowans, Harry

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  John, Brynmor

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Lamble, David

  Ryman, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamond, James

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davidson, Arthur

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Deakins, Eric

  Litterick, Tom

  Spiggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Slallard, A. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Dormand, J. D.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stott, Roger

  Dunn, James A.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Eadie, Alex

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  324

  325

  Tinn, James

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Torney, Tom

  White, James (Pollok)

  Woof, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Whitlock, William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ward, Michael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mr Joseph Harper and

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mr. Ted Graham.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
  '(2A) In prescribing the method of determining the proportion mentioned in subsection (1) above payable for any year to a local authority the Secretary of State shall have regard to any special needs affecting local authorities' expenditure on housing.'.—[Mr. Hugh D Brown.]
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 32, leave out
  'in the opinion of the Secretary of State'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 11 and Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'an unduly large' and insert 'a substantial'.
  Mr. Cook: This is a modest amendment whose effect is to delete the words
  "in the opinion of the Secretary of State"
  so that the subsection empowers the Secretary of State to arrange the distribution of housing support grant so that no local authority has an unduly large increase in any one year. At present the subsection provides that the Secretary of State will have the power to prevent what would be, in his opinion, an unduly large increase.
  It is worth recording that when the Committee fell to work on this Bill there were no fewer than five references to the opinion of the Secretary of State in Clauses 1 and 2. In the course of our proceedings in Committee we managed to delete four of those references and in so doing, I believe all Members would accept, made a better Bill. Unfortunately, none of us is perfect and in the course of our proceedings we appear to have overlooked the remaining, fifth, reference to the Secretary of State's opinion, in line 32 of Clause 2.
  It would be only logical to carry through the argument made in Committee and to delete the reference. The effect of the amendment is modest. The subsection provides that the Secretary of State may so arrange matters that there
  326
  is no unduly large increase for a local authority. It seems distinctly superfluous, having said that he may, if he so decides, arrange that there be no unduly large increase, to refer to the Secretary of State's opinion. I presume that it is implicit in his decision so to arrange things that there is no unduly large increase or that in his opinion an unduly large increase was likely to occur.
  This seems to me a particularly superfluous use of the words. Deleting them will not substantially alter the powers of discretion which rests with the Secretary of State, but at least it will help to reduce the extent to which the Secretary of State is seen to dominate the two clauses. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Minister and to the House.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have a good deal of sympathy, as always, with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), although I think that the Minister explained briefly in Committee why it was desirable to leave in the words.
  With regard to our Amendment No. 12, we were unhappy, in relation to the transitional arrangements that the words "an unduly large" should appear, and we suggested the insertion of the words "a substantial" in their place. The clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to give some help to authorities when a reduction in housing support grant would result in an unduly large increase for the current year, as compared with the preceding year, in the amount by which rates had to increase. It seems to us that the words "an unduly large" can cover anything, and that is why we have proposed the words "a substantial".
  The Minister has come forward with his compromise proposal of "unreasonable". That is probably more helpful to local authorities than "unduly large". This was one of the proposals which arose out of a good discussion in Committee. I think that the Minister will agree that it was a good Committee, because it was one of the few in which we did not have a Liberal Member. To that

  327
  extent we were able to make meaningful and sensible changes.
  Although we have tabled amendment No. 12, I am quite happy and content with the Minister's proposal in Amendment No. 11.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am happy to accept Amendment No. 10. In the light of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has said, I take it that he has accepted that "unreasonable" is better than "unduly large". I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 11, in page 3, line 33,
  leave out 'unduly large' and insert 'unreasonable'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Clause 8

  REPAIRS GRANT
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 30,
  after 'to', insert 'the urgency of the repairs and'.
  The intention of the amendment is to be helpful to the Minister, and it might help the House if I were to read into the record what was said in Committee when we considered the issue of hardship tests on the application for a repairs grant. There was considerable debate on the issue in Committee. In his reply to the debate the Minister said:
  "I urge that the incomes testing must be done sympathetically, because it is a question not just of needs but of the state of property. I envisage that it will not be someone in an office who will decide the question on the basis only of income, though that will be the broad test. It must be related to the repairs that need to be done, how urgent they are, and whether there is co-operation and support from all the other people connected with the individual who has an acute problem."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd February 1978; c. 250.]
  In considering the Bill as it stands, it is very difficult to see how a local authority could take into account, in making its judgment of an application, the state of the property as well as the needs of the applicant, because the present subsection appears to me to refer only to the financial means of the applicant, and it would appear to rest solely on whether the
  328
  applicant was successful in applying for a repairs grant.
  If it is the desire of the Government that the decision of the local authority should turn not simply on the financial capacity of the applicant but also on the state of the property in which the applicant is residing, it is surely sensible to write that specifically into the Bill, to avoid any doubt on the part of the local authority concerned.
  It is difficult to find a brief phrase which indicates the particular state of repairs that we should wish to succeed in any application for a repairs grant and that which we should wish to fail. There is probably considerable difficulty in lawyers coming up with a suitable tight definition of "urgency". I chose the word "urgency" because it is the Minister's word, used in his reply, in which he said that
  "It must be related to the repairs that need to be done, how urgent they are,"
  and so on. It is from that source that I have taken the word "urgency", and I hope that my hon. Friend will find it a helpful addition to the Bill.
  It is worth reminding the House that when we debated the matter in Committee there was considerable anxiety among hon. Members that the test of hardship which has been introduced into the application for repairs grant may well have the effect of severely restricting the number of successful applications for repairs grants and the extent to which the Government envisage the grants applying. I note that there is an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) which refers to the specific question of hardship.
  There are very grave grounds for concern whether a sufficient number of people will succeed in passing the test as it stands in the Bill at present. When we discussed the matter in Committee, I informed the Committee of my own discussions with Edinburgh District Council, in which the council indicated that at present only 2 per cent. of those who apply for an improvement grant within a housing action area fulfil the additional test of hardship in order to qualify for a 90 per cent. grant. If that 2 per cent. is typical as a sample, we can expect a very restricted uptake of the repairs grant.

  329
  It is quite plain to those who heard the Minister discuss this in Committee and outside that he wishes to see the repairs grant applied rather more widely than to 2 per cent. of applicants. Indeed, it is quite clear that the Minister is genuine in his wish to see it applied widely, so that the sort of repair can be carried out to older tenements which is required to be done before they reach the stage of demolition, and before there is need for expensive new housing. That being so, it would be only prudent to make quite plain to the local authorities in the wording of the subsection that we do not want them simply to apply the same test of hardship as they applied in the case of improvement grants.
  One way of doing it would have been to delete the reference to hardship. I had an amendment on the Order Paper for that purpose but it has not been selected. My present amendment would have the effect of giving local authorities the discretion, which the Minister himself indicated that he hoped they would use, of considering not simply the income of the applicant but also the state of repair required to the property.
  It would be very unfortunate indeed if we were faced with a situation in which there was a tenant requiring what we should all accept as urgent repairs, and whose application for a repairs grant was turned down out of hand because the applicant failed to meet this fairly narrow test of hardship. I am sure that that would not be the Minister's intention, I am sure that it would not have been the wish of hon. Members in Committee, and that it would not be the intention of the House.
  That being so, I hope that the House will find it possible to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Younger: I should like to say a word briefly about the other amendment, Amendment No. 15, which it was suggested should be discussed with the amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The amendment, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, would ensure that the local authority would have to draw up a plan or scheme to cater for hardship—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My recollection is that I called only Amendment No. 13.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The confusion may have arisen because Amendment No. 15 could perhaps have been taken with Amendment No. 13, but that was, of course, a matter for the Chair.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has highlighted the words that I used in Committee. I would not say that I committed an indiscretion, but perhaps it would be better if I explained what I meant by urgency.
  I am assured that some people read the reports of our debates, and therefore some people still seem to think that what a Minister says is important. Perhaps it would have been better if I had used the word "serious". My hon. Friend's amendment seeks to make the urgency of a repair a major factor in the consideration of a repairs grant. I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern to maintain the fabric of older private houses, but to write in "urgency" is not a satisfactory standard. Indeed, it would be a difficult one to apply.
  A quite small repair might be urgently needed—for example, a broken window—while a serious repair need such as attention to dry rot or structural strength might be capable of being left for further study and might result in gradual deterioration. I know that we are all playing with words when making legislation, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that, from the point of view of definition and interpretation, it would be undesirable to write in the word "urgency".
  The amendment might have—I put it no higher than that—the undesirable effect of encouraging people to wait until a repair became urgently needed in the hope of getting a grant more easily. My hon. Friend must take on board that aspect as well. It would obviously be wrong to encourage this kind of delay, because it would not be in keeping with the intention of the policy aimed at maintaining older private houses.
  Amendment No. 15 is probably more important in the generality of how we apply the hardship test. The word "urgency" would not be capable of accurate interpretation.
  Mr, Robin F. Cook: I would be the first to admit—I repeatedly said this in

  331
  Committee—that I am not a legal draftsman. Perhaps I used the wrong word, but unfortunately I relied on the word which the Minister himself used off the cuff in Committee.
  It may be that my hon. Friend has been got at and that the reasons why he should not have used that word have been thoroughly explained to him. I would not wish to go to the stake in defence of the word "urgency" but I believe there is merit in our widening the subsection so that local authorities have some regard to the state of the property, as was clearly in my hon. Friend's mind in Committee.
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that we can widen the definition of a repair grant. It is pretty wide already and covers almost everything that is a repair. That is for the discretion of the local authority. I do not think we can get anything wider than a repair grant.
  I accept that there has been a very liberal interpretation of improvement work, some of which strictly speaking is a repair. Therefore, I would acquit all local authorities—certainly those that I know of—of dealing with the situation in other than a sympathetic way.
  I have already explained the difficulties about what is an urgent repair. It could encourage delay because it depends on the nature of the repair whether there might be some merit which would then force a local authority to delay the work. I hope it would not. We want to encourage the use of the repair grant as quickly as possible if a repair requires attention.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend is not poking fun at me. I have not been got at with regard to the use of the word "urgency". I was merely stressing how with a bit of common sense—some of which exists in local authority officials—serious repairs may be treated with an element of urgency. I hope that, with that difficult explanation, my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 33 at end insert—
  "To this end, each local authority shall submit to the Secretary of State a plan or
  332
  scheme to cater for such hardship and the approval of the Secretary of State shall be required for any such scheme."
  I apologise for misinterpreting my notes and speaking to this amendment earlier. I hope that I can be reasonably brief on what is a fairly important point.
  I start with the words which the Minister himself used in Committee. He said:
  "I give an assurance on two points: first, that we shall consult COSLA about the application of the hardship test. Secondly, that we undertake to review the matter and commission a survey on how it is likely to work. We shall consult COSLA about that."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd February 1978, c.250.]
  I hope the Minister will be able to tell us the result of his consultations with COSLA with regard to this important point. What concerned my hon. Friends in Committee, and what concerns us just as much now, is the case which is all too frequent—particularly in the cities—of a tenant living in a property requiring a great deal of repair who has a small amount of savings upon which he may well rely for a certain amount of income, but which is likely to be taken into consideration in assessing hardship for the purpose of a repair grant.
  There was some discussion in Committee about this matter and some of my hon. Friends gave some examples. I do not need to repeat those examples now. Suffice it to say that our objective is to ensure that as much uniformity as possible exists throughout the whole of Scotland in the way that local authorities treat tenants who have small private resources of their own which it would be quite damaging for them to dig into for a major house repair.
  In years gone by I suppose that we would have taken the view that if people had a small amount of money laid aside it would have been only fair to look at the condition of the home and use that money if necessary.
  But circumstances are different today. We have had such vicious taxation over such a long period that many people, particularly widows, have found that their financial provision is now completely inadequate for maintaining them. It is, therefore, a major disincentive to get necessary repairs done to houses if tenants feel that their savings could be threatened, taken into account or result in a reduced grant.

  333
  What we have suggested in the amendment is that every local authority should draw up a plan for dealing with hardship with regard to repair grants. Such a plan would obviously include all the particular criteria which an authority would expect to operate with regard to the assessment of hardship, as well as the extent to which they would take into account small amounts of savings that the people concerned might possess.
  But all these plans would have to be approved by the Secretary of State in the same way as are other plans, including the housing plan itself. This would be a safeguard which the Secretary of State could exercise in order to make sure that the standard was reasonably compatible over the country as a whole.
  I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what the views of COSLA are on this important matter of hardship cases. I hope he will be able to accept the amendment. If it is not absolutely word perfect, perhaps he can arrange with his noble Friends in another place to put the matter right.
  One thing we must have is a clear understanding among tenants of the extent to which hardship will be taken into account and on what criteria that hardship will be measured. If we can get some satisfaction on that point, then I believe that the amendment and this debate will have been worth while.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I should like to be helpful, but I am afraid that I have to ask the House to reject the amendment.
  I have fulfilled the assurance which I gave in Committee. This amendment raises a new concept. It poses the question of a national scheme with each authority submitting to the Secretary of State a plan or scheme to cater for such hardship, and it provides that the approval of the Secretary of State shall be required for any such scheme.
  To some extent, I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment. It is an attempt to get some consistency of treatment rather than any concern for the individual, although that is obviously in all our minds. It is a fair point. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to include a provision of this kind at this early stage of the proceedings.
  334
  As I said in Committee, local authorities have experience of operating the hardship test. I have had no information from any hon. Member or from any authority that they are exercising it other than with sympathy.
  But I have fulfilled the undertaking which I gave in Committee to put the specific request to COSLA. I have consulted COSLA and suggested that it should consider drawing up guidelines. I want to seek its co-operation. Without spying on local authorities, I should like to be able to monitor the operation of this test to ensure that there is some broad similarity of treatment while allowing authorities to retain their independence. We can try to get them to work together, to compare notes and to be as helpful as possible. But I think that at the end of the day the right line to take is to exhort authorities to be sympathetic. They have the discretion and they can cater for the needs or fears of any individual such as those expressed by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he responded to my argument. I hope that these guidelines will be helpful. I hope, too, that he and his officials will bear in mind that it is important not only to have these guidelines but to make sure that local authorities let it be known to potential recipients of grant that they need not be afraid of the criteria so that the case does not arise of one old lady stopping the repair of a whole tenement.
  In view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15

  RESERVE POWER TO LIMIT RENTS
  Mr. David Lambie: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 12, line 3, to leave out Clause 15.
  The aim of the amendment is to delete the clause and to reinstate Section 2 of the Housing (Rents and Subsidies) (Scotland) Act 1975 which gave the Secretary of State reserve powers to limit rents to £39 a year or 75p a week as a maximum.

  335
  Clause 15 was introduced in Committee without any notice during the last sitting of the Committee when every other vital matter had been dealt with and debated fully. There was no consultation by the Under-Secretary when he decided to introduce the clause. During an earlier sitting of the Committee, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) raised this specific matter when he said that, taking into account the increase in the cost of living since 1975—in fact, he went back to 1972–75p a week maximum should by right be increased to £1·50. I remember asking the hon. Member whether this was Tory Party policy and whether he was suggesting that the maximum should be increased from 75p to £1·50 He denied that it was Tory Party policy. However, we all know that he was not being strictly truthful—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is ridiculous.
  Mr. Younger: I do not think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) can really mean that. If he thinks that I was being untruthful, he must substantiate that. I was being completely straightforward about it.
  Mr. Lambie: I can substantiate it completely in that I know the previous background of the hon. Member when he was Under-Secretary with responsibility for housing. When I first came to this House, the Tory Party was the Government, and it was the hon. Member for Ayr who put through the vicious Tory rent Act and kept us up night after night and day after day debating it.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member for Ayr can answer for himself. He does not need any help. He is being led too much by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I used to think that the hon. Member for Ayr was a decent man, but I suspect that he is falling into the very bad habits of the hon. Member for Cathcart. If the hon. Member for Ayr wishes to speak, let him speak.
  I was saying that it was the hon. Member for Ayr who introduced the vicious Tory rent Act. In fact, it was one of the two pieces of legislation which put his Government out of office in 1974, the other being the Industrial Relations Act. They were the two arms of the attack
  336
  by the Tory Party on working-class people between 1970 and 1974.
  Therefore, I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, after that debate in Committee, did not tell us that he was considering introducing this clause, and that was why I may have reacted rather violently when representatives of the Scottish Press contacted me wanting to know my attitude to it. I hope tonight that the Minister will accept that the clause should be deleted.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Lambie: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Member give way before he leaves that aspect of his argument?
  Mr. Lambie: No. I have finished with that one.
  Clause 2(1) of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to limit or restrict increases in the standard rent of any house. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said earlier, if we could be guaranteed that my hon. Friend would remain Under-Secretary with responsibility for housing and if we could be assured that the Labour Government would not be defeated at the next General Election, we could accept the clause in question because the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to intervene if any local authority puts up its rents in an unreasonable manner. During the Committee stage those Government supporters who opposed the principles of the Bill always argued that the Bill was a good one as long as a Labour Government and a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland were administering it, but that we would not always have Labour Governments and Labour Secretaries of State. Democracy works in such a way that parties come into office and go out of office. I do not want to find myself in a position where, following a General Election, the Labour Government are thrown out of office and, what is even worse, the hon. Member for Cathcart is in control of the Tory administration in Scotland. What help can council tenants in my area hope to get from the hon. Member for Cathcart if he is Secretary of State for Scotland? That is the worst possible thing

  337
  that could happen to working people in Scotland.
  8.0 p.m.
  That is why we cannot allow the principle of giving full power to the Secretary of State in dealing with rents to stay in the Bill. That is why I hope that we shall divide the House. We can be sure that the Tory Opposition will not vote for this amendment. They would not embarrass the Government by voting for it.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: The Tory Opposition on the Committee welcomed the particular change that my hon Friend is now proposing.
  Mr. Lambie: That is right. Anyone who reads the Hansard report of the Committee stage will see my hon. Friend is correct.
  I know that the Minister has said that he introduced the clause because of representations by Scottish local authorities, in an effort to rationalise the various rent structures in the various district councils. They want to equalise rent in the new local government areas and they say that they need greater flexibility. Let us have that flexibility by all means, but let us keep the maximum at the £39 limit.
  Unfortunately, in my area at the last election the Labour council at Cunningham was defeated and we now have the Scottish National Party in control. The SNP with its Tory allies has carried out housing policies against people living in council houses in order to rationalise and equalise rents in my area. The SNP has increased rents in former Labour areas like my home town of Saltcoats to the maximum and has said that it is sorry that it cannot increase them further. If it had been allowed to, it would have doubled rent increases to £1·50 a week.
  In areas such as Dairy, Kilwinning, Kilbirnie, Dreghorn, Beith, Girdle Toll and Springside—all Labour areas—the rent has increased up to the maximum allowed under the 1975 Act in order to safeguard the position of Tory people who are now part of the new district council area. The authorities want people in Labour areas to subsidise them. If this Bill becomes an Act the Tory-SNP alliance in Cunningham will further attack
  338
  the people who have continually voted Labour and who live mainly in council houses.
  At present the Government are trying to get the trade union movement to agree to a maximum increase in wages of 10 per cent. They have succeeded surprisingly well up to now. However, at a time when the Government are asking people to go easy on wages it is wrong for the Secretary of State to take away the guidelines contained in the 1975 Act on rent increases. Surely if a limit is desirable on wages in order to support the counter-inflation policy, a limit is also desirable on rent increases.
  We all know that the counter-inflation policy of the Government has succeeded. Inflation is down to single figures and everything that the Chancellor predicted 18 months ago has been proved correct. The Government's financial policies have been successful. Interest rates have been halved in the past 18 months and people have benefited from this, not only in the shops but in the housing market. The owner-occupier has had his mortgage rate halved in the last year. Very few of these people have been Labour voters in the past but I hope that because of the success of Labour policies more will support Labour candidates at the next election. Because of the tremendous reduction in interest rates and in the cost of living generally, there has been very little increase in the cost of housing. This has been a real bonanza for the owner-occupier, who has benefited very greatly from the actions of this Government.
  Mr. Younger: I thought that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that there had been a reduction in the cost of living. How can he mean that with inflation running at 10 per cent., if not more?
  Mr. Lambie: There has been a reduction in the rate of increase. At the end of the day we have reversed the trend. We are on the road back and very soon we shall he able to say—we hope before the next election—that not only have we reversed the increase, but that we have stabilised the cost of living. That will be a sensible policy on which to go to the electorate.
  If the private sector has had benefit from Government financial policies, surely

  339
  the public sector also should benefit. Instead of removing the £39 a year maximum we should bring it down to £26 a year.
  Further evidence to support my case came out last week when Regional Surveys Limited published its cost-of-living report. In that report it tried to determine the increase of the cost of living, and it worked out the pay rise necessary to maintain living standards. It gave some good figures to substantiate the success of Government policy and my argument. The February 1978 report showed that from January 1977 to January 1978 the average increase in income that was needed for all family types in Britain as a whole to maintain living standards was 1·4 per cent. Families that were typical council house tenants needed an increase of 3·9 per cent. In other words, the owner-occupier needed a 1·4 per cent. wage increase to maintain his living standard while the corresponding figure for a council tenant was 3·9 per cent. The difference between the two groups was mainly caused by differences in the housing sections.
  The report stated that in the private housing sector the largest element of housing cost was the mortgage payment. There has been a substantial drop in mortgage rates over the past year and this, combined with only a modest increase in house prices, has resulted in the large drop in the measure of mortgage costs used for the average family in determining the standard of living. Against that, the overall housing costs for council house families, for whom council rents are the main element, rose by 13·5 per cent. The standard of living of council tenants was severely attacked last year because of the policy of annual rent increases.
  The majority of people in Scotland live in council houses and they give the Labour Party the majority of its votes in Scotland. We cannot go to them and say that in a period of Government restraint on wages, their standard of living is to decrease while owner-occupiers benefit from the success of the Government's financial policies.
  I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment and will arrange for a Government amendment to be introduced in another place to reduce substantially the
  340
  maximum allowable increase. I hope that the Minister realises that the principle of the Bill is bad and that the principle of Clause 15 is bad because it allows the Secretary of State to determine annually the maximum level of rents and the level of the housing support grants given to local authorities. My amendment is a move back towards Socialist principles in housing and an attempt to be fair to public sector housing. I hope that my hon. Friends will support me.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) used to annoy and anger me with his rantings and ravings. No hon. Member has done more to try to poison class relations in Scotland. He seems to have committed his whole political life to trying to set class against class and, in particular, council tenant against owner-occupier.
  The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that, in some secret way, all council tenants are Socialists and, in some nasty way, all owner-occupiers are Tories and anti-council tenants. I probably represent as many council tenants as does the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he is wrong. It is shameful of him to give the impression that Scotland has a deep and bitter class divide which is related to housing.
  No one has been more fraudulent than the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire who, after moaning, groaning, shouting and complaining about house building and unemployment when the Conservatives were in power, is now propping up the present Government who have created the largest unemployment figure in Scotland since the 1930s and the lowest house building figures for many years.
  Mr. Lambie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I would not think of giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who was so shamefully rude to me when making references to the Conservatives.
  Mr. Lambie: I shall be voting against the Government. The hon. Gentleman will be voting with them.
  Mr. Taylor: There is no need for us to get annoyed with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. He is no more than a pathetic figure of fun. He is trying to keep faith with his Left-wing Socialist friends. The hon. Gentleman said that

  341
  he had been quoted in the Press and I saw a story in the Sunday Mail in which the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McMillan) would walk out of the Scottish Standing Committee on 7th February in protest against the shameful Government decision to abolish rent control. I am sure that all his friends and acquaintances—the sort of people who go along with his class hatred—said "Good old David Lambie. He is going to walk out of the Committee."
  What those people did not know was that the Committee had finished its work on the previous Thursday and had unanimously passed the Government's new clause in his absence. I hope that all the Left-wing Socialists and those who promote class hatred will note that the hon. Gentleman was not there to say a word for council tenants. I hope every voter and council tenant in Central Ayrshire will look at Hansard and ask where the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was. He did not speak, he did not vote, he did not even attend.
  What about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, who was also going to walk out? We do not see him here often. He did not walk out of the Committee. Indeed, he would have had great difficulty in walking out because he was never a member of the Committee.
  I am sure these two great Socialist Trojans would march from Jarrow to London and back to Central Ayrshire in the columns of the Sunday Mail, but when it came to the crunch of standing up for tenants they were not even there.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gourlay: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) without having ascertained the reason for his absence from the Committee. My hon. Friend had to determine which was of great importance—protecting the jobs of the steel workers in his constituency, or fighting against rent levels, which he is doing today.
  Mr. Taylor: Unfortunately, because of the scandalous mismanagement of the nationalised steel industry, many employees at Glengarnock steel works are
  342
  to be deprived of their jobs. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is always saying "I am different. I am always there." I hope the voters will get the message that it is all cant, hypocrisy and humbug. It is intended to promote class hatred and division. The Government have created mass unemployment and slumping housing figures, and when it comes to the crunch of protesting on behalf of the council tenants the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is there in the headlines of the Sunday Mail, but is not there when it comes to doing something about it.
  The other thing to which I strongly object is the belief of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that all council tenants are poor and all private tenants and owner-occupiers are wealthy. There are poor and wealthy council tenants and poor and wealthy private tenants and owner-occupiers.
  In the hon. Gentleman we are seeing the death knell of the old red-blooded Socialist party which I hope we shall see the end of soon. Happily, there is now some common sense in the Labour Party. It is beginning to look at issues objectively, though it is still reaching the wrong conclusions. It is working out of its system the policy, which was not a policy, of trying to keep the Labour Party going on the basis of setting class against class and group against group.
  It is not an issue on which my party should intervene. It is something going on in the Labour Party and I hope that soon we shall not have people such as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire trying to poison class relations in Scotland. Let us get down to solving Scotland's problems instead of promoting hatred between classes.
  Mr. Canavan: I support the amendment. I was not present when the new clause was introduced in Committee for the simple reason that I was not a member of the Committee. I suspect the motives of those who decide these things, but my opposition to certain aspects of the Bill was well known.
  I see the new clause as an attack on the living standards of council tenants. If it goes through this House and another place—and it will undoubtedly go through another place because it does not know the first thing about council housing—it

  343
  will give carte blanche to local authorities to push up council rents by as much as they wish and it will give carte blanche to Tory, SNP and other Right-wing controlled authorities who wish to act against the best interests of council house tenants in Scotland.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary will say that the new clause would do no such thing and that the Secretary of State will still be left with some discretion to decide on maximum levels. That point has been made by others during the debate.
  There is the fear that too much is being left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. I should like to see a maximum arithmetical limit written into the Bill in the same way as it was written into the 1975 Act. That is why I support the amendment. As long as we have my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State for Scotland, he may put a fair limit of £39 a year, or something similar, on rent increases, he being an honest and fair man. However, I can imagine what would happen—it might be an unlikely eventuality but it has to be taken into consideration—if at the next General Election the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) managed to defeat John Maxton, returned to this place and the right hon. Lady the present Leader of the Opposition made the gauleiter sitting on the Tory Front Bench the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The hon. Gentleman is well known for his class divisive philosophy. For example, he is a man who exploited overseas workers over the "Globtik" business. We know the sort of class divisive policies that the hon. Gentleman would introduce if he were Secretary of State for Scotland. We can well imagine his housing policy. Indeed, we have seen it already. There was the Housing Finance Act 1972. The Tories dictated to local authorities the amount by which rents should be increased. We can easily imagine those jackboot tactics being reintroduced if Scotland ever had the misfortune to have the hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State.
  That is why I say that it is not enough merely to leave matters to the discretion of the Secretary of State in the Bill. There is far too much being left to him. A
  344
  clearly defined numerical limit should be written into the Bill.
  In 1975 I was a member of the Committee that considered the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Bill. I can remember when the clause was debated that referred to the £39 limit. The Government put forward a strong case that there should be a limit as part of their counter-inflation policy at that time. We agreed that any local authority that increased a rent by more than 75p per week, or £39 a year, would be acting in an unfair manner towards the tenant. It was unfortunate that some exceptions were made—for example, for new tenancies, or renovated or modernised houses, the increase could be over £39 per year. I did not agree with that.
  Since 1975 we have seen inflation increasing rapidly and then decreasing. It is now down to 9·9 per cent. It is worth remembering that despite the success, in some respects, of the Government's anti-inflation policy, it is true to say that most workers and most council house tenants have suffered a deterioration in their living standards. That is for the simple reason that prices have been rising faster than wages.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Canavan: The Government are now imposing a strict and rigid wages policy by the direct imposition of the 10 per cent. limit in the public sector. It is a limit that was never accepted by the TUC, despite the trade union movement having been mainly responsible for the success of reducing inflation to single figures. It does not show much gratitude to it when the Government do not pay heed to resolutions that are accepted at the TUC conference.
  In the private sector the Government are using sanctions to try to impose the 10 per cent. limit on workers. We have reached the ludicrous stage when a Labour Government are threatening to use sanctions against employers, including multinational companies, who are accused of the crime of paying their workers too much. It is about time that the Government took more action on matters such as prices and rents.
  It would not be so bad if the Government used sanctions against private enterprise for excessive price increases. However, we do not see the same imposition

  345
  of sanctions in respect of price increases, or threatened price increases. I accept that it is difficult for the Government to control prices in the private sector, especially when we bear in mind that they have little in the way of general control over the private sector of industry.
  There does not exist the same difficulty in the public sector. The Government are smart enough at using their powers in the public sector to impose a strict numerical limit on wages. Surely they can do that in imposing a price structure. Surely they can do that in controlling the rents of local authority tenants. That is why I think that there is an inherent unfairness in the Bill.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said, it is partly due to Government policy that there has been a reduction in the mortgate rate, from which owner-occupiers in the private sector have benefited. That applies to those who have still to pay off their mortgage. I do not think that my hon. Friend was trying to set local authority tenant against owner-occupier in the way that the hon. Member for Cathcart claimed. We are entitled to be fair both to those in the public sector and in the private sector.
  Mr. Lambie: Does my hon. Friend recognise that during the period when the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and Ayr (Mr. Younger) had control of housing policy in Scotland the division between owner-occupiers and council tenants amounted to 75 houses being built for the council tenant against 25 being built for the owner-occupier, and that now, because of the success of the Labour Government's financial policy for every one house built for the owner-occupier there is another house built for the council tenant. There is now a fifty-fifty arrangement. Labour Party housing policy has helped the owner-occupier. It has placed him in a better position than that which he held during the Tory Administration.
  Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is right—
  Mr. Younger: Nonsense.
  Mr. Canavan: If the hon. Gentleman would belt up and listen for a couple of minutes, he might learn something. My
  346
  hon. Friend was right in saying that part of the tradition of Toryism in both central and local government is to discriminate unfairly against council house tenants. If the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) disputes that proposition, he can come to my constituency and talk to some of the Tories in Cambusbarron who are against council houses being built because they "do not like council houses being built on our doorstep." That is the kind of snobbish attitude adopted by many Tories in local government. That to my mind is discriminatory and unfair to council house tenants.
  Many young couples come to my surgeries asking, even begging, to be given the chance of a council house tenancy. When the local authority comes forward with plans to build houses, we get local Tory councillors opposing them.
  Mr. Younger: Has not the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) answered that point for the hon. Gentleman? He recounted how, under the Conservative Government, of all houses built 75 per cent. were for council tenants and 25 per cent. were for owner-occupiers. Surely that denies what the hon. Gentleman has been saying.
  Mr. Canavan: I am supporting my hon. Friend's main proposition: that it is the job of a Labour Government positively to discriminate in favour of lower income groups. Most people in lower income groups are council house tenants. It would be a sad day if a Labour Government copied what the Tories did by discriminating against council house tenants in an unfair manner. It is the Government's job to be reasonably fair to council house tenants and owner-occupiers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has not yet spoken to Amendment No. 18. If Amendment No. 16 is defeated, I think that Amendment No. 18 is a good second best proposing, as it does, a maximum average of £39 per house. I think that a numerical limit must be written into the Bill. If necessary, I shall support my Lion Friend in dividing the House to ensure that such a numerical limit is written into the Bill.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gourlay: First, I should like to comment on the remarks made by the

  347
  hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who tried to open up the class war by attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). In fact, my hon. Friend merely postulated the argument against giving power to local authorities for unlimited rent increases as distinct from the usual method adopted by the hon. Member for Cathcart of stirring up strife among people in Scotland by concentrating on the lack of law and order. The hon. Gentleman continually incites the people of this country, through sentiment and by other methods, to bring back capital punishment.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Only for council house tenants.
  Mr. Gourlay: That, to me, is as bad as, if not more unscrupulous than, the old class war. The hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend of propping up a Government who have created employment. This Government have not created unemployment. The hon. Gentleman fails to observe that other capitalist countries have a far higher percentage of unemployment than Socialist Britain.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman name any comparable country where unemployment has more than doubled in three years?
  Mr. Gourlay: It is not a question of the period over which it has doubled. The fact is that there are higher percentages of unemployment in other capitalist countries. We as a trading nation are at the mercy of the economies of those other world powers.
  I do not support Amendment No. 16, which seeks to delete Clause 15, for several reasons. I prefer to support Amendment No. 18, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: Who is still waiting to speak.
  Mr. Gourlay: My hon. Friend will get his chance.
  Section 2 of the 1975 Act is more restrictive than my hon. Friend's amendment. One of the differences between Clause 15 of the Bill and Section 2 of the 1975 Act is that, whereas the limit of £39
  348
  applies only to a certain section of the housing pool of any local authority, the amendment, restricting it to an average of £39 per house, applies to the whole of the housing pool. The section of the housing pool which is restricted to £39 under Section 2 of the 1975 Act is a diminishing number of houses, because as people transfer from one local authority house to another, the changes of tenancy lower the number of houses to which the restriction in the 1975 Act applies.
  By the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central the £39 restriction would apply to every house in the housing pool. Furthermore, the restriction under Section 2 of the 1975 Act has no limit. An order can apply for as long as the Secretary of State is prepared to let it stand. Under Clause 15 of the Bill an order making any limitation or restriction on increases in the standard rent is legitimate for only 12 months unless the Secretary of State introduces a further order. I am inclined to support my hon. Friend's amendment on that basis.
  My main reason for objecting to Clause 15 as it stands is that it opens a door to any future Tory Secretary of State. Heaven forbid that the hon. Member for Cathcart should ever rise to that office, because he certainly would not introduce an order to restrict the income from the standard rent so long as he had pressure from the Tory councils in Scotland for higher increases than are allowed at present.
  In some ways I subscribe to the theory of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that there should be an arithmetical limit set in Clause 15. But I am inclined to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central unless the Minister can assure us that he will introduce an arithmetical limit, not tonight but in the House of Lords. In that way, we would be assured that no future Tory Secretary of State could allow unrestricted increases in local authority rent levels without coming to the House for an order.
  I now await the observations of the Minister on the two amendments before deciding which way I shall vote.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I had the opportunity of attending the Committee sitting

  349
  when this matter was debated. I spoke for half an hour on the Government's proposed new clause. That enables me to abbreviate my comments tonight. Before I reach the burden of my observations, perhaps I might be allowed to say that I approach this matter with a certain amount of objectivity—more than that expressed by some hon. Members who have participated in the debate.
  In my constituency 60 per cent. of householders are owner-occupiers. I can say with some confidence that some of that 60 per cent. must have voted for me in the last two elections. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) are anxious to ensure my re-election to the House. They do not necessarily do me a service in achieving that objective by some of the observations that they make, in particular by putting all owner-occupiers in the same category.
  The trouble with many owner-occupiers in my constituency is that they have not benefited from the reductions in mortgage rates. That is because, in order to get into the low-cost, inner city areas, they have had to take local authority mortgages, the interest rates of which have not come down. They find themselves caught in an unfair trap in that, because they have a low income, they are obliged to buy low-cost housing. Being obliged to buy low-cost housing, they are obliged to go to the local authority for a loan. That means that they have to pay higher rates of interest than people who go to the outskirts of Barnton and Blackhall and buy higher priced housing. This is an iniquity which the House has overlooked and to which we shall have to turn our attention before the building society interest rates fall any further.
  That issue goes wider than the amendment before us, however. In this debate a divide has been opened up between the hon. Member for Glagsow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire which is irrelevant to the circumstances in which we are holding the debate. We are faced with a decision by the Government in the run-up to a by-election in a constituency in which 90 per cent. of the houses are council houses to remove the limit on council house rents. Any Government who can take a decision like that must
  350
  have reached an ethereal level of impartiality which goes far beyond considering from where they get their electoral support. We can therefore put behind us any idea that owner-occupiers support the Opposition and council tenants support us.
  The new clause was introduced by the Government at a late stage in the proceedings. Had the provision been in the Bill when we had the Second Reading debate, that debate might have taken a different form. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister for its having been introduced at a late stage. As he ex-explained, it arose because he wanted to consult COSLA before its terms were formulated. It was not his fault that the consultations took so long. But he recognises that the effect was unfair in that many members of the Committee were unaware until the day they were debated of the provisions that were coming before them. This applies particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, who by the time the clause appeared on the Notice Paper had made other arrangements for the day. This unfortunate effect of making a substantial alteration to the Bill at such a late stage must be borne in mind.
  What worries me most about the change is that it fits in very nicely with the general trend of the Bill, which is to take powers away from Parliament and leave them for the Government of the day to use at their discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire indicated that the Opposition will not be supporting him in seeking to oppose the change. In Standing Committee they welcomed the change because they could see that it provides the kind of discretion that they wish they had had in 1972.
  Let me share with the House one of the observations by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). He said:
  "The second confession I should like to make"—
  the House will note that he regarded it as a confession—
  "is that, if it were to be that I took over the hon. Gentleman's position, which I held at one time, I would be very pleased to have the Bill, as it stands, behind me because I would be able to call the shots."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17th January 1978; c. 42.]
  I see the hon. Member for Ayr nodding vigorously. If the hon. Gentleman had

  351
  had the Bill behind him in 1972 and had had this discretion in the disbursement of the housing support grant and over the limitation on any rent increases he would not have had to pass the 1972 legislation. He would have been able to achieve the effect of that legislation simply by bringing an order before the House for a one-and-a-half-hour debate once in the course of a full year.
  As has already been said, if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary were to hold his post permanently many of our fears would disappear. I hope that if these debates have done nothing else they have at least reassured the Government that we have complete faith in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and that it would be difficult for them to drop him from his present position. But my hon. Friend will not be eternally at that Dispatch Box with this brief. It is possible to trust him so long as he remains there. It is most unfair to suggest that he would favour an increase in cost of £39. Only this week he introduced an order to increase the SSHA limit to £26 in any one year. Public expenditure figures do not envisage council house rents increasing by anything like 75p. But he has been pushed into tabling the amendment by COSLA and particularly by the Conservative and independently controlled councils in COSLA which have asked for the amendment to which request my hon. Friend has acceded.
  8.45 p.m.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkaldy (Mr. Gourlay) said, I have tabled an amendment, on which I hope that it will be possible to have a separate vote if necessary. My amendment is characteristically more moderate than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire. It is intended to meet the problems outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, namely, that some local authorities, because of the fixed figure of £39 on every house, have had difficulty in achieving a new rent structure.
  I have, therefore, tabled an amendment which would change the present situation in which the £39 is a fixed figure per house to its being an average across the entire housing stock. It would not prevent a local authority, if it so decided, from restructuring its rent arrangements and increasing the figure in some indi-
  352
  vidual cases by more than £39, but would create a similar limit across council houses as a whole in the housing revenue account pool.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy has already said, this would have one advantage. It would bring within the restriction every local authority house, whereas at present anything up to a quarter of them escape the limitation either because they are relet houses or because they have been modernised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) passed to me a particularly distressing case in Aberdeen in which the tenant died, the house was transferred to the widow and she was immediately faced with a rent increase of well in excess of £39. When the matter was drawn to the attention of the housing committee, it immediately went back on that decision and took account of the individual merits of the case. Nevertheless, it is true that within the present terms of the law such a case can ocur. The amendment would have the effect of making much less likely such an increase for any individual, because it would still have an effect on the overall average limitation.
  I am attempting to throw out a lifeline to my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will find it possible to grasp it so that we can pull him ashore. I think that he will recognise that this is as far as he could reasonably expect many of us who have been concerned with the proposed change to go. I hope that it is possible for him to go part of the way to meet us.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I am at a loss to understand why my hon. Friend the Minister has dropped the existing £39 rental increase limit under the present legislation and is proposing more or less a carte blanche. It is difficult to explain his action. Most of us who fought the last election can remember that one of our slogans at the time was that we would freeze all rent increases.
  When we won the election, the rent increases were frozen and the then Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was insistent that some form of control should be included in housing legislation. So we had the inclusion in the 1975 Act of a

  353
  permitted maximum of £39 on local authority rented houses. As far as I am aware, there has been no departure from the circumstances that led to that decision applying at present. It is alarming to think, therefore, that a colleague of mine on the Government Front Bench would introduce such a provision, because he should know full well that in the exigencies of the political climate we could have a Conservative Government and they would use it in defence of unlimited rent increases. They would accuse this Labour Government of placing that legislation on the statute book. It would not be the first time or the last. It may be argued that it is tactical politics on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is scaremongering.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am not in the least scaremongering. There is no doubt that the Conservative Party believes in unlimited rent increases. I have always believed in fair rent increases.
  Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman contends that the Conservative Party has always been in favour of unlimited rent increases, will he explain why we introduced into the 1972 Act for the first time the concept of a limit on an individual rent increase, which this Government have now removed?
  Mr. Dempsey: I should like to answer that question by asking another. Why are the hon. Gentleman and his party not opposing the clause? If they are to be consistent, they are duty bound to oppose the provision, which means the right for any Secretary of State and any Government to regulate unlimited rent increases.
  I say to the Conservatives "If you do not believe in unlimited rent increases, for goodness sake agree to the £39 limit on possible rent increases in a year." That is the one way for them to defend what they say is their conviction. We are certainly opposed to unlimited rent increases. That is what the debate is all about.
  Council tenants have been paying considerable rent increases throughout the years. I was asked to do some research into rent arrangements for local authority houses, and I discovered in the course of preparing a document on the
  354
  subject that in the town of Coatbridge a three-apartment cottage house rented in 1960 at £26 a year is now rented at £171 a year. The rent has gone up by nearly seven times. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not try to argue that workers' wages have gone up by seven times since 1960. They have not. Those figures indicate the contribution that council rent payers are making towards the housing account and the rent of their own home.
  I regard it as grossly unfair to refer to owner-occupation and to imply that one is dividing housing communities. I cannot be accused of that. I am in the midst of a stand-up battle with certain buliding societies which have refused to lend to home owners after a site has been fully serviced in Airdrie for the erection of private homes, in spite of the most professional technological expertise which assures the societies that the ground is perfectly safe. I have been negotiating with the societies since last July in an attempt to persuade them to lend funds to enable those who wish to own their own homes on that site in Airdrie to do so. That is not the activity of a reactionary or of someone who is opposed to home ownership.
  I believe that we in the Labour movement should encourage people to own their own homes and if they cannot afford to do so to rent their own homes. It is all right to say "If people wish to own a home, good luck to them", but let us give them every encouragement, and do likewise if they wish to rent a home.
  There is quite a lot of nonsense talked about this matter. I have heard that the council tenant is heavily subsidised and, of course, that the owner-occupier is not—but that does not work out.
  In my exercise I have managed to reveal some very interesting figures. For example, taking the cost of a council house today at £12,000 and looking at the rates subsidy towards the annual maintenance of that house, on the basis of present Exchequer grants and existing loan charges, one finds that rates contribute towards the annual housing account on that council house to the extent of £159 a year. These figures were extracted by the director of finance and not by me.

  355
  On the other hand, I have also done research into the question of owner-occupation. On average over the country, an owner-occupier is receiving a tax subsidy of £37 a year per £1,000 of borrowing. If one accepts the owner-occupier, therefore, as borrowing £12,000 to pay for the cost of his house, one finds that that is a similar sum to the cost of a council house. Twelve times 37 indicates that the owner-occupier is getting £444 a year in tax subsidy, whereas the council tenant is getting a rates subsidy of £159 a year towards the cost of his house.
  Incidentally, when one has regard to the fact that in a constituency such as mine 80 per cent. of tenants live in council houses, one appreciates that they are paying towards that £159 and so they, as individuals, are getting very much less than that at the end of the day.
  This is indicative of the way in which we have oriented policies in favour of owner-occupation. I have no objection to that at all, but we must give similar consideration to council tenants. They are electors, taxpayers and citizens.
  It is for these reasons that I have always felt that it is not unreasonable to have a fixed rental maximum each year beyond which council house rents cannot be increased. Surely that is quite a moderate approach. I hope that I shall not be accused of the sort of things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has been accused this evening, because I am trying to take an objective view of the situation.
  However, after listening to the hon. Member for Cathcart, I must say that I should have thought that his interventions this evening should be sufficient to prevail upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to review his attitude towards this legislation. Obviously, it suits the hon. Member for Cathcart. I am sure that the Conservative Party welcomes it. One can understand that, because the Conservatives believe in that type of philosophy. But frankly, we do not.
  I am convinced that by returning to a fixed maximum rent increase per year beyond which rents shall not go is not unreasonable. It is very fair. After all, it is working out at about 75p a week. Surely with the present standard of ordinary council tenants—my goodness, some
  356
  of them do a great job and fulfil a great obligation for the local authority by the very fine standards to which they keep their homes—it is not unreasonable to curb rent increases up to a fixed maximum, to give them every help to improve their homes and to allow them extra in order to introduce finesse into them.
  By doing this, we shall be pursuing the real aims of our Labour movement. When one joins our movement, one has to commit oneself to an ideal. The ideal is not cheap rents. We have never believed in cheap rents. I do not think that rents are low at the moment when we have regard to all the items of expenditure incurred by tenants.
  Having regard to all that has been said, to the expressions of conviction from Labour Members, to our sincere belief in operating a housing system whereby there are fair rents for council tenants and fair tax subsidies and opportunities for home owners, it cannot be said that we are deliberately antagonising decent members of the community. That is a lot of poppycock and silly propaganda. It has no foundation in truth. By taking the decision which has been proposed we shall be living up to the ideals which we were sent to this House to fulfil.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Welsh: The Government fixed and accepted the £39 figure and are now trapped by it. Thus we have the Back-Bench revolt facing us tonight. Why should there be a £39 limit, or any limit? The Government accepted such a limit and produced a logical case for introducing it at a time of economic crisis. The circumstances which led to that judgment have not changed. Why are they now deciding to take the brakes off? I would like the Government to argue that case. Logically, the Government should be arguing on their own economic policy lines.
  The Government should be arguing that the best of all situations would be one in which any rent rises would be in line with their own pay norms. In other words, they should be arguing for rent increases pegged to 10 per cent. or whatever is the figure. If they did so they would be following their economic policy. But they are not being logical and are not looking at the reasons which made them introduce some safeguards for

  357
  people at times of economic crisis. The Government are trapped by their past economic failures and by current pay policy. They are asking the ratepayer to pay the price for their failure.
  If the £39 barrier is heavily breached Scots families will be asked to pay more money at a time when incomes are restricted. If we add to this the past record of economic neglect and decline in certain areas, the Government responsibility becomes even clearer. It is unfair to tenants and ratepayers to restrict incomes at a time when costs are rising. I ask the Government to pick up their financial responsibilities in housing and, in present circumstances, to shoulder a greater portion of housing finance. In many ways the present housing finance system seems to be breaking down. Ratepayers are continually being asked to shoulder an increasing burden of housing finance. In Glasgow, interest payments alone are over the £20 million mark. There they are running to stand still. This should be a national financial burden. In the meantime the Government should protect Scots families until they have got the Scots economy on the move.
  I am worried about the reasons behind the Government seeking to change the position. Amendment No. 18 takes us back to the 1972 situation whereas Amendment No. 16 seeks to preserve the status quo. Anomalies do exist within district authorities and these have created problems which must be met. I would be happier with Amendment No. 18 because it provides flexibility to deal with the anomalies. I hope that the amendment will be moved.
  If local authorities are operating within the £39 limit they can well, with appropriate Government assistance, continue to do so. From the figures produced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) in Committee it was obvious that very few local authorities had made use of their ability to impose the maximum rises. Most seem to be happy to operate within the stringencies of Government policy. Amendment No. 18 presents the most acceptable option. I would support it because it combines the qualities of a fail-safe system with flexibility, enabling local authorities to meet specific problems.
  Mr. Canavan: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by flexibility? Does he
  358
  support the statement of the SNP provost of Falkirk District Council, a housing authority covering my constituency, that rent paid per house should be based on the household income? Is that what he means by flexibility?
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman should know about flexibility and the anomalies which face district authorities. Due to reorganisation, there were people living in the same sort of house side by side and paying vastly different rents. There is an element of justice in allowing a readjustment. The rent paid should be related to the quality of service received. The economic situation in 1978 is more akin to that of 1975 than to that of 1972. The reasons for supporting the limits up to this point are surely very much in operation at a time of pay restraint.
  I agree with the Government in principle that the £39 limit is not a permanent situation, but at a time when mortgage rates are coming down it would not be fair to single out council house tenants, in view of the Government's own pay restraint policy. The £39 limit will have to go but I believe that this is not the time for it.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) still has not told me what is the policy of the SNP councillors in this matter. Is do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is worrying about. His is, I regret to say, one of the few Labour-controlled authorities in Scotland. Is there any intention on the part of the Labour group to increase rents by even £26? I have a great respect for my hon. Friend and I do not mind giving him copy for the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, but I wish he would act a little more responsibly towards his own colleagues in the Labour Party in Monk-lands, who are doing an excellent job. I have no evidence that they are thinking of introducing rent increases of £26 a year, never mind £39 a year.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am very surprised at my hon. Friend, after all his experience, being so naive. Is he not aware that a Conservative Secretary of State could compel even a Labour-controlled authority to increase rents by the adjustment of a rate support grant and by

  359
  other similar manoeuvres, so that a Labour-controlled council would lose the authority to fix its own rents? It happened in the past when I was a councillor and it will happen again.
  Mr. Brown: On the contrary. There was never a limit, as the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said, until 1972. In fact, in the past the problem has been that authorities were not putting up rents. We are dealing only with housing legislation when there has been some effort to limit rent increases consistent with giving local authorities freedom of action.
  The reason that the Tories introduced the £39 limit was that they were writing into legislation a specific requirement to increase rents by £26, and we warned them at the time that it was the wrong way to solve the housing problem in Scotland. We said that it was wrong to get specific rent increases by legislation. I must admit that I am amazed at the appeal made to me as a Socialist. If I had thought for a minute that the interpretation or understanding of Socialism depended on whether we wanted a limit of £39 per house increase, an average increase of £39, or no limit at all, I would not be in the Socialist movement. We are surely not going to use exaggerated language or to suggest that one is a better Socialist than another in arguing on such a narrow point as this. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I was merely drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the loud "Hear, hears" emanating from the Conservative Dispatch Box with regard to his comment about the Socialist movement. It would appear that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) shares my hon. Friend's concern that the particular division we are talking about tonight has nothing to do with Socialism.
  Mr. Brown: I was just making a few remarks because I am still confused about whether some of my hon. Friends want to get me the sack or whether they think I am the best housing Minister there has been and that as long as I am here we have nothing to worry about. I wish that they would make up their minds.
  360
  I cannot give a categorical assurance that in some way this Government, the Secretary of State or myself can write into housing legislation some kind of assurance that will last for all time, even if we lose the next General Election. No Government can give such an assurance. All future Governments have the right to change legislation if they can get away with it or if they think they have a mandate from the people.
  It is deluding even our own supporters if hon. Members suggest that there is some way in which we can make that more difficult. We could perhaps ensure that it would take more time. We could ensure that there will be adequate public discussion. But some of my hon. Friends have suggested that if there were savage rent increases they would go through in their stocking soles. Life is not like that. We must deal with the facts of the situation.
  I repeat that we are not abandoning the power to limit rent increases. A power is included in the new clause under which an order can be made by the Secretary of State to limit increases on any individual house or, indeed, average increases on local authority houses in general.
  Therefore, I repeat that if we were merely to update the limit it would amount to £85 a year instead of the £39 first introduced in 1972. If it was related to the December 1974 figure, that £39 would now be £63. Is that what my hon. Friends are asking us to do? I am sure it is not.
  I warn my hon. Friends that if precise limits are decided it will be seen as an instruction to local authorities to increase rents up to that limit. We have had that situation before, even in the notable circumstances of the 1974–75 Bill. It was not our Tory opponents but our so-called friends outside who opposed us, and who said that we encouraged local authorities to increase rents by £39.
  The sooner we get shot of any fixed limit the better. If any authority abuses its power there are plenty of checks that can be made. I pay particular tribute to the ability of some of my hon. Friends to raise all sorts of matters that are not the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State.

  361
  I am satisfied that there will always be enough public discussion about rents or rent increases. We do not hide the fact that there will be rent increases in line with increased earnings. We have made no secret of that. It is in the Green Paper. But here we are talking about excessive increases either in rent on an individual house or on average rents.
  We are talking about reasonable rent increases of about 50p a week. That is an assumption. We are not dictating to local authorities. If any local authority abuses its powers and treats council tenants harshly, I can give the assurance that we shall have no hesitation in introducing an order to curb such an authority in the use of its powers in such an abusive way.
  I hope that I have given the House and my hon. Friends the assurance that they seek. In the light of what I have said I hope that my hon. Friends will be prepared to withdraw their amendments.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Lambie: Despite the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "With the leave of the House."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was assured that I did not require the leave of the House in order to speak again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Standing Order No. 55 provides:
  "When a bill has been committed to a standing committee, or has been so committed in respect of some of its provisions, then, on consideration on report of the bill or such of its provisions as were so committed, the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the bill or to the mover of any amendment or new clause in respect of that amendment or clause."
  Mr. Lambie: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay), who is an expert in these matters, had already consulted your predecessor in the Chair who said that I should be in order in speaking again.
  Despite the assurance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I intend to press the amendment to a Division. I accept what my hon. Friend said and that, in certain conditions, with Labour local authorities, a Labour Secretary of State and a Labour Government in power, our fears might be
  362
  unfounded. But I do not want to be in the position where, following a General Election—and no one knows what will be the result of the next General Election—a Tory Secretary of State announces his intention to implement the Bill and, when Labour Members challenge him, he answers us by saying "It was the Labour Government's Bill. The Conservative Government are not to blame. We are only implementing a Labour Government Bill." On that ground alone, I hope that those of my hon. Friends who share my point of view will continue to support my amendment.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made great play of the fact that I had not attended the final sitting of the Committee when this clause was discussed. I accept that. I only knew at 11.0 p.m. on the Wednesday evening preceding that sitting that the Undersecretary was to introduce a new clause. That was the first indication that I had.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have already apologised for the short notice that was given, but I should make it clear that the clause appeared on the Order Paper the day before.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: On the Tuesday.
  Mr. Lambie: It was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).
  At that time, I had already agreed to attend a meeting of steel workers in my constituency. At the Glengarrock steel works, 1,200 jobs were at stake. Members of Parliament have to decide their priorities, and my priority at that time was to do all that I could to safeguard those 1,200 jobs.
  I have always pointed out to the Chief Whip and to the Scottish Whip that no one in the Gallery of the House of Commons votes for me. There is no one from Central Ayrshire in the Gallery tonight. But there were 1,200 steel workers in my constituency whose jobs were at stake, and I was interested in their future. They all have votes. Therefore, my priority was to represent those 1,200 workers and, if it came to a choice, it was to safeguard those jobs.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart said that I was being hypocritical and that I was an old-time Socialist. I accept that

  363
  I am an old-time Socialist. Anyone who sticks to principles sometimes becomes old-time. But what is wrong with politics today is that too many people have been diverted from their principles. I believe strongly that, if we all went back to first principles, we would get better government and better recognition of good government by the people.
  If there is any hypocrite in Scotland, the hon. Member for Cathcart is the biggest of the lot. He is a hypocrite and a political chancer. He is known as a two-faced politician. He goes to Labour areas and he sounds like Keir Hardie. Then he goes to Tory areas, puts on his top hat and tells people that he will deal with the council tenants by increasing their rents. He is the best example in Scotland of a political hypocrite and chancer.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is being very restrained.
  Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member for Cathcart also said that I am being politically divisive. Yet he is the person who supported the Government who introduced the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which attacked the standard of living of council tenants. He was a member of a Government who was prepared to gaol councillors. Has he forgotten about the Clay Cross councillors? Has he forgotten about Clyde-bank, Saltcoats and Dumbarton? How can he attack me as being politically divisive when he was a member of the Government who introduced the Industrial Relations Act, setting worker against worker and the trade union movement against employers. That was a Government who tried to put trade unionists in gaol. If I want a lesson in being politically
  divisive I shall follow the example of the hon. Member and his Government during the period up to 1974.
  The Labour Government with their housing policy have united people for the first time. They have taken away the division between the owner-occupier and the tenant. Young owner-occupiers should be grateful to this Government because they are now able to buy their homes at half the expense that they would have faced if the Conservatives had still been in power.
  Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Member really saying that young couples are buying their houses at half the expense that they were in 1974? I find that very hard to believe.
  Mr. Lambie: They are buying them at half the mortgage payments. The hon. Member can check that in his own area.
  I congratulate the Government on their housing policy. I also congratulate them on getting interest rates down, which has benefited owner-occupiers. The reason why I moved this amendment is that I want that fairness to owner-occupiers extended to council tenants. I want the Government to retain the restrictions on the maximum rent increases allowable according to the 1975 Act.
  I certainly recognise the point put forward by the Minister, and as I have stated often in the course of the Committee stage, the Bill could be a good one. However, it leaves itself open to a tremendous increase in the powers of the Secretary of State and fears of what a future Conservative Government would do. I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 128.

  Division No. 129]

  AYES

  [9.25 p.m.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Flannery, Martin

  Newens, Stanley

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Litterick, Tom

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Mr. Dennis Canavan and

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. David Lambie.

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bean, R. E.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Belth, A. J.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Bates, Alf

  Boardman, H.

  Buchan, Norman

  Buchanan, Richard

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Park, George

  Campbell, Ian

  Hooley, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hunter, Adam

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Roper, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Jessel, Toby

  Ryman, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Sever, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Snape, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Spiggs, Leslie

  Doig, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Stott, Roger

  Dunn, James A.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Torney, Tom

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Urwln, T. W.

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ford, Ben

  Magee, Bryan

  Ward, Michael

  Forrester, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Watkins, David

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Freud, Clement

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Whitlock, William

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Golding, John

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Woodall, Alec

  Graham, Ted

  Moyle, Roland

  Woof, Robert

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Noble, Mike

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hardy Peter

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. Frank R. White and

  Harper, Joseph

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 18, in page 12, line 9, at end insert:
  'but a local authority shall not increase the income so receivable by more than an average
  of £39 for each such house in any period of 12 months'.—[Mr. Robin F. Cook.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 119.

  Division No. 130]

  AYES

  [9.36 p.m.

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Litterick, Tom

  Thompson, George

  Bennett, Andrew (Stochport N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Buchan, Norman

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Buchanan, Richard

  Madden, Max

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Dempsey, James

  Newens, Stanley

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Rooker, J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Dennis Canavan and

  Gourlay, Harry

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Mr. David Lambie.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cowans, Harry

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Freud, Clement

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Bates, Alf

  Cryer, Bob

  Goldlng, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

  Graham, Ted

  Beith, A. J.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Boardman, H.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Hardy, Peter

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Deakins, Eric

  Harper, Joseph

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dolg, Peter

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hooley, Frank

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Dunlop, John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Campbell, Ian

  Eadle, Alex

  Hunter, Adam

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Janner, Greville

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Forrester, John

  Jessel, Toby

  John, Brynmor

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pardoe, John

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Park, George

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parry, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Ward, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Watkins, David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Roper, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Whitlock, William

  Magee, Bryan

  Ryman, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sever, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Woodali, Alec

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Woof, Robert

  Molloy, William

  Snape, Peter

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Moyle, Roland

  Stallard, A. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Noble, Mike

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Jim Marshall.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 47, at end insert—
  'The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 56)
  9A. In section 27(7) (home loss payments), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
  "(d) a dangerous building order under section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959;".'.
  It deals with the rather complex position of compensation for those who suffer home loss because of dangerous buildings. I understand that the principle of the amendment is acceptable to the Government but that they regard the amendment as defective. On that basis I should be happy to move the amendment only briefly in order that the Minister might reply to it, and, if what I have said is the case, then to withdraw it.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The amendment is defective in some respects. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving it, even though he forced a Division on the last amendment. For technical reasons we were not able to introduce our own amendment on Report, but we accept the principle and we shall be taking steps to ensure that that is done in another place. We accept the principle of providing for home loss when a building has to come down because it is dangerous. This is an omission in housing legislation at the moment, and its correction will be widely welcomed by many people, in particular in Glasgow and Edinburgh tenements.
  368
  With that assurance, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Cook: In view of the Ministers statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 23, line 8, at end insert—
  '30A.—In section 22(1) (interpretation of II) for the definition of "supplementary benefit" there shall be substituted the following definition ""supplementary benefit" means benefit under Part I of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 except that it does not include benefit under section 3 (benefit to meet exceptional needs) of that Act;".'.
  It is purely a drafting amendment. This is a matter of interpretation of supplementary benefit, and there is no significance in it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  9.48p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I had prepared an excellent speech for the Third Reading debate, but since we are taking up valuable time that is to be devoted to other matters, I intend to say only that I beg to move the Third Reading.
  9.49 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: The Minister will agree that we have a considerably better Bill now than the one that came before us some weeks ago. He will agree that the Committee and Report stages have led to many constructive improvements to

  369
  the Bill, and he will appreciate the value of that.
  However, when all is said and done, the Opposition still have certain misgivings about the form of the new subsidy system. In spite of the changes to the Bill there is no doubt that the administration of housing subsidy in the future, as far a Parliament is concerned, will be done behind closed doors. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of substance to complaints from both sides of the House that the ability of Members of Parliament to express the concern of their local authorities and constituents about the details of the housing support grant each year will be extremely limited.
  There are two things that I should like to say about this which have been mentioned in Committee. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to his right hond. Friend the Leader of the House, in such a way that it could be borne in mind for the future, that we expect that Parliament will provide a decent opportunity every year for the housing support grant to be properly debated at a reasonable time of day. It will not be acceptable if the matter is slid in late at night, as is very often the case. We accept that this is not a matter that we could debate in Committe because it is a matter for the House.
  It should be clearly on record that both sides of the House—certainly voices from both sides—have accepted the Bill only on the understanding that a real effort will be made to give the House a proper chance to discuss the subsidy system in detail each year as part of the housing support grant. If that is not done, the housing support grant in future will be fixed up behind closed doors in discussion between COSLA and the Government of the day, and very few people will be able to know or to influence what is happening. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and make certain that the Lord President—and his successors, if that is possible—are well apprised of this essential fact.
  We now come to accept the Third Reading against the background of a day in which the Government have been seriously divided among themselves. On two occasions Labour Members have voted against each other on a vital part of the Bill. It is a day in which the
  370
  Liberal Party has helped once more to prop up the Government and, surprisingly, voted so far as I can make out, in favour of damp houses. I am not sure whether that is what it was. It seems a strange way to proceed.
  In debating the Bill we are in the shadow of the worst housing figures under this Labour Government that have been published in any year since the war. It is, therefore, with a certain amount of reservation and sadness that I suggest that we should give a Third Reading to the Bill, but only on the understanding that the misgivings expressed on both sides of the House will be met by regular Parliamentary debate of the subsidy system.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I rise to welcome the Bill and to congratulate the Minister who has piloted it through in his normal careful, good-humoured and fair-minded fashion. I did not have the opportunity of attending the Committee stage. Judging from the punch-up which took place between the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). it was perhaps just as well. I am not sure who was champion or which one deserves the title of Goofy. Perhaps they might share it.
  The decision to abolish the £39 limit, which occasioned the degree of division on the Government side, was the right one. It will enable anomalies and injustices which followed in the wake of reorganisation to be sorted out. It will also allow realistic account to be taken of changed financial circumstances, while the pattern of rent rebates will offer adequate safeguard for those who are in difficulty or who need protection.
  I welcome also the decision to include capitalised repairs within the annual capital expenditure in allocations to individual local authorities. This will give local authorities the option of spending money either on modernisation or on new housing and should discourage indiscriminate new building or demolitions.
  I still tend to doubt whether all that much money will be spent on insulation unless there is money allocated for it. I suppose that it is premative, when we are still waiting for the energy conservation programme, to talk about that. But it is our view that unless the Government

  371
  produce more money specifically for insulation it is doubtful whether local authorities will be persuaded to engage in this.
  Perhaps another doubt is about the increase in Government discretion which was highlighted effectively by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). But in the circumstances in which a change was necessary one could not proceed, as there had to be a new Act.
  I feel that the Bill represents as reasonably balanced and acceptable a package as we can have. I do not fall for the Conservatives' suggestion that somehow or other they have much more feeling for housing than others.
  The idea that Liberals would vote for damp houses is so ludicrous as not to require an answer.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Lambie: I shall be brief, because we have had a long debate in Committee and on Report. I said on Second Reading that this was a bad Bill based on bad principles, and in spite of the many amendments made in Committee and on Report it is still a bad Bill. It gives tremendous power to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and any future Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that the Conservatives had opposed the Bill and that they blamed the Liberals for sustaining the Government again. Anyone who was on the Committee or who attended today's debate will know that it was a sham fight. The only fight was that today on the subject of dampness in houses, a matter on which all hon. Members on both sides of the House are in agreement.
  We have heard a great deal about the Lib-Lab alliance and how it is sustaining the Government. During the whole Committee stage and on Report there was not only a Lib-Lab alliance but a Lib-Lab-Nat-Con alliance. Everyone has supported the Bill, with the exception of one or two of my colleagues who are glad to be known as old-time Socialists and still think that the Government should be fair to tenants as well as to owner-occupiers.
  We have had our fight in Committee and on Report. I have made my posi-
  372
  tion clear, and I do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Welsh: Initially I gave the Bill a cautious welcome, because I welcomed the simplification of the existing complex system of subsidies. But even after all this time the Bill has inbuilt difficulties, some of which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out in his winding-up speech.
  The Bill still gives too much power to the Secretary of State with regard to the negotiations with COSLA, in spite of the attempts at amendment. We are still given too little information about the final allocation of housing support grant, how it arises and its final distribution. Parliament, local authorities and the people have too little information. I regret that my amendment about a report to cover such matters was not accepted.
  The Bill could still result in problems over distribution of the grant. Rural local authorities are extremely worried about how the final settlements will be made. I hope that the Government will take on board their worries about the transitional period and the final allocation.
  I regret that my amendment about 100 per cent. Government funding of rent allowances and rebates was turned down in favour of the Government's 90 per cent. The amendment was logical and right. The Minister agreed with me that it was an inevitable step but said that the time was not right. I believe that the provision could have been introduced now at little extra cost.
  My attempts to amend the Bill on a whole series of matters have been turned down. If not sceptical, I continue to feel a sense of disquiet. It remains to be seen how the Bill will operate in practice. My original welcome for a system which tried to simplify complex subsidies has been dampened as the consequences of the Government's plans have unfolded.
  I hope that the Minister's reassurances on the points of doubt raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House will prove to be justified, but I harbour grave reservations about the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: The Question is the Ten o'clock Business Motion—
Hon. Members: It is not yet Ten o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: It is well within custom for Mr. Speaker to put that Question at one minute to Ten.
Ordered,
That the Civil Aviation Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to express to you my amazement and regret at the exclusion—though I must not question it—of New Clause No. 1 from our discussion this evening.
My reasons for astonishment at its exclusion are these. I could quite easily have collected a large number of additional signatures to the new clause, but it never occurred to me that there was any doubt or possibility that a clause which puts forward a proposal that has never been discussed in the Chamber at all, although it was discussed in Committee, and puts forward a specific proposal that has never been discussed in Committee or in this Chamber, concerning the specific recommendations at the end of the clause, would not be discussed. I therefore find myself astonished, amazed and disappointed.
Sir George Sinclair Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was much more tolerant with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) than I ought to have been. It is absolutely out of order to criticise the selection of amendments.

New Clause No. 2

  ADHERENCE TO TARIFFS
  "It shall be an offence to sell or offer to sell in the United Kingdom to any other person any services consisting of or including passenger air transportation on terms which so far as the air transportation is concerned include any arrangement whereby any person whether by way of discount, rebate or any other means whatsoever, pays any lesser sum than the minimum approved by the appropriate authorities for the route or category of ticket concerned or which otherwise fail to comply with the conditions laid down by the appropriate authorities; and for this purpose the appropriate authorities shall be the Civil Aviation Authority for British carriers and the Department of Trade for foreign carriers or such bodies as the Department of Trade may appoint for this purpose."—[Mr. McCrindle.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  376
  I start by declaring an interest as the parliamentary consultant to the Guild of Business Travel Agents. I am aware that the very words "Adherence to tariffs" sound, in themselves, protectionist and illiberal and not at all compatible with the aim of providing the lowest fare for the maximum number of passengers, in a period in which, certainly in the United States, mass travel has become a political football, and certainly it threatens to do the same on this side of the Atlantic.
  I can understand why some colleagues, in considering the new clause, might tend to bristle. I shall be seeking to show that adherence to tariffs is in the best interests of the passengers and that protectionism in the travel trade is neither what is sought nor is it considered necessary.
  It is no secret that this clause, or one very like it, appeared in the original Bill. It is not for me to interest myself further at this stage in the reasons why that clause was deleted from the original Bill. It is, however, my contention that there is a strong case for the reinsertion in the Bill of what has now become New Clause No. 2.
  I am, of course, aware that the clause can be construed as being anti consumer, anti low fares, pro international cartel and pro the big travel agencies and tour firms. I shall seek to show that it is none of these things but, rather, the best and the safest—I emphasise "safest"—way for us to move towards low fares for the maximum number of people.
  I hope to prove that the experience of the last few years has shown how dangerous it is to risk the all-out, cut-throat competition of what I shall call back-street bucket-shop travel agencies.
  Dealing in people's dreams, we are told, is what the travel business is all about. Whether or not that is right, I hope that the House will at least concede that we have no right to run the risk of allowing people to risk the loss of their life savings on what have in the past turned out to be non-existent low fares opportunities.
  The bucket shops, as they are called, are not the little travel agencies fighting back against the competition of the major chains. On the contrary, they are those which, without responsibility,

  377
  peddle wares that have in the past come from a variety of sources, including stolen tickets.
  At this stage, I should like briefly to hark back to the history of airline ticket discounting. I must say that the International Air Transport Association is certainly far from guiltless as a result of its contribution towards the development of airline discounting. Its lack of flexibility in the fare structure has led to this. Nor can I exonerate the airlines from having encouraged the development of this trend.
  Going back some years, it could, I suppose, be contended that the introduction of charter trips was the beginning of the encouragement to discount. The formation of a large number of bogus clubs to enable people to gain cheap fares is something which most hon. Members recall. This was added to at a later date by what I can only call the dumping of airline tickets by the airlines to relieve themselves of the excess capacity that had developed for a variety of reasons, which I shall leave for another occasion to place before the House.
  Coming more up to date, one of the bases upon which this discounting has continued is the flouting of regulations to which the Government have been a party in what is called the accommodation inclusion approach to airline ticketing. The jungle of IATA fares has certainly lent itself to the development of airline discounting. IATA can certainly be criticised for failing to respond sufficiently early to the pressure for low fares from the public.
  The airlines can also be criticised for the dumping of airline tickets. In 1975 there dawned upon the airlines the realisation that, as a result of their contributing to the dumping of airline tickets, they were losing tens of millions of pounds in revenue. It may be asked "Why should this not be so? If they took a commercial decision and as a result the ordinary man in the street was able to obtain a lower price for a flight, why should that not be so?" The problem was, and continues to be, that by this intensification of airline ticket discounting some of the airlines, particularly those not able to rely on Government subsidies for survival, came close, in some cases alarmingly so, to extinction. At the same time, bona fide travel agents, required to
  378
  comply with the many international regulations, became to say the least, a little concerned about the development of this trend.
  There was, therefore, a move in 1975 by the Guild of Business Travel Agents, to which I am attached, to set up its own ticket discounting organisation. That was sufficient for the airlines to recognise that probably the time had come to start moving in the direction of some normality in airline fares. So what has been nicknamed "operation clean-up" was launched by the airlines with the approval of IATA and the Department of Trade, as outlined in a Press circular at that time. There came into being the Board of Airline Representatives in the United Kingdom, or BARUK as it has now become known colloquially.
  The idea was that in the attempt to reverse the development to which I have referred airlines should police the activities of airlines engaging in discounting. After all, they were doing this, and continued to do it, in violation of the British Government's membership of IATA. It was no secret that among the airlines engaged in this activity was the State airline, or airlines before the merger forming British Airways took place.
  I pay full tribute to British Airways and to BARUK for having recognised in 1975 that something had to be done, and for launching "operation clean-up". I also take the opportunity of congratulating the Government and, in particular, I congratulate the Minister who is to reply to the debate on his understanding of what had to be done, and on his continuing support of the airlines. I hope that he would agree in turn that the Guild of Business Travel Agents and the Association of British Travel Agents have equally been well to the forefront in supporting the move.
  There has been considerable success as a result of the introduction of "operation clean-up", but that has always been a second best to outlawing the practices which were undesirable from the consumer's point of view and tending in the process to dilute the finances of the airlines. Hence the new clause, which would not, I hasten to stress, supersede "operation clean-up" but considerably strengthen it. I therefore urge its acceptance upon the Government.

  379
  I want now to answer some of the points made, such as that consumer choice and consumer protection are not compatible with the clause that I am urging upon the House; that the balance of competition, in which the acceptance of the clause would result, is inimical to the interest of the consumer; and, finally, that the international cartel, as IATA is frequently called, is no champion of the consumer, the purchaser of airline tickets.
  There is, of course, no shortage of cheap fares to the United States, to Europe, or to other parts of the world. Equally, there is no doubt that competitive pressures, and the gradual introduction of a greater flexibility in IATA's approach to these matters, have resulted in many of these cheaper fares becoming widely and legally available to members of the public. That is something that I warm to, because I am moving the new clause at least as much in the interest of the consumer as anything else.
  There is, of course, much still to be done. Strong pressure by Her Majesty's Government and the Civil Aviation Authority on IATA is, in my view, necessary. There is a great demand for cheap travel, I readily concede, but there is no demand for cut-throat competition. I have only surely to mention such names as Clarkson's Horizon and—most recently perhaps most emotively of all—the Overseas Relatives Reunion Club, for us to realise that those are corpses on the road to unfettered competition.
  It is no good, in my judgment, taking the trouble, in the interests of the consumer, to arrange for the bonding of tour companies and the introduction of the air travel levy, if we are then to encourage people to go for the cheapest air fare, irrespective of whether at the end of the day, when the passenger turns up for his flight, the journey can take place. If we go on in the way that we are at this moment, I believe that we shall have more of the scandals to which I have made reference, and people will then come to Parliament expecting some action to be taken retroactively. The purpose of the new clause is to try to prevent that necessity from ever developing.
  There are many service industries which advertise their services and which are required to conform to certain standards.
  380
  Services are unlike consumer goods in this respect. I submit that there is a strong case for the widest range of air fares to all destinations being available, depending on individual requirements, but equally there is a strong case for rendering illegal the discounting of these fares. Let the travel agents and the airlines compete in every way possible, but let the consumer know that when he is buying his dream it is not calculated to turn into a nightmare.
  I have criticised IATA for its inflexibility, yet it would be unfair not to recognise that as airline passengers we owe a considerable debt to IATA. It has been of considerable assistance to the travelling public with regard to laying down safety standards, introducing a clearing house and the like. I hope it will now recognise that there is a need for more Skytrain-type projects, for more imagination at the headquarters of IATA and for a development of cheap fares for all, but for all with safety.
  So far I have stressed the consumer interest. I concede that the travel trade is concerned and interested in this new clause. It has a right to expect some protection in return for the competitive world in which it is obliged to live. I contend that the interests of the consumer, the interests of the travel trade and the interests of the House coincide in the acceptance of this new clause. It is in that spirit that I move it.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene immediately following the hon. Member for Brent-wood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who has argued a strong case in a characteristic and moderate way.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives in the new clause which is designed to outlaw the so-called bucket-shops operation. On the other hand, one has to recognise the attractions to the consumer of being able to buy tickets at prices well below the published fares. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) strongly expressed this view in his speech on Second Reading.
  Another side to the coin—these are points that were elaborated by the hon. Gentleman—is that passengers have been

  381
  badly let down by involving themselves in transactions with bucket shops. Tickets for which payment has been made have not been forthcoming, passengers have been stranded abroad and there has been trafficking in stolen tickets, although that is a matter which is more readily amenable to being dealt with by the criminal law.
  What we should aim at is for the customer to buy tickets at the lowest prices consistent with his safety and comfort and which at the same time do not jeopardise the finances of the industry. That in a nutshell was the case presented by the hon. Gentleman.
  Regulation of ticket sales does have a part to play, but to tackle this problem at its roots we must deal with the airlines by limiting the over-provision of capacity and by taking action against those airlines which release discounted tickets on to the market.
  We are dealing with both these aspects, first, by making capacity limitations a condition of the issue of operating permits to foreign airlines and, secondly, through "operation clean-up" in which airlines operating to and from the United Kingdom are co-operating to reduce bucket-shop operations.
  Where evidence of discounting exists, the Government already have powers to take action against the airline concerned. Article 58 of the Air Navigation Order deals with the capacity of the Government to revoke or suspend permits and Article 84(6) deals with the possibilities for prosecution. But the problem that has always confronted Governments dealing with these matters is that of obtaining sufficient evidence on which to base any action, either administrative or through the courts. With great respect, I do not think that the new clause would do anything substantial to eliminate this difficulty.
  The measures that we have taken already have reduced the scale of bucket-shop operations. One result has been an improvement in the revenues of British carriers on the routes in question, a fact which the hon. Gentleman is well aware of.
  In any event the new clause is defective in that it contains no penalty although it proscribes the offence. Even if it did, it
  382
  is considered that the chance of enforcing the new clause would be slim and, therefore, we should be still left with the problem of producing sufficient evidence to satisfy the courts.
  I am very conscious of the concern felt by the travel trade about the sale of discounted tickets. I have met representatives of the travel trade about this matter. Accordingly, I am proposing that there should be set up a working party consisting of representatives of ABTA, the Guild of Business Travel Agents, the airlines, the airline users and my Department to examine this question and to consider ways of dealing with a very difficult and contentious problem.
  I hope to be able to make a further announcement shortly about the terms of reference of the working party, its composition, and the period within which it is expected that it will be able to make its report available. I hope, too, that the House will regard this as a genuine effort to achieve the resolution of a difficult issue, which will involve, we hope, the reconciliation of strongly held but conflicting views, through machinery in which the voice of the consumer, the airline user, will also be heard, and that is an important voice in this matter.
  In the circumstances, I hope that this course will commend itself to the House and that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will feel it appropriate, either immediately or in due course, to withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. John Pardoe: The amendment seeks to undo the good which the Liberal Party has already done to the Bill.
  It is no secret that the Government wished to forbid British travel agents selling cut-price tickets below the price at which British airlines are allowed by the relevant authorities to sell.
  I find it extraordinary that this amendment should be moved by a Conservative Member, and I trust that those hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench who speak on trade matters will in no circumstances add their names to this kind of restrictive nonsense.
  The Conservative Party spends much of its time these days paying lip service to the principles of Adam Smith. One of

  383
  my favourite quotations from "The Wealth of Nations" is:
  "People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment or diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices."
  It is a great pity that the Conservative Party does not study Adam Smith more closely and pick the right bits, because it is clear that the Conservative Party is part of the conspiracy described by Adam Smith. It is in favour of competition in theory, but it is in favour of monopoly and restrictive practices in practice.
  It is no secret that the Conservative Party has been lobbied very hard by ABTA, and I find it shaming and disgraceful that its Members have been far less robust than we in the Liberal Party have been in rebutting that lobbying.
  The case which will be put forward by the Opposition spokesman is that it is nonsense to talk of free market competition in the airlines business because there is no such thing as a free market in the airline business. We know that it is subject to one of the most powerful and restrictive monopolies in the world economy today. But saying that one cannot have competition in any part of the airline sector because IATA operates monopoly practices is rather like saying that, because perpetual motion does not exist, the bicycle must be impossible.
  Clearly, we ought to allow the free market to do its work wherever possible. It is far better at doing it than governmental price control. Price control is sometimes legitimate where monopoly actually exists. But surely it is only then legitimate in ensuring that monopolies cannot raise their prices above the free market level. To suggest that price control should be introduced to stop free marketeers offering prices below the monopoly level seems to be complete nonsense.
  We have heard in this debate about the bucket shop, and it has a dreadful sound to it. It sounds like a back street abortionist. However, this clause would not apply to just a selective bunch of agencies. It would apply to every airline and travel agent who sold discount tickets.
  Discounting in the London market is extremely widespread. Many hon. Mem-
  384
  bers may not understand that. They may think that this is some kind of closed black market practised by shoddy and disreputable people. That is not so. It is practised by the great majority of airlines in the world today, and by thoroughly reputable ABTA travel agents, although they do not always cares to say so.
  Mention has been made by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Brent-wood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) of stolen tickets. The connection between stolen tickets and discounting is very interesting. There has been a major prosecution at the Old Bailey of a travel agency for supposedly dealing in stolen tickets. The prosecution case was brought by TWA, who said that because the agency had received these tickets at what was regarded as a ludicrously cut price, it should have known that they were stolen property.
  The agents were a Mr. Bowater and a Mr. Groombridge, and their defence was that discounting and cutting prices were so common in the London market that they could not possibly have known that the tickets were stolen. It is interesting to quote the views of the Metropolitan police inspector who was in charge of the case. I quote from an account of the case in the winter issue of "Business Travel" which says:
  "under cross-examination, Inspector Arkett of the Metropolitan Police said that the police had worked on the assumption that airline tickets were no different from other goods that were frequently stolen—if they were offered at substantially below the generally accepted market price, and a potential buyer did not inquire too deeply into their origins, he was knowingly running the risk of receiving stolen goods. The Inspector told the Court that at no time had TWA, as the complainants, informed the police of the scale or nature of the IATA airlines' activities on the London discount market".
  The judge accepted that evidence as being wholeheartedly in favour of the defence case and threw out the prosecution. He was extremely cricital of TWA for bringing the case at all. I quote that because it was the major court case on this subject of the last two years, and it brought to light the fact that discounting was extremely widespread.
  The list of airlines using the practice not only includes foreign airlines, which might be desperate for hard currency, but also major British airlines. There is no

  385
  doubt at all that British airlines in the last 18 months have unloaded millions of tickets at well below what the Minister would regard as the allowable price in the circumstances, and have unloaded them through ABTA agents in the London market. Therefore, it is absolute hypocrisy to say that this new clause would deal with the so-called bucket shops.
  We have heard the Minister announce that he will establish a working party. Before I give that any kind of welcome, I am bound to say that it sounds rather like Adam Smith's description of a price ring. I do not know who will serve on this working party, but they may all get together to conspire cosily to produce reasons why the Minister should come before us at a future date with regulations to control cut price tickets.
  Mr. John Nott: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) should get on the working party.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pardoe: I had thought of that. I think it would be a good idea. If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) were on it, too, we might do a good job on behalf of the consumer.
  There is no shadow of truth in the suggestion that consumers are getting a raw deal as a result of cut-price operations. Of course, if a customer goes into a travel agency and buys a ticket to Timbuctoo at a price that is well below that quoted by airlines generally, he must recognise that he is taking some sort of risk. He must measure that against the price he pays. That is the situation facing every consumer who buys something cheaply, whether a pork pie or an airline ticket.
  The best way to get prices down is to allow the agency of unfettered competition to do it for us. Let us have no regulations or lower-end price control. The only legitimate price control is to stop monopolists jacking up prices, Price control should have no place in stopping the free market from selling tickets at well below the price that airlines wish to charge.
  We are faced with over-capacity in the airline market and airlines will do their damnedest to fill their planes. It will make no difference if the Minister sets up his working party or the new clause is
  386
  passed. If airlines have spare capacity and want to fill their planes, they will fill them with passengers who are prepared to pay only cut-price fares.
  That is the basis of the working of the free market and, for my money, it is a basis in favour of the consumer. I intend to have no truck with the new clause. It is utterly against the interests of the consumer. I want low-price air travel and I know that I can get that from the operation of the free market.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: It may help if I intervene at this stage. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) for introducing the new clause. Clearly it has defects, apart from the objection raised by the Minister that it creates an offence without a penalty. It is the obverse of the Government's incomes policy, which creates a penalty without an offence. The new clause would probably also preclude airlines from allowing their employees to buy tickets cheaply and, as a former airline employee who still has some small privilege, I suppose I should declare my interest.
  We have heard something of the curious history of the new clause. Apparently it was stillborn originally because of the Lib-Lab pact. It is about time that the Minister recognised that if he wants to introduce sensible legislation in this area—and I believe that he does—he would do better to negotiate for the support of myself and my 279 hon and right hon. Friends than negotiate with the ridiculous rump of a once great party.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) made an interesting speech. His philosophy came out clear and strong—none of this consumer protection nonsense, let us get away from that; the only thing that matters is the free play of competition; let the buyer beware. I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to move new clauses to the appropriate Bills or to introduce a Private Member's Bill to get rid of the Office of Fair Trading and all the consumer protection offices around our town halls that have prospective Liberal candidates propping them up in between falling over broken paving stones. It was a contemptible speech by a contemptible Member. I was surprised that he even reached such depths of sheer

  387
  misinformation and misleading of the House about the principles and policies of his party.
  As I understand it, the Liberal Party is now committed to a free market and no restriction on the price of anything except wages, the price of labour. That is the one area in which it wants statutory provision to control prices. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North must grow up and get over this idiotic child-like politicking of the Liberals.
  I cannot recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
  Mr. Pardoe Mr. Pardoe Now we are getting to the truth of the matter.
  Mr. Tebbit: That has never been in any doubt. I do not think that the clause should be enacted. I recognise the dangers of bucket-shop discounting operations. There are hazards to the traveller. I notice that it was the hon. Member for Cornwall, North who chose to say "Let the buyer beware", but on another occasion, no doubt, he will come crying to us with the tale of how some unfortunate crippled half-wit Liberal child was done down by a vicious bucket-shop operator and asking for legislation to cover such operations. However, there are hazards to the traveller, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
  In many instances there is a process which is nothing other than dumping, and because it is the dumping of airline seats it is no different from the dumping of shirts, socks, shoes or any other commodity. That is because there are two sorts of airline in the world. There are the airlines that go into the business with the intention of making a return on their capital, and there are those that we might generally refer to as mumbo-jumbo airlines, that are not commercial businesses and are merely seeking either to extend national prestige or to buy foreign currency cheaply, by dumping capacity at below the cost at which they allow their own nationals to buy the product in their own country. It is that mixture of commercial and non-commercial airlines that bedevils fair competition. It is not IATA that is preventing fair competition but the mixture of commercial and non-commercial operations. Unless we deal with that we shall never get proper, fair competition among airlines.
  388
  I deplore monopolies, whether they are in the hands of the State, the trade unions or private investors. I do not like resale price maintenance or price fixing—and that even goes for price fixing in the labour market—unlike the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.
  In present circumstances it is inevitable that we have some attempts at price fixing among airlines, but I do not think that it would be right to make it an offence to try to buck the system. It would be dangerous if discounting were again excessively and capricously to dilute airline revenues, but it is just as well to ensure that there is no criminal sanction behind which high tariff operators could be placed to prevent mass travel, which would act merely as a mattress for somnolent and inefficient airlines to doze away their years.
  The Minister has replied, and his offer of setting up a committee was the most that an Under-Secretary of State could offer. Had it been the Prime Minister, I suppose that he would have offered a Royal Commission. I do not think that we should expect more out of the inquiry that the Minister has promised than we should expect out of most Royal Commissions. However, we should wait to see what comes of the proposal. We shall examine it with interest. In the meantime I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn in the light of the inquiry that has been offered, for what it is worth, and the indication that there would not be a great support in the House for any move to make discounting a criminal offence.
  Mr. Michael Neubert: As someone who has been involved in the travel industry for the last 18 years, I formally declare my interest at the outset.
  It is possible to represent this issue as one more round in the all-important fight against inflation by bringing prices down, as a blow for competition and for the consumer; and if at the same time one can undermine IATA—that notorious international cartel—so much the better. It is possible to represent the issue in those simple terms and, in the politics of naivety as practised by the Liberals, it is being represented as such.
  Unfortunately for the expedition of business and the simplistic nature of that argument, on the subject of scheduled

  389
  air fares we are faced tonight with a unique and, for that reason, unusual set of circumstances. We should recognise that our unwillingness to engage in more than a one-step argument is no service to the public in this or any other matter. We are paid to persuade and to inform. When I listen to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) expound what passes for Liberal economics, I sometimes think that we are paid too little. If he is now to pass himself off as an authority on aviation as well, life will scarcely be worth living.
  We are required to give some thought to a difficult matter. It is all too easy to mutter the pass words "market" or "competition" and then to move on to the next pressing engagement. But the circumstances are different.
  What is discounting? In practice, it tends to be certain airlines offering tickets at cut-price rates in order to boost their own revenues. They do that at the expense of others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) pointed out, in practice it tends to be those who are unsuccessful unloading their seats on the market at the expense of successful airlines.
  I thought that our policy was to back winners, not losers but that is what we are doing. It is a drain on the revenue of airlines such as British Airways. The scale of losses in 1975 was put at £40 million in London and the United Kingdom alone. If we examine the profitability of airlines operating out of the United Kingdom in that year, we realise the significance of that drain on the revenue of our nationalised airline.
  Incidentally, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North asserted that British Airways had been guilty of such discounting in large measure in the last 18 months. However, he offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I do not think that British Airways has been completely innocent of the practice in the past, but I think that it is less likely in the more recent than in the more distant past.
  Mr. Pardoe: I quoted that remark in the context of the court case at the Old Bailey and the evidence that was adduced. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting, as his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) suggested, that this practice is carried out by third-rate
  390
  airlines. Does he accept that Alitalia, Sabena, British Caledonian, Icelandic Airlines and TWA are not in that category?
  Mr. Neubert: I had in mind the six airlines that have been reported to the Department of Trade for these discounting offences. Five were Third world airlines. We must make up our minds whether we are backing Britain, which again I thought was our policy, or Bangladesh. No one needs to remind me that Bangladeshi Airlines is a non-IATA airline. It does not seem to matter too much to Bangladesh and it does not matter too much to my argument, because the majority of these airlines are Third world airlines. That is the outcome of our backing bucket shops.
  I appreciate that this may be an ingenious scheme on the part of those who want to see more overseas aid for under-developed countries—that is, by draining away revenue from our nationalised airline. If so, why should British Airways be singled out as a victim of this international largess on our part? The unfortunate fact of life is that most of the airlines to which the discounting revenue goes make either no profit or so small a profit as not to represent a profit in real terms, even if they publish the figures. The money will go not to the starving thousands in the Sahel or the flooded homeless in Bangladesh but on wasted aviation fuel, at a time when world energy resources are scarce, and on the gold-braided prestige of the national airline.
  I realise that the Minister, by making a generous offer to set up a working party, may feel that what I have said is superfluous to the debate. However, having sat here watching and listening to the debate on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill for hour after hour and having waited for this opportunity to expound my views on this subject at some length, I hope not to test the hon. Gentleman's patience to the point where he objects to my doing so.
  10.45 p.m.
  My next point is that the overall result is a drain on airline profitability. Airlines are facing a massive programme of investment in new equipment. They have to raise revenues. If cut price fares are offered the result is that the tariff is put

  391
  higher still. That increases the injustice between one passenger and another travelling on the same aircraft. It raises the cost to the business man making a trip to secure an export deal, for example, to the advantage of someone going for two weeks in the sun to visit in-laws. Is that what we want? Is that fair?
  The suggestion that IATA can operate a free market is laughable and the idea that it can rapidly reform itself is scarcely less unrealistic. IATA consists of 109 airlines. Most of them are national airlines. For that reason IATA consists of 85 nations. These airlines are the creatures of Governments, not normal industrial enterprises. Expecting them to come forward with a free market is nonsense. How can the market be free? If an airline makes a loss by, for instance, selling pound notes for 80p, the Government of the country concerned meet the loss. They never go out of business. The Government see to that. As for the IATA fare structure, to seek to emulate Sir Winston Churchill's description of Russia, it is a maelstrom set in a maze enveloped in a miasma. Its complexity is daunting and inevitable. The tariff conferences to change fares make the Tokyo Round talks at Geneva look like a question and answer session on the ten-times table.
  There are some who believe, and would have us believe, that cut-price fares herald a new dawn in which the rising sun is Freddie Laker. I yield to no one in my admiration for Freddie Laker. As someone who flew on his first time-charter 111 flight to Djerba in the mid-sixties, I regard myself as having been with Laker Airways from the beginning. But anyone who thinks that he is a brilliant exponent of the free market misunderstands the nature of his achievement. It is not as if he went down Crawley High Street hawking tickets to people and then took off for New York the next day. He had a dozen legal and licensing hurdles to overcome. Every single detail of his operation is controlled by Governments. Departure and arrival, airports, frequency, capacity, in-flight catering, booking conditions and, most important of all, fares are controlled by Governments. The flight on Skytrain from London to New York costs £59. Even if the great Freddie Laker were to charge as little as £1 less,
  392
  he would be in breach of his licence and likely to lose it.
  What is the effect on the consumer? In the short term it is of considerable benefit, but that applies to all cases of dumping. That does not mean that we allow it to offset our anti-dumping measures. It was not the consumer who complained about £6 suits from Romania any more than it was the consumer who complained about cheap shirts from Pakistan. We soon moved to stop them. Why do we allow empty seats on Pakistan Airlines to be off-loaded on to the British market?
  My colleagues are never more outraged than by the thought of the cut-price shipping rates being offered by Soviet Russia and other Communist countries. Shock, horror and sensation—every word in their vocabulary is used to express indignation at such a practice. But when Aeroflot discounts tickets on the London market at below cost rates to secure hard currency and bolster its revenues, nobody objects. That is apparently fair and unfettered competition. There seems at least to be a certain inconsistency in that to which we must address ourselves.
  This has an unfortunate subsidiary effect on British travel agents, 4,000 of them, typical small businesses. I thought that this party of ours was in favour of legitimate small business. But we insist that these businesses have adequate premises from which to operate, that they are financially secured against all possible commercial risk, and that their staffs are competent and professionally qualified. Yet when clients are given correct advice about fare structures by these agents, the agents are made to look complete fools when the clients go off to find cut-price operators. They look fools and lose their legitimate business. That is our responsibility and we cannot escape it. I speak as a member of an Opposition who will in a short time be up against these dilemmas and responsibilities as the next Government. We have to face them, and we may as well start facing them now. We have to ensure that if rules are set by the Government they must be observed.
  It will be argued that IATA and its appointed agents should put their own affairs in order so as to achieve lower fares, but IATA is virtually dealing with Governments. It has very limited powers

  393
  for policing its own members. We have to ensure that we take our proper responsibility in this matter. Those who support this limited area of discounting and bucket-shop operations are not unlike those who would turn a blind eye to the back-street bargain which consumers would welcome of, say, a television for £9.95, as advertised on "Police 5", having just fallen off the back of a lorry. This is a dubious morality. The tickets are being sold below approved rates and as Members of this House we have to show a greater degree of responsibility in matters that are primarily our responsibility, not the responsibility of IATA, its appointed agents or the airlines.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said. He speaks with many years' practical experience in the business. The new clause is well intentioned, but I cannot support it. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he is to have an inquiry.
  Perhaps I can illustrate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit) made about AITA being the creature of Governments. It is significant that the one country where there is free market competition, an ideal which was espoused by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), is North America. The seat-mile costs on the competing airlines there should shame every other sphere of aviation in the world into utter disgrace.
  Mr. Tebbit: They do not have an incomes policy.
  Mr. Adley: The role of the Government is to use the negotiations for traffic rights more in order to control the activities of Bangladeshi airlines, or whatever. Traffic rights can be used by Governments as a flexible weapon in trying to control the activities of the airlines that are trying to dump their seats.
  There is a difference between a cut-price fare and a concessionary fare. Whether we are talking about empty seats on buses or on aeroplanes, there must be some form of accommodation which should enable the passenger transport operator to sell the seats he has available a short time before departure at a lower price, albeit an agreed price,
  394
  than the seats that are taken up in advance.
  I hope, therefore, that when the Minister sets up his inquiry he will find a legitimate way whereby operators such as British Airways and others can sell their seats at a reduced price under strictly controlled regulations. In that way, and that way alone, shall we find an accommodation between what my hon. Friend wants to do and what will not be totally contrary to the interests of British Airways and others who have to have a guaranteed revenue as airlines, and who otherwise will not be able to buy the new aircraft built, as we hope, in British aircraft factories. That, however, is another matter which I will not go into now.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I intervene very briefly—
  Mr. Tebbit: With permission.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It is not needed.
  Mr. Davis: It is not needed. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  I intervene briefly to say that I think the House has benefited by the debate started by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). A number of hon. Members have injected some positive thinking into this, which I regret to say to a large extent was missing from the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). Liberals are entitled to the occasional aberration, of course, and maybe it happened tonight, but I thought it was a bit thick when the hon. Member contended that no one else in the House understood these problems, when all his remarks were as ingenuous as they were. The fact is that there is a problem here, even if the hon. Member does not recognise it. There is a threat to the consumer caused by abuses, and a penalty is paid by the consumer in consideration of those abuses
  I particularly wanted to take issue with one of the hon. Member's remarks which I hope he will reflect upon and withdraw. He said, in effect, that members of the working party would conspire together to produce a result which I would find comfortable—in other words, that I would intervene in their considerations and dictate to them the sort of result which

  395
  would be amenable to me. That is unfortunate, misconceived, and a reflection on those who will form a part of this working party. I hope that he will think it right to withdraw that most unfortunate remark.
  Mr. Pardoe: The Minister has drawn a completely nonsensical implication from my remark. I said that they would conspire to produce a report which was very comfortable to him. So they will. He will not have to do a thing. He will not have to lift a finger to get that sort of result.
  Mr. Davis: That adds insult to injury. He is reflecting on the capacity of the members of the working party, whoever they may be, including the one who will be reflecting the consumer interest, to come to a fair judgment. Although the House will not pass judgment officially on what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, said it will wish to rebuke him for what he said.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Davis: No.
  Mr. Cecil Parkinson: Is this the Lib-Lab pact?
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Give way now.
  Mr. Davis: No. The Lib-Lab pact is bigger than this. We can withstand the odd insult from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson).
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North owes it to the House to produce evidence, because he asserted that a number of airlines have been guilty of discounting heavily. I ask him to produce evidence, not now, but later and in a way which will satisfy a court. We have intervened with administrative action previously, and the hon. Member has accepted that that has been successful. I believe that to be right. If he has evidence, I challenge him to produce it. I hope that the House will feel that my constructive suggestion has been helpful.
  Mr. McCrindle: If I were pleased for no other reason that I had moved the new clause and forced this debate, I should be positively delighted to have had the revelations of the hon. Member for
  396
  Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) by which the House was entertained. It was clearly a case of everyone being out of step except our John. I was also struck by the family feud that tended to break out between the Labour Party and the Liberal Party towards the end of our deliberations. That was not a bad reason for initiating the debate, even if there had been no other.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend will have heard the Under-Secretary say that it is not a family. I presume that we must therefore accept that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are living together in sin.
  Mr. McCrindle: What they are living together in is no concern of mine.
  I listened to what the Minister said about the setting up of a working party and to what my hon. Friends said about the intention behind the clause but about its defective wording and so on, and I am prepared to withdraw it in expectation of the creation of the working party.
  First, however, may I be forgiven for expressing a little scepticism which I feel every time I hear of the creation of a working party. That scepticism is only slightly less on this occasion. The saving grace of this working party is that whilst it will be up to the Minister to decide on the membership, it will be up to the trade and consumer representatives, working in conjunction with the Minister, to bring to the Government the proof that they consider they lack to enable them to take action now. In those circumstances it is possible for me to approach the working party with a little less scepticism. Therefore, with good grace I am happy to accept the Minister's offer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 42, leave out from 'description' to 'who' in line 44.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it may be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
  Mr. Davis: These amendments delete some amendments made in Committee that would have introduced into the Bill certain detailed provisions that I believe fit more appropriately into regulations that I shall be introducing very shortly after the Bill is enacted.
  I have always argued that it is desirable to retain a wide degree of flexibility in the Bill—I have used other words as well—so that its operation, which will depend upon the regulations, can be made to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, experience might cause us to change our minds about the non-reimbursement method as against the system for which we have opted. To have imported too much detail into the Bill would have severely restricted that flexibility and made alterations in the scheme in the light of different circumstances far more difficult to achieve. We should have to have primary legislation to do that, which would be very awkward.
  But the Government recognised from the outset that Parliament, the industry and passengers all had a vested interest in the content of the regulations. It is for that reason that we proposed—I think that the proposal has been widely welcomed—that the regulations should require the positive affirmation of Parliament. This would apply equally to any subsequent amendment of the regulations.
  Moreover, a condition precedent for any substantive amendment of the regulations, although I believe that current practice indicates that in this field a statutory requirement is unnecessary, is that there should be detailed consultation between the Department and relevant interests. That has already taken place.
  In Committee hon. Members did not have before them details of the regulations that I was to propose. Understandably, in those circumstances they wanted to emphasise points that they considered to be important about the details of the operation of the levy. Some hon. Members considered that the only way to ensure that these matters would be fully considered was to amend the Bill, although I had given an undertaking that the matters would be fully considered.
  Since then, wholly consistent with my belief that consultation is vital when the Government try to engage the support of people concerned with any particular
  398
  policy, and consistent, too, with the undertakings that I gave to the Committee, I have held consultations with the industry about what is to go into the regulations. Perhaps this is, to some extent, unique. I do not know. I also invited hon. Members on both sides of the House who had served on the Committee to consider an informal draft of the proposed regulations.
  I believe that this course of action has been amply vindicated by the fact that, subject to the reservations that have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), for example, and others, about the principle of the levy—which, however, has been endorsed by the House—we have established a consensus within the industry and among certain hon. Members on both sides of the House about the regulations and their administration.
  I shall not go into any great detail about the regulations because the House will have an opportunity to discuss them in the future when they are laid for debate, but I have given undertakings that they will, among other things, exclude from the basis of the levy children under the age of three, which would be dealt with pursuant to Amendment No. 1, passengers on flights not operating for hire or reward, which will follow Amendment No. 4, and the first 2,000 chargeable passengers per month, which will be consequent upon Amendment No. 3.
  The amendments include one that I accepted in principle in Committee, Amendment No. 2, which gives the added flexibility of being able to relate the levy to departing as well as arriving passengers. But I stress that it is unlikely that this would represent the yardstick applied by airport authorities in the foreseeable future, since landing charges, with which I am informed the levy will be bracketed, have always been related to arriving passengers.
  Incidentally, in tidying up the amendment, we also inserted the words "by air", so that the levy could be related to passengers who depart from the airport by air, rather than unspecified departures, which could include passengers leaving the airport by some other mode of transport, such as skateboard. I thought that it was worth while to put that in.
  I shall not elaborate on the regulations because we shall go into them in due

  399
  course. I hope that on this matter I have met the will of Members of the Committee and of the House.
  Mr. J. Grimond: As the Minister has said, I still maintain my objection in principle to the levy. However it is highly satisfactory from my point of view that its effect will be considerably modified for my aerodromes by the amendments passed in Committee and which it is now agreed shall be incorporated in the order rather than in the Bill.
  Not only will that mean that there will be some relief owing to an unspecified number—about 2,000 for the time being, at any rate—being passed through free and infants not being charged, but these amendments and the next group, I understand, will have the effect of wholly excluding Loganair, an important local operator in my constituency, from the effect of the levy. Personally, I am very willing to agree that we should incorporate this in the order rather than the Bill.
  I thank the Minister for the attention with which he has listened to various representations.
  Mr. Tebbit: The Minister will be having a much more pleasant time this evening—he is having it so far, at any rate—than he had on a morning about a month ago, when he was defeated three times on these amendments.
  We were originally disposed to withdraw the amendments that we had moved in Committee if we received reasonable assurances at the time. The Minister did not feel able to give those assurances, with the result that there were Divisions in which he lost not only the support of myself and my hon. Friends but the support of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and some Labour Members as well.
  However, to be fair to the Minister, just before the vote was taken he offered to consult Members of the Committee about the regulations before they were made. He has, indeed, done so. It is only fair that I should say that we appreciate that offer and the spirit in which he has carried out the consultations. I accept entirely that it is better that, in an industry which moves so fast and changes
  400
  so quickly, these things are put into the regulations rather than the primary legislation.
  I recommend that we accept the amendment proposed by the Minister, with the sole caveat that we should remind the hon. Gentleman that legislation passed for one purpose should never he used in a partisan and divisive manner for a totally different purpose. That is why we must always look with care at secondary legislation these days. I have already had the Minister's assurance that this legislation will not be so abused, and I accept it entirely.
  The only question I would ask him further on this group of amendments is whether he would feel able to indicate his attitude, which he has informally expressed in letters to me and other hon. Members, concerning the exemptions from charge of aircraft of up to five tons in weight. It would be helpful if he could make his intentions plain.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I readily respond to the hon. Member and say that it is my intention to accommodate that point. I shall not deal with what happened in Committee. I thought that I had said that I was well disposed towards what hon. Members were doing but I felt it right to engage in consultations first. The House has now agreed on a united course and I am grateful for that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 45, after 'departed' insert 'by air'.
  No. 3, in page 2, line 46, leave out '2,000 per month' and insert 'a prescribed limit'.
  No. 4 in page 3, line 3, leave out from 'description' to 'which' in line 4.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 13 leave out from beginning to "require".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Government Amendment No. 6.
  Mr. Davis: This is a tidying-up amendment. The phrase
  "confer power on the Secretary of State"
  is redundant since the Secretary of State has powers under Clause 2(1) to make regulations and it is preferable that the

  401
  requirement to furnish information be provided for in the regulations.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 6, in page 3, line 15 leave out "him" and insert "the Secretary of State".—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

Clause 4

  POWER TO WIND UP FUND
  Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 29, leave out from "and" to end of line 31 and insert
  "on the completion of the winding-up for the return to each aerodrome authority by whom contributions have been made to the Fund, of a share of the net assets standing to the credit of the Fund which bears the same proportion to those assets as the authority's contributions to the Fund in the last 12 months during which contributions were made to the Fund bear to the total contributions made by aerodrome authorities to the Fund during those 12 months.".
  During our third sitting in Committee an amendment was moved which enabled us to consider the question of the possible winding-up of the Fund. We were looking to happier days when security provision might not be required, or when winding-up might take place for some other reason. It was agreed at the time that wording was possibly not as felicitous and accurate as it might be. This amendment is an attempt to be more precise and to ensure that when the winding-up of the Fund takes place the assets will be disbursed in precise amounts to those aerodromes which have contributed in the 12 months prior to the winding-up. In view of the discussion in Committee, when the principle was considered, and because this is a straightforward amendment, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: I indicated during the proceedings in Committee that I found the amendment which was then moved acceptable in principle, but it was defective in its working. That defect has now been cured and therefore the Government are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have never been greatly enthusiastic about the Bill but I had hoped that, during the course of the Committee stage, changes in it might be made which would enable me to see it as a useful measure in its aircraft noise aspects, even if in other respects the Bill could be regarded at best as no more than an unfortunate necessity. I was prepared at that stage to believe that it was possible that the Bill might become one which I should find myself able to support on Third Reading. I regret to say that this does not appear to me to have happened.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has consistently refused every possible attempt in Committee to strengthen those clauses which would have given greater protection against aircraft noise. In particular, I found it distressing that we have been unable, owing to a decision which I do not wish to challenge in itself, to discuss on the Report stage the question of aircraft noise. Had one known that that was to happen, it would have been possible to put down an amendment to the appropriate clauses in order to bring about that discussion. As it is, one can only hope that the new clause which it has not been possible to discuss this evening will commend itself to another place, and that in the other place it will be carried.
  Perhaps it is the case that, because the arguments in favour of the new clause were deployed in the columns of The Times, it may have been thought that that was equivalent to discussing it in the House. Even though The Times happened to be published on the day when my letter appeared, discussion in The Times can hardly be regarded as the equivalent of a debate in this House. As I attempted to point out, the issue is whether it is right that the citizen should be unable to sue in the courts against noise nuisance when it is committed by aircraft, although he can take proceedings in respect of every other type of noise nuisance. This is the sole instance where the citizen is entirely deprived of any legal remedy whatsoever. This House ought to have been able to consider whether that is proper. Never at any time owing to a series of peculiar circumstances which I detailed in Committee, and which I shall not go over in detail

  403
  tonight, has this Chamber examined in detail the propriety of that deprivation.
  In 1922, when the Bill dealing with air navigation was being considered, the idea of civil air transport in its present form had not been thought of, and a clause depriving the citizen of the right to sue was introduced at that stage in order to establish the right of aircraft to fly over people's ground. It had not been established in those days that flying over a person's ground was not trespass—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) knows that he is attempting to introduce something which he would have liked to see in the Bill and which may have been discussed during the course of the Bill, but it is not in the Bill and should not be discussed on Third Reading. He is suggesting powers which the Bill does not contain.
  Mr. Jenkins: I accept your guidance. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall address the remainder of my remarks more specifically to what is in the Bill, regretting only, in passing, that things are not in it which ought to be in it.
  Sir Anthony Royle: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is not it right that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) should mention a new clause which was not selected, in the hope that the Minister will press upon his right hon. and hon. Friends that the clause should be considered when the Bill goes to another place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: To be strictly in order, it is not appropriate on Third Reading to discuss matters which are not in the Bill, and this clause was not selected.
  Mr. Jenkins: Many of the powers which are in the Bill and other powers which are taken from time to time to regulate aircraft noise—this barrage of rather ineffective attempts to control it—would not have been necessary had it been possible for the citizen to have recourse to the courts. That is the point.
  No hon. Member whose constituency is affected by aircraft noise wishes to derogate from what has been done. Given that the aircraft operator is free to make aircraft noise without having proceed-
  404
  ings taken against him in the courts, the Minister has tried to introduce regulations to ensure that that freedom is not exploited. He has not succeeded. Over the years, despite the regulations and all that has been done, aircraft noise gradually has got worse and people have had to put up with more and more of it year by year as the number of aircraft movement has increased.
  But for the fact that this right to sue in the courts does not exist, there is little doubt in my mind that the main London airport would not have grown up at Heathrow. It would have been located somewhere else, and vast numbers of people would not have been overflown repeatedly, every day, especially in the summer.
  So I find myself unable to accept that this Bill has been improved to the extent necessary to enable me to support its Third Reading, and it will be my intention to demonstrate my disappointment. A proposition was advanced to allow the citizen to sue in the courts, and account was taken in it of all the protection necessary to ensure the there were no unreasonable or frivolous actions. But at no time did the Minister remonstrate his willingness to open his mind to this possibility. In view of that, it is my judgment that it is right in the circumstances to divide the House against the Bill on Third Reading.
  11.23 p.m.
  Sir George Sinclair: Before I make some critical remarks about the Government's failure to seize their opportunities in this Bill, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for all that he has done to take into consideration the representations which have been made by those living under aircraft noise around the airport in my constituency, the patience with which he has listened to them, and the steps that he has taken to bring in a gradual but we believe far too slow control of aircraft noise.
  Having said that, I want now to support the case made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) that the Government should consider granting the same right to individuals to sue in the case of this aircraft noise nuisance as that which they have in other cases of nuisance. If the Government granted this right, it would be a sign that they were

  405
  taking note of the resentment of people about not having a rigorous enough control exercised on their behalf by those who are supposed to look after their interests.
  This Bill seeks to authorise the collection into an aviation security fund of a levy on passengers arriving at and departing from airports. The Government, to save themselves the expense of providing increased security at airports are prepared to impose a levy on air passengers. I want to speaking about that levy, and I hope that I shall find that I am still in order.
  Yet, under the Bill, which also deals with the control of aircraft noise, the Government are not prepared to contemplate a levy on air passengers to be collected into fund to compensate those residents around airports whose lives have been made intolerable because they live in the worst area of aircraft noise. That seems to me—and to many others to be outrageous.
  The Government are responsible by statute for protecting such people against aircraft noise, and they have obstinately, in the Committee debates, refused to grant individuals the right to sue airlines in the courts for the damages they suffer.
  What is more, the Government are now responsible by decisions in the recent White Paper on airport policy to expand the traffic at the main airports, for imposing greater burdens of noise on those living nearby. Surely it is time, when the Government have decided to impose these heavy new burdens, to show in a Bill such as this that they intend to discharge their other responsibilities to protect those who are suffering from the rapid growth of air traffic and who will suffer much more in the next eight to 12 years.
  On the Secretary of State's own admission during the Second reading debate, those living around Gatwick in my constituency will suffer the worst increase in noise. The Government aim is to expand Gatwick from the present 6 million passengers to 25 million in 1990. That is a four-fold increase 12 years, and is more than the total forecast increase at all other airports in Britain in that period.
  The Government are behaving most irresponsibly. They are refusing to contemplate compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 on the ground that there is no new factor involved,
  406
  such as a new runway or the extension of an existing runway, to make a radical change in local conditions. Yet they now accept that it is not alterations to runways that most affect the volume of traffic but the capacity of terminal buildings. They aim to expand Gatwick fourfold without a second runway. They are achieving this through new terminal buildings. What nonsense to hide behind the outdated criterion of runways to refuse compensation to suffering residents when they are changing the whole nature of the locality by building new terminals.
  The hon. Members who represent constituencies in Surrey and Sussex, which are heavily affected by Gatwick, have all joined with me in seeking redress from the Government for our constituents who are being increasingly clobbered by the Government's actions. We have made many carefully worked-out recommendations which we believed were well within the Government's power to embody in the Bill. Many of these recommendations have been to help constituents who find that they are living in areas around Gatwick which are worst affected by aircraft noise, and who find that the situation has become intolerable for them and their families, so they have decided to sell their houses and move away. The Government have so far blocked all these proposals. Yet this Bill gave them an opportunity to take a new initiative on these lines. As I have said, they have refused to contemplate taking legislative action to secure the payment of compensation under the Land Compensation Act, in spite of all our arguments, especially those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe).
  We have made many other proposals which would have relieved our hard-pressed constituents. We have argued strongly for a levy on passengers to create a fund from which houses in the areas of intolerable noise could be bought. That would release families who could no longer stand the racket and would make houses available for those who have to live and work near the airport.
  From the same fund could be financed the proper protection of houses against aircraft noise by 100 per cent. grants for thorough sound insulation. If the Government are right to promise that in from eight to 12 years the worst aircraft

  407
  noise will affect tar fewer people, houses with sound proofing could prove a very attractive investment. From such a fund compensation could be paid—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this is the Third Reading of a Bill. Although the hon. Gentleman may have discussed these matters elsewhere, this is not the time to discuss them, as I have already pointed out. What we are discussing is what is in the Bill, not what any right hon. or hon. Gentleman wishes to be in the Bill when in fact it is not.
  Sir G. Sinclair: I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that here in this Bill was a chance for the Government to discharge their responsibility. The chance is still there if the Government wish to take it by amending the Bill in another place. If the Government do not do so, the residents around Gatwick will make their own judgments of the failure of the Government to discharge their statutory duties, and I shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister will consider some of the things that I and others have said, but so far there has been no give on the main proposition to use funds raised from passengers arriving at or departing from airports for the proper protection of those who are suffering most from aircraft noise. It is because of the complete inadequacy of the Bill that I and some of my colleagues will vote against the Third Reading tonight.
  11.33 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Royle: As I have spoken in every debate in the House on aircraft noise for the past 18 years, I wish to make one or two remarks in support of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair).
  The Bill is not adequate. It could have been far more wide-ranging. There was a strong case for including within it a provision, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney, to enable people suffering from aircraft noise to take the matter to the courts.
  In my constituency of Richmond, which lies about eight miles from the threshold of London Airport, we suffer
  408
  from landing noise. We have suffered from this noise for many years. For many years I have pressed and attacked Ministers from both major parties.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking in urging the Under-Secretary to act. In my view, he has done more to ease the suffering of people living around airports than any Minister in any Government over the past 18 years. But it is still not enough. It could be much more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to discuss these matters with his noble Friend who will be guiding the Bill through the other place and press him to have second thoughts on the points made by the hon. Member for Putney and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking.
  I intend to join my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Putney in voting against the Bill. It does not go far enough, and I hope that the Government will think again.
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and Richmond Surrey (Sir A. Royle) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) in the deep concern which they have expressed about the question of aircraft noise, which is such a terrible scourge to the communities it affects.
  This House through the decades, and through the centuries, has been concerned to alleviate human suffering from whatever may be its cause. I can see hon. Members on both sides of the House who have honourably followed that tradition. However, on the problem of aircraft noise—and my constituency is by Heathrow, which has about 600 flights a day—there are hon. Members who evince a total lack of compassion and concern about this form of suffering to people. It must be frankly admitted that some people do not mind aircraft noise, but many suffer from it acutely and for some it goes as far as causing mental illness. We must strive to press for stronger measures to deal with it. I agree that the Under-Secretary has done as much as or more than any other Minister about this matter, but it is not enough.
  The Bill deals with the question of aircraft noise in Clauses 8 and 9, which comprises an important part of it. It introduces the concept of establishing

  409
  differential landing charges so that noisy aircraft can be made to pay more than quiet aircraft to land at Heathrow and other airports. I regard this as a well-meaning step in the right direction, but I wish to ask the Minister to make clearer the Government's intentions about what will happen and when. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that this provision would be introduced gradually "Gradually" could mean many years, and people cannot wait many years. They are suffering now, week after week and month after month. Therefore, I ask the Minister about the timing.
  Also on Second Reading the question was asked how large the differential in the charge would be as between noisy aircraft and quiet aircraft. I do not think that we had an answer to it. How large a differential is needed to affect the choice of airlines as to whether they buy noisy or quiet aircraft? I am not sure how effective this provision will be. What assessment have the Government made on this matter? How will the change interact with the airlines' commercial decisions on what aircraft they buy? How big will the differential have to be to induce the purchase of quiet aircraft? I hope that the Minister will let us into his thoughts on this matter.
  I suspect that the differential in the landing charges will have to be very large to make much difference to airlines' decisions. If so, the provision will be effective only if there are very large fees for the most noisy aircraft. I cannot believe that it is probable that the quiet aircraft will be heavily subsidised. If the fees were very large, they would be likely in turn to lead to an increase in revenue from the landing charges, at least in the short term and medium term, while there remained a substantial proportion of noisy aircraft.
  That naturally raises the question of how the funds will be applied. I was disappointed when, during the sixth sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister set his face against hypothecation of the revenue or assignment of the revenue either to noise abatement through insulation grants for double glazing or to rate reductions in the areas badly affected by aircraft noise.
  It is right in principle that air travellers should pay a modest surcharge on a differential noise basis to those to whom
  410
  they cause suffering through aircraft noise. It is analogous with the proposition in the Bill that air travellers should pay for the cost of security at airports. The need for sound insulation, like the need for security, is a consequence of their decision to travel by air. That is why they should be made to pay the social cost.
  On 7th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) asked the Secretary of State whether he would reconsider the area covered by the Heathrow noise insulation grant scheme to include areas in his constituency, particularly those directly under the flight paths.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not doing badly earlier, but he is beginning to stray into matters that, as mentioned before, should not be discussed on Third Reading. He should confine himself to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Jessel: I am obliged to you for drawing my attention to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this matter was debated in Committee and it relates directly to what the Minister said then about his intentions in relation to the operation of the Act. That can be verified by studying the Committee Hansard.
  When we were discussing Clause 8 in Committee, the Minister said that the British Airports Authority was considering new proposals for submission and consultation on noise insulation grants I understood that these would be corning forward in May. Will the Minister give every possible support to the Authority to extend the scheme into areas near airports that suffer most acutely from aircraft noise? I include my constituency, not least because of the Minister's recent decision not to alter the Mole Valley flight path. I strongly disagree with that decision and have repeatedly told the Minister so. It is deplorable and wrong. At least he could do something towards putting the matter right by making sure that the BAA considers an extension of the insulation grants scheme.
  Double glazing is not the complete answer to aircraft noise. We cannot double-glaze gardens, and people like to spend time in their gardens during the summer. However, it is a form of partial compensation, and I hope that the Minister will use his influence to see that it is

  411
  started, even though he has said that this would be done not under this Bill but under a previous Act.
  11.44 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey) It is not surprising that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) should have concentrated on Clauses 8 and 9. In considering the wider effects of the Bill, those clauses probable cover a wider catchment than air travellers because they deal with large portions of the population.
  As members of the Committee will know, my involvement is with the Leeds-Bradford Airport, which is shortly to be extended. I echo the grateful thanks for the way in which the Minister has handled our representations and the lengths to which he has gone to meet them. I am grateful for the further information that are likely to be using Leeds-Bradford in 1990.
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that the concern that is expressed by those of us who have airports within our constituencies stems from the continuing problem of trying to satisfy the consumer. Under the proposed new clause we spent a considerable time discussing the consumer, but there is the unwitting consumer whose domestic property happens to be alongside an airport, who also have consideration. Surely it is part of Clauses 8 and 9, and part of the intention of the Bill, that we should offer added protection to consumers.
  I make three points on which I hope that the Minister will care to comment. First, I am disappointed to learn from questions asked of the Department of the Environment that no guidance is given to local authorities on rating valuations for properties adjacent to airports. Under Clause 8 and the power to make byelaws—I know that the power relates to the airport and the immediate vicinity—it might be that local authorities should be given guidance by the Department on exactly the rate reduction that they might consider for the various NNI contours. There would seem to be an omission in that the Department was not able to give information on which airports offer rate reductions and which do not.
  Secondly, I remind the Minister that in the general context of protection against noise we must take into some consideration the EEC directive on product liability. I am aware that that is in an early stage, but I suspect that ultimately the question of damage might come under the scope of the directive that is now being drafted, to try to ensure that the side effects of products are exposed to definition and that the consumer is given adequate protection against them.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman many wish to be reminded that the citizens in all but one of the EEC countries are free to take action in their courts against aircraft noise if they so choose and that no great harm seems to have come to the aeronautical interests in those countries.
  Mr. Shaw: I am well aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which I think he made in Committee. There are many countries that provide their consumers with that degree of redress. However, the consequence of a directive on product liability will have its effect on aircraft, aircraft emission and the side effects of aircraft usage. I suggest that there will be an increasing liability in respect of bodily injury due, for example, to defects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the question of how far we can go with byelaws, or attempts to increase controls on noise, is something that at any given point is finite. I am sure that he will agree that there will be movement as technology and the context of legislation allows it.
  I accept that the Minister probably has to take a stance on this issue at this stage. However—this is my third point—it is sad that aircraft noise, with the clear distress that it causes so many, has not yet found a clear expression in law.
  This is where the hon. Member for Putney is so consistently right. It seems illogical that no legal protection should be given for the considerable nuisance that noise from aircraft provides. However, I can fully understand why that protection is not offered. There is the difficulty of identification owing to the rapid movement overhead that aircraft make. It is not easy for an objection to be lodged that can stand up to examination in a court of law, but it is surely evident to all that it is the cumulative

  413
  effect with which we are primarily dealing in Clauses 8 and 9.
  Sir G. Sinclair: Perhaps it will be easier to bring home to airlines the damage done by certain aircraft when the heavy new planes, which cause serious vortices in the air and which are now lifting tiles and depositing chimney stacks in the roads, become more common. It has already driven the British Airports Authority to insure houses under the direct flight path at Heathrow. Therefore, it will be easier to bring home this damage to individual aircraft.
  Mr. Shaw: Where damage such as that is caused and if bodily injury ensues, a case will presumably lie against the airport operator, if not against the airline. Under the Bill, I think that the airport operator would clearly be liable for redress in the courts on that particular charge.
  I conclude on a matter about which I am extremely concerned—the operation of airports by local authorities. The Minister will know that the airport in my constituency is managed by a local authority. Clauses 8 and 9 offer new powers. I hope that it will be part of the Minister's intention to encourage local authorities to make early and full and vigorous use of these powers.
  It seems to ma that local authorities have two obligations to fulfil, first, to run airports to the maximum standards of consumer acceptability within the area for which they are responsible, and secondly, through their local electors, who are their ratepayers and who in most instances fund the costs of the airport operation, to provide a reasonable return in terms of the standards which they apply to the surrounding vicinity to help people living within the catchment area of the airport.
  Local authorities have a peculiar responsibility for the effectiveness of the Bill. Therefore, it is right that they should discharge those functions to the full and that in due course they should indicate to the Department of Trade and to the Minister they have been able to issue new byelaws and regulations under Clauses 8 and 9. It is important that they be seen to take the lead and to demonstrate that they are responsible not only for the airports and air traffic but for the areas within which airports are located.
  11.53 p.m.
  Mr. Tebbit: Before we send the Bill on its way to another place I want to make a few points.
  This is a ragbag of a Bill. Although primarily concerned with security charges, it is also very much a miscellaneous provisions Bill.
  The Under-Secretary of State knows that we regard the principle of the Bill as being right, on balance. Indeed, I think that he shares that view. There is, of course, the danger of the encouragement of needless costs being incurred under the scheme of charging for security. The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson)—strangely, not with us this evening—has made that point very well indeed on a number of occasions. I think that all of us have accepted the dangers that he pointed out. Oddly enough, the Minister has, too.
  In his letter of 7th February to myself and other members of the Committee, the Minister showed how 68p can become 75p, which grows before one's very eyes to 80p and then inflates again to £1. The hon. Gentleman, in his letter, states that
  "The figures, which I quoted in Committee, of the varying costs per passenger at several airports were based on assumptions of an expenditure of £18·8 million and traffic loads of 25·1 million passengers. As you rightly pointed out in Committee, the average of direct expenditure at airports works out at slightly under 68 pence a head. However, as I said, there has also to be taken into consideration the cost of measures which cannot be attributed to individual airports."
  The letter continues:
  "All in all, these amount to almost 8 pence per passenger which, added to your average, equals the 75 pence which was the figure calculated in October and on which I took my decision of 80 pence for next year."
  The 80p which the Minister sought to charge rapidly became £1, which many airlines were seeking to charge extra on fares to cover the cost of the 80p which the Minister thought was necessary to cover the 75p which was really 68p. That is a classic case of inflation. That tendency must be watched.
  I am sure that the Minister appreciates that in the future his Department must be more active in ensuring that costs are kept down, because there will not be the incentive on airports authorities to keep down their costs in the manner in which airports such as Luton were so successful.

  415
  Secondly, I mention briefly the debate that we had on Clause 11, on the fascinating Pearl Islands affair. That is too complex a matter to go through again, but we are still not happy about it. The Minister was as forthcoming as he felt able to be at that time about the consequences of the action brought against Pearl Islands Tours and an airline, and the possibility of similar action being brought in the future, although not necessarily relating to the narrow point of the Pearl Island Tours case. It is better that that matter be raised again in another place, perhaps at a more leisurely pace, when it can be considered at a more suitable time of day.
  The other major provisions concern the control of aircraft noise. Many hon. Members have sought to protect their constituencies from aircraft noise. Certainly, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) was the source of a number of decibels in that intention. My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) and Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) have been most eloquent in seeking to protect their constituents from aircraft noise.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like myself, must be as surprised as any of us to find that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) again has not taken part in our debates. It would have been an extraordinary occasion if, when the subject of aircraft noise had been debated in the House before October 1974, Mr. James Allason had not been here. It surprises me that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seems to take so little interest in his constituents' affairs in this respect.
  I support the Government's carrot-and-stick approach to aircraft noise. We support the decision to ban non-noise certificated subsonic aircraft after 1st January 1986. It is true that the most suitable aircraft to replace those that will have to go out of use by 1986 may not be available for another three or four years. It is therefore inconceivable that that date can be brought forward without the risk of disruption and grave disadvantage to British flag carriers. The Minister has chosen about the right date. I hope that we shall all benefit from that decision after 1986.
  416
  There is every reason to believe that in overall terms we are almost past the worst of the airborne noise problem. I emphasise the word "overall", for it would be idle to pretend that it is past its worst either at Gatwick or, even more so, at Stansted, where, due to the Government's decision—unspoken as yet—to make Stansted London's third airport there will undoubtedly be a considerable increase in noise over the next few years.
  Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend maintaining that at Heathrow things are past their worst, bearing in mind that the number of aircraft continues to increase, that although some quieter ones are coming in they comprise a relatively small minority, and that it is the frequency as much as the average peak loudness of each flight that causes the annoyance and distress? Will my hon. Friend think again about that?
  Mr. Tebbit: I said that we were approaching the end of the worst—
  Mr. Jessel: Too slowly.
  Mr. Tebbit: Of course it is too slowly. We all wish that it could come more rapidly. But my hon. Friend must accept that the only way in which it could be achieved more rapidly would be by simply stopping the operation of aircraft such as the Tridents and BAC 111s before suitable quiet aircraft are available to operators to replace them. There is a tendency for the replacement of these aircraft because, by happy coincidence, the noisy aircraft are the fuel-hungry aircraft. A strong economic argument exists here, therefore. I do not wish, however, to stray from the Third Reading debate into the airports policy debate that we shall no doubt have at a later date.
  It is a pity that the Minister has not given some indication that under the powers granted to him in this Bill and earlier legislation he will follow up the laying down of individual noise limits with total noise limits, expressed in terms of the loudness of the noise, the time for which it is experienced and the area over which it is experienced. I believe that we could lay down such limits and that once people had seen a clear limit laid down they would more readily accept that it would be lowered in the future and that reducing noise limits could be laid down for the years ahead.

  417
  The Minister is right, by this Bill, to keep in his hands the control of noise rather than allowing it to become a matter for litigation by private citizens in the courts. In spite of what may be thought, citizens of other countries who can sue in respect of aircraft noise do not live in serene and silent worlds. Their chief liberty seems to be that of contributing thousands, if not millions of dollars to lawyers and to get very little out of it. The hon. Member for Putney knows full well that in spite of all the money that was spent at New York, Concorde is arriving there and thousands of much noisier aircraft, like the old-fashioned 707s, are flying over the houses creating just as much noise as at Heathrow and Gatwick.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in one respect, if in no other. Because of the existence of the ability to sue, those countries have had to pay much more attention to the sitting of airports than has been paid in this country. If the legislation that I want had existed over the years it is impossible to think that Heathrow would have built up to its present size.
  Mr. Tebbit: I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman has never been to La Guardia or Kennedy airport, because there the powers that the hon. Gentleman would like are in the hands of the citizen, but the sites of those airports are certainly no more ideal, and probably a great deal less so, than that of Heathrow.
  No doubt we shall return to this subject time and time again, but I think this Bill represents a few useful steps forward in the control of aircraft noise, as well as in other matters. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading tonight.
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: It was fairly predictable that this Third Reading debate would revolve almost entirely around the question of noise, but I should like to say one other thing at the beginning.
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who has, by and large, taken a constructive view of these matters upstairs, made a thoroughly unfair attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), who happens to be an assiduous and energetic Member, as is widely recognised on both
  418
  sides of the House. I could ask the hon. Member why his hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), Esher (Mr. Mather) and Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) are not here. They may all have good reasons for not being here, and it is unworthy, unless the hon. Member has made some inquiries about my hon. Friend's absence, to make that sort of point.
  Mr. Tebbit: I think the Minister will find, if he checks, that the three hon. Members he selected were here for the Second Reading debate, whereas the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) has not been present at any stage.
  Mr. Davis: He may, for all I know and all the hon. Member knows, have been unable to attend on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman should not make these personal attacks without being sure of the reason, which is sometimes illness. Sometimes there are constituency reasons. The hon. Member for Chingford himself is sometimes not here for a wide variety of debates.
  However, I do not wish to become involved in a side issue which does not reflect great credit on the hon. Member for Chingford who raised it.
  I want to tell hon. Members who have been kind to me in their remarks that I appreciate that, but that there are limits to the ability of any Minister holding my office to respond to their perfectly natural demands. I do not believe that I have forsaken the interests of those who suffer from noise disturbance. I have no intention of doing that, and I give an undertaking that I will fight hard to make sure that those interests are respected.
  It was Dave Allen who said that to maintain a balance one needed a chip on both shoulders. In my case it would need not so much a chip as the gentle dropping of an axe from both parties to the conflict of interests which arises.
  Mr. Jessel: If the Minister had had a chip on his shoulder he would not have threatened to drop anything which would cause anyone else to have a chip on his.
  Mr. Davis: That is very helpful at 12.10 a.m., but I shall not follow it up.
  There are two conflicting interests here and there is a requirement that we should begin to try to understand the other's

  419
  case, not just pay lip service to it, as occasionally happens. By that I mean that we must appreciate that it is vital to have a vigorous and energetic airline industry. There can be no doubt of that.
  On the other hand, the industry has to recognise, and does recognise, that noise is a deeply disturbing factor which not only seriously affects convenience but impairs the ability to make a full contribution through work as a result of what is suffered through day and night.
  This is a matter which needs investigating through medical research and is not something one can counter by effective response without looking very deeply into it. There can be no victors in this matter, because it is impossible for one interest to eliminate the other. Common sense dictates that a reasonable balance is struck between the two sides. That is what I have been trying to do.
  There is a third limit—the need for restraint in public expenditure. Unlike many Conservative Members, I am a believer in a high level of public expenditure, because without that one cannot sustain the fabric of the social services which need to be sustained. I listened with interest to some proposals made for large increase in public expenditure to meet this need. But there is a competition order of priorities for public expenditure which we cannot ignore. I represent Hackney, Central, where we have problems over our hospitals and housing. The Government must weigh all these matters carefully.
  Some of the proposals would cost billions of pounds. Some would represent an enormous call on local or central Government expenditure. Even the limited proposal made in correspondence to me to cover depreciation of houses within the existing 55 NNI contour could cost £70 million-plus, for a nuisance which in any event is calculated to be much reduced by 1990.
  Mr. Jessel Mr. Jessel rose—
  Mr. Davis: I shall not give way. Hon. Members have made their points and I do not think that it would be right for me to give way at this hour. I want to speak for only five minutes.
  When hon. Members make calls for in- creased public expenditure they have a
  420
  duty to say what they want covered. To which places is the expenditure to be limited? Is it to be confined to Gatwick? How is to be applied? What are the costs? What are the repercussive effects? What are the effects on the airlines? Often nothing specific is put forward.
  Mr. Michael Marshall Mr. Michael Marshall(Arundel) rose—
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has not participated in the debate, and it is very late, so I shall not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) has campaigned vigorously over a number of years for the sort of measures about which he has spoken during these debates, particularly in Committee. I have great sympathy with what he says, but I do not think that his proposals represent the sort of panacea that might be implied from some of his remarks.
  I do not believe that where they have the right to sue, people have had great benefits conferred upon them. I believe that that right would mean a proliferation of legal actions. Who am I to complain about that? There would be seen to be a nuisance value, but it would not be to attack the problem at source, which is what the Government are trying to do in their measures. I want to see quieter aircraft—
  Sir Anthony Royle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Davis: I shall give way once.
  Sir A. Royle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I have been following carefully. If the other members of the European Community can have this sort of legislation, why cannot we? Why should we be different from our partners in the Community?
  Mr. Davis: That is not an argument that has always appealed to me. Sometimes I have felt that it is a distinct disadvantage to have legislation simply because other members of the Community have it. If any hon. Member could explain how the citizen in Germany or elsewhere is in any way better off in practical terms, which is what I am concerned about, perhaps I should look at the matter again. But no evidence of that has ever been adduced.

  421
  My hon. Friend wanted to do away with Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. A particular aircraft that had caused the difficulty would still have to be identified, and that is not easy. As I pointed out in Committee, Section 40 protection does not extend to all cases. An aircraft must comply with the requirements of the various Statutory Instruments as well. If it commits a breach of duty the aircraft owner is not protected. I shall not go into that, because it was all rehearsed earlier in Committee.
  The Government are attacking the noise situation at source. We are proposing to engage with the BAA in discussing, by May, proposals that the BAA will put forward to deal with noise mitigation, possibly through a noise insulation scheme, which will replace that which is now ended. We have continued the use of runway alteration. We are phasing out flights by the noisier aircraft at night at

  Division No. 131]

  AYES

  [12.16 a.m.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, John

  Noble, Mike

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Graham, Ted

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hardy, Peter

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bates, Alf

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Park, George

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hooley, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hunter, Adam

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Sever, John

  Campbell, Ian

  John, Brynmor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Snape, Peter

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cowans, Harry

  Kerr, Russell

  Stott, Roger

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lambie, David

  Tinn, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Urwin, T. W.

  Cryer, Bob

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ward, Michael

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Deakins, Eric

  McCartney, Hugh

  White, James (Pollok)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Dempsey, James

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Woodall, Alec

  Doig, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Woof, Robert

  Dormand, J. D.

  Magee, Bryan

  Dunn, James A.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Ford, Ben

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  NOES

  Hicks, Robert

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Knox, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Mr. Hugh Jenkins and

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Sir George Sinclair

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. I am sure that the authority at Luton will follow, and I am sure, too, that other local authorities will abide by the injunctions that we have put down here.
  We are giving local authorities that run airports the opportunity to discriminate through their charging policy between noisy and quieter aircraft. I shall not dictate how they use those powers. That is a matter for them. But they are accountable to their electorates.
  I believe that we are dealing with this matter sensibly and rationally. We are combining the interests of both parties to this matter. I believe that is only by doing that that we can realistically make progress into the future.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 73, Noes 6.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 22nd November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Overseas Development be amended, by leaving out Sir Bernard Braine and Mr. Michael Grylls and inserting Mr. Paul Dean and Mr. Peter Bottomley.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

BROADCASTING MATERIAL (PRESERVATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
12.27 a.m.
Mr. Bryan Magee: The basic consideration underlying my motion can be stated very simply. It is that we as a society have not yet woken up to the fact that, with the development of audio-visual material, chiefly used on television and in film, we have acquired a form of historical source-material which is comparable in bulk, interest and importance with the printed record, and that because we have failed to wake up to this fact, we make nothing like the necessary institutional arrangements for its preservation, nor do we make the necessary financial arrangements for its preservation.
I wish to bring these shortcomings to the attention of Her Majesty's Government and to the Minister responsible. The enormous importance of the film and television material that is being made in such huge quantities every day can be brought home if we try to imagine what it would be like if we were now in possession of extensive film of most of the major battles of history, the wars and all the social events of history—if we had on film extensive interviews with most of the major political leaders and military commanders of the past; or if we had interviews with Shakespeare, Beethoven, and so forth.
If we had that kind of material in extenso, it would make a tremendous difference to the whole character of our cultural heritage and to our whole conception of our past. Yet it is precisely this kind of material that we are now making in immense quantities and will continue to be making from this age onwards. We are not keeping enough of it. It would be untrue to say that nothing is
424
being done, though, and I should like very swiftly to outline the existing arrangements, because I wish to go on to criticise their shortcomings.
The British Film Institute monitors the entire television output in this country. It requests between 5 per cent, and 10 per cent, of the material for preservation, but it gets by no means everything it requests. It is given some. It has to buy the rest. It gets, of its request, about 45 per cent, from the ITV companies and a drastically lower figure, between 12 per cent., and 15 per cent., from the BBC.
There are reasons for that discrepancy. The chief one is that the ITV companies tend to use the British Film Institute as their own archives and, therefore, not to attempt to do themselves what they subsidise the institute to do. I say "subsidise", because they give it a quite generous grant to carry out its activities. That grant for the coming financial year will be £40,000.
The BBC gives the British Film Institute nothing, for two basic reasons. The first is that the BBC thinks it would be wrong to give, in the form of grant to another institution, the licence payers' money. The other is that the BBC carries out the institute's function for itself; it has enormous archives of its own.
During the coming year, the British Film Institute will be getting £30,000 from the Department of Education and Science, and the informed "guesstimate" of the people concerned in the British Film Institute is that they are likely to spend about £12,000 of this on buying ITV material and £18,000 on buying BBC material. The reason for the difference in those figures is that the BBC's output is very much higher, not least because there are two channels.
That is the basic situation as it operates at the moment, and it is thoroughly unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Only a couple of years ago the BBC set up an archives advisory committee, and its terms of reference begin with a phrase which reveals in or between the lines most of what is wrong with the BBC system. The terms of reference begin with the words:
"Given that the BBC's income from licence fees should be used primarily for broadcasting purposes and that accordingly its archival policies should have as their main object the

425
preservation of those items and categories of material required for its own re-use or reference purposes.…"
In other words, first, the BBC's archival policy is based on the assumption that the archives are for it, the BBC, for its own use and reference, which strikes me as being obviously far too narrow and far too self-regarding a consideration. Secondly, the BBC, as these terms of reference make clear, is reluctant to spend money on making and keeping archives. Because of the present licence fee system, it has nothing like enough money to make the programmes, let alone keep them, and, of course, keeping archives on film and video-tape is extremely expensive—the tapes are expensive in themselves and the costs of storing are, in the nature of things, ever growing.
A third serious objection to the way the BBC conducts its archives at present is that it does not make them freely available to scholars and other people from outside. It makes access so difficult and so expensive that, for practical purposes, most of the people who would want to make use of those archives cannot really be said to have access to them.
A different shortcoming of the present system is this. I mentioned a moment ago that the British Film Institute monitored everything shown on television, requested between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of it for keeping, and got very much less. It is inherent in this situation that it can preserve only what is transmitted. There is one important part of television whose nature is such that a great deal of value is lost before it reaches the screen, and that is news film, which is perhaps most important of all in the context of this debate.
Every day the BBC and Independent Television News receive enormous quantities of newsreel film from all over the world, which obviously show some of the most dramatic and interesting events in various parts of the world. These vast quantities of film have to be cut down for use in television news bulletins. They are cut down to the half-minute or one-minute clips that we see on our screens day after day, and in the process the rest of the film is usually—not always—thrown away. One ends up with tiny clips of film, full of joins, and usually covered with scratches, and in nearly all cases this is all there is to be considered
426
for preservation. In this process film of great historical interest for the future is lost. In practice, whatever guidelines and rules of conduct may appear in print, the actual selection process of this material is extremely haphazard.
We need something in the audio-visual field that is similar to the British Library. We make very carefully instituted arrangements—quite rightly—for the printed word. The British Library has a copy of everything published under copyright in this country, and comes as near as possible to making and keeping a complete record of the printed word. We spend substantial amounts of money—and rightly so—on the preservation of our heritage in the form of buildings, pictures, objects of art, ancient institutions, but when it comes to this new form of historical source material, which is so enormous in scope, so great in impact, and so self-evidently destined to be of importance and value not only to future historians but to ordinary members of society, there are no statutory arrangements for its preservation.
Neither the BBC nor ITV is under any statutory obligation to preserve material. They do so voluntarily, but in both cases it is, in some ways, against their interests. The BBC is seriously short of money, and every penny spent on preserving programmes is a penny off making new ones. The ITV companies are in business to make a profit, and they are not too keen on the substantial sums involved in preserving archives which, however used, cannot generate enough income to cover their costs.
What we need is a national institute, which can develop perhaps out of the existing British Film Institute. This would be a national depository of audiovisual material whose job would be to acquire and preserve such material. Such a body should be publicly funded for these purposes. I should like to see all the other bodies concerned enjoined by statute to make their material available to it. For example, I should like to see the new broadcasting and television licences, when they are awarded—as no doubt they will be—to the BBC and independent television companies, contain a clause requiring those bodies to deposit material with the National Film Archive, just as publishers are required to deposit with copyright libraries copies of all the books

427
they publish. Appropriate funds for this would have to come from public sources, because there are no others they could come from.
12.40 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) for raising an unusual subject, and unusually interesting subject. As one who is fascinated by history and who recognises—perhaps this is a sign of increasing age—the grip that nostalgia exerts over many people, I clearly see both the relevance and the importance of this subject.
Those who have seen the home film series "Caught in Time" on BBC 2 will not need to be told of the importance of preserving visual images of our times Neither can we underestimate the importance for historians and future generations of having a much better picture of what it was like to live in former times than we have of our past. Indeed, those who live 100 years hence cannot but have a much more graphic picture of our times than we have, for example, of a comparable time—the era of the American Civil War.
Paradoxically, we are in danger in this age of producing too much material. For example, the BBC produces 15 million feet of film per year. Unless infinite resources are to be devoted to such a project, there is bound to be competition between the sorts of records we preserve, whether it be the printed word, the still picture, the gramophone record, or all the varieties of film available.
Almost inevitably, we are not in any position—this seems to happen on so many occasions—to make a clear choice as to a method, nor are we in an uncluttered field. There are existing sources and institutions. It is worth while for me to deal with a few of them, to put the matter on the record.
The BBC has a script library which has, it is said, 6 million papers. The Radio Times Hulton Picture Library has over 6 million photographs. The gramophone library of the BBC has 1 million records. The film library has about 250,000 cans of film. As my hon. Friend said, the IBA makes grants to the National Film Archive, together with a
428
Department of Education and Science grant, and also gives some free material. So there is some preservation of material for future generations.
The recently published Annan Report shows that that committee considered this question and made recommendations which have not as yet engaged as much attention as they should have. The committee urged the BBC, the ITV companies and the National Film Archive, which is part of the British Film Institute to get together to discuss common indexing of catalogues—for example, to facilitate the incorporation of material in the national film archives.
The Annan Committee also recommended that all recordings and transmitted programmes for which no further use was found by either the companies or the corporation should be distributed at cost with perhaps £5,000-worth a year being supplied free. It suggested, thirdly, that some of those closely involved should be offered the tapes at replacement price, again if they were not required.
We are now consulting the various bodies about the Annan recommendations. I shall deal with one or two of the comments which have been received—some from bodies I have enumerated. The proliferation of bodies involved in the preservation of archives will thus be seen. One such body is the British Institute of Recorded Sound, which acquires broadcast recordings and has 300,000 tapes from the BBC. It is probably one of the largest collections in the world.
Another and more unlikely but significant body which has commented is the Imperial War Museum, which has 14 million feet of tape, much of it preserved by agreement with the BBC. It has expressed the wish that it should have a voice in any future scheme on the acquisition of material. However, the main comments have naturally come from the two corporations, and in the main they turn on the fact that the third recommendation—that is, the tendering to people closely connected with programmes—is impracticable having regard to the copyright laws.
For some time the BBC has had the archives advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Briggs, looking at its policy in this field. I accept what

429
my hon. Friend says, that no individual corporation can take the place of a national body if that is what we, as a country, choose to have. I understand that the committee is likely to report in the autumn, notwithstanding the strictures of my hon. Friend about its terms of reference and the stringency of finance. It may have something to say not only about the policy in general but about a policy which is capable of adoption.
There are three main difficulties, certainly with any national archive. First, what material is to be preserved? How should we differentiate between types of programme or types of material? I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that we were in danger of swamping ourselves. Much of the volume of what is produced in television is seen to be of little lasting significance. Even many news items are of only one day's or possibly two days' interest. Certainly they are not of lasting significance.
My hon. Friend must face the fact—and he and I have discussed this matter, so that I know something of his thinking—that there is a dilemma. If we were unselective and preserved not only what was there but what might have been there but was cut out of broadcasting, the volume of what we would preserve would be enormous. On the other hand, I concede that when one starts to be selective about what one should keep one imposes a doubly subjective standard. First, there is the subjective standard of what the cameraman takes, and that is a selection which is all too rarely realised by many people. But, in addition, there is the editor's selection of the selection, as it were.
I believe that it is possible, with a poor form of selection of the material we wish to keep as opposed to that we wish to discard, to have as unobjective a view of history of our times as was Macaulay's a "History of England".
Mr. Magee: Does my hon. Friend concede that the tenor of his argument supports the view that, since any criteria of selection are bound to be controversial, and since what is thought to be important at one time may seem unimportant five or 10 years later, and vice versa—we often have great interest in past events which people at the time did not share—these become reasons for having wider rather than narrower criteria for selection? They
430
are arguments for copious preservation of material rather than mean-minded preservation of material.
Mr. John: I understand that fully. I am rehearsing the arguments because it is right that we should face these issues. There is too little public discussion, but what my hon. Friend said, and his use of the adjective "copious", means that the institutional arrangements for housing the material will be a considerable task. Perhaps the material would be kept for some time before being weeded out, with all the problems that that would cause, but that would merely be delaying the selection rather than avoiding it.
The housing of such material would demand not only a large, but an ever-expanding building, because the material would never, save through its own inherent decay, be thrown out. We have to consider a housing programme of considerable magnitude and the demand of the other nations in the British Isles for the preservation of their material—probably in separate accommodation.
The question of cost is closely related to these other matters. In evidence to the Annan Committee, the BBC said that keeping all broadcast material for one year would cost £415,000 in initial outlay on tapes, £240,000 in capital cost and £165,000 in operating costs. The IBA put the total cost for the same period at £1·2 million, with £400,000 running costs. We are talking of very large sums, especially when they are coupled with the costs of buildings. Of course, a fourth channel will add significantly to broadcasting output. The corporation says that if there is any spare money it should be devoted to the primary role of producing material rather than being subservient to historical records.
As my hon. Friend fairly pointed out, this is likely to be a Government expense and it is for the nation to ponder its priorities and the probable expenditure and to weigh up what it wants to do. That is why I welcome the debate. It is necessary for us to make a decision. The Annan Committee said that at the moment the cost of a national archive was prohibitive, but that should not inhibit our discussions.
I look forward to the results of the Briggs Committee. My hon. Friend has raised an important subject and I have

431
deliberately put some of the difficulties because we should not approach the matter unconscious of them.
I am conscious that the selectivity mentioned by my hon. Friend in the retention of material can manipulate the future's view of our generation as easily as the selection—sometimes to a disgraceful degree—by some newspapers can distort the view of society of even those living now. The recent television programme on what was and was not shown in the pre-war film newsreels was an interesting example of the way in which selectivity of presentation can mould our images.
I say as a cautionary note that our age is insatiable in entertainment, diversion, knowledge and education. It is not only self-consciously important films and subjects that will be regarded by the future as truly important. Often, the most glittering insight into an age can come almost accidentally from a side shaft of light on a work of art or from books or pieces of music. They can tell us much more than those that set out to describe the age in a conscious manner. I believe that it will not be possible for us to capture everything for posterity, but
432
I hope that we can provide some practical, practicable and balanced way of showing our great grandchildren, or more remote descendants, what we were really like. The Government should be neither indifferent nor complacent.
Indeed, we are not indifferent or complacent. We would welcome contributions in this area. This is to be the year of broadcasting and television debates. That is inevitable with Annan and the renewal of licences to cover the pre-Annan period. It is clear that such matters will loom large in our discussions.
I hope that we shall all retain a proper sense of proportion about what we want to retain, out of the present production that beguiles us every week, to show our descendants. By so doing I believe that we can produce a matchless historical record and a matchless source of fascinating speculation, or information, about what our society was like. I shall be ready to continue the debate with my hon. Friends and any other hon. Members who are interested.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.

  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  EGYPTIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
  EGYPTIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NORTHFLEET
  NORTHFLEET
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL
  UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL
  BELGIUM (PRIME MINISTER)
  BELGIUM (PRIME MINISTER)
  ECONOMIC PROSPECTS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC PROSPECTS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  LUXEMBOURG (PRIME MINISTER)
  LUXEMBOURG (PRIME MINISTER)
  GLASGOW
  GLASGOW
  HARTFORD
  HARTFORD
  "THE PENCOURT FILE"
  "THE PENCOURT FILE"
  VAGABONDS
  VAGABONDS
  HUXLEY
  HUXLEY
  THATCHAM
  THATCHAM
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Fire Sprinklers
  Fire Sprinklers
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Trade Directories
  Trade Directories
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Latin American Refugees
  Latin American Refugees
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
  Water Safety (Report)
  Water Safety (Report)
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Temporary Admissions
  Temporary Admissions
  Urban Deprivation Unit and Race Relations and Legislation Unit
  Urban Deprivation Unit and Race Relations and Legislation Unit
  Immigration Personnel
  Immigration Personnel
  Race Relations Research
  Race Relations Research
  Immigrants (European Community Countries)
  Immigrants (European Community Countries)
  Mr. Geoffrey Harry Elliott
  Mr. Geoffrey Harry Elliott
  International Social Service of Great Britain
  International Social Service of Great Britain
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Terrorist Activity (Arrested Persons)
  Terrorist Activity (Arrested Persons)
  National Front (Meetings)
  National Front (Meetings)
  Police (Attacks)
  Police (Attacks)
  Schoolchildren (Employment)
  Schoolchildren (Employment)
  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Immigrants Advisory Service
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Schoolchildren (Non-attendance)
  Schoolchildren (Non-attendance)
  Maintenance Payments
  Maintenance Payments
  European Community Membership (Referendum)
  European Community Membership (Referendum)
  Electoral Registration (Wales)
  Electoral Registration (Wales)
  General Election (Welsh Seats)
  General Election (Welsh Seats)
  Probation and After-care Service
  Probation and After-care Service
  Marches (London)
  Marches (London)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Vagabonds
  Vagabonds
WALES
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Flooding (North Wales)
  Flooding (North Wales)
ENVIRONMENT
  National Parks (Access Agreements)
  National Parks (Access Agreements)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Hampton Court (Gardeners)
  Hampton Court (Gardeners)
  Treasury Grants (Ilford)
  Treasury Grants (Ilford)
  Easter Recreation Projects
  Easter Recreation Projects
  Chiswick House
  Chiswick House
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Construction Contracts
  Construction Contracts
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Housing Survey
  Housing Survey
  Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
TRANSPORT
  A66 (Stainmore Summit-Penrith)
  A66 (Stainmore Summit-Penrith)
  North Devon Link Road
  North Devon Link Road
  A590 (Levins Bridge-Barrow)
  A590 (Levins Bridge-Barrow)
  Rural Areas Study
  Rural Areas Study
  Bus Services (London)
  Bus Services (London)
  Fares
  Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Disabled Persons (Car Badges)
  Disabled Persons (Car Badges)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Argentina (World Cup Visits)
  Argentina (World Cup Visits)
SCOTLAND
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Electoral Registration
  Electoral Registration
  Local Authority Elections (Voting)
  Local Authority Elections (Voting)
  Building Society Special Fund (Applications)
  Building Society Special Fund (Applications)
  Clean Air Act 1956
  Clean Air Act 1956
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Veterinary Services (Cost)
  Veterinary Services (Cost)
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Secondary School Expulsions
  Secondary School Expulsions
  Public Lending Right
  Public Lending Right
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Education Services (Ilford)
  Education Services (Ilford)
  Independent Schools (Academic Staff)
  Independent Schools (Academic Staff)
TRADE
  Heart of England Tourist Board
  Heart of England Tourist Board
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Wrecks
  Wrecks
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
INDUSTRY
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Companies (Nationalisation)
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Companies (Nationalisation)
  Micro-electronics
  Micro-electronics
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Royal Naval Pay and Records Office
  Royal Naval Pay and Records Office
  Employment Trends
  Employment Trends
  Cadbury Typhoo Ltd.
  Cadbury Typhoo Ltd.
  Pay Settlements (Notification)
  Pay Settlements (Notification)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Gas, Electricity and Water Industries
  Gas, Electricity and Water Industries
  Youth Opportunities Scheme
  Youth Opportunities Scheme
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  European Community Ministers
  European Community Ministers
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Pay Settlements (Scrutiny)
  Pay Settlements (Scrutiny)
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group
  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Norfolk
  Norfolk
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  Pay Settlements (Government Action)
  New Earnings Survey
  New Earnings Survey
  Wales and South-East England
  Wales and South-East England
  Newton
  Newton
  Employment Subsidies
  Employment Subsidies
  Coventry
  Coventry
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Chemical Plant Fire (Chatteris)
  Chemical Plant Fire (Chatteris)
  European Social Fund (Applications)
  European Social Fund (Applications)
DEFENCE
  Foreign Governments (Military Assistance)
  Foreign Governments (Military Assistance)
  Civilian Pay and Record Office, Cheadle Hulme
  Civilian Pay and Record Office, Cheadle Hulme
  Pay Review Body
  Pay Review Body
  Island Class Ships
  Island Class Ships
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  8-tonne Load Carrier
  8-tonne Load Carrier
  Harpoon Missile
  Harpoon Missile
  Belize (Official Visits)
  Belize (Official Visits)
  Submarines (Armament)
  Submarines (Armament)
  Infantry Demonstration Battalion
  Infantry Demonstration Battalion
  Royal Navy Coastal Division
  Royal Navy Coastal Division
ENERGY
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
  War Reserve Stocks
  War Reserve Stocks
  Departmental Staff (Travel)
  Departmental Staff (Travel)
  Gas Explosion (Brentford)
  Gas Explosion (Brentford)
  Participation Agreements
  Participation Agreements
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Employment Forecasts
  Employment Forecasts
  Bank and Public Holidays
  Bank and Public Holidays
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Divers
  Divers
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Commercial Vessels (Boarding Procedures)
  Commercial Vessels (Boarding Procedures)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Government Grants (Job Creation)
  Government Grants (Job Creation)
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Taxation
  Taxation
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Craigavon New City (Crematorium)
  Craigavon New City (Crematorium)
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Social Services
  Social Services
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Immigration Personnel
  Immigration Personnel
  Early Retirement Schemes
  Early Retirement Schemes
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Huntington's Chorea
  Huntington's Chorea
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Social Workers (Training)
  Social Workers (Training)
  Calderdale and Kirklees
  Calderdale and Kirklees
  Drug Abase (Deaths)
  Drug Abase (Deaths)
  Community Nurses (Yorkshire)
  Community Nurses (Yorkshire)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Hospitals (Mixed Wards)
  Hospitals (Mixed Wards)
  Training Centres (Remuneration)
  Training Centres (Remuneration)
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  Pay Beds (Leeds)
  Pay Beds (Leeds)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Microbiological Research Establishment
  Microbiological Research Establishment
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
  Personal Social Services (Expenditure)
  Personal Social Services (Expenditure)
  Vagabonds
  Vagabonds
  Pregnancy Tests
  Pregnancy Tests
  Low Income Groups and Children
  Low Income Groups and Children

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

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE: FORCES' PAY
Lord SHINWELL: 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 decision to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. between now and 1980 will include increases in the pay of all ranks in the Forces.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, our intention is to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. a year in real terms in 1979–80 and 1980–81, subject, in the case of the latter year, to review in the light of our economic circumstances. Since public expenditure planning is carried out at constant survey prices, no allowance is made in these plans for future pay and prices increases. Provision will be made for such increases when the time comes, and will be additional to the 3 per cent. real increase.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am very grateful for that informative reply, but does it not indicate that we require two debates on the subject of defence: one, the ordinary debate on defence, the question of whether we can afford another 3 per cent. and what effect it will have; and the other, in the event of a recommendation by the Review Board affecting pay and allowances, a debate on manpower and salary questions? Would it not require two debates?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I made no such implication. I am not in a position to arrange what debates are undertaken. These are matters for the usual channels.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, bearing in mind the various productivity schemes and schemes for job re-assessment which have been awarded to many wage earners and which have led to an increase in their take-home pay in excess of 10 per cent., will Her Majesty's Government take urgent measures to devise steps similar to these schemes for the Armed Forces so that the "x" factor may be properly respected and in order to acknowledge and recognise the many non-military tasks that have consistently been given to the Armed Forces?
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, we all await the report of the Armed Forces Review Body, and I think that it might be more appropriate to discuss this matter when we know what recommendations they will make to Her Majesty's Government.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, although my noble friend has no authority to determine procedure in the matter of debates, would he not agree that it would be invidious if we had a defence debate only to discover that the majority of noble Lords wanted to talk about manpower, pay and allowances—a very important subject—and thus not talk about defence at all? Would he not agree to make representations to his right honourable friend and to my noble friend the Chief Whip to convey to other Chief Whips that we might have two debates, one distinctly to consider defence, and the other to consider the question of manpower, pay and allowances?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said earlier. My noble friends are listening and they will decide what course the House should take in conjunction with noble Lords opposite.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
2.40 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: 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 agree that only the adoption of proportional representation will

359
make politicians put the national interest first and Party interest second, and thus avoid constant changes by both Parties on issues such as wage restraint.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, no. I do not think that the pursuit of the national interest depends on the adoption of any particular electoral system.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether, in fact, he saw the Liberal Party broadcast; and, if he did so, does he not think that there were strong and cogent arguments for the substance of the Question that I have raised?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I regret to say that I did not see the last Liberal Party broadcast.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, has my noble friend considered how many seats that proportional representation would give to the National Front in the House of Commons?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is no doubt an issue which can be discussed when this House addresses itself to this particular issue, as it does, if 1 may say so, with considerable frequency.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that last remark is totally incorrect and it has been proved to be so? Any proportional representation system which has a threshold of 5 per cent. or more makes it quite impossible—as it has in West Germany—for a neo-Nazi Party to rise in any country.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this rather strengthens my feeling that this issue can be discussed more appropriately on a substantive Motion rather than at Question Time.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the national interest would be served by the introduction of a second ballot to enable an enlightened electorate either to confirm or to correct its decision on the first ballot?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without, I hope, repeating myself, I think that issues of this sort are matters for debate rather than Question Time.

THE HOSPITAL SERVICE: URGENT ADMISSIONS
2.42 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: 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 can confirm the report in the Sunday Times of 5th February that 62 per cent. of urgent cases are admitted to hospitals after waiting at least a month.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I confirm that the figures of "urgent" cases awaiting hospital admission quoted in the Sunday Times on 5th February last are correct: that is, there were 38,373 patients with conditions classified as "urgent" awaiting admission at 31st March 1977. of whom about 62 per cent. had been waiting for over one month.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, do the Government agree that this is a deplorable situation? What steps do they hope to take to remedy it in view of the fact that these figures are nearly one year old?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is very difficult to give an adequate answer to the noble Lord in a short reply. One has to bear in mind that the incidence of illness among the elderly is very considerable because we have an increasing elderly population. The types of operation now possible are very different, complex and numerous. Today, we are supplying all sorts of "spare parts" surgery, such as replacement hips. A great many operations for orthopaedic conditions are long, involved and expensive.
There are a number of factors which make it difficult to give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer. I would point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently said that £9½ million would be available to help regional health authorities, through their area health authorities, to come to grips

361
with this particular problem. We have been told that, if there could be renovation of operating theatres, the provision of new operating theatres, restoration of wards and the creation of new wards, it would all help—as indeed it would—to reduce the waiting lists. The sum of £92 million has been made available in the forthcoming year to enable area health authorities to do precisely that.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if all the area authorities have made representations, and how their claims are going to be met in order to be fair?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that the area represented at one time by the noble Baroness has certainly put its claim in.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the length of the waiting list varies very much according to the specialty and the hospital, district or region in which the hospital exists? In view of that, would it not be a very good idea if the Department were to get in touch with the chairman of the medical board in hospitals in which the waiting list was particularly long and ask for his comments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has a vast experience in this field. I agree entirely with what he said in the first part of his question. So far as the second part is concerned, I do not know whether my right honourable friend is in direct touch with the chairmen; I will certainly bring it to his notice. I am grateful for the comment.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, as it has been the policy of the Government to close down certain hospitals—maybe for adequate reasons—is it not a fact that every time a hospital is closed several operating theatres are also closed? That is one of the reasons why people have to wait so long for operations.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is not so. A hospital is not closed unless, first, there is a very good reason
362
for doing so; and, secondly, similar facilities are available at not too great a distance.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, similar facilities but not so many.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether any priority is given to surgical cases that are waiting, for those who are in real pain? It is so distressing to hear that somebody in great pain may have to wait over a month to be admitted to hospital.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this term "urgent" is very difficult to define. All emergency cases—and, at some period, they could have been "urgent" cases—are admitted immediately and are dealt with. The rest of the urgent cases are dealt with as quickly as possible. There are priorities, and those priorities are determined by the consultant. Where it is possible to hold one case back for another which is more urgent, this is done. Where there is considerable pain, this is a clinical matter on which I could not rule other than to say that, from my own personal knowledge, a good many people who experience pain receive the benefits of modern science to overcome it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord have any figures to show whether this situation regarding urgent cases has become better or worse over the past three or four years?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to be perfectly honest, it has fluctuated. It depends on a number of factors which I have tried to explain. We have to bear in mind that there is a considerable pressure on our hospitals. For example, last year over 5¼ million patients were treated as in-patients. That is a number which has never been reached in the past; it is an all-time record. At the same time, 7½ million new out-patients were seen during 1976. In addition to that, there were half a million day cases. There is considerable pressure on the hospitals. To go back to the noble Earl's question, the "urgent" list does fluctuate.

FORD WAGE INCREASES AND THE GUIDELINES
2.48 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 recent agreement by the Ford Motor Company for wage increases to their employees was in the Government view within the Government guidelines.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, the Ford settlement was reached in October 1977. It was within the guidelines in so far as it observed the 12-month rule. As to the amounts paid, it was a complicated settlement; and while it included increases for some groups within the company of just over 8 per cent. there were in other cases higher increases. Its overall effect was to increase earnings by more than the 10 per cent. guideline. In so far as that settlement exceeded the 10 per cent. guideline, the Government regret it.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this: How does he reconcile the substantial grant of assistance to this company in respect of their new engine factory in South Wales with the very firm assertion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in this House on 8th February, that those who broke the guidelines would not receive Government money?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the House will realise, as the country certainly does, that the Government have to look at each individual case on its merits. The grant of assistance in relation to the Welsh project is one thing; pay policy is another. The House will surely appreciate, as I am certain the country does as well, that the Ford settlement was one of the first to be made. The Government had to look at it very carefully indeed, and at that time it was conceived that, although the aim was to have a 10 per cent. increase, and no more, in the national earnings, it was possible that some wage settlements
364
might exceed that 10 per cent. provided that others fell below it. Of course, that has not turned out to be the case and the Government are now determined to ensure that cases, whether in the public or private sector, will not exceed the 10 per cent. guidelines.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord appreciate that smaller companies which have granted no larger increases than Ford, but which have been blacklisted, will be left with the unhappy suspicion that the real reason for the discrimination in favour of Ford is that they are big and formidable and that it is easier to trample on a small company?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, that suspicion is wholly preposterous. The Sun Alliance, which is a kind of offshoot of the Conservative Party, is certainly a big enough company and the Government have challenged the company's settlement and challenged it so far successfully. It is not size that matters. What matters, and what I think the country realises—as noble Lords opposite, with their "Hear, hear!", do not seem to realise—is that this policy is being successful. That is what matters.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there is nothing new about Governments who have sanctions of this type using them in a flexible way? For example, a succession of Tory Governments used the sanctions of the fair wages clause—
A noble Lord: That is the other way!
Lord LEE of NEWTON: —against certain companies and not against others. Is the noble and learned Lord aware also that, in the other place last Thursday, the Tory spokesmen were saying that the present level of increases is running at 14 to 15 per cent? Ought not the Government to be congratulated in having made this very good agreement at 12 per cent?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I certainly would not want to go along wholeheartedly with the last few words of

365
my noble friend; but Ministers in this instance, as in all instances, have to take into account not just the overriding priority of combating inflation but also other factors, including employment, particularly in areas which are hard-hit by unemployment. These are matters which Ministers take into account: they apply their very limited discretion with as much care as they can, in the light of the facts of each individual case.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the Ford Motor Company have always operated on a day-wage basis and never on any productivity bonus scheme of any kind in the whole of their history? Is he aware that whereas other firms have paid in excess of 10 per cent. because of a productivity bonus, it would have been very difficult indeed to do this in the case of the Ford Motor Company?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend. That is really what I was trying to encapsulate when I used the word "complicated" to describe the settlement. It may take some time to see precisely what the effect of this settlement is in relation to total earnings.
Lord THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recall the rhyme that circulated in Whitehall at the time of the Geddes axe "?
"But most of all they smote the weak
Because they knew they would not squeak
So loudly when they died".—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
A noble Lord: That was a Tory Government!
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not think I need add to the cries of "Tories" coming from behind me, but I would ask the noble Lord this: Does he think that the Sun Alliance is to be described as "the weak"? Perhaps that is why it deserves and gets so much support from his noble friends.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I have no poetry to recite. I merely want to ask my noble friend this question: Is it not a fact that 96 per cent. of the
366
major wage claims settled in the last six months have been within the guidelines?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, that is correct, and if in their criticisms noble Lords opposite would be less grudging they would acknowledge the broad success of the counter-inflation policy and would offer us not their sneers but their congratulations.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord explain or give a brief definition of what he means by "preposterous" as applied to the proposition, which may be right or wrong, that it is easier to attack the weak than to attack the strong?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been in this House longer than 1 have and therefore has much greater experience of what is preposterous.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: MARCH BUSINESS
2.55 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, without being preposterous, may I say that a Statement was made yesterday in another place about the business to be taken during March in the EEC Council of Ministers. With the leave of the House, I will, as usual, arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during March. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Thursday, 23rd February.
"At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for March. Agriculture Ministers will meet on the 6th and 7th, Foreign Ministers on the 7th, Finance Ministers on the 20th, and Energy Ministers on the 21st. A joint meeting of ACP/EEC Ministers will also be held on the 13th and 14th to review the implementation of the Lomé Convention.
"Agriculture Ministers are expected to resume discussions on CAP prices for 1978–79, Mediterranean agriculture, producer groups and potato marketing arrangements. They are also expected to consider proposals for the future of the Milk Marketing Boards.
"Foreign Ministers are expected to consider relations with Japan, steel imports, the North/South dialogue, aid to non-associates, and direct elections to the European Assembly. They are also expected to adopt the Community mandate for the joint meeting of ACP/EEC Ministers.
"Finance Ministers are expected to discuss adaptations of the economic policy guidelines for 1978, the economic situation and Commission proposals for improved co-ordination of national economic policies.
"Energy Ministers are expected to resume discussions on Community energy policy objectives for 1985, refinery problems and assistance to the coal industry. They are also expected to consider financial aid to projects demonstrating energy saving and alternative energy sources, joint hydrocarbon exploration projects and minimum stock levels for oil products".

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 37 be dispensed with this day for the purpose of taking the Motion on the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 in the name of the Lord Chancellor before the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REFUSE DISPOSAL (AMENITY) BILL [H.L.]
(formerly Refuse Disposal Bill [H.L.])
Report received.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, there are four Private Bills down for Second Reading this afternoon and in moving the Second Reading of the first of them, that is the Cheshire County Council Bill, I think it might be useful if I make an observation on all four of the Bills. I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we had one debate and that any of your Lordships who wish to speak, either on a point that is general to all four Bills or
368
particular to one of them, should do so in this first debate; then I would move formally the Second Reading of the remainder of the Bills. I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would agree that it might be best if we were to discuss all his Instructions in the same first debate and then that he should move them individually when we have passed the Second Reading of each Bill.
First, as to the background and purposes of these four Bills, the Local Government Act 1972 established new local government areas in England and Wales and, in Section 262, enacted the repeal, with certain exceptions, of provisions contained in Private Acts at present in force in those areas or parts of them. The powers conferred by those Private Acts will cease to have effect in Metropolitan counties at the end of 1979 and in other counties elsewhere at the end of 1984, unless they have been re-enacted by fresh legislation.
This proposal of the 1972 Act has considerable merit, for at present there exists throughout the country a mass of local private legislation which differs from one local authority to another and is very difficult for the ordinary citizen to comprehend. The 1972 Act provided a unique opportunity for a thorough revision of all local legislation, and from 1984 on local legislation will be well documented and much more readily understandable by the public.
Some of your Lordships will doubtless recall the proceedings on the County of South Glamorgan Bill, which occupied the House both in Committee and in debate for a significant period in 1975. That Act was the first Private Bill promoted to retain provisions repealed by the Local Government Act 1972, and the four Bills to which the House is being asked to give a Second Reading this afternoon are further examples. All four of them have as their main purpose to re-enact with Amendments and, in some cases, to extend certain local enactments already in force within the area for which the newly-constituted authority is responsible. The Cheshire County Council Bill contains 115 clauses; the County of Merseyside Bill, 165; the West Midlands County Council Bill, 182, and the West Yorkshire Bill, 119.
As my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on moving the Second

369
Reading of the County of South Glamorgan Bill, such Bills, which deal with a very large number of topics affecting a great many people, must be scrutinised by Parliament with special care so as to ensure two things: first, that the general law should not be changed unless a compelling local need can be shown for variation; and, secondly, that whatever is passed into law should be, so far as possible, of the standard of draftsmanship that Parliament requires of Bills for Public General Acts.
To meet this latter requirement, the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place and I asked the Parliamentary Agents concerned with the promotion of these four Bills to collaborate and produce a set of clauses dealing with topics common to two or more of these Bills. The drafting of these common clauses was discussed last year by my Counsel and the Agents, and I should particularly like to thank the Agents and the local authorities for whom they are acting for their willing co-operation in this major exercise. The result is a group of 85 clauses which are common to two or more of these Bills. These are published and available in the Printed Paper Office, and are called General Powers Bills: Common Clauses.
Some of these common clauses are opposed by Petitioners and will be referred to a Private Bill Select Committee. It is, of course, normal for opposed clauses to be referred to a Select Committee, but usually one Select Committee deals with one Bill. In this instance, the Select Committee will be dealing with Petitions common to two, three or four Bills; in other words, it will be dealing with subjects rather than with individual Bills. This, it seems to me, is the only logical way to tackle the problem of these four Bills. Opposed clauses that occur in only one Bill will, as usual, be considered by other Select Committees set up for each Bill, and in due course I shall be asking the House to approve the necessary procedural Motions to set up these various Committees; that is, one on the opposed common clauses and four Select Committees, one on each of the Bills, to cover the opposed individual clauses of each Bill.
However, there is also a need for the powers conferred by the unopposed clauses to be approved and, in order to
370
consider them with the necessary care, I propose that, following the precedent set by the County of South Glamorgan Bill, they should be referred to a small Select Committee, consisting of myself and two other Members of the House and advised by my Counsel. Here, again, in due course I shall ask the House to agree the proper procedural Motion. I should like to stress, in particular, the importance of the special procedures to deal with the common clauses, because I believe that if Parliament is to find time to deal not only with these four Bills this Session, but with the large number of similar Bills which will follow in later Sessions, some form of procedure based on the common clauses is essential.
Finally, I should like to say something regarding the Instructions which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has on the Order Paper, which are directed at a provision which occurs in each Bill seeking to restrict parking in private gardens of heavy commercial vehicles, boats and caravans. His Instructions relate, in particular, to boats. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House of these Instructions, since they do no more than reinforce the points which will be made by several Petitioners against this section of all four Bills. These Petitioners include the Ship and Boat-Builders National Federation and the Royal Yachting Association. Even if these Instructions were not on the Order Paper, or if they were not agreed to by the House, the Select Committee would have to be satisfied by the Promoters of the necessity for this provision. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Aberdare.)
3.5 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Chairman of Committees for introducing and explaining the procedures to be adopted regarding these four very major Bills. I believe that in all they weigh nearly 3 1b., and are a very substantial burden as regards the number of hours of examination and very careful preparation by all those local authorities concerned. The reason why this debate is taking place in this form this afternoon relates, in particular, to the Instruction. But I should like to

371
stress to your Lordships that some of us felt that it would be a very great pity if the normal procedure for Private Bills were adopted; that is, that the Second Readings took place on a formal basis in the House, and the Bills were either accepted or rejected without debate. We believe that concentrating on a particular item will give an opportunity to your Lordships to consider other matters raised within the purview of these Bills. At the same time, I should also like to express my gratitude not only to the Chairman of Committees, but to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of Private Bills, all of whom have assisted me in this procedure.
What is set out on the Order Paper looks a little formidable at first sight, until one has the benefit of examining the little Companion to the Standing Orders—and such an invaluable aid and guide it is on these occasions! As the Lord Chairman has outlined already what we propose to do, it would be quite superfluous of me to repeat it in any detail. But I think it goes without saying that the work on these Bills, and on many other Bills which are given to Committees upstairs in your Lordships' House, will mean an enormous amount of preparation and discussion away from the Floor of the House. I should like to stress that, in the case of these four Bills, there are no fewer than 54 Petitions, 11 of which are concerned with the common clauses—the document to which the Lord Chairman referred. I should like to say about the common clauses that this seems a most ingenious and beneficial way of proceeding, benefiting the Parliamentary Agents of the local authorities concerned, and also saving an inordinate amount of time—which otherwise would perhaps be spent unnecessarily—for other local authorities which follow the course of those four authorities with which we are concerned this afternoon.
We refer to Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, from which, of course, all these four Bills derive. That Act, if I may be allowed to remind your Lordships, states that,
"All local statutory provisions to which this subsection applies shall cease to have effect in metropolitan counties at the end of 1979 and elsewhere at the end of 1984,"
372
which does not give very much time for all this to take place. I should like to stress what has already taken place in these four metropolitan counties. What has been done already was an enormously difficult task. Those four metropolitan counties have visited their archives and vaults and taken the entire schedule and catalogue of their local legislation, covering in many cases more than 150 years. They have gone through it all, and scheduled those Acts which they believe are superfluous at the present moment. This is a very large task indeed.
If I may refer to the West Midlands County Council Bill, I see that no fewer than 87 whole Acts, orders and continuation orders have been or are about to be repealed and that there is a total of 88 partial repeals of Acts and orders. It would be tedious to deal with other county councils. Nevertheless, Cheshire County Council, the first one with which we are concerned, has no fewer than 58 Acts and orders wholly repealed and 108 partly repealed.
It would be impracticable this afternoon to go in any great detail into more than perhaps two or three different topics. The Instruction refers especially to a situation which occurs in all four Bills. I believe that an issue of principle is raised, which I shall not go into in any great detail, that concerns what we term the parking of boats in gardens. This matter was raised in the case of the County of South Glamorgan Bill which was referred to, and we believe that there is some reference to it in existing legislation. Nevertheless, in the County of South Glamorgan Bill to which the Lord Chairman referred, I understand that this provision was absent. Therefore one can say that in existing legislation the parking of boats in gardens clause has been both precedented and then written off.
Our view on these Benches is that an unfortunate situation would arise if this precedent were to be adopted in all metropolitan counties. The Lord Chairman has referred to the fact that all local legislation will tend to be very much better scheduled and that local authorities will have it in a more readily available form. Hence, it is much more important that in the case of the very first local authorities concerned the lines should be straightened out, the ruffles removed and the

373
situation made clear from a basis of principle.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not intend to make a very long initial speech. However, I believe that it is important that we should consider the questions raised by this Instruction. Attention is drawn to whether there is a discriminatory interference by local authorities with the rights of the individual and also to whether the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill. The powers are wide. In the case of all four of these local authority Bills, a prosecution sanction is to be applied. In the case of legislation of this kind, we believe that this sanction should not be there.
Finally, may I refer to the situation as a whole. We believe that, with these four metropolitan county council Bills, your Lordships are undertaking a major legislative programme at a point in the Session when we are already becoming well aware of the Scotland Bill. Nevertheless, thanks to the very active preparations made by the Lord Chairman and his staff, noble Lords will be able to undertake these Bills with their usual vigour and satisfaction.
3.15 p.m.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, I rise very briefly to reinforce the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—a concern which is shared by the boating industry in general—with regard to the possibility, under the Bills in question, of local authorities prohibiting the parking of boats over a certain size limit in private gardens. I am not unaware of the concern felt in boating circles about these proposed measures. Although I do not have a boat, I am a yachtsman and feel that I should declare an interest.
The Bills vary in their restrictions and penalties for parking boats in gardens. I feel that this is not particularly good. There should be more standardisation with regard to certain counties. I can foresee difficulties arising whereby a person who already keeps a boat in his garden moves to a different county and finds that he is not allowed to keep a boat in his garden. I believe that there is no provision under the Bills to warn a person about whether such a prohibition is in effect in the new county.
374
In most cases today, the parking of boats in private gardens could be considered to be a normal occurrence. Indeed, it could be argued that the use of a garden for the parking of a boat is considered to be part of the normal amenities afforded to a person for the enjoyment of his property. Generally speaking, those who keep their boats in private gardens can be divided into two groups. There are those who keep their boat on a trailer and tow it away every weekend to different locations. Visiting different areas is in itself part and parcel of their general enjoyment of boating. Then there are those who bring back their boats to their gardens during the winter, either through choice, because they enjoy the convenience of overhauling their boats in their gardens, or through necessity, due to the lack of winter moorings and storage facilities in boatyards. There is also the question of vandalism if somebody should leave his boat at a mooring during the winter. The incidence of vandalism has been high during the last few years. Then there is the question of the weather in the winter, which might do damage to a boat.
Many of the boats—I think probably the majority—which are kept in gardens fall into what I should like to call the small motor cruiser area: that is, a small motor boat having a cabin containing perhaps a couple of bunks but which certainly could not be construed as a boat that would be lived in, which is the type of boat that is prohibited under the clauses contained in the Bills. In fact, should one of these orders come into effect, the only boats which would be allowed to be kept in gardens would be comparatively small, open dinghies without their masts up, and would even exclude some of the larger types of open racing dinghy, which is not right. In fact, if prohibition orders were to be made, I believe that the proposed limils would be a little arbitrary and could lead to all kinds of measuring and policing difficulties.
I believe that the machinery for registering a complaint which could give rise to a prohibition order is a little clumsy and might lead to the unnecessary canvassing of support by the person complaining, support which could come from somebody who was living in a different street from that which is affected by the

375
boat in question. I also think that the prohibition order, if invoked—and it could, at the council's whim, involve a whole area and not just one particular street—would be more likely to discriminate against those who live in houses with smaller gardens, where a boat would be more obvious than in a larger garden. Boating today is a pastime enjoyed by people from all walks of life, and I do not see why the enjoyment gained by those who are perhaps not so well off should be so unnecessarily prejudiced in this way.
We are faced with far too much legislation today. The wide enabling powers envisaged in these Bills with respect to the banning of boats from private gardens are, I consider, unnecessary in relation to the amount of nuisance caused. I support the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
3.22 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to support the Instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, which refers to the parking of boats. I believe this matter needs very careful scrutiny by the Select Committee. I suppose I should declare an interest; I am a member of the Royal Yachting Association and have been a lifelong dinghy sailor. I accept that most of the points I shall raise will be looked at very carefully by the Select Committee, but I believe it is important that they should be raised on the Floor of your Lordships' House so that more people should be aware of the powers these county councils intend to take in this clause.
First and foremost, I believe the clause infringes on the liberty of the individual. If an Englishman's home is his castle, I cannot see why he cannot keep a dinghy in his ditch. I accept that in a crowded isle we have to have restraints, but not, surely, on small boats in gardens. I accept that before the county councils can make such a ruling they have to fulfil very difficult conditions, not least that a complaint has to be made by neighbours. I submit that if neighbours did make such a complaint it would cause bad feeling. We surely have enough
376
trouble around without causing more. Alternatively, neighbours may feel that they do not want to take such action because of bad feeling, in which case no action would be taken; so I suggest it is, "heads I win and tails you lose".
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the insidious creeping legislation that this clause could invoke. If councils got the power to stop boats being parked in gardens, as the clause is written in the Cheshire and West Yorkshire Bills this could include garages and back gardens. What would be the next stage? The West Midlands Bill included horse boxes, but I gather they thought better of it and have withdrawn the whole clause. This does not mean to say that in future some county council could not include horse boxes, and maybe cars, carrycots and prams.
Apart from the reasons concerning individual liberty, I believe the provisions regardings the preventing of the parking of boats in gardens to be impractical. The clause says "habitual". What does "habitual" mean? Are we to have a gang of snoopers looking around our gardens and garages to see if we have a little dinghy, 15 ft. long and 4 ft. 6 in. high? Then should this snooper—no doubt paid for by me through the rates—find that I am committing such a heinous offence, he takes me to court. In all four counties I am convicted of a criminal offence. In Cheshire I can be fined £200, but next door in Merseyside I can only be fined £50. In Cheshire and Yorkshire I catch it if my boat is in the garage or back garden, whereas in Merseyside I can keep the boat in the garage but not in my front garden. The law is complicated enough without going into all these problems.
Anyway, what happens if the county boundary goes through my house? How is the snooper to know if my boat is a boat? Will he bring a tape measure? A boat is not a boat if it is under 5 metres long and 1½ metres high. Also, what happens to a person who moves from one house to another house in another county with a dinghy, and there is a restriction on that street or area? How will he find out? I am sure the vendor will not advertise such a clause. This, I suggest, is another trap for the unwary layman.

377
I would conclude by reminding your Lordships that sailing, particularly dinghy sailing, has been since the war one of the fastest growing participant sports. I emphasise "participant" because I believe it must appeal to your Lordships. The result of this has been, and I hope it will continue to be, that more and more people will keep sailing dinghies. I hope that instead of leaving them in the club and dinghy park, which this clause would encourage, where they can be vandalised and be a responsibility to our overworked police and many voluntary officers of sailing clubs, they will be taken home, parked in the garden, repaired, painted and generally embellished with what they call now "go-fast gadgets", providing endless fascination for the owner.
I remind your Lordships that British dinghy racing is a success story; apart from providing industry, which even manages to survive the vicious 25 per cent. VAT, it employs many, which seems very important nowadays. We have a remarkable record for winning medals, not only at the Olympics but also at all the world dinghy championships. These clauses would seriously hinder such success, because it is in the garden that the dinghy sailor looks after his boat and titivates it. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support the Instruction moved by my noble friend Lord Sandys, that the Select Committee will see their way to altering the clause radically, and, in particular, will ascertain, in the words of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, whether there is a compelling local need for such a clause.
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill, as it relates to the County of Cheshire. It is not quite the same county that I knew when I left it four years ago, because since then they have cut off the Wirral peninsular and the East side of Stockport, Hyde, Stalybridge and Duckinfield, but at least there is still a County of Cheshire, which there would not have been if earlier proposals for local government reform had been accepted; we should have had no county to debate this afternoon.
I was Bishop of Chester for 18 years and lived in the City of Chester during that time. I formed a very great affection for
378
the county and the City, and a great admiration for the Cheshire County Council, which is, I believe, one of the most enterprising and one of the most efficient of all the local government bodies in this country. So this Bill, I think, reflects the efficiency and the idealism of the Cheshire County Council for what is a very beautiful and remarkable county.
Much of the Bill concerns the city of Chester itself. Some sad things have happened there. One of the first battles that I ever had to fight in your Lordships' House was to try to prevent the closing of the Chester Assay Office, for precious metals had been assayed in the City of Chester since Saxon times. I lost that battle, unfortunately, but I did witness the very real sense of responsibility which the City Fathers have for the City of Chester. Indeed I am grateful to the Bill for driving me back to look at the splendid Chester Study in Conservation prepared under Government auspices by Mr. Donald Insoll. That set a very high standard of development for the City of Chester.
The Bill deals in particular with four very remarkable characteristics of the City of Chester—the River Dee, the Roodee, The Rows and The Walls. The River Dee is not only very beautiful but also very historic. Whether the legend is true that it is the place where King Edwin was rowed by six Saxon Kings, it is not for me to say, but it seems certain that King Edwin assembled his fleet there which later on was to subdue Anglesey and the Isle of Man. It was navigable by ships of considerable size in comparatively modern times, as is illustrated by the presence of a church in the City of Chester dedicated to Saint Olave, which showed that the Norsemen came regularly to the City of Chester. It has a magnificent river front and there are always the dangers which are associated with water and waterfronts. The powers that will be given to the city here to preserve and to improve the amenities will mean that Chester will have one of the finest water amenities of any city in this country.
Similarly, noble Lords who know Chester will remember the remarkable space known as the Roodee. This needs to be controlled if only for the fact that those who are fond of horse racing want the Chester meeting, which is run on the

379
Roodee, to continue. The city has the unique quality and amenity of The Rows, the shops built on top of one another. No one knows their historic origins but they are a very remarkable feature, of great interest, and they bring many tourists to see them. They are also amenable to weather and to wear of every kind and there have been some rather sad instances of neglect. Therefore, if these are to be preserved it is important that there should be full powers in order to see that the stonework and the woodwork are properly provided for.
Finally, there are The Walls. I think Chester is the only city where, except for one very short space where you have to use your imagination, you can walk completely round the city walls. Here again, the inevitable ravages of time are at work and it is very important that the city should have the powers to see that the stonework is properly kept and that the walkway is made safe for pedestrians.
Much of the Bill also concerns the County of Cheshire. As I said, it has a very fine record of providing amenities for its citizens. I think particularly of Tatton Park, which was acquired by the county after the death of Lord Egerton of Tatton and which provides a most interesting and splendid house to which crowds of people go throughout the year. Cheshire was also an initiator in providing amenities for holidaymakers, such as picnic areas off the main road. I had the privilege of being a member of the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Cobham, which studied the opportunities for sport and recreation. We were greatly impressed by the evidence which we had from the Cheshire County Council of the way in which they had provided places off main roads where motorists and walkers could enjoy themselves and see the countryside. One of the things which was borne in upon us in that committee was that so much of this depends on the initiative of local authorities. Therefore the powers that are given to the local authorities in this Bill will, I am sure, be very wisely used in this instance.
I could not see whether there is any direct power given in the Bill to the county regarding its waterways. Possibly this belongs to another authority and is
380
therefore not appropriate in this Bill. One of the main features of the County of Cheshire is its magnificent waterways—the Mersey, the Dee, the River Weaver, the Manchester Ship Canal and a fascinating series of canals generally. One of the most remarkable instances of Victorian engineering is the Anderson Lift outside Northwich which takes barges from one series of canals down and puts them into the River Weaver. One of the saddest things that happened while I was in Chester was the destruction by fire of the marvellous series of wharves and locks created outside Ellesmere Port by Telford. There was therefore destroyed one of the greatest achievements of the Victorian industrial engineers.
The County of Cheshire is particularly concerned with this provision to which the prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is directed. Because there are so many waterways there are a great many boats and people who enjoy their time on the river. With my own personal interest in matters aquatic, I enter into this area of dispute with some diffidence, but I hardly think that the gruesome picture drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—a name I may say greatly honoured in the County of Cheshire—will be fully justified. There is the other side of the picture. We have to think of the freedom of the neighbours of people who park very large boats in their garden, and whereas I have every sympathy with those who wish to do so there is another side to the story, and I am sure that the committee when it comes to examine it will have to take that into account.
There is one slightly sinister and ominous area of this Bill because it is dealing with the opportunities for the provision of employment. One does not normally think of the County of Cheshire as a place where there will be high unemployment, yet in certain areas with a high density of population there is a very real fear of what may happen in the immediate future years. Thus in Ellesmere Port and in Halton, which is part of Runcorn New Town, and in Chester itself it is reckoned that by 1986 some 50,000 to 80,000 new jobs will be needed in order to accommodate the school-leavers. That is why early in this Bill the county seeks to have powers for public works which will provide employment for young people.

381
Finally, there are one or two matters which are causing anxiety to certain interested bodies and organisations. First, there is Clause 30, regarding the regulation of processions, and this is of much concern to youth organisations such as Scouts, Guides, the Church Lads Brigade, the Boys Brigade and the Salvation Army, who are apt in their practice on certain occasions such as Sundays to march through the streets with their bands playing. On the East side of Cheshire they observe what is largely a Lancashire custom of walking at Whitsun and they would not want to conic under the restraints of police control. I am told that there are Amendments which will probably meet this problem, but I hope that those who are responsible for the scrutiny of the Bill will remember the number of entirely healthy and innocent organisations that have marching with flags and bands as part of their life and do not want to be restricted.
Again, in Clause 35, the Salvation Army is particularly anxious about possible restrictions on bands and music in buildings, because a lot of their worship is concerned with the making of a joyful noise to the Lord which might come under the constraints of this Bill if it is not worded very carefully. Here again, I believe that there is an Amendment which will meet the needs of organisations that are interested. Finally, there is Part VIII which regards the control of night clubs and cafés. Again, the Salvation Army and other charitable organisations very often have premises which are open between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. for the supply to the public of refreshments for consumption on or off the premises. In terms of the Salvation Army it means the provision of food, soup kitchens and so on, for people who are down and out.
Such organisations would not want to be restricted in doing their charitable work and I hope that those who scrutinise the Bill will bear in mind the very important work that is done by charitable organisations. However, these are mere matters of detail in a Bill which commends itself by being both easy and interesting to read. Knowing Cheshire as I do, I have every confidence that these powers will be used wisely by those to whom they are given and for the benefit of a very beautiful and distinguished county.
3.40 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I wish to speak in general terms on all four Bills, but I should like to say how interested I was in the fascinating account of the ancient City of Chester which was given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I sincerely hope that the Cheshire County Council Bill will give full satisfaction to that city.
I should like to confine my remarks entirely to those parts of these Bills which deal with the parking of boats in gardens of dwelling-houses, and to add my support to the Instruction on the Order Paper. However, first I must declare some interest in this matter because not only have I been a member of the Royal Yachting Association for many years—and, as your Lordships know, that association is one of the Petitioners against these clauses in the Bills—but I own a small sailing boat which would come within the scope of these clauses. I must say that I have no plans at present to lay up my boat in my garden during the winter, nor have I any connection with any of the four counties promoting these Bills.
The clauses concerned are, in my opinion, unsatisfactory from two points of view, and I should like to deal briefly with each. First, the regulations will discriminate against one particular form of recreation which is gaining in popularity every year and will cause hardship and extra expense to those many yachtsmen who already own small boats and who wish to lay them up for the winter at home.
The regulations, which are all unanimous on the subject of size, all concern boats of not more than 5 metres in length and not more than 1.5 metres high or, to put it in plain English, 16 ft. 4 in. long and 4 ft. 10 in. high. In the case of a cabincruiser—that is, a boat which is partially or totally enclosed—in many cases the size is even smaller than the one that I have described. There are many such small cabin cruisers on the market and the definition of a cabin cruiser is anything that is suitable for human habitation. Of course, going afloat on a river or a canal, or even at sea in the summer months, can be done in an extremely small boat.

383
This is exactly the size of craft which could be trailed home behind the family car and then stored at home during the winter months. It must be done in many cases because not only is it impractical to keep a boat on its summer moorings during the winter, but the commercial boat parks around our coast and islands are in short supply and very expensive. Furthermore, for many yachtsmen it is a matter of pride and pleasure to lay up, maintain, repair and then repaint, re-varnish and fit out their boats for the next season; and where is it more pleasant to do that than in one's own garden?
It is often said that we are becoming a nation of spectators, and yet here is an active and ever popular pastime which gives pleasure and recreation to thousands. Indeed, the Royal Yachting Association now represents 1,400 yacht clubs and 56,000 individual members, and, if I may say so, it does so with great efficiency for which very many of us have a great deal to be grateful.
My second reason why these clauses are unsatisfactory is that, although they will affect many people, they are being introduced piecemeal across the country. Even in the four Bills which we are debating this afternoon there are wide differences, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and also by my noble friend Lord Greenway. In the case of the County of Merseyside the summary conviction for this offence—if that is indeed what it is—is £50, whereas in the other three Bills it is £200. In all the Bills, with one exception, the relevant clause contains the right of the offender to appeal to the magistrates. The exception is the County of West Yorkshire, in which there appears to be no right of appeal to a magistrate. Most of the clauses make it an offence to park a boat in the front garden only, but West Yorkshire includes the whole garden, both back and front.
Some of the Bills refer to curtilages of dwelling-houses, which I think must include a garage or a shed. Yet a 16 ft. boat could easily be stored in one of those without any inconvenience to anyone. I looked up in a dictionary the definition of a curtilage. It is described as:
"An area attached to and containing a dwelling-house and its outbuildings.".
384
Here again there is very wide variety among the Bills as to whether a given number of neighbours living within a limited area of the offending boat must initiate a complaint or whether that can be done exclusively by the council concerned.
I appreciate that local authorities will wish to have powers to control such matters, and that to park a very large boat in the front garden will cause inconvenience to neighbours, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said. However, I wonder whether he has given any thought to the fact that perhaps his rowing boat may also be limited—I believe he is a very keen oar.
I feel that these clauses as drafted go far too wide, and if enacted will infringe the rights of householders with gardens and will impose hardship and unnecessary expense on those who enjoy this means of recreation. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Instruction moved by my noble friend Lord Sandys, that the Select Committee dealing with these four Bills should give special consideration to those clauses in each Bill which deal with the parking of boats in gardens of dwelling-houses.
3.47 p.m.
Lord WISE: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred to the common clauses regarding the parking of boats in private gardens. I have only a small sailing dinghy which does not come within the ambit of these clauses. However, my sons have a rather more sophisticated racing dinghy, which I believe is about 5 centimetres over the specified length and presumably they could find themselves breaking the law. I wish to speak very briefly on these common clauses, but not as regards boats—as regards caravans. I should perhaps declare an interest because I am a member of the Caravan Club and indeed own a caravan which, when it is not in use during the summer months, is parked in a courtyard alongside my home.
If the clauses relating to the caravans parked in private gardens are put into effect let us consider the ensuing difficulties for owners who, by necessity, have to park their touring caravans on their own land. That surely is not a privilege that they enjoy, but must be a right, which I think has existed for years

385
and which, with respect, I consider should continue. First, they would find a great shortage of suitable storage facilities. In fact, I would consider it almost impossible to find a storage park, and even if one could do so it is bound to be expensive. If one has space in one's own garden or property, surely that is an expense which one should not be expected to bear.
Again, in many instances, storage parks are, by their very nature, inadequately supervised with the consequential risks of vandalism and theft. As a rule, caravans that are parked in people's gardens are used primarily at weekends and for holidays. If a family wants to go away for a weekend and they do not have their caravan at home, first, they have to collect it from the park, wherever that is, and then they have to load it with all kinds of things. Backwards and forwards they go, and it is quite a hazardous task if they have to leave their caravan on the road outside. The same thing happens when they arrive home on the Sunday evening. It then has to be emptied. Mum puts the children to bed and dad has to tow it 20 or 25 miles to its park. Surely that is a hardship which they should not have to bear. I am certain that in those circumstances they would soon give up their caravan. One other point bothers me as regards these clauses. I understand that objectors will be given an opportunity to be heard by a person appointed by the council, and the council would then consider the evidence given. But—and this worries me—there is then no right of appeal.
We must appreciate that caravanning is becoming increasingly popular. There are a number of reasons for that, not least of which is the fact that it is a wonderful family recreation, enabling people to get away from the cities and towns to enjoy, as a family unit, all the pleasures that the countryside has to offer. Surely that is a good thing. It is unthinkable that people who have strived and saved in order to equip themselves for this family pastime—this family enterprise—might find themselves victimised for so doing. Should not people be encouraged rather than discouraged to enjoy with their families happy, wholesome, country pursuits?—for sadly our cities are becoming more and more disturbed as each year goes by.
386
If your Lordships give these Bills a Second Reading and they go before a Select Committee, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and implore that the Committee examines these clauses carefully. Apart from the aspect of rights of the individual, which is obviously of paramount importance, in so far as they relate to caravans, hundreds of people could be denied family recreation and holidays of their choice. I consider that that would not simply be regrettable; it could well be a tragedy.
3.53 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I, too, want to refer to a new point, one which concerns neither boats nor caravans. I should like to speak about Clause 50 in the Merseyside Bill, which has the formidable title of "Powers of search and arrest". From the wording of that clause I deduce that its purpose is to effect an extension to Merseyside of Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, known familiarly as the "Powers of stop, search and detain". If properly used, those powers are not oppressive and they are a most valuable method of gaining information about criminals and their movements—something never more important than it is today. And, if so, there may be a case for extending these powers to cover the whole country, in which case I submit that it should be done by a Government Bill.
But I do not think that powers such as these should be extended to other areas in a piecemeal fashion. That would not seem to me—and I suggest that most noble Lords would take the same view—to be the best way to legislate. It may be that the Liverpool Police have had these powers for some time, and so it could be represented that this is no more than a re-enactment, which would make a big difference. But surely under the Bill as drafted there must be an element of extension, because today's Merseyside is much greater than the pre-reorganisation Liverpool police area.
I notice that under Part XV of the Bill there are clauses which are applicable to parts of the area only. It may well be that Clause 50 should be redrafted and maybe there is a case for re-enacting this power so as to cover Liverpool prior to the reorganisation—or, indeed,

387
Liverpool and Bootle where the powers were previously in effect—but we should not extend them greatly without careful scrutiny. The police generally have other and similar powers under the Vagrancy Acts, the Town Police Clauses Act and under the common law, but none of those covers quite the same ground as Section 66 of the 1839 Act.
I hope that the Committee will look closely into this clause, not with any idea of depriving the Merseyside Police of useful power—because today we certainly cannot afford to do that—but with the object of ensuring that the principles involved are studied and the most acceptable solution sought. We should also not forget that the Statute Law Revision Committee is about to look into this very area of our law, which may make it untimely for us to extend this power—even if there is merit in it—to other areas at this time.
3.57 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having put my name down to speak. I have been away for some time and I noticed something in the Bill on which I should say a few words as I live in the West Midlands area. I wish to take only about two or three minutes of your Lordships' time. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, would raise the issue of caravans, but I entirely endorse what he has said, because the Bill deals mostly with people who live in streets. Were I a lawyer and dealing simply with the semantics of this clause, I could wheel a horse and cart through the entire clause because it deals only with people living in streets.
If a noble Lord has a lodge and the entrance to the noble Lord's great and vast property is at the end of a street in which my poor brother lives, and he can see his Lordship's horsebox through his bedroom window, which is less than 100 metres away, am I entitled to challenge the noble Lord because he is destroying the amenities of the humble street in which my brother lives? I consider from the loose way in which this clause is worded that I could do so.
Nevertheless, what is a street? Is a street an avenue? If I happen to live in an avenue where they are cutting down
388
the elms, can I be challenged as a local bumptious councillor about having a horsebox? In fact, I would not have a horsebox; it would be a box for my greyhounds. But as an old collier am I entitled to have a greyhound box here? I used to see the greyhounds run by my uncle on the race-course in Caerphilly many years ago. That does not appear in the Bill. I should think that I could.
Consequently, what is a boat? I have a big rubber dinghy with which I have a lot of fun. Might I hang that up as a collier's bath used to be hung up on a hook outside the back door? Furthermore, my house is adjacent to a canal and I have had a piece cut out of the canal to run into my garden. It is in the definition of "curtilage" that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, looked up so carefully, but on my curtilage the canal comes within 20 yards of my back door, and there I have a boat. Who will waddle up and charge Davies of Leek because he is destroying the amenities around the district? In other words, where are we going?
Today we live in a world that loves to pass legislation and debate the right of entry to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred. Consequently, I completely endorse the constructive criticisms that have been made. I promised not to delay the House and I have been exactly three minutes. I think that this noble House should look carefully at this legislation and uphold the constructive criticisms that have been made today.
4. p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I, too, must apologise for not having put down my name as a speaker, but I have only decided to speak since I came into the Chamber this afternoon and heard the discussion that was going on. I am a resident of West Yorkshire—I have been all my life—and I want to stress that this West Yorkshire Bill which is before us today is very important indeed not only to the metropolitan County Council of West Yorkshire but to the five metropolitan district councils who also support everything which is in this Bill.
I shall speak for only about two minutes. I understand that we are discussing the Instructions which are to be moved by

389
the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. He will be instructing the Select Committee to look carefully at the clauses relating to boats, caravans, and heavy commercial vehicles. I am quite certain that the Select Committee will look carefully at all the clauses in all the Bills because they always do. Therefore, if we accept the Instructions which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is giving, I hope it will not be construed that all Members of this House are in agreement with taking out all these clauses completely, because I think there are two sides to this matter.
First, so far as the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council Bill is concerned, it is not only concerned with caravans and boats but also with heavy commercial vehicles. I would say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that there is all the difference in the world between a heavy commercial vehicle and his little rubber dinghy that he might have been hanging at the side of his house. I also want to stress that it does not say in this clause that all boats, all caravans, and all commercial vehicles are to be prohibited. I think that that would be unreasonable. It would be very unreasonable to prohibit all boats and caravans from every front garden of every street, but it would be equally unreasonable to allow in all circumstances every caravan, every commercial vehicle and every boat which everybody wants to put in their front gardens because in considering freedom there are always two people concerned. There is the person who wants to do something, and the person who has to put up with whatever it is the other person is doing.
All that this clause says, if passed, is that we shall be giving powers to the local authorities to consider each case on its merits. I would put to noble Lords that householders still need permission to build a garage in their gardens. If that is so, it is not unreasonable that there should be some control—I do not say all control—on these other vehicles which might be put in front gardens. I understand that this Instruction is going to be accepted. While the House might accept it, I do not want it to be construed that all of those who are accepting it agree with the point of view which has been put; that is, that every boat, every caravan, and every commercial vehicle shall be allowed regardless of the circumstances.
4.4 p.m.
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like particularly to draw attention to the second half of the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Sandys. It is important that clauses which are common to all four, or even to two or three, of these Bills are eventually enacted by Public Bills. It would reduce the weight of these Bills, to which my noble friend Lord Sandys has already drawn attention, and also have the advantage that things of this kind would be universal throughout the country, and people who moved from one area to another would not find themselves up against restrictions and regulations which only apply to the county to which they have moved.
I hope that the Lord Chairman, who has already drawn attention to the common clauses in the Bills, will bring what pressure he can on the Government to introduce legislation to make Public Bills of very many of these common clauses. Many of them are perfectly suitable for Public Bills. It would not only reduce the difficulty and complexity of these particular Bills but also help to reduce the complexities of the ones we are bound to get before 1984.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I too, like other noble Lords who have spoken recently, must apologise for not having put down my name to speak in this debate. I did not do so for two reasons. First, I was not sure I would be able to get out of the door last week when I was preparing what I might have said and, secondly, I thought that the point that I was going to raise, which was an agricultural one, would be fully covered, particularly from these Benches. I am referring to the West Midlands County Council Bill, Clause 12, the power to use lands for agricultural purposes, which of course is not common to all the four Bills we are discussing this afternoon.
It is an accepted precedent in the horticultural industry anyway, in which of course I should declare an interest in this debate, that local councils in the shape of their parks departments are normally expected to have a nursery and to fulfil certainly many of their plant requirements from that nursery, and that this is a perfectly right and proper thing to do.

391
Unfortunately this Bill extends such powers as may be needed to fulfil this, as can be seen in lines 14 and 15 on page 9 of the Bill, where it says that the councils wished not only to grow horticultural produce but also agricultural produce, and also to dispose of them through the normal wholesale trade channels.
I would say, from my point of view anyway, that this is surely a case of a council going into business. Is this something that we in Parliament should allow? Obviously the horticultural trade is rather up in arms about this, and I should think that one of the Petitions to which the Lord Chairman referred is undoubtedly one from the National Farmers' Union. I should like to take this opportunity of bringing to your Lordships' attention this particular, though I agree rather narrow, point.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I would not have attempted to take the time of the House had it not occurred to me that I am probably the only person in the Chamber now who sat on the Select Committee under the late Lord Reading on the Kent County Council Bill a good many years ago. It took us some time because there were over 400 clauses. But a point which we made as firmly as we could, and therefore we were not entirely popular with the Government Department concerned, was that it was quite wrong that you should include in local government Bills any matter which ought to be dealt with, if dealt with at all, by a proper Government Bill. It was the business of the Government Department to weed the garden, to keep in touch with the local authorities, as of course they do, to see that anything for which there was a general demand was included in a Government Bill—an amending Bill to whatever Act it might be—and not to pretend that it could not be done because there was no Parliamentary time, since that is not a matter for a Government Department but a matter for Parliament itself. For these reasons, I should like to reinforce what the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said, and hope that when the time comes someone will look at what we said on the Kent County Council Bill, and see that the mistake is not allowed to occur again.
4.9 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for all your Lordships' contributions to the debate on these four Bills. Perhaps in particular I might be allowed to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, after his illness. I thought he showed how effective a short speech could be. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for moving his Instructions in a reasonable and moderate way. He made one point that I should like to reinforce, and that was the value of the work that your Lordships do on these Select Committees. I know that this is going to place a burden upon many of your Lordships, especially at a time when the Scotland Bill is going through the House, and also when so many of you give up such a lot of time anyway on other Committees. I think particularly of the European Community Committees. I am extremely grateful to your Lordships, and I hope you will volunteer willingly for this additional chore.
Most of the remarks that have been made this afternoon have related to the Instructions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, concerning the parking of boats in gardens. It would be improper for me to comment on the merits of this proposal and I certainly do not want to enter into an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as to when a boat is not a boat. I shall leave that to the Select Committee because, as I explained in my opening remarks, this is one of the provisions which is opposed in all four Bills and it will therefore go to a Select Committee considering the opposed common clauses, and their consideration will be reinforced by the fact that, if these Instructions are passed by the House today, they will have to consider those as well.
Your Lordships may also be interested to know that the Select Committee will have available to it the Hansard of today's debate, so all that noble Lords have said today will be available to the Committee, and that it is normal for such a Select Committee to make a special report in the event of an Instruction being moved. I hope that that will reassure noble Lords who are concerned about these provisions regarding boats.

393
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, also spoke on these clauses but on the subject of caravans rather than boats. I can assure them that this provision is also opposed by, among others, the Caravan Club and the National Caravan Council, so that, once again, these will go to the Select Committee considering the common clauses and will be carefully considered in the light of everything that has been said this afternoon.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, in a most eloquent and interesting speech about Cheshire and the City of Chester drew particular attention to those clauses which deal with processions, bands, music, night clubs and cafes. As he correctly said, these are clauses which are opposed, by, among others, the Salvation Army, the Scouts Association and the Girl Guides Association, so again they will go to a Select Committee and that Committee will be able to consider the whole matter in depth. I may add that I am sure that the Promoters of these Bills have every sympathy with the points that were made by the right reverend Prelate, and I am informed that that are considering whether they can introduce some form of Amendment at the Committee stage which would meet the points he brought up.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to a point which was different from anything else that has been raised—namely, the question of police powers in the Merseyside Bill. I am grateful to him for having, from his deep knowledge of police matters, drawn attention to this particular subject. This is not a clause that is opposed—there is no petition against this clause—and therefore it will go to the Committee which is considering the unopposed clauses; and, as I am to be the Chairman of that Committee, I can assure him that we will give all that he said the most careful consideration and will look at this clause very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, found another provision to which to refer which had not been touched on before—Clause 12 of the West Midlands Bill—and this, too, is unopposed; the National Farmers' Union has not put in a petition against this clause, but I can also assure him that we will look at it when it comes to
394
considering it as an unopposed clause. I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman; I have no influence whatever with the Government, but there are Government spokesmen here and I am sure that they will have taken to heart what both noble Lords have said.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 26, in so far as it relates to boats, to satisfy themselves—

(1) that it does not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill and that the question of amenity is one which ought to be treated, if at all, as a matter of criminal sanction rather than of planning law.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clauses 20 and 130, in so far as they relate to boats, to satisfy themselves—

395

(1) that they do not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 112, in so far as it relates to boats, to satisfy themselves—

(1) that it does not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill and that the question of amenity is one which ought to be treated, if at all, as a matter of criminal sanction rather than of planning law.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 99, in so far as it relates to boats, to satisfy themselves—

(1) that it does not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill and that the question of amenity is one which ought to be treated, if at all, as a matter of criminal sanction rather than of planning law.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921
4.16 p.m.
The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to what extent there were lapses from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74 described in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents (HC 48 of 1977). The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, following the debate in another place on the report of the Fay Committee on 5th December last year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th December the Government's decision to establish a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
The Fay Report brought out with admirable clarity the circumstances that led to the need to make special financial assistance available to the Crown Agents.

397
The Government concluded that a further inquiry should be held to consider where the blame lies; and it was proposed in another place that this should be a public inquiry. In these circumstances, the Government are proposing to set up a tribunal under the 1921 Act which will have the ample powers given by that Act to carry out the thorough investigation of all matters that are relevant in this unhappy matter. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 8th December, the purpose of the tribunal will be to deal with lapses in accepted standards of public administration. The Government believe that the concept of "accepted standards" will make clear that the Tribunal is not required to adopt criteria that are either so restricted as to exculpate everyone who was not in breach of some legal duty, or so wide as to set unreasonably high standards.
The inquisitorial powers of tribunals set up under the 1921 Act are quite different from those of the ordinary courts and they require special safeguards for people whose conduct is in question. One safeguard lies in the composition of the tribunal. The White Paper of 1973, giving the then Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, accepted the principle that the chairman should be a person holding high judicial office. It also expressed the view that when a tribunal is inquiring into the conduct of members of a particular service, profession or calling, or where it is required to deal with issues of a specialised, technical nature, it should include members other than lawyers with experience or qualifications relevant to the subject of the inquiry. The Government have followed these principles in considering the membership of the tribunal, which will comprise a judge of the High Court and two distinguished non-legal members.
Other safeguards are to be found in the six cardinal principles set out in the Royal Commission's report. These are: first, before any person becomes involved in an inquiry, the tribunal must be satisfied that there are circumstances which affect him and which the tribunal proposes to investigate. Secondly, before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed in advance of allegations made against him and of the substance of the evidence in support of
398
them. Thirdly, in the first place he should have adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by legal advisers; and, in the second place, his legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds. Fourthly, he should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry. Fifthly, any material witness he wishes called at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard. Sixthly, he should have the opportunity of testing, by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel, any evidence which may affect him.
The Government endorse these principles, as did the previous Government in their White Paper of 1973. The Home Secretary will be drawing them to the attention of the tribunal and I am confident that the tribunal will have full regard to them.
With regard to the third principle, concerning legal representation for those involved in the inquiry, I should make it clear that, since the 1921 Act has not yet been amended in the way that the Salmon Commission proposed, the decision whether to authorise legal representation for any person rests with the tribunal itself under Section 2(b) of the 1921 Act. The Government will invite the tribunal to be guided in this matter by the Salmon Commission's recommendations as accepted in the 1973 White Paper, and to adopt the practice envisaged in that Paper of ascertaining and prescribing the particular issues in which an applicant for representation is to be regarded as an interested person. It is also intended to authorise the tribunal to announce at the preliminary hearing that the Government will be prepared to pay on an ex gratia basis the reasonable costs to individuals of legal representation allowed by the tribunal in relation to the issues prescribed by it, and subject to any recommendations the tribunal may make.
Your Lordships know the background to the inquiry, which was so clearly set out in the Fay Report. Much time has already elapsed since the events occurred which are to be investigated, and your Lordships may think that the tribunal should begin its work as soon as possible. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to what extent there were lapses from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74 described in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents (HC 48 of 1977).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.24 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think the whole House will be especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord who is sitting on the Woolsack for the very detailed and precise statement which he has made on behalf of the Government. It is especially pleasing to have details of this particular tribunal spelled out to us, since the House will be aware of the very widespread concern felt throughout the country, in Parliament and elsewhere, such as in the City, and I daresay in many countries all over the world, as a result of this particular case. But our main query from these Benches is whether or not the scope of the proposed tribunal will include such matters as breach of duty or negligence in those bodies which were mentioned by the Minister in her Statement in another place on 1st December 1977. For your Lordships' information, these organisations would include Crown Agents themselves, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and, of course, the Exchequer and the Audit Department.
This is a formidable list, and I think it right that such bodies should indeed come under the detailed scrutiny of a tribunal of inquiry for four main reasons. First, the scale of the losses was spectacular enough, and justified concern was felt over whether adequate provision had been made to cover these losses. Secondly, the faults in the various systems which ought to operate within such bodies as I have mentioned were indeed disturbing. One example of such a gap in the system of safeguarding funds and investment was given by the Minister when she pointed out that the accounts for the Crown Agents' operations for the year 1972 (as she put it, "such as they were")
400
were made available only in January 1975. The House will surely be aware of my especial interest in the accountancy profession, but there can be no doubt that any method of control, especially over financial matters—matters which can be detailed, complex and very byzantine—requires that any system which is thus overworked should be revised.
The third reason why we are very pleased about this tribunal is, as should be pointed out, that the tribunal need not necessarily be seen in this House, or indeed in the Press, as any form of a witchhunt. Indeed, the Fay Report stressed continually that the causes of this catastrophe concerning the Crown Agents were due to the actions, and indeed the inaction, of individuals coupled with a defective system. Again I quote:
"The story was one of incompetence rather than misconduct."
Thus, no one who is likely to be called before the tribunal to give any evidence has anything to lose at all. Lastly, we believe that a tribunal will do much to reassure the House, and indeed the Ministry of Overseas, Development and those nations and organisations to whom Fay refers as principals, that such defective systems as I have briefly mentioned will be improved and altered, so that matters cannot run out of hand again on such a scale in this field of investment and banking.
Throughout the debate in another place which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has mentioned, on the 5th December, the Minister defended the ability of the proposed Aarvold Commission to examine how and where management systems had broken down, and how these defects would be solved; but in the end it was decided that a tribunal under the 1921 Act would be the correct method whereby the flaws which are displayed in the Fay Report could be removed. The Minister herself pleaded that such a tribunal could take as long as two years to issue its final report. Indeed, my honourable and learned friend in another place, Sir Michael Havers, likened the tribunal to a blunderbuss. I do not think the noble and learned Lord would necessarily agree with that, in spite of the fact that it came from a member of his learned and distinguished profession. But certainly Sir Michael

401
mentioned the Salmon Report and its dissatisfaction with the Profumo ad hoc tribunal, and also its recommendation that an inquiry under the 1921 Act would be the only correct, satisfactory and reasonable vehicle whereby such grave faults as had occurred then, and as had been shown in the debate in another place, I believe, could be set right.
My honourable friend the Member for Shoreham in another place said during the course of his speech in that particular debate:
"… there is great distrust about Whitehall and about Parliament …" —[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/77; col. 1087.]
I presume he meant in connection with the level of control exercised by Parliament in this special case. I can assure your Lordships that my honourable friend is entirely correct, and not just in this special case, because each weekend I am informed by members of the public, as I am sure many of your Lordships are, that they do not believe us in Parliament to be capable of supervising even the day-to-day running of their lives, let alone such byzantine affairs as are outlined in the Fay Report. I believe there is much reason in these arguments, presented certainly to me and, I am sure, to many of your Lordships, by members of the public. For this and many other reasons, it seems to us that the blunderbuss mechanism of the tribunal of inquiry is, on balance, more desirable than the more informal and briefer proceedings of a Commission, such as the proposed Aarvold Commission, and especially in this case. That is why we thank the noble and learned Lord and are very pleased to support his Motion.
4.30 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, from these Benches, too, we should like to give a welcome to the very wide terms of reference of the tribunal which have been read out by the noble and learned Lord. We are also pleased to hear the safeguards that he has given to those individuals who are concerned or who will be giving evidence. I think that this tribunal will be seen, whether we like it or not, as a post-mortem because of the time that has elapsed since the events came about which were described in the Fay Committee Report. All postmortems are ugly; this tribunal will be no
402
exception. I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell: that the public are not crying for blood here, but for information and to make sure that these mistakes will not or cannot occur again perhaps on the same scale. I think that this tribunal can go a long way towards putting right a lot of misunderstandings—certainly in the minds of the public. We should look on this as an opportunity and I think it will take a long time.
My Lords, perhaps I, too, may ask a question for clarification on two of the points that the noble and learned Lord has given us this afternoon. The first comes under the heading of lapses from the accepted standards of public administration. I do not believe that we should go into investigating all the Departments concerned and which were covered by the Fay Committee. But I think that the Auditor-General's Department should be looked at very carefully and consideration given as to whether it is the most efficient way of looking after the books of the nation.
Secondly, I should like to think that this would be an opportunity to consider the constitution of the Public Accounts Committee. When one considers there are hardly (I think) a dozen qualified accountants in another place, and that the civil servants who come up before the Public Accounts Committee have taken three or four months in preparing their case, it is difficult to put blame on Members of another place for not discovering sooner or, indeed, at all, some of the things that were specified by the Fay Committee. I hope that we can look at this constructively and look forward to the future; that there will not be any similar tribunals of this nature.
I mention this because it worries me that the Fay Committee had to call upon outside agencies, agencies outside Government, in order to get the figures right to present them before Parliament. I think that this is an indication of some of the weakness or, possibly, the lack of accountancy skills in the Government's fiscal department. I think that this is an area in which, if this tribunal does its work well, the public can be reassured and satisfied, as taxpayers, at the way in which their funds are being kept and the books looked after. But if the tribunal fails to do this, I think that the

403
misunderstandings, doubts and concerns expressed by the general public will not be decreased but greatly increased to an extent which could lead to a very serious situation.
4.34 p.m.
The EARL of SELKIRK: My Lords, as the Fay Report says, this matter was raised in the first place in your Lordships' House. If I may, I should like to remind the House of the situation as it was seen in August 1971. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, if he were here, would endorse what I am going to say. For some time it had been known that rather odd things had been happening in the Crown Agents' business. The purpose of bringing it up was, first, to alert the Government to the anxiety felt and, secondly, to try to find out whether there was a public liability. There were also some very full and forthright articles by Mr. Charles Raw, chiefly in the Guardian newspaper; so there was no lack of information at that time.
When we come to look at the Fay Report we find this. These things were fully known two years before in the Department concerned. They were known in the Treasury; they were known at the Bank of England. In the early part of 1970, the Law Officer of the Foreign Office said quite clearly that the ultimate liability would lie with the public purse. I believe that this really is a matter which is not concerned with any individual; and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said this. It is probably more a question of incompetence than it is one of misconduct; but I think that it is a matter of very general concern. It is the administration as a whole which has not faced up to the responsibilities of carrying and looking after very large sums indeed of money which they now hold from the taxpayers of this country. There are many taxpayers who have difficulty in meeting their liabilities as they stand. There are a great many organisations today which are vaguely and loosely connected with the Government, for which, nonetheless, the Government have a degree of responsibility.
I do not think it is purely a question of accountancy. It is one of initiative and of appreciation of responsibility which,
404
in this case, has been badly lacking. Here we are, eight years after the event and probably it will be ten years before we hear that has happened. I am particularly glad that this Motion which the noble and learned Lord has put forward deals with the administration. I believe that it is basically a question of administration which has gone fairly wrong. I am not unaware of the complicated nature of the Crown Agents' position; but that does not alter the fact that once it was known in the Government that ultimate responsibility would lie with the general public somebody or some body should have taken more drastic and definite action. That, I hope, is what will be looked at. I believe that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that that is well within the compass of the terms which he has moved.
4.37 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, noble Lords have pointed out the importance and gravity of the matters that fall for consideration by the tribunal and it is for the reason of reassuring and informing the public that the terms of reference have been drafted as widely as they have been; because they call for inquiry into the extent to which there were lapses from the accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct on the part of those involved and lapses from accepted standards of public administration. I venture to think that all the matters to which noble Lords have referred as requiring study and investigation will be covered by the terms of reference which I have moved.
It is the case that in the past the proceeding of some of the earlier tribunals of inquiry have caused grave concern. One could not have been unaware of the fact that in some previous proceedings many innocent persons had their reputations damaged and the closing years of their lives ruined by accusations which are not proven and not justified. It is for this reason that, first of all, the Royal Commission was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Salmon and why I have emphasised the importance of complying with the six cardinal principles which were identified in that report and to which the tribunal's attention will be drawn.

405
My Lords, I take comfort further in the fact that, as I have said—and the names of the members of the tribunal will be announced shortly—the chairman will be a High Court judge with experience in these matters, assisted by distinguished colleagues who will not themselves be lawyers but who will have had considerable administrative experience in relevant fields. Accordingly, I hope that this tribunal will be able to do what noble Lords have indicated: to inform the public as fully as possible as to what went wrong and as to where the responsibility lay. It will not of course fall to the tribunal to impose any penalties or punishments, disciplinary or otherwise. If any such matters fall for action, they will have to be considered in the light of the findings of the recommendations of the tribunal in due course. Accordingly, therefore, I am glad what is now proposed has the approval of your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
4.41 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 9 [Powers of court to commit children to care of local authority]:
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 10, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the first Amendment on the Marshalled List this afternoon is, I venture to think, the only one with which the House is going to have any trouble. I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has taken an enormous amount of trouble with his advisers to discuss and write to those of us who have put down Amendments. I find a gratifying amount of agreement arising between myself and the noble Lord and I think that others of my
406
noble friends are also satisfied with some of the Amendments that the noble Lord is putting forward.
However, on Clause 9 a question is still unanswered. If I may briefly describe the question again, it is this: Why, when there is a power to make a care order placing a child in the care of a local authority, may a court not make it after the child is 17? It was put to me at the end of his speech at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell (this matter was covered at columns 1272 to 1276 of the proceedings reported in Hansard on 14th February): What does the court do with a child after it is 17? I said that that was exactly the question that I had asked the noble Lord and he had not answered it. I have not yet had an answer.
The second part of Clause 9(6) is the "odd man out" in this Bill. The jurisdiction over children arises under Clause 7(2)(a) and continues to the age of 18. Custody ends at 18 under Clause 7(5). Under Clause 8(3), a supervision order ends at 18. Under the first part of Clause 9(6), a local authority care order ends at 18. In Clause 9(4)(b) the age is 16, and that is for the purposes or orders relating to contributions and applications by the child himself. He may do that at 16. In Clause 16, there are provisions which enable things to happen when the child reaches the age of 16, 18 or 21. Under Clause 16(11), at the age of 16 a child can apply for the variation of an order on his own account.
These are the up-to-date age limits. Sixteen is now the school leaving age. Eighteen is now the age of majority. I suppose that, if one wants to find some justification for 21, which only occurs once in the Bill, it is the former age of majority and perhaps it is as good as any other on which to put a top limit. Nowhere else in this legislation is 17 mentioned. I ask the Government, Why? Why have they persisted in saying that between the ages of 17 and 18 no court may make a care order on a child? I was told that this was merely consonant with other legislation on the subject. I was referred to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 43(4). It is perfectly true that that is in exactly the same terms as Clause 9(6) of this Bill. It does not say why.
The 1973 Act was the result of a consolidation Bill, and one of the prime duties of the Consolidation Bills Cornmittee—I remember this well because I used to be the chairman of is— to make sure that there is no change in the law. On that occasion the Committee—not under my chairmanship—did their job properly because they reproduced faithfully Section 36(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. If one looks at the origins of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, one finds that that, too, resulted from a consolidation Bill. But it had Amendments made to it, and I am led to believe that the Amendment that now represents most of Section 36 of that repealed Act derived from Cmnd 9678, which was the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce under the chairmanship of the late Lord Morton of Henryton, which reported to Parliament on 1st December 1955. One is referred to paragraphs 393 to 402 which talk, among other things, about care orders; but the report does not say anything about the age of 17. So my inquiries have run into the sand down that alley and I am no further in discovering why the age 17 was chosen.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, also referred to me the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, which this Bill is superseding, and to Section 2(1)(e). He is perfectly right in saying that that includes the provision whereby care orders to local authorities may be made for children. It is interesting that although that provision requires that such orders should cease at the age of 18, it does not say that they may not be made after the child is 17—at least, if it does, I cannot find the reference. I have gone as far back as 1955.
If I am going to be told that the history of this begins earlier still—say, with the Children Act 1948—then all I can do is to suggest to the House that it is high time it is looked at again. I think I am right in saying that in those days the school-leaving age was 15. It may have been 14; but, at any rate, it was not 16. The age of majority was 21. I suggested last time that this is a relic and nothing more than a relic of ancient legislation when, for the sake of nothing better, 17 was chosen because it seemed to be about right. The difficulty is that it no longer seems to be
408
about right. The age ought to be 18. I appreciate that only rarely will care orders be made under Clause 9. The circumstances will be exceptional. This is what the Morton Commission was suggesting in the first place. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the court should be left to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, put to me: In the rare circumstance concerning a child over the age of 17, but under 18, what do we do? The answer is, Nothing. I believe we deserve an answer to this question. I beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount on this Amendment. The situation regarding boys and girls—particularly girls—from the ages of 17 to 18 is extremely difficult when there are great problems with parents. Parents ask what help could be given to a girl of 17. No help can be given as the law stands at the moment. Acceptance into care cannot be offered. One cannot bring the girl before the court. One simply has to rely on a personal relationship which often at that stage is extremely difficult. Therefore I hope that the Minister will consider raising the age above the present level. Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 20, revised by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, and further revised by the 1969 Act, it is possible for children who are in care to receive help up to the age of 21. Therefore when a girl or boy between 17 and 18 is in trouble, it is an extraordinary situation that one has absolutely nothing to offer them or their parents.
4.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having returned to this matter; but I find myself in some slight difficulty because my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, who dealt with this matter in Committee and was indeed going to deal with it today, has been called away for understandable reasons, with which we sympathise.
I have therefore gone into this matter, having had the pleasure of listening to the noble Viscount on a previous occasion and indeed today. I should like to have some pause for further reflection on the matter. I would not in any way wish to

409
suggest that I could announce that the Government were going to change their position here, because I am advised there could be some quite significant resource implications if they were to do so. However, I should like to go into this matter with the Department of Health and Social Security between now and the next stage of the Bill. In doing that, we shall be assisted by the valuable historical researches with which the noble Viscount has concerned himself since the Committee stage, and perhaps we can return to the matter on Third Reading.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, in these circumstances I certainly do not wish to press the matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to look at it again. I, too, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is not here, and am even more sorry to hear the reasons for his absence. I can envisage that there may be some resource indications, but when this was being argued previously, the main burden of the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was not in fact immediately directed to the age of 17, to which he really only got at the end. He was chiefly defending the criterion of exceptional circumstances. As I say, if one wants to see what those exceptional circumstances are, one goes back to look at the paragraphs in the Morton Report to which I referred. There is there a very strong indication that these care orders would not be very common. I would think that in the case of somebody between the ages of 17 and 18 such an order would be altogether a rare thing; or at least certainly not an ordinary run of the mill case.
I know that the Government have resource problems at the moment, but the difficulty is that we comparatively seldom legislate on these subjects. It is now 18 years since this was looked at, and I would not object, if the resource implication was the only thing that was giving trouble, to there being special commencement order proceedings. We have those in all the rest of the legislation, and, if that is the only problem, then I can see no technical difficulty in getting over it. The point is that the principle needs to be justified and the noble Lord, for reasons which I well understand, has not attempted to do so today. I only hope that, if this Amendment is not going to be accepted,
410
we shall at some time at least hear positive arguments as to the reason. I shall therefore leave the noble Lord to his deliberations for the present and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 2:
Line 38, leave out ("£10") and insert ("£50").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment with some others which appear later on the Marshalled List, is to meet a general point about the level of fines made during the debate in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. Under Clause 9, the parent or guardian of a child who has been received into the care of a local authority is required to notify the authority of any change in his or her address. The Amendment raises the maximum penalty for failing to comply from £10 to £50. We agree, on reflection, that £10 is too low a figure and have chosen £50 because this seems to us to be in line with the nature and seriousness of the offence and with the scales of fines provided for in the Criminal Law Act 1977. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supplementary provisions with respect to powers of court under ss. 7 to 9]:
4.54 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 12, at end insert ("or any other report to which the court may direct that the provisions of this subsection shall apply").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, although the untutored eye might not immediately recognise the matter, this is directed to the subject of hearsay evidence. I ventured to write to the noble Lord, warning him beforehand that that was so. We had a rather inconclusive discussion about hearsay evidence on the last stage of the Bill, largely because nobody could read my handwriting and the noble Lord did not know what I was going to talk about. Now he does, and he has written a most helpful letter to me which I have here, in which he explains the situation. He has explained, first, why it probably would be

411
better if we did not embark on the question of hearsay under the Children and Young Persons' Act 1969. I would be happy to agree with him that perhaps it would be better not to embark upon that legislation in connection with this Bill. He also explained a matter which is interesting not only to the Parliamentary, but also to the academic, lawyer: that is, why the Civil Evidence Act has never been appleid in magistrates' courts. I find this of very considerable interest.
He further described why it was that in his view, under this general complex of domestic proceedings, there was in the magistrates' courts unlikely to be any particular trouble about the reception of hearsay evidence. This information which appears in his letter on the subject would be, I would have thought, of great interest to people other than the mere recipient of that letter, which is myself. I wonder whether, in view of the amount of hard work which has gone into the correspondence sent to me by the noble Lord on this and on a large number of other practical and important matters, there may not be an opportunity for the Home Office to issue a circular which gives some words of guidance along these lines, because I feel that would be of great assistance to those who have to administer this body of law in future—particularly clerks of courts and chairmen of benches, who will have to decide what they are to do in any given circumstances.
By putting down this Amendment I therefore gave the noble Lord an opportunity of saying something about the question of hearsay evidence in domestic proceedings: but in fact I have gone a little further than the Bill and a little further than what the noble Lord says is already a satisfactory situation, because I think one needs just to look at the limitations provided in Clause 11. From subsections (3) to (6), we have a provision whereby the court can ask for a report to be prepared by an officer of the local authority—I should think a probation officer—and when it is prepared a copy is passed to the other side. The matter may be considered and the officer who made it made be examined, and hearsay evidence does not apply. I imagine that is extremely satisfactory and will apply to all domestic proceedings, as redefined in Clause 72 of the Bill; but it does not deal with reports
412
which are made by anybody other than the probation officer.
I should have thought, particularly as we are coming to Amendment No. 4, which I am very happy to see and which puts at the forefront of the court's consideration the welfare of the child, that the court ought to have available to it, without being troubled by the rules of hearsay, any relevant evidence that is available from any source. I can see that one can devise a system whereby, if one wishes to bring in what was said by the school-teacher, the Minister or anybody else, it can all go into the probation officer's report. Certainly it could do; but what happens if it does not and if there is an important piece of material evidence which, for one reason or another, has been missed out of the probation officer's report and is then excluded from the consideration before the court because of the hearsay rule?
I should have thought that in these circumstances—though I do not know what those who are involved in magistrates' courts would have to say about this—that one ought to be able to allow the court to have in front of them any report and to treat it in accordance with the probation officer's report under this clause as it thinks fit. Therefore, what I have done is to provide for an extension of the provisions—a relaxation of the hearsay rule—under Clause 11, so that the court may direct that these provisions apply to any other report. They do not have to do so. It is simply that, if they think that it is something which they ought to know about, they may direct that the hearsay rule shall not apply to that report. Therefore, it remains entirely within their hands. It is not mandatory upon them. I should have thought that it was a perfectly workable system for them to say: "It sounds as if we ought to know about that and, if we are not debarred by the hearsay rule, we should like to do so." That is what I am offering them a chance to do. So that, in addition to asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to talk about the hearsay rule, I should like him to consider this further substantive point that my Amendment raises. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.1 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe I am right in assuming

413
that the noble Viscount does not want me to spend too much time on the Amendment, but is more concerned with the wider question which he has raised. However, if I may just deal with the Amendment quite briefly, before coming on to the more general exposition of the case, the problem about this Amendment, which will not altogether surprise the noble Viscount, is that it is technically defective, because it is simply too wide in its scope. To give one example, it would apply, as worded, to reports obtained in criminal proceedings and could thus result in magistrates obtaining hearsay information before reaching a finding of guilt, which I am fairly certain is not the noble Viscount's intention.
I should like to address myself—and the noble Viscount appealed to me to do so—to the wider question, because this is an important matter and it might help the House, and, indeed, some outside it, to have this matter gone through in some detail. However, before coming to that, I hope that I can meet the noble Viscount on one point. I will gladly look into his suggestion about the circular. It is normal to send out circulars when one is implementing legislation of this character and I will look into the point to see whether it is practical.
The provision in Clause 11 is what I may call the "common form" provision on this point. The substance of this provision was inserted into the Guardianship Act 1973 and the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960 by Sections 90 and 91 of the Children Act 1975, and Sections 36 (3) and 39 of the 1975 Act apply this provision to proceedings relating to custodianship orders. If Clause 11 is enacted in its present form, the provisions governing welfare reports to magistrates' courts relating to the custody of children, or to the matters covered by Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill, will all be covered by provisions in these terms.
The noble Viscount has expressed some concern about the application of the rule against hearsay to domestic proceedings where the custody of children is involved. We think that this problem is covered, at any rate for the most part, by this "common form" provision under which the report is copied to the parties in advance of the hearing, and any matters
414
included in that report are admissible in evidence whether or not they are hearsay. This means on the one hand, that anything which the welfare worker or probation officer who is charged with compiling the report considers is relevant to the issue before the court, and also is, in his view, sufficiently reliable to be recorded, will be before the court; but, equally, that the parties will have seen the report and will therefore be able, if they think fit, to contest any statement which they consider to be false or misleading. The position has, of course, been thought to be otherwise in proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, although this view must now be regarded as qualified by the Humberside County Council case. But I do not think that any such difficulty has arisen, or will arise, in relation to domestic proceedings as defined in this Bill.
The question has also been raised of the application to magistrates' courts of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. The position on this is that the Act can be applied in whole or in part to civil proceedings in any court, including magistrates' courts, by Statutory Instrument made by the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Home Office considered this possibility in 1969 and 1970, and went so far as to prepare draft rules. But when the Department invited comments, they received strong objections from the Justices' Clerks' Society and the London Magistrates' Clerks Association, on the grounds, first, that the rules were too complicated; secondly, that they would have to introduce interlocutory proceedings which are inappropriate to magistrates' courts, where procedures are generally far simpler and speedier, and, thirdly, that it would hardly be fair for them to be brought against a party who was not legally represented. They were the three central objections which were made at that time.
The Department accepted those views then and the time may well have arisen when it would be appropriate to look at this matter again. Accordingly, I will undertake to ensure that that is done. On the other hand, as the Law Commission observed when commenting on pleading, there is a real risk—and I am quite sure that, with his substantial experience in these matters, the noble

415
Viscount will agree with me—of over-complicating proceedings in magistrates' courts. However, in any event, fresh legislation is not necessary, because adequate rule-making powers already exist, as I have indicated. But I think it is right to look into the matter again, and will do so.
If we are to consider applying the Civil Evidence Act 1968, there is the further question of which parts of it are really relevant to the present issues which we have been discussing. I have already referred to the question of the admission of hearsay evidence, in so far as it is contained in reports by local authority welfare officers or probation officers. The Civil Evidence Act enables various out of court statements to be admitted as evidence of facts stated, and also for the admissibility of information contained in records or computers, and it is, of course, true that this could help in some domestic proceedings. However, as the Justices' Clerks' Society stated in 1969 and 1970, the structure of the 1968 Act is based on the assumption that there will be pleadings.
The Law Commission suggested in their report, on page 52, that Rules of Court,
"should provide for the introduction in the magistrates' matrimonial procedure of a very simple form of pleading."
They explained later that what they had in mind was that information should be sent with the summons to inform the respondent of the ground for the application, and that where this is "unreasonable behaviour" the statement should indicate briefly the main facts on which the applicant intends to rely and to inform the respondent, if he intends to contest the claim, to state the grounds on which he proposes to do so. The Government accept this recommendation, but nothing about it is included in the Bill, because again, we consider that the existing rule-making power is there under Section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, and is wide enough to cover the matter.
The introduction of these modified pleadings may, of course, also affect the objections originally offered by the Justices' Clerks' Society to the application of any part of the Civil Evidence Act, although it is only when we come to
416
working out the rules that we shall be able to see to what extent this is so. However, I think the main conclusions are, on the one hand, that in the outcome the rules will go some way to meeting the general point made by the noble Viscount; and, on the other hand, that there is no need to amend the Bill to enable this point to be tackled, for the reasons that I hope I have made clear. I therefore suggest that it could be left aside for the time being, on the understanding that we shall take it up with the various bodies concerned with the running of the courts, when we return to the consideration of the rules.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, until I was told about it by the noble Lord, I had not appreciated the practical objections which had been raised to the commencement order that would be required applying the Civil Evidence Act to magistrates' courts. I think that those objections are impressive, although I am glad that the noble Lord is prepared to look at the matter again.
This has nothing to do with domestic proceedings, but may I say that I believe that sooner or later the moment will come when somebody challenges in the magistrates' court the validity of the distress proceedings on rating matters on the ground that since almost all rating authorities now issue their rate demands by computer there is absolutely no method whatever of proving that any document was ever issued, unless it is done under the procedure contained in Sections 5 and 6 of the Civil Evidence Act. So far as I know, the point has not yet been taken, but it is only a matter of time and then there will be trouble. That action will have to be taken under the 1968 Act.
So far as this Bill is concerned, I am happy to leave the noble Lord to pursue his own inquiries. However, I should like to suggest that there is one way out of the difficulty about the report that comes from a source other than the social worker or probation officer. It might be that ingenuity can get around the difficulty so that we may maintain uniformity of treatment throughout this body of legislation.

417
If the report comes secondhand through somebody else, I suppose that there is nothing to stop the court asking for a supplementary report by the social worker or probation officer, and when it arrived they could take account of it under Clause 11(3) to (6). If this is right, that, too, might be something which could be drawn to the court's attention in the circular, because it would provide a comprehensive sweeping up of all the material that might be necessary. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head. Whether that means that he takes the point or agrees with it I shall leave until the time when the circular is issued. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 12 insert the following new clause:
Principle on which questions relating to custody and upbringing of children are to be decided
" . For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions of section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (which require a court in deciding any question relating to the custody or upbringing of a minor to have regard to the welfare of the minor as the first and paramount consideration) apply in relation to the exercise by a magistrates' court of its powers under this Part of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This is a point which the noble Viscount raised when we last discussed the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to insert a new clause which provides explicitly, and for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that the provisions of Section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 shall apply to proceedings under Part I of the Bill. Section 1 of the 1971 Act provides that in any proceedings where the custody or upbringing of a child are in issue, the child's welfare shall be the first and paramount consideration.
This Amendment meets the undertaking that I gave to the noble Viscount when we discussed this matter in Committee; namely, to examine his suggestion that we should write into the Bill the principle that the child's welfare is paramount in relation to any decisions under Part I. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I need to do is to thank the noble Lord. I consider this to be a great improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Powers of court to make orders for the protection of a party to a marriage or a child of the family]:
5.14 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("both") and insert ("more").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment and also Amendment No. 6—and with them it might be convenient to look at Amendment No. 17 which is a proposed new clause much later on—because of the lack of finality of discussion about this matter during the last stage of the Bill. It will be seen in Clause 13 that a magistrates' court may make an order under subsection (3)(i) and (ii) which either requires the respondent to leave the matrimonial home or prohibits him or her from going back and entering it. What it does not do is to provide that the respondent shall allow the applicant to go into or stay in the matrimonial home. In other words, it does not prevent a lockout.
The difficulty that was put forward when we discussed this matter in Committee was that, although it was generally conceded that this could be a problem, first it was not reflected either in the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 or in some other legislation which relates to this matter. I can see that it is probably a pity if we have a different range of powers covering this point in the different Bills, notwithstanding which there are problems at the moment about this area of law. If, therefore, we can find improvements I do not think that we should shrink from putting them into such legislation as we happen to have.
The other difficulty that was put forward was that the Law Commission had very firmly advised that no exclusion orders under this and the following clause should have any effect upon property rights. I imagine that the same thing is supposed to apply to the jurisdiction of the county

419
court under the 1976 Act. So I thought that if I were to return to this matter at all I must express it clearly that there was to be no effect on property rights, and that is what I have done in both Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 17.
I do not think that the situation is entirely happy. Equally, I can see that it is not particularly easy for the Government readily to come to a conclusion one way or the other. I believe that the noble Lord has indicated that he would like further time in which to look at it. If so, perhaps the noble Lord could give us a progress report and say whether there is any chance that we can make an improvement here. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I indicated when the noble Viscount raised this question during the Committee stage, I found some attraction in his argument for giving magistrates' courts the power both to turn the violent spouse out of the matrimonial home and to let the victim of the violence return if that person had fled from the house on account of violence. However, the Law Commission considered this possibility and recommend against it.
I make that point not in order to oppose the proposition of the noble Viscount but simply to set out the matter for the purposes of historical accuracy. It may well be that subsequent events, including a provision in the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which is similar to the first of the two Amendments which have been moved by the noble Viscount, would justify some modification of the Law Commission's opinion. However, as the noble Viscount has recognised, this is clearly a matter of some importance. That being so, I have discussed it with my honourable friend the joint Minister of State at the Home Office who deals on a day-to-day basis with these questions. We have agreed to consult the chairman of the Law Commission before taking a decision, and the Home Office is now in the process of doing just this.
Similar considerations apply to the declaratory provisions which the noble Viscount's Amendments would insert in Clause 13 and as a new clause after Clause 56, to the effect that orders pro-
420
habiting a spouse from occupying the matrimonial home which are made under Clause 13 of the Bill, Section 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 or Section 4 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 shall not affect property rights.
As the noble Viscount will know, declaratory provisions have to be examined with particular care, since sometimes they produce unexpected and wholly unintended results. Although I am speaking on this occasion for the Government and not for the Home Office alone, perhaps I may be permitted to say that this complex question of property rights which arises in consequence of matrimonial disputes is more the concern of other Government Departments than of the Home Office itself. I must, therefore, be careful to ensure that my other ministerial colleagues are fully consulted about this proposal, but again I shall gladly do that.
I regret that I cannot give any firm undertaking about these matters before the Bill leaves this House. Because of their complexity, I fear that that would be an unrealisable hope. But I undertake on behalf of the Government that if the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendments we will consider them very carefully in the light of the consultations I have indicated are already in train on whether Amendments on these general lines should be introduced, and if we come to the conclusion that that would indeed be appropriate we will arrange to introduce them in another place. In any case, of course, I would naturally let the noble Viscount know the outcome.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, it is very difficult for a non-legal person to understand these things. Do we know why the Law Commission objected?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not, unhappily, speak for the Law Commission on this occasion; I find it a fairly fulltime job replying on behalf of the Government. The Law Commission did examine this matter and came to this particular conclusion for a number of reasons. I will gladly give the noble Baroness as much indication as I can on behalf of the Law Commission. I cannot do it at this moment, but I will

421
gladly write to the noble Baroness and let her have all the information available to us as to the reasons why they came to this particular conclusion.
Viscount COLVILLE of CU LROSS: My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by what the noble Lord has said. Nobody, I least of all, would ever suggest that my drafting is anything other than the most tentative, but I think I have suggested that there may be methods of legal approach whereby one could creep up on this matter. Of course, any improvements would be something I would very much welcome. I am grateful that the Government are prepared to reconsider this matter and look at it on the whole broad basis of this area of the law. I would have been astonished if they had been able to come to any conclusion at this stage, or indeed in this House, and I will happily leave it to those in another place to chase the Ministers there if there should be any backsliding in the very encouraging approach we have had today. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Variation and revocation of orders for financial provision]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 19, line 44, at end insert (", except that the court shall not by virtue of this subsection extend the period for which the order is in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and I can perhaps take No. 11 at the same time. These are drafting Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("14") and insert ("15").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This is a minor drafting correction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert —
(" ( ) There may be prescribed by rules the circumstances in which and the means (including the service of notices) whereby the court may of its own motion initiate proceedings under this section to vary or revoke an order.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have found a resource point in this Bill that the Government have not picked up. I am bound to say that I owe it to the researches of a most hardworking and meritorious group of magistrates in Manchester, a copy of whose conclusions on this legislation I have sent to the noble Lord. The point they are raising is this—and it goes with my Amendment No. 14. There are, of course, circumstances where a wife with family who has been given maintenance under his Bill its in fact still not receiving enough money from her husband to bring her above the level to which she is entitled to supplementary benefit. Therefore, the Department of Health and Social Security step in and take over the provision for herself and her family at whatever is the proper rate of supplementary benefits. They also take over the receipt of the money under the maintenance order by dealing direct with the justices' clerk.
The difficulty is this, and it is twofold—in fact I think there are three problems but only two are dealt with in my Amendments. First of all, if a man, knowing that his wife and family are in any event being supported by supplementary benefits, simply ceases paying, that does not worry the wife because she is getting more money anyway from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Therefore, there is no incentive on her to seek to enforce the order made by the magistrates' court. She is in either event going to get the same money whether she enforces the order or not, and it is rather unpleasant to have to go and enforce it.
The second point is that if she should happen to know that her husband has got a better job, and is therefore able to supply his family with more money than he formerly could under the original order, she could, of course, go and seek a variation; but if the extra amount will still not bring her above the level of supplementary

423
benefits there is no incentive on her to do it. In each case it is the public purse that suffers. Instead of the man supporting his family it is being done by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and so far as I can see the Bill provides them with no machinery whereby they can seek to enforce the order, or indeed seek to vary it, if appropriate.
There is a third point which I have not put down but which comes into this context. If a wife who has been separated from her husband does not go to the court at all but merely claims supplementary benefit, there is no order ever made under this Bill. One wonders whether somebody ought to be allowed to initiate proceedings whereby the husband is forced to maintain his wife. There is a precedent for this, because where there is an illegitimate child the Supplementary Benefits Commission have powers to initiate proceedings for an affiliation order under Section 19 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.
I have not put it down in that form. I thought it might be better to approach it from the point of view of the court looking after its own orders. I have, therefore, drafted these points in the terms that the court itself would be able to take the initiative if facts were drawn to its attention by, for instance, the Department of Health and Social Security which warranted an enforcement of the order or a variation of the order. It also seemed to me that it was going to be much too complicated to do it by substantive legislation, and it was also likely to require to be amended if it was done at all, and therefore it should be done by rules. That is what these two Amendments are about. I think they do highlight a real problem. I have not invented them. They have come from experienced magistrates who deal with these matters day by day. I do not suggest I have found the right solution, but I do think I have highlighted the right problem, and it is one that needs to be dealt with at some time. I beg to move.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I think my noble friend has raised a very important point indeed. My experience, not only as a magistrate but as a member of another place for over
424
38 years, and having a lot to do with people's problems, is that it is very difficult indeed to suggest that a woman placed in the kind of difficulty which my noble friend has illustrated has to go down to the court to find out what her rights really are. My experience is that if you ask many poor women, so to speak, to go down to a court to find out what their rights are they think you are suggesting that they should get in touch with the police; that frightens them, and they do not like going.
If I may raise one experience of my own, I remember a woman who had moved into a fairly new council house; her husband was a lorry driver, a very good lorry driver, but he drove from East of the Pennines to the other side of the Pennines. He was already under an obligation to pay maintenance to his wife. While she went out shopping he went to the house and he removed every single piece of furniture. She had five children. By the time she returned to her house there was no bedding; there was absolutely nothing at all left for her.
The difficulty of trying to deal with this matter is very complicated. The woman herself is not in any position to take action, and once one gets involved in a case of that kind it seems to go on for ever—rather like the Crown Agents issue, it goes on for ever. Now that we are dealing with this Bill, and the difficulty of women themselves not liking to take action, or being frightened to take action or not knowing how to take action is recognised, if we can have something to cover them it would make a tremendous difference to many women who get involved in this difficulty. I am very pleased that my noble friend has raised this point and I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will be able to help.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness for the speech she has just made. I have listened with great care to what she has said emphasising the difficulty of the matters we have before us at the moment. Having said that, I approach the proposition of the noble Viscount with a degree of warmth, and indeed almost enthusiasm, so far as one particular aspect is concerned—that is, his desire to protect public funds. There is no difference between us on this

425
matter; it naturally has great appeal to us. He has raised a matter of some importance and we are indebted not only to the noble Viscount but to the Manchester justices for having drawn our attention to this.
As I am sure the noble Viscount will recognise, obviously it has not been possible in the time available since he put down his Amendment to consult the significant and indeed formidable number of interests which would be affected by a proposal of that sort, and therefore, unhappily, I cannot enter into any firm commitment, as far as the Government are concerned, beyond giving an undertaking, which I gladly do, of considering this matter with some care and attention which certainly in my view it deserves. I think it was probably right for me to say that, although a rule-making power could well be a useful device, I am not sure that an unfettered power for the court to take the initiative upon its own motion is necessarily the right answer. For example, it would not normally have the sources of information on which the desirability for such an initiative could be based. Nevertheless, the noble Viscount has raised an interesting matter, and indeed a matter of some importance, and I shall gladly undertake to go into it. Unhappily, so far as this matter is concerned we have not a great deal of time ahead of us and it will have to be gone into, as I am sure it will with some thoroughness, in another place.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, once again I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I put the Amendment down in this form because it kept the matter within the Home Office territory. If one drafts Amendments on the basis that the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the Department of Health is able to apply for a summons, as they do under an affiliation order procedure, I can instantly see that even more complications would occur. I should have thought that the rules could provide that the justices took account of information that was received from the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the probation officer or indeed a local authority, so I do not think it is impossible to do it along these lines. However, I am not advocating this particular approach but simply that something should be done, and with the
426
promise that the noble Lord has given, and if the House will allow me, I am glad on this occasion to ask to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 22, line 14, at end insert (", except that the court shall not by virtue of this subsection extend the period for which the order is in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I spoke to this when I moved Amendment No. 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Supplementary provisions with respect to variation and revocation of orders]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 23, line 10, leave out ("any such application") and insert ("an application under section 16 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is a drafting Amendment which removes what would otherwise be an anomaly relating to liability to cost in matrimonial cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Enforcement etc. of orders for payment of money]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("£10") and insert ("£50").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. This Amendment is similar to the Amendment to Clause 9 which I moved earlier relating to the point put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know where my noble friend is, but she said at lunchtime that she was extremely grateful and I am sure it is only proper that I should say so in public.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Further amendments of Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 as respects Scotland]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 53, line 1, after ("maintenance") insert ("for the benefit of the applicant").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment relevant to Scotland only. It is intended to make it clear that the conditions for making an award of maintenance, laid down in what is now Clause 54(1)(d) of this Bill, apply only where a divorced spouse claims maintenance for his or her own benefit. These conditions will not apply where a divorced spouse claims maintenance for the benefit of a child. The conditions laid down in Clause 54(1)(d) are clearly relevant only where a divorced spouse is claiming maintenance for himself or herself. A divorced spouse can at present claim aliment for the benefit of a child without fulfilling these conditions and there is no reason to change this. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
Eligibility for Legal Aid in Scotland for proceedings under Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972
(".After section 43 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section—
43A.— (1) In connection with proceedings under Part I of this Act in relation to a maintenance order made by a court in a reciprocating country, where there is produced a certificate from the responsible authority in that country to the effect that the payee would, in that country, be financially eligible for complete or partial—

(i) legal aid; or

(ii) exemption from costs or expenses,

in proceedings there in relation to that maintenance order, sections 2(1) and (6)(c) and (d), 3 and 4 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 shall not apply in respect of the payee and, subject to the other provisions of that Act, legal aid shall under that Act be available to the payee without inquiry into the payee's resources.
428
(2) In connection with proceedings under Part II of this Act—

(a) arising out of an application received from a convention country for the recovery of maintenance; or

(b) relating to an order made in respect of such an application,

where there is produced a certificate from the appropriate authority in that country to the effect that the applicant would, in that country, be financially eligible for complete or partial —

(i) legal aid; or

(ii) exemption from costs or expenses,

in proceedings there for the recovery of maintenance, sections 2(1) and (6)(c) and (d), 3 and 4 of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply in respect of the applicant and, subject to the other provisions of that Act, legal aid shall under that Act be available to the applicant without inquiry into the applicant's resources.
(3) Where, in connection with proceedings under Part I or II of this Act, a person has received legal aid by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above, legal advice and assistance under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 shall, notwithstanding—

(i) any financial conditions imposed by, or by virtue of, sections 1 and 4(2), (3) and (4); and

(ii) in relation to the effect of subsections (1) to (4) and (7) of section 4 of the said Act of 1967, the provisions of section 6(1)(b),

of the aid Act of 1972 (but subject otherwise to the provisions of the said Act of 1972), be available in Scotland for that person, without inquiry into his resources, in connection with any matter incidental to, or arising out of, those proceedings.
(4) In subsection (1) above "maintenance order" "reciprocating country", "responsible authority" and payee "have the same meanings respectively as in Part I of this Act; and in subsection (2) above" convention country "means a country or territory specified in an Order in Council under section 25(1) of this Act," maintenance "has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act, and" appropriate authority "means the authority from which the Secretary of State received the application." ")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat lengthy Amendment designed to meet a small but awkward problem which has arisen in relation to persons overseas who seek to claim maintenance against residents of Scotland. The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 provides for courts in the United Kingdom to

429
deal with two types of application from overseas: maintenance orders made by courts in reciprocating countries under Part I of the Act, and maintenance claims transmitted from countries which have ratified the 1956 United Nations Convention on Maintenance under Part II of that Act. Part I orders and part II claims are received by the appropriate Secretary of State and transmitted by him for action by the magistrates' or Sheriff Court in the area where the payer specified in the order or claim is believed to reside.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the necessary subsequent action to have orders registered or made by the court, and enforced against the payer, is taken by court officers (the justices' clerks) without any charge being made to the overseas applicant for the service. However, in Scotland, this is not the case because court officers in Scotland do not have the same functions as their counterparts have in other parts of the United Kingdom, and in particular there is no court-operated system for the recovery of maintenance awarded by the courts.
Accordingly, the Secretary of State for Scotland has to arrange with the Law Society of Scotland for the proceedings to be entrusted to a solicitor in private practice so that he can take the necessary action. The solicitor naturally expects to be paid for his work; but, while the proceedings involved qualify for legal aid under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, the assessment of a claimant's means to see whether she qualifies for aid, and, if so, whether she is liable to pay a contribution, poses considerable administrative difficulties which have not yet been satisfactorily resolved, and indeed might also involve large costs. In addition, it is possible that an overseas claimant living in a country with a strong currency and a high cost of living might find herself ineligible for legal aid in this country, although in her own country she would be regarded as living in something near to the poverty line.
This situation, apart from the administrative difficulties to which it has given rise, also exposes Scotland to the charge that it does not provide any kind of reciprocity to claimants from other countries where maintenance is collected at no charge on behalf of applicants in Scotland—I understand that these include Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
It would not be practicable in this limited context to provide for court officers to collect maintenance. This is something which has to be looked at in the much wider area of diligence, which is at present being examined by the Scottish Law Commission. But we think that it should be possible to give a considerable measure of help here by relaxing the normal conditions for the payment of legal aid so as to provide that applicants under the 1972 Act will be eligible to receive aid without having their resources assessed or having to pay contributions towards their costs. This is what the present Amendment does; and it also provides that where an applicant has received legal aid for the enforcement of an order she may receive legal advice and assistance free for any matters connected with or arising out of the proceedings. This is to cover the case where a legal aid certificate for enforcement has expired; the person against whom the order is made has ceased to pay; but there seems a possibility that payments could be restarted if a solicitor's letter were sent to him. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes such an arrangement possible.
Finally, the clause is drafted so as to provide that free legal aid and assistance will be given to claimants who in their own country would be entitled to complete or partial legal aid or exemption from legal costs. This would be certified by the relevant authority in the foreign country transmitting the claim. While a provision in these terms would possibly not cover all applicants, we think that it would certainly be applicable to the majority of them, and there should be some safeguard against the granting of legal aid to persons who would not qualify for it in their own country. I should mention that there is a subsequent Amendment—Amendment No. 28—which is purely consequential upon this Amendment and will add the new clause to those provisions which apply in Scotland. However, at present I content myself with moving Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I need say is that it is valuable to have had this rather complex matter explained to the House so that it may be read by those concerned. Having heard it, I for my part think that it is an improvement to the Bill and I hope that the House will insert the new clause as set out.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, having looked carefully at the new clause I have raised a specific question about one part of it—that is to say, the wording of subsection (1) of this new clause relating to Section 2(6)(d) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, to which reference is made. That is a matter which may be reconsidered and I hope that those who read what I have said will also bear in mind that it is now being reconsidered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Revocation and variation of orders for periodical payments]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 60, line 39, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("(b) or (e)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and perhaps at the same time I may speak to Amendment No 19. I do not think that there is anything between the noble Viscount and myself on this particular matter. Amendment No. 18 has the same effect as the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, but the re-lettering is due to an Amendment made in the Committee stage to Section 34 of the Children Act 1975 which is now embodied in Clause 57.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think that I did get it right originally. When I inserted the new Clause 34 I put in a little subsection (bb) and I did not spot that the draftsman had renumbered the paragraphs. Therefore, we are talking about the same thing. We are absolutely at one and I am very happy to accept Amendment No. 18 and thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Domestic courts]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("county palatine of Lancaster") and insert ("countries of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. At the
432
same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 21. Clause 73(6), to which this is a small amendment, refers to the rules which will give powers to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to exercise functions in relation to domestic courts and domestic court panels.
Under the Administration of Justice Act 1973, re-enacting on this point the Local Government Act 1972, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for appointing justices throughout the counties of Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. The boundaries of these counties are not coterminous with the boundaries of the County Palatine of Lancaster. An Amendment is therefore needed here to relate the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy under the rules to the three administrative counties, rather than to the historical county of Lancaster. The second Amendment is a minor one consequential upon the first. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 71, line 3, at end insert ("of Lancaster").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21. I have already spoken to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I must call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 23 or 24.
Clause 74 [Persons who may be present during hearing of domestic proceedings]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 72, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) For subsection (2) of section 57 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
" (2) In the case of domestic proceedings in a magistrates' court other than proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976, no person shall be present during the hearing and determination by the court of the proceedings except—

(a) officers of the court;

433

(b) parties to the case before the court, their solicitors and counsel, witnesses and other persons directly concerned in the case;

(c) representatives of newspapers or news agencies;

(d) any other person whom the court may in its discretion permit to be present, so, however, that permission shall not be withheld from a person who appears to the court to have adequate grounds for attendance.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is a matter which we discussed in Committee and, at some length, on Second Reading, when it appeared that there were some divergences of approach as regards this particular question. I hope that the Amendment which I have moved and the explanation which I propose to give will satisfy both sides of this particular argument.
Clause 74(1) specifies the persons who may be present in court. during domestic proceedings and provides for a measure of privacy—which I think we are all in favour of as far as these particular proceedings are concerned—to apply to those proceedings, by cutting down the numbers of observers who may attend. Fears were expressed at the Committee stage that the court would not have discretion to admit a close friend or relative of either party, or members of the legal profession wanting to gain experience of such proceedings. We have put down this Amendment to make it clear that that is not the intention of the clause: we merely wish to give the courts discretion in this matter. This is done by making certain changes in Section 57(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 and setting it out in full in the Bill. By virtue of this Amendment, among the persons who may be present are, as your Lordships will see,
"any other person whom the court may in its discretion permit to be present, so, however, that permission shall not be withheld from a person who appears to the court to have adequate grounds for attendance".
In other words, the court may at its discretion enable relatives and solicitors and counsel who wish to observe the proceedings to do so. The retention of the existing proviso places the onus on the court not to withhold permission if it appears that such persons have adequate grounds for attending. Having listened to the arguments on this matter on both
434
occasions, I think that this meets most of the anxieties that have been expressed—in any event, I very much hope so. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it certainly meets mine and I welcome it. It is a good deal better than Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations and felicitations and say no more.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I should like to ask one question. The magistrates' court has to consider the matter. If, for instance, among those who are representing for the adoption, someone has an objection, have they a right to say so to the court?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that the matter to which the noble Baroness is referring comes later in our proceedings.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
5.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 25:
Line 34, leave out (" (d) and (e)") and insert ("(c) and (d)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 26:
At end insert ("but so that the court may, upon the application of any person made before or during the hearing of any proceedings under that Act permit any person to whom such applicatio relates to be present during the hearing and determination of any proceedings specified by the court for that purpose.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment about adoption proceedings and the time when my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside might like to ask her question. There is a difference between all other domestic proceedings and adoption proceedings. Indeed, one can see that from the wording of Amendment No. 22, which we have just discussed.
I wanted to table this Amendment in order to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to explain the difference and how it works, because I think that, out of the entire list, only in adoption proceedings will there be separate rules about who can be there. It would be helpful if, first, we could all hear what they are and then consider whether we still think that they are right. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government are not particularly enthusiastic about this Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, but, as I understand it, he simply wishes me to state the situation as we see it. If I may, I shall deal for a moment with the Amendment. This would give the courts a discretion to admit to adoption proceedings persons who are not directly concerned in the case. It has long been the practice to hold adoption proceedings in private in order to safeguard the anonymity of the child. The only certain way to ensure that the court or its parents are not identified is to hold the proceedings in camera.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord must mean "the child or its parents".
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I apologise. It just shows that after an hour and a half on this Bill one must be permitted a verbal slip of that sort. The noble Viscount is, of course, quite right. The only certain way to ensure that the child or its parents—I think that the court will probably be identified—are not identified, is to ensure that the proceedings take place in camera. Indeed, that has been the situation since the Adoption Act, 1958.
This preservation of the existing position won general support by the organisations which were consulted on the Law Commission's recommendations and was also specifically approved by the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children whose first chairman was Sir William Houghton and whose second chairman was Judge Stockdale. This committee, which reported in October 1972 in Command 5107, said in paragraph 270:
436
"the law requires adoption cases to be dealt with in private. We are sure that this is right."
The Government continue to think this is right. We think that we should preserve the existing law by limiting the persons who may be present to those whose presence is essential to the case. The importance of anonymity overrides the other considerations. It is for this reason that provision is made in Section 12(1)(b)(i) of the Children Act and the adoption rules for a parent or guardian to consent to adoption without knowing the identity of the applicants and for the proceedings to be considered, in certain circumstances, without the applicant becoming known to the respondent. It would be incompatible with this general scheme to give the general discretion which would be conferred by the Amendment. We have considered this matter. We think that the existing approach is probably the right one, but we certainly considered the matter as a result of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, first, may I explain that during my life I have had much to do with adopted children, not for myself but for my friends. Will a general instruction be sent out to the courts on this particular Amendment? Quite recently in the Parliamentary system we decided that an adopted child could now apply, through the proper procedure, to find out who his or her mother was. That is certainly being used by one or two of the adopted children of whom I have knowledge.
It is tremendously important that we should get the matter absolutely straight, because, from the point of view of those who adopt children and of the children themselves afterwards, I am not certain whether I should be very much in favour of this Amendment. But I should like to know what action will be taken so that the court is in a position to decide. Will courts receive a circular on this? After all, there could be a court of magistrates who might not be the right type of magistrates to be on a court of that kind. Therefore, it is a very important issue for Parliament to decide at the present time.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to speak a second time. The noble Baroness has raised an important

437
question; namely, the attitude of magistrates and whether a bench of magistrates might simply get it wrong. That emphasises the point to which we devoted a great deal of attention; namely, the training of magistrates. I believe that, as a result of the passage of this Bill, this will in the future be carried out on a much more rational and planned basis than was the situation prior to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was one of those who raised this particular important question. Certainly, we have already discussed the matter of a circular. I shall glady consider whether it is necessary to re-emphasise the situation. The Government's position is that we should stand on the existing situation, but I repeat that I shall gladly look into whether it is necessary to emphasise the particular question as regards these adoption procedures.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise for being kept unduly long elsewhere, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is still the intention to admit the Press to the domestic courts but to exclude them from the adoption courts, as is the case at present?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, yes. It was in order to clear up this sort of thing that I put down this Amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for considering and restating the existing practice. We can now find it all in one place. That was all I had in mind. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside need worry, because the question of someone discovering who his or her real parents were does not arise until he or she reaches the age of 18. Therefore, I should have thought that there was no question of it arising when the adoption proceedings are considered in the first place. Therefore, there is no conflict at all between this particular provision and that other more recently introduced measure. Having heard the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Reports by probation officers on means of parties]:
5.58 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 73, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) there shall be omitted the words in subsection (1) "in which an order may be made" to "any matter of bastardy").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have a nagging feeling here that technically there is something which we can do to improve the Bill. It is to do with the definition of "domestic proceedings". In Clause 72 there is a complete, new and up-to-date list of what domestic proceedings consist of. Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which is what Clause 76 is all about, talks about what is, in effect, a means report which can be asked for in the case of certain domestic proceedings. Section 60 of the 1952 Act as it now stands relates to:
"any domestic proceedings in which an order may be made for periodical payment … or … for any proceedings for the enforcement or variation of any such order, or … any matter of bastardy".
The noble Lord has answered me in one of his letters as to the first part, in that it is necessary to make sure that the magistrates have the power to ask for means reports when they are dealing with variation orders as well as original orders, because these need not necessarily be domestic proceedings, and they can choose whether they are or not. But what now puzzles me, having read that letter and since I received it, which I am afraid was after I tabled the Amendment, is why we still keep in the reference to bastardy proceedings, because these are automatically domestic proceedings under the list in Clause 72; and if we pick those out here in Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, when we have already included them as domestic proceedings anyway under the new Clause 56, I think that there will be some distinction looked for by the lawyers which I am sure is not intended. Therefore, this has turned itself into a pure matter of drafting. If the noble Lord cannot answer me at this stage I shall certainly not blame him, but I think that there is one more small point here to tidy up. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having explained the purpose of this Amendment. I think that the Amendment

439
which he has proposed would lead to a change of substance which, from what he has just said, I do not think is his intention. I should like to explain, as briefly as possible, why it would have that effect.
This Amendment would make some changes in the provisions of Section 60(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which enables a magistrates' court to request a probation officer to report on the means of the parties. At present the court may request such a report in any domestic proceedings in which the court may make an order for periodical payments and in proceedings for the variation or enforcement of such an order. The Amendment would allow the court to request a report in any domestic proceedings without, in other words, that rather important qualification.
In order to avoid any doubt on this point I should say briefly what is meant by the term "domestic proceedings" in Section 60 of the 1952 Act. "Domestic proceedings" in this section means proceedings defined as domestic proceedings by Section 56 of the 1952 Act. Clause 72 of the Bill replaces the present Section 56 with a new section containing a comprehensive definition of domestic proceedings. In referring to "domestic proceedings" in the discussion on this Amendment we are therefore referring to that term as defined in Clause 72 of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Viscount was hoping in this Amendment to clarify the provisions of Section 60(1) by substituting a rather more straightforward reference to domestic proceedings for the present more complicated wording. However, there are two reasons why we regard this Amendment as having an undesirable effect.
The first is that the Amendment would allow a court to call for a means report in any domestic proceedings, a point I made a moment ago. On the present wording the court may call for a report only in domestic proceedings in which it has power to make an order for periodical payments. There are some domestic proceedings, as for instance proceedings under the Marriage Act 1949, and adoption proceedings, in which the court has no power to make an order for periodical payments. There seems to be no reason in such a case to allow the court to make
440
use of the power in Section 60 of the 1952 Act to call for a report on means. The power in Section 60 is intended for use in a case where a court has power to make an order for financial provision and is uncertain whether or not, or how, to exercise that power. If Section 60 were extended to apply to all domestic proceedings the courts might begin to make use of it in a more general way. We think it right that the power to call for a means report should be explicitly restricted to cases in which the court has power to make an order for periodical payments.
May I just make one other point, which the noble Viscount will recall we discussed on the last occasion this Bill was before the House. As these reports are made by the Probation Service, I am sure he would accept my general view on this matter that it would not be desirable to impose further burdens on the Probation Service, which is already under some degree of pressure, when in fact there was no reasonable cause for that work to be done. That is the first reason why we are unhappy about the phraseology of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
The second reason why we think the Amendment would have an undesirable effect is that it would remove the present power in Section 60 to call for a means report in proceedings for the variation or enforcement of an order for periodical payments. Variation and enforcement proceedings are not domestic proceedings, and that is why, as I have indicated, we are unhappy about this Amendment, and for the other reasons I have given.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, as I think I indicated, I had to draft this Amendment before I got the letter of explanation and I am very happy to accept that. The only thing we now have left is the reference to any matter of bastardy. That, I think, is plainly within the lists in Clause 72. If it is in the list in Clause 72, there is no need in that case to repeat that, and that alone, of the list in Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that the present wording is rather antiquated, and I shall look into the possibility of making a drafting Amendment on a subsequent occasion.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Short title and extent]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 77, line 36, after ("54,") insert—
("(Eligibility for legal aid in Scotland for proceedings under Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I explained earlier, this is purely consequential on Amendment No. 16 and the new clause which your Lordships allowed to be inserted. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.6 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 78, line 4, after ("13") insert ("(Amendment of s. 8(3) of Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is linked with one of the Government Amendments to Schedule 2. The Amendments to Schedule 2 increase from £10 to £50 the penalty for failure to notify a change of address under various provisions in domestic proceedings legislation. They are the "Macleod Amendments", if we may so describe them. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 80, line 15, at end insert—
("8. A provision of Schedule 2 to this Act which relates to the punishment by way of fine which may be imposed for any offence shall not affect the punishment which may be imposed for an offence which is committed before the date on which that provision comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we have agreed that the maximum fines for failing to notify a change of address should be increased from £10 to £50, a
442
transitional provision is needed to clarify the position for magistrates hearing cases which cut across the date the new fines come into force. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to move the remaining Amendments en bloc?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Please.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 38:
Page 81, line 1, leave out ("subsections (1), (2) and (4) of")
Page 81, line 1, after ("Act") insert—
("(a) in subsections (1), (2) and (4)") line 3, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (2)(c) for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 82, line 5, at end insert—
("The Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 (c 55)
In section 9(2) of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 84, line 6, at end insert—
("The Guardianship of Minors Act 1971] (c 3)
In section 13(2) of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 84, line 13, at end insert—
("In section 8(3) of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 84, line 14, leave out ("the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972") and insert ("that Act")
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
("In section 43(2) of that Act for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of the noble Viscount in that proposition. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 38. All these Amendments, except the first two, increase the maximum fine for

443
the offence of failing to notify a change of address from £10 to £50 in the various Acts, or parts of Acts, which, by virtue of Clause 72 of the Bill, are defined as "domestic proceedings". The first two Amendments are a consequential re-lettering which turn an existing minor Amendment into a paragraph (a) so that a paragraph (b) relating to the fine increase can be inserted. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

WHITEHALL: NEW BUILDING AND MODERNISATION
6.9 p.m.
Lord MOLSON Lord MOLSON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the restoration and modernisation of Government buildings in and around Whitehall; and what new buildings they intend to erect on the Westminister Hospital and other sites in the area. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intend this to be, strickly speaking, a Question, and I have no intention of making any suggestions, directly or indirectly, as to what should be done. This Question simply seeks information; I am not pressing for any particular solution, but it is time we were told what is going on in the mind of the Government in regard to these immensely important decisions in an area which is of outstanding historical and architectural interest.
Mr. Tom Driberg, as he was at that time and who became known to us in this House as Lord Bradwell, said:
"We can always say that this is an important decision and therefore it must take 18 months or a year to announce, but this has gone on for an awfully long time."
Mr. Driberg complained that it had been going on for an awfully long time on 24th January 1972. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will acquit me of any charge of impatience if I ask for an indication of what progress has been made. I do not expect an immediate answer and I cannot emphasise too strongly that am anxious that as long consideration should be given to this matter as will result in our reaching a right conclusion. It has dragged on for so long and so many inquiries have taken place that I had to ask my honourable friend Mr.
444
Robert Cooke, who has been most persistent in this matter and who has done signal public service in keeping it before the House of Commons and successive Governments of both Parties, to bring me up to date with what has happened.
I am familiar with what one might call the beginnings of this particular development. I was Minister of Works when it was decided to acquire what was then called the St. Stephen's Club on the opposite side of Bridge Street and where subsequently it was decided to erect a Parliamentary building for the benefit of Members of the other House. In 1963, an inquiry, called the Martin Buchanan Inquiry, was held at the instance of Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, at that time Minister of Works. Its recommendation was for the wholesale destruction of practically everything we know as Whitehall and its replacement by an immense beehive occupied by no fewer than 4,000 civil servants.
This wholesale demolition was unacceptable to public opinion, which was guided and led by all those who are concerned with the preservation of London's historic and beautiful buildings, even if at that time the Victorian style of architecture was not fashionable. It was as a result of the general protest against this that two further inquiries were set up. One was the Willis Inquiry, which resulted in the recommendation that the Norman Shaw buildings, at that time the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police and called New Scotland Yard, and Richmond Terrace should be preserved. In 1966, Sir Robert Matthew was appointed to look at the whole matter again and lie roundly condemned the proposals of the Martin Buchanan Inquiry and urged large preservation of the existing buildings with such modifications as were necessary to increase and improve the accommodation.
The first announcement we had of the great changes in Government thinking on this subject came from Mr. Paul Channon, speaking in another place, when he was Minister of State at what was then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Since then, there has been a change of Government and of course the whole economic and financial position of the country has deteriorated, and I make no complaint at all that the present Government should have looked at the entire

445
matter again. I certainly do not blame them for having taken a considerable amount of time to to so.
My Question falls into two parts, although of course the whole of Whitehall must be dealt with as a single area. The old Westminster Hospital site has now been derelict for a very long time and it is sad that better use cannot be made of it than as a car park. Again, I do not complain that time is being taken to consider what use should be made of what is one of the most important sites in the whole of London. Giving, as it does, a remarkable view of Westminster Abbey, it is of the utmost importance that it should be properly used. It is indeed a good thing that my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys, who I hope will be speaking later in this debate, turned down the proposal that it should be used as a new Colonial Office. Alas, we no longer have any colonies and there is no need for a Colonial Office; to be flippant, I can only say I hope that the Government will not think it a suitable site for new offices for the Crown Agents.
I should be glad to know the thinking of the Government on this subject. It is open to argument that it should be left as an open space and it is arguable that it would be better if only part of it were left as an open space because I am one of those who think that Gothic architecture is most impressive and beautiful when seen fairly close to and I am not one who admires great open squares like the Place de la Concorde in Paris; I should be sorry if we had anything of that sort in London because I do not think it is suited to the character of our city.
I understand from my friends in another place that there are some Committees there which are at the present time considering this general question of the redevelopment of Whitehall, and I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can indicate at all the line of demarcation in these studies between the Legislature and the Government. Quite obviously, whatever is going to be done must meet with the approval of another place, but at the same time it is an excellent thing that those who are going to take the ultimate decision in this matter should be considering it at the present time.
I have said that I want only to seek information. I am asking only for a
446
report on progress. I shall fully understand if the noble Baroness indicates that no decisions have been taken as yet, and if she says that, having regard to the general condition of the country, no work will be undertaken for some considerable time. That was made quite plain by Mr. Edward Short, now the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, when he was Lord President of the Council. He announced then that the Government had no intention of proceeding with the Parliamentary building which was shown as a model some two years ago. Various arrangements have been made in the buildings which are owned by the Government around this Palace to improve the accommodation for Members of another place.
There are, I think, two considerations which are relevant in deciding about the future, and I have given the noble Baroness notice that I should be glad to have at any rate some indication from her, first, as to the estimated number of civil servants who will have to be accommodated in the vicinity of this Palace. I know that the general policy is that there should be dispersal over the whole country, but, generally speaking, the civil servants who go into the Provinces are those who are concerned with (shall I say?) rather routine affairs, and there will always be many who have to be in close touch with Ministers and with Members of both Houses of Parliament who will require to be accommodated in this vicinity. Secondly, in considering whether it is justifiable to go to the capital expense of building new accommodation, it is important to consider the high rents which have to be paid in London at the present time for leased accommodation; and if the noble Baroness can indicate to what extent the building of new offices might result in a saving of the heavy expenditure upon rent, I feel that that would be a very valuable piece of information. The Prime Minister's recent and welcome directive as to the reduction of expenditure on general Government administration may well affect these figures.
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness takes a very keen personal interest in all these matters of amenity and in the preservation of our buildings of beauty and historical interest, and I shall be most grateful to her for anything that she can say to us this evening in order to

447
indicate the Government's thinking upon this matter.
6.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for asking this Unstarred Question this evening about a matter of great public importance which we have not discussed for some little time. At a distance of a decade, or perhaps a little more than a decade, it seems almost unthinkable that the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry of 1963 to 1965, referred to by my noble friend Lord Molson, should have come up with the decision which it in fact did—two distinguished architects who today, quite frankly, would not even be considered as suitable people to review the situation again were there need to do so. What is so particularly curious is that in 1968, only a matter of three years after the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry took place and had reported, and after their report had been released to the public, a further matter arose so short a distance away as the Tate Gallery from the centre of the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry; that is to say, the public offices and Parliament Square.
I do not know whether from that one can judge that there was an insufficient amount of comparison between the two inquiries, but your Lordships must recollect that in the autumn of 1968 the Tate Gallery—a very important building constructed by Sydney Smith between 1893 and 1897—was the subject of a formal application given by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, as it then was, to demolish the steps and the portico of the Gallery.
The public outcry, which will be very easily recollected, was immense at that time, and subsequently, as your Lordships will recollect, the plan was withdrawn. But I believe it to be true to say that however important a particular area is for a public inquiry in the centre of London, the lessons to be learned from it are never really taken on board by all branches of Government. I believe it is true to say that in the case of the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry no less than five listed Grade I buildings were being considered for demolition. I will name them. They were the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the
448
India Office, and Bryden's Treasury and part of some other public offices adjoining. I do not think it has been a matter of history that a single Grade I listed building has been demolished in the United Kingdom since listing began years ago. But were this proposal to be reexamined, I am perfectly certain the noble Baroness will inform the House—and she will inform us whether this is correct—that no listed Grade I buildings are at present thought to be under threat of demolition in this area.
My Lords, I believe that in examining the situation as it is today we have to be particularly grateful to a number of bodies. I am delighted that I am very shortly to be followed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, because I believe that the work of the Historic Buildings Board of the Greater London Council, the authors of this very important document called Do you care about Historic Buildings?, was instrumental in bringing about great public interest in those public buildings and other buildings which in the last few years have been saved in the Westminster and central area, the subject of this Unstarred Question.
What a large number of successes can be recorded! Surely the restoration of the Palace of Westminster from the moment when Colonel Clifton-Brown laid the foundation stone in 1948 and its completion about eight years later was one of the most important. The restoration of Downing Street; the cleaning and restoration of Barry's Treasury, the restoration and renovation of the Banqueting Hall and the renewal and replacement of the pictures in the original sitings in the very celebrated ceiling; the completion of the new Ministry of Defence, a building which, incidentally, was constructed only, I think, 15 years ago to a plan originally designed in 1911; and, of course, the refurbishing of the Admiralty and other public offices. But perhaps the most significant in recent years has been the cleaning of the five public buildings referred to; and, more important even than that, has been the restoration of one side of Westminster Abbey. Public feeling in this area is passionate, and I am certain that an imaginative concept for the pedestrianisation of certain parts of the

449
area would be particularly welcome by the public at large. Whether this is possible is a matter for other considerations.
My noble friend Lord Molson referred to the Westminster Hospital site and suggested that this might still be considered for an area of open space. There are many who would heartily support that view. Further, there is in this area a great shortage of trees, following the felling of a certain number of them; and were it possible to renew the landscaping with the planting of suitable species it would be a further addition to this highly important and sensitive area in the centre of London.
My Lords, I believe, as I am sure all noble Lords believe, that it was indeed fortunate that the Martin-Buchanan recommendations were never implemented, that time has been, up to date, on our side, and we look forward to the reply which the noble Baroness has to make on the subject. But I also believe that what have to be reconciled are matters which are not entirely reconcilable: the needs of the users of the buildings, the needs of the millions of visitors to London and the Provinces, the users of heavy commercial vehicles in transit through this area and the needs, above all, of the Londoner. If these can all be woven into one sensitive whole, a great benefit will be conferred on future generations.
6.35 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I want to direct my remarks this afternoon primarily to the question of the Broad Sanctuary site—sometimes referred to, as by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, as the Westminster Hospital site and sometimes called the Colonial Office site. It is a site which, as has already been said, has been empty for a great number of years. I, as a former chairman of the planning committee concerned with planning in the central London area, have had a certain amount of involvement over the years with proposals about what in fact should happen on this site.
We have had reference already to the advantage, possibly, of having an area of open space and this idea was embodied in the proposal of the surveyor of Westminster Abbey, Mr. Dykes Bower, which proposed creating a new square in the
450
area of the Westminister Hospital site and involved diverting Victoria Street into Gt. George Street via Storey's Gate. This, on the face of it, might have sounded an imaginative proposal, but on examination it was clear that the diversion of Victoria Street along the lines suggested would have interfered with some valuable historical buildings in Gt. George Street was not therefore one which could be considered.
The other proposal which one knows has been on the stocks for some time is that to build a small, high-security conference centre seating about 300 people on a part of the Westminster Hospital site. In fact, a feasibility study has been carried out in detail by Sir Philip Powell. This would envisage a paved area as well as the building of the conference centre. I understand that this conference centre would be for use for Government purposes, particularly, probably, in connection with meetings necessary in regard to our membership of the EEC. However, although this proposal has been around for some time, there has not seemed to be any immediate hope that finance will become available for the proposal to proceed. Therefore, one is driven back into looking at what might be a short-term use of the site if these longer plans are unlikely to materialise in the near future.
One of the problems ill this particular area has been for many years the question of coach parking. There have been a number of complaints by Members of this House and of another place about the clutter of coaches in this area at certain times of the day, and particularly in the morning. Indeed, this was a matter on which I, in my former capacity, submitted evidence to the Services Committee of the House of Commons; following which there is now an availability for coach parking during the Recess in the car park which exists on the Westminster Hospital site at the present time. My view is that this facility should be made more readily available for coaches because the tourist influx into Westminster Abbey is at its peak during the morning period. Very few tourists, on the whole, visit the Abbey by coach in the afternoon. My thought would have been that, whatever their other needs, the House of Commons could cope with their car parking needs

451
in the large underground car park during the morning period and that there is no need for this additional, extra car park during the morning.
I think that we should remember that there are about 3½ million visitors to the Abbey each year. This is in addition to those who go to the Abbey to worship, so there is a sizeable influx of tourists into this particular area. Therefore, the proposal has been put forward recently—and there has been some publicity of it in the Press—that there should be a tourist centre on the site. I welcome that idea. It is likely that the erection of such a centre would be viewed by the tourist as being an official tourist centre, although the proposal, as I understand it, is that it would be run by a private charity although there would be likely to be an input by the official tourist bodies.
In the circumstances, I think that tourists would no doubt regard this as being an official centre, and therefore it is important that the highest standards should be maintained within such a centre. One of the problems with which we are continually faced every year is stories of tourists having been, as it is said, "ripped off" in one way or another. Therefore, our concern has been particularly to see that any possibility of tourists being "ripped off", whether by ice-cream sellers or sellers of Coke or by a bureau de change when changing money, is lessened to the greatest possible degree. Therefore, we would want to ensure that those interests of the tourists are protected; also that, if such a centre was opened, such souvenir shops as there would be would sell souvenirs of the highest quality.
At present, a bureau de change has to be licensed by the Bank of England and must publish the rates of exchange. Nevertheless, there are situations where the rates of commission which are charged are high. One hopes that, if this proposal goes ahead, the Department of the Environment, in coming to the arrangements, will be able to control the rates of commission being charged and oversee how the allocation of subleases goes forward. If we are establishing a tourist centre on this important site, it is important to ensure in advance that no abuses will occur.
If I may go to some of the wider issues involved in the Question (which I am
452
grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for raising), in the past a study was carried out by the GLC called the "Three Squares Study". This involved looking at the quality of the environment in Trafalgar Square, Leicester Square and Parliament Square, an area of great tourist attraction and public interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned, it is an area where there are possibilities of pedestrianisation. As a result of that study, there has been an element of pedestrianisation in Leicester Square.
The proposals for Parliament Square were rather costly and so had to be shelved at the time that they were considered. However, one has the feeling that it should be possible to improve the pedestrian environment in Parliament Square. I am very pleased, as is the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the cleaning process has started. I only wish that the authority of which I was formerly chairman was able to do something about cleaning up Middlesex Guildhall. If we had that building cleaned up it would present a much more pleasant aspect on the northern side of the Square, particularly since the Chartered Surveyors' building has recently been cleaned and presents a pleasant picture.
Those, my Lords, are some of the thoughts that I have about this area of tremendous importance. I do not say that, because it is so important, we should allow ourselves the luxury of delaying decisions still further: I think that it is time that decisions were reached.
6.42 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for putting this Unstarred Question on the Order Paper. He has, to a certain degree, succeeded in shooting my favourite fox. As the noble Baroness is probably by now aware, I have had this Question on the Order Paper every year since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. I have always had the same answer—not a bad one, either. It was that the Stationery Office site—as we used to call it—then the Westminster Hospital site, cannot be considered in isolation. It has to be considered in consonance with the whole of the Parliament area: the Bridge Street site, the new Foreign Office, and so on. There is a lot

453
to be said for that argument. But if we carry it too far we will not get a final decision until the crack of doom because so many of these decisions are controversial.
We have had many improvements made. Parliament Square has been relaid. At the time, there was a tremendous controversy about that, but we have all forgotten it. The car park in New Palace Yard caused tremendous controversy. The only controversy which still remains is about the statue in the middle. That only goes to show that for every plan for such an important site as this there is bound to be controversy. We have to remember that we have achieved a great deal—both Governments can take credit for this—and the controversy has subsided.
I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sandys mention the cleaning and polishing up of the whole of the Whitehall area. This has been a tremendous success. He also mentioned Westminster Abbey. I realise that this is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, therefore I do not ask the noble Baroness to address herself to it; but I cannot help regretting that it is taking so long to clean Westminster Abbey. It did not take anything like that time to clean St. Paul's. What is the difficulty? Is it because it is a very much older building and therefore a more delicate task? Is it a shortage of men, materials or money? I hope that we shall be told, because it is something to which the public would like to lend a hand.
While on the subject of time—and, heaven knows, the car park took long enough!—why is so much time being spent on repairing the bomb damage round Westminster Hall? I have not seen the statue of Oliver Cromwell for years. It is one of the finest statues in London. It is also interesting because, as your Lordships probably realise, there are only two statues within the curtilage of Parliament: one is the statue of Oliver Cromwell and the other is the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion which is outside our own front door. Richard blankly refused ever to summon Parliament and Oliver Cromwell tried to abolish it. That reflects well upon our logic.
May I ask the noble Baroness how much more she thinks can be done without prejudicing the overall plan? I appreciate that point. We do not want
454
to do anything which cannot be undone and which will ruin the overall concept of this most important site. May I ask about the shops in Bridge Street? I asked her this some months back and I received, if I may say so, a rather brusque answer. I am not going to repeat it in case the noble Baroness follows my example and repeats it again in the House. Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently tidily. What I was trying to get at was this: the buildings in Bridge Street, where there was the old St. Stephen's Club, will be there for a long time before they are pulled down and rebuilt along any new design. Underneath it are a large number of shops stretching from Westminster Underground Station, round the corner and up to the Post Office in Parliament Street, near the Cenotaph. They are a disgrace. I am not going to mention their names; I do not want to hurt anybody's business, for they are people who never hurt me. Those shops are obviously left there temporarily, everybody thinking that they will be pulled down in five minutes. That is not going to happen. I do not know what the lease situation is, but the shops ought to be put on a much more dignified footing.
I do not want to suggest anything grandiose or sumptuous; that is not necessary. There is a tourist area there, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has pointed out, and most of the customers in those shops are tourists. So are the customers of the shops in the Ponte Vecchio in Florence; so are the customers of the shops on the Rialto in Venice; and so are the customers of the shops in our own Burlington Arcade. Those are all small shops; they are not tawdry, they are not undignified and they are not tatty. Something we can do without a vast expenditure of temper or money is to put the shops on to a much more dignified footing.
Will the noble Baroness give us a word or two about the future of the Foreign Office? Is it going to be covered over? How far have plans progressed for that? If I have ever done anything in my public life of which I was proud it was my success in your Lordships' House many years ago in "dishing" the Government's attempt to put two top storeys on to Carlton House and turn it into a new Foreign Office. We had a splendid debate and the Govern-

455
ment were laughed to scorn. The argument put forward was that, if you stood out in the middle of Horseguards' Parade, you would think that the two top storeys belonged to the buildings behind. If you stood right underneath them you would not be able to see the two top storeys at all. That is the most nonsensical recommendation for a building that I have ever heard! It reminds me of Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury:
"You'll soon get used to her face, said he;
And a very nice girl you'll find her;
She might very well pass for 43;
In the dusk with the light behind her."
That argument was put forward by Lord Jowitt, who was then Lord Chancellor. Even he was a bit ashamed of it; and, as you know, my Lords, it took a lot to make Lord Jowitt ashamed of anything! I hope we can be told that that scheme has now been put into a long and distant cold storage.
I come back to the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, opened the debate: the Stationery Office site. The reason why I first started to ask questions about it was twofold. First, it was a matter of social disrepute at the time: it was the centre for a gathering of methylated spirit drinkers, of all things. The police did take a poor view of this and steps were taken to make the place a good deal more dignified. It is not yet very dignified but it is a great deal better. I want it to remain open for quite a different reason than that which has been put forward.
I share the dislike of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, of Gothic buildings being left wide open: I prefer them crowded, as they are in places like Rheims and Amiens. But that was not quite my point. My point was that I wanted left open the spelndid view, revealed by the destruction of the Stationery Office, of the Methodist Central Hall. It is one of the best new Baroque buildings in London. It was put up by Lanchester and Ricard just before the First War and it is highly regarded even though—and your Lordships may not remember this—it is incomplete. There should be four little turrets on each corner; and perhaps the Midland Bank or the Methodist fraternity might like to take an example by looking across at Westminster Abbey, remembering that Wren and Hawksmoor put those two towers on the end a long, long time
456
after the Abbey was originally built. But, my Lords, whatever is planned, I do hope that sufficient space will be left open on that site to let that view of the Methodist Central Hall remain as it is now: a very fine adjunct to the whole site.
I hope I have said enough in these few remarks to show that, while I realise that the whole plan must not be prejudiced by some major upheaval, there is still a lot that can be done to enhance this most valuable site without prejudicing a major plan. A great deal can still be done. A great city is judged by the way in which it does two things: in the way in which it treats its heritage and in the way in which it treats its refuse. As any ratepayer in this City will tell you, we treat our refuse abominably. I can only hope that we treat our heritage with a greater respect than we treat our refuse.
6.53 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I wonder whether, before I get down to the specific points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who introduced the debate and asked his very important Question in the most patient, courteous and kindly of manners, I might crave your indulgence and put the whole problem within a rather wider context in which I personally see it. Since the Great Pyramid of Cheops around BC 3700, since the Palaces of Darius and Xerxes at Persepolis, in BC 500 and since the Parthenon in BC 450, great building works have been symbols of national pride and Government confidence. The style spread by the Romans across the Western European cradle of civilisation during the past 2,000 years is still popular and its derivatives are capable of exciting passion—not least at Chiswick, as we have seen recently. But as some powers have waned others have risen, and the great tide of Gothic architecture that gave us the European cathedrals gave us also, in the Victorian age, the Palace of Westminster and this very Chamber. Alas! my Lords—and this is the point that I personally feel is at the bottom of so many of our problems and indeed of the Government's problems in dealing with this—national pride in building is now far more muted. That is

457
why the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is a good if uncomfortable one. Of course, there is always the problem of resources to which noble Lords have referred but even more important, I believe, is that this is an area of Government diffidence which does not apply only to the present Government, but which for many years now has applied to all Governments.
We live in a series of Chinese boxes of guilt where grand architectural statements are no longer acceptable to governmental conscience and democratic approval. In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, the wedding cake edifice of architecture is a virile symbol of political power. Here we are swayed by the views of all those who consider it outrageous that Ministers, Members of Parliament and public servants should be comfortably and aesthetically housed when public expenditure cuts are seen to bite on schools, hospitals and motorways. And the greater the expansion of the public sector, the greater the guilt for what is seen as "working-homes for the boys".
There is a real dilemma here. For a democratic Government with heavy social commitments, a balance must be found between enhancement by means of elegant edifice and justifiable spending on restoration and modernisation for Government use. I believe it was the acknowledgment and realisation of what I consider to be these deeper considerations which enabled the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to be so relaxed and so understanding in the way he posed his Question.
These rituals of self-denial make us postpone rescuing, for example, the wonderful but rapidly decaying buildings of Richmond Terrace. We have left Bridge Street and Parliament Street dingily waiting for sunnier financial days; and we still live with a hole of squalid ugliness where Westminster Hospital once stood. However, out of all this delay, financial stringency and crises of conscience, some good, even if it is not apparently visible, has come. If some of the large-scale redevelopment plans of past decades had taken off, we could today have been unhappily tied to buildings, half-buildings and buildings on the stocks which we had already learned to hate and which made no concession to the disparate beauty of historic Whitehall's styles of architecture.
458
I think it was to this that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred. The Banqueting Hall, for example, stands witness to how much of any grand overall plan ever gets built. The Martin Plan for the National Government Centre was abandoned without a brick being laid.
Fortunately, we no longer have faith in the god of Comprehensive Development. We now have the opportunity to preserve and enhance the historic character of Whitehall, as we modernise accommodation in the older buildings, restore empty buildings and redevelop important semi-derelict sites in the area. To be fair, I think we must agree, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that much has already been done over the last two decades, but the pace must, of course, depend on the general economic and financial climate and on how high a priority we put on the loving resuscitation of the centre of our Government.
Also, the circumstances for housing civil servants in and around Whitehall have now changed. Dispersal and relocating of jobs outside London will lead to rationalisation of the Government London office estate and, in the long term, to a reduction in the pressure for the accommodation of civil servants in London itself. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, suggests that increasing the amount of Crown building in Whitehall should lead to savings in rents for leased accommodation, and that these savings could help to provide funds for the erection of new buildings. I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. It is true that rationalisation of the civil estate following dispersal should lead to savings in leased accommodation in London, but these will not arise until the 1980s; they will be outside Whitehall and will have the objective of meeting the cost of providing new Crown accommodation in the regions under the dispersal programme. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked me about a figure for headquarters department staff who will remain in Whitehall. I understand that the figure will be of the order of 34,000, of which 20,000 will be in Crown accommodation and 14,000 in leased accommodation.
If I may now pass to some of the specific projects mentioned, I will start with the Westminster Hospital site, which is also known as Broad Sanctuary or the

459
Stationery Office site. I say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in answer to the question which he so properly and regularly asks, that we are certainly not—and I certainly am not—talking in terms of taking an overall look. Fortunately, in our whole approach to conservation and restoration we now realise that we must look at things individually or in small pieces. We are still suffering from the period of enormous redevelopment plans when, very late in the day—perhaps, halfway or a third of the way through—it was realised that a mistake, perhaps a very large and long-term mistake, had been made, and certainly where-ever I have any influence I am absolutely opposed to that kind of approach. I am also extremely sorry—perhaps the noble Lord will take me gently aside and tell me what was said—that I was brusque on paper, or in any reply that I made to him. I have no recollection of it, and that is the last thing I would want to be in replying to him or anybody else.
If I may just briefly run over a little of the historical background of this site, although I appreciate that noble Lords have mentioned it and it is not news to anyone, it was originally occupied by Westminster Hospital and was bought by the Government in 1948 for a new Colonial Office. I am going over this history in order to get together in one story the different pieces put forward by various noble Lords. These plans were shelved in the late 1950s, when it was decided, by the Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was a distinguished member, that the site was too important for offices and should be used for a building of national significance. Since then a plethora of plans have emerged for a new Government international conference centre.
In the 1960s, as has been said, these plans became caught up in the overall development plans for Whitehall, on which Sir Leslie Martin and Sir Colin Buchanan reported in 1965. A public inquiry in 1966 recommended that a single redevelopment proposal should be prepared for the Government's site, plus the adjoining buildings occupied by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Institution of Civil Engineers. Plans were prepared, but these were overtaken by the movement away from major redevelopment towards
460
conservation. I think it is because of this that many people are now of the opinion that, although the delay has been increased, some terrible mistake has not been made which would have taken generations to get over and put right, if that had been possible.
There have been a number of alternative proposals for use of the site, including turning it into a permanent open space. But the Government decided, and agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that an open space so near to the Royal Parks would be rather a redundant exercise. I am also inclined to agree that, so long as one is able to work in a certain amount of appropriate and relevant landscaping, you do not want to have open spaces among the Gothic buildings.
The Government are still committed to an international conference centre, to which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred, and feasibility studies have been carried out by nominated private architects. Although mainly used by Government, any spare capacity could meet the needs of private organisations and bring in foreign capital, as well as enhancing London's prestige and, I hope, its appearance. But the main function and advantage of this building would be to maintain London's position. When we have it, I hope that it will be let for overseas conferences, so that when they are talking we are earning the money, rather than that the talking is being done by us and we are paying for it. But back we come to the question of competing priorities and the opportune moment, and I think on this that we are all agreed that circumstances have not yet been economically propitious for starting new building.
In the meantine, at last—and not before time—the Government are seeking the best alternative use for the site, and I think that to find a use for it really pre-empts the points made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is a distinguished chairman of the London Tourist Board as well as having a very long connection with the GLC. We could really solve the problem—or not solve it, depending on which way you look at it—so far as using the site for the parking of cars and coaches is concerned, since, as a short-term measure, the Government are considering proposals for a temporary

461
tourist centre, which would make use of part of the site until it is needed for redevelopment.
I must make it quite clear that no decision has yet been taken, but we must ensure both that the short-term proposals are suitable and aesthetically pleasing for the area and that the long-term proposals are not prejudiced. I can certainly assure my noble friend that any interim plans would, of course, be carefully scrutinised not only by my own Department but also by the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Westminster City Council. I would add that it would be our duty to keep a very keen eye on any concessions that were put out from any organisation, if this did come about.
I should now like to say a word about Cromwell and Cromwell Green, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Cromwell has been covered up for quite a long time, and the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that he is in extremely good condition, very well cared for and protected. When he is finally unveiled, only a minor amount of cleaning will be necessary. The hoarding has been kept around the site because, until the landscaping and other clearing has been completely finished, we are very concerned that no damage should be done to the statue. We hope that work will begin on the landscaping by 1st April. The hoarding should be removed about a month after that, and the restoration should be complete by the end of July. But the statue will not be uncovered until July, so as to avoid damage while the work is in progress.
I should point out, in addition, that it is proposed that an archaeological dig will be carried out, with the intention of looking for traces of buildings of the time of Richard II and also to establish further the outline of Thorney Island. My latest information from our architects yesterday was that it is not expected to delay completion of the work, which will go on while the dig is continuing.
I now come to Richmond Terrace, which is very close to my conservation heart. It has been unused since 1973 because it was structurally unsound, and in 1975 the Government announced their decision to preserve the facades and commission a feasibility study of ways of providing new accommodation at the
462
rear. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that any idea of the Government having plans to demolish any Grade I building is certainly not under consideration, and would certainly not be "on" at all. In fact, we are trying as hard as we can to encourage people to look after Grade I, Grade II star and Grade II buildings, whether central Government, local authority or individual. But the plans for Richmond Terrace, unfortunately—I say this with a sense of very bitter disappointment because I hastened the feasibility study—had to be shelved when the severe public expenditure cut-backs of 1976 took place.
Again, this ties up with what I said at the beginning of my reply to this Unstarred Question, about Governments almost having to bend over backwards so far as their own activities are concerned, compared with services provided for the people. However, we are now currently considering further feasibility proposals which should result in housing about 1,000 staff. This would be done by building behind the facades but keeping and restoring them: preserving Richmond Terrace and the Whitehall facade between Richmond Mews and Derby Gate.
As well as saving the beautiful Richmond Terrace itself, a major advantage of this scheme would be the provision of substantial additional accommodation in Whitehall which would enable the Government to give up expensive leased accommodation in London. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, raised. Again, however, I have to say that, as with the Broad Sanctuary site, any decision to take firm action must depend on the general economic situation. The only hopeful thing I can say is that at least we have gone part of the way by starting a feasibility study on Richmond Terrace, although this is rather different from starting the new building which would have to be built on Broad Sanctuary.
I turn now to the Bridge Street site which was acquired for the new Parliamentary building. I believe that it was on this point that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that he received a brusque answer. This site is still earmarked for eventual Parliamentary use, but again funds are not yet available for its redevelopment. Until funds become

463
available, we are trying to make the best use of the existing accommodation by granting short leases for certain premises.
This is a slight improvement on the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has received in the past, because until last August the Property Services Agency were unable to lease out the premises for a longer period than six months. It was then that the House of Commons Accommodation Committee decided that with the new Parliamentary complex hardly beyond the advanced planning stage, it would be possible to grant leases of three years. This helps a little, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that for even this period of lease it is difficult to attract clients who are prepared to carry out significant alterations or improvements to the premises. The problem is that the buildings are earmarked for eventual demolition. In the meanwhile, we are trying to make the best possible use of the premises, and even for such short leases there has been a certain amount of competition for some of them. I hope this will enable us to be a little firmer about the condition in which those premises are kept.
The all-Party Services Committee in another place are currently considering what recommendations they should make to the Government about the future development of the Parliament Street/Bridge Street site. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked me about the line of demarcation. To put it briefly, the answer is that the bulk of the day-to-day decisions about restoration and rebuilding lie with whichever is the relevant Government Department. However, so far as major projects which directly affect the interests of the Houses of Parliament are concerned—that is, the Parliament Street/Bridge Street premises—Parliament is fully consulted. Bridge Street is, of course, ultimately earmarked for Parliamentary use.
One of the Government's current projects is the improvement and modernisation of the Old Public Offices. The Government are preserving and maintaining the structure of the building while putting it to functional use. In future, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will occupy all of the Old Public Offices. That part of the Old Public Offices which was formerly
464
occupied by the Home Office has been vacant, as the noble Lord is aware, since their move to new headquarters in Queen Anne's Mansions last summer. At the end of last year the Government announced their decision to preserve the existing facades of the Old Public Offices and as many as possible of the fine exteriors. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will recognise that today he would not have to make the valiant fight that he made at that time and which I was delighted that he won.
Extensive reconstruction within the façades was considered but this was found to be too costly. This is another of the problems to be faced when one is dealing with old buildings which require tremendous skill and care to restore. There is also the problem of trying to convert some of the buildings to a particular modern use. However, such conversion was found to be too costly in relation to the traditional accommodation provided. It has therefore been decided to retain the building as it is, but to carry out a programme of improvement and modernisation over the next few years as resources permit—in other words, to try to find a use for the building without spoiling it or incurring the prohibitive expense which would be required to turn it into a Government Department of the kind which previously occupied it. Cleaning and restoration of the stonework and the inner courtyard is already in progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, asked me about Westminster Abbey. As he quite rightly pointed out, the Government have no locus so far as Westminster Abbey is concerned, since its maintenance is the responsibility of the Dean and Chapter. However, I understand that the major restoration work which is now in progress is being financed entirely by means of private donations. The work has to keep pace with the rate of the available incoming funds. The Dean and Chapter seem to be very pleased with the current rate of progress, although the noble Lord would prefer it to be faster. The results are beginning to show and restoration is proceeding very well, but I believe that the noble Lord will find that the problem is largely a financial one.
I hope that I have convinced the House, although I have not been able, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, foresaw, to give any

465
specific answers or to indicate any great progress. However, I strongly share the view that we must do our best to preserve and enhance this historic area of London. Certainly I promise, for what it is worth, that anything I can do to speed along this process I will, for all the reasons which have been mentioned, and many more besides. Important but unobtrusive work continues daily.
We are all aware of the recent restoration of Dover House and of the work carried out to Inigo Jones' Banqueting House. A great deal of stonework has been cleaned and restored throughout Whitehall, most recently the Horse Guards building, and plans are afoot to modernise several buildings in the area as part of a nationwide office improvement programme for Government offices. The largest of these programmes is scheduled for the Great George Street offices and the old War Office building. I find the most satisfactory part of all this to be that the approach now is the right one. The problem is being looked at in the right way—by means of a combination of conservation and preservation, where that is possible; and where modernisation is needed it should fit in with and enhance the whole area.
Finally, as my noble friend has pointed out, our tourist industry is increasing all the time. Today it is one of our most valuable invisible exports, for 11 million domestic visitors and 9 million overseas visitors came to London in 1977. It is safe to say that the majority of these visitors found themselves at some point in the Whitehall area looking at the Houses of Parliament, visiting Westminster Abbey and going up Whitehall to see the changing of the guard. When I hear the warm tributes that are paid to London and the real affection that people have for our city and for our people, I believe that we have an added financial and national incentive to make the centre of the world's oldest democracy worthy of its history and pride.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was quite right when he spoke about the two problems of refuse and heritage. It is absolutely true that the shoddier a place looks, the shoddier will be the way that people deal with it and treat it. One of the very important reasons, apart from the matter of our own visual, aesthetic heritage, why it is essential that we should,
466
as soon as we possibly can, give this the highest priority is that only by restoring it and only by making it a centre of which we can be proud when we look at it and walk around it, as well as being proud of the feeling that we have for it, will we also be able to encourage and educate and persuade people to treat one of the most important centres of this magnificent city in the way in which it should be treated.

CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Second Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
  ADVANCED GAS COOLED REACTORS
  ADVANCED GAS COOLED REACTORS
  ILLICIT NUCLEAR MATERIALS: CARRIAGE BY SEA
  ILLICIT NUCLEAR MATERIALS: CARRIAGE BY SEA
  PAY AS PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL INCOME
  PAY AS PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL INCOME
  WAGES AND SALARIES STATISTICS
  WAGES AND SALARIES STATISTICS
  PAY AGREEMENT GUIDELINES
  PAY AGREEMENT GUIDELINES
  HUMAN RIGHTS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOURTH PROTOCOL
  HUMAN RIGHTS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOURTH PROTOCOL
  SECOND LONDON HELIPORT
  SECOND LONDON HELIPORT
  EEC CIVIL AIRCRAFT SECTOR COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES
  EEC CIVIL AIRCRAFT SECTOR COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES
  RHODESIA: AVAILABILITY OF WORKING DOCUMENTS
  RHODESIA: AVAILABILITY OF WORKING DOCUMENTS