Sitting of 15 June 1978

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

    Bacon Factory
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that plans for a new bacon factory go ahead.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Early last year the Department of Commerce offered the Unipork group substantial assistance towards the construction and equipment costs of a new bacon factory which the group proposed to build in Cookstown to replace existing capacity. In addition, assistance was offered by the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund. I understand that Unipork has not yet taken a final decision to go ahead with the project, and my officials are meeting the company today to review the current position. The Government are well aware of the importance of the pig processing industry in the Province and the meat industry employment scheme is evidence of our determination to safeguard employment in this sector.
    Mr. Dunlop: If Unipork proves to be viable in the near future and turns last year's loss into a profit, will the Government consider providing a little additional financial assistance to build this factory in order to safeguard jobs in the Cookstown area and to meet the requirements of EEC regulations on the processing of pork?
    Mr. Concannon: Since this is the first Question after what happened last night I give the hon. Member 10 out of 10 for his cheek. Asking for an increase in public expenditure in the first Question
    1156
    after the vote that we had in the House is something of a cheek. We shall be offering assistance to Northern Ireland firms in the same quantities as we have in the past, in spite of the efforts of some hon. Members.
    Mr. Joseph Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and his colleagues ranks almost as hypocrisy of the worst kind? Continually to stand in the House and ask for increases in public expenditure in that Province, which is already doing much better than some other—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question of the Minister on the things for which he is responsible. He is not responsible for the other side of the House.
    Mr. Dean: Does the Minister not think that their behaviour as pet poodles of the Conservative Party which is attempting to wreck our economic policy—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time will be ruined if hon. Members do not ask questions on departmental responsibilities.
    Mr. Concannon: I am sure that those to whom my hon. Friend's question was directed will have taken note of it.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister of State aware that both inside the Northern Ireland Vote and generally it is perfectly possible to increase one item of expenditure and to reduce another?
    Mr. Concannon: I am fully aware of that. I am also fully aware of the generous contribution that is made by the Treasury to Northern Ireland. Sometimes I and some of my colleagues, who are showing a little exasperation, wonder what we have to do.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Tierneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were killed in road accidents and how many road accidents there were in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): The number of persons killed in road accidents in each of the last five years, 1973 to 1977, were 335, 316, 313, 300 and 355.

    1157
    The number of road accidents in each of those years was 5,000, 4,795, 4,882, 4,943 and 5,352 respectively.
    Mr. Tierney: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are disturbing? They appear to represent about double the average figure for the rest of the United Kingdom. What does my hon. Friend propose to do about this problem in a country where many other lives are lost unnecessarily?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right in his last point. It is true that more people have died on the roads than have died in any single year through violence, the troubles, and so forth. In the near future I shall be introducing an order relating to the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Within the Department we are examining proposals to increase penalties for drunken driving, or drinking and driving. These two measures should make an impact on the deplorable level of fatalities and accidents on the roads in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree with the head of traffic control in the RUC that accident rates are at their present high level because of excessive drinking and driving? Is the Minister taking immedate steps to do something about the large number of people who are drinking in all areas, both in licensed clubs and in licensed premises?
    Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman is right. Drinking asociated with driving is the major factor in the loss of life through road accidents. An urgent review is currently taking place in my Department and we hope to bring forward proposals in the autumn.
    Mr. Fitt: In view of the appalling carnage on the roads of Northern Ireland and the representations that have been made to my hon. Friend by those in authority in the hospitals, such as the consultant surgeons, does he agree that it is grossly irresponsible for Northern Ireland Opposition Members to attempt to stop the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the Province? Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is necessary in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right on the first point. Virtually all responsible and professional opinion in North-
    1158
    ern Ireland favours the compulsory wearing of seat belts. On my hon. Friend's last point, I have not given up hope that the vast majority of Unionist Members—indeed, all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament—will vote in support of the proposition when it comes before the House.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister agree that there is little point in stiffening the legislation on drunken driving if it cannot be enforced? What is being done to ensure more rigorous enforcement of the existing law?
    Mr. Carter: There are difficulties in Northern Ireland in that respect. I should be foolish to deny it. However, the RUC has assured me in my consultations with it that it can go about its job of detecting drinking and driving in a normal way. I do not think that the RUC lacks the ability to co-operate with the Government in the implementation of the law.

    Parliamentary Constituencies (Electorate)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the average number of electors in the 12 Northern Ireland constituencies on the latest register of electors.
    Mr. Carter: On the 1978 register of electors the average is 86,142.
    Mr. Farr: As that compares with an average of 64,088 for Great Britain, how much longer will Northern Ireland be deprived of proper political representation? When will the findings of the Speaker's Conference on Northern Ireland be implemented by the introduction of a Bill to put the matter right?
    Mr. Carter: We will not be introducing immediate legislation. That was made known to the House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Implementation depends to some extent on the outcome of the Boundary Commission's deliberations. The Commission will have to listen to opinion in Northern Ireland before coming to a conclusion and making recommendations.
    Mr. Neave: Is the Minister aware that his reply is disappointing? Notwithstanding what the Leader of the House said, is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 19th

    1159
    April when the Prime Minister announced Mr. Speaker's recommendations he told my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that he would consider publishing the Bill this Session? Will the Government give further consideration to that possibility in order to avoid delay and in view of the near unanimous nature of the findings of the Speaker's Conference?
    Mr. Carter: Too much attention is being paid to that aspect of the issue. Even if a Bill were published, there would be no chance of any recommendations being implemented for the next General Election. That would have to take place afterwards, and so the timing is not as critical as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Since a promise was made that the Boundary Commission could start preliminary work before the Bill was published or debated, will the Minister say whether the preliminary work has begun?
    Mr. Carter: That is a matter for the Boundary Commission, but the original suggestion that it could start preliminary work stands, and it is probably looking at the matter now.

    Housing (Public Sector)
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the rate of improvement in public sector housing in Belfast.
    Mr. Carter: While the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is making encouraging progress in tackling the housing problems in Belfast, the scale of the work required is immense and every effort is being made to ensure more rapid progress.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is it not the case that there are more houses available than are needed in Northern Ireland? Is any progress being made in bringing people back to those areas of Belfast which have been torn by sectarian strife?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is right. There is a crude housing surplus in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast where the surplus is very real and where houses are available for people who need them. The trouble is that those homes happen to be in the wrong places. In
    1160
    private housing we have been able, through the use of public funds and building society funds, to make mortgages available to people who want to buy houses in the inner cities. I am pleased to report that more and more people are returning to the inner city and are buying properties which have lain derelict for some years.
    Mr. Kilfedder: How can Housing Executive tenants throughout Northern Ireland be expected to tolerate a situation in which repairs are not carried out to their homes when demanded, or are badly carried out? Is the Minister aware that this happens even though tenants are being asked for further increases in rent, and yet food and heating cost more in Northern Ireland and wages are generally lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is grave hardship in many cases? Will the Government deal with that aspect?
    Mr. Carter: That is the hon. Gentleman's usual jumbled question. The plain fact is that rents are significantly lower in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I should be anxious to receive a letter from the hon. Gentleman urging the Government not to go ahead with an increase in rents in Northern Ireland.
    It is true, of course, that the Housing Executive does not meet the requirements placed upon it to maintain its properties to a decent standard. It has made its views on that known, and it is trying to meet the demand that I and my Department have placed upon it to improve the quality of its efforts in maintenance.
    Mr. Carson: Does the Minister agree that many of the working class in Belfast, especially in North Belfast, the Lower Oldpark RD3 and North of the Shankill Road have been betrayed by his Department and the Housing Executive which promised that they would provide housing in that area? Is he aware that over the past few years they have received no instructions to rehouse people? Is he further aware that people there are now living in deplorable conditions? Many have been forced to leave the area and move to the outskirts of Belfast and other places. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at this matter and help those who are living in the Lower Oldpark and other parts of North Belfast

    1161
    to be rehoused in the area in which they have lived for many years?
    Mr. Carter: The hon. Gentleman will be talking to me later today on this matter, but I ought to put the record straight now. We are to build 100 new houses in that area. It is untrue to say that we have reneged on any promise in that matter.
    Mr. Madden: How much public subsidy is being devoted by the Government to housing in Northern Ireland? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the industry spokesman for the Conservatives, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), with whom so many Opposition Northern Ireland Members voted last night, is on record as saying that all grants and subsidies do great harm?
    Mr. Carter: That is one of the strange facts of life, among many others, with which we have to live in Northern Ireland. Housing in Northern Ireland is subsidised to a far greater extent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. But that is something that the Government and I in particular, as the Minister responsible, are prepared to live with because housing conditions there are so much worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The subsidy we have to maintain in Northern Ireland is consequently that much greater.
    Mr. Bradford: Will the Minister encourage an increase in staff at district office level in the Housing Executive, because it is at that point that the work is certainly expedited? Will he try to encourage the return of the maintenance section to district office level because of the great delays and ineptitude of the centralised maintenance section?
    Mr. Carter: As I have said, we are dissatisfied at every level with the maintenance effort in the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland. I am bound to point out, however, that once again the hon. Member is calling for public expenditure increases. He and his hon. Friends call for public expenditure increases in Northern Ireland and public expenditure cuts in Great Britain.

    Brian Maguire
    Miss Maynardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will order an inquiry into the death of Brian
    1162
    Maguire, found hanged in his cell on Wednesday 10th May at Castlereagh Police Station; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): A senior police officer from outside the RUC has carried out a full investigation, and in accordance with normal practice his report is being forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that the coroner's inquest will take place in public on 26th June. The House will thus understand that it would not be proper for me to say anything further at this stage.
    Miss Maynard: In view of what I feel is a disappointing reply, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will consider a public inquiry into the situation in Castlereagh? I ask for that for a number of reasons. The first is the Amnesty report, which calls for a public inquiry. Amnesty is a reputable body. The second is that Britain has previously been condemned for brutal and harsh treatment of prisoners. The third is that doctors and lawyers are all critical of what is going on in Castlereagh, and the lawyers, in particular, are critical of the emergency powers legislation, feeling from the evidence that they have that this reduces the safeguards against certain police operations.
    Does the Secretary of State believe that it is possible to maintain a democratic society with these powers? Does he think that it is possible to maintain a democratic society in this country while we behave as we do in Northern Ireland?
    Finally—
    Mon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was kind to the hon. Lady in letting her go on for so long. But she shall have her "Finally".
    Miss Maynard: Finally, will the Secretary of State agree to an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament going across to Northern Ireland to look at the prisons there—not just to meet the prisoners but to look at the prisons and the conditions there?
    Mr. Mason: On the latter point, Members of Parliament are always going to Northern Ireland, whether it is Northern Ireland Labour Party defence groups, Northern Ireland Labour Party groups, or similar groups from the Opposition side

    1163
    of the House, and the prisons have been visited.
    Secondly, on this Question I am dealing with the suicide of Brian Maguire and not the general conditions in Castlereagh. My hon. Friend will notice that there is a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.
    My hon. Friend ought to know that the suicide of Brian Maguire is the first suicide that we have had in Northern Ireland's gaols for 10 years.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Member aware—
    Miss Maynard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady would not mind waiting for a moment, otherwise she will stop anyone else asking a supplementary question.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I support his determination to stick to the proper procedures laid down by law, which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, for investigating alleged breaches of discipline and alleged criminal offences, and that in this case, as in others, we entirely support his restriction of inquiries into matters of practice and procedure which are appropriate for that treatment?
    Mr. Mason: Any death in police custody is a serious matter and is treated as such by any police force, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But that is not to say that its mere occurrence is evidence of impropriety. In England and Wales, for example, there were 169 deaths in police custody between January 1970 and the middle of 1977. In each of these cases, where appropriate, a police investigation was carried out and a public inquest subsequently held. In 27 of these cases the coroner's verdict was suicide. We are carrying out the agreed procedures in Northern Ireland precisely as they are carried out in England and Wales.
    I repeat that we must keep the matter in proper perspective. This is the first suicide that we have had in the whole of Northern Ireland gaols in 10 years.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that there will be a very bitter taste in the mouths of the
    1164
    minority community as a result of the decision to hold only internal police inquiries instead of having a full public inquiry? Will he accept that his statement this afternoon that he will not allow a full party of Members of Parliament to go to Northern Ireland will convey the impression to the minority community that concealment is going on? Will my right hon. Friend further accept from me that every progressive development that emanates from these Labour Benches is always howled at by Opposition Members, who seem to have a lot to conceal in their conduct in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there is a specific Question on the Order Paper regarding Castlereagh, and that will be answered next.
    Secondly, I do not deny people the right of going to Northern Ireland gaols, provided that there is valid reason to do so. In many instances prisoners inside gaols make requests for Members of Parliament to go. Most of the hon. Members in the Ulster parties have made visits to the gaols.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to raise a point of order?
    Miss Maynard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wanted to raise was that in view of the unsatisfactory reply by the Secretary of State, I reserve the right to pursue the question of an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament to go over to Northern Ireland to see the prisoners and the conditions there.

    Castlereagh Interrogation Centre
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present conditions at the Castlereagh interrogation centre.
    Mr. Mason: The accommodation and other facilities for persons detained at RUC Castlereagh compare favourably with those at police stations elsewhere. As for the operational function of the centre, as was announced on 8th June, the Government, at the suggestion of the Chief Constable, are setting up an independent inquiry to consider present police practice and procedures relating to the interrogation of persons suspected of scheduled offences, whether at Castlereagh

    1165
    or at any other locations in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Amnesty report appears to substantiate many of the misgivings expressed in the Press and on television and in this House about some of the interrogation procedures at Castlereagh? Does he further accept that we are unlikely to beat the terrorists unless we can do so without double standards and without dirty hands, and that where there are reports of this kind, as has been true in this House for many years—certainly since the time of Hola Camp and beyond—it is right for the House of Commons to question what has gone on?
    Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake, first, that the inquiry that takes place wil be a judicial inquiry, in which the actions and motives of all those involved in the Amnesty report can be subjected to cross-examination, and, secondly, that the report of the inquiry will be published?
    Mr. Mason: I hope that my hon. Friend does not accuse me of double standards. Secondly, it will be a judicial inquiry. Thirdly, the report will be published.
    But, again, I want the House to keep the matter in proper perspective. Amnesty International spent eight days in the Province. During the course of the first 11 months of 1977 3,444 people were questioned in Northern Ireland. Amnesty International examined 78 cases. Thirty-nine complainants made their views known, but they had no medical evidence. Twenty-six pieces of medical evidence, thereafter, were placed before Amnesty International, but Amnesty had no complainant. That left 13 cases. Of those 13—complainant and medical evidence—Amnesty International examined only five in detail. It is on that that Her Majesty's Government have decided to be forthcoming and open and to have a major independent private inquiry in order to look at the procedures that might cause this sort of allegation to arise.
    I want to seek out the truth, but I want to discern the difference between truth and propaganda.
    Mr. Neave: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition will give their
    1166
    full support to his proposal for an independent private inquiry in this case? Will it be chaired by a judge? I suggest that it should be. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce the details of the inquiry?
    Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the deliberate leaking of this report in advance of publication can only help the cause of those who wish deliberately to discredit the RUC—as some of the remarks of some Labour Members do—and prejudice an impartial inquiry?
    Mr. Mason: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am certainly looking for a key judicial figure to head the inquiry, but I also want a senior person who has knowledge of police practices, allied with someone with medical knowledge, to back it up.
    Mr. Fitt: In view of the solemn and binding undertaking given by the British Labour Government to the European Court of Human Rights that ill-treatment and maltreatment would no longer be carried out in interrogation centres in Northern Ireland, is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole credibility of the Government and, indeed, of the Labour and trade union movement is at stake on this issue? Is he aware that the 78 people mentioned by Amnesty International—a respectable and respected organisation—have tried to take civil action in the courts against the detectives who beat them up in Castlereagh, and that the Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland have refused to give the names of those involved? Will he also take into account the fact that this House should have an opportunity to debate the Amnesty International report, when, by a series of questions and answers, we may get to the truth of the matter?
    Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked Amnesty International to provide the evidence that it has of the 78 cases—witnesses or medical evidence—to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. Fitt: That is no good.
    Mr. Mason: If it is prepared to do that, the Director of Public Prosecutions can make his inquiries into those cases and can present his findings to the committee of inquiry so that the committee can take them on board. That is a proposition that I hope Amnesty International will take up.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Amnesty International report is anonymous? It mentions no names and gives no evidence whatsoever about the lawyers, doctors and other people who make the accusations. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House today that when the judicial inquiry is set up, Amnesty International can be brought to it and made to put in the open the accusations that have been made? No one knows who are the people concerned or who has given the evidence that has been supplied in their cases.
    Mr. Fitt: Name the police as well.
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct. The allegations are unsubstantiated allegations against unnamed police officers, and they are all made anonymously.
    Mr. Fitt: Name the police.
    Mr. Mason: It happens to be a fact that Amnesty International itself has kept the allegations anonymous. I am now asking whether it is prepared to reveal its information, to ask its witnesses and complainants to break the confidentiality rule but to give the information to the DPP, by whom the confidentiality would be maintained. Flowing from the DPP's examination, Amnesty International can go to the committee of inquiry, and we can ascertain the truth of the complaints.
    The answer to the question of the inquiry's being public is this: if during the course of a public inquiry there were substantiated allegations against police officers, it would be difficult to proceed in such cases, because we must consider the immunity of all those who go before a public inquiry. If we keep the inquiry private and there are allegations, whether concerning matters of police discipline or of a criminal nature, it is possible to proceed in those cases. Otherwise, it will not be possible.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Labour Benches who are totally opposed to
    1168
    terrorism in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, are nevertheless very perturbed by the Amnesty International report, primarily because we have accepted the Amnesty International reports in relation to Chile, Argentina, the Soviet Union and many other countries? Therefore, we cannot feel that Amnesty International has no case.
    My right hon. Friend has made a powerful case that the inquiry should not be held in public, but there is a very good case for its being public and for our making clear once and for all that we in this country do not fight terrorism by methods which are totally opposed to the whole concept of democratic Government.
    Mr. Mason: But my hon. Friend would certainly run into the sand of not being able to pursue the truth if the inquiry were in public. First, there would be a whole series of propaganda exercises, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. Secondly, we should have to consider granting immunity to everyone who appeared before a public inquiry. How could we proceed thereafter?
    Therefore, I am advising the House, on the best knowledge of all the information available, that we can hold the inquiry properly and honestly, and that the public will recognise that. That is why I hope that hon. Members will accept, first, that there should be an independent private inquiry into the practices and procedures in Castlereagh and elsewhere; secondly, that the DPP should be furnished with Amnesty International's evidence, so that it can be properly examined by the independent person from the judiciary in Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that the independent Police Complaints Board, chaired by a member of the minority community in Northern Ireland, shall also be given the job of examining the pattern of complaints to see whether there are any irregularities. I shall ask the Board to publish its report as well.
    Mr. Goodhart: As Amnesty International's charges have had wide publicity, and as the judicial inquiry will necessarily take a considerable time to make its report, what opportunity will the RUC have to answer in public the grave charges that have been made against it?
    Mr. Mason: I do not think that there is any doubt that the RUC will make official representations to the inquiry, as indeed will the Police Authority. There will be many opportunities during the course of the inquiry for the police to make their views known.

    Construction Industry Workers (Benefit Claims)
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has studied the report on Availability of Manpower and "The Double", prepared for the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors (Northern Ireland) by a firm of management consultants; and what investigations he proposes to undertake as a result.
    Mr. Concannon: I confirm that I have received a copy of this report. The report does not name individuals allegedly abusing the social security system, and cannot therefore lead to investigations of individual cases. Many of the difficulties highlighted in the report can be met only by modifying certain employment practices within the construction industry, and the Departments of Manpower Services and Health and Social Security (Northern Ireland) are working closely with the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors to find solutions.
    Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is satisfactory to know that the serious work that went into the report is being utilised by the Government? Is he satisfied that the investigatory staff in the Department is adequate to deal with practices which, however widespread they may be, are certainly extremely damaging so far as they exist?
    Mr. Concannon: The matter has been on-going. It was a private investigation by the construction industry, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that other inquiries and other work have been going on simultaneously. We have a special branch of the DHSS in Northern Ireland which has 25 investigatory officers. Last year 416 people were convicted in Northern Ireland for working and claiming benefit. Ninety-one-21 per cent.—were in the building trade. The figures were higher than those for the previous year. In 1977, 26 employers were convicted on account of false state-
    1170
    ments to sustain claims to benefit. Eight of them were building trade employers. Thirty-one claimants and four employers were jailed for social security frauds. Forty-two claimants and three employers received suspended prison sentences, and 396 claimants and 19 employers were also fined.
    Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend give us an indication of the precise nature of the report? I am being quite honest about this. I do not know the nature of the report. Is it in relation to the "lump"? If it is, does that mean that the United Kingdom's laws on this matter are being contravened? If so, what is the Opposition's attitude? They have constantly opposed Labour efforts to control the "lump" and all the pernicious things that go with it.
    Mr. Concannon: The Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors in Northern Ireland was perturbed by the high number of people going on the unemployment register who were also registering as contractors or building trade employers, so it initiated its own investigation. I think that it was very surprised by the outcome, which laid a considerable part of the blame at the construction industry's door.

    Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
    Mr. Goodladasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Mason: I agreed with Mr. O'Kennedy when we met on 5th May that we would maintain contact on matters of short- and long-term interest and would meet again as necessary. No dates for further meetings have yet been arranged.
    Mr. Goodlad: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Irish Foreign Minister will he raise again with him the failure of the Government of the Republic to sign and ratify the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism? Will he emphasise, in the friendliest possible spirit, the great importance attached to this matter in this country as an index of the genuine and total commitment of the Government of

    1171
    the Republic to the fight against terrorism?
    Mr. Mason: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the latter point. He knows that the Government of the Republic have reiterated quite strongly that they have a 100 per cent. political commitment to the fight against terrorism. As for the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the Government of the Republic know full well the views of Her Majesty's Government—indeed, the views of many hon. Members in this House. They were aware of what was said during the passage through this House of the antiterrorist legislation. I do not think that any reiteration is needed.
    Mr. Gow: Does not the common interest of the Republic and the United Kingdom require that we should continue with our representations to the Government of the Republic to the effect that a redefinition of a political offence for extradition purposes is overdue and also that the signature of the Republic to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is likewise long overdue?
    Mr. Mason: I agree with the latter point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Government of the Republic are aware of the point, too. We must recognise, not just with the Irish Republic but with every member of the Council of Europe which has decided to go ahead and sign this convention, that it has to be signed—as it was signed by Her Majesty's Government—without reservations.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While I appreciate the efforts of the Irish police against what the Taoiseach acknowledges to be a common enemy, may I ask that when a Northern Ireland or Foreign Office Minister next sees Mr. O'Kennedy he will ask him why and when he reversed his opinion of February 1977, based on the opinion of constitutional lawyers, that there was no objection, on the basis of the Irish constitution, to Dublin signing the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism?
    Mr. Mason: When next I meet Mr. O'Kennedy I will ask him that. I cannot go into the constitutional difficulties,
    1172
    niceties and the sophistications of that constitution today.

    Belfast (Community Projects)
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the community facilities which are planned for the Ravenhill and Woodstock Roads; and what is the total amount of expenditure for these projects.
    Mr. Carter: Primary responsibility for the provision of community facilities rests with Belfast City Council and the area boards, but I understand that the facilities currently planned for the Raven-hill and Woodstock Roads area are a workshop for the handicapped, Ravenhill Road; a community recreation centre, Ormeau Park; a youth club and play centre, Clara Street; a youth centre, Ballynafeigh and a nursery school, Euston Road.
    The total cost of these projects is estimated to be approximately £925,000.
    In addition, suitable sites are being sought in the area for a family day centre, a children's home, a community centre and a branch library, and alternative uses are being considered for the Cherryville Street health clinic.
    Mr. Bradford: While I am grateful for the detail of that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that three of the projects mentioned are not related to the roads mentioned in the Question? Does he appreciate that the public inquiry report for this area is long overdue? Can he confirm that the building of a community centre is recommended in that report? What will be the date of publication of that report for redevelopment area No. 31?
    Mr. Carter: The hon. Member is right. The public inquiry has been held and we are currently sifting the views that were made known. People were calling for a variety of projects. We have not yet decided what the final report should contain, what we should recommend and when the report should be made.
    Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues explain to the Northern Ireland people very clearly that the logical consequence of their being represented by hon. Members who demand less and less public expenditure in total yet at

    1173
    the same time continue to put forward rapacious demands for increased expenditure in their own area must be that their position and requests will be treated with considerable disfavour?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I pointed out earlier, it is one of the bitter ironies of life for the Government in Northern Ireland that Unionist Members representing Northern Ireland call for public expenditure increases there and for public expenditure cuts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us about the site that was earmarked for a community centre on the left-hand side of the Woodstock Road going out from the centre of the city? Can he say why that site has not been developed as a community centre, irrespective of what political flag the people in that area fly?
    Mr. Carter: The hon. Member's knowledge of the geography of Belfast is much greater than mine. I shall look into the point that he made. As I told the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) earlier, a public inquiry has been held and all of the representations made at that inquiry are currently being considered.

    TUC
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
    Mr. Thomas: When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he raise with it the question of industrial democracy? Will he draw to its attention the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the proposals that my right hon. Friend put forward on 23rd May? Will he draw to the attention of the TUC the contrast between that bit of no doubt softened "Fairy Snow" image and the image portrayed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who on Tuesday said that the Conservatives would emasculate the Bullock proposals and oppose any legislation?
    The Prime Minister: There will be discussions taking place between the TUC and appropriate Ministers on the White Paper that the Government have issued. I regret that the Opposition seem to be taking a more negative attitude now than they did when the White Paper was first published, especially as I have noticed that some independent observers have gone on record since the publication of the White Paper saying that they thought that it formed a useful basis. We think that voluntary arrangements should be made, as far as possible, with a legislative fall-back.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the TUC will be concerned at the threatened closure of the ICI plant on Teesside, with the possible loss of 8,000 jobs—this arising because the Company is not allowed to pay the kind of wages that would attract and keep skilled workers? Will the Prime Minister accept that his policy of depressed wages for skilled workers and high tax for all is leading directly to unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I will not accept anything of the sort. That is simply not true. The situation is that there has been a large increase in training for skilled men. I am glad to say that that has more than doubled since the right hon. Lady had any responsibility in the last Conservative Administration. We clearly need more training than we have. As to wage differentials, perhaps one day the right hon. Lady will recognise that there must be some reconciliation between overcoming inflation and a measure of holding back on wages. I do not know whether she accepts that. Perhaps she would like to make it clear.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister now address his mind to the question? Eight thousand jobs may be lost because the company cannot pay enough to keep skilled workers and to attract more, yet there are training places vacant because the pay is not high enough to encourage people to take up these jobs. In the face of this loss, will the Prime Minister say whether the company can pay enough to keep skilled workers and attract more, or would the company be black listed if it did so?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot reply to a question on an individual company. If the right hon. Lady wants a particular answer she should table a Question to the appropriate Minister. On the general question, I note that she is now departing from any proposals for having reasonable restraint on pay. In that case, I warn her that there will be a serious return to inflation. That is something that we have to balance. It is the responsibility of the Government—but, of course, not of the right hon. Lady—to try to get a proper balance between differentials and a restraint on pay. I sometimes wish that she would acknowledge that and recognise that this is a problem if inflation is to be kept down.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister saying that he would rather have these workers unemployed than allow a flourishing, good company to make its own bargain with its own unions freely and without Government restraint?
    The Prime Minister: No, of course I would not say anything of the sort, and the right hon. Lady understands that. What she will not acknowledge is that there is a relationship between the amount of wages paid and the level of inflation. It is the job of the Government to get this right, and we are getting it right. The right hon. Lady will no doubt pursue this point. We shall try in the next pay year to ensure that differentials have a rather better show than they have had this year. This year has been better than last year in that respect. But, overall, I should like to hear the right hon. Lady say one day that she regards the overcoming of inflation as the No. 1 priority of this country.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 15th June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today President Ceausescu of Romania and I will be signing a joint statement at the end of our official talks. This evening
    1176
    I shall be the guest of the President at a dinner in honour of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Canavan: Although he has a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to comment on last night's vote, when the separatist extremists in the Scottish National Party combined with the Unionist extremists in the Tory Party to try to defeat the Government? That defeat could have wrecked the Scottish Assembly. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's description of the Shadow Chancellor as a dead sheep, does not this mean that the SNP is a crowd of political maggots living off the carcase of the Tory Party?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my rhetorical skills do not vie with either those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but, looking ahead, what we can say is that now, in the light of last night's vote, there is a very good prospect that the devolution Bills will reach the statute book, and that therefore the Scottish people, as well as the Welsh people, will be able to declare themselves, through a referendum, on the subject of the Assembly. When they vote, they will know that there are no thanks due to the Scottish National Party.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Referring to last night's debate, will the right hon. Gentleman take a few moments off in order to congratulate his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his desperate efforts to restore confidence in the Government, and congratulate him even further on the fact that he has attempted to rig the gilt-edged market this morning by relaxing £640 million of special deposits?
    The Prime Minister: This decision to extend the facilities in the market was taken not by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer but by the Bank of England, and is a technical adjustment made necessary by the great success in selling gilt-edged since my right hon. Friend announced the increase in minimum lending rate and other factors last week, including the corset.
    As the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have noticed, this is a temporary relaxation because of the Government's

    1177
    and the Bank's success in selling gilts and it will be reintroduced in two weeks' time. I should have hoped the right hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Government on their great success.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the remarks made by the right hon. Lady, will my right hon. Friend suggest that she should consult some of the Teesside people affected by the troubles to which she referred? If she does so, she will find that there is no glib answer to this very difficult problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that for every six instrument artificers trained by ICI at that plant, only one has been retained, and that these men have been going to Saudi Arabia, Norway and various other countries, where they are obtaining salaries of between £10,000 and £20,000, which could not be matched under any pay policy?
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that his ministerial colleagues are doing their utmost to try to solve this problem, and that the intervention from the right hon. Lady will in no way help towards its solution?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), in whose constituency I believe the factory is situated—or at any rate a number of his constituents work in it—is very well informed about these matters. I do not know why he should assume, however, that the right hon. Lady wants to find an answer to the problem. She just wants to find a way of having a dig at the Government.

  BRUSSELS
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit Brussels.
  The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit Brussels before the meeting of the European Council, which will be held there towards the end of the year.
  Mr. Marten: In view of the suffering which the closure of the Spanish frontier by the dictatorship of General Franco has caused to the people of Gibraltar, will the Prime Minister, when he goes to Brussels, make it a precondition of opening negotiations with the Spanish for entry into the Common Market—which I support—that they should open the
  1178
  frontier beforehand? Will he ask the Foreign Office to be a little less pussyfooted about it and a little more robust?
  The Prime Minister: The opening of the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is not a matter which is concerned with the entry of Spain into the European Economic Community; it arose long before the Spanish application for entry to the EEC. It is a matter on which I have made many protests to the Spanish Government. In my view—I have said so frequently—the frontier should be opened, quite irrespective of any application by Spain for membership of the Community. The Spanish Government know very well our views on the matter. In my view, the frontier should be opened tomorrow. The question has nothing at all to do with the Community.
  Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even The Times newspaper has become alarmed at the scandal of rising meat prices in the EEC and the threat which the British housewife now faces to her supplies of less costly New Zealand meat, under the common agricultural policy? Will he go to Brussels and tell the Community that we have no intention of allowing it to force up the prices of New Zealand meat in this country in order to support less efficient French sheep farmers?
  The Prime Minister: The Minister of Agriculture has made clear on more than one occasion, and as recently as 20th April, that one of the essential points which govern our attitude to proposals on marketing arrangements for mutton and lamb is that New Zealand's interest and that of our own housewives must be fully safeguarded. That is the Government's policy, and my right hon. Friend has been most vigorous in advancing it in Brussels.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his firm refusal to take political action in the Council of Europe, particularly in relation to trying to get some sort of coherent policy towards the re-stabilisation of the situation in Africa? This is especially important, in view of the great community of interest between the European countries and the community of interest between the African countries and the members of the European Community.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, there is a close identity of interests. Western interests have always been very strong in Africa, but it is the nature of those interests and the way in which they are expressed that is of importance. The Foreign Secretary had discussions with his Foreign Minister colleagues on this matter yesterday, and I think that they are coming to a common agreement on the policy that should be followed.
  If in the first part of his question the right hon. Gentleman was referring back to Gibraltar, let me make it absolutely clear that I think that the House, in expressing itself in this way, will influence the attitude of the Spanish authorities. I do not object to pressure on this question, but I do not want to link it with the other issue. It is an issue which stands on its own. That border should be opened.
  Mr. Mike Nobleasked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he discuss with it ways and means of ensuring that reluctant Tory local authorities take advantage of the steps recently taken to restore free school milk? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this is a much better use of public funds than the tax cuts pushed through by the original milk-snatcher and her friends?
  The Prime Minister: I saw the full page advertisement by the National Dairy Council in the newspaper this morning. I think it will have met with pretty general approval, at any rate on the Government side. I hope that Conservative local authorities will take it up. They can, at least for a year, get this milk for children between 7 and 11 at little or no extra cost to themselves. That at least should appeal to them.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Are we to understand from the answer that the Prime Minister gave to the House last Tuesday that the Government's policy towards stage 4 of a possible incomes
  1180
  policy is to find out what trade unions want and then do it? Are the Government going to give any leadership at all?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for advice on tactics, but perhaps he will be kind enough to leave it to me. I think the wisest thing is to hear what the annual conferences of the unions have to say about these matters. For example, an interesting resolution on the subject was passed at NALGO yesterday. I think that we had better weigh up the attitudes and reach our conclusions, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed whatever we do.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19TH JUNE—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: debate on the Royal Navy.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], and of any that may be received to the Co-operative Development Agency Bill.
TUESDAY 20TH JUNE—Motions on Northern Ireland orders relating to companies, payments for debt, planning, pollution control, education, licensing and matrimonial causes.
WEDNESDAY 21ST JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: debate on housing.
Second Reading of the Parliamentary Pensions Bill.
THURSDAY 22ND JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: debates on the mismanagement of Scotland's oil, and afterwards on the need for a balanced economic order for Wales. These topics have been chosen by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
Motion on the General Practice Finance Corporation (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Order.
FRIDAY 23RD JUNE—Remaining stages of the Homes Insulation Bill and of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on EEC documents on the European Foundation and cultural sector, Nos. COM(77)600, R/325/78, R/ 734/78, R/774/78 and R/2982/77.
MONDAY 26TH JUNE—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: the subject for debate to be announced.
Mrs. Thatcher: As the Government appear to have run short of business, may I put two points to the Lord President? First, he will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has frequently asked about a merchant shipping Bill, which the Lord President said is ready to be introduced. Has he decided not to introduce it before the Summer Recess? Secondly, I notice that there is one new Bill this week. Will there be any other new Bills? For example, have the Government taken a decision not to reintroduce dividend restraint? Therefore, are we not going to have a Bill?
Mr. Foot: With regard to the second matter, I think that we should see how we proceed, but we have no proposal for bringing such a Bill forward at the moment.
With regard to the merchant shipping Bill, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that although we strongly favour this Bill, and although we have a Bill prepared, it is an extensive Bill and if we were to introduce it into the House, it would take up a considerable amount of parliamentary time.
Contrary to the right hon. Lady's original assumption, it is not the case that we have a great deal of time on our hands. There is a great deal of legislation, which the Prime Minister indicated last night—I am sure to the general satisfaction of the House—and we propose to carry through all that legislation during this Session.
Mr. Bryan Davies: With regard to the business for the middle part of next week, which is dictated by the Opposition, has the fact that it is fairly slack and low key anything at all to do with the proposed Conservative Members' attendance at Royal Ascot? Do we not every year go through this charade when Parliament takes the middle part of this week off while exhorting the rest of the country to stay hard at work?
Mr. Foot: Never having been to Ascot myself—and I am not likely to be there next week-I do not think I should comment on that matter. But I assure the House that we do not regard the business for Wednesday as being a matter of insignificance in any sense at all. There is to be a debate on housing, a very important question, to be followed by a debate on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill, which is also of some interest to the House.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that to follow there are two three-hour debates, which arouse a great deal of interest? I would be grateful if questions could be brief and quick.
Mr. Powell: With regard to Northern Ireland business on Tuesday, will the Lord President see that the items are so arranged that there is ample time for the debate on the matrimonial causes and that if any of these items have to be taken at a late hour, they are those on which there is relatively little debate and which are matters of comparatively less importance?
Mr. Foot: I certainly hope that we shall be able to approach all the debates, including the measure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, in that manner.
Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a short debate on Early-Day Motion No. 472 so that hon. Members on this side of the House can have the opportunity of inviting the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss the chairman of the Conservative Party, who in his other capacity outside this House as chairman of Pirelli has been involved in an illegal price-fixing ring, ripping off millions of pounds from the Post Office and is now being forced to pay it back?
[That this House notes that the Chairman of the Conservative Party is also Chairman of Pirelli Limited, a firm found to have participated in an illegal price fixing ring; and calls upon the Chairman of the Conservative Party to keep his mouth firmly shut on the issues of law and order, morality and public expenditure and in the forthcoming General Election.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman referring to a Member of

1183
another place? If he was, it is as much out of order to criticise a Member of another place as it is a Member of this place.
Mr. Rooker: In answer to you, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the words of Early-Day Motion No. 472, which have been accepted by the Clerks—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that when that matter comes to be discussed he may make reference to it, but not until it is being discussed.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Rooker Mr. Rooker indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: I cannot offer my hon. Friend time to discuss the matter next week.
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to be allowed to make those remarks and not to be required to withdraw them?
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) make a reflection upon the honour of a Member of another place?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]—Would the hon. Gentleman like to rise and tell me whether he did?
Mr. Rooker: I simply repeated the words in the Early-Day Motion, which is on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. If it is on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, surely it must be in order for me to repeat the words that are used?
Mr. Speaker: I do not have with me the Early-Day Motion which is on the Order Paper. What is not in order is to cast any reflection on the honour of any hon. Member here or in another place. I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman, by his attitude, is not implying any reflection on the honour of a Member of another place.
Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was within the hearing of all of us in the House that the hon. Gentleman referred to the noble Lord as being involved in an illegal rip off. That is a matter which quite clearly would reflect upon the honour of the
1184
noble Lord. Therefore, it seems quite clear that the hon. Gentleman is under an obligation, as you said, to withdraw that type of remark.
Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly it is my duty, if a reflection is cast on the honour of an hon. Member of this House or the other place, to ask for it to be withdrawn. That is my obligation and the House expects me to do it. What is more, any hon. Member who had a reflection cast on him would be one of the first to ask me to do it. I invite the hon. Member for Perry Barr to withdraw it.
Mr. Rooker: Mr. Speaker. I am in some difficulty, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]—That is the last thing I intend to do. I am in some difficulty, because I was informed that if one wishes to reflect on the character of an hon. Member of this House or another place one must do it in a substantive motion. I took advice and, therefore, reworded the Early-Day Motion in accordance with the rules of the House. Therefore, I can see no reason whatever to withdraw what I did in conjunction with the Clerks.
Mr. Speaker: Quite clearly, the hon. Member has not understood what I said earlier. It would be in order for him to make statements if the motion were being discussed. It is not being discussed. I have asked the hon. Member to withdraw, and I must now require him to do so.
Mr. Rooker: I am in some diffi-culty—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot be in any difficulty if he withdraws that statement reflecting on the honour of a Member of the other House.
Mr. Rooker: Very well. I withdraw. I think that the point has been made.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will appreciate that there is some difficulty about this matter. Apparently, my hon. Friend is empowered to write what he feels on the Order Paper but is not allowed to say it in the House of Commons. I think that it is important that

1185
we should maintain the proper relations between the two Houses. That is why I urged my hon. Friend to withdraw, and I am glad that he did so. Nevertheless, I think that you will agree that this is a most unsatisfactory way in which the matter is left.
Mr. Speaker: I understood the hon. Member for Perry Barr to say that the chairman had participated in an illegal price ring. That is not what the Order Paper says. The Order Paper says that the firm has participated—[Interruption.] Order. We had better get back to business questions.
Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without wishing to go back, now that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as far as we can ascertain, has withdrawn, although it was a somewhat equivocal withdrawal, can you give the House some guidance? Is it not deeply disturbing that a substantial number of Government supporters, with certain political tendencies, who sit below the Gangway are never willing to play by the discipline and rules of this House, a fact which continually bedevils our proceedings?
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) named no individual. Let me say this to the House. It all depends on which side of the House the issue happens to arise where the indignation will lie. I advise the House that we should now leave this and get on with business questions, or I shall have to cut business questions short.
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As an illustration of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referring to a noble Lord who is simultaneously chairman of the Conservative Party and chairman of a company which is referred to specifically in the motion and, therefore, any aspersion was limited entirely to that. But we have also heard in the last few moments another hon. Member speak of certain political tendencies which he alleges are displayed by some Government supporters who will not abide by the rules. Mr. Speaker, can you quote
1186
me one example where hon. Members on this side of the House, sitting below or above the Gangway, have not abided by the rules, and will you ask the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: These exchanges are getting us nowhere. I suggest that we now get back to business questions.
Mr. Cormack: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen yesterday's Select Committee report on the National Land Fund? If he has not, will he read it, and will he arrange for a statement next week on the Government's views on this important report and an early debate?
Mr. Foot: I shall look at the report in the normal way and see what is the proper time for a Government statement.
Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter which I have raised before on business questions about the future airports policy of the Government? When may we have a debate about it?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise anything next week, obviously. However, since my hon. Friend has raised the matter again, I shall certainly look at it and get in touch with him about when a statement can be made to the House.
Mr. Crouch: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House today or at the latest tomorrow to report on the situation facing the London hospitals and the threatened closure of the 12 major teaching hospitals in London as a result of a proposed strike by the electricians' and plumbers' union on Sunday night? Does he appreciate that some of the serious consequences which would flow from such a strike might involve the evacuation of some of these major hospitals, each with more than 1,000 patients, which must result in many deaths occurring? It is a matter of major importance, and we must hear from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Foot: I shall, of course, look at the question and see whether it is advisable that the Secretary of State should come to the House and make a statement.
Mr. Corbett: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 434 calling for a ban on the export of live farm animals for slaughter? Can we have an early debate on the matter?
[That this House believes that the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening should cease.]
Mr. Foot: That request has been made before by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. There is widespread interest in the matter, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is also seriously concerned about it. I cannot give a specific date for a debate. However, we shall consider afresh these representations.
Mrs. Bain: In view of the fact that deliberations on both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill are soon to be completed in another place, may we expect an early announcement from the Government about their deliberations on the various anomalies which will apply to the 40 per cent. minimum requirement in the referendums?
Mr. Foot: The Government will examine all the recommendations made by another place about these matters and we shall bring the Government's views on them to the House in the normal fashion. Of course, it is our determination that the Bills should be on the statute book before the end of this Session. I hope that occasionally before that date we shall have some assistance from the hon. Lady.
Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the debate next Wednesday is confined purely to housing on an Opposition Supply Day and in view of the fact that the employers' federation for the building industry has now launched a campaign against the nationalisation of the building industry—which the Labour Party is not proposing—may we have a debate in this House at the earliest possible moment on the future of the construction industry which will enable hon. Members like myself, who help to draw up Labour's plans, to explain precisely what those plans are and to answer the nonsense coming from the employers' federation and from the Opposition about this matter?
Mr. Foot: Certainly that would be an admirable subject for a separate debate. But I hope that that will not deter my
1188
hon. Friend and others from raising some of these matters when we have the debate next Wednesday.
Mr. Montgomery: As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has not raised it this week, may I raise the subject of immigration? Will the Leader of the House say when we are likely to debate the Select Committee report on race relations and immigration? Before the right hon. Gentleman says that this can be taken in Opposition time, will he perhaps give an example of when a Select Committee report has had to be debated in Opposition time? Are not these matters usually dealt with in Government time, and does not the Leader of the House feel that he should tell the right hon. Member for Down, South that he is deluding him on immigration in exactly the same way as he did over the Common Market?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Member has got the situation considerably muddled in his mind. Of course there are occasions when the Opposition choose to have matters which have been brought up by Select Committees debated in their own time, and they are free to do so, or they can debate more general questions which touch upon reports from Select Committees. A lot of the time of the House is available to the Opposition. There is also the fact that sometimes the selection of the subjects which come from Select Committees is made not by the Government but by many of those who serve on the Committees and the Chairmen of those Committees. That must be taken into account as well. I hope that the hon. Member will consider all those factors before making any criticism of the Government in this respect.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: As the House of Commons (Administration) Bill completed its Committee stage some time ago, will my right hon. Friend say when we shall have Report and Third Reading?
Mr. Foot: I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement next week about the time of proceeding with the Bill. I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's remarks that we must do everything that we can to get that Bill on the statute book this Session.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: As the Government have some problem in raising money,

1189
could we have a debate on the question of the manipulation of the gilt-edged market which at the moment is being turned into a casino by the activities of the Government? I think that we might have an interesting debate on how the Government propose to increase the national debt even further, as they have doubled it in the past four years.
Mr. Foot: That is a completely irresponsible way of raising this important question. The right hon. Gentleman is only revealing his own wounds caused by the Opposition's difficulty in raising votes compared with the comparative ease the Government have had in raising money.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Lord President aware of the growing bitterness among firemen because they feel that they have been double-crossed by their employers in implementing the settlement of the dispute earlier this year? Could he arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on this matter next week?
Mr. Foot: I doubt very much whether a statement can be made in that way. I have read the discussions that are proceeding on this question. I doubt whether the best way to proceed at this moment is either by a statement or by discussion in the House. We want to see a full settlement, of course, in the light of the agreement that was reached some months ago.
Mr. Kershaw: Will the Lord President take note of Early-Day Motion No. 464 dealing with the stationing of United States tanker aircraft in the Cotswolds? It appears that the Ministry of Defence has been providing some highly misleading statistics about these aircraft and their characteristics. Could we have a debate next week?
[That this House, whilst mindful of its loyalty to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to its friendship with the United States of America, nevertheless deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to base KC 135 tanker aircraft of the American Air Force in the Cotswolds, whether at Fairford or Brize Norton, bearing in mind the exceptionally noisy and pollutant characteristics of this aircraft, the consequent harm which will be caused to an area of outstanding natu-
1190
ral beauty and high population, and also that the Lincolnshire County Council supported by right honourable and honourable Members of this House are willing to receive these aircraft into their area, which has different environmental and employment conditions; and expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will decide against any solution which will do violence to the serenity of the Cotswolds and may result in damage to Anglo-American relations.]
Mr. Foot: There is no possibility of a debate on that matter next week, unless the Opposition raise it. I certainly cannot accept what the hon. Member says about statements from the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Spearing: Since there has been disquiet over the way in which the Scrutiny Committee recommends matters for debate and the undertakings of the Government in that respect, will the Lord President tell the House when he will bring forward a motion which will put these matters as a resolution of the House?
Mr. Foot: Nobody knows better than my hon. Friend the obligation that I have on that subject. I am committed in the way that I stated to the House when we had a debate on this matter. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, although I have often acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with these matters, my hon. Friend should acknowledge that the Government have sought to bring these matters before the House, especially in the light of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee.
Mr. Marten: When the Leader of the House feels that the House needs a quiet, interesting, slightly academic but very important day's debate, will he consider enabling us to debate the Lords Scrutiny Committee report on the abuse by the Community of Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome relating to the approximation of laws? This is academic but it is very important.
Mr. Foot: I shall look at this matter in the same good-tempered way as that in which the hon. Member has raised it.
Mr. Molloy: In view of the disturbing features connected with road casualties, and the equally disturbing feature of the

1191
way in which massive new road construction—for example, in Greenford in my constituency—makes a contribution to endangering pedestrians life, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the House to debate this vet}, serious issue, which is the cause of so much loss of life throughout this country?
Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the matter, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate. There are other facilities for raising these questions in the arrangement of the business of the House.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the three hon. Members who have been getting to their feet all the time, and, of course, the Front Bench.
Mr. Tebbit: In order to avoid the necessity of the debate next week for which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked, will the Lord President help him and us by coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that the Labour Party has entirely repudiated any suggestion that any part of the building or construction industry will be taken into public ownership? Then we can settle that one. Secondly, will he make the position a little clearer and say whether he actually meant, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there is no intention now of bringing forward a Bill to continue dividend control?
Mr. Foot: On the second matter I have no statement to make now. The first matter is entirely irrelevant to any question of next week's business.
Mr. Adley: As it is expected that the Prime Minister and the President of Romania will be signing an agreement on the BALI-11, may I risk boring the right hon. Gentleman by asking him yet again whether and when we can debate the future of the aerospace industry in general and future aircraft purchases of British Airways in particular?
May I also ask him whether he will ensure that, whoever the Minister is who finally decides to be responsible, some member of the Government will come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement of the Government's intention to return to Chile the aero engines which belong
1192
to that Government and which have been held in this country against the wishes of their owners for four years? Is he aware that there are serious implications when the British Government defy a court order in this way?
Mr. Foot: On the second matter, the Government's attitude on this has been fully explained to the House. On the earlier matter that the hon. Member has raised on a number of occasions, I acknowledge and admire his persistence in his questions, and he must acknowledge my persistence in my replies. He puts the same question, and I give him the same reply.
Mr. Stokes: On a non-controversial note, may I ask the Lord President whether, when the Parliamentary Pensions Bill is discussed on Wednesday—about which many Members have serious reservations—it would not be convenient to consider the matter of Members' salaries at the same time?
Mr. Foot: I do not think it would be desirable or necessary to do this. Of course, we shall consider the question of Members' salaries before the end of this Session. It is perfectly possible for the Parliamentary Pensions Bill to be considered next week, as I have suggested. What we are doing in that Bill is carrying out in full the spirit and the letter of the recommendations that were made by the Royal Commission, and in that spirit the proposals should be accepted by the House.
Mr. Whitelaw: Could the Leader of the House give a categoric assurance that the Government will resolve their differences in time to publish a White Paper on the report of the Annan Committee on Broadcasting before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Member has been a Member of divided Cabinets much longer than I have. I am a comparative novice in these matters. But I must point out that he has invited me to commit a breach of the Official Secrets Act right here at the Dispatch Box on the very day that we are discussing official secrets. I think that the right hon. Member is asking a bit too much even for him. I am always eager to please him—especially on a day when he is feeling a little dejected.

1193
I was searching around for some way in which I could come to the rescue of him and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition but, eager as I am, I am afraid I cannot assist.
Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We acknowledge that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his Early-Day Motion was difficult for the whole House and for you, Mr. Speaker. However it raised many points, some of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some of us are now in difficulty. We acknowledge that it is the custom and the practice of the House that if, on business questions, a Member of this House wishes to draw it to the attention of the Lord President, he can enlarge on the Early-Day Motion that he is quoting. Will you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, either tomorrow or early next week, to make a statement to guide us on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: When the exchanges began, I did not have the actual wording of the motion before me. The House will realise that it was supplied to me in the course of the discussions. The difference was that the motion attacks a firm and the hon. Gentleman linked the matter, as I understand it, to an individual. We all understand the rules, and I was obliged to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for withdrawing the comment, as he did at my request.
Mr. Kershaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to return to the matter relating to that Early Day Motion. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that the motion concerns only a firm. But if you examine the last two lines you will see that that is not quite true. It demands of the chairman of the Tory Party various personal actions and casts aspersions upon him. May I seek your ruling whether the motion is properly on the Order Paper at all.
Mr. Speaker: The answer is that it is properly on the Order Paper or it would not be there. Secondly, the various requests to the Chairman of the Conservative Party could be debated on a substantive motion, but there is no such motion before the House.

STANDING ORDER NO. 9
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to you about the possibility of a Standing Order No. 9 debate. It is true, and I apologise, that because of circumstances beyond my control I was unable to write to you earlier. I was wondering whether you intended to give me the opportunity to raise an important matter under that Standing Order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman contacted me—I received a message at about 2 p.m.—about a request for a Standing Order No. 9 debate. If we do not keep firmly to the rules, I shall be in dire trouble. Hon. Members will take the view "I have put in my motion only five minutes later than the other hon. Member and therefore my case also should be considered."
Mr. Flannery: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting my ruling.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put the two Questions on the Statutory Instruments together.
Ordered,
That the draft International Finance Corporation (Further Payment to Capital Stock) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 768), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [21ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  FISHING
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  4.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: In initiating what will be a short debate, I should like to give a formal welcome to the Fifth Report of the Expenditure Committee on the fishing industry and to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and also to the Leader of the House as he is present, that the fact that the Opposition are taking this time today, in no way discharges the Government's obligation to give time at a later date for a full discussion of this important report.
  We sought this debate today because, as we see it, the horizon is rapidly closing in on the fishing industry. It is becoming harder, not easier, to sustain confidence in the future of the industry. As time has passed, we have recovered none of the lost fishing opportunities, and we are now not even negotiating with third countries.
  I wish to remind the Minister of an Answer he gave the other day on 9th June—column 282 of Hansard—to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). My hon. Friend asked why it was permitted to some member countries to negotiate with third countries and why that opportunity was denied to us. The right hon. Gentleman answered very reasonably that to date he had preferred to hope for an all-round settlement, and added that thus far he had not sought to negotiate bilaterally. Perhaps the Minister would like to take that point a little further today.
  Not only have we not recovered any of the lost fishing opportunities, but I would emphasise that the depletion of stocks has continued and time eats away at the strength and heart of the industry.
  The Opposition do not think it right to continue to drift. There may have
  1196
  been grounds at one time for hoping that attitudes which seemed to us in this House to have been unfair and shortsighted would change. Unfortunately, events have shown this to be most unlikely. The rush to get fish has not been moderated by either prudence or justice.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: We told you that six years ago.
  Mr. Peyton: If the Community is enlarged, it is virtually certain that that rush will be considerably intensified.
  There is no point in arguing today how we reached this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] These cheap jibes by certain Labour Members are much in their character. I think if we could forget them it would be helpful. I emphasise that there is no point in arguing how we got to this point or who failed to achieve what either in negotiation or renegotiation. We have a very good answer to the cheap and characteristic jibes of Labour Members.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Then give us the answer.
  Mr. Peyton: It would be a pity if the House today allowed this debate just to decline into one more of those sterile exercises to which we have all become accustomed of late.
  What has happened—and we have got to deal with this matter—is that better boats and more efficient, though less discriminating, methods of locating and catching fish have brought excessive pressure on stocks. The 200-mile limits which are now common and which were not dreamed of only a few years ago have totally altered the scene. As a result of these limits, we have lost the right to fish waters in which only a few years ago we took as much as a third of our catch.
  Let me briefly remind the House of two sets of figures illustrating what has happened. Whereas in 1967 we in this country caught 350,915 tonnes of cod, that amount last year declined to 147,907 tonnes—a very serious loss to us. The distant water fleet over the same period has declined from 182 boats to 98. We are now offered a share which seems to us to be exceedingly meagre—a share not in a market but, unusually and exceptionally, in a resource.

  1197
  The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the only occasion in which it is suggested by the Community that a resource as opposed to a market should be shared and regarded as common. The total allowable catch is to be parcelled out according to criteria —I choose my words carefully and do not wish to exaggerate—which seem to us to have been nicely rigged to suit almost every country, save the United Kingdom. We are asked to share this resource with people who, having fished out their own waters, show themselves now ready and eager to do the same in ours—people to whom conservation appears to be only a word, which is completely unreal in action however useful it may be in debate.
  I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view on Europe, which I regard, and always have done, as negative and unhopeful. However, I hope that the fact that we do not share the right hon. Gentleman's views about membership of the Community will not be taken to mean that we are more ready to accept a deal which I would regard as shabby. Nor does it in any way weaken the support which I now offer to him so long as he resists demands which we regard as unreasonable and intrusive, and so long as he continues to show himself willing to take active steps now to conserve stocks.
  The time for mere words has passed. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps been a little too patient over this matter. On 16th March the right hon. Gentleman used these words:
  "Of course, I shall bring forward measures"
  —he was referring to conservation measures—
  "and tell this House about them at the due moment."—[Official Report, 16th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 626.]
  I should like to express to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Conservative Members the hope that he will shortly bring those measures forward with the intention of enforcing them with vigour.
  I do not believe that it will be enough merely to extend the present measure, important as they are. Nor is it wise for people to continue to draw comfort from the notion that no settlement is better than a bad one. That would be most unwise. It ignores the weakness which will be engendered throughout our industry by a prolonged stalemate.
  1198
  What we need now is either a settlement with which the industry can live or a set of measures to conserve stocks, to be enforced with vigour within our limits against all corners, including ourselves, because so long as conservation measures are taken against all and are not discriminatory there is nothing illegal about them.
  The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to run out of time, as is the industry. I was interested to see the report in The Times today of a speech made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) in the European Parliament. The report of his speech said:
  "Secondly, there was a misplaced belief that there was likely to be an election in the United Kingdom and that there would then be a more amiable and pliable minister than Mr. John Silkin. He saw no such likelihood."
  In so far as I can speak with any authority about the state of mind of a possible successor to the right hon. Gentleman, I endorse entirely what his hon. Friend the Member for Durham said. Conservation by measures taken unilaterally would, in my view and I think in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, if I have understood him correctly, be second best to an international agreement, the ingredients of which were fairness and prudence.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman made it clear earlier that he thinks that it is now time for action. He has repeated that unilateral conservation measures are second best to international agreements. What positive steps has he to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister for action that can be taken in other parts of the discussions with the Common Market in order to prepare an agreement?
  Mr. Peyton: If only I could curtail my natural generosity and allow my judgment to have greater weight, I would never give way to the hon. Gentleman. There is no point in doing so. All he does is to ask me to say what I am going to say in a few minutes' time in any event. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do himself better justice by remaining in his seat.
  A regime of comprehensive conservation measures would have certain advantages for us now. First, they would show to all that we are in earnest. Secondly, they would offer a base for negotiating

  1199
  with countries of like mind. Thirdly, they would be the best way open to us to safeguard stocks against the consequences of short sightedness and greed. Such a regime should comprehend a certain number of measures.
  I shall attempt to be as precise as it is possible to be from these Benches. The resources of the Government in such matters are far greater than those available to Oppositions, but those measures should be directed both to the total effort and to the fishing methods used.
  In the first place there should be licensing of boats and possibly of skippers. In no circumstances would we be prepared to entertain or take seriously the transparently inadequate measures of catch quotas. They are a waste of time. Secondly, we believe that the pout box should be enlarged and the herring ban extended. Thirdly, the fishing of breeding grounds should be considerably restricted.
  I turn to the methods, and the suggestions that I am now making are not new. Nor is the list meant to be exhaustive. Vessels should be permitted to carry only one type of gear. Minimum mesh should be increased. Beams should be limited to 8 metres. Purse seining should be strictly controlled. There should he new rules to cover industrial fishing and by-catches.
  If the right hon. Gentleman were to introduce such a stringent body of rules, he would be obliged to look again at the means that he has available of enforcing them and giving them teeth. Without such measures, young and immature fish will continue to be destroyed to a point at which it is likely that nothing will be left. Inshore fishermen particularly, if matters are allowed to continue as they are, will become the witnesses of a great disaster to their livelihoods.
  I recognise that constraints such as I am now advocating will be unwelcome. There will be those who feel themselves unfairly picked out, that these controls are particularly aimed at them and that they will cause them loss and hardship. I hope, however, that they will pause and reflect that without such measures there can be little hope for the long-term future of the industry.
  I understand from the newspapers that Mr. Gundelach has been here over the
  1200
  last few days. I have not had the advantage of seeing him, so I am dependent upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Press for information as to Mr. Gundelach's views. It does not appear that Mr. Gundelach brought anything useful with him or was even very concerned about the opinions that might be expressed in this debate. Certainly, as far as I know, he has done nothing to modify the proposals which have previously come from the Commission and which I and my colleagues regard as totally unacceptable.
  For us in this House—and I am bold enough here to attempt to speak for us all—there seems to be no alternative but to show ourselves to be both determined and united and to make clear to those in Europe who have not really made much effort to understand the degree of feeling that exists on this issue in this country that we are neither arrogant nor intransigent newcomers but that we believe and will seek to persuade others to believe, that it would be wiser to cherish rather than to loot a very valuable resource.
  I do not always speak in these terms, but on this occasion we wish the Minister well. We hope that he will bring back with him either a settlement or a readiness to act immediately on the lines that I have indicated. We also hope that he will take an early opportunity after his return to allow the House to judge the position that has been reached and the adequacy of the measures that I hope he will then be prepared to propose.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) began his speech in a rather sarcastic and unhappy mood, using phrases such as "sterile debate", "party jibes" and so on. I know that he will not accuse me of adopting that approach, because there are in Hull at least 1,000 fishermen on the dole. We had more than 2,000 men on the deck not so long ago and now we have 1,000 going to sea in the Arctic. This is a serious situation and hon. Members from Hull are not happy about it. However, I agree with what the right hon. Member said about supporting the Minister.
  In so many of our debates little new is said and we hear the same things time and again. I hope to include in my speech

  1201
  a number of questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will think that they are fair, and I shall endeavour to stay within the lines of the debate.
  My right hon. Friend knows all the answers, but his job is to convince at least six or seven other Ministers and a gentleman named Gundelach, the Commissioner who, when he was in London, should have paid a visit to the House and had an open meeting with Back Benchers. The reason why he did not come here is his business, but I believe that he should have done so.
  I speak unashamedly in constituency terms as an hon. Member for Hull, which has a deep sea fishing fleet. I shall not be chauvinistic, but I shall certainly be nationalistic because the livelihood, happiness and standard of living of at least 1,000 families in Hull have been affected in the past year or two. My hon. Friends in Hull and I feel like the mining MPs who get their pits closed about them in South Wales and elsewhere.
  I do not want to speak as a Member of the European Assembly either, because I find that some of my colleagues who go to Europe begin to become statesmen and return with an international view. I do not want to put an international view or an EEC view. I want my people in Hull to be defended by those hon. Members who go to New York, Luxembourg or any of the other "bourgs".
  Equal access and fair shares as postulated by the EEC are academic when I look at the geography of the seas about these islands. In passing, may I say, since my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is likely to speak in this debate, that both banks of the Humber are suffering, and I urge the people on Humberside that Hull and Grimsby, as sister ports, should cease any petty squabbling. I mean this sincerely. The industry itself is setting an example to local government and particularly to the town clerk of Grimsby, for whom I have a high personal regard. I do not want polemics flying about the Humber, and I applaud the industry for sending at least six big boats to Hull to do what is sensible—namely, to have a specialised deep sea fleet there and to share the work of catching fish, while the smaller boats like the seiners have left Hull and gone
  1202
  south towards the North Sea to swell the function of our sister port of Grimsby, which is inshore and middle water fishing.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about encouraging understanding and avoiding polemics between the two banks. I hope that, as a contribution to that, the transfer of the six freezers will be cancelled so that polemics can be avoided.
  Mr. Johnson: If we are to share the work, we should let one port do the specialised work of deep sea fishing for which it is fitted, with a £1 million dock, and the estuary do its waters of the North to go beyond that this matter in our lsewhere.
  The industry is wallowing in a mess. One cannot speak in anything but the harshest and saddest terms about the condition of the industry. The loss of jobs that we suffer is not being suffered by our EEC partners. I bet that Boulogne has not lost 1,000 fishermen to the dole. I echo the views of the Opposition. It is all give and no take in Europe. We are coming off very badly. Ports in Belgium, Holland, Germany and Denmark are not suffering to the same extent as the Humber, and particularly Fleetwood, which is having a devil of a time.
  Conservation is the word of the day. Our people are playing the game. The Lowestoft men have adopted not merely 70-mm. nets but 80-mm. nets, but there are Frenchmen fishing off Sussex and Cornwall with 40-mm and 50-mm nets catching nephrops and other small fish. It is a fact that our people are taking actions that the other side are not observing.
  In Hull, the Skippers Guild tells me that the Danes have done a deal with the Norwegians and the Germans have done a deal with the Canadians. Why are we not making such deals? The Danes are in the EEC and they should be observing a code within the team of nine States. We are not allowed by the Commission to do what the Danes are doing, and this continual blockage means that we have a stalemate for our people in this country.
  I also understand that the Belgians have made an agreement with Iceland. They have never fished there before, except to

  1203
  the extent of catching 38,000 tons at about 70 miles off Iceland. We were catching 200,000 tons there at one time, so I do not understand why, now that we have buried the hatchet, we cannot get something going. At present we have nothing.
  The Norwegian quota for the EEC was about 98,000 tons. That will be exhausted by August. We have had about 50,000 tons to 54,000 tons of that quota and we have had some good fishing in its White Sea in the past few months. However, by August our vessels will be back in dock and tied up. This year we must not allow, as last year, the French and Germans to go in and fish above their quotas, leaving less for us of the 98,000 tons or whatever it may be in the final analysis.
  Everybody seems to get a decent deal except the British. There are others who cheat, and our EEC partners well know what is happening. They know that the most fish lie off our shores. The waters of Belgium, Holland and Denmark, for example, are fished out.
  We have all emphasised the need for conservation, but I have always argued that overfishing can be stopped only by the direct action of the nearest interested party, which by definition must be the coastal State. It is the British, for example, who want to keep stocks in their waters, not those in Jutland or elsewhere. As the coastal State most concerned, we alone are motivated by the desire or need to protect the fish about our shores.
  Formerly, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission paid ludicrous lip service to conservation and paid even less attention to stopping those who were cheating. Various proposals have been put forward that are plain poppycock. A Member of the Opposition, in a handout in the Hull newspapers of all places, suggested that there should be a European fleet flying some sort of European flag. It was suggested that such a fleet would enforce, discipline and stop cheating and poaching in our territorial waters. I will have nothing of that. I do not believe that it is possible to have an international fleet doing a job of that nature.
  I end on a domestic note. David Cairns, the national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, sent all Humberside Members a telegram not so many days ago in which he asked them
  1204
  to approach the Secretary of State for Employment about compensation for all unemployed fishermen over 50 years of age. My right hon. Friend has been considering that proposition, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The reply flung back at us is "Who are eligible?" We are asked who would qualify among the men over 50 years of age. I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to get down to this matter and to make a decision. For example, long service is a factor which might well be taken into account. The union wishes to have an answer.
  We are told that much depends on a decasualisation scheme. What is happening about that? Who will finance it? Is it to be financed by Her Majesty's Government or by the industry? I gather that the industry will not play. However, if it is good enough for the Government to give millions of pounds for compensation to car workers and steel workers who are redundant, it is surely not impossible for them to find £¼ million—at any rate, £½ million—for fishermen who are in such serious plight.
  I began by saying how difficult it is to say anything new. I end by saying nothing that is new. I end by confirming what was said by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—namely, that the whole of the Chamber is behind my right hon. Friend in all the work that he is doing. It is a pity that Mr. Gundelach did not come to this place to confirm that the whole House is behind him. If my right hon. Friend can succeed in his task next Tuesday of convincing the other EEC Ministers that he is making a good and incontrovertible case on behalf of our fishermen, he will go down in history alongside his famous predecessor in office, Tom Williams.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: It is a short debate and I want only to cover part of the large subject of fishing.
  First, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may go to Brussels knowing full well that he has the total support of the House throughout all parties in pressing upon those in Brussels that their present attitude towards British fishing is intolerable to us, and that we

  1205
  are determined to preserve the fish in the North Sea and to ensure that the industry is reasonably treated.
  I thought I heard the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) say that he is more amiable than the Minister. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not change his nature. I think that we can rely upon him to show a suitable degree of unamiability on this subject. However, I may have misunderstood him.
  Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman did misunderstand me. I never claimed a degree of amiability. I said that I did not always use such amiable words to the Minister as I was able to use this afternoon.
  Mr. Grimond: I am glad to have that reassurance.
  I say in all seriousness that Mr. Gundelach should be under no illusion that a change of Government in Great Britain will make any difference to our approach. He should recognise that the Liberal Party—I am sure that this applies to the Conservative Party—wholeheartedly supports the Minister's efforts to maintain our fishing industry. It is no more tolerable that fish in the North Sea should be dredged up than it is for us to cut crops in France or shoot deer in Germany.
  I do not want to deal at length with industrial fishing.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has now referred twice to the North Sea. I ask him to remember that there is equal concern about the fishing industry in Wales, the South of England and the West of England. It is an all-coastal matter. I hope that he will not leave the impression that we are concerned only about the North Sea.
  Mr. Grimond: That is so. Unamiability extends to the Irish Sea, the Channel and the Atlantic. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not want it to be thought that I am being in the least flippant. It is certain that the House resents a great deal of what has come out of Brussels and supports the efforts made to protect the industry. That is true of all the coasts and all the ports around the whole of Britain.
  I do not want to go at length into all the matters concerning the fishing indus-
  1206
  try. Industrial fishing is extremely important. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will press upon his colleagues in Brussels that there should be better control over the size of mesh and the extension of the pout box.
  I shall say a few words about the situation with which we are faced in the North Sea, as that is the area with which I am principally concerned. As I have said, I agree that the Channel, the Irish Sea and part of the Atlantic are equally important.
  Is the Minister able to say anything further about the future of herring? We have heard rumours that there may be a total ban upon herring fishing. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the ban upon herring has had serious effects upon herring processors in Shetland. I should like to know his forecast for the coming year. At one time, the indication was given that there might be a quota for the coming year for processors in Shetland and in Scotland.
  Is the Minister able to say whether the conservation measures for herring in the North Sea have been effective? I have been told that there are shoals of herring around Shetland. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's scientists confirm that.
  I emphasise that while many fishing ports have a hinterland some of the ports in my constituency have not. If fishing should fail in the islands of Whalsay and Skerries there would be nothing to do. I am not exaggerating when I say that the islanders would have to be evacuated. There is no question of any other employment being available. That is a point that cannot be made too often.
  I maintain my view that we should insist strongly upon an exclusive total limit. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) that if we are to enforce regulations the only people who will enforce them will be those who are the interested parties —namely, those whose livelihood depends upon fishing in their areas. Those from outside are concerned only with dredging up the fish and moving elsewhere. They will never enforce effective conservation.
  We hear a great deal about licensing and quotas. It would be possible to divide the North Sea into areas and to set up licensing boards for the different areas, which would be concerned with licensing

  1207
  boats in those areas. The number of licences granted would be related to the quotas expected to be caught in those areas, and the licensing authority might have other powers of a general conservation nature.
  I hope that first preference will be given to boats which have traditionally fished in those areas—the local boats. No doubt on second preference notice would be taken of traditional customs of fishing in different parts of the North Sea. Essentially, the authorities should be local, should be concerned with conservation, and should allocate sufficient boats to catch the quotas allocated for those areas.
  I am not clear whether these are the types of licensing and quotas which are envisaged. There have been certain other rumours about licensing and quotas. It has been suggested that all boats now fishing in the North Sea should be licensed, but that their licences should be withdrawn if they exceed their quotas.
  I think that at the moment the only quotas are those enforced by the fishing industry. The industry is becoming rather concerned about this matter. For instance, there is a haddock quota in certain parts of the North Sea which the industry is supposed to enforce, and does up to a point, but clearly it cannot continue to do that in the long term.
  Another point that has been made about licensing causes me considerable alarm. The suggestion is that licences might be bought and sold. That would or might he disastrous for the inshore industry. If it were possible for large firms to buy up licences in certain ports, they could virtually put those ports out of the fishing business. I do not know how serious the threat is. It might work in some places. I should like information about that matter. At first sight, I regard it with considerable alarm.
  Does the Minister consider that the preferential policies, which were much talked about a few months ago, are the most likely advance in the Common Market? If so, and if they are to be associated with licences and quotas, will the House have an opportunity to discuss and, if necessary, vote on the Common Market's proposals before they come into force? That is an important matter. We can send the Minister to Brussels with
  1208
  the opinion of the House behind him, but will he come back with some agreement before these matters are enforced?
  This is a short debate. There are many other questions concerning fishing which could be raised, but I content myself with those.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I shall make a short intervention because, as has already been said, everything that can be said about this subject has been said, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to say it.
  I should like to make two constituency points concerning the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). I agree that, in the present state of the industry, any squabble between Hull and Grimsby would be disastrous for the industry as a whole.
  The second point concerns compensation. A large number of freshers have now gone for good. The men who worked in them are now on the dole and can get no compensation because they did not have long-term contracts. This may be a growing problem. It is a problem about which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I have already approached the Minister. I hope that the Minister will again look into this very human problem.
  I fully support the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The Minister will go to Brussels with the full support of the House. But he has two alternatives. The first is to reach an agreement. The second, if he does not reach an agreement, is to come back and take some positive measures to protect and conserve British fishing.
  I believe that the Minister's predecessors and himself have perhaps already made too many concessions to get an agreement. We started with a 200-mile zone, went back to 100 miles and then to 50 miles. That was in 1975 and 1976, before the right hon. Gentleman's time. Then we had the zig-zag and then the 12 miles-plus dominant preference in the 12-mile to 50-mile zone. There are not many more concessions that the Government can make.
  What do we need? We need control over our 200-mile exclusive economic

  1209
  zone and over conservation measures in that area. Also, as the industry has made clear, we need a 50-mile exclusive zone.
  We are bound to have quotas. Even if we have an exclusive zone, there will be swap agreements. Therefore, we must have quotas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said, there must be effort, not catch, quotas. I hope that that point has penetrated into the heads of the Commission in Brussels. To offer the United Kingdom, which in broad terms has 60 per cent. of the fish in our waters, only some 22 per cent. is not only laughable but insulting.
  We must phase out historic rights, particularly on the South Coast. At the moment, there are historic rights of six miles to 12 miles. Those must go. After all, our historic rights in Iceland were phased out. I accept that it might take three years or five years, but I suggest that in any agreement they must go.
  If an agreement is reached, I hope that the Minister will allow the House to debate it so that we are not faced with a fait accompli. That could produce difficult constitutional questions, because if the House throws out an agreement already reached in Brussels it will not do this country, the fishing industry or anybody concerned any good. I am sure that the Minister has that point in mind.
  What will happen if there is no agreement? First, speaking on behalf of the distant water fleet, we must turn straight away to bilateral agreements. Recently I asked the Minister of State why, if there had already been bilateral agreements between Norway and Denmark in the Baltic, between West Germany and Greenland and between Belgium and Iceland, we could not have similar agreements.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Between Denmark and Sweden.
  Mr. Wall: Between Denmark and Sweden in the Baltic. If they can do it, why cannot we? I hope that, if things go wrong and the position today is unchanged, the Minister will immediately enter into bilateral negotiations with some of these countries which are of such importance to distant water vessels—Norway, the Soviet Union, Canada and, after its General Election in a few weeks, Iceland.
  1210
  Secondly, we must have control of conservation measures. I would emphasise only two points which have already been brought out. The first is the one-net provision. That is the most important of all. I suggest that it would be very effective from the point of view of future negotiations with the EEC.
  We must also have enlargement of the pout box. The industry is keen to have that as soon as possible.
  The effect of these continued negotiations and the failure to reach agreement is serious for the industry. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was abroad on parliamentary duties when we had a meeting of the joint fisheries committee of all parties a few days ago. I was particularly impressed by the fact that when the distant water section of the industry was asked whether it was prepared to wait, as the inshore section wanted to do, even for three years for a proper agreement, it said that it would, despite the fact that it needs bilateral arrangements and knows that it will not get them until the common fisheries policy has been decided. That shows that not only the House, but all sections of the industry are united behind the Minister's efforts. I hope that Europe will take note of that fact. We may be in the minority in the EEC, but we are the most important minority on fishing matters. We are united and we wish the Minister well.
  The distant water fleet as a whole has contracted by about 67 per cent. in the last 10 years. To quote figures to show the effect on these expensive and important vessels, the Hull fleet in 1967 had 83 freshers and 14 freezers, a total of 97, and in 1977 it had 27 freshers and 34 freezers, a total of 61. That is a big reduction for one port. An even more startling reduction is that of the cod catch. I shall not weary the House by repeating the figures, but the cod catch has been reduced by two-thirds in 10 years, and this is certainly the most important catch for fish and chip shops.
  We want action. We wish the Minister well. We hope that he will be able to knock the heads of his colleagues together so that we can come to a satisfactory agreement in Brussels. If he does not reach agreement, I hope that he will come back to the House as soon as

  1211
  possible and tell us that he is taking positive conservation measures, unilaterally if necessary, but, of course, nondiscriminatory.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It is appropriate that we should be having this debate today, since my right hon. Friend goes to Brussels on Monday to continue discussions on the common fisheries policy. It is right that we should acknowledge our gratitude to the Opposition for providing half a Supply Day so that we can make our views known before our representatives go to Brussels.
  The length of time that passes before coming to an agreement is characterised in two ways. First, apparently there is no urgency among the other eight members of the Communilty to come to an agreement. They realise that time is slipping by and that our derogation from the full ravages of the common fisheries policy lasts only until 1982. That date is approaching quickly. Therefore, there is no incentive for them to come to an agreement. Time is on their side, as they see it.
  Secondly, there is a profoundly mistaken view that if they carry on in their regular dilatory manner not only will the Government weaken but so will the Opposition and the industry. Their view is that if they delay people will say "For heaven's sake, things are so bad, confused and difficult, and it is so impossible to plan for the future, that we had better accept whatever is offered, even though it is totally unsatisfactory, because at least that will end the confusion and complexity."
  Mr. Wall: By 1982, according to the Common Market rules, the limits come back to our shorelines. From that point of view there is no time on our side.
  Mr. Hughes: I am sorry. I cannot have expressed myself clearly. I was saying that the derogation from the full ravages of the provisions lasts only until 1982. Time is on the side of the other eight members' fishery interests. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and I are not in disagreement.
  Another matter has also characterised the views of the eight. They have seen speculation, which increases from time to time, that there will be an election. They
  1212
  are probably as interested in the outcome of that election as we are. I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for making absolutely clear that should there be a change of Government following an election—however unlikely a change of Government may be —his side of the House is clear where it stands in relation to its support for the Government's proposals for the defence of the industry.
  I do not wish to introduce a discordant note, but I must point out that the assurances which were accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon), that we could discuss the CFP once we were members of the Community, did great damage to the industry. I am pleased about the conversion of those who now say that the CFP is a disaster.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We should correct the record, because what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) stated was more substantial. He said that Britain regarded its fishing industry as an essential national interest. Essential national interests are subject to the unanimity-of-agreement rule. My right hon. and learned Friend made that absolutely clear, and our acceptance was explicitly subject to that.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to prolong my speech by going too far into history. The astonishing naivety of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham is now confirmed. Had he believed that the fishing interests were essential to our national interest he would never have signed the Treaty of Accession, given the terms of the CFP. We said that at the time. The one regret that I have is that the fishing industry as a whole did not accept what we said in the referendum. The CFP was cobbled together in the last days before we joined. Astonishingly, assurances were accepted.
  Sir John Gilmour: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The longer I speak, the less time will be available for others. I want to make a brief speech.
  We have destroyed the idea that we shall weaken if time slips away and the

  1213
  illusion that there may be a change of Government with a different attitude. All the parties are united. Even the Scottish National Party is united in supporting the views of English fishermen. I hope that if a Member of that party does speak he will make it clear that the interests of Scottish fishermen are the same as the interests of English, Welsh and Irish fishermen and all those who depend on the sea for their livelihood.
  We must not show division in the House and refer to our parochial interests, important though they are. On an occasion such as this we must stand together. We are united in what is needed. We need proper licence arrangements and exclusive control up to the 200-mile limit, with policing by the coastal State. We are united in our view that the mesh size should be increased. We are united in our view that only one mesh should be carried when a vessel goes to sea. There are no differences in our approach to the central issues.
  But there is a difference between us —I had hoped to persuade the right hon. Member for Yeovil to agree with me when I intervened earlier—about the way in which we should go about getting what we want. Unilateral conservation measures and changing the size of the pout box and its alignment, important as they are in the long and short term, are second best to a proper agreement which guarantees our essential interests. Those matters are second best to an international agreement.
  How do we obtain an international agreement? It is strange that suggestions have been made that my right hon. Friend has been too amiable in discussions in the Common Market. The charges usually are that he is too intransigent. My right hon. Friend has been amiable. He has tried to play the game by the rules and to negotiate not by saying "I stand here and shall move no further" but by looking for alternative propositions and methods of achieving the same end. He has tried to ensure that our fishermen are secure for the future. He has tried to find ways of coming to terms with the essential fishing interests. He has tried to find alternative propositions and he has recognised the deep-seated fears of fishermen in other countries. He has gone some way
  1214
  to try to meet the others, and yet they have not attempted to meet us.
  I was asking the right hon. Member for Yeovil whether he agreed that we should begin to link together the fishing negotiations and other day to day negotiations in the Community.
  I have always felt that the weakness of our case is that we approach these matters in compartmentalised negotiations. We discuss fishing one week, agriculture the next, wine the week after, perhaps, and trading or financial agreements the week after that. The time is long overdue when we should tell our EEC partners bluntly that if they do not make serious moves very quickly to come to terms with us—we do not expect them to meet us on every point, although I believe that we have given a lot and we may have to give more—on catch sizes, licensing arrangements, and the types of control that we regard as essential, we shall completely stop discussions with them on all other aspects of Common Market policy. I do not say that we should walk out of the Common Market. That is neither possible nor feasible.
  I hope that tonight the Opposition will take the opportunity of saying that if we can persuade the Government accordingly after Monday—assuming, as I assume, that we shall get nowhere then, and that raises further problems—they will give us their backing to disrupt, if necessary—these are strong words to use—the day-to-day business of the Common Market. That is the action we must take unless there is some appreciation in the EEC of our essential interests.
  We must put it as bluntly as that. Perhaps it is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who will wind up from the Opposition Front Bench tonight. He is not noted for the modesty of his language. He is noted for saying bluntly what he thinks and for taking action to back up his words. I hope that he will say, in his normal robust and straightforward manner, that he will support us if we tackle the Common Market head-on in order to get some movement on the CFP.
  What is the position on the haddock quota, which, I understand, is about to run out? We shall have taken our quota of haddock in the next couple of weeks. If there is no movement on Monday, what

  1215
  happens? Do we carry on fishing haddock?
  What is the precise position in relation to the herring ban? I believe that it is suggested that this should be enforced off the West Coast as well as in the North Sea. Shall we go ahead with that, or will there be a compromise proposal?
  I wish to express on behalf of my constituents—I believe that their view is shared by constituents in fishing ports all over the country—our support and appreciation for what my right hon. Friend the Minister has done. He will have our full backing and will continue to get it if he persists in his firm line. Will he take a firmer line than ever and encourage the official Oppostion as well as all other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to support him through thick and thin if he has to get tough and showing his iron will as opposed to the velvet glove that he has shown up to now?
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: There is such a degree of unanimity on this question that it is difficult to avoid repetition. However, may we be assured by the Minister that this debate will in no way preclude the full-scale debate—perhaps spreading over two days—that we must have to discuss the Government's answer to the Fifth Report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee? That report and the inquiry took about 16 months to complete. The report contains a great deal of technical detail, of which I hope that the Government will take full cognisance.
  I shall confine my remarks to the present totally unsatisfactory situation in the fishing industry. Only British fishermen are prepared to observe conservation measures while our EEC partners are still fishing all-out and indiscriminately. Our fishermen strictly observe the haddock quota. On the whole they abide by the mesh net regulations, although I do not suggest that they are all angels in that respect. However, the Danish, French, German and Dutch boats are still pursuing a policy of all-out fishing, many of them with small-mesh nets. It is particularly galling to read of French trawlers landing in Hull large catches that have been taken from British waters with small-mesh nets.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that he will extend the conservation
  1216
  measures that have to be taken? Other hon. Members have said that we need rules on mesh net sizes, but it is important to go further than that and to take total control of all fishing effort in our waters. Other nations have extended their fishing limits to 200 miles—I think particularly of Norway, Canada and the United States —and they have taken total control of the fishing effort in their waters. They and they alone say which boats should fish and how much fish they may take. They determine the mesh sizes which should be used. It is vital for the Government quickly to impose just such a regime on all who fish in our waters. Of course, it is only our Common Market partners who do that now.
  I was particularly annoyed to read in Financial Times this morning the statement by Mr. Gundelach in Europe warning the Minister against seeking bilateral fishing agreements. That is a cheek if ever anything was. It is vital that Britain retains the right to negotiate bilateral agreements. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that other countries have reached bilateral agreements, particularly Denmark and Sweden. There are many other such negotiations. However, it is tremendously urgent that we should reach a bilateral agreement with the Faroes.
  Many fishing nations are becoming increasingly dependent upon the stocks of blue whiting. Those stocks are migratory. They spend part of the year off the Spanish coast and then quite a lot of time off the British coast before moving into Faroese waters and then finally on to Icelandic or Norwegian waters. This fish is in great demand in Japan, a country with which it is vital for us to achieve a trade balance.
  Our boats must be able to pursue that stock and exploit it so as to sell as much blue whiting as possible to Japan in the form of fillets and fish mince. In order to exploit it, our boats must be able to follow the blue whiting for a much longer time. They must therefore have access to it in Faroese and Norwegian waters. It is therefore particularly galling to find that this spring the EEC failed completely to negotiate any access to those waters for our boats. The Minister must take unilateral action to get this sort of agreement and then tell bully boy Gundelach that he has done so.

  1217
  I shall not go into detail about the problems facing the herring and haddock fishermen, but I urge the Minister to square up to Gundelach and to tell him that Britain intends to take just such action. Every fisherman agrees that the operation of the pout box has been a great success in helping to ensure that at least some of the haddock, whiting and cod are allowed to mature, spawn and continue the cycle.
  However, I urge the Minister to come to the House very quickly and tell us that he is taking measures to extend the pout box. It is vital that we extend it to 2° West, if not perhaps even to 4° West. In that way, the Minister will double the effectiveness of the pout box arrangements. But if the Minister were also to extend it a further 2° North, he would quadruple the tremendous effect of the pout box. This would mean that our fishermen could be almost certain that from now on there will be mature fish to be caught in that area and that the cycle of spawning and growing is allowed to continue.
  I turn, finally and briefly, to another part of Mr. Gundelach's statement, in which he appears to have accepted that there will be no solution to the fishing problem until after our General Election. Frankly, this worries me. I should like a categoric assurance today from both Front Benches that neither of the major parties will settle for anything less than a 50-mile exclusive zone.
  I for one do not think that Mr. Gundelach believes for one moment that the Conservative Opposition will win the next General Election, but what he is really banking on is that Stonewall Silkin will be moved to another job and that he will get someone weaker with whom to negotiate.
  This afternoon I should like the Government and the Opposition to let the fishermen know that they will stand firm on the demand for a 50-mile limit, on stricter control of the pout box arrangement, on stricter enforcement of mesh sizes and, indeed, on stricter control of the total fishing effort within our total 200 miles.
  It is one thing, and a wonderful thing, to see the tremendous unanimity in the House this afternoon, but it is a very
  1218
  worrying thing to hear the utterances of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) in the European Parliament, who is saying a different thing altogether. I ask the Opposition whether it is not about time that they curbed the tongue of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), because he is not saying what the Opposition are saying this afternoon.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Watt: No, I shall not give way now. The hon. Member will get an opportunity very soon to answer my point.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Member acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who is not present in the Chamber today to answer for himself, acts as rapporteur for the fisheries group in the European Parliament? Therefore, as such he speaks for the group in the European Parliament. My hon. Friend has said this on many occasions. Will not the hon. Member realise that and acknowledge it?
  Mr. Watt: I am sure that the hon. Member will get the opportunity to stand up for the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have no doubt that the hon. Member will get that opportunity later.
  It is vital that the entire House of Commons speaks with one voice on this matter. The fishermen of Scotland are fully aware that the SNP has been the only party that has been consistent in its stand for the industry. I would add that in the European Parliament the SNP is the only party that has been totally consistent in its stand for the industry.
  I shall now answer the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes). I can assure him that the fishermen of England, and of Wales also, know that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has been the only Member of the European Parliament who has been totally consistent about our demand for a 50-mile limit. I bow to no one as regards that statement.
  The Tories signed the Treaty of Accession and the Labour Government ratified

  1219
  it. But the basic Treaty of Rome clearly recognises that the Community must accept change. Change there must be. I believe that it must also take account of the vital national interests of its members.
  1 should like today to be reassured that both sides of the House are now prepared to take a firm stand in protecting the long-term interests of the entire British industry.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is now one year since I took part in my first fishing debate in the House. That means that I intervene in this debate with a sense of déjà vu, because it is amazing how little has changed in the process of negotiations in the course of that year.
  In fact, all that has changed has been our negotiating position, in the sense that our demand for an exclusive belt of up to 50 miles has been left on the table and we have added to it a demand for a dominant preference in the 50 miles around the coast. It is a dominant preference which may be acceptable provided that we control who goes in and who comes out through the licensing of vessels, provided that we retain our national conservation measures, and provided that we take a proper share from the increase in stocks due to proper conservation. But I should add in passing that it is a dominant preference that the British Fishing Federation has not accepted. It has reaffirmed its support for a 50-mile exclusive zone.
  We have, therefore, shown a willingness to compromise in these negotiations. It is not true, as the Opposition are so often pointing out, that a spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Silkinism. My right hon. Friend has shown his desire to compromise in these negotiations, and that compromise has got us nowhere so far.
  1 question how seriously our desire to compromise has been taken in the Common Market, when rumours have been put out by the Commission that our negotiating position is a piece of political window dressing for the General Election. It is not, of course; it is the united demand of the whole fishing industry and of the fishing Members here today. It is a sine qua non. That much is common ground.
  1220
  I want to deal briefly with three other aspects of the problem today. I want to start with how we got into the present situation in the first place. Much as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) may want to avoid this question, it is a central question. It is an instructive example of how a vital national interest can be ignored in this kind of negotiation.
  In part, I blame the industry, particularly the big owners, for supporting entry to the Common Market, but most of all I blame the Heath Administration. In its headlong rush to get into the Common Market it threw away many of our vital national interests in these negotiations. It put us where we are now—in the desperate negotiating position of trying to get back that which was wilfully thrown away in the entry negotiations right at the start of this whole adventure.
  Indeed, the Heath Administration did not abdicate our rights: it rushed to throw them away. I quote from a speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on 13th December 1971, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the Tory Party's Mr. Sell-out. He said then:
  "We have also sought and obtained a formal assurance from the Community that the legal application of the common fisheries policy would not permit, either in form or in fact, any discrimination by a member State in waters beyond 12 miles over which it might exercise fishing jurisdiction against the fishing vessels of other member States operating in such waters."—[Official Report. 13th December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 52.]
  Some of us thought that it might be in our interests to have national conservation measures. Some of us might have thought that it would be in our interests, when the territorial limits were extended, as surely they were going to be extended, to have the power to exclude other vessels and to control access for those. Some of us might have thought that. The industry certainly thought that. But not the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He rushed to seek assurances that we would not have that control and that power in the areas beyond the 12 miles.
  I do not want to rub salt into old wounds. I recognise at once that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), even after the way in which he threw away the interests of this country, has some supporters still—most of them very still. But it is vital that we recognise

  1221
  where the blame for this situation lies and what was done to put us in the situation that we are now in.
  When Opposition Members are bleating—perhaps that it is the wrong word for a fishing debate—or carping about the delay in getting a fishing settlement, they should remember exactly why that delay is occurring. It is because we are now trying to negotiate back what was thrown away in the entry negotiations.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Has the hon. Member complied with the normal courtesies of the House and advised my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that he would be making this unwarranted attack, or is the hon. Member just doing it behind my right hon. and learned Friend's back when the hon. Member knows that he cannot defend himself?
  Mr. Mitchell: I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham might well have been present today, as it is part of the ground that he threw away that is being discussed. I made just a straight quotation from Hansard in 1971.
  Mr. Wall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. He has put his view of what happened during the negotiations for our entry into the Common Market. Will he now tell us what happened when his Prime Minister had, I think, six specific points that he said had to be renegotiated before he would agree to a referendum about our membership, and why the matter of fisheries was not included in those six points? He was urged time and time again to include it.
  Mr. Mitchell: The renegotiation is in danger of becoming the Tory Party's fig leaf on this issue. Renegotiation is a different matter from the initial negotiations and what was thrown away in them.
  In any case, the crucial question came only with the extension from 12 miles to 200 miles in our territorial limits. This is a crucial issue that we are trying to resolve in the negotiation which is still going on, because of what was then thrown away.
  This brings me to my second area of comment. I am delighted that in our meetings of Fishery Ministers with fishing
  1222
  industry representatives those representatives have stated categorically that they are prepared to wait for a settlement. They recognise, as we all must, that a later settlement would be better for this country. The more we stick out, the firmer we show our position to be, the better the settlement we shall get. The industry is certainly prepared to wait, and I advise my right hon. Friend to ignore the voices of those in the industry who have privately been urging that there should be an early settlement, on the ground that they need to know where they stand, and to stick out for the best possible settlement.
  Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman at least recognise that some parts of the fishing industry simply will not exist if that line is followed? I represent fishermen and an industry that will not exist much longer if conservation measures are not introduced as a matter of urgency. What the hon. Gentleman proposes is not an acceptable line when the jobs of so many people are at stake.
  Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to advocate an early settlement, which would abdicate more of our rights than his party has already abdicated. It is in the overall interests of the industry that we should obtain the best possible settlement, and to obtain that we shall have to take a firm line in a difficult fight. If the hon. Gentleman advocates an early settlement, he should say so, but that does not seem to be what his party is advocating. I am saying that an early settlement would be worse than a later one.
  I am sure that many of our colleagues who are Members of the European Assembly would be better employed defending Britain's position in the Common Market than coming here and giving us soft versions of what the Common Market wants, compromising, equivocating and justifying European positions, which all too many of them have been doing. A proper course must be to assert our rights, our authority, by imposing desperately needed national conservation measures, doing so unilaterally, as we have the right to do, if the Commission is not prepared to accept them.
  I can only repeat many of the listed items—a ban on carrying two types of net, an increase in net sizes, an expansion of

  1223
  the Norway pout box, and a closer control of by-catches, all of which are vital national conservation measures.
  In our assertion of national self-interest, we must also begin unilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroes about reciprocal catch arrangements with them to get round the pathetically inadequate catch that we have been granted by the Commission as a means of bringing pressure on us to agree an internal common fisheries settlement.
  I know that these are strong counsels, but the situation is becoming desperate. The accumulating competition around our shores is producing a situation in which catches are increasingly of undersized fish. The industry is catching its own future because of the overwhelming competition from the Common Market. The situation is also becoming desperate because the reductions in our catches in Norwegian and Faroese waters bring pressures on us.
  I have described measures that we must take, measures that will bring us into collision with the Common Market. I must repeat the question to the Opposition. Will they support the kind of intransigence that alone will secure for us the best possible settlement—the kind of intransigence that will up the negotiating ante and strengthen our negotiating position? In my view, we have no alternative to acting unilaterally.
  In the meantime, the industry suffers. To compensate it for the long delay in settlement that it now faces, we need help from our national Government to see the industry through until a settlement is reached. That settlement must include a measure of compensation and aid to the industry, which have been withheld as a means of bringing negotiating pressure to bear on the Government. There is an urgent case for national Government help to fill the gap until a common settlement is agreed.
  The industry needs help with the burden of landing charges. A framework of charges was agreed in ports such as Grimsby and Hull, when the industry was bigger, richer and much more able to bear that burden of charges. Now a contracted, attenuated industry can no longer bear the same burden.
  The industry also needs help for reinvestment. This is the time when it
  1224
  should be reinvesting and re-equipping to face the competition that lies ahead in the Common Market pool. There is a need to replace the old, clapped-out, tax-written-off vessels which are still too large a part of our fleet. That must be done now to keep going the ancillary industries, which employ many people in all the ancillary trades around fishing. They are being run down by firms such as British United Trawlers, which need the boost that further investment will bring.
  Finally, the industry needs compensation for the fishermen who have been thrown out of work, and are still being thrown out of work, by its contraction. They are men with no job security, no contract, no redundancy pay—men who are just thrown out at the owner's whim on to the streets. There was talk of a compensation scheme of about £300,000 at the time of the Icelandic settlement. That £300,000 seems to have evaporated —heaven knows where. There is a desperate need for a compensation scheme for those who have been thrown out of work and those who are still being thrown out of work.
  We must also ask for Government help in education and training, specifically in the setting up of the proposed Humberside fishing study centre, which I hope will be established jointly in Hull and Grimsby.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend can persuade his ministerial colleagues that the time has come for the national assertiveness that alone will cut the Gordian knot of negotiation. The industry has suffered too many body blows, too much contraction, to take any more.
  We have in fishing a real demand to be a special case in Europe. If that demand is not conceded, we must take unilateral action in the interests of the industry and the country.
  r>5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Brotherton: I shall not adopt the somewhat acrimonious note introduced into the debate by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
  In my constituency, as well as having many hundreds of people engaged in the fishing industry on land and at sea, we have many thousands of acres of potatoes. I am delighted that the Commission has

  1225
  decided not to intervene in the question of the addition of non-brewed condiments to vinegar. I hope that this shaft of common sense that we have seen in the past few days augurs well for the Minister's negotiations in Brussels next week.
  Much of what has been said in the debate has been said in the House over and over again in the past 12 months. The Treaty of Rome makes the point that the Common Market is an economic community, a common market and not a market of resources. The basic Treaty of Rome clearly spells out that the Community will not own the natural assets of any of the member States.
  There is no way of saying that Dutch gas, German coal, French uranium and vineyards, or any of the other natural resources of the Community, are to be shared among the member States. Why should an exception be made in the case of fish? I submit that it is because this country owns far more fish than any other member States do, and the Community wants to make this exception for its good and to our detriment.
  What does the fishing industry require? I recently had talks with representatives of the industry who live in my constituency and discovered that there were basically four main points they wished to make. The first is the one that I think every hon. Member is agreed on—the 50-mile limit. I think that there is no doubt that we are all agreed, and equally no doubt that 50 miles is the minimum limit for this country to have complete control over our own resources.
  Secondly, there is the question of conservation. I think that all the points have been made in the debate already—mesh size, the need for a quota and the need for that quota being an effort quota and not a catch quota, and the fact that many of the other member States are obviously, quite rightly, from their point of view, not particularly interested in the conservation of stocks around this country. Having fished out their own resources, why should they not be happy to come and loot ours, fishing out the resources around our coast?
  The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) spoke of the need for a bilateral agreement with the Faroes. I endorse that. Middle-water trawlers sailing out of
  1226
  Grimsby use the Faroese waters. It is therefore important that we should make this bilateral agreement. The Germans, the Belgians and other member States of the Community have made bilateral agreements with nations outside the Community. Why should we not do the same?
  The hon. Member for Banff also referred to the blue whiting. Two months ago in this House I questioned the Minister about assistance to the industry in connection with this fish. I make the point again that Government should make some investment in the fishing industry to help in handling the blue whiting. There are millions of tons of this fish in the ocean, but it is not an easy fish to process. One of the major fish processing firms—Findus—has already spent a large sum of money on research into ways of dealing with it. Looking into the future and the changing pattern of the fishing industry, I believe that the Government would be well advised to invest some money and assist the industry with the development of the blue whiting.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Despite the fact that there are considerable resources of blue whiting, if my hon. Friend adds together what all the various countries now plan to do to the stock of blue whiting he must acknowledge that it will be the next candidate to follow the herring.
  Mr. Brotherton: I take my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps part of the Government help could deal not only with the use of the fish but with its conservation.
  If next week's negotiations in Brussels are unsuccessful and we have to go it alone and impose our own limits, obviously we shall require some form of policing. What talks has the Minister had with the Ministry of Defence about the future of the fishery protection arm of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force? When I served in the Royal Navy about 20 years ago, I was in the 5th Minesweeping and Fishery Protection Squadron. This was a specific squadron, whose sole duties, apart from minesweeping for six weeks of the year, were concerned with fishery protection. Our headquarters were ashore at Port Edgar, on the opposite side of the river from Rosyth. If we are to police a 50-mile zone this will involve

  1227
  tens of thousands of square miles of ocean.
  I ask the Minister to let us know this evening what plans he has for the future, or else to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to bear this matter in mind when the Royal Navy is debated in the House next Monday. Whatever agreement is reached by the Minister in Brussels, I ask that he returns to this House before it is signed and sealed so that we can discuss it. I wish the Minister well next week.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) at which I intervened is one on which I should like to generalise. Such is the over-capacity of the world fishing industry now, compared with the resources, that as soon as one fish stock is subjected to restrictions there is an overwhelming, and I use that word literally, descent upon some other fish stock. We have seen this happen particularly in the South-West, with mackerel.
  Quite understandably, the deep sea vessels which lost their Icelandic fishing grounds, with the herring slaughtered and the cod diminishing in number, looked for an alternative outlet. They looked for mackerel in the South-West. This was accompanied by a scramble by other countries such as Norway which, guessing that some form of control would be imposed, wished to "establish" historic rights. Historic rights are a highly arguable contention. The word "historic" is imprecise as to when the clock of history starts. I entirely agree with the proposition that historic rights have to be phased out entirely.
  In that context let it not be imagined by Spain or Portugal that entering the European Economic Community gives them the right to ravage their neighbours' waters. The Norwegians have been quite explicit about the lack of discipline of the Spanish fishing fleets. When the Norwegians did snap inspections on Spanish fishing vessels which were licensed to fish within Norwegian waters they found that these vessels had declared only a microscopic proportion of what they had caught. For that reason the Spanish fleet has been excluded from Norwegian waters. The Norwegians were
  1228
  good enough to pass on that warning to the Select Committee of this House which was investigating such matters.
  Turning to methods of conservation and limitation, I am entirely convinced that we have to limit both effort and the totality of the catch. The calculations on which such conservation measures are based can depend only on accurate knowledge of the rate of attrition. Unless fish have to be landed when caught there is no accurate knowledge of the rate of attrition. That is why it is absolutely necessary—particularly for fish on quota —that all fish caught should be landed. If this is not done, a quota can result in more fish being caught rather than fewer, in that when a netful of fish is found to contain fish of less than prime market size it is discarded so that the quota attracts the highest market price.
  Once it is made a condition of the licence—the licence of the skipper as well as the vessel, because both should be in peril for infringement—that fish once netted have to be brought ashore, that counts against the quota of the vessel concerned and also occupies valuable space in that vessel which would otherwise be occupied by fish of prime size. That imposes an economic penalty on catching undersized fish. I hope that this view will be shared by all sides of the House and not confined to those hon. Members who examined this issue in considerable depth in the Select Committee which reported recently.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that this policy also argues in favour of considering increases in the minimum size of fish landed as well as of considering mesh size, since that is a way of effectively achieving the end which my hon. Friend seeks?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am afraid that the two do not quite sleep in the same bed. Once we lay down that all fish caught must be landed, we cannot synchronously say that fish below a certain size must not be landed if they have been caught. We can impose heavy penalties for catching fish below the minimum size. To have an interdiction on dumping at sea makes enforcement of minimum size easier rather than more difficult. When they are dumped dead

  1229
  into the sea, the evidence of catching undersized fish is gone.
  It has taken a long time to obtain recognition in this country of the fact that catching fish is killing fish. There was considerable disinclination to accept such a view among some of those who have in the past advised Ministers, of whatever political complexion. It is now established, certainly in the case of mackerel, that we must assume that all fish when netted die within 24 hours, even if they are not dead when they go into the sea. We must have conservation measures, by effort, by licensing, by totality of catch and by enforcement of landing.
  After all, if the fish have been killed, it is much better that they should provide additional employment in this country—by way of fishmeal production, for instance—than that they should merely be dumped in the sea. But above all, it is necessary that we should have accurate records of what is happening, and that leads me to complete agreement with the unanimous view of colleagues in all parts of the House that it is only the littoral State, the coastal State, which has both the will and, hopefully, the means to police its own waters.
  British records have a high international reputation for their integrity, for their comprehensive nature, and for the small grid reference used for collecting them. In other words, the knowledge is more detailed than that in the possession of most other countries.
  We accept that enforcement is expensive. It requires specialist means rather than using equipment which is no longer suitable for another purpose. It requires highly specialised training in the fishery protection officers concerned—far in excess of the usual naval skills. That means that a considerable amount of effort needs to be put into training experienced crews if there is not to be a fall-off in quality of fishery protection as crews are rotated between different branches of the Royal Navy.
  Enforcement can also be carried out very efficiently in a supportive role by air. Air surveillance cannot enforce mesh size. What it can enforce is the interdiction on vessels of a nationality which are fishing where they should not be fishing. In this respect the American coast-
  1230
  guard service has for some time been using aerial photographic equipment which prints on to the photograph the location and the time and date at which the photograph was taken. This makes it a very convincing piece of evidence now that the accuracy of aerial photography is such that it can show without question in many cases that a vessel is fishing. The only other thing on which the court needs to be satisfied is that the vessel was at the place at which the officer from the aircraft who is giving evidence says that it was at the time in question, in order to establish that that vessel is committing an offence.
  This is immensely important, because it is not unknown in this wicked world for one vessel of a fishing fleet which intends to poach, deliberately to get itself arrested. The enforcement vessel is likely then to be away for up to three days in escorting the offending vessel into port, giving evidence in court against it, and then getting back to its previous patrol position. During this time the rest of the fleet can fish with impunity.
  Air surveillance can be quite remarkably effective, very often without the offenders being aware that they are being surveyed by radar until the aircraft descends through the clouds and photographs them.
  I mentioned the potential attrition of the blue whiting stock. If we add together what Iceland is planning to do in terms of exports to America, what Norway is planning to do, what Denmark is planning to do for its fishmeal industry, and what some firms in Britain are planning to do, we arrive at a figure which is far more than the total allowable catch which can currently be predicted for the totality of the blue whiting stock. It is as well that this should be recognised in advance.
  It is also as well that, British sovereignty over Rockall having been established, this should be maintained, because Rockall is of critical locational significance in the movement of the blue whiting shoals which to date have been detected, in the preservation of their habitat, and in the allocation to the United Kingdom of our rightful share of the product of that fish.
  There are grounds for criticism of our deep water fleet, in that it has not

  1231
  attempted to mitigate its misfortune in being excluded from Icelandic waters to the degree that it could have done by being more enterprising elsewhere—for instance, in relation to the enormous untapped resources of hake which are believed to be between the Falkland Islands and the Argentine. A large part of these resources lies within British territorial waters because of our possession of the Falkland Islands. These are reserves of fish open to Britain which we are not yet tapping.
  Mr. Wall: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the Falkland Islands. Is he aware that the Foreign Office is discouraging British fishing in the area because it might annoy Argentine?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Clearly, this is the reverse of what national policy ought to be, but there is not always complete harmony between all the different organs of Government. I do not think that that is the first time that the observation has been made in this House, nor it is the first time that it has been true.
  I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture is clearly intending to sit through the debate, and I thank him for that courtesy. He is a robust man and he will make sure that the Foreign Office does not take liberties of that kind. Whether the lack of enthusiasm is temporary, in the hope that success in waters such as those might to some extent weaken a claim for compensation due to exclusion from Icelandic waters on the part of our deep water fleet, I do not know, but the sooner we establish our claim to those fish in South Atlantic waters by actually catching them—and there is no better claim than that—the better.
  However, this means that we must have the naval forces available to defend those claims. History shows that those who are not prepared to defend what they possess eventually lose what they possess.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Louth stressed quite rightly that the Treaty of Rome does not bring about a commonalty of resources but a commonalty of market. I go so far as to predict that if we allow that treaty to be perverted into a commonalty of resources on fish, one
  1232
  day someone will claim that what is logical for fish is logical for oil as well, and I do not believe that that would be a very acceptable proposition.
  The House of Commons will be solidly behind the Minister when he goes into negotiations on Monday, and rightly so. That is a strong position for any Minister to be in. If the European Assembly —which currently but inaccurately describes itself as a European Parliament—presumes to believe that at some future date it can in some way take decisions, concerning the unique resources of the United Kingdom, which properly belong to this Parliament, it is clear from the feeling of this Parliament that it is this Parliament which will raise the final interdiction to any such pretensions. It will certainly do so with my blessing, although I have always believed, and still believe, that on balance membership of the EEC has greater advantages for this country than disadvantages.
  I make no apology for introducing a parochial note. I have fishermen in my constituency, and to a large extent they are dependent on mackerel. All round our coasts—this does not apply only to Devon or Cornwall—we have localities in which there is a concentration of fishing activity which may not look very large overall numerically in the United Kingdom as a whole, but if that is lost there is no available alternative employment.
  In Paragraph 49 of its recent report on the fishing industry the Expenditure Committee said:
  "The special position of local communities of fishermen in Devon and Cornwall, heavily dependent upon returns from mackerel fishing in recent years, should be fully safeguarded".
  I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in licensing arrangements. What is true of Devon and Cornwall is just as evidently true of, for instance, Mallaig where there is clearly no alternative source of employment, and of many other coastal fishing areas throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.
  I end by reiterating once again that the Minister, when he speaks in the negotiations on Monday, will speak with this great strength of the support of the House of Commons behind him. If he

  1233
  finds it necessary to enter bilateral negotiations with Norway, he will do so in the knowledge that he is only doing for this country what Mr. Gundelach's own country—Denmark—has been permitted to do with Sweden and which other countries have been permitted to do. This is neither a novelty nor an indecency. The Norwegians certainly do not intend to enter into bilateral negotiations with each and every member of the EEC. They have made this clear. They have also made it clear that they have such a commonalty of interest with the United Kingdom that there is fruitful ground for bilateral negotiation between the two. That is the position which the Minister is in, and he certainly has my best wishes when he enters those negotiations.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the flow of what I thought was an interesting and detailed speech. I am not saying that the speeches of other hon. Members were not also detailed and interesting, but the hon. Gentleman's speech contained a lot to which I wanted to listen. That is why I did not intervene when he talked about South Atlantic fishing.
  The information I have is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about this. We are undertaking a fundamental research on it, but it is not actually a cut and dried matter—not even cut and dried hake. We shall look at this constructively. I thought it best to get that particular fact out of the way.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to the Minister, because clearly quite a lot of money will have to be spent on research before the economic rewards overtake the cash flow out. It is quite likely that this money will have to come from one Government agency or another because of the very uncertainties to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention with regard to the considerable capital expense. For instance, it might require a completely new class of fishing vessel plus accommodation facilities at Port Stanley, which do not exist at the moment. It might well require, indeed I think it would, an extension to the airport facilities there—such as was recommended by the Shackleton
  1234
  Report—so that crews could be flown to and from the United Kingdom. Considerations of that kind extend beyond the immediate sphere of fishing. I am extremely glad that this is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman is clearly giving some consideration.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I admire the deep knowledge of this subject shown by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I agreed with almost all, but not quite all, of what he said, in particular with what he said about the Falkland Islands and the importance of fishing waters in that part of the world.
  I welcome the unanimity shown in the House today, and in particular the conversion of the right hon. Member for Peyton to common sense and a sense of reality in this matter after six years of this controversy.
  Mr. Peyton: I would be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would learn to distinguish between my name and my constituency. He got them confused. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been converted to nothing, and certainly would never be converted by him.
  Mr. Jay: I was trying to pay the right hon. Gentleman a compliment, but if he does not wish to have one, then, of course, I shall not repeat it.
  In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said about the events of 1971 and 1972, I should like to ask a few brief questions of the Minister in order to put the record straight and to make a little more clear to the public how we got into the situation in which we find ourselves today. Is it not true that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), were misleading the House when they told us in January 1972 that the agreement they had reached put a veto in the hands of the United Kingdom which would prevent the extension of the derogation agreed in 1982? Is it not really the fact, as those of us who were then in opposition argued, that the veto is in the hands of other Members of the EEC to prevent the derogation continuing beyond the date of 1982? If that is so, the whole negotiating position is very much weakened.

  1235
  Secondly, is it not the case—no one has mentioned this today—that so far from the then Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham fighting for our rights on this matter, in particular for the preservation of the veto, the then Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Norway—a letter that he intended to be secret—urging the Prime Minister of Norway to give way on this vital point as we ourselves gave way in the negotiations in December 1972 and January 1973? It is worth remembering that the Norwegian Government refused to give way and maintained the right of veto which we surrendered at that time. The difference between the Norwegian position and the British position is all too obvious to everyone at the present time.
  Thirdly, is it not true that the derogation, of which those two right hon. Gentlemen boasted so much at the time, which is contained in Article 100 of the Treaty of Accession, merely gives this country up to 1982 an exclusive zone up to six miles with an extension to 12 miles in certain specified areas off the coast? Therefore, all that we obtained in the negotiation was a concession up to 1982, which we had not the power to continue unless we could persuade every other member of the EEC, and that concession was exclusive up to only six miles and partial up to 12 miles.
  If the answer to those questions is "Yes", is it not pretty clear that essential British rights were disastrously surrendered in those negotiations and that that is one reason why we were in such a weak negotiating position at the time of the renegotiation? I regret that our interests were not pushed further then, because we were clearly in a weak position. That is one explanation of the position in which my right hon. Friend finds himself today.
  I conclude by reminding my right hon. Friend that Sir Winston Churchill once said in this House that the purpose of recrimination about the past is to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Aleck Buchanan-Smith: The speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was one that we have heard before in this House and, together with the speech of the hon. Member for
  1236
  Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), contrasted somewhat unfavourably with the much more constructive approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). After all, the purpose of this debate has been demonstrated in speeches from both sides of the House; it is to arm the Minister, in his negotiations next week when he goes to Brussels, with the full strength of this House behind him so that he may achieve the best solution for the British fishing industry. Therefore, it is important in certain circumstances to discuss what lies behind the present position. But the real purpose of this debate, to strengthen the Minister's arm, must not be forgotten.
  I make only one comment about the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. He is very selective in what he says. He ought to remember that the derogation that was negotiated was not only a derogation in relation to time, distances, limits, and so on; it was also a derogation that was conditional on a review of the common fisheries policy, and written into and explicit in it was a review of conservation and a review of those communities in the Common Market which are especially dependent on fishing.
  I was involved in those negotiations. If there are faults, and responsibility has to be taken for them, I am prepared to take it. However, our purposes will not be served by going over the faults and the reasons for them at that time. If there were faults in 1970–71, equally there were faults in the renegotiation. There were also reasons for the different attitudes taken on those two occasions. But it is what happens in the negotiations in the weeks ahead that really matters.
  We are in a position of transition with the common fisheries policy and it is in this respect that responsibility lies so heavily on the Minister's shoulders because we are negotiating the long-term regime of fishing in the Community and not one which lasts for a limited period of time.
  That is why I welcomed the firm and strong constructive support which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil gave the Minister today. It will not only let our partners in the Common Market know where the British Parliament stands in these negotiations; it will be of

  1237
  immense reassurance to our fishing industry that all parties in the House of Commons stand together behind the Minister in the task that lies before him.
  I want first to emphasise the point with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil started. We have to remind ourselves that we are dealing with a resource. I was glad to see the Minister nodding in agreement when my right hon. Friend mentioned this. In the Treaty of Rome, there is no provision for the Community owning the national assets of any member State. It is important to remember this, and we must continually remind our Common Market partners of it.
  One of the unique features of our entry to the EEC is that the British Government have shown, and, perhaps more significantly, the British fishing industry has been prepared to accept because of the wider benefits of membership of the Community, a willingness to have an element of sharing of these resources. To this extent, we have shown greater generosity, greater responsibility and a greater willingness to fulfil in action what we believe is necessary in order to attain this ideal of European co-operation. We have contributed more than any other member of the EEC and, in what we have already done—not only British Governments of both parties but also the industry—we have shown our readiness to accept that element of sharing. We ask our partners now to show more response in settling the long-term fishing policy and to demonstrate that they recognise the just and correct case that we put forward.
  A common market for the produce of our seas, yes, but common ownership of our resources, no. I hope that that message goes out from the House tonight.
  I wish to refer to conservation. We are dealing with a resource, but it is quite different from any other resource, be it coal, oil, iron ore or uranium, in that it is a renewable resource. But it is renewable only if it is properly husbanded and conserved. It is that which underlines the movement throughout the world for 200-mile limits.
  The Financial Times on 14th June quoted Mr. Appleyard, who is the chief of the fishery industry development ser-
  1238
  vice of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, as saying:
  "we could be seeing catches of 120 million to 130 million tons by the year 2000, compared with 60 million to 70 million at present".
  That represents a doubling, as a result of the extension to 200-mile limits, of the fishing catch throughout the world. But that is pie in the sky unless at the same time we make sure that with these policies extending the limits there will be genuine and effective conservation.
  In that connection, what hope have we that under what is proposed by the Common Market our conservation policies will be effective? We have had the experience of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission which, over a period of years, has attempted at the political level but with scientific advice to agree policies of conservation in advance of the EEC. Although the efforts of that organisation have contributed, no one can say that they have resulted in effective conservation, otherwise we would not be in the situation that we are at present with herring for example.
  What has happened is that in every case it has not been the scientists' advice which has been taken. A political solution has been agreed which has always come down to the highest common multiple of catch whereas the objective should always have been the lowest common denominator.
  Mr. Ian Wood, who is one of the leaders of the fishing industry in Aberdeen, put it very well in a recent paper which he prepared when he said, in telling words, that under the NEAFC we have had a very
  "low ratio of science to politics".
  In order for conservation to be effective, we need a high ratio of science to politics. Of course, in the negotiations in the EEC so far we wonder whether under the EEC the position will be any different from what it has been under the NEAFC, with politics taking precedence over science.
  We are concerned about conservation for two reasons. The first is that we are still seeing a concentration on industrial fishing, whereas it is fishing for human consumption which really matters. Secondly, we are concerned in the negotiations about whether our partners will observe fully the conservation measures which are agreed.

  1239
  I mention a report in the Trawling Times of May of this year, where reference is made to the Berlin agreement, which was the interim agreement reached by our partners in Europe when our Minister was not present. One feature of that agreement was that no cod would be caught off Greenland. As the Trawling Times points out, in printing a reproduction of fishing returns from German ports, although there was supposed to be no cod caught off Greenland, in April and May about 1,300 tons of cod was being landed by German vessels in German ports.
  This is the kind of ammunition that the Minister will use. Our Common Market partners may pay lip service to conservation, but that is not borne out by events. Even if we were to accept common ownership of resources, which the EEC appears to want, I have no confidence that the conservation to which our European partners pay lip service would be affected in any way. This underlines the rightness of our case at present.
  In the present situation what the Common Market is proposing to us is unfair in terms of resource sharing, and ineffective in terms of conservation. It is essential that we should have measures of conservation and it is essential that we should mean business in our dealings with our European partners in order that we can ensure proper conservation.
  The Minister is reported in The Guardian today as having said that there is little chance of an early end to the negotiations. This increases the importance of effective interim measures. If we are to be involved in drawn-out negotiations, the Minister knows that if he stands up for our position he has the support of the whole House of Commons. We are worried that in a long, drawn-out struggle, the British position might he watered down in some way. If it is, Parliament will not stand for it. Our European partners must accept this as a reality. If they do not, not only will they cause problems for Britain, but they will cause problems for the continuity and stability of the Common Market itself.
  I hope that the Minister will use the arguments that we have put forward in debate, and that he will seek the endorse-
  1240
  ment of the House of Commons before ratifying any agreement. A report in The Guardian quotes the Minister as saying:
  "Now is not the time to give way".
  Surely, as our case is so strong and well founded, never is the time to give way. A reasonable solution, yes. Giving way, no. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is the line that he will take in next week's negotiations and any others that follow.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I realise that this is a short debate and that the winding-up speeches should begin in about three minutes. I shall keep my remarks very short.
  Today the House of Commons has been at its very best. The debate reminded me of a session briefing a board member who is going away to some very important negotiations. That is how we should see the Minister's position in the Common Market negotiations.
  I shall not say anything other than to give an aide-memoire to the Minister to add to his already impressive list of aides-memoires. I represent the small fishermen of the South Coast. The Minister of State has visited by constituency and seen my fishermen; therefore, he understands their problem. Their problem is made very much worse by the restrictions, and the cost of maintaining their vessels. The Minister has had the opportunity to look at this with a greater degree of understanding.
  The other great concern of my fishermen is about beam trawlers being used by Continental fishermen. It is not so much their size but the extraordinary harrowing effect of them. They have heavy beams, with heavy chains on the bottom, which are doing a great deal of damage and ruining the Channel beds. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind in his negotiations and perhaps consider prohibiting that rather ridiculous method of catching fish.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), in his usual courteous and balanced speech on this fishing occasion, pointed out that it was unfortunate that Mr. Gundelach did not

  1241
  come to the House of Commons when he was in London the other day in order to hear the almost unanimous—in fact, one could say unanimous—views of hon. Members about the justice of the British case, which the Minister will present next week. It is even more unfortunate that Mr. Gundelach was not here this afternoon, because he would have heard beyond any shadow of doubt that the House of Commons is completely united with the Minister, just as the industry is united with both.
  This is a short debate but perhaps none the worse for that. The essential propositions from all sides of the House can be put very shortly and succinctly. First, the Opposition and the Government totally support the stand of the Minister. Secondly, the Opposition and the Government will continue to support the Minister as long as he continues to fight for the justice of the British case. Thirdly, if the Minister does not succeed in achieving victory, in spite of his robust persuasiveness, he should take unilateral action. In doing that, he will have the universal support of the House.
  As a result of this afternoon's debate, we can say to those in Europe who will read our discussions that there is no doubt not only that the industry outside agrees with us but that the industry has made clear that it would prefer no agreement now to a bad agreement now. Therefore, there is no pressure of time on the Minister. We want the best possible agreement, and if we do not get what we consider a good enough agreement we will not make one at all. If we do not get one, we must take unilateral action and a comprehensive, non-discriminatory regime of conservation measures as soon as possible.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who opened the debate, gave a constructive list of such measures which would command universal support in the House. Among these, the most important were that the Norway pout box should be expanded, that we should institute a one-net rule and that we should see an overall increase in mesh size. I am sure that the whole House would endorse these and the list of other measures that hon. Members have put forward this afternoon.
  1242
  In looking forward to the meeting next week, there is one background argument that the Minister must put across to our colleagues in Europe. I have no doubt that he will do his best to do so. There are those in the EEC who believe that the British are being unreasonable, intransigent, unnecessarily argumentative and even unnecessarily greedy. That is not so. Our case does not rest on intransigence or on being greedy. Our case is based on two things—justice, and not simply justice for ourselves but common sense or everybody. It is based on these two essential pillars.
  On the question of the justice of the British case, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) said earlier and what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said just now. We must make it quite clear to the Community now that we do not regard and will not regard fish as a Community resource. The Treaty of Rome says quite clearly:
  "The Community will not own natural assets of member States."
  That is quite definite. Fish is not a Community resource but a British resource, which we shall contribute to the Community on terms which we regard as fair. It is those fair terms which we wholeheartedly support and which the right hon Gentleman will seek to obtain next week.
  This is worth mentioning because so often we hear phrases rolling out from the mandarins of the EEC about the European pool, European fish resources and all the rest. When the 200-mile extensions were made, they were made not by the EEC but by the individual nations which happened to be part of the EEC. It was not an EEC extension to 200 miles but an extension by the sovereign States which happened to be members of the EEC.
  To some people this may seem to be a small semantic difference, but it explodes any claim that the EEC might have in extending the 200-mile limit to the effect that it is the owner of the fish within that limit. It has already been pointed out that no other resource is attempted to be treated in this way. There is no question of German coal, Dutch gas or French or Italian vineyards being

  1243
  regarded as a Common Community resource. There is no question of common exploitation or common ownership of those commodities.
  When this argument is put to Members of the European Assembly, they say "But of course—French vineyards are on French soil, but the fact that the fish are in the sea is a different matter." As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) pointed out, however, fish may be a marine resource, but so also in one sense of the word is oil. I have no doubt that if we give an inch here there will be many who at a later stage will press us to give further inches on oil. Therefore, there must be no question of even accepting the principle of a Community resource.
  The fact is that the EEC thinks—if one can impute collective thoughts to that organisation—that fish is a most important subject. But, since that subject does not seem as important as the subject of oil, and because the EEC knew that it could not get away with it on oil, it thought it might be able to get away with it on the subject of fish. We must make it very clear to the EEC that it will not get away with it on the subject of fish.
  In recent weeks the following extraordinary argument has been advanced by the European Assembly: "We agree that the limits were made by the individual sovereign States extending the limits, but in any case the limits do not matter because fish do not observe limits but swim in and out of them." That argument has emerged almost from nowhere. We should nail that argument now as one that we cannot possibly accept, and we should point out that when the 200-mile limits came into operation nobody said to any country in the EEC "These extensions to 200 miles are limitless because fish will swim over and under them." Nobody took that view at that time. When the EEC negotiated with Norway and the Faroes, nobody said that their claims to limits were to be totally disregarded because fish ignore limits. The argument about fish swimming about regardless have been produced solely and erroneously to try to undermine the case put forward by the Minister of Agriculture. That fallacy should be nailed right away.
  Another argument is that in any event demersal fish do not migrate. I under-
  1244
  stand that they stay pretty well in the place where they start off. In any case, the clear principle is that the internationally accepted criteria of the ownership of fish relate to where the fish happen to be when they are caught.
  There is another argument on the justice of the British case which there is no need to outline in great detail but which should be emphasised since it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). Since this country contributes between 60 and 65 per cent. of fish considered to be in the European pool, it is totally and grossly unfair that we should have a return of only 20 to 25 per cent. of the total. The return we obtain from the EEC must be in some degree commensurate with what the United Kingdom puts in.
  There is a further point about quotas. Whatever quotas are negotiated by the Minister, we know that there will have to be a far tighter control package. I know that many members of the British fishing industry will hardly bother to discuss the quotas because they regard them as ludicrous since the control is so inadequate. That point also must be emphasised.
  I conclude by saying that it is indisputable that, at the start, the Community did not realise—and, I believe, still does not realise—the strength of feeling in this country and the sense of injustice about the way in which these matters have been dealt with. It is not just a matter of a robust Minister, whose ideas on the Common Market may be different from those adopted by some of us, going to the EEC and using those arguments as a stick with which to beat his European partners. That is not the point. Everybody in this House shares the same sense of feeling of injustice at the ludicrously inadequate proposals of the Common Market on this issue.
  On the one hand we know that we still have the largest fleet and make the largest contribution in respect of fish catches and that we have a large number of communities that are very much dependent on fish. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that parts of his constituency would have to be evacuated. In other words, no human being in that area will be able to live if the fishing industry collapses. Even

  1245
  in the city of Aberdeen there are still more jobs dependent on fish than there are on North Sea oil. Therefore, we must always bear in mind that some communities are totally dependent on the industry.
  Although we have that situation on the one hand, we must face on the other hand the painful contraction in the industry which has taken place in the last four or five years. We know that in that period about 45,000 jobs at sea and on land have been lost to the fishing industry. But, at the same time as our industry has been contracting, the French fleet has increased, the Dutch fleet has grown by as much as 30 per cent. and the Danish fleet has grown by 50 per cent. Therefore, we have the total unfairness comprised in the increases in fleet sizes on the one hand and, on the other hand, the complete unfairness of the allocations offered to the British fishing industry.
  The Minister will need no further urging to tell the EEC that its present proposals remain totally unacceptable. The Conservative Party remains firmly of the belief that a 50-mile exclusively controlled zone is the most practicable and best available way in which to get what we believe are our just deserts. We want justice for ourselves and a commonsense policy that will benefit everybody—not only ourselves, but every other member of the EEC. I wish the right hon. Gentleman the best of luck in his negotiations.
  6.28 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I deliberately did not take my place at the Dispatch Box until this late hour because I wanted to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) expected Commissioner Gundelach to do—that is, to listen to the British House of Commons. I think I was wise to do so, and I am glad that I did.
  I appreciate the spirit of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). That is not to say that we do not have our disagreements on this subject or that we shall not have such disagreements on other subjects in the future. I am not saying that I disagree with my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke somewhat critically of events
  1246
  some time ago, but I am saying that, at this moment in our history, a united, outspoken House of Commons telling a British Minister what it believes should be done and getting a response from that Minister is the right way to tackle things.
  There are various methods by which we can achieve what we all want. We all want, surely, to secure enough fish for our United Kingdom fishing industry for it to remain viable. We have all shown that we agree that we need an effective form of conservation and the enforcement of such conservation, so that we can see that the industry remains viable and that fish stocks are protected.
  We have on many occasions discussed the sort of solution that we believe to be right. We have considered whether it should be an exclusive 100-mile belt, an exclusive 50-mile belt, an exclusive belt plus dominant preference or some other solution. These are not matters which ought to divide us. I am not saying this because during the past 12 months I have suggested a dominant zone with an exclusive 12-miles belt in it. I am reserving to myself and the Government the right to go back to any measures that were on the table when we discussed the matter. I did it in order to show that we are not inflexible or intransigent.
  To my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) I say that it is possible at times to be both amiable and intransigent. I hope that there are times—no doubt very few—when the right hon. Member for Yeovil and I will be a splendid example of togetherness. I did not believe that we should have fixed minds, provided that we get, first, exclusive access within 12 miles; secondly, priority for access to fish within 12 to 50 miles and what I have described as the sea lion's share of growth within these waters; thirdly, proper conservation; and, fourthly, proper quotas enforced by effort limitation.
  I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). We had some experience of the question of effort limitation on the wrong end of the stick in the various cod wars, but it work efficiently and taught us all a lesson. One relates to the quota division, the boat hours or the period

  1247
  of time that boats may sail within certain areas, and one works those out in conjunction. That is what our licence will give us. Without that, the quota figures are meaningless.
  I should like to deal with those points. I started with the question of access and growth. The proposals that have for 12 months been before our partners in the EEC—they had just come in when my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was elected—differ in some respects from a 50-mile exclusive limit. Those who talk about a 50-mile exclusive limit do not literally mean exclusive. Such a limit would mean, I hope, Norwegians fishing in our waters and our people fishing in Norwegian waters. It is not, therefore, exactly exclusive use.
  I had hoped that by being reasonable and flexible and saying that we were seeking to reserve for our people substantial fishing opportunities within 50 miles of our shores, combined with suitable fishing opportunities in third country waters—the Norwegian illustration, for example—that would meet the case and show that we were not wedded to a rigid system. It would also preserve priority of access and a preferential share of growth in the fish stocks. There is no point in having conservation merely in order to conserve fish swimming in the sea. They must also at some time find their way into the nets of the fishermen. I believe, as I think the House does, that those who provide the waters should at least be in some preferential position when those nets lift the fish from the sea.
  The Government are seeking strong and effective conservation measures, not only in our own waters but throughout the waters of all member States. I agree with those who said that it is clear that the United Kingdom—the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made this point and, I must say, on certain occasions the Commission has done so—is more enthusiastic about conservation than are some other member States.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil talked about mere words. That is fair enough. He wants action. It is fair to remind the House that there are a number of national measures which are in effect because the Community cannot or will not introduce the measures. First, there
  1248
  is the pout box off the East Coast of Scotland which extends to the Greenwich meridian. What does such conservation mean? It means that it is estimated to result in an increase of not far off 60,000 tons a year in the available stocks of whiting and haddock. Yet there is one country and one country only which has seen it and consistently pushed it and whose national measures now make it possible.
  It is absurd that because that 60,000 tons, or whatever the figure is, of haddock and whiting would not go to this country alone, it would go to all who fished. How anybody can claim that this is the British being selfish or intransigent, I cannot understand. Those measures are designed to help everybody.
  The same applies to the North Sea herring ban. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the instituting of a ban, for which we fought, throughout the North Sea was not the most popular thing in the world with our herring industries or our herring processing plants. They knew and we knew that it would hurt them. There was the danger, as scientific evidence showed, of the whole of the herring in the North Sea disappearing within 18 months. The only times when there was sufficient herring for everybody was after the First World War and after the Second World War. That shows how long it takes after a period of quiescence to build up the herring stocks again. The third national measure which is still in existence is the minimum mesh sizes—namely, the landing sizes for fishing and the by-catch regulations. These are all national measures, not Community measures.
  As to quotas, we have certain sensible, clear and practical requirements. We have to pay regard to the species composition of the overall allocation of a quota. It is not enough simply to talk about a number. It is not enough simply to get a method of enforcing that quota. We also have to see that it is the right allocation. It is possible to work out a system of giving fish that no one will eat. That is why it must conform to our traditional catching pattern to the greatest possible extent. It must reflect our losses in third country waters. It works like that for us and is supposed to do the same for other countries.

  1249
  I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who defined exactly the way I would define the contribution to resources made by the limits. The House and people outside should realise that if the United Kingdom moved all her fishery limits, which could be done by Order in Council under the Fishery Limits Act, about 60 per cent. of the fish stocks currently available to the Community would no longer be subject to the common fisheries policy. I am not saying that the limits should be removed, but I am giving an illustration of the effect of such a contribution.
  To pretend that in any common fisheries policy we can ignore the contribution to resources is a dangerous ignorance of reality. I am glad that this point has been made in the debate and that I shall have the House with me when I make the point again at the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg.
  I have said that quotes must clearly be enforceable and I have referred to effort limitation. A marriage is possible between our views and those that have sprung from the Commission in the form of fishing plans. It is possible to say in a fishing plan that up to, say, 50 miles in a given area there should be dominant preference for the United Kingdom or another State. That is a possible mechanism and, since it originated in the Commission, it is one which the Commission and our partners in the EEC would do ill to ignore. I hope that this is the way in which eventually we may reach a conclusion. I put it on the record that this role exists.
  If this is how flexible we have been and how practical our suggestions are, what movement has there been from the Commission and our partners in the EEC? It is only fair to say that, as a result of our pressure, there has been some change in the Commission's original proposals of 1976 which the House decided unanimously were unacceptable. Perhaps it is no great credit that there has been movement, but at least there has been.
  Let us see where we are. There has been an advance on conservation, but we still have a very long way to go—at least, until the attitudes of other members begin to match our own. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made this point.
  1250
  If we considered the history of the North Sea herring ban, it is interesting to see how we and others regard conservation. The ban was imposed after lengthy and very acrimonious discussions as an EEC measure on 28th February 1977 only because of the knowledge that the United Kingdom would otherwise have imposed national measures. From 30th June the Council of Ministers refused to continue the ban and it was imposed again nationally until 25th July, when the Council agreed to impose it again. However, that ban expired on 31st October and since 1st November it has been continued only by national measures. If this is not a convincing demonstration of our consistent concern for conservation and the total lack of concern by other members as a bloc, I do not know what is.
  The Commission has moved on the question of quotas. It added about 200,000 tonnes on the main species to its initial 1976 allocation of fish for the United Kingdom, but a large proportion of those fish are of the lower value types. The right hon. Member for Yeovil pointed this out with some interesting figures. I wish to give a slightly different edge to what he said, but when people read our remarks they will find that they form a composite whole.
  We both agree that we were left as the biggest losers in the Community. We were being asked, even on the improved figures of the Commission, to bear half the total Community loss of demersal fish—that is 200,000 tonnes of the 400,000 tonnes that were to be lost. Yet we were providing 60 per cent. of the whole stock of fish in the waters of member States. I cannot believe that anyone who looks at that proposal objectively can possibly regard it as reasonable. The Commission and our partners have not gone far enough on quotas.
  On access and growth, both of which are important, we have had no concrete proposals from the Commission. I hope that we may be able to make this marriage with its fishing plans and our dominant preference, but I am sorry to have to say that there seems at the moment to be little movement towards us.
  It will be regrettable and, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, serious—that is a good word in this connection—if we are unable to reach agreement at the next Council meeting, but I

  1251
  hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that while it would be regrettable and serious, it would not be the end of the world. We need to see a firm basis for future planning.
  My contacts with the industry have convinced me that it would be able to face a period of uncertainty in the months that lie ahead. That is an important distinction between us and some other countries. Not only has the industry convinced me of that, but I pay tribute to it because it is aware of all the difficulties, worries and hardships that it may face, and it has never once, in all the months when I have consulted those in the industry—and I have tried to consult on every possible occasion—taken the view that its understandably selfish interest came first. Despite the differences with the Folkestone inshore fishermen and the Hull and Grimsby deep sea fishermen, those in the industry have been prepared to work together and we can be proud of having such an industry and of the men and women who work in it.
  I have been asked what I would suggest that the House should do if there is no agreement. That is a fair question. I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken that we would probably require quite a number of additional conservation measures. The right hon. Member for Yeovil gave me a list of such measures. Much has been done by national measures, but they seem to be seriously lacking in a number of ways. I put these at the head of my list, which will not be exhaustive, but will include the measures that I regard as most important.
  First, in relation to the size of the pout box, I believe that it should be extended. Secondly, large quantities of immature white fish, potentially of the highest value, are still going for industrial fishing. Thirdly, prawn fishermen in the South-West and the Irish Sea are taking white fish in the small mesh nets used for prawns. We believe that the mesh size regulations will never be properly enforced while fishermen carry nets of different sizes on the same voyage. This point was made by many hon. Members.
  I hope that the Commission and the Council will take the necessary conservation measures. I have to admit that that is not because I do not like a robust national attitude. I hope that that is still not a crime. It is much better that
  1252
  conservation extends to the waters of us all than to be limited to the waters, however large they might be, of one of the members of the Community. That is why I prefer conservation to be on a Community basis. I should like the Community to be able to reach agreement with other countries so that gradually we could build up world-wide conservation. That seems to be the right approach, but if it is not to be done by the Community that does not mean that it should not be done. It means that we shall have to take the action that is necessary. That means unilateral action.
  We cannot take unilateral action merely by itself. There has to be a test of what will stand up if we are not to be disqualified, as the Irish recently were, by the European Court of Justice.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil took the major point when he said that the measures in question had to be nondiscriminatory. That is one basis, but it is not the only one. Unilateral action would have to be in accordance with scientific evidence. That was a point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns. I am sorry to keep on quoting the hon. Gentleman; he will begin to become worried that I have quoted him so often. However, he put the position very clearly, although I disagreed with some of his remarks.
  Action has to be taken in accordance with the scientific evidence, otherwise it would be a political decision and might even be a decision tortuously contrived at by one country to gain an advantage over another. It is necessary that we have the scientific evidence and that we are able to adduce it.
  The third basis is that action has to be taken because it is urgent and necessary. I shall give an example although I do not know of such a case. If we were to say that scientific evidence tells us that in 1987 there will be a total loss of salmon, that would not, according to the European Court, be a reason for introducing a unilateral conservation measure in 1978. We have to bear those tests in mind.
  I have given examples of the measures that I believe to be at the head of the list, but I am not disqualifying any of the others that have been suggested by right hon. and hon. Members on both

  1253
  sides of the House. Let us consider the lot and put them against the tests to which I have referred. Let us say to the Community "Are you willing here and now to go ahead and put these measures into effect?" If the Community is not so willing, I repeat that we must not have a vacuum. That is where the unilateral case features.
  I was asked by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about bilateral negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked, as did others, "If others can make bilateral agreements, why cannot the United Kingdom?" Certain examples were given. I do not want to go into great detail, but in a number of instances they were old agreements that somehow continued after the common fisheries policy. The Commission might say that they were in existence before that policy and were not new agreements. The Scandinavian agreement between Sweden, Norway and Denmark has never been recognised by the Commission. It has always refused to accept that Denmark was in order in making it. That is one that has followed the policy. However, whether we refuse to accept it, refuse to consider it or refuse to acknowledge it, the question is, what do we do about it?
  I think that the right hon. Member for Yeovil understood—he said that it was a fair answer to the question—when I said that so far we have tried to work within the framework of a Community policy. I still hope to do so. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not totally disqualify me from doing that if we can get the right policy. Therefore, bilateral agreements did not seem to arise until we had reached a certain position of disagreement.
  As it happens, I shall be going to Oslo to have some discussions with the Norwegian Minister of the Law of the Sea, Mr. Evensen, in the week following the Fisheries Council. I am sure that we shall both be glad to renew our personal friendship and to further the relations between our two countries, which remain close and friendly.
  I have been talking about what we might or might not do in the event of disagreement. There is one other thing that we shall need to do in the event of
  1254
  disagreement or in the event of agreement. It seems that United Kingdom fleets will have to face some changes. We shall need to consider how our industry should be restructured.
  The Commission has produced proposals, some parts of which could form part of a final common fisheries policy package. However, in the event of disagreement I should not agree to those proposals. I should not agree to them because I do not regard acceptance of piecemeal parts of a package as being the right approach. However, that should not stop our planning for the future, which I am happy to tell the House is going ahead. At this moment officials are considering the structural change and the shape of grant and loan arrangements that may be made with the White Fish Authority.
  I assure my hon. Friends that those who work in the fishing industry need to be protected, whether they work as fishermen in our ships or as loaders and dockers. I understand the point which has been made about the redundancies that may occur for fishermen who are of an age which I regret to say I have reached and which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby has not reached.
  There is another factor that is with us already and which is growing in intensity—namely, the loss of third country waters, which is already posing considerable problems for the deep water ports of Fleetwood, Grimsby and Hull. I agree that we have to do something about that. I promise that I shall consider what can be done to help, whether there is agreement or whether there is not.
  I understand what the House has expressed and I understand its mood, but the best thing would be to get an agreement on the right terms. I must tell the House that I am not hopeful of an early settlement. I have said, and I think that the House has said too—
  Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not hopeful of an early settlement. Regretfully, I am not hopeful of such a settlement either. If he does not get a settlement next week or the immediate prospect of one, I hope that he will return immediately to the House with a set of conservation measures, which again, regretfully, he would be forced to impose. In so doing he would have our support.
  Mr. Silkin: I might not be forced to impose them if the Community were to accept them as Community measures. However, the House should be made aware immediately of what measures may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a technical matter, but I shall have my officials working on it.
  I hope that we shall get an agreement. I should like one and I think that it would benefit us. I happen to think that it would benefit the rest of Europe if we got an agreement. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland whether in the event of an agreement I should make it ad referendum the House. That would be my intention. I want to be clear that there are occasions—it might have happened as regards price fixing and it could occur in several international negotiations—when the moment is reached when it may be said "I can get an agreement which I believe, as Minister, to be right for the people of the United Kingdom. However, I suspect that if I put a reserve on it I shall lose it." If I come to that decision—I hope that I shall not have to do so—I must take the responsibility upon my own shoulders. That is a Minister's duty. In that event, I must come back to the House and explain what I have done, and the House will agree with me or, as sometimes happens, tear me to pieces. Whatever happens, we are prepared to treat flexibly any sensible, realistic approach that is made to us.
  The House has shown that it regards the continuation of a viable United Kingdom fishing industry as its major aim. Therefore, I shall go to Luxembourg on Monday in the knowledge that the House is behind me in demanding a fair deal for British fishermen. I regard that as my paramount duty during these negotiations.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Before we enter upon this debate, Mr. Speaker desires me to remind the House that what is commonly referred to as the Colonel B case and the original Official Secrets Act prosecution out of which it arose are still sub judice and that no direct references to the merits of those cases may be made.
  In the Colonel B case, a petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords has now been lodged. As regards the original prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, it is understood that the trial is due to take place in September.
  Mr. Speaker is aware that not all Members agree with the resolutions of the House on the sub judice matters. But, as he said before, if the House regards the rule as too restrictive, it is open to it to alter it. However, until that is done it is Mr. Speaker's view that it should be enforced.
  That having been said, there would be no objection to references being made to the operation of the law in circumstances similar to the case which is sub judice, provided that reference is not made to the particular case or to any legal proceedings which have so far taken place in this matter. That should be sufficient to enable any hon. Member to make any general point that he wishes to make while still preserving the rules by which the House has bound itself.
  7.3 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: The subject that we are to debate for the next three hours was last debated in June 1973. I make it clear at the outset that I am not concerned with Section 1. Clearly, acts of spying must be made subject to heavy penalties. The only comment I would make is that, if the proposals that we are putting forward are accepted, it would be a very good thing to call the Official Secrets Act, after Section 2 is taken out of it, a better name—for example, the Espionage Act.
  Section 2 is the section which causes anxiety. The history of how Section 2 came into being bears a little examination. The first Official Secrets Act was in 1889. That dealt with spying and breaches of official trust. Crown servants or Government contractors, if under contracts they were obliged to maintain

  1257
  secrecy, were forbidden to pass information.
  Between 1909 and 1911 there were a number of leaks of Government information to the Press. Therefore, the authorities at that time decided that it was necessary to extend criminal sanctions to the receiver of confidential information, whereas previously they had been directed only at those who gave it. In 1911 the Act was passed, and it made it an offence to communicate or to receive classified information. All kinds of official information were covered by Section 2, however unimportant or trivial, without the need to prove any unlawful intent.
  On 18th August 1911 the Bill passed through all its stages, and Clause 2 was not mentioned in the debates. The Attorney-General of the day, Sir Rufus Isaacs, said that there was nothing novel in the principle of the Bill. Second Reading took up three columns of the Official Report, Committee stage one column and Third Reading four columns, during which there was argument whether an amendment should have been accepted on Report. That was the way that the House approached the problem. We have had the misfortune ever since, and particularly since the last war, of having to manage the law as it was created in 1911.
  The Press made no comment, although it had commented on previous Bills which the Government had sought to bring forward but had to abandon. That may have been because the Bill went through the House at the time of a constitutional crisis over the Parliament Bill and attention was distracted more by that than by what appeared to be a slight tightening up of the legislation of the previous century. The House was no doubt also worried at that time about the increasing threat from Germany and anxious that the espionage provisions in the new Section 1 should become law as soon as possible. Clearly, there was no real understanding in the House of the enormous scope covered by section 2.
  Section 2 has been described as the "catch-all" section. It is extremely well set out in the Franks Report at page 14, paragraph 17:
  "The main offence which section 2 creates is the unauthorised communication of official information (including documents) by a Crown servant. The leading characteristic of this
  1258
  offence is its catch-all quality. It catches all official documents and information. It makes no distinctions of kind, and no distinctions of degree. All information which a Crown servant learns in the course of his duty is 'official' for the purposes of section 2, whatever its nature, whatever its importance, whatever its original source. A blanket is thrown over everything; nothing escapes. The section catches all Crown servants as well as all official information. Again, it makes no distinctions according to the nature or importance of a Crown servant's duties. All are covered. Every Minister of the Crown, every civil servant, every member of the Armed Forces, every police officer, performs his duties subject to section 2."
  The stock answer to the criticism which is well set out in that paragraph in the report is that no prosecution can take place without the leave of the Attorney-General and that he will prosecute only where important breaches have occurred. That is right, but it still leaves a measure of uncertainty. In our view, any criminal statute should be certain. For example, journalists are entitled to know where they stand. It is not enough to say "All right, technically you will be committing a criminal offence but you are most unlikely to be prosecuted."
  The area where secrecy and confidentiality should be protected must clearly be defined and limited to the extent where it is generally acceptable and compatible with open government. A balance must be struck where the public interest is protected in both ways. I mean by that that the public interest requires that matters of defence, international security and Cabinet minutes, to take just a few examples, may need to be safeguarded against public disclosure. But the public interest also requires that there is no misuse of secrecy to cover up errors or bungling or to avoid criticism.
  In this short debate I do not want to go into the area of freedom of information. I notice that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who is very concerned with that aspect, is present. The phrase "freedom of information" is misleading when compared with, for example, freedom of speech or freedom of choice. Freedom of information means the extent to which the public should have the right of access to official information—that is, the balance of public interest. I understand that Justice will shortly be publishing a report which will make a substantial contribution to this aspect of the subject.

  1259
  In the meantime, it is worth noting that in the United States and Sweden, for example, attempts to provide effective freedom of information legislation have proved more difficult than was anticipated. The first Freedom of Information Act in the United States became known as the Denial of Freedom Act. The Swedish Act contains 43 sections of exceptions to the freedom of information rules—a huge number of exceptions. We must also remember that both those countries have written constitutions, so that judicial intervention in establishing the rights of the citizen is much greater than in the United Kingdom. Any discussion of freedom of information must be in the context of the establishment of a system of administrative courts.
  There is no doubt that the Franks Committee made a valuable contribution to the debate about Section 2. The committee was set up in April 1971, honouring the pledge of the Conservative manifesto for the 1970 General Election. Although there are three volumes of oral and written evidence, the committee managed to produce its report by September of the following year.
  In June 1973 the then Home Secretary, now Lord Carr, accepted the report in general, but the Conservative Government did not remain in office long enough to implement it. In March 1974 the present Government took office. In April of that year the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), said of the Franks Report:
  "I hope to give an answer … in a shorter time than the previous Government".—[Official Report, 2nd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1089.]
  We are now in June 1978. In spite of those brave words we had to wait until November 1976, when the present Home Secretary made a statement to the House. He accepted the Franks Report with certain reservations about the categories of protected information. He promised legislation as soon as possible.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked for a White Paper or a Green Paper. That was agreed by the Home Secretary. It is now 18 months later and we are still waiting. In Opposition time we have, at last, another debate on this important subject. It is important to the Govern-
  1260
  ment, the Civil Service, all servants of the Crown, the public and the Press. I should have preferred a full day's debate in Government time after the White Paper had been published so that we would have an opportunity of learning the Government's intention. But that possibility looked so remote that we felt that we had to initiate the debate.
  We think, as we always have thought, that the Franks Committee was in general right. We accept that Section 2 of the Act is outdated and far too widely drawn. We agree that certain classes of information should be protected, as Franks recommends. This is summarised well in paragraph 276 of the report, which states:

  "a. is classified information relating to defence or internal security, or to foreign relations, or to the currency or to the reserves, the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation; or

  b. is likely to assist criminal activities or to impede law enforcement; or

  c. is a Cabinet document; or

  d. has been entrusted to the Government by a private individual or concern."

  There is another category in Franks with which we agree—where official information has been used for private gain. That is another form of corruption.
  We have one major disagreement with the Franks Committee. It involves the policing and enforcement of its recommendations. Franks recommends that the areas that should be classified should be classified by regulation made by the Secretary of State, this also involves declassification. In paragraph 8 of the recommendations on page 104, it is stated:
  "Before a decision is taken whether to institute a prosecution for the disclosure of classified information within one of the three categories, there should be a review of the classification of the information which had allegedly been disclosed without authority. This review should be carried out by the responsible Minister himself. He should be required to consider whether at the time of the alleged disclosure that information was properly classified, secret or above or defence—confidential, in the sense that its unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation. If he was not satisfied on this point, then no prosecution would be possible. If he was satisfied, he should give a certificate to that effect to the court. This certificate should be conclusive evidence of the fact that the information was classified within the meaning of the Act."
  We agree that the Secretary of State should have the power to make the regulations, but we believe that they should be kept under continuous review by a

  1261
  Select Committee and that the matter should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
  More important, the review as to whether the classification at the time of the disclosure was the proper classification should not rest with the Minister. That would smack too much of the Minister being judge and jury in his own cause. When any prosecution is brought for the disclosure of information, the question of whether the information was correctly classified at the date of disclosure should be considered not by the Minister responsible but by an independent committee.
  We suggest that that independent committee should be two Privy Councillors presided over by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. The defendant should have the right to make representations to the committee, although not, perhaps, appear before it. That view is supported by Lord Rawlinson, who was Attorney-General at the time when the Franks Committee reported.
  It would be feasible for the Minister to provide the information which would enable the independent committee to form a view about whether the classification was correct. It would be similar to the committee of "three wise men" who advise the Home Secretary when he is deciding whether to deport an alien. A safeguard of this kind would satisfy Fleet Street and the general public that the information was or was not properly classified and would avoid allegations of a cover-up by the Department or Minister.
  If our proposals are accepted and form the basis for a new Official Information Act in place of Section 2, the criminal law will be used only to protect information the disclosure of which would really be against the public interest. Any potential defendant would have greater safeguards than exist under the present law and under the Franks proposals.
  It is not a question of open or closed government. If the balance can be fairly struck and impartially checked, the public interest is protected in every way. Our proposals are a realistic and responsible approach to the problem and could quickly be enshrined in our law. We hope to have the opportunity to do that in the near future.
  7.17 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I understand why the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) concentrated on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. That is the section which causes most concern. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it. Although it has not itself formed part of a central debate on the subject, it was mentioned in the debate on the Queen's Speech last autumn. We said that we would bring forward legislative proposals to reform Section 2 during this Session.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman was correct about the history of the passage of the 1911 Act. I believe that the situation arose more because of Agadir than because of the constitutional crisis which was raging in Britain. There can be no question of history repeating itself and the House passing in haste what it repents at leisure.
  We should examine the difficult and complex questions involved in this issue. There is room for serious debate and difference of opinion, not on a narrow party basis, but on the basis of what we are trying to achieve and what we expect the criminal law to achieve. No country of which I am aware can manage completely without the classification of information.
  Reference has been made to the Government's slow approach. I am used to replying to speeches of that kind. Perhaps my reply is equally standard. There is a well-known maxim that someone who casts the first stone should be without sin. It is remarkable, in view of the great interest and concern which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now evinces on behalf of his party, that a document issued as recently as "The Right Approach" makes no reference to the subject. I merely mention that in order to show that none of us is completely free of the need to consider this matter in detail.
  A further point, which is a fair one to make but which I accept could be pushed too far, is that the Attorney-General has to exercise his discretion and to authorise a prosecution. It could be said that by the time the Government have considered this matter the position of individuals could have been prejudiced.

  1263
  During the period that the Government have been in office there has been only one conviction under Section 2, and that was for an offence which most of us would have thought, on any classification, could not be overlooked. I refer to the Spargo case.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: The Government promised legislation on this topic in 1975, yet here we are in 1978, the Government perhaps drawing towards their close, and we still have not had the legislation.
  Mr. John: The Labour Government of this Parliament may be drawing towards their close, although there is a year to go yet. Certainly I do not dodge the fact that the consideration has been thorny and detailed. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that, given the interests and the various Government Departments that are concerned, the discussions are necessarily highly complex and protracted.
  I was seeking to make the point that no individual had been prejudiced, because of the sensible prosecution policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has acted as any Attorney-General would in his place.
  The Fulton Report suggested in 1968 that the Government should set up an inquiry with a view to making recommendations for getting rid of unnecessary secrecy in this country. It was said that clearly the Official Secrets Act would need to be included in such a review. The then Home Secretary set up the Franks Committee in 1971. As the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 22nd November 1976 that a White Paper would be supplied to the House in response to a request, and he also—this point was omitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—gave information about interim conclusions to which the Government were then coming. He did that in order to inform the House, and he was unfairly criticised for daring to come to the House to inform it.
  In the Gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session we said that we would introduce legislative proposals for the reform of Section 2. We shall honour that commitment by publishing a White Paper.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When?
  Mr. John: We have said that we shall do so in the present Session. Obviously, I cannot commit the Government here, because other people are involved, but that promise will be honoured. It will be clone in the present Session of Parliament—
  Mr. Aitken: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. John: Unless the hon. Gentleman is deficient in hearing, what I said was clear enough. If the hon. Gentleman makes a speech later and makes his points then, I shall respond to them.
  I have sketched in the background because it is obvious that the general dissatisfaction with Section 2, because of its catch-all quality, is shared on all sides of the House. The blanket over the serious and trivial nature of information, all of which is classified, is something that none of us takes great comfort in, but in practice it is fair to say that the system does not work in quite the rigid way that the section might lead one to suppose. I have mentioned the prosecution policy of the Attorney-General and, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate. The Franks Report said that the section is saved from absurdity in operation only by the sparing use of the Attorney-General's discretion to prosecute.
  But it also works rather differently in practice, because the section prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of official information and the release of a great deal of information is authorised, whether authorised for other people or self-authorised. As hon. Members who have read the Franks Report will know, paragraph 18 makes it clear that Ministers, for example, do a great deal of self-authorisation in the release of information. The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) may laugh, but were the contrary situation to apply I am sure that he would be highly indignant.
  Nevertheless, the Government accept the general thrust of the Franks Committee's argument that the section needs to be repealed and replaced by a narrower and more specific provision, so that criminal sanctions will be preserved to protect only that which is of real importance. That is a clear statement of the Government's intention.

  1265
  That brings me to the question of what should be protected by the criminal law. The Government will make their views on that known in detail in the White Paper. The Franks Report proposed that the following categories should be protected: defence or internal security; foreign relations; the currency or the reserves; law and order; Cabinet documents; and information entrusted in confidence to the Government by a private individual or concern.
  In his statement of 22nd November 1976, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Government intended to exclude from the list of protected categories information related to the currency and reserves and Cabinet documents that did not qualify for protection by virtue of their content. That means that if the documents, in their content, justifying classification they will be covered, but if they are Cabinet documents without such content they will not be in the list of exceptions. I can confirm on behalf of the Government that we intend to stick to that policy when the White Paper is published.
  There remain some highly technical questions on the way in which a test of damage to the national interest, for example, should be incorporated in the offence in relation to all the categories that I have mentioned, how the test should be defined, and what method should be used for proving damage to the national interest for a prosecution to succeed. Although these seem to be recondite legal points, as does the highly technical question of the sort of defence that should be available, and the sort of defence that should be available to a person of a particular status, they are crucial to the enforceability and therefore the respectability of our protection of that which we deem to be in the national interest to protect from public information.
  Let me deal now with the question of open government and freedom of information, and the general nature of the exercise of the reform of Section 2. The issue in such reform is settling in a defensible and up-to-date way the precise limits of criminal sanctions in the protection of official information. Such reform will not act directly to increase the flow of authorised information from the
  1266
  Government, though the Government do not dispute what the Franks Committee said in its assessment that the very wide scope of Section 2 has some effect in creating a general aura of secrecy. Getting rid of that general aura is one of the points that weigh with the Government.
  In the wider area of the availability of official information generally—that is, for this purpose, open Government—it would be wrong to see the reform of Section 2 as the only measure that is necessary. Its reform is needed simply for the improvement of the criminal law, but I believe that the replacement of Section 2 by a narrower provision is a necessary preliminary for consideration of how we can learn, from the experience of others, what information should be more freely and more widely available.
  The Government's mind is not, as some commentators have said, hostile to this particular issue. But, because of the experience of other countries with dissimilar constitutional arrangements, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, we need to see exactly how such a Bill, if enacted, would fit into our constitutional pattern. I can imagine nothing more calculated to be destructive of the idea of freedom of information than a Bill culled from other experience which does not mesh in well with our own pattern and which discredits the whole notion of freedom of information generally.
  All that I say tonight, therefore, is that Section 2 must be got right before the wider topic can be sensibly pursued.
  I return to a point that I believe is in danger of being overlooked in these arguments. That is that the Government have not, during their tenure of office, ignored the practicality of the increase in the flow of official information whilst awaiting a reform of Section 2. I believe that the present Government have been very concerned to make progress on this front and to make more information available to the public as to the decisions taken by the Government.
  As was announced in July of last year, the working assumption is now to be that once Ministers have reached their conclusion on a particular major policy study, the associated factual and analytical material will be published, unless Ministers have good reason for deciding otherwise. This initiative, which in the nature

  1267
  of things can only now be starting to bear fruit, is being carried out conscientiously. Two White Papers, the "Report on the Review of Highway Inquiry Procedures" and "Policy for Roads: England 1978", both published in April this year, detail ways in which more information is being given to those who are affected by decisions.
  Surely, even though legislation may in the end be necessary, the aim of Government should be to make available to responsible members of a democracy the reasons for decisions which affect members of the democracy in their everyday lives. This is a way in which we are moving towards making more information available, for example, at a highway inquiry, which will in itself inform members of the public when they make their objections or weigh up why a particular decision has been made.
  Mr. Max Madden: Does my hon. Friend understand that many of us have a very difficult task in trying to reconcile his words with our day-to-day experience of trying to obtain information from the Government? I had experience this week of trying to ascertain from the Department of Energy the terms of appointment on which a chairman of a regional electricity board was appointed. I was told that that was confidential information which I could not receive. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is intolerable from a Government who profess to hold dear to the principle of freedom of information?
  Mr. John: First, I freely say to my hon. Friend that as I am not privy to his correspondence, no doubt because of its confidentiality, I cannot answer for other Departments, and therefore I do not know the particular example to which he is referring.
  The second point that I want to make most clearly is that there will always be a balance. I do not believe that there will ever be a state of society in which people will always be able to get all the information that they want just because they want it. The balance that must be struck is the balance between what is proper to be disclosed and what is not.
  I cannot comment upon a particular example—I think that it is unfair of my hon. Friend to expect me to do so—but if he will let me have details I shall
  1268
  certainly look into the matter and see why it is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy falls below the standard that my hon. Friend expects of him in this regard.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps I may take that matter one stage further and ask my hon. Friend the Minister to answer it as a general question. Surely a Member of Parliament, who represents the taxpayers, who pay the salaries of Ministers and people who are appointed to various boards, is entitled to answers to questions why a particular person is appointed to a job, what his salary is, what his qualifications are, and so on. I ask my hon. Friend to answer not on the particular case but on the general issue. Why should a Member of Parliament be barred from receiving such information?
  Mr. John: I have already said that I cannot possibly answer that question in general terms.
  Mr. Lewis: Why not?
  Mr. John: Because the circumstances vary so very greatly.
  Mr. Lewis: But as a general rule.
  Mr. John: No doubt my hon. Friend will make his own speech, in which he can advance that case further.
  What I am saying is that the present Government, in their own dealings on the question of the way on which they form their policy, have made available information to a far greater extent than was ever done before. This, of course, is highlighted today by the announcement by the Foreign Secretary that for the future he will make available to the Stationery Office and to libraries working papers on which certain foreign policy decisions have been taken. I believe that to be an earnest of intention.
  This morning, however, there was a certain article in The Times. Genius has been described as one-tenth inspiration and nine-tenths perspiration, but I believe that some political articles are nine-tenths inspiration and one-tenth perspiration. The article in The Times of this morning contained the information—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the opportunity of putting it right—that
  "Tory lawyers review official secrets question".

  1269
  This apparently refers to the setting up of a new committee by the Conservative Party to study the subject. I should have thought that that was somewhat unnecessary, in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on behalf of his party, has already given us his views on the Act. The article contains this sentence:
  "Should Mrs. Thatcher become Prime Minister, she will not be bound by Mr. Callaghan's policy of more open government."
  The article goes on to talk about the Allen initiative.
  As a statement of constitutional propriety, that is correct. No Government are bound by their predecessors, of either the same party or another party. But the implication is carried in that sentence, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition will not carry on with the policy which has been started—of releasing official information by Government Departments to the extent that the present Government have done. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take this opportunity of correcting that impression and of saying that any Conservative Government would carry on with the policy, already started, of making official information more widely available.
  Sir M. Havers: First, the Committee which is referred to as being set up has been set up, and it has concluded its deliberations. That was some time ago. Secondly, I should have thought that the answer that the Minister of State needs was quite clear from my speech. I talked about the balance of public interest and I said that it is absolutely essential that only the most important documents, where the interests of the State are concerned, should be preserved as classified documents.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the wages and salaries of chairmen of boards?
  Mr. John: I am glad to have that assurance. I hope, nevertheless, that generally it will become more widely known, because for a correspondent to write in those terms seems to indicate that information should be more freely available to correspondents than, perhaps, to hon. Members.
  1270
  I am here to listen to the views of hon. Members. We shall take into account everything that is said in the debate. But we believe that the first priority—I think that we share this view with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is to get Section 2 right. Therefore, when the White Paper is issued—it will be issued during this Session—we shall put forward detailed proposals which I hope will aid and point the discussions, so that the legislation, when it comes, will be better than, and better able to stand up to the test of time than, the 1911 Act.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: It would be very hard to find today any friends of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, yet nearly six years after the Franks Report and three years after the Government's firm promise of what they described as reasonably early legislation we have still had no legislation and we have still not even had a White Paper. In those circumstances, the criticisms about delay levelled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) seem to me to be very mild compared with what the Government's conduct justifies.
  The consensus that Section 2 should be changed is based upon a view that it is far too wide in its ambit, covering as it does the whole of the operations of government, and far too broad in the unlimited discretion that it confers on officials to decide what to disclose and what disclosures to authorise. So broad a discretion is barely consistent with any proper concept of the rule of law, which is entirely dependent on certainty of application and the most limited nature of any discretion that must exist.
  The damage that a law of this kind creates cannot be gauged by the number of prosecutions that are brought. Therefore, for the Minister to say that only one prosecution was brought, and that one jolly well ought to have been brought on any view, is no defence to the delay in legislating, because the very existence of the law as it stands faces the Press with an ever-present implied threat and helps to perpetuate the all-pervading atmosphere of secrecy that has for far too long pervaded British government.

  1271
  In other words, that section of the Act is simply indefensible, yet it is still there. Why is that? It is still there, inspite of the Government's assurances, because they have not had the courage to fight and overcome the strenuous rearguard action mounted in the more obscurantist corners of Whitehall. That is the real explanation.
  But it is precisely because the present law is indefensible that some people, some people in the Press itself, have argued that it is better to leave it as it is, that it is better to leave on the statute book a law that is unworkable and discredited than to substitute for it a law that is narrower, more rational, and therefore more workable and more usable. I believe that that view, although it is widely held in the Press, is profoundly mistaken. It is intellectually disreputable and politically cowardly. Either there is no need for Section 2 in any shape or form, in which case it should simply be repealed, or there is need for it in some shape or form, in which case Parliament must face the problem and get on with the job of creating a sensible and workable law rather than simply leaving an unworkable one on the statute book.
  To suggest that there should be no Official Secrets Act implies either that we have no secrets of any kind or that there is no role for the criminal law in the protection of such secrets as we have. We may not have many secrets, we may not have as many as we once had, and we may sometimes exaggerate the importance of the secrets that we have, but it would be wrong to suggest that even today there are no matters the disclosure of which would gravely harm the national interest—in relation, for example, to such matters as military installations and delicate diplomatic negotiations.
  It would be equally wrong to say that there was no room for the criminal law in defending secrets of that limited kind. The alternative, which is to rely simply on the disciplinary procedures within the Civil Service, is plainly inadequate, bearing in mind that there will be people who have left the Civil Service or the Armed Forces and against whom disciplinary measures are wholly inapt. In respect of such people, at the very least the criminal law is necessary in the most serious cases.
  1272
  Therefore, I conclude that there is a role for the criminal law, and I think that the House should support the broad approach of the Franks Committee, drastically cutting down the categories in respect of which disclosure is criminal and in most of them granting the protection of the criminal law to such disclosures only where there has been proper classification.
  The Government claimed in their statement of 22nd November 1976 that their provisional proposals were more liberal than those in the Franks Report. The Government certainly have not done anything about those proposals, so such a claim does not attract many accolades from those of us who wish to be liberal in these matters. But I doubt whether that claim is even sustainable.
  Whereas the Minister mentioned two respects in which he reaffirmed Government policy on a more liberal direction than that of the Franks Report, as enunciated in the statement of 22nd November 1976, he did not mention that in that statement, which I take it also still stands, the proposals put forward by the Government, unlike those of the Franks Committee, involved extending the law to security and intelligence matters, whether or not they were classified, and substantially extending the "defence confidential" category of classification.
  This point illustrates the difficulty that we are in. If the Government claim to adopt an approach that is more liberal than that of the Franks Committee, it can be scrutinised only in the context of legislation. It is exactly that kind of opening up or narrowing of the categories that can be scrutinised only in a committee that is legislating. To leave in the air a bald assertion of greater liberalisation, without showing the colour of the legislative money for nearly two years, is wholly unsatisfactory.
  I therefore think that at this stage we should confine ourselves to deciding whether the general Franks approach is the right one, as I have suggested it is, although in one respect I find it impossible to agree with the Franks Committee. That is the matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred—the suggestion that before a prosecution is brought the correct classification of the document should be reviewed by the

  1273
  Minister. I regard that as a totally unacceptable recommendation, because it is no sort of protection against improper classification. It certainly will not be regarded as an adequate protection if the head of the Department responsible for the original classification is the one who looks at the matter again.
  I believe that one of the main reasons why the Franks Report received a comparatively lukewarm Press was dissatisfaction in the media over the idea of the same Government Department being judge and jury in its own cause. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend's suggestion of an independent review body, chaired by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, is greatly to be welcomed.
  There are bound to be suspicions about classification procedures. We should always remember what Chapman Pincher told the Franks Committee:
  "in my experience … 'politically embarrassing' is a higher security classification than 'Top Secret'".
  That seems to me a most apt comment. The protection provided by an independent review body is necessary.
  With that slight addition, I should greatly welcome legislation on the lines of the Franks Report. I believe that it has been unnecessarily and inexcusably delayed.
  Associated with the discussion of the Franks Report there has been the further suggestion that we should have a Freedom of Information Act, on American lines. In principle, how can anyone oppose such a measure? Why should the citizens and the media not have access to what is done in their name by the organs of government? I certainly thought on those lines for a long time and felt that the concept of accountable government—a concept which is infinitely preferable to open government, made such legislation desirable. After looking in more detail at the way in which things worked out in the United States, I now have grave doubts about the desirability of going down that path in this country.
  The original Freedom of Information Act in the United States, passed in 1966, was ineffective. It was only after it was amended, over the presidential veto in 1974, that it acquired teeth and led to floods of requests for information. But
  1274
  that information has not, for the most part, been sought by people seeking to reform government or scrutinise Government operations in a genuine way. For the most part, the Act has not been used by citizens or an inquiring Press; instead, it has become a tool of business and the legal profession, operated for the benefit of clients at public expense. One federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission, has reported that 67·3 per cent. of the requests for information have come from corporations and only 5·3 per cent. from the media.
  A federal Food and Drugs Administration commissioner has said that 90 per cent. of the requests received by his agency were for purposes that amounted to industrial espionage. A whole host of consultants and firms have sprung up offering businesses their services to use the Act for the benefit of commercial gain. It has not been used substantially for the purpose for which it has been introduced. That has been widely recognised in the United States. In addition, and hardly surprisingly, the introduction of this legislation has led to formidable cost and massive extra bureaucracy. The cost of the Act is now running at $22 million a year and is still growing. The average cost of complying with a request is $146·67. The payment averages $5·84. The FBI assigned 400 agents to review 10 million pages of documents to deal with the Act and comply with its requirements.
  To deal with the amended legislation the Food and Drugs Administration increased its staff from seven to 40. Requests are now running at the rate of 12,500 a month, or 150,000 a year. That is a formidable burden of bureaucracy and cost for any nation to undertake, certainly for this country.
  In addition, the effect of all this has been increasingly counter-productive. What has happened is that less information has been put on paper to escape this scrutiny. The Federal Communications Commission simply destroyed a list of 10 million law-breakers rather than have the names disclosed. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures banks, warned lawyers approaching it not to write letters which might be damaging to their clients because they would have to be disclosed. Instead, it told them to talk on the telephone.

  1275
  Unscheduled meetings in corridors have become one of the major growth industries in the United States. What has inevitably happened is that people are driven further down this road. Having had the 1965 Act and the 1974 Act, in 1976 the United States Congress passed the Government in the Sunshine Act, requiring Government agency meetings to be open to the public, with exceptions, requiring minutes to be available, trans-scripts to be taken, and public notice to be given even of meetings which were to be closed to the public. The result of that has been a massive increase in paper work, together with a great delay in the conduct of government, because a meeting cannot be held unless there is time to give the public notice of it, even though the public will not be admitted to that meeting.
  Beyond that the road leads on. There are now before Congress proposals—the Ertel Brademas proposals—for extending public scrutiny to the presidency and Congress. This is a road which, if followed in this country, would have the interesting consequence that the constituency correspondence of every hon. Member would be open to scrutiny by everyone in the country.
  It may be said that the path that I have described is a reductio ad absurdum and that it is not necessary to go all the way down that road. I believe that this is not just a question of the Americans going a bit too far and running away with things; the successive steps have led, logically and inexorably, from one to the other. If a Government were committed to this path and evasive steps were taken it would be necessary to follow the original Act with something like the Government in the Sunshine Act. So it goes on. Once one has started on that path it is not possible to stop short.
  For us, the best protection of the citizen is a free Press and a free Parliament. As it stands, the Official Secrets Act is an obstacle to both and should be repealed. But because Governments are obsessively secretive, let us not be too readily beguiled into seeking a different cure, which may be worse than the present disease.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise on behalf of the hon.
  1276
  Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), who wanted to be here but has taken the chair at a meeting which I was to have chaired. I was interested in the absurd comments of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). If things are as bad as he alleges, I say only two things to him—Watergate and Nixon.
  The Freedom of Information Act was a great help as regards Mr. Nixon and Watergate. I should like to see a similar Act in this country. I welcome the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). I was not too enraptured by the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, I realise that his speech was prepared by civil servants. The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby has pointed out that it is the civil servants who rule, and this is where the objections come from. This is why we have had the delay and lack of progress. The civil servants do not like such proposals. Why is this? It is because the Official Secrets Act covers up their misdemeanours, their mistakes, their errors and sometimes more—their blatant misleading of the House of Commons and hon. Members.
  We had a case recently when a top civil servant admitted that he had misled a Committee of the House. He said that he did not mean it, but he kept the Committee in that state for 18 months. He did not reveal matters until "Your Disobedient Servant", the Chapman report, came out. The Official Secrets Act is a lovely weapon in the hands of these well-paid, well-financed, well-perked top civil servants. Only this week—I think this came from Tribune originally—we discovered that some of these civil servants were to get a 20 per cent. increase in salary. They do not like such information coming out.
  I am certain that if we had had an Official Information Act on the Swedish model—or, indeed, on the American model—we would not have had the Crown Agents fiasco. We would not have had the almost daily but certainly weekly errors and misleading information which we get from the Treasury. We would be able to ascertain whether information was being deliberately fed into the hands of Ministers. Mr. Chapman has said it and it has not been disputed. Some of the civil servants have disputed it, but they

  1277
  have not given chapter and verse in answer to his claims.
  I am concerned that the Minister, sitting on the Front Bench, has admitted that he cannot say why a Member of Parliament should not be told what is the salary of a chairman of a board, why he has been appointed or what are his qualifications. Should not a Member of Parliament have the right to know? Should not the electorate have the right to know? Is not the electorate made up of taxpayers who pay the Minister's salary and who pay the salaries of all these top civil servants? Surely the people are entitled to have this information.
  I wonder whether any employer in private industry would accept the position that his employees were not entitled to have information about their working conditions. But we cannot get information here in the House. We know what happens when we put Questions down. The information is available but, if it is felt to be embarrassing to the Civil Service or to a Department or a Minister, civil servants will find a way of blocking it. They will get in touch with the Table Office and say that they cannot accept the Question for this or that reason. The Table Office will then try to get round it, and perhaps eventually the Question will be put down. The civil servants will then find ways of not answering the Question or of referring to some extraneous matter which has nothing to do with it.
  If we had a Freedom of Information Act, there would, I agree, be some fun and games. There would be many inquiries, and many hon. Members would not have the trouble to go to the Table Office to try to get Questions put down.
  We have now something that is worse than Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We have the development of computers and data banking. Records are being built up on Members of this House and on the electorate throughout the country of which they know nothing. They are not entitled to know whether the information is correct. They are not entitled to amend or alter it. This information is being fed through various Government Departments.
  The Department of Health and Social Security has computerisation in regard to finance, the number of payments, contri-
  1278
  butions and all the rest of it. There is also computerisation of medical records. There is not a Member of this House or a person in the country who is entitled to see his own personal medical record. It is a secret. It is held in confidence and people are not allowed to see their own medical records. They have no right to demand to see them. But I believe that every person is entitled to have information that is in his own personal medical record. Parents are not entitled to know what is on record about their children. They are not entitled to say whether such information is true or false.
  If, as I hope, we have an amendment of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, I feel that we ought to go one step further and ask for a Freedom of Information Act. Then, if all the abuses which have been mentioned were to happen, we could deal with them.
  I remember the time when the National Health Service was introduced. It is now, I believe, celebrating its thirtieth anniversary. At the time when it was being set up, I remember Conservative Members in this House saying that if we had a National Health Service people would go and have their teeth out just because the service was free. Hon. Members may laugh, but that was actually said at the time. It was said that everyone would be asking for spectacles because they were free.
  There may have been a little abuse when the scheme started. There may have been a few people—I was not one of them—who had their teeth out because the Service was free. There may have been some such people, but I do not think that the National Health Service was the reason for their actions. They were probably not normal. There may be abuse on the part of some people, but I am quite sure that, except for those few people, the Service has been used in the way that was intended.
  The point I am making is that we have no rights at all in any of the areas that I have mentioned. We are able to ask a few questions here, but that does not mean that we have them answered satisfactorily. Only today the Prime Minister said "We shall have to see what the trade union conferences want" or words to that effect. That was on the question of wages. I will tell the Prime Minister that the Trades Union Congress, the Labour

  1279
  Party conference and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all asked for the amendment of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act long before devolution, long before any question of prices and incomes arose and long before any wage freeze. What have we got? We have simply another promise that a White Paper will be issued this Session. We have promises, but shall we have action? That is where I have some doubts.
  When he spoke, the Minister said, in effect, that the Government are quite willing to have open government. What that means is that after the Government have met and considered matters they are quite willing to let the public have certain information. We get the information, in other words, after the Minister has made his decision about it. Why cannot he let the public know beforehand? Why cannot he let the public know what information and advice he is getting? Why cannot the public be told what is being discussed?
  Obviously, there are matters involving State secrets and military matters which are in a different category, but why do we have to have secrecy about matters of roads and town and country planning? The first that the public ever hear about a road is when the decision has already been made. People are consulted only after the decision has been made. That is also what happens in this House. Invariably hon. Members are told that the Government, of whatever party political complexion, have decided to do something. We can then either lump it or leave it. We might be able to make some minor amendments, but that is all.
  I want to see a Freedom of Information Act which will enable the ordinary elector to have the opportunity of getting information of a public nature, other than, obviously, State secrets and criminal records. I want ordinary members of the public to have the opportunity of seeing their own personal records and of altering and correcting them. I also want to see the opportunity given to the Government to carry out their promises made at the time of the last two General Elections. I believe that the people have the right to know these things. When they get the right to know, I think we shall find that Parliament and the Civil Service will improve. By jingo, in recent weeks that seems to be necessary.
  1280
  Therefore, do not let us be fobbed off again. Do not let us be fobbed off with a White Paper which promises something after the next General Election. There are some of us who will not—I repeat, will not—support the Government on some of these issues if they again try to fob us off as they have done in the past.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The habit of secrecy in government is deeply ingrained in this country, far too deeply ingrained for the good of the country in the present climate. I should first like to take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) with regard to what he said about the Freedom of Information Act, and its working, in the United States. He presented a viewpoint which has been put across by the bureaucracy in the United States exactly as it was obviously put over to him. He swallowed it hook, line and sinker. He seems to have ignored the fact that the bureaucracy in the United States was totally opposed to a Freedom of Information Act. It opposed it all the way along and it had to be imposed.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Act was passed in 1966, but effectively it did not come into operation until the beginning of 1968 and was completely ineffective until 1974, when it was amended across the veto of the President, President Nixon.
  Mr. Brittan: As it happens, it was President Ford. While I am on my feet, I should point out that I have not spoken to a single member of the American bureaucracy.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. and learned Gentleman presented a picture of the working of the Freedom Information Act which was totally different from one given to me recently by an American general serving in Europe. He hold me that he thought that the Freedom of Information Act had conferred many benefits on American citizens, including the soldiery. It was amended in 1974, because up to that time it virtually was not enforceable. The amendments of 1974 had the effect of allowing the bureaucracy 10 days to respond to any request for information and a further 21

  1281
  days thereafter to supply it. It also provided a right of appeal to the courts in the event of the Department concerned not choosing to supply the information.
  As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, at federal level there are at present an average of 150,000 requests for information. The Administration claim, although this has never been substantiated, that it costs 20 million dollars annually to administer. It is estimated that in the coming year it will cost 22 million dollars. The actual estimate, given when the Bill was passed into American law, was 200 million dollars a year. The acutal cost has been one-tenth of the original estimate.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention the fact that of the 150,000 requests, 44,000 are to the Defence Department, which has the largest number of requests. Many of them are from individual officers and serving soldiers who want to know something about their records. Very often a man's whole career can be blighted by misinformation given in a record. Thirty thousand requests were to the Justice Department of which just over half were to the FBI which is, I understand, the Department which most resents the working of the Freedom of Information Act.
  One thing which must be remembered is the effectiveness of this Act. No one would have known of the organised campaign to discredit the Reverend Martin Luther King if it had not been for the Freedom of Information Act. It was through the workings of that Act that the American people learnt for the first time of the organised campaign to discredit that very fine leader. It is only because of the Freedom of Information Act that people have discovered that the most incredible trivia is included in the records of highly reputable, fine characters in the United States, where from time to time various organisations have sought to discredit them. An example was given to me yesterday of someone's record, which has been disclosed, which stated that he had not paid a five-dollar fine for overstaying his time on a parking lot in a Mid-West town. This was put down on a very important official record which was kept in Washington in order to try to find something to discredit this particular person.
  1282
  I have no doubt whatever that there must be very important shortcomings in the workings of this American Act. It must be very difficult for the bureaucracy to deal with it and with all the growing pains involved in this new process of government. That obviously has to be taken into account. Nevertheless, one should not present the kind of unbalanced view, which the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby did, without giving the credit side and pointing out the effectiveness of this Act in many ways.
  When one compares the cost of the Freedom of Information Act of 20 million dollars a year with, for example, the federal information budget—which gives the kind of information which the Government want fed out, as opposed to information they do not—one can see that it is absolute chicken feed. Although complaints have been made about the Freedom of Information Act and its workings in the United States, both on the grounds of cost and its administrative burden, I do not think that they are large for a democracy. The credit side is very important because the Act is an enormous protection for individuals against the misuse of power and position within a democracy. That is something we should not lightly underestimate.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman also accept the likely contention that 20 million dollars, or whatever the figure may be, may be a rather low figure when compared with the amount of money that can be saved by the early and timely release of such information?
  Mr. Hooson: I entirely take that point. I merely wanted to correct what I thought was a rather unbalanced view given by the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby.
  I come to the main subject of our debate. We are dealing with a matter which amounts to an appalling failure of the present Government to fulfil their manifesto pledge. According to a statement in the New Statesman on 18th April that pledge was:
  "to repeal the Official Secrets Act and pass 'a measure to put a burden on the public authorities to justify withholding information'."

  1283
  I do not suppose that there are many votes in matters which concern the freedom of the individual and individual rights in this country. So often these kinds of issue are lost in the general campaign during a General Election. Nevertheless, this failure is a very important failure of this Government.
  The pledge in the Queen's Speech last October was a much narrower one, namely, to repeal the provisions of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Even that has not been done. There has been a weekly expectation of a White Paper, certainly since the turn of the year, and a weekly disappointment that it has not appeared. I can only conclude that no one in the Cabinet is really committed to the idea of either the repeal of the Official Secrets Act or to the provision of a Freedom of Information Act.
  On behalf of my party, I had talks with the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the law officers in the autumn of last year, when it appeared to me that there was then enthusiasm for these proposals. There were detailed discussions about the matter. I certainly submitted our written submissions for reform in December of last year. Since then there is no doubt whatever that the Cabinet, and individual members of it, have been under great pressure from the Civil Service which values too greatly secrecy in Government. No doubt the Cabinet has also had the advice of the over-cautious. The truth is that it is very easy to do what the Minister did today and detail the difficulties of, for example, providing a freedom of information Act or detailing the difficulties of repealing Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We can detail the difficulties for as long as we like, but there will be no reform of this legislation until someone takes hold of it by the scruff of the neck and determines that there shall be reform.
  Mr. Aitken: Another Lib-Lab pact.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) knows that if his party had been in power there would have been no chance of a Freedom of Information Act. Certainly there is far more support for it on the Government Benches than there is among members of his own party.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) detailed
  1284
  the history of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the way that it went through this House. It took about half an hour to complete all its stages. There was virtually no Second Reading debate. It was a Back-Bencher who raised the issue.
  The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in late July 1911 by Viscount Haldane, and there was a debate occupying five and a half columns in Hansard. There were four speakers. The legislation that it was repealing—the 1899 Official Secrets Act—had itself been introduced by a private Member into this House, no doubt with the support of the then Government, but there was little debate even on that. Therefore, throughout parliamentary history there has been very little debate of the provisions of any official secrets legislation.
  During the 1911 debate in the House of Commons, Colonel Seely said:
  "It is undoubtedly in the public interest that this Bill should be passed, and passed at once. It is highly undesirable, no doubt, that any Bill should go through its stages so rapidly as this has done, and it certainly cannot be taken as a precedent. If my hon. Friends will read the Bill they will see that though the actual change in the law is slight … it is perfectly true to say that none of His Majesty's loyal subjects run the least risk whatever of having their liberties infringed in any degree or particular whatever."—[Official Report, 18th August 1911; Vol. XXIX, c. 2257.]
  Mr. Grieve: This really was a manifestation of the fact that at that stage of our history the role and area of government was extremely small and was largely concerned with public order within the realm and with maintaining the defence of the country. That was why we had an Official Secrets Act in the terms that we did. Today we have government encompassing the whole area of national life. Is not that the case?
  Mr. Hooson: I cannot altogether agree with the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). He takes far too simplistic a view of this matter. But he is right that the area of government is very much greater today than it was then, and it is time that we looked at these matters afresh. Here we are, 67 years on, with the same Act and obviously even deeper misgivings about it.
  Mr. Justice Caulfield, in the case which concerned the hon. Member for

  1285
  Thanet, East, suggested that the Act should be "pensioned off". The Franks Report referred to Section 2 as "a mess". Here we are with still nothing done about it.
  There is obviously too much secrecy. As Professor Wade said,
  "It has become one of the great vested interests of Government. It is a classic example of bad law creating bad practice."
  The Act itself is too obscure and uncertain. There is no doubt that it is open to misuse. No one so far has mentioned Section 1 of the Act, but I happen to believe that that should be repealed as well and replaced by a Security of the Realm Act or by an Espionage Act dealing only with espionage.
  It is very interesting that in the 1911 debates, so far as they went, everyone assumed that the Act was concerned only with espionage. Hon. Members referred constantly to spying and the results of spying. That was the only topic to which they directed their minds. But Section 1 itself could be replaced and, if we removed all provisions concerned with national security into one Act, it would be much easier to deal with all the other matters in a separate Act.
  There are grounds for thinking that it is the integrity of the Law Officers which is our protection. I am not in any way underestimating the protection that is provided by the necessity for having the permission of a Law Officer before a prosecution is launched. But it is only the integrity of our Law Officers which prevents possible misuse of the Act under either Section 1 or 2.
  Mr. Christopher Price: In the 1899 Act, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, the Attorney-General's fiat was necessary for both arrest and charge. One of the changes that slipped through in 1911 was that the Attorney-General's fiat became necessary only for the charge. That has proved to be very significant in a recent case.
  Mr. HoosonObviously there was a very good reason for that change. If one is dealing with spies and has to go to the Attorney-General to get power of arrest, the spy can leave the country before being arrested. That was the reason for that change. Although it may
  1286
  have resulted in injustice in a recent case, there was an obvious reason for it.
  I come now to the Franks approach. I think that we should go considerably further than Franks. What the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby was prepared to do to reform the law did not match his sentiments. I agree entirely with his sentiments on the need for more accountable government, as opposed to more open government. However, he is not prepared to do much about it. He suggests that if we implement Franks and change in some way the review of classification, not leaving it entirely to the heads of Departments in the Civil Service, that is enough. I do not think that it is.
  I do not agree that the supervision of classification or any appeal on a classification should be referred to a Committee composed of a Law Lord presiding and two members of the Privy Council, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon. I would prefer to see a Select Committee of this House able to consider classification, with a permanent Committee sitting here. There are always sniggers from the Conservative Benches whenever it is suggested that a Select Committee of hon. Members should have any responsibility in such matters as this. We are elected Members representing the people, and I think that it should be a Select Committee which looks into these matters. The assumption that Select Committees are irresponsible does not accord with my experience of them, and I have served on a few in my days in the House.
  Mr. Aitken: It is often alleged, perhaps unfairly, that decisions made on official secrets prosecutions over the years have been influenced by political considerations. Although the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) paid tribute to the integrity of the Law Officers, that integrity, rightly or wrongly, has been challenged and argued over, and almost every Attorney-General who has been placed in the difficult position of deciding on a prosecution has been criticised because his actions have been thought by someone or other to have been taken on political grounds. One state of affairs that would guarantee that criticism being made even more strongly would be if there were a group

  1287
  of politicians in this House either taking decisions on whom or whom not to prosecute or on what the classification rules should be. I cannot think of a worse solution.
  Mr. Hooson: They would not take any decision on the question who was or was not to be prosecuted, but they would be entitled to look at the rules of classification and to review them. Then there could be an appeal, on the ground that the rules whereby the classification was originally made had not been properly interpreted. Then it would be for the judge to decide. But there should be a review of the rules of classification, and that should be left to a Select Committee.
  Mr. Brittan: That is what my right hon. and learned Friend proposed.
  Mr. Hooson: That was not my understanding of what he said. My understanding was that he suggested that in a specific case if a man is to be prosecuted there should be the right of appeal, on that specific point of classification, to a committee of Privy Councillors, chaired by a Law Lord. That is a different matter from having a Select Committee looking continually at the rules of classification as interpreted by different Departments.
  The important thing is the question of classification. I do not disagree with the suggestion that there should be very limited areas where classification is necessary. Clearly there should be classification in matters of defence and internal security, international relations, and law and order—particularly those matters covering criminal investigation and the security of prisons. There should be classification on intelligence and security, although proposals to protect all information in this area, whether classified or not, seem to be rather extreme. There should be classification of Cabinet documents only so far as they relate to the categories that I have mentioned. Also, very importantly, the confidences of the citizen should be protected, and these could be subject to internal sanctions of Government Departments or criminal sanctions.
  Rather than have the elaborate system of Franks classification, three main classes in this area would suffice. First, there is information that should be exempted from access, the unauthorised disclosure
  1288
  of which would attract criminal penalties. Secondly, there should be information to which there is no right of access, but which does not attract criminal sanctions for unauthorised disclosure, although obviously there would be internal disciplinary sanctions. Thirdly, there should be all other information to which there is a right of access.
  The most disappointing aspect of this matter has been that the Government themselves, although they had draft papers on this matter circulating in their Departments in January this year, at no time have published a paper that we could consider and discuss. They have not put forward their own statutory proposals. This amounts to a very great failure.
  In July 1977 the Head of the Civil Service sent a memorandum to all his heads of Department. That memorandum was entitled "Disclosure of Official Information". It said:
  "During the debate on the Address on 24th November last"
  —it is interesting to note that it has taken about nine months to gestate—
  "the Prime Minister announced that it would be the Government's policy in future to publish as much as possible of the factual and analytical material used as the background to major policy studies."
  It went on in the second paragraph to say:
  "The change may seem simply to be one of degree and timing. But it is intended to mark a real change of policy, even if the initial step is modest."
  Presumably that is what the Minister of State was referring to in his speech. In paragraph 8 of this letter the Head of Civil Service went on to say:
  "There are many who would have wanted the Government to go much further (on the lines of the formidably burdensome Freedom of Information Act in the USA). Our prospects of being able to avoid such an expensive development here could well depend on whether we can show that the Prime Minister's statement had reality and results."
  From the letter one can see immediately the attitude of our Civil Service. It is exactly the same as that of the bureaucracy in the United States. Yet whatever it does it wants to avoid having a similar Act here. That is why the Head of the Civil Service is encouraging his heads of Departments to comply with the Prime Minister's dictum.

  1289
  There has been very little to show that the Departments have complied. One can give the odd example here and there, but as far as the public are concerned there is very little difference between the practice of this Government and that of any Government preceding them. On the whole, the Government's record in this very important field of official secrets and freedom of information is deplorable, in view of their manifesto commitment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It will be no breach of the Officials Secrets Act if I mention that the winding-up speeches must begin at 9.35 p.m. Therefore, if the six or seven hon. Members who still wish to participate in the debate will limit their speeches to 10 minutes, they will be accommodated.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made a good speech, certainly as to the first part, but perhaps he went on a little too long in his last comments. In general, he made his case extremely well. I do not want to become bogged down in any proposals, but I wish to say what I believe should be done in future.
  The promise in the Labour Party manifesto was as follows:
  "To replace the Official Secrets Act by a measure to put the burden on public authorities to justify wihholding information."
  That went much further than saying that we need to change Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. It was a promise for positive enlarging legislation.
  I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), and I agreed completely with the criticisms made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I do not believe that we have to follow slavishly the freedom of information legislation in the United States of America, nor do we have to follow exactly similar legislation produced in the Scandinavian countries. In my view, we should seek to lay down freedom of information legislation whose provisions are particular to this country. I believe that we should seek to enact such legislation in the interests of open, democratic government.
  1290
  The Opposition constantly suggest that Labour Members want this country to be run on the lines of an East European authoritarian State. I remind the Opposition that there is no committee of the Soviet Communist Party which has sat down to work out a freedom of information Act in the Soviet Union—and that will not happen.
  The fact is that a committee of the Labour Party is on the point of publishing a freedom of information Bill—legislation on which we have worked at considerable length and which in our view is applicable to British conditions. That is a clear indication that, so far as is humanly possible within certain limits, we want the most open government that we can get. One recognises that there are limits because, for example, one cannot allow total freedom of information on defence, security or foreign diplomatic relations. However, no doubt we could go much further on the subject of foreign diplomatic relations than we do now. There used to be an old radical school which argued for what it called open diplomacy. Certainly we could have more open diplomacy, but there are limits.
  There are also limits on the dissemination of commercial secrets, as I know from my personal experience in the Department of Industry. Obviously one learns a great deal about various commercial interests. It would be wrong for there to be disclosure when competition is involved, as it sometimes is, between, say, private enterprise and public authorities. One cannot disclose every piece of information. However, we can go a long way in the direction of disclosure—certainly much further than we have gone up to now.
  I believe that not only should we be concerned with Section 2 of the Act but that we should also give close examination to the effects of Section 1.
  I shall not make a long speech, because I merely wish to put on record the fact that the members of the national executive of the Labour Party hope that when the Government's White Paper is published—it is long overdue, and we wish that it could have been published earlier—it will provide not only for changes in the Official Secrets Act but for the enactment of some type of freedom of information legislation. I emphasise that

  1291
  recently we have been working very hard to produce a Bill on this subject. We cannot say that there is not one available, because we are going to have one available. We should like to have seen that done.
  When the White Paper is produced we want to see the pledge carried out in the Queen's Speech, which was much more restrictive than the pledge in the manifesto. Section 2 must be dealt with We also want a clear understanding in the White Paper of the type of future legislation that is being produced by the Government, which in our view should be along the lines of a freedom of information Act. That is vital in the interests of good government.
  I finish by quoting what James Madison, a famous American, said as far back as 1822:
  "A popular government without popular Information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will for ever govern ignorance and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the powers which knowledge gives them."
  If we are to have good democratic, open government in this country—we have good government compared with other countries, hut it needs to be better—involving all the people, we must have the legislation that we think is vital and that the Labour Party is pledged to introduce. I admit that we are late in introducing such legislation, but the party is pledged to it and we want the Government to act along these lines.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: If I were Lord Franks and the Government asked me to chair a committee of any kind, I would tell them in fairly offensive language to go and look elsewhere. What is Lord Franks's history? In 1971 he chaired with distinction the important committee to review Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. He reported in September 1972. In 1973 the then Conservative Government in principle accepted what he said. The Labour Government, on coming to office shortly afterwards, in principle accepted what he said. Yet here we are in 1978 and nothing has happened.
  The year before last, Lord Franks generously gave up his time to chair a committee, of which I happened to be a
  1292
  member, dealing with a case for of against a register of dependants of immigrants. Lord Franks was told by the then Home Secretary that the purpose of the report, which we were asked to produce with great urgency, was the continuation of debate. We produced the report. We were asked to produce it by October. We got the report to the Ministers by the beginning of November. The report was published in February 1977. Here we are in June 1978, nearly 18 months later, and the Government still have not found time to debate the report of Lord Franks. I therefore have some sympathy with Lord Franks.
  I say to the Minister—I do not say that his Government are guilty rather than any other Government—that it is not good enough for us to set up committees under distinguished chairmen, with distinguished members, as were on the original Franks Committee, ask them to do an immense amount of work and then not even debate their reports or not implement them when we say that we agree with them.
  Mr. John: Of course I understand that, but is not a further cause of disappointment to Lord Franks the fact that, notwithstanding the rejection of a register of dependants by his committee, the Conservative Party still advocates it as though Lord Franks and his committee had never existed?
  Mr. Carlisle: That intervention saddens me even more because it means that the Minister of State has not even read the Franks Report on a register of dependants, because at no stage did we reject the proposal. We said that the acceptance or rejection of a register was a matter for Parliament to decide after debate. We merely set out the facts on which the decision should be assessed. If the Minister has any doubt about that, he should ask his hon. Friend who was a member of the committee.
  The real objection to Section 2 is that it is far too wide and too much of a "catch-all" provision. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) that obviously there must be some secrets that a society and a Government are entitled to retain. There must be matters of defence, internal security and those involving diplomatic relations with other

  1293
  countries on which a Government are entitled to say that it is essential that certain information should remain secret and that they should have the sanction of the criminal law to back that up.
  Equally, and just as important, there is much information that comes to a Government relating to matters concerning a private individual. Often he is required to provide that information by statute, whether it concerns matters to do with his health, his financial position or whatever. He gives that information on the understanding that it will remain confidential, and it is not sufficient to say that the internal disciplinary methods of the Civil Service can ensure that confidentiality. The individual citizen is entitled to feel that the confidentiality of which he has been assured is backed by the sanction of the criminal law.
  On the other hand, there is the equally important principle that the citizen should have the right to know as much as possible. One of the problems of democracy is striking the right balance, and the main criticism of Section 2 has always been that it has not got the balance right and that in the complicated sort of government that we have today it goes too far to discourage the communication of information and further than is necessary to protect the interests that should be protected by the criminal law.
  The Minister said that, in practice, prosecutions that are brought under the Act are justified. I agree, but that misses part of the point. The question is how much information is being withheld from publication which we cannot justify being withheld.
  Another criticism concerns the lack of clarity in the law. Newspapers and the media are entitled to know in advance what they may print. It is not sufficient for them to have to rely on the good sense of the Attorney-General not to bring proceedings on matters that they believe it is in the interest of the public to know, but which, tecnhically, still come within the scope of the Official Secrets Act.
  There is a body of opinion expressing concern that, since much private information is going on to computer, there is a danger that the confidentiality that has existed in the past is becoming less clear.
  The Minister said that only one charge had been brought in recent years, but he
  1294
  will realise that that is not necessarily a case for the Act or even for its emplementation. It is possible to reach a situation in which a law gets into such disrepute that it is difficult to implement. Once it has been said, as Mr. Justice Caulfield said at the end of a trial which received considerable publicity, that a law should be pensioned off, it is difficult for the Attorney-General to activate it on other occasions if he feels that he wishes to do so. Therefore, there is a case for action of a legislative nature to be taken.
  I think that the Franks Committee got it about right on the basis of information that requires to be classified. I believe that it got it about right as regards the type of activities that should be covered by the various sections of the Act.
  I am somewhat doubtful about the recommendation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) with regard to the Law Lord and two members of the Privy Council. I can understand the objection of the Minister in his own Department, but I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend has it right.
  I am glad to hear that at long last a White Paper is coming. I take it from the Minister's commitment that he means that it will appear before the end of July. I hope that we shall see a Bill in the near future dealing with this whole area, at least as a basis on which Parliament can further debate what should be the right limitation of the criminal law in the dissemination of information.
  8.52 p.m.
  Miss Jo Richardson: It is not often that I have the occasion to be thankful to the Opposition for introducing a debate, but I have a feeling that if they had not chosen to use part of one of their Supply Days to debate the Official Secrets Act we might never have had the opportunity to debate it and all the surrounding problems that have arisen from it.
  Not one hon. Member has been able to congratulate the Government on their speed in introducing the commitment contained in the Labour Party manifesto. There is concern in the House, and it is true that there is growing concern among the general public, about the operation of the Act. There is concern about the general problems of secrecy and the sort

  1295
  of veil of secrecy that surrounds more or less everything that the Government do. I am talking not about the Labour Government in isolation but about Governments as a whole. I am talking about successive Governments. It is something that has existed during not only the period of the Labour Government but for ever in the history of Great Britain. It is about time that we put a stop to it and moved towards that in which we really believe and that which people want—namely, much more open government.
  More and more people now seem to be running the risk of being caught under the Act. That is because as the sections are worded they can catch anyone receiving or discovering any piece of Civil Service information. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was able to place on the record the Labour Party's commitment in its manifesto not to amend the Act but to replace it. That is the most important part of the commitment. There is the commitment to replace it with some form of freedom of information legislation. As my hon. Friend said, the burden will be put on public authorities to justify withholding information.
  There is a firm commitment in the manifesto. There is no firmer commitment to be found in it. However, we have had nothing so far. Give or take an autumn or a spring, we are within sight of a General Election. We are now promised—we have been promised for some time—that we are in sight of a White Paper.
  What has been happening all this time? We have heard from the Minister of State—we are grateful for his explanation—that there have been difficulties. We have been told that much information has to be gathered together and that it has not been possible, for that and other reasons, to produce a White Paper earlier. However, we are now in mid-June and we shall go into recess towards the end of July. We may or may not have a General Election in October. We may not have the General Election until next spring. Either way, there is not a hope in hell of getting any legislation on to the statute book between now and a General Election.
  What is more, I am worried whether we should have a White Paper at all. If the
  1296
  White Paper contains only a promise to reform Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and a reference only to a Freedom of Information Act, the Government can keep it. They should think again and produce something more in line with the Labour Party manifesto commitment.
  Several hon. Members have referred to commitments made by the Government about their plans for introducing some kind of reform of the Official Secrets Act. I remind the Minister of State that in November 1976 the Home Secretary, outlining his plans for the reform of Section 2, said that
  "the mere receipt of official information should no longer be an offence."
  My right hon. Friend also said that the Attorney-General should
  "take into account the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines I have indicated in considering whether to bring proceedings under Section 2."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1976; Vol 919, c. 1882–3.]
  What has stopped the Government from doing something? That was over 18 months ago. Since then we have had nothing but promises, promises. They go on giving promises, but nothing happens.
  We all believe—I am sure the Government will deny this—that the Civil Service is stopping anything from being done. I think that there are forces within the Civil Service, the police and perhaps across the generality of the "establishment" which do not want any change in the law and that those forces are stopping us. I think that a Labour Government, above all, should have the clout to break through and produce something more in line with what the general public need.
  We have heard what other countries are doing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that there is no necessity for us to base our Freedom of Information Act, which I hope we shall eventually get, on anyone else's pattern. But we can learn many lessons from the experience of the United States, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. They are to be admired for having pioneered a better form of open government than other countries have experienced.
  For example, the United States—I believe that this is also true of Sweden—has shown what the law has cost because some people have made use of it for their own ends. It has changed the

  1297
  relationship between the Government and the community That is why we are having this debate. We want a changing and closer relationship between the Government and the community.
  We do not have any right of access to information in this Parliament. I was interested to read the long and valuable list of Questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the even more valuable list of answers which appeared in Hansard. My hon. Friend asked each Government Department in turn what Questions could be asked and what Questions would be answered, and he got some dusty replies. I think that the list should be pinned up in the Table Office so that we know exactly where we stand whenever we try to get information on behalf of our constituents.
  The other side of the freedom of information coin is privacy. I am not certain that we can deal with freedom of information and privacy in one Bill, but the two must be taken concurrently. It is crucial that we should have a law to control personal records. Individuals must have the right to see, check and challenge their own files.
  Mr. John Lee: And those of their children.
  Miss Richardson: I shall come to that in a moment. More and more individuals are becoming worried about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) made a telling reference to it. Much research has been done. Until recently, I did not realise that the files which begin with our school records can follow us for a considerable period of time after we leave school. I was horrified to find that that is so.
  Unsigned comments of teachers can follow pupils beyond school and through university to their subsequent jobs. Comments such as "This lad is aggressive" can follow a boy after he leaves school. There is no signature—just that phrase. When that boy becomes of employment age, his employer can see that comment and say "I do not want this boy because he is aggressive". All sorts of off-the-top-of-the-head comments are made and it can be dangerous.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is often pressure on teachers to put some entry on to the record card? There is much pressure on the teacher who is filling in the form to look round for something to say about a child, because there is disapproval if the form is left blank. Exaggerations can be forced on the teacher who feels that he must say something.
  Miss Richardson: I agree. That is a valuable point which I had not thought about. I can see that a headmistress or headmaster might take a teacher to task for returning a blank report on a child simply because he or she had no particular comment to make. Parents should be able to go to the school, demand the right to see their child's file and challenge what has been said.
  There are also medical records and Department of Health and Social Security records which have been shown to contain detrimental comments. I read of a case where a single mother on social security happened to see her DHSS file. I do not know how she managed that, but I bet she is glad that she did. It said that she was neurotic and that she needed father figures. It also criticised her political views. I dispute the right of a DHSS official to make such comments on the record. But at least such a woman should have the opportunity to see her file, to challenge it and to have anything which is incorrect put right.
  There has been discussion about a data protection authority. We are eventually to have an authority to supervise computerised information, from wherever it comes. When will this authority be introduced? At the same time as responding to this debate in its demand for a revision of the Official Secrets Act, the Government should make an urgent move forward so that people are protected by a data protection authority.
  These are all matters that the Government ought to have brought forward a couple of years ago. We ought now to have been able to debate the results of a Freedom of Information Act and decide whether it had been working successfully. I am sorry that it is a Labour Government who have delayed and dragged their feet on this issue for so long.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) spent much of her speech criticising the Government for their delay in implementing any meaningful reform of the Official Secrets Act, and I share her impatience. The Government's attitude towards implementing such a reform reminds me of the old Punch cartoon which depicted an elderly gentleman sitting in a rocking chair being asked by a social worker what he did all day. The old gentleman's reply was "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and at other times I just sits." The fact is that the Government have been sitting on reform of the Official Secrets Act in spite of the mass of pledges for urgent action. They have been sitting on the Franks Report for almost five years. Also gathering dust in the Lord Chancellor's office is the Franks Report on defamation, the Younger Report on privacy and the Phillimore Report on contempt.
  All these important law reforms, impinging as they do on the freedom of the Press, need implementing in order to clarify the very real difficulties under which Press and television work today. I agree with the much-quoted comment by the distinguished editor of The Sunday Times, Mr. Harold Evans, that in Britain today we have a half-free Press and that it will remain half-free until the Government do something to speed up these various reforms, and the one it could best start with is the one that we are discussing tonight.
  It is salutary to recall—it is a matter of shame to several generations of parliamentarians—that in this brief half-day debate we are spending five times as long as the 36 minutes that was devoted to the debate which the House of Commons conducted in passing all stages of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which is still the basic legislation governing this matter today. As a result of that unseemly and unnecessary haste it is small wonder that we still have a badly drafted and unsatisfactory piece of legislation.
  The defects of that Act are far too well known to need lengthy exposition. Suffice it to say that the catch-all nature of Section 2 is so vague and broad that it fails to draw a clear distinction between espionage and leakage and between those disclosures which compromise national
  1300
  security and those which merely embarrass the Government of the day. The Act has been made obsolete by a change in national status and, above all, by the enlargement of the activities of government.
  So we face a situation in which the same legal teeth that in 1911 were sharpened to prevent information on the movements of the Royal Navy's battleships from falling into the hands of enemy agents are today being used merely to prevent embarrassing gossip about maladministration of the welfare services from falling into the hands of national newspapers. This trend has brought about a situation worthy of Parkinson's Law, whereby the pressures towards tighter official secrecy seem to be growing in inverse proportion to the diminishing number of secrets worth guarding.
  An example of this that might amuse the House occurred when the student daughter of the well known television interviewer Ludovic Kennedy recently sought a vacation job as a temporary gardener at Hampton Court Palace. Before she was allowed to embark upon the momentously secret task of planting crocuses the Department of the Environment solemnly required her to sign a form reminding her of her obligations under the Official Secrets Act.
  But that example is perhaps not quite so absurd and isolated as one might think Here I take up a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who stressed the fact that the lack of prosecutions was no guide to the effect of the Official Secrets Act still being on the statute book. The form that Miss Kennedy signed is Form E74, which has printed on it the whole of Section 2 and a reminder of the obligation to obey it. That is the form that every new recruit to the Civil Service is still made to sign. It is the form which only last year even the elected members of the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland were made to sign, before they could begin their top secret duties of allocating council houses.
  It is this form which, even though criticised by the Franks Committee for its erroneous and misleading wording, still hangs like the sword of Damocles over the head of every minor bureaucrat in Britain and which, by an implied

  1301
  threat of prosecution—which, incidentally, is no longer valid, given the disuse of Section 2—nevertheless has the significant effect of blocking the free flow of information.
  If the Government want to display their good faith in reducing the pressures of official secrecy and moving towards more open government, I suggest that they look at paragraphs 26 and 27 of volume 1 of the Franks Report and immediately discontinue issuing Form E74. It is a simple administrative change. It could be implemented long before any legislation is brought in. I suggest that the Minister should do this forthwith.
  In what other directions should we reform the Act? On this subject, everyone is an instant expert. There are many siren voices making suggestions, sometimes very radical suggestions. I agree entirely with the distinguished speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) in opening the debate. The real problem is to strike a balance between the Government's right to preserve confidentiality and, sometimes, absolute secrecy, on the one hand, and the public's right to know, on the other hand.
  How do we do this? Again, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. There can be no real argument about national security secrets. Espionage, anything that jeopardises the defence of the realm, or the security of the State, is in this category and is probably covered already by Section 1 of the Act—and, incidentally, by the D notice voluntary system, which, on the whole, works very well because media editors, who are sensible and patriotic men, realise that foolish risks need not be taken by disclosures in these areas.
  But do we need anything in place of Section 2? If one simply had a one-clause Bill abolishing Section 2 and putting nothing whatever in its place, what would happen? Would Government secrets pour into the columns of the Press like the waters of Niagara? I doubt it. Internal disciplinary codes are already very strong and the Government already know well how to maintain their own confidentiality.
  Miss Richardson: Does the hon. Member agree that Section 1 overlaps
  1302
  Section 2, and that simply to take out Section 2 might not do the job?
  Mr. Aitken: As the New Law Journal said in a different context, the Official Secrets Act is as long as the Attorney-General's foot. The discretion to prosecute is so large that of course there is an overlapping area. But I believe that in the past, on the whole—I do not wish to comment on any current cases—the discretion to prosecute has always been well exercised, and only national security and espionage matters have been—previously, at least—covered by Section 1.
  Miss Richardson: Previously.
  Mr. Aitken: But if real fears exist—and they may exist in the areas of budgetary secrecy or exchange rate matters, from which individual civil servants could make commercial gains by disclosures—an Official Information Act of the kind that has been suggested, or a Civil Service Information Act, could lay down certain penalties for Government servants who break the confidentiality rules.
  Any such Act should have a positive declaratory section reminding civil servants that it is their duty to communicate as much information as possible to the public, as wel las imposing certain negative penalties in respect of breaches to which I have referred.
  I do not in any way go along with the Scientologists, the national executive committee of the Labour Party, the public secrets group of the Outer Circle Policy Unit, and other assorted cranks and crackpots who appear to want total disclosure and an automatic right of access to all Government information. I support wholeheartedly the criticisms of the Freedom of Information Act as it is working in America, made so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby. Such an Act would tilt the balance too far. The authority of government cannot be maintained in a goldfish bowl, where everything is on display or about to be displayed. A balance must be struck, and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend got it right in his excellent speech today.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I shall try to heed your warning,

  1303
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the debate.
  I am very glad that the Hansard of 1911 for the day when the Official Secrets Bill went through the House has at last achieved some notoriety. I put in a submission to the Committee of Privileges, and having Xeroxed the relevant copy I sent it in. I am sure that the fact that it has been widely quoted today has nothing to do with that and that all hon. Members have done their individual research.
  For those who assume that our laws have been fully considered by Parliament before being put on to the statute book, I think that the Official Report of that debate is an object lesson of how not to put through legislation. When the 1911 Bill went through Parliament, assurances were given by the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War that it would be used only against what I would call bona fide spies. It is now being used against a much wider range of people.
  I think that Parliament's intentions are in danger of being frustrated. That is why I am glad that there is such a wide discussion on the whole issue. We cannot discuss the two sub judice cases, but I can mention the Hosenball deportation because that is over. It is instructive to remember that Mark Hosenball, who was expelled from this country as being a danger to the State, is now an accredited White House journalist and was attending our Prime Minister's Press conference in Washington a week or so ago.
  The standards that the United States takes for granted as a result of the Freedom of Information Act are not yet accepted in this country, because we have a tradition of secrecy that runs far deeper than in any other country among the EEC Nine that I have come across and far deeper than in the United States, particularly since Watergate.
  I suspect that the problem with the Official Secrets Act is that when the Bill went through Parliament in 1911 it was absolutely accepted who was a spy and who was not. A spy was a man with a sketch pad sitting in Portsmouth, sketching the batteries facing out to sea. If one saw someone doing that, even though he said he was there to listen to
  1304
  the birds—as Viscount Haldane mentioned in one case—he was a spy.
  In the past 10 years there has been a persistent campaign by certain senior Ministry of Defence people, by certain generals, saying that the enemy is not without but is within, and that the security we need is not so much against Russian or Chinese spies as against people whose loyalty to this country is in question for political reasons. The moment that argument is accepted—that ordinary British citizens might be proceeded against for their political opinions under the Official Secrets Act, because they are somehow analogous to German spies in 1911—we are in extreme danger.
  That is why I very much hope that when we get down to reform we shall not only reform Section 2 on the lines Lord Franks recommended but go much further. We are in a new situation. If any Government, whichever party happened to be in power at the time, attempted simply to reform Section 2 and do absolutely nothing about the spill-over of Section 1 and absolutely nothing about moving towards some sort of Freedom of Information Act, some of us might say "We shall block any reform of Section 2 until we get a much wider and much more comprehensive reform."
  I was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), for whom as a lawyer I have a great regard, lambasting the United States Freedom of Information Act as he did. Any new Act has teething troubles, but anyone from the United States whom I asked says that on balance, although there are teething troubles, its effects—particularly about the information which now never needs to be asked for, and which comes forward automatically—are wholly good. I was sorry to hear the hon. and learned Member, say "Let us reform Section 2 but let us not bother with a Freedom of Information Act." He is probably wanting to appear rather more of a judicial good boy, feeling that a place in the Government may be coming his way one day.
  I very much hope that Tory Members who have campaigned in the way that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby and the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) have done do

  1305
  not go all soft and weak at the vague prospect of a little more responsibility in future. This is an all-party matter and it will need a united front to crack the civil servants, who in my view have not given up and will continue to try to prevent any reform in future, even of Section 2 of the Act.
  I give notice that there will be many of my hon. Friends, and, I hope, Tory Members, who will not be satisfied with mere Franks Section 2 reform and who, when whatever Government may be in power came to legislate on the matter, will want to go a good deal further.
  Because of the plea for brevity, I end with a short moral tale about how matters have not changed. We have heard the story of the crocuses in Hampton Court. Some people may have seen the story in The Guardian diary today about Peter Laurie's book entitled "Beneath the City Streets". Mr. Laurie is a distinguished Sunday Times journalist who wrote this book in 1968. He submitted it to the then Home Secretary, the present Prime Minister. The then Home Secretary gave it the OK. It went through and was published.
  Mr. Laurie now wants to republish the book, with a little extra information in it. He is a law-abiding citizen, and so he resubmitted his book to the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Defence saying "Would you like to comment on this before it is published?" He finds that the Attorney-General, the Ministry of Defence and the security authorities have objections. Being an excellent, law-abiding citizen, he asked "What are these objections, because I am happy to cut out anything to which you object?" They have written back saying "That is something we cannot possibly tell you. To tell you what we object to would be revealing an official secret."
  Mr. John: I hope that that part of the diary item is more accurate than the first paragraph, where it is said that Members of Parliament
  "debated the Official Secrets Act yesterday."
  Mr. Price: I have done a little work to check this story and I can assure my hon. Friend that to the best of my belief it is absolutely accurate in the particulars I have mentioned. If the Government
  1306
  behave in that way, they cannot object if an author who wants to write a book about things which may be on the borderline does as most American authors do—namely, take the book to a publisher without asking any questions and allow publication to go ahead, so that it is too late for the Government to do anything about it.
  I do not make a great point about this. It is a moral tale, like the Hampton Court tale. People do not change, and there are those in the government—I do not blame Ministers, because some are anxious for reform, but there are civil servants—who have not realised that we are post-Watergate. We are in a quite different situation regarding freedom of information as compared with 10 years ago. Something has to happen now. I have been encouraged by the speeches from both sides of the House to feel that, whatever happens at the General Election, there is a three-party consensus which will ensure that we not only reform Section 2 but, I hope, go a good way beyond that.
  9.25 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, there has been a remarkable consensus, although perhaps not remarkable in the sense that one says "remarkable" when something is extraordinary. It is, I venture to suggest, right and proper that there should be such a consensus, and there has been a remarkable consensus across both sides of the House and across all the parties that have participated in the debate tonight, with regard to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
  It has been universally agreed in parliamentary circles for a long time now, for far too long, that Section 2 has served its purpose and ought to be repealed—if it ever had a purpose which justified the extreme terms in which it is couched.
  It is seven years since, in the case in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) was concerned, Mr. Justice Caulfield said of that section that it had reached retirement age and ought to be pensioned off. It is six years since the Franks Report was published. It is five years since the then Home Secretary—now Lord Carr—when the Conservative Party was last in power, pledged the Conservative Party to implement the main considerations of the Franks Report.

  1307
  Within a few months the Conservative Party had gone out of power and we had a Labour Government, at the beginning of 1974. In 1975, the Home Secretary promised that the Franks Report, or something along its lines, would be implemented. The Prime Minister, in interventions in the House of Commons, expressed similar views. That was three years ago.
  Whatever view we take about the Government's ultimate length, they are approaching their end. I can think of no better task for the last days of this moribund Administration than implementing the promise made in 1975 and getting on with the job. We do not need a White Paper to deal with Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. That section could be dealt with quite briefly in legislation which, I believe, would have unanimous approval across the House of Commons.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West—I make this point unreservedly and straight away—with regard to other parts of the Official Secrets Act. I regretted hearing him say that somehow support from him, and perhaps some of his hon. Friends, for a repeal of Section 2 would be made dependent upon a recasting of Section 1. I believe that Section 1 is necessary—or something along the lines of Section 1 is necessary—for the essential defence of the realm. Something like Section 1 is essential in any society to safeguard itself. Section 2 is altogether different. Section 1 protects the safety of the realm. Section 2, as I see it, protects the convenience of the Government.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Section 1 and something like Section 1 are not the same thing, and that there are certain defects in Section 1 which could well be cleared up at the same time as Section 2, particularly the duty on the defendant, in certain circumstances, to prove his innocence, rather than vice versa.
  Mr. Grieve: No legislation is perfect and I am not here to say that Section 1 is a perfect instrument to do what it does. But I am bound to say that on matters of espionage, the limited reversal of the burden of proof is something which I believe the State, in self-defence, has
  1308
  the right to insist upon. Whereas in a consideration of the whole of this legislation it would be right that Section 1 should come under the microscope along with the rest, I repeat that Section I or something like Section 1 is essential to the defence of the realm.
  Section 2, however, is a matter of the convenience of the Government. The Franks Report has broken down the matters that might legitimately come within the purview of a new Section 2. In the short time available, I shall not take up time in expressing my support for the analysis of the Franks Committee as it was expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) when he opened the debate this evening, and as it has been expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
  I believe that something along the lines of the Franks Report is right. But Section 2 in fact has been used in terrorem. The reason why a great many bureaucrats want to keep it is not that they necessarily want to see prosecuted in the courts—I take the point made by the Minister—those who may infringe Section 2. Of course, there is the Attorney General's fiat, which is necessary for a prosecution. It is there to deter people from in any way breaching Section 2.
  I hope that I am not being too historical in going back to one of the most famous prosecutions under this Act, that of Sir Compton Mackenzie in 1932, when I was a boy of 16. It was, on the face of it, a wanton and foolish prosecution. Compton Mackenzie had written a book of memoirs on his work as an officer in Greece during the First World War, in which he mentioned one or two persons who were concerned in similar activities. One of them had detailed his work in "Who's Who?" Others had been mentioned in a book by Sir Basil Thompson "Allied Secret Service in Greece". Why on earth was he prosecuted? He was obliged to plead guilty. He was so advised by his counsel, and Mr. Justice Hawke, who tried the case, said that he had no option. Indeed, he had not.
  But why was that man prosecuted in those circumstances? It was not because

  1309
  he had done anything wicked, reprehensible or injurious to the realm. It was because the Government of the day thought that this was a very good way of deterring others from writing similar books of memoirs.
  That is the way in which Section 2 has been used. That is the function of Section 2 as it is being used at present. As Voltaire said, when Admiral Byng was shot for alleged cowardice and everyone throughout civilised Europe exclaimed in horror at our act:
  "C'etait pour encourager les attires"
  This section is so used, and so used it is reprehensible. So used it ought to be repealed. The sooner it is repealed the better.
  I come back to where I was a few minutes ago. What better way have the Government of employing their time—and they have plenty of time on their hands, because they have very little else to offer us—in the declining days of their administration than in implementing a promise that was made three years ago. I have very little hope, but hope springs eternal in the human breast. Perhaps the voices which have been raised on both sides of the House in this debate will encourage them to do so. I very much hope that they might bring to an otherwise perhaps not brilliant history, when it comes to be written, at least the virtue of having repealed Section 2 of this Act and put in its place something more consistent with the needs of the modern State and of modern government.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: This debate has at least shown that there is no secret, if there ever has been, of the views of the House about the need to replace Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act as soon as possible with sensible law. That notorious section, which was passed swiftly through Parliament on a quiet afternoon in 1911, is still a giant of a legal broom with an absurd propensity, when it is let loose, to sweep everything before it, good or bad. It was and it still is prevented from making a continuous ass of the law only by the wide discretion of Attorneys-General of successive Governments who alone can decide when it has to be brought out of its cupboard.
  1310
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that the section was badly drafted. That is about the most polite comment that can be made about it. It is quite clear from the opinions of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that, as Franks said, the section is "a mess". It is as repugnant as it is ridiculous. It is bad law, and it is bad sense that, because of this section, any official information or document becomes a State secret to which the section applies whether or not it is classified, secret or confidential or affects the nation's security.
  As speaker after speaker has made clear, it is very odd that this major piece of legislative folly is still on our statute book, capable of making a fool of anyone who tries to invoke its powers.
  As so many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the worst features of the section are its width, its uncertainty and, above all, its failure to distinguish between the communication of official information which could merely be a political embarrassment to the Government of the day and classified information which would cause serious damage to the nation's security.
  As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) all reminded the House, in the Sunday Telegraph case in 1971 Mr. Justice Caulfield described the section in his summing up as one which should be "pensioned off". It was then 60 years old. It is now 67 years old, and it is still poisoning the relationship between the Press and Whitehall and between the Civil Service and the public.
  In 1968, Fulton called for greater openness in government, and that is a call which the Opposition support. From what we have heard in this debate, it has the support of both sides of the House. In our view, Franks shows how the first and necessary step towards the reform of the law is the replacement of Section 2 with a sensible and effective new law which will enable the Press, people, politicians and all others who have to tread through this minefield—and again I use the words of Mr. Justice Caulfield—
  "to determine without great difficulty in what circumstances the communication of official

  1311
  information would put them in peril of prosecution."
  We are strongly opposed to excessive and needless secrecy in administration. We see it as a formidable shield for administrators, the Civil Service and the Government of the day, which makes for bad government and can and does ultimately undermine democracy.
  It appears from what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate that the Government now want to go beyond Franks and the mere replacement of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We have been hearing from hon. Member after hon. Member tonight advantages and disadvantages of a Freedom of Information Act along the lines of the one now in force in the United States and in the Scandinavian countries.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has brought before the House a catalogue of disadvantages of such an Act. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was slightly unfair in suggesting that my hon. and learned Friend has been unduly influenced by speaking to members of the American Civil Service who may not like that kind of legislation. It seems to me much more likely that he has been speaking to Mr. Roy Jenkins, who went to America to see how the amended law was working and came back with the view that it was costly and cumbercome legislation. This seems to bear out other views that the legislation was formidably burdensome.
  If the Government are looking at this problem seriously—and I hope they are—they should devote thought to providing some idea of their thoughts. At present neither the country nor the House has any form of guidance. In fact, I think that this is the first time that the House has heard that the Government now want to go beyond the Franks Committee's recommendation.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and learned Member has just asked the Government whether they will consider this. But they have been considering it for five years and have come up with nothing. Does he really think that the next five years will be any different?
  Mr. Gardner: No, I do not, but what I am saying is that tonight we appear to
  1312
  be hearing for the first time about the Government's ambition to go beyond the recommendation of Franks. I am merely saying that if the Government are going beyond Franks and looking at a Freedom of Information Act it is imperative that they should produce a White Paper on that rather than on Section 2.
  Mr. Hooson: But the Home Secretary said in 1976 that he would go beyond Franks. He has two years to go beyond Franks and has not done so.
  Mr. Gardner: I agree with that. But what the Home Secretary did not say, and what the Minister has said tonight—I am open to correction if I have understood him wrongly—is that in going beyond Franks the Government are looking at a Freedom of Information Act.
  It is all very well to talk about great reforms of the law, but no reform of the law can ever be acceptable or effective unless great thought is given to it. If we knew that the Government had been devoting their contemplative moments to considering whether there was any advantage in one form of law reform or another, we might have been slightly more impressed, but the somnolent posture of the Government towards Section 2 is remarkable.
  It seems that for years Ministers have been talking in their sleep and doing nothing about the problem which we have been discussing tonight or about the solutions which have been put forward. They never seemed to wake up—until tonight. Tonight the Minister has promised that we shall have a White Paper before the end of July.
  Mr. John: Why did not the Conservative Party deal with the subject in "The Right Approach"?
  Mr. Gardner: We are not the Government, but we shall be soon and we shall put this matter right. When we came into Government in 1970, we had a debate within nine months of coming into office and we set up the Franks Committee. We are complaining—I think we are justified to the hilt in doing so—that the Government have done virtually nothing about the matter. Tonight they have promised that we shall have a White Paper by a given time—namely, the end of July. We are pleased to know that whatever other accomplishment may have been achieved

  1313
  by tonight's debate, which is on the initiative of the Opposition, we have at least apparently awoken the Government to the need for some kind of action towards the urgent reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for allowing me to take a couple of minutes of his time. I shall show my gratitude by posing just one question to him.
  Will he think back on the way in which the Government set about preparing their White Paper on the Official Secrets Act and consider whether it would have been a good idea to publish all the drafts and memoranda that went into the preparation of that document? I think that publication would be a good indication of open government, and it would certainly enable hon. Members to see all the arguments that went into the White Paper.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. John: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to answer a number of the points which have been made in this debate.
  I wish first to deal with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). He appeared at first to suggest that I had broken fresh territory. I am not usually loth to plead guilty to that, but in fact my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, no doubt in the hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, announced the publication of a White Paper.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed curiously obsessed by the fact that I was going beyond Franks in promising a Freedom of Information Bill. I say nothing about that. I was addressing my comments to the counter-argument which has been advanced on many occasions—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) fell into this error—that if one reforms Section 2 in isolation, that will be a bar to going any further. I was suggesting that the modernisation of Section 2 was an essential prerequisite of that move. I should like nobody to be under any misapprehension as to what I said, but I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman,
  1314
  judging by some parts of his remarks, was in another place listening to an entirely different debate.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) dealt with the important question whether classification was necessary and how it could be proved to the satisfaction of a court. I fully understand the force of the argument that if the Minister is seen to do it on his own initiative, there is a tendency to regard him as judge and jury, but the hon. and learned Members for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) dissented from the forum into which the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon decided to place it, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West mentioned the Hosenball case, it reminded me that the reference to the "three wise men" on that occasion did not, to put it neutrally, command universal admiration. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to imagine that his suggestion would rid the matter of all criticism. It is important to get it right, and we shall study what he said as part of that process, but his proposal may not be the ideal solution, for reasons that he can guess.
  Sir M. Havers: It is unlikely that any tribunal or committee of inquiry will achieve universal approbation. We are seeking to put up a committee that will receive the approval of the great majority of people. On the Agee-Hosenball case, few people did not accept the advice that the Home Secretary was given by the "three wise men."
  Mr. John: I understand the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. Clearly it is important, but he must not expect universal approbation or immediate acceptance. It is important to get it right so that as wide an approbation as possible can be achieved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a wide spectrum of the public accepted the advice given to my right hon. Friend, but a wide spectrum of the public was uninvolved in that case and may be uninvolved in the subject that we are debating. That does not change the rightness of it, but hon. Members should not exaggerate too greatly the public interest in this matter.

  1315
  My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and Barking (Miss Richardson) referred to computer security and the danger to private individuals of the records stored on computers. This goes beyond the Official Secrets Act, but my hon. Friends will know that we have set up the Lindop Committee to look into this matter. We hope to have in the very near future the report of its deliberations on how individuals and privacy can be safeguarded in an era when mechanical and electronic devices make it all too easy for there to be intrusion into that area.
  Miss Richardson: What about files that do not go on to computers? The data protection authority covers computers, but there will still be many files in this country that are not held on computers.
  Mr. John: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but she must not make a rejoinder to me on a point that I was not answering as though I had failed to answer her. I was addressing myself specifically to the question of computer privacy, which worries many people in this country. I shall look at what she has said about what may be called old-fashioned files that are compiled by hand, to consider the force of what she is saying.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Should the public not have the right to see those files so that they can correct them when they are wrong? What is the use of having a file when much of the information in it is wrong and an individual does not have a right to see that information and correct it?
  Mr. John: I heard my hon. Friend's point the first time that he made it. He did not need to repeat it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend did not answer it.
  Mr. John: I hardly had time to answer it before my hon. Friend bounced up in his own inimitable fashion and intervened. The point that I am making to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, as opposed to my putative duettist below the Gangway, is that I shall consider that problem and get in touch with her.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned going one
  1316
  step further than Section 2. I repeat that in my view any step beyond Section 2 needs the reformation of Section 2, its modernisation and the narrowing of the offences contained within it before we can have a sensible discussion. That is what we promised to do in the Queen's Speech and that is a promise that we shall honour. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was worried about our failure to carry out our manifesto commitment. I thought that it was his party's proud boast that it had prevented the Government from carrying out their manifesto commitments. Obviously that is not always a universal virtue in Liberal eyes.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman submitted an interesting document on the Official Secrets Act, especially on Sections 1 and 2. I have considered Section 2 and find that there are still problems, even on his formulation. If he wishes to discuss those matters with me, I shall be happy to do so. There are difficulties where he seems to feel that the simplification of the Franks' denominations and formulae is absolutely simple. From our examination of his paper and of the points involved, we do not believe that that is so.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that I am detailing the difficulties of legislating. Of course I detailed the difficulties. On the last occasion that the House enacted an Official Secrets Bill in half an hour, with an assurance that there were no problems, it made a mess of it. After all, we have Section 2. I am detailing the difficulties now because hon. Members will be aware that there are some problems that will need resolution and a White Paper.
  The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) was rather unfair to his Front Bench when he said that we do not want a White Paper. It was the right hon. Member or Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) who asked for one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department assented to that request. Having done so, I believe that it was a good request. The formula of having a White Paper that sets out legislative proposals before a Bill is introduced is more likely to get the Bill right

  1317
  than if the Bill comes first, there is discussion on the Bill, the Minister tries to force it through and the Opposition try to amend it, sometimes sensibly and sometimes not.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has taken my observation slightly out of context. I said that if the Government were to fulfil their promise within the short time now available to them, there would be no reason for them not to have a Bill to replace Section 2 and no necessity for a White Paper.
  Mr. John: That is the consensus of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke. However, even as he spoke his idea of a consensus had evaporated. For good or ill my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said "If you are only to repeal Section 2, we want nothing of it".
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is greedy.
  Mr. John: It may be that my hon. Friend is greedy, but there cannot be a consensus when a preceding speaker had denied the central premise of the thesis of a consensus. We are saying that the White Paper will enable these matters to be debated so that by the time the Bill is introduced it will be a measure that will command the maximum support possible from the House.
  Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, have been rather dismissive of all the information that is being circulated by the Government. A tremendous amount of extra information is now being submitted by Government Departments. Much more information is being given to ordinary members of the public than ever before.
  Let us not kid ourselves. Some of the more esoteric concepts that we have been debating tonight leave the public indifferent. The public have had difficulty in the past in getting information upon which to found their objections when a road inquiry has taken place. That has to be contrasted with the Ministry of Transport's present procedure of producing information well in advance and having a procedure where the issues are simplified and narrowed. The public are grateful for that new approach. That
  1318
  information is a source of great benefit to the public.
  I believe that the Government have a good record on the circulation of additional information—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  TIMOTHY McALEAVEY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing the case of Timothy McAleavey to the attention of the House. His mother had the application for a mobility allowance refused by the Department of Health and Social Security. Three times it was made, and on each occasion it was flatly rejected. An appeal was made to the medical appeal tribunal and it was dismissed.
  Here, in my opinion, is an injustice to a relatively helpless, totally speechless, mentally retarded boy, who is now 12 years of age. He has been subject to epilepsy since birth, and from time to time he takes weak turns during which he may fall to the ground. Whenever he travels in a vehicle, he has to be strapped into a seat and supervised throughout the journey. The doctor in the clinical findings during his examination, stated that Timothy kept up a constant whimpering and groaning with occasional shouts. That is all this boy can do. He cannot speak.
  This unfortunate boy's case cries out for compassionate treatment. I trust that my appeal on his behalf will arouse more than words of sympathy from the Government. That I can bring Timothy's case before the High Court of Parliament should provide some comfort to those people who, like myself, feel frustrated by the restrictions of this House and angered by the heavy hand of bureaucracy which has fallen on Northern Ireland with direct rule.
  However, the effect of being able to argue Timothy's case in this Chamber is ruined by the fact that the Minister responsible for the Department of Health

  1319
  and Social Security is not present, and, indeed, cannot be present, because he is a peer and, therefore, a Member of another place. If ever I want a fresh reason for a major reform of the House of Lords—and who needs further argument for that proposition?—I shall be able to quote this instance. The Minister is not here. We have the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, but we do not have the Minister himself.
  The Minister, in the penultimate paragraph of a letter of 28th February dealing with and dismissing an appeal that I made to him on Timothy's behalf, said:
  "The decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal is final. There is no provision in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 for a further appeal."
  The Minister is, of course, wrong, because there is the right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law by way of certiorari. But the Minister was recognising the reality of the situation that Mrs. McAleavey would not be able to pursue her appeal there, because no full legal aid would be forthcoming. Indeed, one of the sad facts of life is that many disabled people, like Timothy, are unable to receive legal aid to pursue their cases with qualified solicitors before medical appeal tribunals. I hope that one day that state of affairs will be remedied, and the sooner the better.
  This situation places Timothy and others in Northern Ireland whose appeals have been or will be dismissed by the medical appeal tribunal in a worse position than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, where there is an appeal from the medical appeal tribunal to the national insurance commissioner from whose decision appeal may then lie to the High Court, also on a point of law.
  This anomaly and injustice is seemingly because in Ulster the commissioner acts as chairman of the medical appeal tribunals. I call on the Government, for the sake of fair play, to change the law and to give Northern Ireland the same rights of appeal as exist in Great Britain. Since the Minister argues on the question of seat belts that the law should be the same throughout the United Kingdom, we should have his support in this matter.
  1320
  In the letter of 28th February to which I referred, the Minister stated the obvious. He said that Mrs. McAleavey could reapply for a mobility allowance on Timothy's behalf at any time. But, instead of Mrs. McAleavey reapplying, the Minister or the Department should consult with the national insurance commissioner, with the object of the Department bringing an appeal. That appears to be a reasonable course of action to anyone who has scrutinised the findings of the last medical appeal tribunal and who is concerned about the disparity in the rights of appeal between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  There have been Press reports about a case in which the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was interested concerning a 12-year-old mongol boy, Robert Edmunds. There the equivalent Department in London, the Department of Health and Social Security, brought an appeal to the national insurance commissioner in that case. A Press report of that case was sent to the Minister to assist him and his Department. In that case the medical appeal tribunal had allowed the appeal. The Department appealed against that decision in order to have the law clarified.
  I hope to show why the law should be clarified in Timothy's case. But perhaps the law, or its interpretation, is different in Northern Ireland. Even it it is, on grounds of parity of treatment there should be a change. Clearly, the two systems of social security benefit should operate as a single system throughout the United Kingdom with no differences between them.
  The Press report showed what happened in the Robert Edmunds case. The medical appeal tribunal ruled that Robert Edmunds should get a mobility allowance because he suffered from mongolism and because that caused his physical handicap. The Department of Health and Social Security appealed against the decision to the national insurance commissioner—that is the appeal which is denied to people in Northern Ireland—on the ground that people who could walk but were prevented by mental infirmity from doing so should not get the allowance. The report stated:
  "Earlier this month Mr. Alf Morris, the Minister for the Disabled, said he hoped that the boy would win the case. And if Robert

  1321
  lost his appeal the Government would consider changing the law."
  He was talking about a boy who suffers from mongolism and can walk only a few yards.
  The medical appeal tribunal in Timothy McAleavey's case found as a fact that it is by reason only of his mental condition that he cannot be permitted to walk unaccompanied. It is true that the main condition giving rise to the lack of walking ability is due to gross mental retardation, as in the case of Robert Edmunds.
  But the other medical conditions or consequential conditions cannot be ignored. The boy Timothy is doubly incontinent. At 12 years of age he wears a nappy, and it is not difficult to imagine the situation. How is it possible for such a youngster to walk as other fit children are able to walk? The whole concept of walking or being able to walk in his case is desperately and pathetically different from our concept of being able to walk. There is no comparison, no common ground, no meeting-place between the two concepts, and I am surprised that his appeal fell on the deaf ears of the Minister and the Department.
  The evidence before the medical appeal tribunal states that Timothy
  "likes to have his hand held when he is outside; he is never allowed out alone."
  That was what his mother told the tribunal. No one has denied it or shown it to be untrue. It is a simple fact of Timothy's existence. He has known no other since birth. Timothy cannot be allowed out on the road on his own. He has no road sense whatever. The House should remember that the boy is unable to speak and is able to understand only simple sentences.
  The regulations clearly provide that if a person is able to walk with the aid of an artificial limb be can walk. He would thus not be entitled to a mobility allowance. The regulations are equally clear that where the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to his life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration of his health, he is treated as a person who is unable to walk.
  In Timothy's case his physical disablement is not related to his ability to walk. His physical disability is a consequence
  1322
  of a mental disorder, and it is a mental disorder which restricts his physical ability to walk. It is a restraint to such a degree that Timothy is virtually unable to walk.
  If another person who is now physically and mentally fit became subject to the infirmities, mental and otherwise, from which Timothy suffers, that person would clearly say, being able to speak, that he was not to be regarded as a person able to walk. We have to see the act or the action of walking as something that a person is able to do on his own with his own physical resources, assisted, if need be, by artificial aids but without the assistance of others.
  In my view, the tribunal did not look sufficiently closely into the question of whether the exertion required of Timothy to undertake ordinary walking would constitute a danger to his life or cause a serious deterioration in his health. His mother claims that Timothy has a walking distance of only 15 yards. There is much comment in medical evidence—I shall not trouble the House by reading it out, but the Minister will have it all carefully stored away in his Civil Service brief—to substantiate her statement. The House, and in particular the Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, should accept it as being substantially true.
  What does the insurance officer have to say about this? He says that the distance that a person may be able to progress on foot is not in itself conclusive to a claim for mobility allowance. That may well be so, but an undisputed statement that 15 yards is all the distance that a boy can walk must surely lead to the conclusion that the person is virtually unable to walk and, therefore, qualifies for the mobility allowance.
  The regulations refer to
  "the physical condition as a whole".
  This is where the medical appeal tribunal has, in my judgment, misdirected itself. It does not seem to have looked at Timothy's physical condition as a whole but has looked largely at circumstantial and subjective evidence about his walking ability in an unusual and exceptional setting—namely, in the corridor and examination room of the appeals board.
  I do not believe that Parliament ever meant to exclude a person such as Timothy from mobility allowance. The

  1323
  boy is obviously virtually unable to walk in any meaningful sense. It is stretching the imagination and the meaning of language to find otherwise.
  Therefore, I sincerely hope that, as a result of the arguments that I have put forward this evening, the Government will change their mind in this case and award the mobility allowance to this unfortunate young lad who suffers such tragic infirmities.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): The case of Timothy McAleavey has been the subject of correspondence with my noble Friend Lord Melchett and, at the outset, I must make the point that it is not correct to say that the Department of Health and Social Services has refused a grant in this case. All decisions on mobility allowance are made by the independent statutory authorities.
  The medical requirements for mobility allowance are that a person is unable or virtually unable to walk because of severe physical disablement and likely to remain so for at least a year and able to make use of the allowance. There are also requirements as to residence and presence in Northern Ireland.
  Claims are decided in the first instance by an insurance officer, with a right of appeal on non-medical questions first to a local appeal tribunal and ultimately to the national insurance commissioner. These three adjudicating bodies are all independent statutory authorities, set up under the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 and are in no way subject to control or direction by the Department of Health and Social Services or influenced by it.
  However, where a claim has been disallowed on medical grounds—that is to say, the claimant is not held to be suffering from such disability that the person is unable to walk or is virtually unable to do so, or the disability is unlikely to persist for 12 months—an appeal may be made in the first instance to a medical board. This consists of two or more medical practitioners who are normally specialists, one of whom is appointed chairman If the claimant is not in agreement with the decision of the medical board, the claimant may appeal to a medical appeal tribunal. The medical
  1324
  appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland consists of one of the national insurance commissioners as chairman and two medical practitioners. The sole purpose of proceedings before the tribunal is to establish whether the claimant has a right to a benefit which is prescribed by law and which Parliament considers should be paid if the relevant conditions are satisfied. The decisions of the tribunal are final.
  If a claim is disallowed on non-medical grounds—for example, it is late, or the claimant is of an age group not eligible to receive mobility allowance—the normal adjudicating procedures apply.
  I turn to the specific case, Timothy McAleavey, which the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has raised. Timothy is a 12-year-old boy who has been mentally retarded since birth. The initial claim to mobility allowance was made by his mother, Mrs. Sarah McAleavey, on 16th January 1977.
  As a first step in processing the claim, Timothy was examined by a doctor on 23rd February 1977. The doctor's report included the comment that Timothy's balance was good and that he could walk normally, but that the main difficulty was that he was very nervous and restless and required constant supervision.
  On receipt of the medical report the insurance officer on 3rd March 1977 formally disallowed the claim on the ground that Timothy
  "is not suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually to do so. This decision is made having regard to a report from the medical practitioner to whom the question was referred".
  Mrs. McAleavey was not satisfied with the decision and she appealed to a medical board, which examined Timothy on 1st June 1977. The two doctors on the board reported their findings as:
  "This boy can walk unsupported and in a virtually normal manner along the corridor and into rooms. There was no obvious disturbance of balance. He can go outside and when accompanied can walk a reasonable distance."
  The next step open to Mrs. McAleavey was to appeal to the medical appeal tribunal, which she did on 7th September 1977, on the grounds that Timothy was suffering from mental retardation and epilepsy since birth, that his walking distance was around 15 yards and that he

  1325
  required supervision all the time as he suffers from loss of balance. The appeal was heard on 7th December 1977, and Timothy was examined yet again, this time by the medical members of the tribunal, who are of consultant status. The chairman of the tribunal noted in its decision that
  "the members of the Tribunal watched Timothy walking by himself about the room in which the hearing of this appeal took place and they noted his demeanour during the hearing".
  The tribunal recorded the following findings:
  "We find that Timothy's physical condition is such that he is able to walk quite well notwithstanding his tendency to fits. It is by reason only of his mental condition that he cannot be permitted to walk unaccomanied.
  Under regulation 3 of the Social Security (Mobility Allowance) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1975 entitlement to mobility allowance arises only if inability to walk results from physical incapacity. Inability to walk unaccompanied because of a mental condition does not qualify. Where, as here, the person concerned is a child the social or financial needs of the parents are not treated by the Regulations as giving a right to the allowance."
  This decision was final, as in Northern Ireland there is no right of appeal to a national insurance commissioner on a point of law from the decision of the medical appeal tribunal. This is because the chairmen of the medical appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland are also national insurance commissioners.
  I know that it has previously been suggested in the House that standards applied in Northern Ireland are more strict and consequently less favourable to claimants than those applied in Great Britain. However, neither I nor the chairmen of the medical appeal tribunal believe that this is so.
  This brings me to the conditions for entitlement to the allowance. There are many groups campaigning for an extension of the allowance to those who can walk but who have problems in getting about. There are the blind, the deaf, agoraphobics and epileptics. The Government have a great deal of sympathy for all of these groups, but at present resources are just not available to do all that we should like to do.
  Finally, I should like to refer to the Robert Edmunds case. Robert is a 12 year-old boy suffering from Down's Syn-
  1326
  drome, and because of doubt as to his entitlement to mobility allowance his case was referred to the national insurance commissioner last December. The commissioner ruled that Robert was entitled to the payment but that similar doubtful cases would have to be dealt with individually.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in reply to a Question on 2nd February 1978, said that he had carefully studied the legal and medical implications of the commissioner's decision in this case and proposed to place draft regulations before the National Insurance Advisory Committee and then to lay the regulations before the House as soon as possible.
  The aim of the regulations will be to deal with the difficulties caused by the Robert Edmunds case and similar cases of persons who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. Comparable regulations will be made for Northern Ireland by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland and, as is intended in the rest of the United Kingdom, when these are made the Department will do all that it can to bring them to the attention of those in Northern Ireland who may be eligible and scrutinise those cases which have been disallowed since mobility allowance was introduced.
  I should make it clear that this extension of mobility allowance will not cover Timothy McAleavey's case. What the new regulations will not do is to extend the scope of mobility allowance to people who can walk but who have outdoor mobility problems.
  Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the case of Robert Edmunds was argued by legal representatives on behalf of the Department and Robert Edmunds. Will the Minister not further agree that the Department should lodge an appeal and thereby save some of the expenses which would accrue to Mrs. McAleavey, so that this case can be carefully argued and Timothy and others like him will have justice done or at least the satisfaction of knowing that their case has been fully argued by competent people before a judge?
  Mr. Carter: As I have said, the Department is not the adjudicator. The appeal machinery that is well established, and is now well understood in Northern Ireland

  1327
  and the rest of the United Kingdom, is the area within which judgments are made as to the suitability or otherwise of applicants for the mobility allowance.
  There are inevitably, as with all new benefits, some points of criticism, but I believe that the House as a whole will accept that this benefit is an important step forward in helping severely disabled people. New benefits bring new problems, and some people are disappointed
  1328
  because they are excluded. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the hon. Member for Down, North since I know that he feels strongly about this case, as is evidenced by his taking the matter up personally with my noble Friend Lord Melchett and by raising the matter on the Adjournment to-night
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security
  Security
  Political Situation
  Political Situation
  Prisoners (Dress and Hygiene)
  Prisoners (Dress and Hygiene)
  Terrorist Activities
  Terrorist Activities
  Home Heating Costs (Government Aid)
  Home Heating Costs (Government Aid)
  RUC and Gardai (Co-operation)
  RUC and Gardai (Co-operation)
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Prisoners (Special Category Status)
  Prisoners (Special Category Status)
  Brian Maguire
  Brian Maguire
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Squatters
  Squatters
  Majority Rule
  Majority Rule
  Housing (Public Sector)
  Housing (Public Sector)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Police (Vehicle Purchases)
  Police (Vehicle Purchases)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Public Bodies (Expenditure)
  Public Bodies (Expenditure)
  Vagrants
  Vagrants
  Borstal Training
  Borstal Training
  Detention Centres and Borstal Institutions
  Detention Centres and Borstal Institutions
  European Parliament (Direct Elections)
  European Parliament (Direct Elections)
  Hospital Premises (Offences)
  Hospital Premises (Offences)
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Cornwall (St. Piran's Flag)
  Cornwall (St. Piran's Flag)
  Devolution (Referenda)
  Devolution (Referenda)
  Overseas Visits (Records)
  Overseas Visits (Records)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NEWHAM
  NEWHAM
  WALTHAM ABBEY
  WALTHAM ABBEY
  PRESIDENT CEAUSESCU
  PRESIDENT CEAUSESCU
  TUC
  TUC
  FARINGTON
  FARINGTON
  ECONOMIC GROWTH
  ECONOMIC GROWTH
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  CBI
  CBI
  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE
  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE
  NATIONALISATION
  NATIONALISATION
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS
  MONEYS LODGED IN COURT (INTEREST)
  MONEYS LODGED IN COURT (INTEREST)
  EMPLOYMENT (BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS)
  EMPLOYMENT (BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS)
  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILLS (REFERENDUMS)
  SCOTLAND AND WALES BILLS (REFERENDUMS)
TRADE
  Tourism (Foreign Currency Receipts)
  Tourism (Foreign Currency Receipts)
  Heathrow Airport (Security)
  Heathrow Airport (Security)
  Oil Tankers (Pollution)
  Oil Tankers (Pollution)
  Ivory Coast
  Ivory Coast
  Cheddar Cheese
  Cheddar Cheese
  Japanese Electrical Goods
  Japanese Electrical Goods
ENERGY
  Oil Exploitation (Dorset and Hampshire)
  Oil Exploitation (Dorset and Hampshire)
  Coal Mining (Subsidence)
  Coal Mining (Subsidence)
  Gas Prices
  Gas Prices
INDUSTRY
  Overseas Investment
  Overseas Investment
  Footwear Industry
  Footwear Industry
  Woollen Industry
  Woollen Industry
  Todmorden
  Todmorden
  Product and Process Development Scheme
  Product and Process Development Scheme
  Cadbury Schweppes Ltd.
  Cadbury Schweppes Ltd.
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Architects' Services
  Architects' Services
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Inquiries (Disruption)
  Planning Inquiries (Disruption)
  Fire Research Station
  Fire Research Station
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Cheshire (Sector Schemes)
  Cheshire (Sector Schemes)
  Commercial Fast Breeder Reactor
  Commercial Fast Breeder Reactor
  Derelict Land (Westminster)
  Derelict Land (Westminster)
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Oil Discovery (Hampshire and Dorset)
  Oil Discovery (Hampshire and Dorset)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Liverpool Street Station
  Liverpool Street Station
  Aluminium Smelting (Electricity Supplies)
  Aluminium Smelting (Electricity Supplies)
  Retained Firefighters Union (Recognition)
  Retained Firefighters Union (Recognition)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Inland Revenue (Investigations)
  Inland Revenue (Investigations)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Home Heating Oil
  Home Heating Oil
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Employment (Scotland)
  Employment (Scotland)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
EMPLOYMENT
  Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries)
  International Comparisons
  International Comparisons
  Genetic Manipulation
  Genetic Manipulation
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Chester
  Chester
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Amberley Wildbrooks
  Amberley Wildbrooks
  Flood and Storm Damage (Compensation)
  Flood and Storm Damage (Compensation)
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Economic Measures (Representations)
  Economic Measures (Representations)
  Legal Aid (Industrial Tribunals)
  Legal Aid (Industrial Tribunals)
  Blind and Disabled Persons (Unemployment)
  Blind and Disabled Persons (Unemployment)
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
DEFENCE
  Serving Officers (Science Degrees)
  Serving Officers (Science Degrees)
  Civilian Employment
  Civilian Employment
  HMS "Sultan" and HMS "Daedalus"
  HMS "Sultan" and HMS "Daedalus"
  Chinese Language
  Chinese Language
  Lyemun Chinese Language School
  Lyemun Chinese Language School
  Dartmoor Training (Inquiry)
  Dartmoor Training (Inquiry)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  USSR (Trials)
  USSR (Trials)
  Dominica
  Dominica
  Chile
  Chile
  European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
  European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
  China (Western European Union Report)
  China (Western European Union Report)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupils (16 to 19)
  Pupils (16 to 19)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Teachers of the Deaf and Blind
  Teachers of the Deaf and Blind
  Genetic Engineering and Manipulation
  Genetic Engineering and Manipulation
  Oakes Report
  Oakes Report
  Welded Metal Sculpture
  Welded Metal Sculpture
WALES
  Bilingual Teaching
  Bilingual Teaching
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Under-fives
  Under-fives
  Pre-school Playgroups
  Pre-school Playgroups
  Urdd Gobaith Cymru
  Urdd Gobaith Cymru
  Water Services Charges
  Water Services Charges
  Drinking and Driving
  Drinking and Driving
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Foreign Citizens
  Unemployed Foreign Citizens
  Benefits (Abuse)
  Benefits (Abuse)
  Brookwood Hospital
  Brookwood Hospital
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Profit Margins)
  Prescriptions (Profit Margins)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Regional Secure Units
  Regional Secure Units
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  National Health Service (Private Contractors)
  National Health Service (Private Contractors)
  Deaf and Blind Children
  Deaf and Blind Children
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Means Tests
  Means Tests
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
  Motability
  Motability
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions

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

AIRLINE OVERBOOKING COMPENSATION
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement made at column 466 on the 26th January last, they are now in a position to announce the decision taken on the application of the overbooking compensation scheme to return flights resulting from an original hooking made on airlines operating in the United Kingdom so that a passenger may be covered for the whole of his ticket and not as at present for half of it.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government remain of the view that more widely based arrangements for overbooking compensation should be implemented, and that a scheme applicable to outward and return flights which was mandatory upon British airlines alone would not be satisfactory. It has long been clear that the most satisfactory way of arriving at such arrangements would be through IATA and the industry itself, and the Government hope that the recommendation of the European Civil Aviation Conference, which the Directors General of Civil Aviation adopted at their recent meeting, will help to bring this about.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while being glad that the Government apparently approve of what I am trying to get done, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that this really has become very wearying? Does she recall, from the references I gave her, that her predecessor wrote to me in February saying that he hoped the
502
special committee of IATA would soon reach a speedy conclusion? May I also ask her whether she is aware that I think her reply was slightly misleading? I never asked that British airlines only should have this, but airlines operating in the United Kingdom, which is very different. Does she think she can do anything to hasten matters?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Baroness, as she says, has been trying for a long time to hasten matters. It is something over two years since she first started raising this subject in your Lordships' House. The only really satisfactory solution to the problem will involve international agreement from negotiations among the international bodies, and these are never things which move very quickly. Some progress has been made over the period; and, of course, the United Kingdom voluntary scheme (which, despite its deficiencies, was a valuable step forward) has increased its membership in that time.
My noble friend asked me why IATA cannot do anything quickly. The European Civil Aviation Conference is a governmental body, and makes recommendations to IATA. It is then for IATA, as the trade body, to get the agreement between all the airlines, such as British Airways, before anything like this can be done. But it is interesting that only 0·04 per cent. of passengers were denied carriage due to overbooking in the United Kingdom, whereas, in so far as United States carriers within the USA are concerned, the figure was 0·3 per cent. So while we do not accept that we should be happy with 0·04 per cent., at least we are considerably better in our service than are many other countries.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, without getting sidetracked on to percentages, which are really meaningless, as the noble Baroness obviously agrees, may I ask her a simple question and hope she can give me a simple answer? As the ECAC Committee has reported to IATA, and as there is to be a special meeting of IATA in Montreal on 30th June and 1st July, after which, I understand, recommendations are to be made to member countries, does she think she could persuade her

503
right honorable friend at the Department of Trade to see that overbooking is included in those recommendations? Further, if I put down a Question for Answer in July, does she think the House could be finished with it once and for all?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I could not give my noble friend the assurance that if she puts down yet another Question in July we shall then have finished with it. I know how long it takes, when many Governments are involved in international negotiations, to come to any agreement. The recommendation which was made called on IATA to continue the consideration of the problem of overbooking; to pay full attention to the interests of the consumer; and, pending an agreement to a comprehensive solution covering all the countries, to give urgent attention to the introduction of measures of compensation. That recommendation has now gone to IATA, and the member States are bringing it to the notice of their airlines. We hope that IATA will reach agreement on how to tackle the problem without delay. In the meantime, the European Conference will be keeping the matter under review, and member States are expected to advise them on their follow-up action. But I cannot guarantee that I shall be able to give any satisfaction in July.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is a very long time since I had any responsibilities, on this side of the House, for consumer affairs; that it was a considerable time before that when the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, started this campaign; that we are filled with admiration for her persistence, and that if we are not giving her a great deal of support it is entirely because it appears to be quite unnecessary?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I would not completely accept that. I acknowledge the persistence of my noble friend in repeatedly bringing this question to the attention of the House, and perhaps one day we shall all be very happy about the results—but not today.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, perhaps I might say just this.
504
Is the House aware that I am very appreciative of what has been said, but would the House and the Minister not agree with me that really all this is quite unnecessary? Can she think of anything more ridiculous than taking 23 months to say that the compensation on an airline ticket shall apply to the whole of it and not to half?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is not quite as simple as that, because the return half may not be for flights which are coming back into this country. One may go from here to Tokyo, from Tokyo across to New Zealand and from New Zealand across to Canada, and not even finish up here. It is not simple, but we are doing out best.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will be represented at this Montreal Conference; and, if so, would it not be a good idea to invite the noble Baroness to attend on their behalf?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is not my privilege to invite the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government, but I will certainly see that today's proceedings are brought to the attention of my right honorable friend so that the British representatives there are aware of the views of the noble Baroness and other Members of this House.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she complicated the simple point of my noble friend unnecessarily? If a ticket from here to Tokyo then takes one on to Canada and then on to New Zealand, it is still the outward journey. There is no return half.

CIVIL SERVICE PAY RESEARCH UNIT BOARD
3.12 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the chairman and members appointed to the Civil Service Pay Research Unit Board, and to indicate

505
which of those appointed are civil servants or former civil servants and whether one of the independent members will be an actuary.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, as has already been announced, the independent members of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit Board, are my right honorable and noble friend Lord Shepherd, the chairman; Sir Derek Rayner, Professor Rodney Crossley, Mr. Leif Mills and the noble Baroness, Lady Pike. Other members of the Board are those nominated by the Civil Service National Whitley Council —Mr. Gordon Burrett, Mr. John Pestell, Mr. William Kendall and Mr. Percy Avery—and the Director of the Pay Research Unit, Mr. Vernon Morgan, ex officio. Only the independent members have voting rights on the Board.
My Lords, none of the independent members is an actuary. None of them is or was a career civil servant, though Sir Derek Rayner was seconded from Marks and Spencer between 1970 and 1973 to head the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive, and Professor Crossley worked as an adviser to the Government on industrial relations for two periods during the 1960s. Of the other members, Mr. Burrett and Mr. Pestell are civil servants in my Department; Mr. Morgan is a civil servant appointed by the Prime Minister to be Director of the Pay Research Unit. Mr. Kendall and Mr. Avery were civil servants some 20 years ago and are now Civil Service union leaders.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that full reply—and I am sure he will appreciate that it will need study to ascertain the degree of independence—I am sure that he would acknowledge that what is essential is that the independent members should be truly independent. I am not sure that is true of the man whom he mentioned as Director of the Pay Research Unit; but perhaps we can study that in greater detail.
Lord PEART: My Lords, Mr. Vernon Morgan, the official whom I mentioned, is the Director of the Unit. The chairman —and I thought the noble Lord was referring to the independent chairman of
506
the Board—is my noble friend Lord Shepherd.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think that that underlines the fact that we need to study a list as complicated as that in greater detail. Is it not a fact that the actuarial calculations in working out pay and pensions are very complicated indeed? Is it wise in those circumstances to rely on the Government Actuary alone to serve both these boards? He is after all a Government servant. Would it not be wiser to ask the Institute of Actuaries to nominate somebody as an independent actuary so that in this complicated function one could have two people—for actuaries, like economists, seldom agree on any one matter?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think so. I think that what we have followed is the right course.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for making this explanatory statement in reply to the Question of my noble friend, particularly in view of his responsibilities as Minister for the Civil Service besides being the Leader of the House. Can he tell us when the Pay Research Unit system will be revived, because it has been put into suspension by the Government for two or three years during their period of pay policy? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that it is important, from the point of view of public opinion, that the Unit should be able to make comparisons with occupations outside the Civil Service, taking into account many relevant factors, such as security of employment?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I believe that what we are trying to achieve is to have an independent body. It has worked very well, but we have made improvements, and an announcement has been made. I think it will do a very good job. Indeed, it has now been reactivated.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider that independence from Whitehall and from the Civil Service is of extreme importance in this issue? I think that he acknowledges that. Is it wise in the long run to nominate a man who was ministerial Head of the Civil Service? We know the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to be a man of tremendous

507
integrity and objectivity; but, in the long run, will people outside think this is as wise an appointment as we think it to be?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think they will. I have every confidence in a former Lord Privy Seal, knowing my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I think that all my colleagues on both sides of the House will accept that he would make a first-class chairman of this body.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the question of commuting pensions, a subject which has recently arisen, is a matter which would be investigated by this Board?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the main responsibility for making assessments of differences of pension benefits will remain with the independent Government Actuary and is not being transferred to the Board.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, would my noble friend the Leader of the House agree with me that the Civil Service National Whitley Council has full confidence in the independent members of the Board and that the necessity to obtain the confidence of the Civil Service in this new negotiating process is of the greatest possible value? I believe that all civil servants have got this confidence and I think—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord PLANT: My Lords, would my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that the Board has the full confidence of the Civil Service?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I accept that and think this is the right approach. Indeed, I was pressed by a Liberal Peer some time ago to get on with the job of reactivating, and that has now been done.

PAY POLICY: TUC/CBI CONSULTATIONS
3.19 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress being made in any consultations they may now be having with the TUC and CBI aimed at establishing from the end of the present phase an agreed pay policy acceptable to Parliament and reducing inflation still further.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, these discussions are progressing satisfactorily, but it is too early to say what their outcome will be.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I do not think that that Answer is sufficiently informative to enable me to thank the noble Baroness very sincerely for having given it. Is she aware of the urgency with which my noble friends and I regard the need to prepare for the introduction of a further phase of incomes policy in six weeks' time; namely, our desire to encourage the Government to resist any pressure to which they may be subject to return to a system of so-called free collective bargaining? Furthermore, do the Government accept that such a policy ought to leave room for negotiation within bargaining units, aimed at restoring differentials after tax for responsibility and for skill which have been so seriously eroded over the past few years?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not find the reply satisfactory. It was the truth. Maybe he does not find the truth satisfactory. Discussions are progressing; they are progressing satisfactorily. As the Prime Minister reiterated this week, directly an outcome to the discussions is reached, details will be announced. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would be delighted to hear that discussions are going on between the three very important arms which are so essential to any successful outcome, and would be happy to leave it there. I thought the reply was extremely informative and that he ought to be beaming at it. I repeat, the Government will put forward their proposals once the current consultations are completed. Naturally, any comments on differentials will be part of this discussion. I would

509
point out that, even in the past pay round, there has always been room, although the overall increase has been around the 10 per cent. mark, for maneuver within the settlements so that different groups of workers have in fact had their differentials respected.
On the question of Phase 4, may I point out that the success of the Government's pay policy up to date is shown by the fall in inflation from 26·3 per cent. in July 1975 to 7·9 per cent. now. It is absolutely essential that we do not squander this achievement in excessive wage settlements. This means getting broad agreement on moderate settlements which will keep inflation under control and, as soon as humanly possible, reduce it.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that it may be useful and informative to people if, instead of the word "inflation" we use the words, "debasement of the currency", which is what it is?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, well, I think that by any other name, Shakespeare got there first! I think that it is very useful to continue to use a word which is easily understandable to most people. Most people understand inflation to mean prices which are rising and increases in their cost of living. We are trying to reduce that and, if I may say so, we are doing it very satisfactorily.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that, whatever bearing an agreed pay policy may have on inflation, the main cause is the Government's insatiable appetite for public expenditure by ever and ever increasing the money supply without any increase in productivity? That is the real reason.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I would find the noble Viscount's question rather more weighty and credible if his own Party were able, so far as their pay policy is concerned, to come forward with some proposals which were not entirely encased in an an armour of silence. I should further point out that the propositions which have been put forward by his Party, particularly in another place, would have increased public expenditure to a con-
510
siderable extent. The tax concessions have had to be put right by the increase in National Insurance payments, and none of this is helping the cause of bringing down inflation, or indeed of bringing down unemployment. I think silence on that ground is the better part of valour.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that in the past three phases of wages control the trade unions have sacrificed a lot to help the Government in their inflationary measures, and that 75 per cent. of the trade unionists now want a freely negotiated bargaining position? I question whether we will get Phase 4; but what surprises me is the Conservatives arguing about Phase 4 when they are shouting to the skies outside that they do not believe in a wages policy.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my noble friend is right. During the past three phases the trade unions have made it possible for the Government to pursue an economic policy which has brought down the rate of inflation. Without the support—and, as my noble friend said, the sacrifice—of many workers of this country, we would have been in a very much worse position. It appears from the noises that we have heard from the Opposition in both Houses that any future they put forward in this field will probably result in very unfortunate confrontations with the trade unions.
May I finally say that on the question of free collective bargaining, the Government regard responsible collective bargaining as the best and most flexible way of resolving pay settlements. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that it is essential that these settlements must be moderate.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that previous phases of the incomes policies, under both Governments, have eroded differentials and that therefore Lord Rochester's supplementary question about the importance of reintroducing differentials for skill and responsibility is vital if we are to create new wealth and reduce unemployment? It is not just a question of paying the individuals concerned for their skills and responsibility, but it is in the interests of the country as a whole that these should be—

511
Several noble Lords: Question!
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think that my right honorable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unaware of this, and the question of differentials is obviously something that is discussed with the trade unions in these consultations. I do not think that I can go further than that because consultations are in progress at this time.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that to get the record absolutely straight, we should remind ourselves that the rate of earnings has this year increased faster than the rate of price increases, and that it is extremely important that they should not proceed to this extent, having regard to the level of productivity? It would be more accurate to talk about a fall in the increasing rate of inflation rather than a fall in inflation. Inflation is still rising, though at a less fast rate. To talk about the fall in the rate of inflation is extremely misleading.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there has been a fall in the annual rate of inflation. Of course there are different ways of gathering the figures, and it means that over a monthly or three monthly period one gets a different result. There has been an overall fall in the rate of inflation and there is a fall in the increase in the rate of inflation. Whichever way we look at it the fact is that to the ordinary people going out to buy items, inflation, although too high—and we accept that—has nevertheless decreased.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that noble Lords will agree that we have had a good run on this Question Questions have taken 22 minutes so far.

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY
3.29 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further Statement on the situation of the Port of London Authority.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, since my report to the House on 8th May, the Port of London Authority have continued to keep my right honorable friend closely in touch with their urgent examination of their financial situation and of the various courses of action that might be taken to restore viability. He has been encouraged by the constructive and responsible manner in which all parties concerned have reacted to the propositions put forward by the Authority for consideration.
My right honorable friend believes that there is merit in letting the parties continue to discuss the steps that are needed with a view to reaching mutually acceptable solutions in so far as that may be possible. When firm proposals are received from the Authority, my right honorable friend will be in a position to complete consideration of the ways in which the Government might then assist.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this looks and sounds very much like the old drift that happened before and led to the loss of £50 million-odd continuing? Is she aware that the Authority, being a public trust authority, is in fact still trading in what would be, for a private enterprise undertaking, an insolvent position? Is she further aware that with the passage of every week the certainty grows that the Authority will end the year much more heavily in debt than it was when we discussed these increases? Am I not right in believing that the Minister has only two possible alternatives that the PLA can come up with?—one of which might just enable them to be viable, but only just, by 1980 and the other which most certainly could not. Both involve closures. Should not the noble Baroness now urge her right honorable friend—I know her position and indeed I have myself put many a spokesman here under that sort of restriction in the past—on behalf of us, that this cannot be allowed to drift simply because the unions, the Authority and the other agencies are just continuing to talk? This way lies still worse disaster than we have already met.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Secretary of

513
State is quite satisfied that the PLA are not trading illegally. Yes, they have financial problems, but Lazard and Company have granted them a loan, or an overdraft, of £15 million which has a Government guarantee. Surely it is better that the two sides of the industry, the Authority and unions, should get round a table and try to go part way at least towards solving their problems, and see how much agreement there is between them so that they can come up eventually with propositions from the PLA which are likely to be acceptable to the workers in the industry as well. Surely it is better for them to take time and come up with the right propositions on which my right honorable friend can make the necessary recommendations to his Cabinet colleagues regarding the degree of Government intervention that may be necessary, than to rush into something hasty and perhaps land ourselves with very considerable industrial troubles.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if that were the position I should, of course, be the first to accept it, but is it not over-simplistic to suggest that it is? Is not the position that any solution has to involve the closure, to be viable, of the two upper docks and, still to remain nonviable, to close one upper dock? Is it not impossible to expect the unions to come up voluntarily and recommend either of those propositions? Since we know those to be the only two alternatives, is it not right to press the Minister to accept now the responsibility that he will have to accept in the end when still more millions will have been lost?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand the PLA are continuing these consultations throughout this very difficult period they are going through. They are trying to come up with as much agreement as possible on the degree of closure, if any, that is necessary. Eventually the responsibility is on the Port of London Authority to make recommendations to the Minister. My information is that those recommendations are being made within a month, and your Lordships can take it from me that all the Ministers involved will then be moving very speedily to implement whatever has to be done.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how long the Government have known of the financial situation and difficulties of the Authority and what, during that period, they have done about it?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, Sir John Cuckney of the Port of London Authority advised my right honorable friend that there were financial problems and that there were certain ways out. The Government have known of the position for some months. They have been trying to see how they can have consultation with the union so that they can come to a proper agreement about the future of the Port of London Authority. But we have also to take into account the number of jobs at stake and the employment situation in the areas where the docks are. This is not just a question of what the Department of Transport can do for the Port of London Authority, but of what other Departments can do in the way of attracting industry and new jobs and of improving the Dockland area. This is where we hope for a lot more support from the Joint Docklands Committee.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, is it not important that the future of the upper docks should not be decided only on the balance-sheet considerations of the PLA, important though those are? May I ask my noble friend whether the Government will ensure that social costs—that is, the effect on the lives of the people of East London—will be taken fully into account when decisions are made on these matters?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, of course that will be the attitude of the Government, but it would be premature for me to stand at this Box and give any undertaking that there will be no loss of jobs, no closure and no hardship to some of the people in the area. Whatever is the outcome of these discussions and of the recommendations of the Port of London Authority, it is people we are dealing with and it is people whom we must consider.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, referring to the noble Baroness's original Answer, would she not agree that there was no suggestion whatever on the part of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that

515
the Port of London Authority were trading illegally? The suggestion was that they were trading while insolvent. In the light of that, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not the Port of London Authority are trading insolvently at this moment?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, they are trading with the backing of the £15 million which is available to them through Lazard and Company and which has a Government guarantee.

WALES BILL
3.36 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
Schedule 2 [Existing statutory functions]:
Lord O'HAGAN Lord O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 46BB:
Page 40, line 38, leave out Part IV of the Schedule.
The noble Lord said: We now return to more tranquil subjects—to the Wales Bill. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 9 lays down that certain powers previously held by Ministers are devolved and that Schedule 2 enumerates in considerable detail under various headings exactly what powers remain with Whitehall and Westminster and which powers are now devolved to the Welsh Assembly.
In moving my Amendment No. 46BB, I have tried to provide your Lordships with an opportunity of discovering exactly what is to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly in the fields of housing and landlord and tenant legislation. I took the view that since this part of Schedule 2 was wholly undebated in
516
another place, and since it is a matter which concerns the citizens of Wales in a very important way, and the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole in an equally important way, it was far more constructive at this stage of our proceedings on the Bill not to put down a long string of Amendments but to examine the part of the Schedule as a whole. As I hope I managed to explain to the noble Baroness earlier in the week, it was my intention to raise certain general matters about the purport of this part of the Schedule, with a view to examining some of them in greater detail at a later stage if necessary.
One starts from the White Paper Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales, as updated by the Supplementary Statement. The proposals that the Government put forward in that White Paper so far as housing is concerned are really quite striking. The first question I want to put to the noble Baroness is this. Have the proposals I am about to read out been fully implemented in Part IV of Schedule 2 under Clause 9 of the Bill? The Government said, at the time they published their White Paper in November 1975:
"The Assembly will be responsible for all aspects of housing, except that the Government will remain responsible for housing finance in the private sector (building society mortgages and the like) and will also keep a reserve power to prevent or restrict increases in public and private sector rents where general economic and counter inflationary policy makes this necessary. These limited qualifications apart, the Assembly will be able to have its own policies, for both the public and the private sectors, on the provision and upkeep of accommodation, the control of rents, subsidies to local authorities and housing associations, renovation, building standards and slum clearance".
What I am sure your Lordships would like to hear from the noble Baroness is how those proposals have been implemented, and whether the safeguards that were promised in paragraph 245 of Our Changing Democracy have been built into the Bill, so that the Government themselves are still firmly responsible for housing finance in the private sector, and have a reserved power to prevent or restrict increases in the public and private sectors. I am sure that your Lordships would like to know how those proposals have been affected.
There was also a Supplementary Statement. There is one point in that which

517
affects Wales, which brings home with particular vividness—certainly to me—the difficulties that devolution brings about in so far as it affects housing finance. Paragraph 44 of the Supplementary Statement (Cmnd. 6585) states:
"For its activities in Wales the Housing Corporation, which provides finance for housing associations, will be financed by and accountable to the Assembly, and the Assembly will share in making appointments to it."
It may be that nominated bodies will form the subject of a more substantial discussion on other parts of the Bill. But could the noble Baroness explain to the Committee how it will be possible for the Housing Corporation to carry out its statutory duties in a way that can really give it a general oversight and form part of a general United Kingdom attitude to housing finance and housing policy, if its Welsh arm is to be devolved? Also, what is the nature of the accountability which Her Majesty's Government propose that the Welsh Assembly should set up for supervising its part of the Housing Corporation; or will this be a matter that is left entirely to the Welsh Assembly to work out for itself, once it has got under way and decided how to go about its tasks?
Having looked at the wider provisions of the White Paper and the Supplementary Statement, l began to go through the provisions listed in Part IV of the Schedule in order to try to form an overall picture of exactly what aspects of the law affecting housing have been devolved, and what have not, because we are dealing with subjects which are of enormous importance to individuals. If the Welsh Assembly has control over security of tenure, rents and so on, these are not trivial subjects from which one can easily turn aside and say that it does not really matter how this will work. It matters very much, and it matters very much to everyone in Wales.
One of the first difficulties that I encountered was that a considerable number of the Acts—not so much under this Part as under other Parts—are not available in the Printed Paper Office. So that one is trying to look at those Parts of old Acts which are to be devolved or not devolved, and it is very hard to do so because they are not readily obtainable. This increases the importance of the answers by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, because only those who have
518
access to all the Acts can see what this Part of the Schedule really means. As this aspect has not been debated at all we are now giving the first opportunity to the Government to explain precisely the borderline between the powers that are devolved and those that are not devolved.
I thought that I would concentrate on one or two of the major Acts. I attempted to grasp how the Leasehold Reform Act would be affected by devolution, but I am afraid that it was beyond my mental capacity to grapple with this problem. So if the noble Baroness can enlighten me, and the rest of the Committee, I, at least, shall be very grateful. But on the Rent Act 1977, I made progress slightly nearer "0" level standard, because I found, for example, at Section 42, that the power of the
"Secretary of State to issue regulations prescribing forms for notices, certificates and other documents required or authorized under this Part of the Act",
and so on, was to be devolved. Section 42 of the Rent Act 1977 deals with such matters as rent books, grant aided improvements and the variation of rents during protected tenancies. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell me whether power to issue regulations of this kind can conflict with the residual powers remaining with Her Majesty's Government, as set out in paragraph 245 of the White Paper because in the White Paper there are powers retained which deal with what seem to me, at first sight, to be similar matters.
Another subject which gave me anxiety was Section 63 of the Rent Act 1977 which deals with schemes for the appointment of rent officers. If this is a devolved subject, am I to understand that the Assembly could decide to appoint rent officers in a different way from the rest of the United Kingdom? If it does not mean that, I do not see what the devolution of Section 63 can add to the powers that the Assembly will possess. My study of Section 63 led me to the conclusion that if this Bill was devolving a real power, it must mean that the Assembly could appoint rent officers in a different way from the rest of the United Kingdom. I wondered, again, how that would fit in with the balance of power as now to be divided between the Welsh Assembly and Whitehall and Westminster.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I apologies for interrupting, because the noble Lord has a very difficult task. He has been very frank in saying that he does not understand certain of these Acts and finds them very difficult to construe. Therefore, I wondered whether, when he is talking about the Rent Act 1977 and specifically referring to the powers under Section 63 for the appointment of rent officers, he will be proposing an Amendment that Section 63 should be included in the excluded functions? If he is going to go through all these Acts, we shall be here for ever, and my interruption is an attempt to save some time. These Amendments have come in rather late and, like the noble Lord, I have not been able to go through all the sections. But if they are so obscure to a distinguished noble Lord, is it not far better to leave these domestic matters to the Welsh Assembly forthwith, for it to elucidate them?
Lord O'HAGAN: I was trying to save time by giving to the Government an opportunity to explain the division of power between the new Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Government so that we could understand, so that I could understand, so that the noble Lord himself could understand exactly who was allowed to do what. If I were sufficiently wise, no doubt I should have put down 573 Amendments, which would have taken even longer. If the noble Lord interrupts me, I shall be here all night. Perhaps he will allow me to continue.
I am bringing forward some examples merely to illustrate the nature of the difficulties which will come to be resolved in the execution of the policy that lies behind this Bill, if it is ever implemented. Another series of conundrums seem to me to raise themselves in the case of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. This is an Act which raises considerable difficulties. Under Section 18, there is the same kind of difficulty which I have seen—and I may have seen it quite wrongly—over the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations. These regulations are devolved, but I do not quite see how they would fit in with what remains at Whitehall.
More seriously, I am concerned about Section 29. Section 29 is that part of the Act which sets up the Agricultural Dwelling
520
House Advisory Committees, presently known as ADHACs, which have a considerable role to play in the provision of agricultural housing—and very important bodies they are, too. I understand that the power to nominate members to these committees is to be passed from the Minister in Whitehall to the Welsh Assembly. These committees will have considerable authority, under the successive Landlord and Tenant Acts and other Acts affecting agricultural housing, to deal with the provision of housing for those who are working in the agricultural industry, and the Welsh Assembly will be choosing the people to man these committees, issuing regulations, laying down how they should be run, appointing secretaries for such committees and issuing money to keep them going. This means that these committees could be operating in a quite different way from the same kind of committees in some of the Border areas between Wales and England.
Are there not some difficulties here? Are there not some potential conflicts? And how much thought have the Government given to the resolution of the kind of discrepancies which might arise if some of these ADHACs are pursuing policies different from those that are becoming the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom?
One particular question which strikes me—it may be wholly irrelevant to the Schedule but it is very important to those parts of the Schedule which deal with planning, landlord and tenant, housing, roads and pollution—is whether the Bill has any effect on the district valuer: his function, his rôle and his accountability. I presume that the district valuer is still under the respective local government authority, but is the nature of his work to be altered? He will be a highly important figure in many of the activities that your Lordships will be discussing as we go through this Schedule, and it would be very useful if we could know the answer to that question now.
Then again—and this may not arise directly from the Schedule but it is of great importance if there are to be certain discrepancies which will be ironed out during the initial stages after this legislation comes into force—will the new Welsh Assembly Commissioner cover housing? Will housing be within his

521
remit? Can the Commissioner look at complaints that arise from what the Welsh Assembly does under its new housing powers? Is that the kind of power that he will have? Since the Welsh Assembly will have the obligation to play a very active part in some of these housing matters, if, unfortunately, it does not succeed in discharging them as well as it should, it is important that the Welsh Assembly Commissioner should have the power to look at these matters. Perhaps, however, that is something else which will be dealt with at a later stage.
Turning to one or two final points, during the Report stage in another place, certain Amendments to Part IV of Schedule 2 were passed without discussion, including some references to the Rent Charges Act 1977, and certain of the excluded functions were altered. That was not explained, because it was dealt with under the guillotine in another place. Could the noble Baroness tell us what is the importance of the provisions which are now to he excluded as a result of the new wording, as dealt with late at night in another place?
I hope that I have not subjected your Lordships to too many detailed questions on this point. I am glad to be reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that we need to understand this point clearly. We need to know what is the boundary, what is the balance of power, between what the Assembly can do and will do under the Government's scheme and what will remain at Whitehall, at Westminster.
I hope that in putting forward my Amendments in this way I have saved time rather than wasted it. By giving noble Lords the opportunity to look as a whole at all the housing provisions contained in this Schedule, we can see how they relate to each other. We have provided Her Majesty's Government with the opportunity to explain to us how they work. I beg to move.
3.58 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I shall not detain the Committee for very long. I want to assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that I consider that he has done a service to the purpose of the Bill by carrying out all that meticulous work
522
and by asking those questions. I do not think that they were wrecking questions; they were probing questions, which any democratic House is entitled to ask.
I should like, in passing, to point out something. Land valuers also come into the question, from the agricultural point of view. I am not quite sure about the function of the district valuer. Obviously, the noble Lord has done a worthwhile job of work and the best thing now, for the information of the House, is to allow my noble friend the Minister to give a constructive reply.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to say to my noble friend that I think he has been much too kind. It is not the job of an Opposition, when wanting legislation that is workable, to he kind to a Government. Is it not the job of an Opposition to probe? If ever there was a part of this Bill that wanted to be probed, it is Schedule 2. I doubt whether the noble Baroness or her excellent adviser really are aware of all that is involved in Schedule 2. It is most intricate. What it is likely to cover is almost incomprehensible. To put questions in an omnibus way will allow the noble Baroness, or whoever is to reply for the Government, to get around so many of the detailed points by answering the one or two that she might be able to answer.
Lord O'HAGAN: I want to reassure my noble friend that my lack of partisan activity is not quite as sinister as it may appear. I think you get a much better debate and a more practical discussion on a Bill like this if you return on Report to a large number of detailed points, when you can probe them. But if you do not understand them when you are trying to probe the probing is not much use. My intention today was to prepare the ground for probing by giving the Government an opportunity of justifying what they put forward.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: The noble Lord has been a long time with me in the other place, and what he is trying to do now reminds me of the Irish comedian I once saw who went off the stage crying because everybody was laughing at him.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I never quite know why the noble Lord wants to

523
be all things to all men. Last week he was very pro the Scottish Bill, now he is talking on the Welsh Bill but he cannot prevent himself from bringing in Ireland as well. I suppose that is what is called being broad-minded. I accept my noble friend's explanation. I think it is the right tactic to ask for a general explanation on Committee providing we get the probe on Report. But there is no support from the Liberal Benches.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: There is indeed great support for the Wales Bill and the conception of devolution in the Bill. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I have had one or two dealings with the noble Lord and I have never before found in him an inclination to give anybody a blank cheque.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I come from Cardiganshire where we are renowned for being very careful about blank cheques.
Lord ELTON: This is the second time that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has spoken for purposes other than saying that he was not going to make a speech. I think that is useful, but we want to progress with the delicate method we have devised for this Bill rather than spend too much time in ridiculing it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I merely wanted to have on the record the sinister attitude adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. What he said in his intervention was quite clear. He said, "Your Lordships do not spend any time on it, pass it, it does not matter what is in it; let the Assembly deal with it the best way they can when you give them the powers whose coherence you have not even taken the trouble to examine". That is not very good. I hope that when he comes to make the speech that he said he is not going to make he will make it perfectly clear that it was said in some inexplicable period of exuberance and not what he really meant.
There was one point I wanted to make. The only reason I wanted to come in on this Bill is that here we have what I would
524
call Border difficulties on a greater scale between Wales and England. On the Border we get different judgments and different values which can cause real suffering. On the Border a decision and a set of values set by the Assembly in Wales may be very different from what they are in England, which may be very damaging. The part of the reply which I shall be very interested indeed to hear is how you are going to get over this boundary distinction which has always existed; it has been overcome when the powers came from Westminster covering the whole of the United Kingdom, but that will not be so in these very important, sensitive sections when power is handed over to the Assembly. I shall wait with interest to hear the probing of my noble friend at Report stage.
Lord PARGITER: The difficulty might be overcome by all the decisions given by the Assembly being in Welsh, and all the decisions South of the Border in English.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: May I first of all add my comments to my noble friend in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for the tremendous amount of homework which he must have done on this Bill, in sorting out all the Schedules and things concerning them. I know that he will not expect me to have remembered or taken note of every minute point which he made this afternoon but I shall do my best to deal with some of them, and in any event I shall write to the noble Lord and to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, and, if it will help, also to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
To start with perhaps I should explain what we have done in this part of Schedule 2. This is the part which transfers to the Assembly most of the existing ministerial functions relating to public, private sector and housing association housing. The main ministerial functions which are not to be transferred to the Assembly relate to the provision of mortgage finance by private financial institutions. So the ministerial functions which we have transferred in Part IV include—and I am afraid it is rather a long list but might be helpful to hear it—those relating first to the provision, improvement and managing of

525
houses by local authorities; local authority mortgages; the provision of hostel accommodation; housing associations and cooperatives, and the activities in Wales of the Housing Corporation; housing schemes devised by new town corporations; housing standards, slum clearance, and housing action areas; improvement grants and housing subsidies; rent assessment committees and tribunals; landlord and tenant matters and rent rebates and allowances, which is a fairly hefty programme of things which have been transferred but they are all things which are very pertinent to those who live in Wales.
The principal functions excluded from matters transferred relate to the Lord Chancellor's powers to regulate the procedure of rent assessment committees and rent tribunals; the prosecution functions of the Attorney-General; compensation—the basis for payment of compensation is generally reserved throughout the Bill; building societies and option mortgage which involve national tax and national economic management issues; rent allowances and rebates in respect of persons in receipt of supplementary benefits because the social security system is reserved; and Crown land which is held other than by the Assembly. To the housing corporations this means that the arrangements for transfer to the Assembly of functions relating to their activities in Wales will be set out in an order under Clause 59, made by the Secretary of State, and the order will be made after consultation with the corporation and will provide for the apportionment of assets and liabilities and for accounts and reports to be submitted to the Assembly rather than to Parliament.
It is Clauses 55 and 56 taken with Schedule 6 which will empower the Assembly to make advances to the corporation and for it to repay to the Secretary of State sums corresponding to the payments received from the corporation in respect of existing borrowing at such times and such rates of interest as are to be determined by the Treasury. The Secretary of State is to pay the sums he receives into the National Loan Fund. The corporation may also make to the Assembly certain payments which would otherwise have been made to the Secretary of State in respect of loans originally made to housing associations. In addition, this particular part also provides that the powers to
526
borrow outside the United Kingdom or in a currency other than sterling may not be exercised without Treasury consent and approval.
The Government believe it is right for the Assembly to be given substantial powers over the provision and financing of housing of Wales. Housing is essentially a matter which is of very close, everyday concern to the people who live in Wales but has very little impact on matters which must be dealt with by the Government of Great Britain as a whole. The Government make no apology for the scope of the transfer of housing functions in Part IV of Schedule 2. The Assembly will be given the functions that I have outlined: local authority house building with subsidies for housing; local authority mortgages; the regulation of housing associations and their subsidies; new towns housing, rent rebates and allowances; the working of the Rent Acts; leasehold enfranchisement, and agricultural tied cottages.
The Government accept that the transfer of housing powers cannot be total, and this is reflected in the exclusions in column 2 of Part IV of Schedule 2. These largely concern housing functions which impinge on other matters which are not transferred in any context. Certain functions in Schedule 4 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 concern the payment of rent rebates to persons in receipt of supplementary benefits. These are reserved because the social security system from whom these payments come is reserved. And, more important, all the functions in relation to building society finance for house purchase and the option mortgage scheme are also reserved. This is because there is a very close connection between these matters and the regulation of lending institutions and the fixing of interest rates, which must be reserved as part of the machinery for the management of the economy.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, kindly wrote to me about his Amendment, and I agree with him that his writing perhaps was not all that it might have been, but we think we got the gist of it. He asked me specifically what change Part IV of this Schedule would make, as he put it, to the average Welshman's everyday existence. I make two points by way of preface: first, devolution of itself will not

527
change people's lives. What we are doing is to provide the opportunity for change, should the Assembly as a body elected by the residents in Wales consider that the existing policies are not sufficiently attuned to Welsh needs. Secondly, we are devolving only the executive powers and only existing ministerial powers; so when the noble Lord is looking up all the many statutes, when he sees, "the Secretary of State may" do this, or "the Secretary of State shall" do that, if he just writes in the words "the Welsh Assembly" in place of "the Secretary of State" all will be clear to him in the many Acts that he consults.
Lord O'HAGAN: That is what worries me.
Baroness STEDMAN: Housing is a subject which is primarily the responsibility of the local authorities. Where local authorities at present have policy discretion, as for instance on the sale of council housing, or on the level of rents, that will continue after devolution. Equally, where matters such as security of tenure and a fair rent system are set out in detail in legislation with little or no ministerial discretion, then the powers of the Assembly will be correspondingly limited. But specific ministerial powers do not tell the whole story. I suggest that the Assembly will be in a position to influence housing policy in Wales in a major way, as are Ministers at present. In particular, they will be able to determine the level of resources for housing and the different sectors of housing. For instance, they will be able to control the balance between the housing associations and local authority housing; between local authority expenditure on loans for private house buyers and on building houses for rent, and in determining their policies and priorities they will be able to take greater account of particular Welsh circumstances and needs. I understand that leasehold reform is a far more important issue in Wales than in most parts of England.
The effect of the proposed Amendment, and I accept what the noble Lord has said—that is, that this is a case for probing and for information—is not selectively to reserve powers which are interrelated with other reserved matters. As it is worded at the moment, it is to remove entirely the
528
Assembly's housing powers and would leave the Assembly powerless in just the kind of matters in which we think the Welsh people are looking for them to take action.
With regard to the question of the district valuer, land officer, or whatever they may be called in Wales, the district valuer will remain an officer of the Inland I Revenue. His functions in relation to valuation of property for rating remain devolved. He will continue to be accessible to the local authorities and also to the Assembly, no doubt, for the provision of advice on property values. On the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, the power to establish the advisory committees on agricultural housing, the intention is that the ministerial powers should pass to the Assembly. The committees are concerned primarily with housing. Housing conditions vary between areas of different kinds, and housing is essentially the kind of matter which is suitable for devolution. The Government think it very suitable that these committees should become the province of the Assembly. They see no cross-Border problems, but human beings being what they are we may find some problems.
On the Housing Corporation, the noble Lord asked about the arrangements which will apply to that Corporation. No powers will transfer until an order has been made under Clause 59 of the Bill, conferring specific powers on the Assembly. The intention is that the Corporation should become answerable to, and financed by, the Assembly for all its operations in Wales, and that the Assembly should exercise the powers in relation to its operations in Wales which the Secretary of State continues to exercise in England.
Turning to the changes since November 1975, when we first started talking about devolution, the Government have reviewed the housing provision since the 1975 Paper. There were two matters mentioned there, which were referred to by the noble Lord, which the Bill does not deal with. First, we no longer propose to devolve powers relating to building regulations. There will continue to be a single set of regulations for both England and Wales. Secondly, the Bill contains no provision enabling the Government to direct a standstill in rent for counterinflationary reasons. That has been

529
dropped. We take the view that, if a Government wish to exercise such powers they should seek them separately in the circumstances of the time. As indicated in the White Paper, there is no devolution in relation to the provision of private sector finance for housing; that is, in relation to the building societies.
On the Rent Act 1977, where the noble Lord asked whether the Assembly will take over the responsibility for appointing the rent officers, the answer is, Yes, and they could be appointed in a different way from the rest of the United Kingdom, subject to compliance with Section 63 of the appropriate Act. I realise that I have not answered all the "nitty-gritty" details—
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Baroness STEDMAN: There is another piece coming up. The district valuer's valuation functions are reserved, they are not devolved. I regret that; it was a slip of my tongue. I will read Hansard carefully tomorrow to study the very detailed points which were raised by the noble Lord and which other noble Lords have brought out in the course of the debate. I will certainly see that everyone is advised of the Government's opinion on the particular problem before we get to Report stage, in the hope of clearing the air.
Lord HYLTON: I have listened carefully to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and I am sure the Committee will be extremely grateful to her for going into the detail which she has given. She has spelled out extremely clearly those particular subjects which are to be reserved, and we are glad to know that. Another most important point which she touched on was the fact that the Welsh Assembly will have a very large measure of discretion in housing policy and housing priorities. I think it is correct to say that it will have control of the balance of allocation of finance to the various sectors of housing. We have also noted what she said about the Housing Corporation in Wales being financed by the Assembly. However, I should like to ask one question. She said that rent rebates and rent allowances would be devolved. I take that to mean the
530
administration of them, and I should like to ask whether the Assembly will have any power, whether by statutory order or otherwise, to alter the method of calculation of rent rebates and allowances. If they are able to alter them, I think it would be unfortunate, to say the least, because it would put tenants on one side of the Border in a totally different position from those on the other side.
I hope this may be a suitable occasion to welcome a recent circular from the Department of the Environment, No. 38/78. I hope this document will be very closely studied indeed by those who are elected to the Welsh Assembly (if we ever have one) and certainly by members of housing authorities throughout the United Kingdom. In my view, the circular is extremely important because it relates the previous statutory duties of the housing authorities to inspect the whole of their districts both to national priorities and to local priorities and relates those two to the available resources in cash terms that may be available in any one year. From that circular it should be possible to make better housing investment plans than have been made up to now.
The circular is of particular importance to Wales owing to the rather large number of unfit houses to be found in Wales, in particular in the older parts of cities where there is a great need for rehabilitation work. If the contents of this circular can really be put into practice, I hope that we shall be able to avoid the under-spending, under-spending even in spite of the cuts that have occurred both in Wales and to a lesser extent in England in recent years.
Lord HALE: I wonder whether the noble Baroness will forgive me making a rare intervention in a Bill in which I have not taken any considerable interest, both because there are so many better informed people and also because I am not bursting with energy. The noble Baroness said that she recognised that the question of leasehold reform was of special importance in Wales, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, mentioned the Leasehold Reform Act as one which gave special provisions. I am almost the only surviving member of the two or three leasehold committees which sat under the late Lord Justice Jenkins to examine the various positions so far as

531
houses were concerned; I am quite sure I am the only Labour survivor. The evidence given to us on Wales showed, first, that Wales probably had a larger proportion, particularly in South Wales, of long leasehold houses of the ordinary type, the usual type of 99-year lease, than any other area. Secondly, it was unfortunate that unhappily many of them were about to run out. So provision had to be made to provide for protected tenancies for occupiers of leasehold premises in advance of any major measure of leasehold reform, which was brought in under Mr. Crossman, who did not take much notice of the existing policy in his provisions.
There is a problem concerning the other place so far as leasehold reform is concerned; that is, that in England there are exceedingly important but limited areas concerned in this matter. I would say that of the constituencies in Great Britain a great many have no concern or interest in the matter at all because the system does not exist. Secondly, in Lancashire, where I tried to activate opinion on this, many of the leases were 999-year leases. The result is that in the problems which affect the average man, Wales has a very special interest in this matter. While my opinions on devolution have varied from time to time, I should think it of extreme importance to Wales, if devolution comes, that the consideration of this matter should be devolved and that the problems should be examined by people who have close and intimate acquaintance with the problems and who may feel that they are a matter for special attention. The noble Baroness promised to look into this matter, and all I ask is that she does look at these problems. I hope these remarks will be helpful in the very special consideration of Wales in this matter.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Had I known the specific contents of the letter which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, sent to the noble Baroness, I perhaps would not have been quite so militant in the probing interruption that I made at the beginning of his speech, because I thought he was going to take a course which he has not taken. I therefore add my praise to the manner in which has he has presented the case for amendment. The
532
specific point which he, unknown to me and unknown to your Lordships, had put to the noble Baroness, was to explain to your Lordships what would be the reaction of the average Welshman to the Amendment proposed by him to delete Part IV. May I, therefore, congratulate the noble Baroness on taking on, so fearlessly and courageously and charmingly, the part of the average Welshman in this matter. I have nothing very much to add to it.
The noble Baroness, in presenting the attitude of the average Welshman, did not deal with one matter which the noble Lord raised at the beginning of his speech; that is, the question of possible conflicts arising from devolution of these powers and the retention of concurrent powers. I must say that I myself have had some anxiety as to whether the procedures in the Bill are effective to deal with all the conflicts that arise. I of course realise that domestic matters in Wales will be resolved by an elected Assembly, elected to represent all parts of Wales and to bring the opinions of Welshmen from all parts of Wales. I have been wondering, therefore, whether the Government would find it helpful to refer to Clause 17 of the Bill referring to subject committees and particularly the procedures set out in subsection (2)(a) and (b) and subsection (3) of that clause. May not this help your Lordships to understand that there are some procedures in the Bill for dealing with conflicts?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked a specific question about whether the Assembly would take over the responsibility of appointing rent officers. He did that in connection with Section 63 of the Rent Act 1977. My noble friend received a note which was inaccurate, and perhaps I might take this opportunity to put the point right. It helps if one looks at Section 63 of the Rent Act, because it demonstrates how the whole Schedule works. Section 63 begins—I read it short:
"The Secretary of State shall make … after consultation with the local authority, a scheme providing for the appointment by the proper officer of the local authority—
(a) of such number of rent officers for the area as may be determined by or in accordance with the scheme".
So under Section 63 as it stands, the appointment is made by the proper

533
officer of the local authority under a scheme which the Secretary of State makes. Post-devolution, the appointment will be made by the proper officer of the local authority under a scheme made by the Assembly. That is the answer to the question. That applies equally in relation to Section 29 of the other Act the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord O'HAGAN: I am most grateful for that particular group of clarifications with which the noble and learned Lord has provided us. I think we must return in detail on Report to some of these more elaborate particular instances of the relationship between the local government and the Assembly where they affect housing. I must say to the noble Baroness that her answers about the district valuer have left me more confused than I was before, and I am afraid that we shall have to return to that subject.
Did I understand the noble Baroness to say that building regulations were going to continue to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom and that they are not to be devolved? Could she perhaps nod to me if I have got this right: that there is no residual power retained by Westminster to control rents in council houses for counter-inflationary purposes—or is that something that in the speed of her delivery skipped over my head and I did not grasp correctly? I seemed to be under the impression that, in one of the examples she was giving of a development or alteration in the policy of Her Majesty's Government since the publication of the original White Paper, they had decided to look at this aspect in a different way and that there was now no residual power in Whitehall that might be useful or necessary, for the management of the economy at any particular time, to have an impact on council rents.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should like to repeat the point I made about housing which is worrying the noble Lord. I said that the Bill contains no provision enabling the Government to direct a standstill in rents for counter-inflationary reasons. We take the view that if a Government wished to exercise such powers they should seek them separately in the circumstances of the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the rent and rate rebates which have
534
been devolved. In this connection, assume that guidance will be offered, but it is up to the Welsh Assembly whether it accepts that guidance. I am sure that the people who are members of the Welsh Assembly will be conscious of what is being done in other parts of the country and will want to do no worse and no better than other people. They will want to give their people a fair crack of the whip, but not more than that. As regards the leasehold, my noble friend must understand that the leasehold has been devolved. It has been devolved because we realise what a special problem it is to Wales and we think that Members of the Welsh Assembly are the best people to take this in hand and to try to do something about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, referred to the possibility of conflict. We spent much of yesterday talking about concurrent powers and so on. We hope that there will be very little conflict, but we all know that at present there is conflict. There is conflict from time to time between individual local authorities or local authority associations and my Department, the Department of the Environment. Sometimes there is conflict between local councils and Westminster. No doubt there will come a time when there may be some conflict between the local authorities in Wales and the Welsh Assembly or it may even be that Westminster will not like what the Welsh Assembly is doing. However, that is not something that we are seeking out. We are accepting that responsible Welshmen elected to a Welsh Assembly to serve the Welsh people will carry out their task to the best of their ability and in a very conscientious and responsible way.
Lord O'HAGAN: In the interests of proceeding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 46CC:
Page 42, line 39, after ("sections") insert ("2(3), 6, 9, 12(5), 14(1),").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46CC which stands in

535
the name of my noble friend Lord Amory and myself. With this Amendment, we begin Part V of the Schedule which is somewhat more delicate and, in my view more important. We are dealing with a service which was built up in 1940 throughout the United Kingdom—the Fire Service as a whole. I am sure that none of us would wish to go any further at present than to say that we have a Fire Service which is probably second to none in the world. In that case, it seems a tragedy that at present we are considering a Bill by which we are about to break up the United Kingdom Fire Service into different areas or different countries. We are now dealing with the Fire Service for Wales which is to be run more or less by the Welsh Assembly.
It is interesting to note that the Government, by means of the Bill, have excluded certain sections—namely, Sections 23, 26 and 29—of the Fire Services Act 1947 and also the functions under Section 36 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and indeed, the functions under Section 1(4) of the Fire Precautions (Loans) Act. Those Acts contain many more sections of great interest.
First, I should like to ask the noble Lord the reason why only parts of these Acts have been removed for the Home Secretary to look after. We believe that as a precaution we should add to the Bill one or two more important sections contained in the 1947 Act in order to cover further ground. Section 23 relates to the Secretary of State establishing a central training institution and also local training centers. Section 26 deals with the firemen's pension scheme and under Section 29 it says:
"The Secretary of State shall constitute a Council to be called the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council."
I have put those three sections together but because they are so important it seems to me that the Secretary of State should and must keep them under his control—which the Government have done in their Bill—in order to protect the Fire Service as a whole.
The experience that has been gained over the years in the fire services must be maintained, and that is what it appears the Government are doing with the four sections contained in the Fire Precautions
536
Act and the Fire Services Act. We felt that it was important to add other sections; namely, Section 2(3) which deals with mutual arrangements—in other words duties of fire officers—which are most vital. It is no good having training centers established without that training being put into practice when problems arise. Moreover, there must be reinforcement schemes for particular types of fire. I should have thought that it was right to include that in the Bill. Wales has particular fire risks—for example, forest fires which can become out of control—and so this matter should definitely be left with the Secretary of State.
Under Section 6 the Secretary of State has the power to make combination schemes, which is roughly the same as is covered by Section 2. However, the important matter about which I should like to make a few comments is that of a state of emergency. As we read the Bill, there will be the fire brigades of, as it were, two countries: the Welsh Assembly and Westminster. If there were an emergency, there could be the problem of one fire brigade trying to get through to the other fire brigade. For example, there may be a border accident or a similar emergency and there would probably be a series of breakdowns in one or the other brigade. Thus the efficiency in dealing with the emergency would break down and instead of it being dealt with immediately there might, for one reason or another, be a delay.
Delays could arise in one or two ways. First, there is the school of thought in Wales that the Welsh language must be taught along with English in the schools. I understand that a certain amount of money from the bulk sum is to be designated to help the Welsh people to learn their language. I entirely agree with that. It is vital to preserve that language. However, I understand that during training it was noticed that two fire brigade cadets would speak only Welsh. That could produce a problem—although it may be a minor one—because communications could break down due to the language barrier. In that case we might well have to consider having an interpreter on the tender or in communications. I am probably exaggerating, but I raise this matter as something

537
that might possibly happen. At the training school the Secretary of State could possibly ensure that officers or men do not communicate in a language which is difficult to understand. That is only a small example, but it could happen in an emergency. We believe that the Secretary of State should remain in charge of those powers.
Within the bracket of the tire services is the problem of equipment. This probably falls outside what I discussed just now, but if we have a Fire Service in Wales which can buy its own equipment—if it can afford to do so—and it buys more sophisticated equipment, which is not the standard equipment for the English fire brigades, and if a problem arises on the Borders of England and Wales, I can foresee the possibility of efficiency breaking down and the equipment not being balanced. I believe that the Government should examine this important matter, because if Wales is allowed to buy its own equipment and machinery, it must be really and truly through the Secretary of State.
I turn to training. I must ask the Government whether it will be necessary to build a new training center in Wales. If so, that will mean further costs. Would it not be better to keep the training center at, I believe, Dorking? Coupled with that is the further problem of the Fire Services Inspectorate. Do we need two inspectorates, rather than the one that we have at present, which works throughout the United Kingdom? Would it not be an inconvenience to have two? If the fire services came under the Secretary of State, I am absolutely certain that it would be in unison with Wales and there would probably not be two groups working against each other for different reasons. I say that because it is important. I have dealt with different equipment. I believe that training should he kept as it is at present.
I have been probing to discover as much as I can, and there is a great deal more. I wonder whether the Minister or anyone else can help us any further. Unless we are very careful, we shall have a very confused Fire Service in Wales. I should like the Fire Service in Wales to come under the Secretary of State, because if it comes under the Welsh Assembly, we shall have a muddle and
538
an inefficient service in Wales. I beg to move.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: I should like strongly to support what my noble friend Lord Long has said. He has outlined so well the problems that I think I can support him with extreme brevity. This Amendment concerns the Fire Service and I strongly agree with what he has said. In this country we have a most excellent Fire Service. It is a delicate balance within the national instrument and between the organisations concerned. However, I should have thought that the Fire Service was almost an extreme example of the powers that should not be devolved, for I think that much may be lost.
There are a host of regulations affecting the Fire Service—some of which my noble friend has referred to—dealing with matters like discipline, standards of training, uniformity of equipment, since equipment must often be shared, and the making of combination and mutual assistance schemes, which are and should be on a United Kingdom basis. Surely all the experience of the Fire Service confirms that. Questions of appeals, disputes and the failure of authorities to carry out their duties, clearly should stay with the Home Office. There are almost certain to be questions of inter-authority arrangements across the England and Wales Border.
Over the years the interdependence of the Fire Service and fire brigades has changed out of all knowledge. I am old enough to remember when our local borough fire engine was drawn by two very attractive grey horses—Daisy and Mabel—and they were universally admired. However, they seldom put out a fire more than three miles away because local public opinion could never decide whether Daisy and Mabel should be made to trot uphill or whether they should be allowed to walk uphill. I shall not take that line of thought any further because unquestionably things have been changing.
My noble friend referred to the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which works on a United Kingdom basis. Yet despite these facts the Bill proposed that all functions of this sort should be

539
devolved to the Assembly. Like my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, I have great difficulty in understanding the principles on which the decisions have been reached as to which powers shall be devolved and which should be excluded. Those principles seem to be very obscure indeed, and in no case are they more obscure and perplexing than in this matter of the fire services. It would be a great pity to do anything to upset the delicate balance to which I have referred, which exists under present arrangements and which seems to work very well. Can the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, tell us that further consideration will be given to the powers belonging to the Fire Service which are to be excluded and to those which are to be devolved? I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Long has said in every detail.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Before the noble Viscount sits down, could he clear my mind on one point? He rather suggested that training was to be devolved. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, on the other hand, indicated that training should remain as an England and Wales affair. I should like to know which is right.
Baroness FAITH FULL: In supporting my two noble friends I should like to ask for some information. If the Fire Service is to be devolved, what procedures of consultation between England and Wales will be laid down with regard to uniformity of equipment? I well remember when I was working in Plymouth during the war that Plymouth burned because the hydrants were not the right shape to fit the Exeter Fire Brigade pipes. Therefore, if there is to be devolution, what procedures will there be of co-operation between England and Wales?
Lord GRIDLEY: I should like to intervene very briefly on this matter to make a relevant point. Some years ago I was responsible for devolving a national customs service to a State Legislature. The problem with which we were then faced was to transfer equipment and salary scales from a national basis to a State basis. I wonder whether the Government have considered all the problems which could arise in this connection with regard to the uniformity of the Service.
540
The Fire Service is a national service, and if there are men to work in Wales for whom the Assembly is to be responsible, can we have an assurance that their national salary scales will be the same? To what extent will any pension scheme they may enjoy be the same as those for people who belong to the national service in England? There are problems like that which ought to be considered. If they are not considered, then distractions and difficulties may arise between the service in England and the service in Wales. I should like to know whether the Government have considered those points.
Lord HYLTON: Several years ago, when the National Health Service reform Bill was going through your Lordships' House, I remember urging the Government of the day to allow the Greater London Council to keep in being its ambulance service. This was on the principle that when you have a really excellent service you ought not, for arbitrary reasons, to change it. In the same way, I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment and to urge that those parts of the Fire Service which are at present unified and specialised should be kept together and not broken up. If the Government, in replying, say, "You must trust the Assembly", I reply that of course you must trust the Assembly; but why not trust it to create some good new institutions, and keep in one piece those old institutions that are working really well?
4.53 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): A number of questions have been asked, and I shall do my best to answer them. I was intrigued to hear the episode retailed to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, about Mabel and Daisy, and the decision which was taken. I find it hard to believe about Devon, but possibly even in Devon it was far better to allow them to walk up the hill rather than trot because, as he would know, we are a nation of animal lovers and we would far prefer to be incinerated in our beds than to inconvenience a horse, even one pulling a fire engine.
Some of the more substantial questions which have been raised in this debate are based on a fundamental misconception of what is proposed in the Bill. I shall,

541
therefore, first of all indicate what is in the Bill, and then deal with some of the more detailed points which have been raised. The Government believe, as has been said by many of my colleagues during the discussion of the Bill, that the Assembly should, wherever possible, take over responsibilities for services of a local nature. The fire services fall within this category, and they are closely allied to a number of other local functions which are going to be devolved to the Assembly. Consequently, the entries in Part V of Schedule 2 devolve wide-ranging power to the Assembly in the field of fire services.
The powers and functions which the movers of this Amendment seek to exclude from the Assembly's competence are largely concerned with situations in which co-operation between fire authorities has proved to be less than perfect. We have already discussed on a number of occasions the quasi-judicial appellate functions of the Assembly and I do not want to go into that again during the course of this debate. All I need say for the purposes of this discussion is that to deny the Assembly this sort of power would be to risk interfering in its ability to run the functions devolved to it effectively and efficiently.
Finally, so far as our intention is concerned—I shall then come to some of the more detailed questions—I should point out to your Lordships that these Amendments, as drafted, could lead to some very strange results if they were to be carried and added to the Bill. Perhaps I can illustrate this by reference to Section 12 of the Fire Services Act 1947. This is concerned with arrangements whereby one fire authority may enter into arrangements with another for the provision of services to fulfill the first authority's functions. This could happen in the case of a small fire service where there was need for some co-operation between more than one fire authority.
Section 12(4) allows for representations to be made to the Secretary of State about arrangements of this sort. This particular function of the Secretary of State will be transferred to the Assembly by the terms of the Wales Bill. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State, after considering the representations made under subsection (4), to which I have just referred, to direct that arrangements of a particular character
542
should be made. This Amendment seeks to maintain the Secretary of State's role in respect of subsection (5). In other words, the representations would be made to the Assembly—this is the purpose of the noble Viscount's Amendment—but any subsequent directions issued as a result of those representations would be made not by the Assembly but by the Secretary of State, a totally separate person. That is the effect of this Amendment, which I suspect is not what the noble Viscount intended when he drafted it.
I suspect that, on reflection, the noble Viscount will agree that it would not be particularly sensible to say that you may have to make representation to one body but that some totally different body would make a decision in the matter. That would be absurd. I suspect that it is not the intention of the noble Viscount that this should be so. I therefore hope that on that basis alone he will decide not to press this Amendment.
Disputes of the kind to which I have just referred, basically between one fire authority and another, over payment of a bill for some service carried out by one authority in the area of another, are not an unimportant question. However, so far as we know there has been only one such dispute in recent years, and that was not in Wales. Therefore, the issue does not seem of fundamental importance. It is no doubt a matter of some academic interest as to what these arrangements should be, and if there was a dispute it is obviously sensible that we should have some rational basis on which somebody would clear the matter up; would arbitrate between two separate authorities. It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable in a situation of this sort that the Assembly should do it. As I have indicated, they are hardly likely to be overworked with only one case, so far as we know, in recent years, and that, I repeat, not in Wales.
Lord ELTON: I am not knowledgeable on this, but it occurs to me that the noble Lord may be describing something which could happen across the Border. What happens when one authority is in Wales and one is, for instance, in Herefordshire?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I assume that the Secretary of State would

543
make a decision in that matter, but I shall find out the answer to that question. Regarding the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, it certainly would be a tragedy to break up a United Kingdom Fire Service, but of course there is no such thing. There is a series of local authority fire services. We do not have a nationalised Fire Service. We did at one stage, but we do not now. At the moment there are two Secretaries of State. The Secretary of State for Scotland has ministerial responsibility for fire services in Scotland. There is therefore no unified ministerial responsibility for the Fire Service at the moment.
There are other problems involved in what the noble Viscount said. He said that it would be a serious matter—and I agree with him—if as a result of this Bill there was any damage to the efficiency of the Fire Service, leading to breakdowns during emergencies. But why should there conceivably be such breakdowns? The Fire Service will continue to be a local authority service in exactly the same way as it is at the moment. Local chief fire officers will co-operate in precisely the same way as they do at the moment, even if it is between a Welsh fire officer and one in Herefordshire, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I think we can make a little too much of this point.
We had the interesting example from the noble Viscount of two fire cadets who spoke only Welsh. I can imagine that to be a grave matter; but, as I understand it, it is a situation which has already arisen, and therefore it has not taken place as a result of the passage of this Bill. I fear there may be difficulties in future in this important respect, but with respect to the noble Viscount, similar difficulties would arise even if the Wales Bill were not going through Parliament.
We then come to the question of differences in equipment. This too is an important matter; but there will be absolutely no difference compared with the present arrangements. The equipment will be bought not by the Welsh Assembly—they have quite limited powers so far as this is concerned—but by the local authority, in exactly the same way as at present. There will be no difference whatever. As for the inspectorate, as the noble Viscount will be aware, these
544
appointments are made by Her Majesty and the appointments will continue in exactly the same way after devolution.
We then come to the important question of pensions, conditions of service and so on. Again, these will be conducted in exactly the same way because the local authorities, not the Welsh Assembly, are the employers. To deal with the question of training, another important matter, the Welsh Assembly is not being given the power to build some college of its own at great expense. There will be central arrangements for training in exactly the same way as at present, because the local authorities have come to the conclusion over a period of time that this is a sensible way in which to conduct our affairs.
Lord GRIDLEY: In relation to pensions, salary payments and so on, the noble Lord will be aware that recently we had a national strike on the part of the firemen and I find it difficult to understand his analogy that all these situations which might arise will be settled by the local authority. The members of the Fire Service consider themselves a national service, although in effect the local authority may be employing them. I can conceive a situation once they are transferred to the Assembly—and the Assembly will carry out certain functions in the performance of their duties to the Fire Service—where there might be difficulties on this score and that is why I raised the question of pensions, emoluments, the payment of salary and so on. The Fire Service men consider themselves to be part of a national service.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I wonder, with respect to the noble Lord, whether that is really so. I was on the periphery of that dispute because I do not have day-to-day responsibility for the Fire Service; that is for my right honorable friend the Home Secretary. But I saw no disposition on anybody's part during the fire dispute to suggest that in some way they were employees of Central Government. There is no such belief in the Fire Service, I can assure the noble Lord. I think too much is being made of this situation. It is perfectly proper that questions should be raised about the position of the Assembly when the Bill is on the Statute Book, but I hope I have emphasised that the Fire Service

545
will continue to be in the future, as it has been in the past, essentially a local authority service.
There are a number of limited areas in which the Assembly will have a role, and I have given one example of that role in relation to disputes between fire services. I do not think local fire authorities believe there is a national Fire Service, and I think they would be more than a little surprised to have it suggested to them that they did so believe. I suspect that Lord Amory, with his substantial experience of local government, would agree with me on that. It is clearly a local service and it will continue to be a local service. If any point of detail is raised about this where further clarification would be required, I will do my best to answer it; but as I hope I have indicated, the Amendment would create an extremely anomalous situation for which I believe there is no justification.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord's remarks have been extremely helpful, and from reading them we shall be able to decide whether he is right or wrong in assuming that too much has been made of this matter. I think he will agree that the four principal issues are compatibility of equipment, efficiency of communication, speed of reinforcement and co-ordination of operation as they are affected by the Bill and with those are linked conditions of service. If he can assure us there is nothing in the Bill which affects those first four heads—the other of course comes under a different purview—that would help us in our reflections.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: There is another matter I wish to link with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I apologies to the Minister for not having given him notice of it. Can we be given an indication of the position in regard to the important matter of research into the prevention of fire? This subject has achieved considerable importance and I trust the Minister will look into it and let me have an answer.
5.8 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I have been prompted to rise by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, who reminded us of her experience in Plymouth
546
during the war, when it was found that hydrants did not fit hoses in several parts of that city. That was 30 years ago and much has happened since then in regard to the standardization of hydrants and hoses. In 1948, when the Fire Service was devolved from the State to county councils, I was an alderman of Essex County Council and my colleagues decided that I should be chairman of the fire brigades committee. I had the task of building up one of the biggest fire brigades in the country, catering for a population of 2 million people, and organizing a force well over 1,000 strong.
The first task to which we devoted ourselves was the standardization of hydrants throughout the county. We immediately consulted the various water authorities, some public authorities and some public companies, and arranged for the wholesale conversion of such hydrants as were out of step with the equipment of the fire brigades. In the 30 years that have elapsed I am sure that process has been continued throughout the country and I doubt whether there are many, if any, places now where the equipment of the fire brigades does not marry up with hydrants in the street.
Language difficulties will always exist; they exist now, without devolution, and I imagine that the same people in the fire stations and the same people living in the houses in the district will face the same language difficulties, if they exist. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, spoke of two cadets who could speak only Welsh. Those cadets will have a certain amount of training before they qualify as fully-fledged firemen, and some of that training will be in the signals they will be required to give to the switchboard of their fire station when they are engaged on a fire. In the Fire Service this question of signals has been reduced to utter simplicity. A man attending a fire, if he requires reinforcements, does not go into a long conversation with the switchboard. He simply says, "The fire in New Street, make pumps six", which means there are four pumps on the job now and he wants another two. So it is quite simple, and I do not think that there will be any difficulty at all here. I am quite sure that as the cadets mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, graduate into full firemanship, they will be given simple

547
instructions on how to use the few English phrases that they will be required to use.
Another point that was made related to the equipment and machinery. In this regard there is almost complete interchangeability between one county fire brigade and its neighbour. There is no problem about pumps—pumps are what the populace at large refer to as fire engines. There is no difficulty about ladders, nor about hydrants. By way of reinforcing my view that there is great interchangeability and very little difference between the various brigades, I should say that when we invited tenders for pumps or ladders there were very few firms in the market submitting tenders. Thus, there was considerable standardization; and as every fire brigade deals with the same few firms, I believe that the question of standardization is not serious and need not trouble us. Moreover, the Welsh fire organization will be subject to the overseeing of the inspectorate, just as it is now, and I am quite sure that any little rough spots will be smoothed out without any difficulty.
The question of reinforcement has also been mentioned. I do not know what the present arrangements are for reinforcing the Welsh brigades, or the extent to which one Welsh county reinforces its adjoining county, or one English county, such as Herefordshire, reinforces the Welsh county just over the Border. However, I recall from my experience as chairman of the County Brigade Committee which I mentioned earlier, that we had to enter into a number of reinforcement agreements, and we found no difficulty at all. Mind you, the adjoining county probably asked us to pay a respectable fee for the promise of assistance, but we were always able to make agreements when they were necessary.
Finally, I should like to say that in most parts of the country the fire brigade is the outstanding emblem of civic pride, and I feel that nothing would be lost if a Welshman could say: "This Welsh fire brigade is mine; it belongs to my country". I think that that would enhance the pride and interest which the people have in the fire brigade, rather than detract from it.
Viscount LONG: We have had a very good debate on the fire service, and I am
548
most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for dealing with my probing points. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Amory, my other noble friends, and noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. I think that it would be best for us to read Hansard tomorrow to see what further points we can gather from what we have been saying. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.13 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) moved Amendment No. 46EE:
Page 43, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—

("The Mental Health Act 1959 (c. 72) section 3(4), Part IV, sections 64, 81, 85, 99, 133, 142 and 143 and Schedule 1,

The powers under section 39(1) and (4) and the powers of consent under sections 41 and 47 (being powers conferred by virtue of section 65(3)).

The functions under sections 81 and 85 so far as relating to a patient subject to an order or direction restricting his discharge.

The powers under section 99 other than the powers to direct transfers between hospitals in Wales.").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment, and does not represent any change in the Government's policy. It is the Government's intention that the Assembly should have powers in relation to mental health, in keeping with its wide-ranging responsibilities for health matters in general. In view of the fact that this is the first Amendment on health matters, perhaps I should take a few moments of the Committee's time to remind your Lordships that the Assembly will have power over the administration of the National Health Service: for example, after devolution, Area Health Authorities will be responsible to the Assembly, and not to the Secretary of State. The Assembly will also have responsibilities for the private sector of medicine and nursing homes, but there will be some important exclusions from its competence. Power in relation to the control of drugs and medicines will remain with the Secretary of State, as will regulation of the Health

549
Service professions, and the remuneration of Health Service staff. We shall have the chance to discuss this question when we debate the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, which I understand is the next Amendment on the Marshalled List.
It would be quite wrong to separate the powers in the field of mental health concerned with the health and social services aspects of the subject from the other powers in these fields which are to be devolved to the Assembly. The powers and functions that the Government have in mind to devolve to the Assembly are primarily about compulsory admission to hospitals and guardianship, and the transfer of patients between hospitals. However, the Assembly is not to have the powers of the Home Secretary in special matters relating to patients who have been concerned in criminal proceedings, because powers and functions in the field of crime are not to be devolved to the Assembly. This is the reason for most of the exclusions in column 2 of Part VI in relation to the 1959 Act. For example, the powers in Sections 39, 41 and 47 are devolved to the Assembly by the listing of Part IV of the Act in column 1. They are concerned with the granting of leave of absence from hospitals, and transfers of patients between hospitals. The entry in column 2 for these provisions is necessary to restrict the Assembly's competence in respect of a patient in respect of whom an order restricting his discharge has been made
I hope that this explanation of the Government's Amendment has given the Committee a clear picture of the powers to be devolved to the Assembly, and that your Lordships will therefore he disposed to accept the Amendment. I have a list of all the sections of the Mental Health Act 1959 which are affected by the Amendment, but I think that it would be tedious to read it out to your Lordships, unless you particularly wish. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): I am advised that if this Amendment is carried, the next two Amendments on the Marshalled List cannot be moved.
Lord SANDYS: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his preface
550
to the Amendment. There are a number of difficulties connected with this matter, and I hope that I shall not take up the time of the Committee too much if I preface my remarks with a few words about the Mental Health Act 1959, because of its particular difficulties. The Act consists of no less than 154 sections and eight Schedules. It is a considerable Act, including consolidated sections of lengthy Victorian Acts of Parliament concerned with lunacy. The revisions of those sections which took place in the Act of 1959 were insufficient to give the Act the flexibility which my noble friends and myself believe is necessary, particularly when it comes to devolution.
I would not dispute that Sections 41 and 47, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, concern matters which we would wish to debate, but it is the functions under Sections 81 to 85 on which I wish to lay particular emphasis. We have here a matter of considerable administrative difficulty. These sections refer to the transfer of patients between different parts of the United Kingdom, and there is a large number of complications relating to these points. For instance, Section 81 of the Act refers to transfers of patients to and from Scotland, while Section 82 deals with removal of patients to Scotland. Section 83 relates to the application of Scottish enactments to patients removed under Section 82. Section 84 relates to the removal to England and Wales of State mental patients in a criminal category, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. Section 85 is concerned with the removal of patients to and from Northern Ireland.
There can be any number of different origins and destinations in this particular field, and the original intention of those who drafted this Statute is to some extent obscure, because there are parts of the United Kingdom not referred to. It is difficult to see other than great confusion arising here, unless we are very clear as to how we are to adapt these particular sections.
It is our belief on this side of the Committee that it would be very much better to devolve these particular functions. It would also be a matter of especial consideration to your Lordships if I could refer to the problem of the

551
Act as such, and in this respect I should like to refer to what was said by the Secretary of State for Social Services on the 13th June, only two days ago, at col. 817. Special reference was made in the Secretary of State's answer to the forthcoming White Paper which is to be issued on the working of the Mental Health Act. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that this Act has been subjected to particular scrutiny for the last two years, and the Government are clearly seized of the problem of the management of the clauses referred to. Nevertheless, a White Paper is not a Bill in draft, and we are concerned with these particular sections as they stand at present on the Statute Book.
I feel that at the present time it may well be better if I refer in a little more detail at a later stage to the problems of the Mental Health Act, but, as the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, has said, we are in some difficulty here because if the Government are successful in gaining the agreement of the Committee to this Amendment then my Amendment and the successor will fall.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: They will fall because they are covered by this Amendment, which I hope the Committee will accept. I am surprised that the noble Lord thinks it would be better to devolve the powers under Sections 81 and 85, to which he referred. It is a complicated and difficult situation among England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will always be complicated; and I think it would make it more complicated, not less, to devolve it. We are quite clear—and this is why, in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, we have put down this Amendment—that it would be better to leave it as it is. We are not denying that there would be difficulties about it, but in our opinion they would not be solved by devolution; and I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press this, because I really believe it would be a mistake.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I am not at all clear, I do not think the Amendment is very clear, and I should like to seek clarification. The Amendment in the
552
name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says:
"The functions under sections 81 and 85 so far as relating to a patient subject to an order or direction restricting his discharge".
That refers to Part IV of the Mental Health Act, and Part IV of that Act covers Section 29, which is a three-day order and which is one of observation in emergency; Section 25, which is a 28-day order and which is for observation; Section 26, which is a one-year order for observation, admission and treatment; and then, of course, Section 60, which is for the compulsory admission for the guardianship of patients convicted of a criminal offence. I can understand Section 60 being included, but I cannot understand the other sections to which obviously Part IV refers; and it would surely be a most cumbersome arrangement for these sections to be devolved. Have I got my facts wrong, or am I correct?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think the noble Baroness is correct, and that is what I am saying. It would be most cumbersome to devolve these, which is why, in this Amendment, we are "involving" them. We have put them into column 2, which means they are reserved and not devolved.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I get this clear? They are in column 2 because they are going to be reserved to the United Kingdom?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Exactly.
Baroness FAITHFULL: If that is so, it surely is a most cumbersome arrangement to have to deal with the United Kingdom on the various orders of restriction which I have mentioned. It just is not practicable.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: It is dealt with through the Secretary of State for Wales—that is what reservation means—as it is now.
Lord SANDYS: There are a number of points I should like to raise. I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Faithful referred to Section 29. Section 29, as she has already observed, is the emergency clause. It seems that there is here a case for asking the question: Why constrain devolved competence in this particular field? I must say that it occurs

553
to me on reading this section of the Mental Health Act that there would be grounds for considering that it might be one of the devolved functions under Part IV of the Act. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I feel rather inclined to go through this again. I first of all thought that the noble Baroness was saying that it was cumbersome if it was not to be devolved, and then I think she said that it was cumbersome if it was to be devolved.
Baroness FAITHFULL: Yes.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The position is that the Amendment refers to:
"The functions under sections 81 and 85 so far as relating to a patient subject to an order or direction restricting his discharge".
This covers, basically, criminal cases, and that is all that is being reserved. The other items about which the noble Baroness spoke—the three days' notice, the six days' notice and so on—are already devolved.
Baroness FAITHFULL: In that case, ought it not to mention Section 60, which covers the mental patients who have committed a criminal offence? Because it is not clear that it does not refer to Sections 29, 25 and 26, which are the three-day order, the 28-day order and the one-year order. It does not seem to me that it is clear. If it is only Sections 60, 61 and 65, which deal with the mental patients with criminal offences, then should it not just refer to that fact?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to support what the noble Baroness has said in this respect. Those who have been associated with the rural areas of Wales may have come across the difficulties which arise in dealing with the mentally sick; and representations have been made to me on many occasions as to the nature of the restrictions imposed upon some unhappy, mentally ill person. If, as the noble Baroness has indicated, the Government are restricting only the discharge in relation to persons under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act, I
554
should have thought that some clarification was required here.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I cannot at the moment explain why we have not got reference to Sections 60 and 29, and I think I should look at this. From what the noble Baroness has said, I am rather of the opinion that she has put her finger on something, and perhaps I may take it away and look at it.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I would be very grateful to the Minister, and I thank him.
Lord SANDYS: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his attitude on this particular Amendment, because not only are there problems which arise on draftsmanship but, further, the following two Amendments would in our view be very much better withdrawn and dealt with in a similar manner when the time comes.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: If the Committee is agreeable, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment and will bring it back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46DD not moved.]
[Amendment No. 46FF not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 43HH:
Page 43, line 42, after ("sections") insert ("1").
The noble Lord said: We now move to a totally different Act and to quite another aspect of the Bill. This concerns children and young persons and the Act which relates to that subject, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. My Amendment refers to Section 1 of the Act. It is very surprising in our view that this section, a declaratory one, which lays the burden on the authorities set out in the section, should be a reserved function. I do not think that it is necessary to go into this at any great depth, but I should like to know the Government's reasons why they have taken the attitude that they have to date.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: It is the Government's intent that the Assembly should have responsibilities after devolution in the field of social welfare. This is very much a local matter of day-to-day concern to the people living in Wales and, therefore, very suitable for devolution. In Schedule 2, Part VI, noble Lords will find references to several Acts dealing with various aspects of the care and welfare of children. Clearly, an elected Assembly will not be unresponsive to the wishes of the people of Wales about the care of the nation's children. On the face of it, devolution is the correct line here.
Turning to the subject of this Amendment before us, I find that Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 contains no ministerial powers. There was one in subsection (4) but that was repealed by Section 72(4) and Schedule 6 to the Children and Young Persons Act subsequently passed in 1969. The listing of the power in Schedule 2 would, therefore, have no effect save to cast doubt on the construction of that Schedule. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord may wish not to press his Amendment for it would have no effect.
Lord SANDYS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving the Government's reasons in this case. As this was a probing Amendment, I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46FFA:
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("The functions under section 9").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is by way of being a probing Amendment. As I understand it, the functions under Section 9 are part of an enactment which has been the subject of an inquiry which has been sitting for two years. The enactment is thought to be somewhat unsatisfactory in operation and a White Paper on it is to be published shortly. This probing Amendment might be seen as an occasion to ask the noble Lord whether—I do not suppose he will agree with my assessment of the Act—he might be able to give some indication of whether he agrees with my diagnosis about the White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This is a "reverse" Amendment. Most of our Amendments are directed towards not devolving things which the Bill wishes to devolve. This is in the reverse direction which, as I said last night on a similar occasion, makes a change.
The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 is a reforming measure dealing with the provision by local authorities of social services. Hence, in the light of criteria which I have mentioned frequently in our debates, it is devolved to the Assembly. Section 9, however, deals with the protection of the interests of existing employees at the time the Act came into effect in regard to their conditions of service, including such matters as superannuating. Under the section, the Secretary of State was obliged to make regulations by order to deal with such cases as they arose.
As part of the Government's policy to ensure mobility of employment, the pensions and related conditions of service of local authority employees are to be reserved so as to maintain the present uniformity of treatment throughout England and Wales. This Amendment seeks to devolve these matters, which go beyond the interests of people living and working in Wales, and which accordingly, should be reserved. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord. I think that it is quite clear that this is wider than just a Welsh question and that it is a proper case for reservation.
Lord ELTON: Leaving aside the interesting speculations about the noble Lord's statement that local government matters were involved and social services matters are dissolved—and most of us are now rather convolved—I would ask whether the noble Lord has any observations to make about the White Paper. I understand that the whole workings of this are under scrutiny. I suppose that the proper way to phrase the question under this Amendment is: how long are things that he is proposing should be devolved likely to remain the same? I am not seeking to criticized his decision either to involve or convolve what is going on; but I should like to know how long the situation is thought to be likely to continue as it now is before the publication of the

557
Government's official view of what ought to replace it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have no information on this. I will see whether I can get some.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 46GG:
Page 44, line 24, column 2, at beginning insert—
("The power of consent under section 11.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment. Section 11 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975 is concerned with proceedings in respect of offences concerning nursing homes or mental nursing homes which are not registered under the terms of Section 3(1) and (5) of the Act. Section 11 requires that proceedings cannot be taken other than by an aggrieved party or the Secretary of State without the written consent of the Attorney-General. Attorney-General powers are not to he devolved to the Assembly, but unfortunately the present entry for the 1975 Act in Part VI of Schedule 2 has the effect of devolving this one. The Amendment is designed to put this right and exclude the consent power from the competence of the Assembly. A small drafting mistake was made and is here being corrected. I hope that noble Lords will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: There is an even smaller drafting fault. If I have the linage aright, the Amendment ought to begin with "and". If I have got it wrong, it ought to finish with "and". I should have thought this could be put right by the draftsman without debate; but, if not, it ought to be put right here.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that we can leave it to the Parliamentary draftsmen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.39 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46GGA:
Page 44, leave out lines 26 to 39.
The noble Lord said: I should like to
558
elicit a small amount of information from the noble Lord on this Amendment which relates to the Children and Young Persons Act in which a number of us were involved for a great deal of time not long ago. I should like the noble Lord to tell us what is the connecting feature between the reservations in the right-hand column —and, in particular, whether he would tell us how many of these and how many of the other sections in the Act have not yet come into force—and whether there is a correlation between the two. Perhaps I ought to have given the noble Lord notice of this, but I should be obliged for the information.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that I have the information. I take it that this is a probing Amendment so I need not try to refute the suggestion in it. The Children Act 1975 covers a wide range of matters in relation to children. The main areas are adoption in Part I of the Act, custody of children in Part II and care in Part III. None of Part II of the Act is yet in force. Parts of both Parts I and III are. To illustrate, let me explain the difficulties the exclusion of these Parts from the Assembly's competence would create.
The Adoption Act 1958 is fully in force. Your Lordships will find powers and functions in that Act listed in Part VI of Schedule 2. Part I of the Children Act 1975 amends parts of that Act. Some of these amending provisions are in force, others are not. The Adoption Act 1967 consolidates the earlier Acts, including the 1975 Act. None of it is yet in force. To take the Children Act out of the package of adoption legislation and exclude it alone could lead to chaos in the administration of adoption in Wales.
Similarly Part III of the 1975 Act interacts with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Some amending enactments in Part III are in force, others are not. The 1969 Act is listed in Schedule 2. The exclusion of the powers in the 1975 Act would therefore again cause major difficulties. What it amounts to, really, is that so long as the 1958 Act is included, these other Acts which relate to it—some in force and others not in force—must also be included, otherwise there will be an entirely confused situation. As it is, I think it is reasonably clear and as the

559
enactments come into operation they will be included.
Lord ELTON: My noble friends will want to pursue other matters, but the noble Lord has touched upon two important principles. First, he has described what sound like a hideous mess of interaction. I hope that legislation such as this can be consolidated as quickly as possible in order to make life tolerably easy for those having to read the Acts. At the time the Act was passed many of us said that the credit that the Government felt due to them was not yet due because so little of the legislation was going to come into force. The noble Lord has said this. I do not think that this is the right occasion or forum to make this point; but I have felt it so strongly for so long that I feel that I must unburden myself of it now. So much of the Children Act 1975—which was welcomed with great applause—is still pie in the sky. But I do not want to stand between my noble friends if they wish to pursue other matters and the debate.
Baroness FAITHFULL: In support of the Amendment, may I ask two questions? May I comment that the noble Lord did not refer to the Children Act 1948, Section 2 of which is to be amended by the 1975 Act. My second point concerns the question of implementation of the 1975 Act. Will this run concurrently in Wales and in England? There are certain time factors involved: for instance, if a child has been placed for adoption under the 1975 Act, if it has been with a foster parent for five years, the foster parent can, by notifying the court, adopt the child. If these Acts are not implemented concurrently and a child in England has been placed with a foster parent in Wales, with no thought or realization that it might lead to adoption, there may be very real difficulties. There are other points with which I will not weary the Committee regarding time factors concerning notification by foster parents and adopters. Will the 1975 Act be implemented concurrently by both the Assembly and England so that there are no differentiations between the two countries?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The answer is clear. The Children Act 1975 is in column 1 of
560
Schedule 2, which means that it is devolved. Its implementation will be devolved, too. The Act is on the Schedule, and the fact that the operative date has not been named does not stop it being on the Schedule. The answer to the question is, Yes, subject to the exceptions in the second column of Schedule 2.
Lord ELTON: May I come to my noble friend's assistance and ask for help? At the outset, the noble Lord appeared to say that the Act was devolved and that the function of implementing parts of the Act was devolved with it. My noble friend asked whether she was right in saying that the parts of the Act would be implemented simultaneously in England and Wales. The noble Lord, following the statement he has made—as a deduction from it—said that they would be implemented simultaneously. I do not think that he meant that because that implementation would rest with two different decision-making bodies. One would be the Secretary of State in England, and the other would be the Welsh Assembly in Wales. Therefore, it is a matter of chance or co-ordination but not a matter of legislation that they are done simultaneously. Is that not right?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: It is not quite right. One of the powers which is reserved is Section 108. The Act is passed and on the Statute Book. The day named for different parts of it to come into operation simply means that the law becomes effective. It will be effective on the Assembly in exactly the same way as it is effective on the Secretary of State.
Lord ELTON: I have not made myself clear. The question I was asking was whether the day will be named by the Secretary of State or by the Welsh Assembly? In other words, is the function of implementation reserved or devolved?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I speak subject to correction and without the book; but the implementation is central because it is part of the Act which was passed centrally.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord speaks as I always speak in these debates, I

561
fear, and I sympathies with him. But I take it that the implementation is reserved and that would relieve some of the doubts that we feel.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The implementation is not reserved; it is part of the function of the Government who put that Act in. The Government who put that Act in were the Government of the center. This Act is then put into column 1 of Schedule 2 as something which is devolved and becomes an Act which the Assembly is obliged to operate.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord is possibly mistaken because one of the functions of the Secretary of State, as I recall the Act—which I do not have in front of me—is again and again repeated: that sections of the Act shall have effect on a day which is named by the Secretary of State. If the places where that is stated in the Act are covered only by column I of Schedule 2, then that function will be performed by the Welsh Assembly. If it is in column 2 of Schedule 2 it will be performed by the Secretary of State. What we want to know is in which column in each case does this occur?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have already given the answer: Section 108 is the section which has that power—the power of implementation—and that is reserved.
Lord ELTON: I am sorry that it took the noble Lord so long to get the point across to me. I accept that this was my ignorance rather than his inability. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 44, leave out line 48.
The noble Lord said: We transfer to another Act of Parliament now. In this Amendment we are dealing with the National Health Service Act 1977, an Act which may be reasonably fresh in the minds of the Committee. The particular section is Section 23 which points out the relationship between voluntary organizations and other bodies and the Secretary of State. In this case the "Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for
562
Wales as opposed to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.
The problem here is one of function. As the Bill stands at the moment, we read that the power under Section 23(4) is an excluded function, and the purpose of my Amendment is to ask the Government how they see the relationship between the Secretary of State for Wales and voluntary bodies in the matter of vehicle licensing. At the present moment the Secretary of State can apply the Vehicles (Excise) Act of 1971 and Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1972 for this purpose. We assume it is in the Government's minds that, as they intend this to be a reserved function, the Secretary of State for Wales shall take no part in this particular procedure. I wonder whether the Government can inform us in that regard. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think this is reasonably simple and clear—at least, I hope it will be by the time I have finished. Section 23 of the National Health Service Act 1977, to which the noble Lord referred, enables the Secretary of State to enter into arrangements with individuals and voluntary organisations so that they may provide or assist in providing any services under the 1977 Act. The section allows the Secretary of State to make available to a body with whom he has entered into an arrangement facilities such as goods, materials or the use of any vehicle. For example, the Red Cross may obtain supplies at special rates. These powers are devolved to the Assembly under the terms of this Bill. Section 23(4), to which the Amendment relates, contains an order-making power to modify the terms of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 and Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1972 in relation to vehicles made available by the Secretary of State under the terms of Section 23. So far, I think this is clear.
As its name suggests, the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 deals with the excise duty on, and the licensing of, vehicles. Such powers are not to be devolved to the Assembly because they form part of the reserved subject of national taxation. Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1972 is concerned with insurance requirements in relation to road vehicles. Again, the Assembly is to have no such powers under the terms of the Wales Bill since this is a matter in which the Government consider

563
there should be uniformity throughout Great Britain. It would therefore be wrong that the Assembly should have the power in Section 23(4) to modify these provisions. That is why it is reserved, and I suggest that after this explanation the noble Lord will probably be satisfied to leave it so.
Lord SANDYS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for expressing the situation so clearly, because a large number of voluntary organizations will be concerned with vehicle licensing in the future, and they will be glad of a definite and affirmative statement. I shall be very willing to withdraw this Amendment, and I beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No 47A:
Page 45, line 9, column 2, at end insert—
("The functions under sections 29, 36, 39, 42 so far as relating to terms and conditions of service, rights and obligations of contractors, pensions, gratuities or allowances payable on death or retirement or compensation for loss of office or employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.").
The noble Lord said: We now enter into a much more interesting and difficult area: that is, in regard to the payments and emoluments which accrue to doctors. I should like at this stage to refer to particular difficulties which are quite clearly established, and I think the British Medical Association has already indicated concern to the Government over certain matters. In another place, the Minister, referring to this particular situation, repeatedly used the phrase:
"pay and directly related matters which would be reserved".
I think the Government will agree here; but in regard to general medical practice, the conditions of service and the regulations which relate to them in 1974 are very closely intertwined with remuneration. Without going into great detail on the very bulky document which deals with that, I think the Government will be aware of paragraph 24 of those regulations, which set out the arrangements and regulations under which members of the medical profession are remunerated and receive their fees and allowances. We believe
564
that these particular functions should be included and I should like to have the Government's reaction to that. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This is a very important question and I shall reply to it at rather greater length than I have done so far, because it is not entirely simple. The Government's scheme in the Bill for dealing with doctors' pay requires a Secretary-of-State power to direct the Assembly in the drawing up of their regulations. This power is in an Amendment to the National Health Service Act 1977 in Schedule 11 to the Wales Bill. It may be suggested that the effect of the Wales Bill will be to translate the reference to "the Secretary of State" into "the Welsh Assembly", thereby destroying the direction-giving power. This point in fact came up last night, and I told the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that references to the Secretary of State in Schedule 11 were not automatically converted by Clause 9(1) into references to the Assembly. A Secretary-of-State power in Schedule 11 will remain a Secretary-of-State power after devolution. It would take me a long time to describe fully the reason for this and I do not wish to detain the Committee now.
Lord ELTON: I quite agree with the noble Lord about not detaining the Committee now, but this is of great importance to Amendments that we have already taken and adopted and indeed to the drafting of the Bill itself; so at some stage I think we shall have to detain the House, shall we not?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord will remember that I promised him an extensive letter about it, and that is being drafted. It is the policy of the Government that the Assembly should have powers in respect of the administration of the National Health Service in Wales and in respect of the private sector of medicine. This was laid down in the White Paper on devolution and there has been no change in the Government's intent on this since. There has, however, been a change of policy with regard to pay and pensions of Health Service staff.
The Government's original proposals in the Scotland and Wales Bills were to

565
devolve pay and pensions of Health Service staff to the Assembly, but the exercise of the powers was to be subject to the consent of the Government. This is still the scheme adopted in the Scotland Bill; but on 26th July, the Lord President announced that the pay and pensions of Health Service employees in Wales would be reserved. The entries in Part II of Schedule 2 in the publication print of the Bill for the sections named in this Amendment were designed to fulfill this policy in relation to general medical practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. But it became apparent that these entries in Part VI did not fulfill the Government's intent. The phraseology concerned, could in certain contexts, carry a much wider meaning than matters affecting remuneration and it could be construed to incorporate functions unassociated with remuneration but which are intimately concerned with the day-to-day running of the Health Service. These are to be the responsibility of the Assembly and the exclusion of terms and conditions of service could affect the Assembly's ability to manage the Health Service in Wales in a coherent and sensible fashion. The Amendment before your Lordships, would exclude an even larger and less definite area reserved.
Perhaps it would help your Lordships if I described to you the scheme now adopted in this Bill to cope with the problem of ensuring that the Assembly has the powers it needs for administration of the Health Service, while reserving to the Government the power to determine the remuneration. The problem is particularly complicated in respect of medical practioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. Their remuneration—and terms and conditions of service—are determined by regulations made under Sections 29 and 34 to 43 of the 1977 Act, to which we have been referring. The regulations are very detailed and the inter-relationship between pay and other matters is close. For example, disciplinary action against a general practitioner is possible by way of withholding part of his remuneration. So it is not possible to draw a clear distinction between those matters concerned with remuneration and those which are not. Nor can the split be achieved by reference to existing regulations as they may change over the years, whereas
566
the approach adopted in the Wales Bill must be such that it can withstand such changes.
To overcome these difficulties, the scheme adopted in the Bill achieves the Government's policy intentions which are, as mentioned, to reserve the essential matters concerned with remuneration and to devolve those concerned with the day-to-day running of the National Health Service in Wales. The arrangements are as follows. The functions in the relevant sections of the 1977 Act are devolved to the Assembly in Part VI of Schedule 2. But the amendment to the 1977 Act in Schedule 11 to the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Assembly about the exercise of these functions. The Secretary of State can therefore determine the aspects of any Assembly regulations which are concerned essentially with remuneration, and then direct the Assembly as to what the regulations should contain in this respect. A further complication is that the Statement of Fees and Allowances, which lays down the precise sums to be charged for medical services, is made under the terms of the regulations made under the terms of the relevant sections of the 1977 Act. The statement is closely concerned with remuneration, so it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to fix the fees and allowances covered by the Assembly regulations. This is achieved by including in the Secretary of State's directing powers the power to direct the Assembly to confer functions on him.
I did not deny that the final scheme was complicated and I am sure that, having heard the explanation of its workings, your Lordships will agree that it is. But it does achieve a workable and sensible result. First, it places control for determining what functions are related to remuneration in the hands of the Secretary of State, and once he has decided that such is the case he determines the regulations. The Assembly cannot interfere with this. Secondly, it allows the Assembly to run the Health Service as a coherent whole in the areas not directly affecting pay. Thirdly, it provides flexibility for the future, with the initiative, I would remind your Lordships, remaining in the hands of the Secretary of State. Other schemes, such as that proposed in the Amendment which we are discussing, could create difficulties in

567
the administration of the Health Service in Wales, and I am sure your Lordships would agree that this should be avoided if at all possible.
I hope that, after that rather long explanation, this Amendment, which I regard as a probing Amendment, will not be pressed. But I think I should add that Mr. Alec Jones, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales—my colleague and friend—recently held a meeting with the Welsh branch of the British Medical Association to explain, among other things, the way the Bill works with regard to terms and conditions of service. The BMA were assured that, on all matters relating essentially to remuneration, the Government's intention, as reflected in the Bill, was to maintain uniformity throughout England and Wales. The intention of the Government here is exactly the same as we discussed over teachers' pay yesterday, but this situation is so much more complicated that it has to be done in a much more complicated way. I hope that what I have said will clear noble Lords, minds, and that they will be happy to leave the Bill as it is.
Lord SANDYS: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for saying what he has in regard to the remuneration of doctors; and I should couple with that the remuneration of dentists and the interests of the British Dental Association, which I omitted to mention hitherto. We shall examine with care what the Government have said, and will naturally consult with those interests affected. I think that it will be for the benefit of the Committee if I take this opportunity of withdrawing the Amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 47B:
Page 46, leave out lines 15 to 19.
The noble Lord said: We have just discussed terms and conditions of service of medical practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. I explained the complex scheme necessary to cope with the inter-relationship between remuneration
568
and other terms and conditions of service, and your Lordships have accepted the Government's approach to the problem.
At the time that it was realized that the reservation of terms and conditions of service of "contract" staff (for example, medical practitioners) could cause difficulties in the day-to-day running of the Health Service, it was thought that the same problems would not occur in relation to Health Service employed staff (for example, hospital doctors). Consequently, the provisions in the National Health Service Act 1977, dealing with their terms and conditions of service, are shown in the Bill as excluded from the competence of the Assembly. It has since become apparent that this is not so. The present entry in Part VI of Schedule 2 for paragraphs 10(1) and 11(1) of Schedule 5 to the 1977 Act could hamper the Assembly's ability to manage the Health Service in Wales. It could, for example, prevent the Assembly from appointing hospital staff. In the Government's view, it is therefore necessary to adopt the same approach to those employees as that adopted for contract staff. The Amendment before your Lordships achieves the first leg of this by devolving the relevant sections of the 1977 Act to the Assembly. A later Amendment to Schedule 11 will give the power of direction over Assembly regulations to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I thank the noble Lord for the very clear explanation which he has given of the reasons for a further part of the National Health Service being devolved in this way. As he knows there was some concern expressed by the British Medical Association particularly the Welsh branch, on this matter. So I am grateful to the Government for making this further part of the National Health Service devolved to the Assembly in Wales.
Lord PORRITT: It is with some diffidence that I enter into the intricacies of Schedule 2, but I do not find the explanations that we are receiving highly enlightening, although I know that they are very erudite. The position, as I see it, is this. I want to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, because I also received a deputation last week from the medical fraternity in Wales. It was a

569
very interesting one which I think will be of interest to your Lordships, both generally and, in particular, on this Amendment.
Three of them came; the Secretary of the British Medical Association himself, the Welsh Secretary of the British Medical Association and the Chairman of the Consultants' Committee in Wales—a fairly representative lot. But being inquisitive, I asked them to what extent they felt that they represented the medical profession in Wales, and said that once I knew that we could go on talking. They said that, without embarrassment, they represented 95 per cent. of the profession in Wales, and it is on that basis that I am mentioning these few facts. They then said that, of course, they would have preferred that nothing at all should be devolved medically, but having looked through what had been devolved there were only two items to which they really objected. The first was the four lines referred to in this Amendment, and the second was Amendment No. 112B, which will be dealt with later by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and which I do not intend to touch. However, they looked at these four lines and said that they did not wish this matter to be devolved.
As noble Lords will see, this refers to the National Health Service Act 1977. Thanks to the kindness of my noble friend Lord Hill of Luton, I discovered, in the intricacies of that Act, that Schedule 5 relates to the qualification of persons employed as officers of authority, to the requirement to employ persons of prescribed qualifications and experience and to the method of appointment. This is an entirely different matter from the last Amendment which dealt with mercenary matters, such as terms and conditions of service—in other words, with money. This Amendment deals with standards. Surely to Heaven we do not want to adopt standards in Wales for the appointment of consultants and doctors which are different from those which obtain in the rest of the country. Those representatives, representing 95 per cent. of the profession in Wales, felt very keenly that this would be the wrong thing to do, and were all in favour of what they called universality. They wanted much more of it, but they wanted it particularly in this respect.
I should like to quote what was said yesterday by the noble Baroness. I
570
think I am right in saying that she said that the essence of this Bill is to devolve to the Assembly matters which are essentially Welsh. Nothing in the world can make these four lines essentially Welsh. If we are to have good medicine in this country, that applies to the whole country, without exception. And that includes Wales.
I hope that the Government will give very serious consideration to this Amendment. If the Amendment were passed, it would place responsibility for the consultants' advisory appointments machinery upon the Assembly instead of upon the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will or will not know, as the case may be, that that responsibility which is placed upon the Secretary of State means that he must consult the profession before he changes the routine for appointing consultants. There would be no such cover if this Amendment were to be adopted. Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will consider this matter very seriously. It is a point of prime importance. I am not particularly interested in the terms and conditions of appointment, but I am very interested that the standards of medicine should he kept at the top throughout the country.
6.13 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to emphasise what has been said by both noble Lords, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, with regard to British medical standards. We have been concerned recently with the Medical Act, which passed through a metamorphosis in your Lordships' House. Great improvements were made to it during its passage through both Houses, to the great benefit of all branches of the medical and dental professions in the United Kingdom and to the great benefit also of doctors who practice in the EEC. I believe that the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Portrait, to the consultants'advisory appointments machinery is of special importance—so much so that we on these Benches adopt his point of view. This is a matter of the greatest concern.
The arguments have been put forward with care. It is a matter of great professional importance. The delegation which attended upon the noble Lord, Lord Portrait, put forward fairly and

571
squarely the case to which noble Lords have listened. I am totally convinced that the professions are right and that the Government are wrong.
Lord HILL of LUTON: Having heard the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I am bound to say that in expounding his position he seemed to fall below his usual level of clarity. As I understand it, this Amendment ends the position under which standards and modes of appointment of consultants are excluded and devolves them to the Assembly. However, a subsequent Amendment, Amendment No. 112A, which is crucial, makes it clear that this area is added to that in respect of which the Secretary of State may make regulations. Therefore, the net effect is, first, to pass to the Assembly the responsibility for ensuring that consultants are of a proper standard and, having done that, to say that the Secretary of State, by regulation, may control what the Assembly does in this arena.
I am bound to ask: why go through this process? If, as I understand it, the Government accept, and I warmly agree with them, that there should be a common high standard for the whole Island, in seeking to achieve that high standard—dare I say this as a former Minister for Welsh Affairs? but I think that it is particularly important in the case of Wales because of the nature of the area and the tendency in the past for its more brilliant people, such as Dan Davies and Horace Evans (we can all think of names) to migrate to London—it is particularly important that the standards for consultants in Wales should be no less high than they are for the rest of the Island.
Why say, first, that this shall go from Regional and Area Health Authorities to the Assembly and that then the Secretary of State will tell the Assembly what to do? Why not leave the position as it is? If, in fact, the Secretary of State acts, this devolution is bogus. It is stated here that the Secretary of State may make regulations. He may have a recalcitrant Assembly—which, after all, will be a politically composed body, the last body in the world to which to delegate professional standards. The Secretary of
572
State may act. Let us assume that he does.
What is the purpose of it all? Is it to convince the Welsh that the Assembly is acquiring powers and responsibilities of importance? And are the Government hoping that they will not read the clause which states that the Secretary of State shall tell them what to do under this heading? If that is the effect of it all, it involves no change. It is of no significance. It is merely bogus—to blind those who are praying for more and more devolution. What we are doing is giving them the semblance of devolution while denying them any possibility of acting in this field. I put it rather strongly because I want to put it clearly. I hope that the Minister will state, without any qualification, the intention to maintain the same standards for consultants and specialists in Wales as for the rest of the Island. If he accepts that, why not leave the position where it is?
May I make just one more point. At the moment, the responsibility for the appointment of consultants rests with those regional and area bodies that are running the National Health Service. That is the place where responsibility should reside. Appointments should be made by those who know the circumstances and the needs of their particular hospitals. One ought not to remove that responsibility to any body that is distant from the body that is running the National Health Service.
Therefore, I am bound to ask: if the assurance is given that the intention is to sustain the standards that obtain today, why not leave the responsibility where it now is rather than engage in this transparently bogus effort of transferring the responsibility to the Assembly and then, by means of a second Amendment, nipping in with the authority of the Secretary of State who will tell it what to do? It does not make sense. May I ask the noble Lord to look at this point. We do not want unreality. We want the standards of consultants and specialists in Wales to be maintained, in the interests of the Welsh people, at the level which obtains in the Island as a whole.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord has made a very strong speech. He began by saying that I had not achieved my usual level of clarity.

573
I am glad that there was a usual level of clarity; I take that as a compliment. I do not think that the noble Lord listened very carefully to the long statement which I made on the previous Amendment which explains exactly what this is about, and I cannot justify the Government adopting this admittedly elaborate system except by going through the argument again. I would ask the noble Lord to read it tomorrow in Hansard, and he will find that we are trying to do exactly what he has asked us to do. But we are also trying to give the Assembly the necessary powers to run the National Health Service properly, and these two issues, the settling of pay limits, first, for consultants and, secondly, for hospital doctors, run counter to the desire to devolve those things which are associated with pay. I went into this in great detail. We take the view that we have to find a way of reconciling these two things. I do not pretend that this is simple; I said from the beginning that it is complicated.
I resent the suggestion that it is bogus—which it certainly is not—and I hope that the Committee will give the Government credit for having adopted an elaborate system to do something which they did not see how they could do in any other way. To leave the matter as it is will not do. I explained why it will not do—because there are a number of functions connected with remuneration which must be in the hands of the Assembly who are responsible for running the National Health Service as a whole. The noble Lord will find all this carefully written out in tomorrow's Hansard. I hope that the Committee will accept my Amendment, and after it has had the opportunity to study it it can always come back on Report and do more if it wants to.
I think I should emphasis again the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, which the noble Lord, Lord Portrait, did not make, that this is the first leg of two Amendments. Consultants' pay will be subject to direction by the DHSS as for other doctors. The GMC and the regulation of the profession are not devolved. Without going through my original arguments in detail again I do not think I can take this any further.
Land SANDYS: The noble Lord has invited the Committee to accept this Amendment on the basis that he has
574
proposed, and of course it is up to your Lordships to take the course you will. But the advice from this side of the Committee would be that it would be very much better if the Government were to think fit to withdraw the Amendment at this stage so that we can all have the advantage of reading the statement, and, further, the very interesting speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Hill of Luton, Lord Portrait, and other contributors. If the Government were so minded to press this Amendment this evening we would feel constrained to vote against it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I accept that position. A strong case has been put, with which I do not agree, but that does not make it any the less strong. I think when noble Lords read the case they will agree with me. I do not want to force a Division at this stage. I will take the thing away and look at it again and bring it forward, I should think in almost exactly the same form, at a later stage.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I listened with great care to the statement made by the noble Lord in relation to a previous Amendment, but it had no bearing on the points I raised. I really want to know what is the advantage to Wales in this system. What is the Assembly going to do? It is directed by the Secretary of State to apply standards; it has to set up an apparatus, an interviewing body, a selecting body. That already exists with the Regional and Area Health Authorities. Why duplicate it? It might quarrel with the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State might give way—they have been known to do so. What is the advantage to Wales in going through this exercise of apparently devolving the responsibility in this area, moving it from area and regional bodies to the Assembly and then enabling, empowering, the Secretary of State to tell the Assembly what it can do? It seems to me to have no advantage except to create an appointing structure which is parallel to the existing structure and which is removed and unrelated to the Hospital Service itself.
With the greatest—I will not say humility for I find that very difficult —but with the greatest interest, may I say that the noble Lord's statement was beautifully obscure and, if I may respectfully submit, has no bearing on the points which my

575
noble friend and I have made; and I doubt whether my careful reading of it in Hansard tomorrow will add to the illumination, modest as it is, that he has provided on this topic.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Modest illumination is better than none and I hope that this modest illumination will illumine the noble Lord's study. I shall not use the same arguments but will just repeat that the objective of the devolution Bill is that certain things which concern Wales shall be given to the Welsh Assembly to do. Running the National Health Service is one of them. I have explained—in a way which some people have found obscure; and I apologies for that—why it is impossible to do this without interfering in some way with the remuneration of doctors, dentists, pharmacists, et cetera, and we do not want to do that. We have therefore designed a way round it. I shall not go further into it—we can discuss it again—but, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw this Amendment and re-submit it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 46, leave out lines 34 and 35.
The noble Lord said: We now move from the, I am sure, engrossing matters of medicine into the not quite unrelated matters of pollution—and I see the noble Baroness in her place so we can start off. I think we can start by getting some measure of agreement between all sides of the Committee that Amendment No. 48 in fact refers to the cornerstone of all our modern laws on pollution. This is the Alkali Works Regulation Act which, among other things, set up the Alkali Inspectorate. I should like to ask the Government several questions on this point. Seeing that it is the cornerstone of pollution I should have thought that this was the opportunity to get the Government to justify devolving the whole section of pollution to the Welsh Assembly. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to do this.
So far as the Act itself goes, the Alkali Inspectorate which it sets up is the hardest
576
working body of men I have ever encountered. It has an inspectorate of 11 men whose job it is to regulate the emissions into the atmosphere, and the workings of certain chemical works; to advise them on the best way of keeping pollution to a minimum, and, if necessary, to enforce their advice by statute. It would seem to me that if this matter is devolved we are likely to have two inspectorates, one for Wales and one for the United Kingdom. I rather wonder, in spite of the fact that many parts of Wales are fairly heavily industrialised, whether, with a population of only 2½ million, it is necessary to go to all this trouble and expense to set up a completely different inspectorate for Wales. Again I could well be wrong, as I have been on previous occasions on this Bill, but I do not regard that as any excuse for begging the question.
Emissions to the atmosphere know absolutely no boundaries at all. As many noble Lords will know, this has been brought out recently in the complaint by the Scandinavian countries that our sulphur dioxide was in great part wafting over the sea to them. That has been borne out in practice and we know about the chemical tests that have been made. If it can go that long way to Scandinavia, surely to goodness it can cross a border which is less than a mile wide in many places and sometimes only yards wide—from Wales into England. I should like the Government to justify their position on this particular part of the pollution Acts. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This is the first of a series of Amendments on pollution and it might be helpful if I were to take a rather wide-ranging view to start with and to say what we had in our minds when this part of the Schedule was prepared, and then come to the individual Amendments as we go through them. We have transferred to the Assembly a very wide range of ministerial functions which relate to pollution. Principally these relate to sewerage, sewage treatment and disposal—and some of those functions we shall also be dealing with in Part XI of Schedule 2—the pollution of water, the collection and disposal of waste and the disposal of abandoned vehicles; the control of public health nuisances, including offensive trades; environmental noise,

577
air pollution and the work of the Health and Safety Executive Commission in Wales so far as it relates to air pollution. On all the other matters except air pollution the Commission will remain responsible to the Government. The entries in the second column of Part VII exclude ministerial functions relating to the following: the control of pollution from motor vehicles, aircraft and hovercraft, because this type of control has implications for vehicle or craft design and therefore for trade requirements and for safety. International conventions are usually in the background of these particular items and it is not intended to transfer powers, such as the powers for setting the maximum noise on emission limits and so to proliferate the number of standards that are applicable even within the United Kingdom.
They are also excluding from being devolved to the Assembly pollution from ships, except that it is reasonable to give the Assembly functions in respect of pollution of inland waters and those aspects of pollution from ships which by existing legislation are regarded as suitable for local control, and these will be transferred. We are also not devolving the design, production and use standards in relation to pollution for goods and substances which are widely traded. They require uniform treatment for safety purposes, and again they also involve international conventions. Exclusions under the entry of the Control of Pollution Act of 1974 relating to sulphur in fuel oil and lead in petrol in Sections 75 and 76 are two instances of what falls into this category.
We are also not devolving the dumping of waste or sewage sludge or the discharging of oil at sea. These matters are closely connected with sea fisheries and the oil development policy, which are not devolved and again are also concerned with the implementation of international conventions.
We are also not devolving certain aspects of waste disposal which relate very closely to the production of energy and therefore to the overall energy policy, for which the Government remain responsible. For example, production by local authorities of heat or electricity from waste under Section 21 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and the control of waste storage and disposal from the
578
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority sites and sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act of 1965—that is nuclear processing plants and electricity generating stations. The standards set for waste disposal for major nuclear installations affect the economic and the technical feasibility of nuclear energy production. However, the Assembly will be responsible for control of storage and for the use of radioactive substances for all other purposes, as for the control of other kinds of waste. There are also certain consequential Amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act, which we shall come to later.
So far as this particular Amendment is concerned, pollution is of course primarily a local matter. It is true that some aspects of pollution, like those that I have referred to with radioactive waste, have wider United Kingdom implications. Most forms of pollution are of very real concern to those who live near the source but are of relatively little significance to those who live a long way away. So the approach of the Bill is to transfer to the Assembly the great majority of ministerial functions in respect of pollution and generally the functions to be transferred are those that are currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. So they have already been recognised as being suitable for a decentralized Administration to cope with, and the effect of the Bill is to add political devolution to the existing administrative devolution.
The matters in respect of which functions are to be transferred include, as I have said, sewerage, waste disposal, clean air and water purity and the Assembly's powers to control pollution will form a very important part of a wider coherent group which also includes land use planning and water and land drainage, to which we shall come later on this evening. Therefore the Assembly will be well placed to pursue a comprehensive environmental policy tailored to the needs of Wales.
The approach of the Bill to pollution is necessarily different from that in the Scotland Bill. That Bill devolved a general competence over pollution matters covering both the existing ministerial functions and legislative powers, but the Wales Bill is concerned only with the existing ministerial functions and these

579
can only be transferred to the Assembly if we list all the enactments concerned. The sum of the provisions which are devolved or reserved by silence in the Scotland Bill must be itemized in the Wales Bill, but there are some aspects of pollution for which the Scotland Bill only devolves executive powers and in those instances we are treating the two Bills the same.
As the noble Lord has said, this particular Amendment is concerned with the Alkali et cetera, Works Regulation Act of 1906. Much of that Act has already been repealed or amended and, of what remains, only Sections 9 and 22 contain any ministerial functions. Section 9 is concerned with the registration of alkali works, cement works, smelting works and the other works listed in the Schedule to the Act. It is an offence for such works to be carried out without a certificate of registration and a certificate may only be issued for new works if the requirements of the Act have been met.
The ministerial functions are those of prescribing the particulars to be registered, the manner in which the register shall be conducted and the manner of application for, and the issuing of, the certificates. Section 22 provides that the Minister must hold an inquiry when complaints have been made by the local authority or the local inhabitants about pollution in contravention of the Act. He may then direct that any necessary action should be taken. The functions in both of these sections which are now to be devolved were originally exercised by the Local Government Board and they now lie with the Secretary of State for Wales. The other functions in the Act which were originally those of the Local Government Board have now passed to the Health and Safety Executive. So the effect of the Amendment as we have it before us today would be to reserve these functions, and the Government think they are essentially of a local nature and therefore stand to be much more suitably devolved.
So far as the Alkali Inspectorate is concerned, those functions are now carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. Although the Assembly will have some responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive's pollution activities, the Executive will remain a single and undivided
580
body. There will be no splitting up into two inspectorates.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: In view of the fact that the Minister went a little wide and was kind enough to go a little deeper than the Committee point that was mentioned, in the course of perhaps two minutes I should like to refer, in passing, to the new White Paper on the water industry in England and Wales. I am pleased to see on page 7 of that White Paper that, when discussing the position of Wales, in their devolution proposals the Government have sought to provide for a genuine measure of devolution and for reserved powers. The Welsh National Water Development Authority and the Severn Trent Authority would be answerable within Wales to the Welsh Assembly rather than to the Government. Here is the 64,000 dollar point. Nothing in the proposals would change the settled principle that river basins should be managed as complete units.
The areas of both authorities would, therefore, remain unchanged. The geological facts of nature exist. The River Severn can be polluted by farmers or other people higher up in the English part of it, or by the riparian authorities on that part of it, and affect Wales. Unless we have a universal policy for the whole of the river area, despite the human artificial boundaries that are made, nature's boundaries are much more important. Consequently, we must not, in our attempt to please my own people, the Welsh, evolve a devolution policy that will be a patchwork quilt that will be little better than nothing so far as the river basins are concerned, and the control of pollution in those areas. With that, I think I have said enough.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has pre-empted me on at least four Amendments which I was hoping to be able to speak to tonight. I am grateful because this means that the proceedings of the Committee will be considerably speeded up. He was in fact referring, in that particular intervention, to my Amendment No. 51, which we come to a little later on. I must thank the noble Baroness for being so very explicit at the outset, and even going further than my exploratory remarks would have indicated.

581
However, she is of the opinion that the pollution measures referred to in this Bill are of two kinds. One consists of the purely local pollution aspects, and the other consists of the EEC and international treaty obligations. With regard to the local pollution, I do not think anybody who has the heart of the matter of devolution in hand, whether in Wales, or Scotland or Yorkshire or Kent, or wherever else it may happen to be, would argue that it is wrong for local people to have as close an involvement with their local affairs as is possible. I am convinced in my own mind that this is absolutely right. And they would equally not argue, I think, that the EEC and international obligations are the responsibility, and should forever be the responsibility, of the United Kingdom Government. However, where we are talking about emissions into the atmosphere, the noble Baroness said that the closer you are to the source the more likely you are to suffer from pollution. Am I paraphrasing her words correctly?
Baroness STEDMAN: I said that those people who were nearest to the pollution were the ones who were most concerned about it. It was of more concern to the people in the immediate locality than to someone 100 miles away. I accept that there are instances where pollution can go downstream and affect people some way away. But, basically, the source of the pollution, with smoke emission and things like that, is where people are most affected by it and likely to get most worked up about it.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The people who get worked up, I would say, are not so much the people who live in the immediate area where the pollution is produced, but the people who are affected by it, who are not necessarily the people who live in the immediate area. Where we are talking about air pollution, for example, lead pollution from Avon mouth —I agree that it is not in Wales, but the same principle would apply in Wales—because of the tall chimneys that are needed, we do not have pollution affecting people in the immediate vicinity but we have pollution affecting people some distance away. Where we are talking about air pollution, I would wonder whether there was not a very good reason for keeping this matter in the hands of the Central Government.
Lord ELTON: I think there is a general principle which the noble Lord is adducing by implication; that is, that England is almost always downwind and downstream of Wales. It is very rarely downwind of Scotland and almost never downstream of it. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is familiar with Oxford. If she has ever picked blackberries on Boar's Hill in the days before they put filters on the chimneys at Pressed Steel—I do not know whether or not they have put them on—she will remember that the blackberries were inedible from the side of the hedge that faced the factory, but not on the other. If she has ever walked in the Norwegian uplands, she would have discovered that certain flora, and even fauna, are being killed off by increasing acidity of what we would call the towns up in the uplands, and that acidity is blown there from places like the Pressed Steel factory. So there is considerable force in what my noble friend is saying; that is, that certain forms of pollution are of much greater concern to those at a distance from its source than to those who live immediately beneath it.
Baroness STEDMAN: The basic pollution from chimneys in one area coming to another will still be covered by whichever part of the country they are in, either by the English Secretary of State, or, if it is being devolved, by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Assembly. The things we have given to them are the things which the present Welsh Office are responsible for, no more no less. The things which they are handling at the moment they will handle through the Welsh Assembly instead of through the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government in the future. My noble friend Lord Davies brought in the water situation rather early, and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that he has rather pre-empted some Amendments that are coming later, and we might discuss them when we get to them.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She has certainly set my mind at rest that in fact the ministerial responsibilities only are going to be devolved to the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 46, leave out line 37 and insert ("61, 62, 64, 67, 69 and 70(2)").
The noble Lord said: I hope I am not going to be accused in your Lordships' House of being a hybrid, in this case between my two noble friends, Lord Elton, who had a whole string of Amendments last night of specific detail, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan this afternoon, who is very much a "lumper" rather than a "splitter" by nature. However, if I am so classed, perhaps it could be as an F1 hybrid and not any other sort. We now come to Amendment No. 49, which concerns the Public Health Act 1936. All the sections which are to be reserved relate to by-laws. Since the noble Baroness and I have, I think, come to the understanding that local affairs are quite rightly to be devolved, I wanted to know on this occasion why in fact by-laws should be reserved to the Secretary of State and not devolved to the Assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Let me first explain the subject matter. Sections 53 and 61 to 71 of the Public Health Act 1936 are concerned with building regulations. Building regulations are currently administered on an England and Wales basis, and, although provision was made in the Scotland and Wales Bill for their devolution, the Government had second thoughts about it and on reflection decided that they were more suitably reserved so that the same regulations would continue to operate throughout the whole of the country. The Wales Bill accordingly excludes from the functions of the Assembly all those provisions in the Public Health Act, which deal with building regulations. Similar exclusions are made for building regulations provisions in the Public Health Act 1961; and the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 dealing with the matter are not devolved.
The entry in the Bill for the Public Health Act excludes from devolution,
"the functions under sections 53 and 61 to 71".
This Amendment proposes an alternative way of expressing this exclusion, and its sponsors have clearly done some considerable research into what has gone into the Bill. They have discovered that some of these sections have been repealed—
584
for example, Section 63—and that others contain no ministerial functions—for example, Section 65. Accordingly they offer a proposed Amendment which tries to itemise the sections which need to be reserved rather than dealing with them in a block.
The Government's general approach is that, where they are devolving any block of powers, they try to do so in general terms and without itemising. This makes it easier for the reader, who can see that all ministerial functions within that block are being dealt with as a block. He does not have to contemplate the awesome task of making sense of an Act where one power is devolved, the next reserved, and so on. When reserving functions, the same technique can be used—although it is in fact used a little more sparingly for the sake of absolute precision. The risks of trying to itemise within a block are shown by this Amendment. Three words expand into seven—and there is a mistake, because Section 69 was repealed by the Public Health Act 1961.
If we apply the technique of this Amendment throughout Schedule 2, we may help the reader in places; but we should certainly extend the length of the Bill and I cannot think that overall it would be a success. However, I should tell the Committee, and the noble Lord, that as a result of his Amendment we have had a look at the matter and we have formed a doubt over one of the functions that we have put into this block. Therefore, with the permission of the noble Lord, if he would like to withdraw his Amendment now, we shall come back on Report and redefine the block.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am astounded. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness that at least my homework has, in fact, prompted some equally assiduous homework by somebody else. I most certainly seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 47, leave out lines 2 to 11.
The noble Lord said: I do not think that I shall be quite so successful with this Amendment, but we shall see. With the

585
permission of the Committee I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 53, 54A and parts of 55. They are all concerned with the Radioactive Substances Acts 1948 and 1960. The problems which occurred to me—in spite of what the noble Baroness said when she introduced the series of Amendments on pollution—were, as I understood her, that the control of radioactive substances in nuclear power stations and major Government or pseudo-Government works were to be reserved and everything else such as hospitals, perhaps garages and spas (which I understand also occasionally give radioactive readings) were to be the prerogative of the Welsh Assembly. It strikes me that these minor outpourings of radioactivity should be correctly devolved to the Assembly. However, I wonder whether hospitals are such a minor outpouring. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to enlighten me. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I rise to support the Amendment so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. Radioactive substances must be a matter of considerable public importance following in the wake of the Wind scale Inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Parker. If it is proposed at some future date to run and manage a nuclear laundry in some part of the United Kingdom it gives very considerable rise to public concern and, indeed, the whole question of radioactive substances to which my noble friend referred.
I should particularly like to stress the situation that existed when we last discussed the Medicines (Radioactive Substances) Order 1978 on 3rd May. The noble Baroness may or may not have been present at that time, but the order was laid in regard to Directive 76/579 of Euratom. We are involved in treaty obligations which relate to the meeting of the Council of the European Communities on 1st June 1976 and our specific obligations may, in this particular regard, conflict. I have not had the time or the opportunity to investigate it in the fullest detail, but I should like at this stage—because this is in the nature of a probing Amendment—to draw the attention of the noble Baroness to this particular aspect of the situation which does perhaps merit some further investigation.
586
The Department of Health and Social Security has as regards this particular area, a special body known as the Isotope Advisory Panel. Its work naturally relates to such bodies and hospitals in the United Kingdom as the Hammersmith Hospital. But, of course, from hospitals which are concerned with material which combines radioactivity with treatment there will inevitably be waste material for disposal. In that particular regard the noble Baroness has clearly indicated that it is a reserved power. However, there are situations in which an accident occurs. It would be for the benefit of allaying public anxiety in this particular area if we could probe and investigate the situation in a little more depth at this stage.
We have tabled a number of further Amendments in this particular area to which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has already referred. He referred to one particular aspect; namely, natural sources of nuclear radiation. I mention, more for humorous participation at this point than anything else, that if we took a Geiger counter into the pump room at Bath we would get a very small positive radiation reading.
It may well be that one of the functions of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is to carry out suitable monitoring of sites around the United Kingdom. It may be that the public are unaware of all its activities in regard to the monitoring of the disposal sites of nuclear waste from power stations. However, I think we should investigate this subject in the fullest detail when it comes to a matter of devolution.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I may have misunderstood the admirable general introduction given by the noble Baroness in dealing with this part of the Bill. I should like to ask her whether, since the excluded functions have been drafted, full consideration has been given to Mr. Justice Parker's report on the Wind scale Inquiry and also whether the EEC Directives in relation to radioactive substances have also been considered in reaching the conclusions that the Government have so far come to in regard to excluded functions.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes; we appreciate that this is a very sensitive subject.

587
When we talk about nuclear energy, nuclear waste and so on, it arouses very deep emotions in people. We are aware of what is contained in the Wind scale Report; we have taken note of that and we have considered the EEC Regulations.
As regards the general Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 contains certain powers which, we think, fall naturally to the Assembly as part of its wider responsibilities for pollution and health. There are also other parts of it and other powers which have a much wider implication for energy policy and for national safety, such as the dangerous loads and how we deal with them and escapes from accidents and so on; powers for controlling those are wholly reserved. The Wales Bill has been selective in the functions under the Act to be transferred to the Assembly.
For example, we provide for the transfer to the Assembly of the function under Section 3 of the Act of licensing medical and dental practitioners who may supply radioactive substances to be injected or taken internally. But Section 2, which concerns the import and the export of the radioactive substances, is reserved because it has international implications. Section 5(2), which concerns the transport of radioactive substances and the possibility of accidents and leaks, is reserved because of its safety implications. Ancillary enforcement and regulation-making powers in Sections 7 and 9 are also reserved in respect of these two provisions.
Hospitals will be dealt with by regulations which will be made by the Assembly, but they will be covered by regulations. Section 5(1)(6) requires special treatment because this is the provision under which regulations can be made for the disposal of radioactive waste. This is reserved so far as the waste is from sites of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or sites which have been licensed under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act 1965. This Act is itself not listed in Schedule 2 and therefore is reserved. So the disposal of radioactive waste is effectively reserved for all significant producers of that type of waste. For example, it would be reserved for nuclear power stations, reprocessing plants and research establishments. It would be
588
devolved only for minor users of radioactive material, such as hospitals or even the spa in Bath referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
We believe that the Bill's treatment of the 1948 Act strikes the right balance between the Assembly's health and pollution responsibilities and the much wider Government responsibility for national safety and energy policy.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Once again, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, but I am afraid that on this occasion I have simply been unable to follow her particularly closely. Perhaps the imminent arrival of dinner has something to do with it. However, I seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that I can read the remarks made by the noble Baroness much more thoroughly and perhaps return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL
7.4 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ê. —(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Clause 1 [The Co-operative Development Agency]:
Lord ROCHESTER Lord ROCHESTER moved the following Amendment:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and with such other persons (if any) as appear to him appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that there is need for me to say very much in introducing this Amendment as the point it concerns was discussed in our debate on Second Reading

589
and was also the subject of an Amendment in somewhat similar terms which was put down by me during the Committee stage. That Amendment was withdrawn because I was advised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that in the Government's view it suffered from certain defects of what I think he called a "conceptual nature".
Anyway, it has been sought to remedy these in the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. Therefore, I very much hope that in its revised form it will prove generally acceptable to your Lordships. Its purpose is precisely the same as that of its predecessor; simply to record in the Bill the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, was kind enough to give me on Second Reading, that prior to the appointment of the chairman and members of the Co-operative Development Agency, the Secretary of State's consultations would not necessarily or exclusively be restricted to people having some formal connection with the Co-operative Movement.
The only other thing I need to say now is that in Committee it was generally understood that an Amendment of this kind might he put down on Report rather than on Third Reading. The point has no significance in relation to this Amendment, but it has to another matter that might otherwise have been the subject of a further Amendment relating to the possibility of the Agency being empowered to make grants or loans for what might broadly be called educational purposes. Because of a procedural error, no doubt inadvertent, on the part of the Government at the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Bill before us has not, in fact, been discussed at all on Report; and apart from any other considerations, it is simply not now practicable for any such further Amendment even to be tabled.
In the circumstances I very much hope that when, at the appropriate point this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, comes to speak rather more generally about the Bill before it is passed by your Lordships, he will at least be able to give me certain categorical assurances concerning what, under its powers, the Agency will be in a position to do in an educative way when it is set up. As to the Amendment now before us, I beg to move.
7.10 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I think it is a question of if first you do not succeed, try, try, and try again. By all standards we were listening attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, when suddenly we found a few days later that the Report stage had slipped by, and there we were into Third Reading, and we were all taken unawares. It was not just Lord Wallace's fault. We were all here. From all soundings that I have heard, the noble Lord has gone out of his way to help the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, over this Amendment. It is a perfectly reasonable Amendment, one which from this side of the House we would certainly agree to if it in any way helps the Bill and this position in Clause 1 of the Bill. We have no criticism of it, provided the Government are happy and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is happy. I hope that we can see it now into the Bill without any delay.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I will deal with the Report stage fiasco right away because, with all due respect, it is a lesson to all noble Lords. At the Committee stage I had before me a certain form of words. When the Committee stage was finished, much to my utter relief and thinking in terms of something to eat, I blindly used the form of words which, to my utter horror, I found later had abolished the Report stage. That caused me a great deal of concern. In fact, I thought that the authorities had made a mistake, but I have been duly chastened.
In point of fact it has a bit of a lesson for us all, because this little red book should have been in my possession in my pocket and I should have consulted it before I uttered that form of words. I know that ignorance of the law is no defence and I plead guilty, but I have a feeling that I had some associates who are to some extent guilty as well. I do not think that the loss of a Report stage has done much harm. I shall be making a statement at a later stage.
So far as the Amendment is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will certainly not be surprised when I tell him that the Government accept the Amendment, and arrangements have already been made for the Amendment in this House

591
to be dealt with in another place on Monday, when the whole matter should be finished very quickly indeed. To some extent there has been a gaining in time. The Government accept the Amendment, and I strongly recommend the House to do likewise.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, if it is appropriate I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and particularly perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for what he has said. On reflection, I think it was less than gracious of me not to accept a measure of responsibility myself for this, because we were all present. I suppose it was up to me in some sense to say, "Stop what are we doing?". But for the rest, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace and to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for taking the view they do of this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill read 3a.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I now beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This gives me an opportunity to say a few words about the Bill. During our consideration of this Bill in Committee last week I promised to report the outcome of certain discussions between my right honorable friend the Minister of State for Industry, Mr. Alan Williams, and the Liberal Party spokesman in another place, Mr. Wainwright. The subject of the discussion was broadly whether or not the powers of the Agency should be extended so that it would be able to finance educational activitities.
For one reason and another, of which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I are only too well aware, the meeting did not take place until yesterday. In the event, after detailed discussion of the whole issue, it was agreed that it would not be possible to put down a suitable Amendment to alter the nature of the Agency in this way. The Minister of State undertook, however, that once the Agency is established he would bring to the chairman's attention the views on these additional aspects which have been expressed both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
The expectation would be that if the Agency feels itself to be unduly inhibited in carrying out its functions—and I
592
think particularly of the undertaking of studies and research—it would be able to make appropriate recommendations for the necessary changes to be made. The Minister also pointed out—and I believe that this was accepted by Mr. Wainwright—that as the Bill stands the Agency will be able to ask an outside body, such as a university, or perhaps the Co-operative College, to carry out paid studies, or research, as their agent. The Agency might wish to publish any useful material that resulted so as to promote a better understanding of co-operative principles.
It is not my intention to delay the House much longer, but I should like to conclude by thanking the House as a whole for the constructive way it has dealt with this important Bill. I would in particular thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their valuable help in the passage of the Bill. In this Chamber there has been a fine spirit of co-operation on the Bill, and it has graced our proceedings here on all stages, and bodes well for the success of the Co-operative Development Agency
I am confident that your Lordships' House will wish to be associated with my own good wishes to it. This may to some be a small Bill, but in fact it is an important Bill which may lead to very favorable developments for the country as a whole as the Agency gets down to work. I wish it well. I am sure I can say that the whole House wishes it well, and I hope that the statement I have made will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. We wish the Bill God speed on its way.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, may I say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for his great help during Second Reading, Committee stage, and now in the third stage of this important Bill. I am sure we all hope that many will benefit from it, whether they be small groups or large groups. The Amendments we have made to the Bill have improved it. We have certainly given it a good airing and discussion. I enjoyed Lord Jacques' excellent speech at Second Reading, and there were one or two other notable contributions. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his

593
help both inside and outside the Chamber. I, too, from these Benches on behalf of my colleagues, wish the Bill well and hope that it will reach the Statute Book very soon.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to be associated with what the noble Viscount, Lord Long, has said, and also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in particular for the statement he made concerning the powers of the Agency in what I think might be called the educational sphere. We of course wish to study that statement closely, but my first reaction is a feeling that it has at any rate gone some way towards meeting the views expressed both by my honorable friend Mr. Richard Wainwright in another place and by me in your Lordships' House.
I was aware in other ways of the general content of the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, might find it possible to say, but I am grateful for that full expression of the Government's view. It enables me to respond in more agreeable terms than might otherwise have been the case, and that I gladly do.
I, too, wish to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, the noble Viscount Lord Long, and others who, particularly on Second Reading, contributed to our discussion. As I said at an earlier stage—and this is really only echoing what Lord Wallace said a moment ago—this has been a good example of the way in which legislation can be introduced on a consensus basis. Come to think of it, what Bill could be more appropriate for such treatment than one concerned with co-operative development? I hope very much that in its amended form it will now be accepted by another place and that very soon it will find its way on to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.21 p.m. until 8.5 p.m.]

WALES BILL
House again in Committee on Schedule 2.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 47, leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: I had understood that we were having a change of voice and that my noble friend Lord Tweeddale was to move the Amendment, but it seems that I have got my wires crossed. The Amendment relates to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961. We have already had a rapid intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and I am sorry that he is not at present in his place and so will not be able to give us the benefit of his advice on this occasion. This question raises the whole subject of devolution of matters relating to water, but I wish to remind your Lordships that we are dealing with pollution at this stage, and I should he happy to leave the matter at pollution for the moment—I see the noble Baroness nodding —and not get involved with the wider aspects, which we shall reach later.
My question here relates particularly to the downstream concept, which my noble friend Lord Sandys mentioned in connection with another Amendment. We are concerned with the fact that rivers are no respecters of boundaries, and pollution in one country can very quickly, and even more definitely, affect the populace on the other bank of the river, which in the case of the Severn is bound to be in a different country. I am interested to note that the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts do not appear at all in the Scotland Bill. The second prong of my question is concerned with knowing exactly why this is so, and whether there is any relevance that I should adduce from this fact. I beg to move.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961 are primarily concerned with the control of the discharge of effluent into rivers. The powers of control are largely exercised by water authorities, but the Acts also contain a number of ministerial functions. For instance, Section 6 of the 1961 Act contains a power of appeal to the Minister against unreasonable action

595
by a water authority under either of the two Acts. The ministerial powers under these Acts, which are currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales, are essentially local powers which cohere with the other water and pollution matters for which the Assembly will be responsible. So the Government's view is that the powers under these Acts are suitable for transfer to the Assembly, and that the entry for them in the Bill should be allowed to stand. So far as Scotland is concerned, this is devolved in the Scotland Bill.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Once again I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and for putting me right on the Scotland Bill. However, she said that ministerial powers are to be devolved, and from that I assume ministerial powers only; but I see no excluded functions in column 2 of this part of the Schedule. Does that mean that the Acts are concerned only with ministerial functions, or are there others which we should know about?
Baroness STEDMAN: There are only ministerial Acts which are concerned with this, and at the moment we are in the process of some change so far as the Acts are concerned. The 1951 Act and the 1961 Act are both to be repealed by order under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These repeals have yet to be completed; they have not been finished. At the moment all we are concerned with is the ministerial functions, and they will be sorted out when all these repeals and orders have gone through.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE The Marquess of TWEEDDALE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 47, leave out line 20.
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment was put down because it appeared that the matter was devolved in Scotland but not in Wales. It has already been explained by the noble Baroness, so I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
8.13 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 47, leave out lines 31 to 36.
The noble Lord said: I warned your Lordships before dinner that we would be verging on health yet again in this section, and indeed we are. We now turn to the Health and Safety at Work Act, which is not quite as clear-cut as one might think from the Title, because not only does it involve health and safety at work but it also involves the control of certain emissions into the atmosphere. I have gone into various sections fairly thoroughly, but the one which particularly concerns me at the moment is Section 20(3), which, by extension, now provides that the Assembly may direct the procedures for taking samples. To me, this means that the advice of the Assembly in the shape of civil servants (if that amorphous mass actually has a shape) will be quite definitely needed by the Assembly. This Amendment really is to probe what civil servants the Assembly will be able to draw on: whether they will be taken from the existing Civil Service in London or whether in fact new civil servants with specialized knowledge will have to be created. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Perhaps it might be helpful, now that we have reached this stage of the health and safety matters, if I talked widely for a moment about the Amendments concerned with the Health and Safety at Work Act. When we come to Schedule 11, in paragraphs 80 to 83, there will be various consequential Amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act, for various purposes. They are, first, to ensure that, despite the transfer of the powers under Section 14 relating to the holding of public inquiries, such inquiries held in Wales can be held in private at the instance of either the Assembly or the Secretary of State for purposes such as national defence reasons, and things like that; also, to ensure that appeals against licensing requirements for industrial emission control purposes under Section 44 can go to the Assembly instead of the Secretary of State; and to enable the Secretary of State to continue to secure Crown exemption from regulations which are made by the Assembly in the interests of the State or the safe custody of prisoners. Then, the powers under

597
Section 48(4) otherwise pass to the Assembly, which is in paragraph 87. The power to make the orders under Section 84(3) extends to the provisions of Parts I and II of the Act to apply outside Great Britain; that is, in territorial waters. That is not transferred, but paragraph 83 will enable the Government, in extending the remit of the Act, to extend the power of the Assembly to apply to new areas. That is covering the whole field of health and safety at work.
The Assembly will be advised by the Health and Safety Executive on all these matters. At the moment the Health and Safety at Work Act contains a miscellany of matters, and the functions in relation to most of them will be reserved. For example, there is no devolution in relation to the safety of factory machinery. But the Act also deals with the pollution of the atmosphere. Most importantly, Section 5 places a duty on employers to prevent harmful emissions into the atmosphere. This aspect of the Act is the one which coheres with the other pollution functions which have been transferred, like those under the Clean Air Acts. The entry for the Health and Safety at Work Act therefore transfers to the Assembly those functions which may he exercised in relation to pollution from the atmosphere. These include the power to prescribe premises, to make regulations and to provide for enforcement. But all these powers are reserved so far as they apply to every other aspect of the Act. Similarly, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive will be responsible to the Assembly for aspects of its work dealing with pollution of the atmosphere, but otherwise will be responsible to the Government.
We think it is right that responsibility for the atmospheric pollution aspects ought to be transferred to the Assembly. These raise local considerations which we think are perhaps better dealt with at local level. If they were to be reserved, as the Amendment as it stands proposes, then the Assembly's ability to do anything to combat pollution would be weakened to some extent. So for the most part the Assembly will be advised by the Health and Safety Executive, and will have the right to call on their advisers, their civil servants, or whatever one may call them, in order to give them the advice to enable
598
them to carry out those parts of the Act which are transferred to the Assembly.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to intervene here for one second. I think this is a bit of mongrel, but the particular point I have to raise, which is perhaps a slightly naughty one, is that it appears here that the Secretary of State is going to act rather as a big brother to the Welsh Assembly. In fact, under Section 96, which is kept—that is, not devolved—he has the right to hold inquiries. I am sorry, but this seems to me very strange.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: If my noble friend would be good enough to give way, I think he has got himself into a slight muddle. He is mixing up two Amendments. What he is in fact referring to is the next Amendment, on the Control of Pollution Acts.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I apologies to the Committee.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: However, to return to health and safety at work, perhaps I may again thank the noble Baroness for her very full reply but ask another question under Section 15 of this Act. From my reading of the Bill, I understand that the health and safety regulations are to be made by the Assembly instead of the Secretary of State, and I think the noble Baroness referred to this point in her speech.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: We know, because we have been told many times during the course of this Bill so far, that the Assembly is not a legislative body. I wonder whether perhaps the noble Baroness would like to clarify this point for me.
Baroness STEDMAN: That is a good question. Those things which have been transferred to the Assembly will be the things which the Assembly can do and for which they can seek advice. In all other instances—and you can call him "Big Brother" if you like—lall the other powers are reserved to the Secretary of State. Therefore, those things which are a local pollution issue will be dealt with by the Assembly and anything outside that will

599
still remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I do not think that the Secretary of State is going to act as a "Big Brother". What we are saying is that those things which are local to Wales itself and to your area, the Welsh Assembly will be responsible for; and those things which have wider national implications will still remain reserved and will be within the province of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord is looking puzzled. I am feeling equally so, for he is now making me worry about it. If he likes to leave it and let me have another look at it so that, if I can, I may clarify it more for him, I will do so between now and the next stage. I hope that we have got it right between us.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The noble Baroness expresses a hope. I, too, have great hopes but I shall have to reserve judgment until I read her reply in Hansard. It was a bit of a mouthful and on this occasion I do not feel that she was speaking from a position of particular strength. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 47, leave out lines 37 to 52.
The noble Lord said: We return to the matter of radioactive substances, and I am sure that the Committee are very much obliged to the noble Baroness for what she said under our Amendment No. 50 in respect to the particular powers which were reserved. In this particular case, however, we are concerned with the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and once again I wish to refer the Committee to the problems which arise under the Euratom Directive. That is Directive 76/579, which was adopted in 1976.
Are we quite sure from the Government point of view that, where there is an articulation between the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974 when it comes to the situation as it stands today, the position is entirely in accordance with our Treaty obligations? I think it is important, particularly when we are concerned here with the dangers of ionizing
600
radiation and the basic safety standards, that there is total satisfaction. If the Government could give that assurance it would be helpful.
Baroness STEDMAN: It seems to me that perhaps it might be helpful if we had now a speech to Amendment No. 55 which deals with the same point. It might be helpful if we were to hear now from the noble Lords responsible for Amendment No. 55. Perhaps I could then reply in a general debate, and we could decide how we go from there.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Far be it from me to disagree violently with the noble Baroness. I shall certainly say what I had to say on Amendment No. 55, but I do not think she will find it helpful. I have already spoken to the radioactive substances part of the Control of Pollution Act under Amendment No. 50. I was not proposing to go through it again, but if she would like me to carry on I will certainly do so.
Baroness STEDMAN: I thought it might be helpful if the other noble Lords associated with the Amendment wished to add to what the noble Lord said. If not, I will carry on. So far as concerns Amendment No. 54A and, to the same extent, Amendment No. 55, which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about, the purpose of both these Amendments is to probe the reasoning behind the entry in the Bill for the 1974 Act. Perhaps these are the last of the series of Amendments on pollution that we have before us tonight.
The Control of Pollution Act 1974 primarily concerns waste disposal, street cleaning and litter, water pollution, noise and atmospheric pollution. Many of its provisions replace provisions under earlier legislation which we have already discussed—notably the Alkali, etc Works Regulation Act and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts. But the process of commencement is not yet complete so the Bill must refer to both sets of legislation. Generally the existing ministerial functions under the 1974 Act concern essentially local matters which the Bill transfers to the Assembly as an important part of their wider pollution powers. For example, the Bill refers to the Assembly powers to determine appeals in respect

601
of waste disposal licenses and in respect of water pollution measures, powers to confirm noise abatement orders, and powers to make regulations about the atmospheric pollution responsibilities of local authorities. However, the 1974 Act also concerns matters of wider United Kingdom significance and these are reserved by the entry in the Bill. For example, the power to apply the waste disposal provisions of the Act to radioactive waste which we discussed earlier, is reserved in respect of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and licensed nuclear sites. And powers in relation to fuel oil standards are reserved because of their implications for the oil industry and our energy policy.
The Bill, therefore, has been selective in the extent to which powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are transferred to the Assembly, and the Government believe that we have struck the right balance between devolved and reserved interests. The Assembly must always conform with any requirements of the European Community and must exercise what functions are being given to them in accordance with those regulations from the European Community.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am sorry to come in early on this Amendment, but I am still in a muddle over this. Am I right in assuming that, if there is any appeal or inquiry, it will be the Welsh Assembly who deals with it so far as the matters concerned are those that they hold, and that it will be the Secretary of State who will hold the inquiry on the matters that he retains? Is that correct? And will there be no power of the Secretary of State to judge on those matters or to hold an inquiry into those matters which relate to the Welsh Assembly?
Baroness STEDMAN: No. The Assembly is responsible for those things devolved to them and the Secretary of State for all other matters.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This is an area of some complexity. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley brought out the matter of the initiators of inquiries. This, in itself, is a subject of considerable public concern and anxiety. I think that we have examined this to the
602
extent that we wish for the time being and, reserving the position as it will be, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.29 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 47, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 29 on page 48.
The noble Lord said: Notwithstanding the remarks we have all made on radioactive substances now and on several occasions, the number of exclusions from the Assembly in the Control of Pollution Act are so numerous as to make it almost a case of reverse listing. The noble Baroness, very generously, on the last Amendment has given the whole gamut of reasons for putting this particular Act within the remit of the Bill, and I am grateful. However, there is one particular query that I have in that the Secretary of State, if he is a polluter—and I would not necessarily say that he is likely to be a polluter, but he may be—has only himself to be answerable to; whereas under Section 80 (which is a reserved matter) the local authorities may by notice require the occupier of any premises to furnish such estimates of air pollution as may be required by them. That sounds a bit of a mouthful. I hope that it is clear.
By extension through this Bill, the Assembly may require the same of the local authorities. But—and this is my point—the Secretary of State will require the same as the Assembly. In other words, the Secretary of State is answerable to himself, the Assembly is answerable to the Secretary of State; the local authorities are answerable to the Assembly and the individual factory in the street is answerable to the local authorities. Am I muddled? Have I confused the Committee? I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: What we have attempted, and what we think we have done, is to strike the right balance between the devolved and the reserved interests. In those parts in which the Assembly has the powers to deal, it will act or take note or heed, or reprimand the authorities and will hold inquiries where there are any problems about pollution and where they have to be sorted out. The Assembly has

603
the power in so far as its own functions which have been devolved to it are concerned. All other functions are left to the Secretary of State. It is only if there is something happening in the way of pollution within the area of Wales, which is still the responsibility of the Secretary of State, that they will he answerable to the Secretary of State and not to the Welsh Assembly; otherwise, they are answerable to the Welsh Assembly, not to both of them.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The penny has dropped! May I now return to Section 108 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I am returning to an earlier point about legislation of the Assembly. I agree that it is subordinate legislation, but none the less it is legislation. Section 108 talks about the repeals of Acts and orders which have been made previously by Parliament. I understand that the Assembly will be able to repeal Acts and orders where they have become the responsibility of the Assembly and the Assembly does not like them. Otherwise, the noble Baroness has covered the points very well indeed.
Baroness STEDMAN: Any regulations which are going to be made by the Assembly are not primary legislation; they are made by Ministers, not Parliament. The Assembly will take over the Ministerial functions for those matters which are devolved to them.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful once again to the noble Baroness. We seem to have completed this rapid marathon on pollution. We are all extremely grateful for the very full answers she has given us. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 48, line 29, at end insert—

("The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978(c. 3).

The power under section 13 so far as exercisable in relation to section 4(2)").

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is required to take account of the fact that the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 has now received Royal Assent.
604
It consolidated earlier legislation but involves no change of policy.
The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act consolidates earlier provisions dealing with refuse disposal and the disposal of abandoned vehicles. Its sources are primarily the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Civic Amenities Act 1967, and the ministerial powers which are derived from these two Acts would have been transferred to the Assembly by virtue of existing entries for them in Parts VII and VIII of Schedule 2 to the Bill. The proposed new entry for the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act similarly transfers these same powers to the Assembly.
However, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act also contains a power derived from the Vehicle and Driving Licenses Act 1969 to alter the basis on which a driving licenses is considered to be current. This is on a car found abandoned and which they have to dispose of. This power would have been reserved by the Bill as it stands, as part of the reservation of all matters relating to vehicle licenses and the column 2 exclusion in the new entry for the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act ensures that it remains reserved.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: I feel that this Amendment can do nothing but good. Wherever one goes in the country one sees vehicles parked by hedgerows, down lanes, by-ways and so on. Having read through the Bill, I find something missing. I find this rather worrying. The authorities have power to remove the vehicles for disposal. Nowhere in the Bill does it mention for how long the vehicle has to be abandoned. If somebody's car breaks down in the evening and the vehicle cannot be repaired until the following day or a couple of days later, it might be removed.
Lord ELTON: Has not the noble Baroness now solved the parking problem in Cardiff?
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure what the noble Marquess fears is not likely to happen, so long as it is a car which has obviously broken down and looks in reasonable condition. Inquiries would be made regarding ownership and why the vehicle had been left. This provision concerns vehicles which have been

605
abandoned in ditches but which still have driving licenses on them. I will certainly look at the point to see whether we can do anything to help the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: I understand that, but the noble Baroness can never have lived on Mull, otherwise she would not have made that remark about the condition of the cars!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 49, leave out lines 29 to 32.
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing Amendment wanting some explanation. It is a rather esoteric point, so I shall understand if an answer is not available immediately. Perhaps I could have one in writing or at the next stage of the Bill. The Opencast Coal Act, to which this Amendment refers, provides for the compulsory acquisition by the National Coal Board of rights over land and payment of compensation. Section 39(6), which has been devolved, gives the Welsh Assembly certain powers which relate to the rights of the National Coal Board to enter any land and make bore-holes—that is in effect to drill—and to find or evaluate coal resources. In this section if the land is held by a statutory undertaking, river board or other drainage authority and entry is objected to on the ground that such drilling would harm their undertaking, then the National Coal Board has to have the consent of a Minister—and now, under the devolved function, will have to have the consent of the Welsh Assembly—before being allowed to enter. The National Coal Board will need the rubber stamp of approval of the Welsh Assembly where a statutory undertaking is concerned.
The point on which I should like some help from the Government concerns the definition of the statutory undertaking. The Opencast Coal Act gives a statutory undertaking the same meaning as in the Act of 1947 and it is the same, as I understand it, as Section 291 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I will read very quickly what this says:
"'Statutory undertakers' means persons authorized by any enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway, road transport,
606
water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier, or lighthouse undertaking or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water; and statutory undertaking' shall be construed accordingly.".
It will be seen if we turn to Clause 79 of the Bill that a few of these undertakings are omitted from the list and, in particular, water-based authorities. I will not take up your Lordships' time by reading out Clause 79, but it does not correspond with Section 291 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and it would exclude not only the water-based authorities but, for instance, the Welsh National Water Development and the Severn and Trent Water Authorities.
I should be grateful for a reply, either now or later, as to whom would a statutory undertaking object and from whom should prior consent be obtained if the National Coal Board were to seek to enter either the land held by an electricity authority, which is an excepted statutory undertaking under the Bill, or, secondly, the land of a water authority, which is not an excepted statutory undertaking under the Bill. Is the power of consent in fact reserved to the Minister in a case of the statutory undertaking which is excepted under Clause 79 of the Bill and devolved to the Welsh Assembly in the case of the other non-excepted statutory undertakings? I should be very grateful for clarification about that; and I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: After devolution, the Government will continue to be responsible throughout Great Britain for industrial and energy policy. Accordingly, the Wales Bill reserves all ministerial powers in relation to the National Coal Board. The only function under the Opencast Coal Act 1958 to be transferred to the Assembly is that of the "appropriate Minister" under Section 39(6). Section 39 of the 1958 Act provides powers whereby the National Coal Board may enter land not owned by them for the purpose of establishing whether the land would be suitable for the excavation of coal or related operations. Subsection (6) provides that, where the land is held by a statutory undertaker or an authority responsible for sewerage, rivers or drainage, the consent of the appropriate Minister is required.
The ministerial power in Section 39(6), unlike other powers in the Act, relates not

607
to the National Coal Board but to the body on whose land the Board wish to enter. These bodies might be excepted statutory undertakers as the noble Baroness said, defined in Clause 79(1), for whom Ministers will continue to be responsible—for example, British Rail. In such cases the column two qualification in the entry for the Act on page 49 ensures that the function of giving consent will continue to be exercised by the appropriate Minister.
But where the body is a statutory undertaker or other body for which the Assembly will be responsible, the function of giving consent will rightly pass to the Assembly. If, for example, the land controlled is held by the Welsh Water Authority it is entirely reasonable that the Assembly should be able to prevent any prospecting on it by the National Coal Board if—as the Act requires—this would be seriously detrimental to the Authority's operations. In the particular instance of water, to which the noble Baroness referred, the Assembly is under a statutory duty to ensure that certain policies are carried out. Statutory undertakers, by definition, are also under statutory duties. There must be ministerial protection to ensure that these duties are not rendered incapable of execution. In the last resort, although it may be detrimental to a statutory undertaker or other body for which the Assembly is responsible—if the National Coal Board prospected for coal, there may be overriding national reasons which made it essential. In that case the Government would come in and use their reserve powers.
Baroness ELLES: I am very grateful for the explanation given by the noble Baroness. I shall study it carefully tomorrow: I think I have got it right but I should like to have another look at it tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 56B:
Page 49, leave out lines 33 to 37.
The noble Baroness said: This is really a very minor point, but one which nevertheless perhaps needs spelling out. The
608
Schedule is done in such a way that silence is taken to be on the side of the Welsh Assembly very often, and I think this is a rather tricky, if relatively small, point. Under the Schedule, Sections 23(2)(b) and 26(2)(b), and 26(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 are devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Certain functions, which are excluded functions, are exercisable in relation to land acquired for purposes relating to matters listed in Schedule 5 to this Act. Those matters in Schedule 5 are reserved local matters. As I understand it—and I should be grateful for confirmation that my interpretation is correct—consent would be given by the Assembly for the appropriation or disposal of land which is covered by the Sections 23 and 26, which has been acquired in certain circumstances by a local authority. But the land had been originally acquired for any purposes listed in Schedule 5 to the Bill, these being reserved local matters under Clause 36(2). So what cannot be done, as I understand it, is for the Assembly to consent, first, without the Minister's consent to a compulsory purchase order, which may he made by some person or undertaking in relation to land which was at that time held by a local authority and which had been originally bought for a Schedule 5 purpose.
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell me whether my interpretation is correct, the point being that this concerns land which was originally acquired for purposes under Schedule 5, and, of course, in the excluded functions that is not explicitly spelt out. I realise that things cannot always be spelt out explicitly, but I should like to have confirmation that what I have said is a correct interpretation of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government's approach to this is that there should be a common procedural code for compulsory purchase throughout Great Britain. For this reason the entry for the Acquisition of Land (Authorizations Procedure) Act 1946 on pages 48 and 49 of the Bill does not transfer to the Assembly any powers to alter compulsory purchase procedures. Similarly the entry for the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 is in no way concerned with giving the Assembly any powers over procedure. All it does is to provide that, where a

609
local authority presently requires ministerial consent for a compulsory purchase order, the function of giving consent should pass to the Assembly if the land is being acquired for a "devolved" purpose. If the acquisition is for a reserved purpose, that is for a purpose listed in Schedule 5, then the consent will continue to be given by the Minister concerned.
We think that this approach is a sensible one. The 1959 Act is so framed that local authority compulsory purchase orders are confirmed by the Minister who is concerned with the particular function for which the acquisition is being made. The Wales Bill does no more than follow this through by providing for confirmation by the Assembly where appropriate. Because the Assembly will have closer knowledge of the matter in question, it is right that they, rather than a Minister, should give the requisite consent when the land is being acquired for a devolved purpose. The entry in the second column on page 49 ensures that the function of confirming an order will be exercised still by the appropriate Minister if the land is being acquired for a reserved purpose.
Baroness ELLES: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 56C:
Page 50, column 2, line 28, leave out ("section 17") and insert ("sections 17 and 19 ).
The noble Lord said: As I understand it, the whole of the Commons Registration Act 1965 is being devolved, except for Section 17. That section, which is retained, contains the power to appoint assessors and Commons Commissioners, which power is held by the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Commissioners and assessors have to decide on certain matters which are contained in Section 19 of the Commons Registration Act 1965. But the point is that Section 19 is being devolved, and there could be some muddle here. The muddle which I see occurring is that the Welsh Assembly may decide to have different regulations under
610
Section 19 from those in, say, England. The Government may say that this can be avoided, because under Section 17 the Lord Chancellor will appoint the assessors. But I do not see how the assessors will judge, as they will have to judge, under Section 19 which is being devolved. Anyway, these assessors will presumably be Welsh in Wales and English in England. I may have made a mistake there, but let me assume that. Some clarification is needed, and my suggestion is that we retain both Section 17 and Section 19. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: Commons are essentially a matter of local concern, and are closely linked with land use, countryside and recreation, in respect of all of which powers are being transferred to the Assembly. The Government therefore consider it consistent with our approach to devolution that most ministerial powers in respect of commons should be transferred to the Assembly. This Amendment is concerned with the Commons Registration Act 1965, which, as its name implies, provides for the registration of commons. The registers are kept by local authorities, but Section 17 of the Act provides for the establishment of Commons Commissioners to resolve disputes. As the noble Lord said, the Commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and the Government accept that the function of appointment and related functions under Section 17 should be reserved.
The noble Lord seeks additionally to reserve Section 19 of the Act. This provision enables the Secretary of State to make regulations over a wide variety of matters—mostly procedural. For example, he may make regulations under subsection (1)(j),
"for the correction of errors and omissions in the registers".
In the Government's view, such regulations should be made by the Assembly. It will be the Assembly who will exercise most functions in relation to commons, and who will also have general responsibility for local authority matters. It seems unlikely that it would wish to make regulations differing greatly from those applying in England, but circumstances are, of course, not always the same in Wales and it should have the opportunity to take account of this.

611
The Government, however, would accept that Section 19 includes two matters in respect of which the making of regulations should be reserved. First, there is the making of regulations under subsection 1(e) in respect of the procedure of the Commons Commissioners. As the provisions in respect of the Commissioners in Section 17 are reserved, so also should these related powers in Section 19. Secondly, there is the making of regulations under subsection 1(g) to enable the Church Commissioners to act in respect of vacant Church of England benefices. I believe that no such regulations have been made. But if they were to be made, that would be a matter more appropriate for the Government than for the Assembly.
We are therefore grateful to the sponsors of this Amendment for bringing all this to light, and I undertake to ensure that, whatever Amendments are necessary to achieve reservation of the two matters which I have mentioned, will be tabled for your Lordships to consider on Report.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I ask the noble Baroness why it is necessary to exclude these functions under Section 17? With the present noble and learned Lord as Lord Chancellor, there is no problem. But why should Commissioners for matters relating to commons be appointed by the Lord Chancellor? Is it not more appropriate that the Secretary of State should appoint them, or could this not even be left to the Welsh Assembly? I am only wondering why it is necessary to exclude functions of this kind to the Lord Chancellor.
Baroness STEDMAN: I think because it has always been that way. It has always been the Lord Chancellor, and we see no reason to change it so far as this Bill is concerned.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: That seems to be a very good reason for making a change. Because we are instituting a Welsh Assembly, a unique elected Assembly for Wales, I should have thought that this was an appropriate time to have a change. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has reminded me, as I indicated, that we have a Welsh Lord Chancellor, but we do not know for
612
how long we shall have him. While in his hands, I am perfectly happy.
Baroness ELLES: At the moment, we are very happy to have a Welsh Lord Chancellor who appoints English Commons Commissioners, so I suppose that it works both ways. I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has answered the Amendment put down by my noble friends and myself. There was no question of trying to change the situation with regard to devolved powers over commons. There are several Commons Acts which are listed earlier on at page 48 of the Bill although I think that the subsections which the noble Baroness has mentioned cover only two of them. I wonder whether it is wise to allow powers for the summoning of persons to attend meetings, to give evidence to produce documents and to authorize the administration of oaths. These are legal proceedings which I should have thought should be kept common to England and Wales.
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could have another look to see whether she could put the whole of Section 19 back into the column under "Excluded functions". It would be more satisfactory to have a standard way of going about matters of this kind. It will be a great mistake if we are to have different legal procedures. I am not discussing registration and who should be ultimately responsible, but I think that the legal procedures should be kept the same in England and Wales. So I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness could look at this again.
Baroness STEDMAN: I can certainly give an assurance that we will raise the necessary Amendments in regard to the two points which I have made and will certainly look at the rest of it while we are doing that. I have been advised, while the noble Baroness was speaking, that the reason why we have the Lord Chancellor and keep the Lord Chancellor is that these are judicial appointments and those concerned are mostly barristers.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She always takes me by surprise with her replies. I did not think that she would give way at all on this Amendment, so I am rather caught out about summing-up. There is just one point to make about the

613
assessors. I shall have to read the report of what the noble Baroness said about the alterations which she intends to make. But of course the assessors are not barristers. They are more likely to be land agents on the ground assessing how many sheep should be on a hill et cetera. I am still a little worried in the back of my mind about what will happen in such border areas as Brecon and Herefordshire. But I am most happy to withdraw this Amendment and let the noble Baroness and not me, worry about it before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 50, leave out lines 30 and 31.
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment to delete the existing entry in the Bill for the Civil Amenities Act 1967. It is merely a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 60, which creates a new entry for that Act. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to accept this paving Amendment now, and to withhold detailed discussion until we reach the substantive Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No.57A:
Page 50, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 10 on page 52.
The noble Baroness said: We now come on to a rather large chunk of legislation; that is, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I am happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, sitting opposite, since I wish to explain why at this time I have moved to leave out the whole Act, rather than try to move several Amendments, either separately or jointly. I hope that noble Lords will accept this method of dealing with the Amendment. As my noble friend said earlier, one can either split things or lump them together. This is an attempt to do neither, but rather to deal with a major matter which should be raised in your Lordships' Committee. I should advise the noble Baroness that this is a probing Amendment which is designed to discuss certain matters relevant to planning. Perhaps we could have some
614
answers, either now or later. So far, the noble Baroness has done her homework extremely well, or has had it done for her, and we have received very prompt answers. However, there will be one or two rather complicated matters in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act.
To help to speed up the passage of the Bill, I should like to touch on some of the powers that will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly so that people—and, of course, your Lordships in particular—will be aware of the kind of powers and functions which will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. First, there will be a general planning control. Applications for planning permission, and restrictions, or the revocation or modification of appeals, will now go to the Welsh Assembly. There will also be planning controls in special cases: The Welsh Assembly will have the power to vary or alter the requirements concerning historic buildings, trees, advertisements, waste land and office development. The Welsh Assembly will decide appeals against enforcement notices—that is, the enforcement of control over the planning requirements imposed by Parts III and IV of the Town and Country Planning Act.
We discussed earlier in relation to Clause 9(2) and Schedule 3 the acquisition and appropriation of land—and related provisions. This was with regard to Sections 112 and 113. The Welsh Assembly will also be responsible for making decisions relating to compensation for planning decisions which will restrict new development. It will have to take decisions concerning compensation for other planning restrictions, such as the revocation and modification of planning permission, tree preservation orders, loss due to stop notices, et cetera. The Welsh Assembly will also have the duty to hold inquiries concerning disputes between individuals and public authorities over the acquisition of an interest in land, though, interestingly enough, not where it is a statutory undertaker within the definition of the Bill. That duty will be reserved to the Secretary of State.
Considerable powers will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly under the Town and Country Planning Act concerning authorization to stop up or divert a highway so as to extinguish the right to use vehicles on that highway and so

615
convert it into a bridleway or a footpath. It will also have the right to extinguish public rights of way. These are just some of the powers which will be devolved to the Welsh Assembly, and one can see that they are considerable powers.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can say how these problems and matters will be dealt with so far as the Civil Service is concerned. Are the existing staff in the Welsh Office who now deal with these matters to be transferred to the Welsh Assembly, and will they be sufficient in number to deal with them? It will no longer be a question of merely advising the Secretary of State about what to do. Presumably their task will be to advise officials of the Assembly who, in their turn, will have to advise the Welsh Assembly. That is a body of 100 or so people, plus the committees upon which the Members will serve. Presumably, therefore, a considerable number of officials will be involved. The first question that I should like to ask concerning the administrative side is how one will deal with this very considerable bundle of powers which are to be devolved under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
There are certain other specific matters in relation to the Act itself and how they will be dealt with. I should like to turn, first, to Section 7 of the Act which is a devolved section. Under Section 7, the Welsh Assembly will now be responsible for considering structure plans which have been submitted in writing by local planning authorities. Under Section 7(4) the local planning authority:
"…shall secure that the policy and proposals are justified by the results of their survey under section 6 of this Act…and by any other information which they may obtain and shall have regard—
(a) to current policies with respect to the economic planning and development of the region as a whole".
I should like to ask the noble Baroness under what authority and under what clause of the Bill and by what means the Welsh Assembly will he authorized to take account of the economic planning of the region? Will the Assembly decide the economic policies for Wales? Will it be directed by the Secretary of State under a certain clause of the Bill, or will it be able to take its own view of the
616
economic situation in any particular area when it is considering a structure plan which is submitted to it by a local planning authority?
The second point that I should like to put to the noble Baroness is in connection with Section 24 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which relates to development orders. The Welsh Assembly, in lieu of the Secretary of State, will be able to grant planning permission. It will grant what are called general development orders. That is, either the Assembly will be directly granting planning permission itself or it will be providing for the granting of planning permission by a local planning authority.
Under Section 24(2)(a), a development order may either itself grant planning permission for development specified in the order, or for development of any class so specified. As I understand this subsection of Section 24, it means that the Welsh Assembly can allow for different planning procedures all over the country. I am not an authority on planning, and do not pretend to be, but I am told that when you want to develop a property you are allowed, without getting planning permission, to develop up to one-tenth of the size of your dwelling-house—I am subject to correction on this.
As I understand it, as the Bill now stands, the Welsh Assembly could make orders for different standards, for instance in relation to the development of a dwelling-house in one direction or another and have different standards throughout Wales, with the result that there would be differences between Wales and England. There are certain matters about which I would have thought it was undesirable, for no given reason, to have different standards being applied by the Welsh Assembly. There may be specific circumstances, but I should have thought it would create a great administrative muddle if different decisions were made for different aspects of a general development order.
The third matter, which we touched on when we were dealing with the quasijudicial functions of the Welsh Assembly, comes under Section 36(3). This is where the Welsh Assembly will have the right to hear an appeal from the decision of a local planning authority. We discussed this at

617
some length yesterday and I am hoping for a reply from the noble Baroness as to how these inquiries will be held: whether it will be a committee of the Assembly or the leader of the Assembly, and how the organization of these appeals will be done.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware, as I am informed, that the number of development applications throughout the country is something like 26,000, and the number of appeals in the Welsh counties alone amounts to about 460 in one year. Of course I am quoting only an approximate figure. I am wondering how all these appeals could be heard by a committee in a way that would ensure that justice was done. In this House I know we have to go through things rather quickly at times and work under pressure—and this is one of the reasons why I have outlined the matter as quickly as I could in order not to take up the time of your Lordships' House. But if one is thinking of a committee concerned with planning matters the time taken to hear 460 appeals, and to give them proper judicial consideration, would occupy a considerable part of the year.
This is a practical, not a legal question. How is a committee or a leader or this elected body to deal with these matters? If this matter has been devolved to an elected body because it is considered that an elected body should deal with it, I want to hear that it will be the elected body which will deal with the matter and not another batch of civil servants dealing with these papers and shoving them in front of some wretched chap who is called the leader of the planning committee, just for him to put his signature at the bottom of the page. As I understand it, this is the point of devolving to an elected body. There must be some justifiable way of explaining how these matters are going to be dealt with.
There is another point which I should like to raise, and I think it is an important one. I do not see how this can be devolved to a body like the Welsh Assembly; and I do not say, because it has worked, that the argument could apply equally to Scotland or, if we were to have devolution in England, to England. If one looks at Section 74(3) the Welsh Assembly is now to be given discretion to grant or withhold office development permits. I am not going into a long discussion about office
618
development permits because we all know the difficulty in making decisions as to whether or not they should be granted. Section 74(3) reads:
"In exercising his discretion to issue or withhold office development permits the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to the need for promoting the better distribution of employment in Great Britain.".
When making these decisions with regard to office development permits can the Welsh Assembly in all honesty be expected to take into account the overall needs of Great Britain? Who will tell them what the overall needs of Great Britain are? Their duty is to look after the local needs of Wales. They have no duty to anybody but themselves. They do not have an oath of allegiance to the Crown; they have a duty to look after the people of Wales. I would say that it is quite impossible to expect them to take into account a duty which is laid upon the Secretary of State in Section 74(3). So I should like to know how this matter will be dealt with and whether possibly some exception should be made—for instance, perhaps Section 74 should be an excluded function for the Minister. This is the kind of consideration that has to be taken into account.
Finally, there is the question of special provision for excepted statutory undertakers. I should like to ask the noble Baroness why these excepted statutory undertakers should be in a better position than any individual. Why should they have special treatment from the Secretary of State? Why should their rights and their material interests and commercial interests not be considered by the Welsh Assembly? Whereas some individual now will have his rights and pecuniary interests considered by the Welsh Assembly, these people will have their matters considered by a Secretary of State. I can see no justifiable reason for giving one the imagined privilege of having a higher consideration than any other individual in Wales.
I think I have touched on the major issues that I wish to raise with the noble Baroness. I apologise for putting so many points to her, but I thought it would be easier to do it this way rather than to take up too much time of the Committee by constantly getting up and down. I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I did not want to be discourteous to the noble Baroness, who showed a brilliant aptitude to follow closely a brief, and I am grateful to her for all the questions that she has asked. But I should like to ask one question with regard to the number of planning permissions. I am wondering whether her brief divided that figure up, because in rural areas in Wales one must be careful about planning permissions. Lord Davies of Leek may acquire a couple of lovely old thatched Welsh cottages and decide that he is going to expand them. There is quite a lot of that going on, which has nothing to do with the relative economic prosperity of Wales. It is only a small question and I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness in the full swing of her speech, but I should like to know whether she had an analysis of those appeals.
Baroness ELLES: I did not have an analysis, but I was given the figures by an authorized body concerned with county councils in Wales and I was given the notice verbally. But if the noble Lord would like me to, I will certainly find out and let him know in writing. However, I was definitely given the figure of 460, and I suppose in my innocence I believe what I am told by a recognised official body.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness when she was expressing so clearly aspects of the Town and Country Planning Act, and I hesitate to say anything about town and country planning in the presence of one of the greatest experts in town and country planning; that is, the noble Viscount who is sitting behind the noble Baroness at the present time.
I rather gained the impression from the noble Baroness that she had overlooked the fact that a vast amount of the planning activity was done at county or district levels in Wales. I assume that the noble Baroness is not suggesting that the authority of the local authority should be displaced in any way at the present time. In Wales one of the great problems in regard to town and country planning is the overlap of authority between the district councils and the county councils. I may be misinterpreting the noble
620
Baroness, but she gave me the impression that all these planning matters were going to be dealt with at Assembly level, whereas in my view only a very small percentage of planning matters would go to the Assembly and most of them would still be dealt with at the district or county level.
Baroness ELLES: I must reply to the comments made by the noble Lord. If he reads the Town and Country Planning Act, he will see that whatever is done by a local planning authority nevertheless has to have the consent of the Secretary of State, and a good many of these matters require variation or confirmation of orders, for which the responsibility lies on the Secretary of State. A great deal of it is done by local authorities, but on the other hand much of it is checked by civil servants who work for the Secretary of State for Wales, otherwise they are not doing their job as civil servants giving advice to the Secretary of State. I totally disagree with what the noble Lord has said, except in so far as a great deal is done by the local authority. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of discretion and a great deal of deliberation has to be given by the Secretary of State in his function as Minister for Wales.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the very wide range that she has covered on this subject so that we can get the planning side of the situation clear in our minds. The entries in Part VIII of Schedule 2 transfer to the Assembly most of the existing ministerial functions in relation to quite a lot of planning matters: the planning applications and enforcement, the call-ins and appeals, the structure and local plans, the listed buildings, urban conservation, caravan control, waste land, office development control, compulsory purchase, new towns, commons, coast protection, except in relation to navigational matters, and references to a planning inquiry commission in respect of functions which have been transferred to the Assembly. So there is a very wide range of functions which are being transferred to the Assembly.
The most important exclusions that are achieved by the entries in the second part of Part VIII are the industrial development controls which are used as an instrument of regional industrial develop-

621
ment policy and for which the Government retain responsibility throughout the United Kingdom, and certain interests of excepted statutory undertakers; for instance, relief from obligations rendered impracticable. The purposes for which these undertakers operate remains the responsibility of Government and the powers reserved are those now exercised by the responsible Minister. The guarantee of loans made to development corporations and the power to guarantee loans made to all public bodies remain a matter for the Treasury.
Then there are the general framework of codes for compulsory acquisition of land and the compensation for such acquisition and other matters, because we think it is important that these should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The functions relating to compulsory acquisition are also not transferred where the acquisition relates to bodies or purposes for which responsibility it not devolved to the Welsh Assembly.
The noble Baroness asked a very wide range of questions, and I appreciate the fact that she said that we shall have to have some correspondence about some of them before Report stage. Certain planning functions are reserved, either because they impinge on matters which are not devolved in any context, or because it is important to preserve a common approach throughout Great Britain. An example of the former is the granting of industrial development certificates, which are part of the reserved machinery because they are concerned with the regional economic policy. An example of these are the codes for compulsory purchase and land compensation which concern basic property rights, and should be the same in Wales as anywhere else in Great Britain.
The entry in the 1971 Act also makes specific provision for the treatment of the statutory undertakers. After devolution some of the statutory undertakers, such as the Welsh Water Authority, will be responsible principally to the Assembly. But others will remain the responsibility of the Government—such as the National Coal Board and the Post Office. These are described in the Bill as excepted statutory undertakers and a definition of this can be found in Clause 79(1). They enjoy a number of special ministerial protections under the 1971 Act so that planning decisions do not prejudice their
622
ability to carry out their statutory duties. The entry in the Bill for the 1971 Act seeks to ensure that excepted statutory undertakers continue to benefit from these existing ministerial safeguards, though the Assembly will generally be responsible for planning matters. Some technical changes are required in respect of these safeguards, and the Government propose to table Amendments on Report for your Lordships' consideration to cover these points.
It is also necessary to take account of the fact that certain planning functions which are transferred to the Assembly could be exercised in a way which would prejudice particular matters which are reserved elsewhere in the Bill. For example, the Assembly might call in, or determine an appeal on, a planning application for housing adjacent to a defence base, which might pose security problems. Clearly some intervention power is required to safeguard the Government's interests. The Assembly might not even be aware of the security implications. But equally it would be wrong to make use of the general intervention powers under Clause 34, because the procedures under that clause would effectively remove established planning procedures under which interested parties have certain rights to be heard. So, for that reason. Schedule 9 contains special intervention powers by which the Secretary of State will be able to protect the Government's interests in certain planning matters without reducing the existing rights of the parties to the case. The Government consider that the entries in Schedule 2 for the 1971 and 1972 Acts, together with the Schedule 9 procedures, provide the right balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked a number of specific questions, the first of which was as regards the civil service about which we had long discussions during the proceedings on the Scotland Bill. The Assembly will be staffed from the Home Civil Service. We anticipate that many of the staff in the Welsh Office will transfer with their present workload to the Assembly's service. The exact working arrangements for the Assembly staff, and the procedures by which advice will be rendered to the Assembly's committees or sub-committees or laid before the Assembly as a whole, are domestic matters for the Assembly to work out. I do not think that at this stage I could usefully attempt to speculate about what they would be.
Baroness ELLES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she able to say whether the number will remain the same? If it is a domestic matter, who will pay these civil servants? Indeed, if they come under the Home Civil Service, it is not just a domestic matter but one for the Government, because those civil servants will come within the mandate of the Home Civil Service and not just the Welsh Assembly.
Baroness STEDMAN: They will all be members of the Home Civil Service. At this stage it is not possible to say what the numbers will be, whether there will be an increase and so forth. However, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that we are suggesting, on the basis of the effects of the Bill on the public service manpower, that the number of civil servants in Wales is likely to increase by about 1,150 over forecast levels. But how many of those will be concerned with the planning side of it and how many will be concerned with the other sides, I am not in a position at this time to say.
On the question of planning appeals, there is no reason to suppose that there will be more appeals to the Assembly than there are at present to the Secretary of State. It will be for the Assembly to determine how it will deal with these appeals. However, I shall certainly have a look at the matter, and if we can offer any fuller information or guidance, we shall let the noble Baroness have it.
As regards office development permits, there has never been a requirement for office development permits in Wales. The requirement has only ever applied to London and the South-East. However, I shall look at the matter and see whether there is a point which we can take up in correspondence later. On the economic considerations, under Section 7(4) of the 1971 Act there is a duty to take account of the economic planning policies and that is a duty on the local authorities and not on the Assembly. It is the local authorities that must have regard to Government economic policies.
So far as general development orders are concerned within Section 24, Yes, the Assembly could if it wished make provisions different from those in England. However, that possibility already exists under Section 24 whereby special development orders may make different provision
624
for different parts of the country. So it is something that we are having to live with at present. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the very wide range which she has covered. I shall read Hansard very carefully and shall certainly write to her again in greater detail and hope that we can iron some of these matters out before the Report stage.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I should like to ask a further question about Section 7(4) and the structure plans. The noble Baroness need not answer the question tonight, but if she is going to correspond with my noble friend she might care to include some remarks as regards this matter.
It is perfectly right that in formulating the structure plan it is for the local planning authority to try to fit in, so far as it can, with local and national economic provisions and schemes. But it is in the end for some superior authority to confirm that structure plan. If I have understood it correctly, it w ill be the job of the Welsh Assembly to decide whether or not the structure plan produced by the Dyfed County Council or whatever it is, does, indeed, fit in nationally or, I suppose, simply in terms of Wales.
If the provisions for industrial development certificates are to be retained by Whitehall one of the most important things is the employment element in a structure plan and how it will be spread out not only in a particular county but throughout the Principality of Wales. If the Welsh Assembly is to decide those structure plan provisions without looking and without being required to look to the economy of the rest of the country on the other side of the Welsh Marches, and if at the same time Whitehall is going to deal with the industrial development certificate, in so far as it applies to Wales —which it does at the moment in Gwent—then there is the possibility of a conflict and one which the Welsh Assembly by itself will not be able to resolve. At the moment I think that there is a gap here which the Government so far have not entirely succeeded in persuading me that they have resolved.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Viscount has succeeded in persuading me that there is a gap. I should like to have another look at it. I can see that there are

625
dangers and that the Welsh Assembly is responsible for structure plans and all the things that go into that. But there is a brake, in that Whitehall will still have a responsibility for the IDCs. There may be problems. I should like to have another look at that point and I shall write to the noble Viscount.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am a little worried about the criticism of the Welsh Assembly. I am beginning to think that everyone in Wales must be a bit of a dummy, because everybody is assuming that no one will know what he or she is doing in the Welsh Assembly. I assure noble Lords opposite that we know very well what we are doing. We shall have people there who have experience in local government, national government, international government and even experience on the military, scientific and other sides. We are a quite brilliant nation.
Baroness ELLES: I was going to thank not only the noble Baroness for her very excellent and helpful reply, but also the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for assuring us that we really need worry no more. I cannot think why we should carry on debating any more the problems of devolving functions and powers. The content of the Welsh Assembly sounded very much better than that of some other elected bodies that are around. I only hope that the noble Lord is a prophet, is correct and that the Welsh Assembly contains these very admirable people. All the same, it does not always mean to say that they make good executives. Therefore, I think that we must pursue our inquiries to discover exactly how this brilliant Welsh Assembly will actually work. However, having had this very helpful reply from the noble Baroness and I shall eagerly await her correspondence explaining the points that I have raised, which she is unable to answer at this stage—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 57C:
Page 52, line 17, leave out Part IX of the Schedule.
The noble Baroness said: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, will
626
probably be rather pleased with what I am about to say, because I shall refer to three very new bodies which have been set up by the present Government, all within the last couple of years. The first is the Welsh Development Agency which was set up under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. This particular body began work on 1st January 1976. I should like to quote to your Lordships very quickly the stated purposes of this particular Agency. They are:
"To further the economic development of Wales or any part of Wales; to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness in Wales; to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of Wales; and to further the improvement of the environment in Wales having regard to existing amenity"
I think that these are all objectives which we would applaud and approve.
At the time I know that we, on this side of the Committee, expressed certain doubts as to the wisdom of setting up this body. Nevertheless, I think it must be said—and it is fair to say—that we should give credit to those who are running this particular Agency. I understand that Mr. Ian Gray, who is the chief executive, has obviously made great efforts in objectivity to make a commercial and viable success of this undertaking. No one would dispute that. I think that that is a fair statement of the situation.
The number of advanced factories has increased and many of these have now found tenants. This is perhaps something about which the noble Lord who will reply could inform us. Perhaps he can say how this programme is prospering, particularly with regard to the factories which were let—I believe that some have become empty again—whether they have been relet and, in fact, the general progress of this particular venture. I understand if the Minister cannot reply at the moment, but perhaps I could have a reply in writing later on.
The question that besets us is this. If this is a body which has been set up by the Government within the last two years and is successful, why change its ownership? Why not let it get on with the job it is doing, and is trying to do, well? We did not think it was going to be a success but we must be realistic, and if it is making a good job why not leave it alone and let it get on with its job? If it is inefficient and not working well, why then just shove it

627
under the Welsh Assembly? Why is it dealt with in this particular way? If it is inefficient why pass it over to the Welsh Assembly?
It seems to me that what has happened is clear from what John Osborn said in his Creative Conflict, that there were these three bodies, the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales, and the Development of Rural Wales Board, all of which were created as a result of an unhappy internal Party compromise, and not because this was the best thing in the way of administration and efficiency. If it is the belief of the Government that these are the best ways of promoting economic and social progress in Wales, why not leave them alone?
I should like to touch on the other two bodies which have been established by the other two Acts which are referred to in Schedule 2 Part IX. First of all the Land Authority of Wales, which was set up under the Community Land Act 1975, and the Development Board for Rural Wales under its parent Act of 1976. Noble Lords will appreciate that all these three bodies were set up by legislation in Parliament within the last three years by the present Government. The Land Authority for Wales has also shown itself to be capable of exercising, so far as one can tell, sound commercial judgment, unlike, it appears, the regional operations of the Community Land Act in England where much stricter control is enforced.
The Land Authority for Wales has proved itself efficient, so far as one can make out, at land assembly and sees within the near future the prospect of trading at considerable profit. For this it is to be congratulated. So far, from the figures that I have seen—and of course they are subject to correction—there is an estimated profit of about £2 million. It has proved itself popular with small builders, though I understand that it has also proved unpopular with certain local authorities for seemingly overriding planning considerations.
This is a sort of general assessment of what I understand to be the position of the Land Authority for Wales at the moment. But we can at least say, so far as my noble friends and I are concerned, that this body has not proved to be the
628
all-devouring instrument of socialism that was feared when it was set up. For this, one must be thankful and congratulate the people running it. I see that the noble Baroness is not in her place, but it may be due partly, if not entirely, to the spirit of independence shown by her as a member of the Land Authority for Wales.
Turning finally to the Development Board for Rural Wales, which I remember debating with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when this Bill was passing through your Lordships' House, it is the body which covers at any rate most of the rural communities of mid-Wales, and was also set up only within the last few months. It started work only last April. I remember when this Bill was before your Lordships' House there was some concern, and I remember expressing it myself, that it would be difficult for small businesses to compete with a statutory body which had vast sums of money at its disposal, and that they may be setting up businesses in conflict instead of helping small businesses.
I have been given to understand—of course, always subject to correction—that in fact this particular body has been subsidising ventures concerned with small businesses, small craft industries, and helping individuals in mid-Wales. Nobody can fault that. I have always thought that one of the best ways of developing the wealth of a population is to encourage people in the country to develop their craft industries and stay in the country, rather than go into the towns and cause further urban congestion and unemployment.
My noble friends and I believe that if we have these three bodies which have been set up by the Government, they should be given a chance to develop their potential, at any rate for the time being. That does not mean that my Party, if and when we become the Government, would not review these bodies; I am merely saying that they should be given a chance because they have started off and have, so far as can be seen, done comparatively well. Remember, too, that the people running these bodies were appointed by the Secretary of State; that is, by the Government. If he did not trust these people when he appointed them to these expensive jobs—this is no criticism of the people working there; they are no doubt

629
earning every penny of what they are getting—why did he appoint them? Why should they be transferred to some other body to be controlled by the Welsh Assembly?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I must interrupt the noble Baroness. To transfer their control from the Secretary of State to the Assembly cannot by any stretch of the imagination be suggested—as she quite specifically suggested—to mean they are no good. I really cannot accept that.
Baroness ELLES: I am afraid it does.
Several noble Lords:Oh!
Baroness ELLES: If one looks at Clause 60, which itself is quite remarkable, one sees the power that is given to the Welsh Assembly over,
"… all or any of the functions of that body and, if it so provides as to all those functions, for the dissolution of that body".
These three bodies are listed as three of the bodies which may be dissolved by the Welsh Assembly. It seems incredible, the Government having set up these bodies to do specific acts, that they are, within 18 months, producing a Bill which says that somebody can dissolve them.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the noble Baroness again to tell her that the Secretary of State has that power.
Baroness ELLES: Yes, but he must exert it in conjunction with the views of Parliament as a whole; not by a body about which we know nothing. The trouble with this Bill—this point was made yesterday—is that we do not know what we are talking about.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAV1ES of HASTOE: Some of us do!
Baroness ELLES: I do not think the noble Baroness, even with all her knowledge, has the gift of prophecy to the extent of telling us, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, exactly how this body will be composed and how it will exert its authority, but I do not want to get into that argument.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I, too, regret having to interrupt the noble Baroness,
630
especially when she is working so hard and so well, but I beg her not to assume that any assembly knows right away what it is doing. Not even a new Conservative Government will know that at the beginning. This is a pragmatic thing and there is pragmatism in all types of politics, certainly on the Benches opposite. Indeed, on the Welsh side we are all pragmatists.
Baroness ELLES: I do not want to get into a deep discussion with the noble Lord on that; perhaps we can consider that later outside the Chamber.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I fear that I must also interrupt the noble Baroness, but I am trying to be helpful. She referred to Clause 60 and inferred that the Assembly had overriding powers. In fact, the Assembly can enact a Statutory Instrument, but under Clause 37(5) that Instrument must be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. There is therefore that control over the Assembly.
Baroness ELLES: I want to return to the question of these three particular bodies, because the view of noble Lords on this side of the Committee is that here are three bodies doing a good job and we should like to see them left alone, at any rate for the time being. That is my main point.
There will be the difficulty that if the guidelines given by the Secretary of State are very flexible, there will be opened up the possibility for the Assembly to impose economic strategies which are divergent from the Secretary of State, with his powers under Section 7 of the Industry Act. This raises the possibility not only of conflict between the two authorities concerned, but also the danger, which I think is very real, that there would be the beginning of divergence in the economies between England and Wales, which I believe no one would wish to see. From this side of the Chamber we should like to see the three bodies given a chance—at any rate for the time being, and possibly subject to later review—to be left as they are at the moment, and not to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I wish to intervene because I think that the noble Baroness has not really reflected on what has been happening, particularly in the case of the Development Board for Rural

631
Wales. This board was a successor authority in the area of mid-Wales to the Development Commission, which was previously a body covering England, Scotland and Wales. This matter was debated at great length when the Bill dealing with the Development Board for Rural Wales was being considered. I was astonished when the noble Baroness expressed surprise that the Development Board has been helping small industry and crafts, because that is in fact what the Development Commission was doing; and that is the work which the Development Board took over. I say to the noble Baroness that there is nothing surprising about all this. This is precisely continuing the work which, in effect, was devolved to a Welsh agency when it was thought that a special body was needed to take care of the work of the Development Commission in Wales.
Thus, this is a perfectly natural development in Wales, and no one should be surprised about the way that it has developed. I am at least delighted that many of the fears which were expressed on the other side of the Chamber about the Development Board have at last been allayed. I remember the debates in which noble Lords opposite were terrified of this body. When we kept saying that it was only the Development Commission continuing in Wales in another form, they simply did not listen. Now we are almost back at square one on this issue. I want to say again that this body is a Welsh body carrying on a traditional area of work in the rural parts of Wales. It is quite properly Welsh, if I may say so to my Welsh friends.
What could be more sensible than to let the new Welsh Assembly oversee this work, without having undue powers? Bearing in mind the checks over its membership which there will be in the last resort (as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran) what could be more appropriate than to let the Welsh Assembly oversee the work of this Welsh body, and complete what might be described as the final act of devolution in this matter of helping smaller industry in mid-Wales to prosper?
I believe that the whole proposal in the Bill is eminently sensible. There are no dangers involved. In one sense it is rather heartening to have the Opposition so
632
worried about all this. The Development Commission has been in operation since 1910, and it is rather nice that at last someone worries about it. I am its present chairman, and we "beaver" along year after year while nobody worries unduly. I must tell the noble Baroness that such is the tradition of these matters that these agencies get on quite well, and what is proposed will do them no harm at all. Just as Parliament here has the right to look at the spending of the Development Fund by the Development Commission, in the same way it is quite appropriate for a Welsh Assembly to watch over the Welsh spending on exactly the same kind of work now that it is devolved. This is a wholly appropriate provision in the Bill and I hope that my noble friend will resist the Amendment from the Opposition.
Viscount TRENCHARD: I should like to jump to the defence of my noble friend. I speak as an industrialist—not a Welsh industrialist, but with every respect for the brilliance of the Welsh nation, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. Once again I wish to go through this situation as I would see it as an industrialist, and refer to the kind of lack of confidence that I think can develop from the provisions of this Bill in relation to industrial powers. As my noble friend has already said, these do not include only the powers of appointment and the powers of direction, albeit subject to approval by the Secretary of State: they also include, when we get to Clause 60, the power to take over from below. It is there.
This is the equivalent of combining, with certain safeguards, which we shall no doubt have a chance to discuss later, the power of appointment, direction and takeover of some, probably the more important, functions. I touched on an analogy earlier, and I do not think that analogy is false. It is as though Parliament as such, and not the Secretary of State for Industry, was charged with appointing members of the NEB, was charged with directing the National Enterprise Board, and was specifically given the opportunity to take over some of its functions—albeit with safeguards, but given the specific opportunity so to do. I suggest that that is un-British and near to being unconstitutional. I think we have to remember that

633
much industrial investment is looked at either by Scottish industrialists or by English industrialists who have investments in Wales. Confidence is vital, and confidence has been established by the performance of the Welsh Development Agency, as my noble friend said. It would be a great pity to rock it, because it is not only the confidence of industrialists who may be helped by these bodies but the confidence of all industrialists as to how these very large funds will be used.
As an industrialist, one is slightly inclined to think of the power for an Assembly to appoint people. I am well aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said to me yesterday on this, but I think the local authority analogy is different. I am inclined to tell the story of the chairman who was very ill in hospital and of the board resolution wishing him a speedy recovery which was passed by 8 votes to 7! I am inclined to believe that when any subcommittee which may be appointed by the Assembly to decide on the appointments of the eight wise men on the Welsh Development Agency make their appointments, and when those appointments are finally passed by the Assembly, possibly by 87 votes to 63, or whatever the numbers are—for four years, and that is all—this is not the kind of way either to get the confidence of industry or even to get industrialists, bankers and others to play a leading part.
Over the years, in various places, I have dealt with many Secretaries of State of all Parties, and I have noticed continuously that they get steadily wiser with responsibility, and they show an increasing deference to the facts. As an industrialist, I could tell your Lordships that I would have confidence in a Secretary of State, with his growing deference to the facts, coming to sensible decisions on these very wide-ranging powers, and maintaining industrial confidence. I have no faith that any Assembly—even Parliament; it is not just the Welsh Assembly—would create that confidence, or would be able to do those things well. Assemblies tend to be lobbies, to be protesters. It is the Secretary of State who has his feet tied down by the facts of the matter, and all those noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench know it, think. I have had said to me by a Minister of Agriculture, "That is all right in practice, but how does it work out in theory? ", and turn to his chief civil
634
servant and say, "We must get this worked out in theory so that I can somehow get it through Parliament". Your Lordships may say that this will happen with the Welsh Assembly, that they will appoint their own machinery; but we are passing Acts of Parliament which actually give these powers to the Assembly, and not to any one person.
For these reasons and in the time available, I will draw short, and no doubt we shall have the opportunity on Clause 60, and probably Clause 37 on the guidelines, to go back into industrial powers. I should be most unhappy if the combination of the powers to appoint, the powers to direct and the powers to take over were vested in any political Assembly as such.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: First, may I say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Northfield for saying, much better than I could, what I was going to say and, therefore, reducing the length of what I have to say. This is a service to us all. I am delighted that the noble Baroness in the light of experience has changed her mind and her Party's mind in favour of these three bodies, the Welsh Development Agency, the Land Authority for Wales and the Development Board for Urban Wales.
I can imagine what noble Lords opposite would be saying if we had failed to devolve these three institutions: "Here are the three really successful things"—which, curiously enough, have Labour origins; but that has nothing to do with it—" which are developing industry in Wales; and you, the Government, who are trying to build this thing up, are taking it away from Wales. You are giving them the National Health Service, which is difficult; you give them education, which is almost impossible; and the only thing which is going well you do not give them." Honestly, it will not do.
I am not going to make an elaborate defence of my position. I think that my noble friend Lord Northfield has already done it. There is a fourth Act that I am going to talk about in the next Amendment. These three, it seems to me, are frightfully important. They have three extremely effective bodies—which the noble Baroness has agreed are effective and I think it would be absolute madness not to give this to the Assembly.

635
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, would not give anything to the Assembly. He is against the whole thing. Okay! That is a perfectly acceptable position, with which I differ.
Viscount TRENCHARD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What I said was that we were giving all three powers, and I do not believe you can give the accumulation of all three. I did not say give none.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord said it was a dangerous thing to give anything to a political body.
Viscount TRENCHARD: These three.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not want to prolong this. I do not think detail in this argument will help. We have absolutely different opinions, as so far expressed. Maybe the noble Baroness will change her mind. I beg the Committee not to look at this Amendment.
Baroness ELLES: I think that the noble Lord and I have agreed that we do disagree. I think that there are quite a lot of matters which concern us on this side of the Committee with regard to the devolution of these three particular bodies. I think I must clarify. I did not say that I was in favour of them but, nevertheless, that we view them with less disfavors than when they were set up. After all, one must appreciate the facts of the situation. These are bodies which have done well and are trying to do well. We would not like to see their efforts being hindered or impeded in any way. It is clear in so far as they have acted that so far they are trying to do the best for the people of Wales. For this reason we should like to see that they are able to continue to do so. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee on this issue and allow another place to discuss it later.
10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 57C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

George-Brown, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Greenway, L.

Savile, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

de Clifford, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swansea, L.

Dulverton, L.

Morris, L.

Trenchard,V.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L, [Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Vernon, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Forester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Hood, V.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Ingleby, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.

Kagan, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

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

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mais, L.

White, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. [L. Privy Seal.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.8 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): As the Committee has accepted Amendment No. 57C, I cannot call Amendment No. 57B. We move on to Amendment No. 59.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 54, leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 9 on page 55.
The noble Lord said: After that cliffhanger—perhaps the whole evening has been rather a cliff-hanger—I rather doubted whether we should actually reach this Amendment but, as we have, I am delighted to speak to it. Its purpose is to remove completely forestry and afforestation from the powers of the Assembly. Up to the time the two devolution Bills were printed, there was one United Kingdom policy for the whole of the forestry industry administered, as we all know, by the Forestry Commission. The Government, however, considered that forestry, because of its close association with planning and land use, with tourism and the countryside, with rural development and recreation, should be devolved. That was made very clear by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in the debates we had on the Scotland Bill. However, I personally would like to contest this and I would hope that my noble friends and others would be good enough to join me in showing your Lordships that the Government are in fact wrong on this particular occasion.
I should like to start this process by pointing out that forestry, so far as I can see, is one of only two industries to be devolved in Wales. The other, of course, is tourism and there are clearly arguments and clarifications which we shall need on this subject of tourism before we leave Schedule 2 of the Bill; but this is not the place for them. The link industry of agriculture is specifically not to be devolved; yet separation would divorce the two artificially. Surely these two industries should work in much closer partnership and not in opposition, which would be a danger if this Amendment is not agreed to by your Lordships.
Agriculture and forestry go hand in hand, mainly because they both compete for land. It may not be the same land, because forestry usually employs only the marginal land which is not suitable for arable crops, though it may be of use for hill sheep and cattle. Here, again, it is linked, as there is a considerable body of people, both private and public, who are looking at trees to provide shelter for hill sheep and cattle during the winter. Many others feel that there should be one body which interprets the phrase "good land use", and that this should be the Ministry of Agriculture as it is at the moment.
If under this Bill the Forestry Commission or private timber growers wish to plant farmland in Wales, they will need to approach the Assembly who will have to approach the Welsh Office, who, in turn, I suspect, will have to discuss the matter with the Ministry of Agriculture, although it is possible that their recently formed Agricultural Branch would be able to cope with the matter. Nevertheless, this is a very long process and, by interposing the Assembly into it, it will be considerably longer and more involved. One can well see a whole planting season going by without a decision being reached, particularly when one considers that the decision has to go back by the reverse route to that which I have already described.
Those of your Lordships who have had very little to do with the planting of forest trees, whether commercially or indeed in a private garden, may think that this loss of a growing season is not too much time to be allowed to arrive at a correct decision. Perhaps it is not much time at the planting end of the exercise, but it is a long time at the harvesting end, when the continuity of supply of matured timber may well be interrupted with disastrous consequences to the balance of payments. At present, the positive benefit to the balance of payments of home-grown timber is some £160 million a year. I have heard this figure contested on several occasions, but it is in fact 8 per cent.—which is an agreed figure—of the £2,000 million which is the amount currently spent on imported timber and forest products. With the common forestry policy that we have, leading to an expansion of home produced timber and timber products, it is reliably expected that this will rise to

641
at least £450 million a year by the late 1990s. This is not peanuts in anybody's language.
Land use policy, so far as both the agricultural and forestry industries are concerned, is bound up with incentives, particularly tax incentives, grants and subsidies. In the case of agriculture, this is to be reserved. In the case of forestry it is to be devolved. It seems obvious to me that the Assembly's policy for forestry could well be different from that of the Government or, even worse, from that of the European Economic Communities which, although we do not have an EEC policy at the moment, is bound to come along from Brussels sooner or later. These differences could only hinder the object of integration between the two industries that I have already described, and indeed make nonsense if two different grant systems were to be employed. Surely, it is only sensible for the Government to retain responsibility for both industries, ultimately moving towards a grant system embracing them both, for the fuller development of land throughout the United Kingdom.
Another point is tourism, and I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, in his place, as he was earlier. I should like now to examine this as a reason for also devolving forestry. The Welsh Tourist Board will never in a million years produce a poster headed: "Come to Wales to look at our beautiful trees". They might, however, point out—and probably do, for all I know—the attractiveness of the landscape in which, and I should be the first to admit it, trees play a significant part, but not a major one. Forestry makes up only 10.8 per cent. of the total land mass of Wales. The magnificent scenery of much of Wales is made up of the land contours, the sea, the lowland areas and their juxtaposition.
It should never be forgotten that the primary object of forestry is the production of timber and that it also enhances the scenery as a valuable by-product and is not an end in itself. One can easily see the Assembly changing its policy, bearing tourism in mind and not the all-important needs of home-grown timber production. It can reasonably be argued that recreation
642
is home-grown tourism; in other words, the people of Wales enjoy the great outdoors in exactly the same way as foreign tourists. Here I include myself among the English and other noble Lords among the Scots, because they are just as much tourists in Wales as somebody from France or the United States of America. The arguments, therefore, on these two points are, I should have thought, exactly the same.
Now we turn to the aspect of rural development. This, I contend, is also a by-product of forestry—and so it should be. The Government, however, would have us believe that it is the other way round. Forestry will provide jobs and create roads and services ancillary to the main national network. This is because the workers employed in forestry will have to get to their jobs and because the mature timber will have to be got out of the centers of the forests. I cannot envisage that creating a new forest in order to promote the rural development of an area is something which will ever happen. It is not a reason for devolving forestry.
I hope that I have argued against all the reasons that the Government have so far given for devolving forestry. However, at the risk of becoming politically involved, I should like to say one last thing. When this matter was discussed during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, it was hurried through and the argument not fully developed because of the imminence of the dinner hour. Noble Lords will remember that on that occasion Members of your Lordships' Committee waited for three-quarters of an hour before they could get to their dinners. I and several of my noble friends feel that hunger and perhaps not common sense was reflected in the voting figures of 73 to 72—a majority of only one—by which the corresponding Amendment was carried in the Scotland Bill.
This result is not conducive to the Government agreeing to the Amendment in another place. Indeed, I am sufficiently politically naive to be more than a little surprised that the Government did not put down an Amendment at the Report stage of the Scotland Bill seeking to change the situation and to redevolve forestry. I can only assume that the Government are waiting to see the result

643
of this Amendment before doing anything at all. They may, for all I know, be unconvinced that the balance to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred in the debate on this subject during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill—at col. 886 of 9th May—may have shifted slightly. His actual words started in col. 885, and were:
"Forestry is already a matter of great importance in the rural areas of Scotland".
I think we can take it by extension that it is already a matter of great importance in the rural areas of Wales. The noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"Its importance is unlikely to diminish. It seems to the Government that if the Scottish Administration did not have the ability to determine what share of their resources should be devoted to State afforestation and what forms of assistance should be made available to private woodland owners, the administration of devolved functions in relation to land use and development in rural areas would be seriously cramped and restricted. They decided on balance"—
and I could not put more emphasis on that word if I tried—
"that the right conclusion would be to devolve responsibility for forestry and afforestation".
I would say in passing, but very much to the point, that the forestry associations and the private woodland owners to whom I have spoken are absolutely speechless with rage that their industry should be devolved, not for concrete reasons but for this terribly indecisive and wishy-washy reason of "on balance".
However, I must return to my point. I am convinced in my own mind, naive though this may be, that a positive decision on this matter, one way or the other, will indeed shift the balance to a point where the Government, both here and in another place, will accept the decision of your Lordships. A repeat of the figures 73 to 72 will most emphatically not.
When moving the Amendment I should have said that I had absolutely no interest to declare. Although I am well known as a nurseryman, I have no interest in forestry, or forestries, or timber products, or any other interest. However, I have moved this Amendment as an environmentalist. For that reason, if for that reason alone, I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: We are anxious to keep the proceedings short. I should like to support what the noble Lord has said.
644
I think we are speaking of an industry which has a very slow turnover compared with what, in the out-turn, amounts to a very considerable amount of capital and which is very sensitive, as a result, to public policy. The economic pressures on the Welsh Assembly are quite different from those of the United Kingdom. My noble friend has referred to the 8 per cent. level of import saving, which is a real factor in United Kingdom economic policy; but the fact that British timber grown at home saves 8 per cent. of our imports of timber and pulp from abroad will cut very little ice indeed with an Assembly which has no contribution to make or voice in the making of the United Kingdom economic policy. I am also aware of the fact that everybody with whom I have been in contact in the forestry industry is against devolution, including the actual men who cut down the trees and who plant them, and I think that would weigh also with Her Majesty's Government. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will listen very carefully to what my noble friend has said and will follow his advice.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: In sponsoring this Amendment I should like to emphasise that I have had no communication or brief from the Forestry Commission or any of its personnel. To my mind this would have been improper. It is important to stress this point as a misunderstanding occurred on the Scotland Bill which might well have led to serious friction. I would beg your Lordships' indulgence, when debating the devolution of forestry, for taking a certain amount of my speech from the Hansard report on the Scotland Bill debate. Some of the contents I have quoted almost verbatim. I say "almost" with great respect because I feel there are certain parts which would be misleading to your Lordships. One example in the Scotland Bill regarding forestry was reported on 9th May, column 874, line 15, which states my noble friend Lord Dulverton as saying—
"In the new and growing industry—new, that is, for Britain—many millions have been infested by growers …".
The mind boggles, because if the wording is correct I am sure your Lordships on this side of the Committee will have no objection to the subject being totally

645
devolved. It is lunacy to devolve forestry, whether it be private or quasi-nationalised —lunacy for the reason I shall attempt to place before your Lordships' House.
The headquarters of the Forestry Commission have been moved to Edinburgh for the benefit of the overall administration of the Commission's activities with the United Kingdom. These headquarters are working with undoubted success and there should he no interference with their running or diminution of their responsibilities. The Forestry Commission in its present form has established an amicable relationship with agriculture, tourism and landlords and sporting interests. All these are beneficial to the United Kingdom as a whole. I think it is undesirable to say more about the Forestry Commission for the reason I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Having lived next door to and alongside its activites for 13 years I have a strong personal conviction that neither the Commission nor any part of it should be disturbed by devolution. It is possible that should part of the Forestry Commission be devolved ill-feeling could arise, ill-feeling that at the moment is dormant or non-existent. One example could well be the compulsory purchase of land. As matters are now the Commission holds this power but to the best of my knowledge has never exercised it. Who is to say what would happen if the Commission became fragmented by devolution or fragmentation became a political bauble?
The private sector of forestry openly opposes devolution. Its opposition is not necessarily political—a reason that is frequently bandied about—but is based on efficiency, administration and investment. One has continually heard of the lack of investment by people of the United Kingdom, but this is certainly not true of the private forest owners. By European standards our forestry is small, but it is extremely important when one realizes that the nation's annual import bill is over £2,000 million. However small the industry may be, the effect can only be detrimental if it is split up. This splitting up would result in a loss of effectiveness, distortion of the market, and create endless difficulties in the setting up of new timber processing industries. This Government have already expressed the wish that there should be closer co-operation between
646
forestry and agriculture. Why in the name of sanity should one devolve forestry and leave agriculture to be the responsibility of central Government? This could only drive the two industries away from each other and create unnecessary frictions. Since 1972 the forestry industry, as a whole, has suffered enough at the hands of successive Governments. At the moment the home supply of timber is only 8 per cent. of the annual needs of the United Kingdom.
However, if we go on expanding, which can be done so that there is no interference, at a rate which many people of great knowledge consider is feasible, then the figure of 8 per cent. could be raised to between 20 and 25 per cent. This would make a contribution to the national housekeeping bill of some £500 million. This result might not he "infestation", but it would certainly be a very useful investment. This not inconsiderable saving gained by the increase from 8 per cent. to 25 per cent. would not be like the relatively short-term bonus from the North Sea oil but in one form or another could he there for all time.
To sum up, I address your Lordships in the sincere hope that, having heard the debate, as many noble Lords as feel able will vote for the Amendment, bearing in mind that, should the vote be carried by the Not-Contents, your Lordships' House may well be disturbing the smooth running of the two forestry concerns; that is, the public and private sectors, the ancillary industries depending upon the two bodies, the goodwill of agriculture and of landlords and, above all, the considerable and all-important benefit that sparsely populated and isolated areas now enjoy from having the vital matter of employment made possible when there was little scope before.
Lord DULVERTON: I rise to declare an interest, of which I am sure a number of your Lordships are aware, in the subject we are discussing tonight, because I have hastened down from the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee meeting taking place at Edinburgh this afternoon to join your Lordships this evening. My interest at the present time is as chairman of a body called the Forestry Committee of Great Britain. That body is confused by certain people with the Forestry Commission. I am not speaking for the

647
Forestry Commission, which I was quoted as doing a few weeks ago. I am speaking of the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, which represents the private sector of forestry in which the English and Welsh foresters through TGO and the Scottish Foresters through the Scottish Woodlands Owners' Association join together in deliberation and I was chairing that meeting in Edinburgh this morning. I left the HGTAC meeting which is an advisory committee to the Forestry Commission, having heard that your Lordships were debating this subject this evening, because I wanted to back up my noble friends who have just introduced this Amendment.
I shall attempt to be brief, possibly to the degree of being terse. I addressed your Lordships, perhaps at greater length than I should have done, on the Scotland Bill a week or two ago, and now I should just like to add two points. The prospect of devolving forestry into three sections under three separate governmental bodies —three separate Parliaments or Assemblies or whatever they are to be called—is totally opposed to the confirmed interest of the following bodies which are involved in forestry.
I am afraid it is a fairly long list. First, the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, to which I referred just now; the two component bodies—the Timber Growers Organisation representing the growers in England and Wales and the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association representing the growers in Scotland; the two Royal Forestry Societies, one of them being the Royal Forestry Society of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the other being the Royal Forestry Society of Scotland; the Association of Professional Foresters who are mainly forestry contractors; the Institution of Foresters of Great Britain which is a professional body of foresters. There are representatives of the NUAAW who join in our various deliberations; there is the home timber trade, as represented by their various bodies representing the saw millers, the pulp millers and the chipboard industry. All of those are opposed to the splitting of forestry. Finally, there is the Homegrown Timber Advisory Committee itself, which is an advisory committee to the Forestry Commission. This matter was deliberated quite some time ago in their rather large committee—I cannot be exact,
648
but there are about 35 of us round the table—and with one voice all the members of the committee decided that devolution of forestry would be damaging.
My other point is simply this, that in moving the Amendment on the Scotland Bill I deplored the absence of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryffe, who is so well known to your Lordships, both for himself and for the fact that he was a most distinguished chairman of the Forestry Commission a year or two ago. He wrote to me after the Scottish debate. He was unable to be present because he was on a remote island in Scotland. He is unable to be here this evening because he has had to return to Scotland. May I make one brief quotation from his letter:
"I back you up 100 per cent. in what you said on the Scotland Bill. During my period of office as chairman of the Forestry Commission I had the headquarters removed to Edinburgh, and it would now he a piece of nonsense to devolve forestry. It would add to the bureaucracy. It would make it increasingly difficult for the industry to deal with so many Government bodies if the Assemblies of Wales and Scotland were added".
I hope that such words from the mouth of Lord Taylor will reinforce Members on this side of the Committee in feeling that the Amendment should be supported; but I hope further that it will convince your Lordships on the other side of the Committee that the Amendment has great merit and importance.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble Lord sits down may I put this point: He was good enough to read to your Lordships a long list of bodies which are against devolution of these forestry powers to Wales. May I ask whether he had consulted a Welsh body, such as the South Wales Woodlands Limited, on a matter of this kind pertaining to the special circumstances of Wales? I must declare an interest, because that body is helping me to look after some 200,000 trees 800 feet above ground in the rather desolate area around Tregaron.
10.34 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am not going to reply to this debate at very great length. All the arguments were well explored in the Scotland Bill. Noble Lords opposite have a majority which is not exactly built-in, but I think it can be relied on. I agreed with

649
90 per cent. of what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale said. He said forestry is very important; of course it is. He said we only get 8 per cent. and we ought to get 20 per cent.; of course we ought. The point at issue is whether we get any more if the situation of today is changed, in the very mild way that would arise when those powers, which at the moment are with the Secretary of State for Wales, are transferred to the Assembly.
One would think that the Secretary of State for Agriculture ran forestry in Wales. The Forestry Commission runs forestry in Wales, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Wales; and he will do the same thing with the Assembly. A vote of one is not conclusive, but there are differences between Scotland and Wales, and I suppose that the main one is that noble Lords opposite own most of Scotland and rather less of Wales!
However, there is only one argument which has any weight at all with me; that is the argument that it is a pity to separate forestry from agriculture. That is an argument that one must look at, and one must decide whether it is better to separate forestry from agriculture or to separate forestry from the other analogous subjects of planning and land use, which are rural development, countryside and tourism. The Government's decision is that the latter is the better.
The extent of new afforestation in Wales is far less than in Scotland. At present the Forestry Commission plants about 10 new hectares in Scotland for one in Wales. But forestry is nevertheless of the very greatest importance to the rural life in Wales, and to a great many ordinary people as well as very large landowners. The total area of existing forest in Wales is almost a third of that in Scotland, but when allowance is made for the greater acreages of Scotland as opposed to Wales, the proportion is very much the same. So it is extremely important. The Government have an absolutely clear view about the devolution of forestry in Scotland, and it would be quite unreasonable for the Government to back down on this matter, however slender I may think are my hopes of carrying the Committee with me.
I should like to repeat that we are speaking only of executive devolution. I
650
repeat that the Welsh Assembly will have no powers which are not currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. So what on earth is everybody talking about? The theme which has run through the debates on every Amendment with which I have been concerned is the conviction of noble Lords opposite that the Assembly will not be any good. I resent that. I think that it is absolutely wrong. Whatever noble Lords may think, they say it again and again. I, personally, have faith in the Assembly. I think that it could go wrong, but I do not think that it will go wrong. I know enough men from the Principality to believe that they can do the job properly.
I think that devolution as suggested is, of the two plans, marginally better. I am sorry about the separation from agriculture, as I was a farmer for many years. I know that the two are important to one another, but there are other links, too. I have spoken rapidly and, I think, as tersely as the noble Lord. I do not believe that further argument will alter any decision that your Lordships may make. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: The Committee will not forgive me if I spend more than two minutes further on my feet, but I must respond to one matter which the noble Lord raised because I think that he said it in the wrong place. He said that throughout the whole of these debates and as regards every Amendment we are saying that the Assembly is no good. At no point could he have said that in a less apposite way, because two matters are weighing with the Committee: first, the separation of agriculture and forestry, which he himself has said is of considerable importance, together with the economic considerations which we have already mentioned; secondly, that the whole industry, with a singularly united voice, has said that it does not want it. That also must weigh with us. It may be that one limited company has not been consulted, but the list which my noble friend produced was of overwhelming importance.
I shall not delay your Lordships any longer. But I should like to rebut the charge more strongly in this context than in any other that the noble Lord has made that we are against the Welsh. We are not against the Welsh Assembly because

651
it is Welsh. We are not against the Welsh Assembly because it may be no good. We want to make the Assembly, if it has to be, as good as it can be, but this is not the job for it to do.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I was carried away by the excitement of the debate. I do not want to say anything which could possibly be regarded as discourteous to noble Lords opposite. I just think that if your Lordships read the debates carefully, you will get a very curious impression.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: This has been a very useful and brief debate. I am
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.48 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 56, column 2, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
("The powers under sections 2(4) and (5), 3(10), 5 and 8(3)(a).").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 59A is a fairly narrow Committee point, but none the less an important one.
sorry that the arguments have not shifted the balance or even swayed the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. From listening to all the speakers on this debate, I should have thought that the balance of the argument was overwhelming. On this occasion I should like to test the opinion of your Lordships.
10.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Reading, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochdale, V.

Amory, V.

Forester, L.

Sandford, L.

Bathurst, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gainford, L.

Savile, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

De La Warr, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trenchard,V.

Denham, L.

Morris, L.

Tweeddale, M. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vernon, L.

Dulverton, L.

Newall, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Ingleby, V.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Kagan, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

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

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mais, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Whaddon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Parry, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hood, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May we take Amendments Nos. 59A and 5913 together?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: They are both narrow Committee points but equally quite important. My noble friends have been concerned to ensure that the appointments to the Welsh Water Authority, and indeed to many other bodies we discussed on previous Amendments, are persons experienced in the functions which pertain to those particular boards. In this case appointments of persons experienced in agriculture, land drainage, and fisheries,

653
should remain with the Secretary of State, and likewise appointments to the regional land drainage committee. The first Amendment, No. 59A, has the purpose of retaining with the Secretary of State the function of making appointments to the regional land drainage committee of the Welsh Water Authority. Amendment No. 59B is designed to retain for the Secretary of State his present function of appointing to the Welsh Water Authority persons experienced in agriculture, land drainage and fisheries; in other words, the two Amendments are linked, as the Minister envisaged.
It is felt by several bodies, the Country Landowners' Association not excepted, that it would be a retrograde step to take away from the Welsh Office Agricultural Department the functions of making these appointments when, with their wealth of knowledge, experience and expert staff, they are well suited to make them. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said on the last Amendment, my noble friends and I feel they are far more suited and experienced to make these appointments than the Assembly, no matter what goodwill we may have for the Assembly, and I assure noble Lords opposite that I have great goodwill for them and I do not regard them as a prospective bunch of idiots, to use a colloquialism. As I know from being in your Lordships' House, experience takes a lot of gaining, and for some time, perhaps as long as five or six years, the Assembly will not have gained it. It is in this transitional period that we are particularly anxious to see that the appointments are retained by the Secretary of State and are not devolved to an untried Assembly.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My name also appears above the Amendment, and in addition to supporting what my noble friend has said on the subject, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her helpful comments yesterday in answer to various questions that were put to her. However, if anything she increased my apprehension about this matter because I did not feel we got to the bottom of it. I take this opportunity to raise the slightly wider issue of water, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned; he got in ahead of us earlier in the evening. Water catch-
654
ment areas and river basins have been created by the Almighty and I am not sure it is incumbent on a Legislature of any type to interfere with these natural arrangements.
The Water Act 1973, a measure of some wisdom, created the 10 water authorities precisely on these hydrological boundaries, which seem much more logical than the artificial political boundaries which have been man-made. We are therefore looking at water as a national interest matter, and if anything should be national it is water, more so than forestry which we have just been discussing. From what has been said on this subject, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, it seems that the Assembly will have power to interfere with the water authority and even to form an executive committee. I do not dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said—namely, that the Assembly will be formed of brilliant individuals—but that has nothing to do with it. The point is that if the Assembly were able to interfere with the water authorities and the boundaries that exist —and, after all, one water authority overlaps into Wales and the one in Wales overlaps into England in various places—that would be to introduce a state of confusion and, I believe, would be catastrophic in that it would place the water authorities in England in a totally different position than would be the case in Wales. It also seems to me that it would destroy the co-ordinating function which is exercised by the National Water Council. Obviously the local interests in Wales must be taken care of. Surely this is already done by the appointments made by the county councils and the district councils. I believe that the Secretary for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, who currently make appointments, should continue to do so, and, therefore, water must, above all things, be considered on a national, United Kingdom basis.
10.55 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I should like to add a further reason why I believe that these Amendments should be agreed to. In doing so, I wish to return to my worry of yesterday; namely, the question of the appointment of the members of the Welsh Water Authority—should it be devolved. I wrote a note to the noble Baroness about this, but I see

655
that since I did so, she has turned, as it were, into the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
As I understand it, the Welsh Water Authority is not a Regional Water Authority as such, and is, therefore, not limited by Section 3 of the 1973 Water Act. It is, however, controlled by Sections 2(4) and 3(10) of that Act, which lay down the constitution and formation of the Welsh Water Authority. However, as those powers are to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly—and here is the problem—it presumably can alter anything in those two sections. If I am correct in this assumption, it would be possible for the Welsh Assembly to nominate all the members of the Welsh Water Authority, with no local authority representation which, as noble Lords will know, is in fact now in the majority rather than the minority.
If this is so, can the noble Lord say categorically that, should devolution take place, the Welsh Assembly will be controlled in this respect by Sections 2(4) and 3(10) of the Water Act 1973? I am worried about this because the reply given by the noble Baroness to my noble friend Lord Hylton yesterday, or earlier today, on a parallel matter—I think it was about rents and rates—was that, although the Welsh Assembly would be tied to the original legislation to start with, once it gets going it could vary that as it wished.
Lord PARRY: Will the noble Lord not accept that it is reasonable to suppose that a country like Wales—which has a strong tradition of local government, which has educated many local government servants who have helped to govern England, and who have contributed their share to the government of Britain—is composed of men who have served on both the local authorities and the water boards in Wales, and that they will in fact be almost synonymous with the present structure of the water boards within that country? Is the noble Lord not anticipating a situation which could never in fact arise?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: If I am to answer that question, then it seems that I have not made my point. I do not wish the water authorities to be composed of people all from the Welsh Assembly. I want my local authority in Anglesey, or in Caernarvon, still to appoint members
656
to them. I believe that they are more important, and are nearer to me on the ground, than those in Cardiff. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord. I totally—
Lord PARRY: Surely the noble Lord would then elect them to the Welsh Assembly?
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Certainly not; I want them in Llangefni.
Viscount AMORY: I entirely support what my noble friends have said about the Amendment. In particular, I support the last point made by my noble friend a few moments ago. I understand that all the Welsh county councils are very anxious to ensure that the local authorities in Wales will continue to have the right to nominate representatives to the Welsh National Water Development Authority. Under the Bill as drafted, I think that the task of appointing representatives to that body will be taken over by the Assembly, white in the rest of the United Kingdom local authorities will have the right to appoint members to the Regional Water Authorities. The Welsh Office has stated, I believe, that no doubt the Assembly would consider any representations from Welsh local authorities regarding the membership. I do not think that we can feel much reassurance about a statement of that kind. The Welsh Office really is in no position to know what line the Assembly would take. We have been told repeatedly that this Bill does not interfere with the rights and powers of local authorities in Wales, but here is a case in which it clearly does. The object of this Amendment is to provide that the power to vary membership of the Welsh Water Authority shall not be devolved to the Assembly, and if this Amendment is passed then any order varying the membership of that authority would remain on the same basis as in the case of the English water authorities, and be subject to an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. I hope this Amendment may be accepted by the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
11.1 p.m.
Lord ELTON: It might be convenient if I raise a small point, because it will give time for the carrier pigeons to ply their trade. In so doing, I may reveal abysmal ignorance, but at least others

657
may share it. There is a principle which at some stage in our debates on water we shall touch on and which I do not think has yet been elucidated, and it is really quite a simple one. Where we have the Welsh Assembly or, indeed, the Welsh Water Authority responsible for an area which spreads into Herefordshire, as it does, or the Severn-Trent Authority spreading into Wales, as it does, I am not at all clear how the rating provisions work, and if the noble Lord can reassure me I would welcome reassurance that there is no question of a rate being levied by an authority upon a community, the members of which are not represented upon it. After all, it is a cardinal principle of democracy that you have no taxation without representation, and since we seem to be on the question of membership of the authorities, this would seem to he an appropriate time for the assurance to be given. If it cannot, I think many of us will be extremely disturbed.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to take up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, made. There must be no question that anybody thinks that there is any doubt about the brilliance of the Welsh people or their ability to exercise any of these functions. That is not the point at all. The point is the principle of whether water should be national or local. The noble Lord might think I am prejudiced because he might well think that my name is Welsh, or part of it; but another part of it might be thought to be Egyptian. In fact, I am neither, so I can look upon this from a United Kingdom point of view.
Lord PARRY: I would accept on behalf of the Welsh nation the assurance that a man named "David" and "Montgomery" at least has some sympathy with the Welsh.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to mention that the right of the Welsh Assembly to control the supply of water to areas outside Wales is not of mere academic interest. There is bound to be, of course, some uncertainty at this stage, particularly in the Midlands, until the question of who will control the price and supply of water is settled. But, as the Liberal Member for Cardigan indicated in the other place in the course
658
of the debate on the Wales Bill, once Wales has its own Assembly then perhaps authorities like the Severn-Trent Authority should withdraw from Wales and hand over the rights of Welsh water to the Welsh Water Authority. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has any views as to what would be the proper function of the Severn-Trent Authority when an Assembly has been created in Wales.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I shall gladly deal with that point in my reply. I should like to begin by making one statement which I hope will not be too controversial; that is, that one of the most notable contributions made during the course of today's debate was the one made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, when he drew attention to the attitude of the Opposition as far as the Welsh Assembly was concerned. Ever since then, there have been shrill denials, if I may so describe them, in which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, took a leading part in moving this Amendment. They have the highest regard for the Welsh Assembly, we are told. "They are men of impeccable judgment—but we will not give them any powers". They are not to be trusted with power, though, said the noble Lord, he has great good will for them. That was very generous of him, I am quite sure; and I hope the noble Lord's remarks will get good publicity in the Welsh Press tomorrow morning, because I believe—and I shall try not to overstate the case—that some of this pretty patronizing stuff about an Assembly which is going to be in existence in the near future will be regretted by some noble Lords in years to come.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Really, I think I must contest that to the hilt. It is going a bit too far. Patronizing, I did not intend to be. I do not feel that from my point of view it came out as patronising. I would say this to the noble Lord. I am not trying to put a Party political answer to something which noble Lords opposite have adduced from the arguments that my noble friends have put forward here up to now. I am not in that position. I do not speak from the Front Benches. As a Back-Bencher—or, perhaps, a backwoods Peer, as I might refer to myself—my job is to speak for interests as I see them. The fact that I might be able to gather round me noble Lords of like

659
interest is neither here nor there. This is a point for myself. I brought this up before the diatribe which the noble Lord delivered. I have a feeling that I brought it up yesterday. The Official Report will be able to bear me out. But this is my recollection.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I am delighted that the noble Lord did not intend to be as patronizing as he sounded to some of us. Having said these harsh things to the noble Lord, let me return to the paths of moderation and sweet reasonableness. Before doing so, I would say this. One noble Lord who is no longer, unhappily, with us this evening drew attention to the fact—this has been repeated by a number of noble Lords opposite: I must say that I propose to look at his words in Hansard tomorrow—that we do, apparently, have some grave suspicions about this Assembly but we do have the highest regard for our Ministers: Secretaries of State, men of remarkable wisdom, we are told, surrounded by civil servants of a quality rarely known. I am grateful to hear these tributes. I am sure my right honourable friends will accept them in the spirit in which they are offered. I can, f hope, be not too partisan. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who is never partisan, I fear that I am from time to time. I recall periods where I would not myself describe the record of Ministers in quite the way the noble Lord opposite did. Nevertheless, if that is his judgment of the present Administration, I am grateful to him and thank him for the kind words. I would say this—
Lord O'HAGEN: Give way!
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I do not know whether the noble Lord is anxious to intervene himself. I will always give way. If he is going to contribute to this debate I will give way with great enthusiasm.
Lord ELTON: I do not know if my noble friend will intervene. The point I wanted to raise is a simple one. I wanted to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris—and he is plainly enjoying this debate, and we all appreciate this; it is nice to see people happy—felt that by any chance there was a connection with the greater trust reposed in Ministers even of his own Party by my noble friends
660
and the fact that they are subject to Parliamentary purview and could be called to account. That point has been made frequently and the presence of that possibility affects conduct to the extent that it does not have to be exercised that often. This is not a derogation of power. It is the cane in the cupboard. It may be hung there for ever but it does some good.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I take the point. I imagine the Assembly is going to be a democratic body. There will be elections in Wales. There will be no Stalinist take-over in the first few months of the Assembly. We must assume that there are going to be democratic curbs which will apply to the Assembly in the same way as to Parliament or to local authorities.
On this question of water, I must say this to the noble Lord. The whole issue of water so far as Wales is concerned is so central to the whole debate that it seems to me absolutely unthinkable for us to move into a situation where the Assembly would not have powers which are laid on them in this Bill. Certainly it is necessary to take account of the fact that the Wales-English Border—a point made by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat—does not follow the hydrological boundary which separates the areas of the Welsh Water Authority and the Severn-Trent Water Authority. That is achieved, so far as this Bill is concerned, by arrangements in Clause 63 and Schedule 8 whereby, first, the Assembly will be able to exercise certain powers in relation to the Welsh Water Authority as a whole (and similarly the Government in relation to Severn-Trent Water Authority): and, secondly, the Government will have powers of intervention to safeguard England and Wales water policy and also particular interests in water in England.
The arrangements are reflected in the provision for appointments to water authorities and their regional land drainage committees under Sections 2 and 3 of the Water Act 1973 and Section 2 of the Land Drainage Act 1976. Part I of Schedule 8 to the Bill provides that the Assembly will exercise powers under these sections for the Welsh Water Authority and the Government for the Severn-Trent Water Authority. But Section 3 of

661
the 1973 Act and Section 2 of the 1976 Act are themselves amended by the entries in paragraphs 47 to 53 and 88 of Schedule 11 on pages 77 and 78 and 84 of the Bill.
The net effect for the Welsh Water Authority is that the Assembly order reconstituting the Authority—and this is the point made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—must provide for one member to be appointed by the Government, and four by local authorities in England. The appointment of the remainder will be a matter for the Assembly to decide—a power resting with the Assembly—but it may wish to continue the present arrangements whereby a number of appointments are made by the Welsh local authorities. For the regional land drainage committee, two members will he appointed by the Water Authority itself, two by local authorities in England and the chairman, and remaining members, will be appointed by the Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, asked whether the Assembly would have to operate Section 2(4) and Section 3(10) of the 1973 Water Act. Yes, it will, as amended, of course, by Schedule 11 to this Bill and, notably, paragraph 53. The Assembly will not be able to avoid these provisions; but under them, however, it will have power to reconstitute the Welsh Water Authority, as I have indicated.
I now turn to the position of the Severn-Trent Water Authority. Here the Government will appoint the chairman, the Welsh Assembly will appoint three members, who could represent Welsh local authorities. This will be a matter for the Assembly to decide. The Government and local authorities in England will appoint the other members, but subject to a formula whereby local authority appointees will be in a majority. For the regional land drainage committee, the Government will appoint the chairman, the Assembly will appoint one member, the water authority two members and the Government and local authorities in England will appoint the remainder.
The Government believe that these arrangements get the right balance for both the Welsh Water Authority and Severn-Trent Water Authority. They cover also the point made by the noble
662
Lord, Lord Elton, in his intervention about the no taxation without representation issue, as I have explained. The Amendment would totally destroy this balance in respect of the Welsh Water Authority by removing any guarantee of Assembly appointments and transferring potentially all appointments to the Government and local authorities in England. It is an essential element, in our judgment, of the devolution proposals that democratic control of nominated bodies operating in Wales should be enhanced, and the Amendments cannot be reconciled with that aim or with the granting of meaningful responsibilities over water services to the Assembly.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: I rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for that very comprehensive reply, which indeed will need some study. But before leaving this matter, I should like to come back on one item. I daresay when we have studied it we shall be better informed; and if we go back to the principles of the matter which we did not touch on, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, may have something to say. We seem to have avoided the issue as to whether or not water is a matter of total national importance. There may be an opportunity later to study this at Report stage, but I should not like him to overlook the point that I was making earlier; that is, that in this context water is indivisible on a United Kingdom basis, in the same way as it was considered to be in Scotland, and that the Island on which we live—England, Scotland and Wales—is one area, hydro logically.
It may be that the technical answer we have been given will be sufficient to answer the question; I do not know. I do not think it really matters whether the Assembly is good or bad or whether the Minister is good or bad. That is not the principle I was trying to establish, and I should not like it not to be on the record as a matter of very considerable concern. I suspect from what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said earlier, that he agrees with this matter. It would be interesting if he were to comment also.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: We have had a hard day and I shall take only a minute. The Government's proposals for the

663
Welsh Assembly set out in Cmnd. No. 6876 would produce a different position in Wales. The devolution proposals would produce a different position in Wales. I am paraphrasing, but the proposals would bring a genuine measure of devolution but with reserve powers for the Government. Then we come to the main principle, with which I agree; namely, that nothing in the proposals would change the central principle that river basins would be managed as complete units. The areas of both authorities would therefore remain unchanged. In fact there is much to give satisfaction that we get unity of outlook. I think we must have that in hydrology and, if I may use another word, in dendrology as well.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The answer to this Amendment got off to what I can only describe as a very shaky start, and if this Amendment has done nothing else, it will drive me straight to the dictionary to look up the word "patronizing". "Dendrology" I can cope with, and if your Lordships really want to know, I will tell you what it is. However, if my understanding of the word "patrony" is correct, the boot was getting rapidly on to the other foot. However, be that as it may, when the noble Lord finally buckled to and got down to it, he gave us a horse race that I think will be worth remembering. It was certainly too much for me to take in at this late hour. I can assure him that without doubt we shall be returning to this point at a later stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59B not moved.]
11.19 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 57, line 35, column 1, at end insert—

("The Civic Amenities Act 1967 (c. 69) section 4(2).

The powers under that provision so far as exercisable in relation to loans made by a Minister of the Crown.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a technical Amendment to the entry in the Bill for the Civic Amenities Act 1967. It was heralded by an earlier Amendment (No. 57), which deleted the entry in Part VIII of the Schedule. There are two
664
reasons for this Amendment, which involves no change of policy. First, almost all of the Civil Amenities Act (which was originally introduced as a Private Member's Bill by the noble Lord, Lord DuncanSandys, when he was in another place) has now been repealed. Much of it was consolidated into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and now most of what was left has been consolidated into the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. It seems a strange mixture. We have already discussed this Act on an earlier Amendment. The only ministerial power which is left in the original Civic Amenities Act is that in Section 4(2) which relates to historic buildings. The Act is therefore now more suitably placed in Part XIV of Schedule 2 (Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings) rather than, as before, Part VIII (Planning and Land Use). That is part of the purpose of the Amendment.
The other part of its purpose is to correct a minor error in the Bill's treatment of this last remaining power in Section 4(2) of the Act. It is a Treasury power to consent to the terms of loans made by the Secretary of State under Section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. These loans are for the purchase of historic buildings, and the effect of the entry for the 1953 Act in Schedule 3 to the Bill is that they may be made after devolution either by the Assembly or the Secretary of State. It is accordingly intended that the Treasury power of consent should be retained in cases where loans are made by the Secretary of State. The previous entry for the Civic Amenities Act would have required the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Assembly rather than the Treasury. Clearly, this was mistaken, and the new entry puts the matter right. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: We are obliged to the noble Baroness for that very careful explanation of this technical Amendment. The only point which I should like to raise at this stage is whether there is need to examine the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1913 in a similar connection. I am not certain whether powers exist in that Act to make loans, and I wonder whether the Government would look at that in a similar connection.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, we will certainly look at that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 60A, 60B and 60C not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): Amendment No. 61.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I understood that we were stopping before Amendment No. 60. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan left the Chamber for that reason.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No agreement was reached that we should not take the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I have made no agreement of that kind. If he has left the Chamber and he cannot move it, then I am afraid that we cannot do anything about it. But we were going to go to 11.30 p.m. or Amendment No. 61G, whichever came first. We have not reached 11.30 p.m. I think it very extraordinary that a Member of the Committee should actually leave the Chamber before his Amendment is reached, and I am afraid that we on this side can take no notice of that.
Lord ELTON: I think perhaps it would be helpful if I said that I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. It appears to me that Amendment No. 60A is a holus-bolus Amendment, to review the whole of Part XVI of the Schedule, which contains a considerable amount of material, and I was under the impression that we would not wish to proceed with such a large subject at this time of night. I think that there has also been a slight misunderstanding about the point in time—it is a very narrow one—at which we agreed to finish. If I have contributed to that I apologies, and, if my noble friend has reposed too much confidence in my surmises, then I apologies for that as well, as I am sure he will do himself later.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIFS of HASTOE: He and I are in a great difficulty. The Amendment has been called. If there is nobody here to move it, then there is nothing that I can do about it. It has,
666
in fact, been called and we must proceed from there.
11.25 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 61, column 2, leave out lines 27 to 30.
The noble Lord said: As the Chair has called Amendment No. 61, I am perfectly content to proceed to deal with it. Perhaps I have not recovered so quickly as the noble Baroness opposite from the quick dash we had from the other end of the Chamber. This is a probing Amendment which can be taken very quickly. It proposes that lines 27 to 30 in column 2 on page 61 should be omitted. The purpose of the Amendment is to ask Her Majesty's Government to explain why this inclusion of the Census Act has been made. Rather than produce a list of my surmises of what the effects of this inclusion will be, I think it would be more to the convenience of the Committee if I asked the Government to justify the inclusion of this Act in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: In view of the invitation extended by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may I begin by explaining briefly the Government's policy in relation to the functions of the Registrar General in Wales. After devolution, the Registrar General will continue as at present to operate on an England and Wales basis. There is nothing in the Bill to allow for the creation of a separate Registrar General for Wales. When we discuss Amendment No. 61A, I shall explain in more detail how we see the registration services operating after devolution when the Registrar General will be serving both the Government and the Assembly. For the purposes of the Amendment, I must emphasis that there will remain in being one Registrar General for England and Wales.
The Government's proposals in the Bill allow for devolution to the Assembly of functions in relation to registration services but not in relation to the Census. In the Government's opinion, the Census requires special consideration in view of its status as the most important and comprehensive national population survey conducted by the Government. Much of the information derived from the Census

667
will be required for the exercise of non-devolved functions, and its validity for such purposes depends upon its being conducted at the same time and, of course, on the same basis as for other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I think that point will be taken by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. For that reason, the Census is also reserved for Scotland in precisely the same way. The Government therefore believe that the provisions in the Bill are right; namely, that the Assembly should have no powers in relation to the taking of the Census.
The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord—I take his point that this is a probing Amendment and therefore I shall not hold the noble Lord to its precise phraseology—is not to devolve all the functions in relation to the Census to the Assembly. I do not propose to explain in detail what the effect of the Amendment will be because, as the noble Lord said, he wants an explanation of our basic purpose so far as this is concerned, and I hope that I have satisfied him on this point.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his exposition of that narrow point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.28 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 61, column 2, line 45, leave out from ("regulations") to ("not") in line 47.
The noble Lord said: This also is a probing Amendment, and perhaps I may repeat what I said when speaking to the previous Amendment. We wish to find out why this inclusion is made and why the reservation in this case is as narrow as it here is, which on the face of it would appear to operate in the opposite direction from the explanation which the noble Lord has just given to us.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Before I deal with the details of this Amendment, perhaps noble Lords will find it helpful if I explain, as the noble Lord has invited me to do, the devolution of registration services. As I explained a short while ago when we discussed the last Amendment, at present the Registrar
668
General carries out his functions on an England and Wales basis. After devolution, there will continue to be one Registrar, as I pointed out before, for England and Wales. There is nothing in the Bill to allow for the creation of a separate Registrar General for Wales, but the Government think it right that the elected Assembly in Wales should be able to influence the manner in which registration services are provided.
The main registration Acts—for example, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953—require the Registrar General to make regulations in connection with the registration functions which are involved. Within each Act is a single power for the Minister to approve these regulations. Devolution of these ministerial powers alone would not achieve the Government's policy because the Registrar General would still need to make one set of regulations for England and Wales, so that Schedule 2, Part XXIX entries devolving ministerial powers are complemented by amendments to the Registration Act in Schedule 11, which permits the Registrar General to make separate regulations for England and Wales respectively; for example, the matched entry in Schedule 11 for the Births and Deaths Registrations Act 1953 entry in Schedule 2, is to be found on page 74.
Having explained the general principle I will now come to the Amendment, and I hope that I will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that what we are proposing here is reasonable in all the circumstances. Indeed, I should be very surprised, having explained it, if I did not so satisfy him. Section 39 of the 1953 Act contains the general ministerial approving power of the Registrar General's regulations. This is devolved to the Assembly in column 1 of page 61. This devolution is limited by the words in column 2. These make it clear that the Assembly will only be able to approve regulations made in connection with births, deaths or registration in Wales. But, additionally, the Assembly is precluded entirely from approving regulations in respect of Sections 3A and 14 of the Act.
The noble Lord in reality asked the question why in fact there are these exclusions. The explanation is this. Section 3A, which is inserted in the 1953 Act by Section 92 of the Children Act

669
1975 is concerned with entries in the Abandoned Children Register. This is a register, held in St. Catherine's House in London, providing information about the births of abandoned children in England and Wales. The devolution of the Section 39 power in relation to this section could lead the Registrar General to having to keep quite different information depending on whether the child was abandoned in Wales or England. And what of the child found abandoned on a train from London to Cardiff? This is the kind of problem which would arise if we did not have this exclusion.
Section 14 is concerned with legitimated persons. When evidence can be provided that a person has become legitimated, the Registrar General can authorize the re-registration of that person's birth. The re-registration is effected in the manner and place prescribed by the Registrar General. There is also provision in relation to persons born at sea and legitimated later. Evidence can be provided from anywhere in the world in respect of a birth registered in England and Wales. All such evidence is presented to the Registrar General in London. He then prescribes the manner and place of re-registration. If the power in Section 39 in relation to this prescribing power were to be devolved, the Registrar General would have to operate two different systems in St. Catherine's House. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. Certainly I have found his question particularly interesting, and I, like him I suspect, have learned a great deal.
Lord ELTON: One of the few fruits in the desert of Opposition is occasionally to be able to do very little work and cause the Government to do a great deal. If Her Majesty's Government then have the grace to say they have profited from the exercise, one's cup runlets over. Indeed, we have had a very interesting day, one of the highlights of which, if I may revert to an earlier theme, was to hear the noble Lord called Leek, Lord Davies of Leek, arguing fiercely about water with another noble Lord named after a desert. Finally, we have had a slight but unintentional misunderstanding. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to meet us very generously in difficult circumstances as to timetable, and therefore, for many reasons, I should like to thank the noble Lord Opposite,
670
and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  RETIREMENT: AGE, EMPLOYMENT AND PENSIONS
  RETIREMENT: AGE, EMPLOYMENT AND PENSIONS
  POLICE—LOCAL AUTHORITY CONFERENCE
  POLICE—LOCAL AUTHORITY CONFERENCE
  COMMERCIAL SAILING SHIPS: RESEARCH FUNDS
  COMMERCIAL SAILING SHIPS: RESEARCH FUNDS
  ASBESTOS: LEGISLATION
  ASBESTOS: LEGISLATION
  MOTABILITY
  MOTABILITY