Sitting of 23 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1976–77
Accounts ordered,
showing:

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1977;

(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Diesel Fuel (Duty)
    Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the current rate of duty on diesel fuel is at a level which raises the retail price above that of petrol; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): In his last Budget, my right hon. Friend proposed to increase the duties on both petrol and diesel fuel by 5p a gallon to 35p a gallon. In response to views expressed in all parts of the House, he removed the increase on petrol in August. The House accepted the higher duty on diesel fuel.
    Mr. Rost: Has not the Treasury noticed that nearly every other EEC country applies a lower duty on diesel fuel than on petrol in order to encourage the use of diesel fuel in the interests of energy conservation? How can the Government's energy conservation programme be taken seriously when there is so little co-ordination between Departments, and what will the Government do about it?
    Mr. Davies: I do not know what the position is in the EEC countries, and it
    1720
    may well be that the hon. Gentleman is right, but I must point out again that the Government proposed the same level of duty for both fuels and the House of Commons, in its wisdom, decided otherwise.
    Mr. Pavitt: In an effort to protect the consumer with regard to the cost of both diesel fuel and petrol, will the Government look into costs of advertising and promotion, since it needs only the same commodity for a car to move and we could probably save a lot of money by having a pool system, as we did in war time?
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will recognise that that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Rost: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Gowasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards a fixed parity for sterling.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): The Government's policy for the exchange rate is set out in the reply I gave on 10th November 1977 to my hon. Friend the Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin) and the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), in the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund of 14th December 1977.
    Mr. Gow: May I ask the Chancellor to pay no attention to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway who are clamouring for a return to a fixed parity? Will he confirm that the Government have no intention whatever of altering the decision to allow sterling to float freely.
    Mr. Healey: I cannot undertake to pay no attention to my right hon. Friend's views. I pay very close attention to them, as I pay close attention to the views of all my hon. Friends. The point which the House must recognise is that a fixed exchange rate is impossible in a world of floating rates. The parity is

    1721
    the relationship between one's own currency and other currencies, and in a world of floating currencies we have no control over the movement of other currencies to which ours is related.
    Mr. Tapsell: Are Ministers having any success in their commendable efforts to persuade the Economic Committee of the TUC that liberalisation of exchange controls, far from leading to a loss of jobs at home, can—as so many specialised inquiries both here and in the United States have proved—actually help job creation and also the sterling relationship to other currencies?
    Mr. Healey: I have read a large number of the studies to which, I assume, the hon. Gentleman refers. I notice, for example, that The Banker carried out a poll of 100 leading City firms recently and two-thirds of those questioned thought that the abolition of exchange controls would have very little effect on the exchange rate. I agree with them. One can see that this is true from the behaviour of exchange rates of countries which have no exchange control, such as Germany, Switzerland and Japan.
    On the other matter, I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to such studies as the Reddaway Report. That report was about the effect of outward investment under a regime of strict exchange controls, and it throws no light whatever on what would happen to investment in this country if there were the sort of liberalised exchange controls to which the hon. Gentleman refers. A more useful precedent here is the effect of the introduction of competition and credit control, at the request of the very same sectors of financial opinion as are now pressing for the abolition of exchange controls. As the hon. Gentleman will know, competition and credit control almost led to the collapse of the banking system in this country.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Is it true that the Government have made representations to the United States and other countries that settlements for oil should in future be made in a group of currencies? What would be the implications for the management of the sterling exchange rate if that were the case?
    Mr. Healey: That statement is completely untrue and has already been denied.

    Defence and Housing (Expenditure)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure on defence and housing, respectively, has been for each of the years since and including 1970, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): With permission, I will circulate a table showing this information in the Official Report.
    Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of a single Tornado warplane would provide new houses for 700 families? In preparing his Budget, will he consider sympathetically the urgent plea of the Labour Party and the TUC that at least the serious cuts in housing of the past two years should be fully restored?
    Mr. Barnett: I note what my hon. Friend says and appreciate his concern, which I share, about the need to improve housing for so many people who are badly off in many parts of the country. But it is not true to say that housing expenditure has declined. Under this Government, despite the cut-backs we have had to make, it has risen substantially.
    Mr. Pattie: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to remind his hon. Friend of the Chancellor's words when he was Secretary of State for Defence, when he told the House on 5th March 1969 that if we cut our defence expenditure to the level at which our defence was imperilled we should have no houses, no hospitals and no schools, but only cinders?
    Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend makes many wise statements and has done for many years, including the last four, and I would not wish to disagree with them.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a reallocation of resources to housing as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) would be of considerable benefit to regions such as Merseyside which suffer from an inadequate housing stock and a large number of unemployed construction workers? Will he therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to ensure that far more resources are put into the construction industry?
    Mr. Barnett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but within a given level of public expenditure one must have a balance of priorities as between housing construction, social services, health and many other areas of expenditure, even if the expenditure in total were much larger than at present. There must be a balance between all the strong demands that are constantly being urged upon me.
    Mr. Michael Morris: While it may be true that expenditure on housing has gone up, is it not a fact that the number of houses produced is smaller? Would not the right hon. Gentleman's time be better spent looking at the district auditors' reports criticising Labour councils for having a large number of empty council properties?
    Mr. Barnett: I would not be prepared to criticise Labour councils so much as Conservative councils which in areas of great need of council housing are not building it.
    Following is the information:
    Expenditure on Defence and on Housing, Public and Private Sectors, expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, for the calendar years 1970 to 1976.

    Year

    Defence %

    Housing %

    1970

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4·8

    11·8

    1971

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4·8

    12·0

    1972

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4·8

    12·5

    1973

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4·7

    12·7

    1974

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5·0

    13·7

    1975

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5·0

    14·0

    1976

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5·0

    13·8

    Investment Income Surcharge
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of increasing the thresholds for investment income surcharge to the levels, in real terms, of April 1973.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: About £130 million at 197–78 income levels.
    Mr. Ridley: Is it not very hard of the Chancellor to have increased the State pension to cover pensioners against the erosion of the standard of living by inflation but at the same time to have taken this sum of money out of the pensions of those who have saved? Will he make it a top priority in his Budget to restore the real value of the threshold?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question presupposes that
    1724
    the level fixed by Lord Barber for the investment income threshold when he was Chancellor in 1973 was right. We dispute that, because we changed the rate when we came into office. Investment income surcharge is a tax not merely on pensions but on all unearned incomes.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of inflation on the threshold for investment income surcharge is causing particular hardship to retired elderly people who had made certain savings during their lifetime which they thought would prevent their having to apply to the State for charity?
    Mr. Davies: I am fully aware, as are the Government, of the effect of inflation on savings and other incomes. If the Conservatives had been more responsible when in office over the control of the money supply, for example, we would not have been suffering the rates of inflation that we have had in the past few years.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his stony reply? Is he not aware that of all those who are liable to pay the investment income surcharge 43 per cent, are old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Davies: I am fully aware of the figures, but I repeat that this Government have brought inflation under control, whereas the previous Government, through their financial policies, caused inflation to increase to very high levels.

    Economic Performance
    Mr. Dykesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the United Kingdom's economic performance is overstated by better financial statistics rather than characterised by any real term progress at the present time.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The tremendous improvement in our financial position and the basis that this gave us for improvement in the real economy was recognised world-wide six months ago. Since then, the stimulus of the measures my right hon. Friend announced on 26th October has begun a progressive expansion of demand.
    Mr. Dykes: May I not thank the right hon. Gentleman for the propaganda but ask him to agree that no significant

    1725
    recovery of the British economy is possible, beyond perhaps a marginal improvement this year and next year, because the rate of growth of gross domestic product needed materially to reduce unemployment is well ahead of any target rate of growth that the Government have envisaged for this year or 1979?
    Mr. Barnett: I do not accept that. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can make that statement without looking at what has been happening. In the past six months there has been—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed it—a regular and steady fall in the level of unemployment. We want to see a much better rate of economic growth and growth of GDP in the coming year, and I expect that that will happen. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look forward with interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend in his Budget Statement.
    Mr. David Steel: I do not minimise the serious economic problems that still lie ahead, but is it not right that today, the anniversary of the Lib-Lab pact, we should mark the fact that the rate of inflation—the serious matter facing us a year ago, when the monthly rate was equivalent to nearly 20 per cent, in annual terms—is now satisfactorily down and we are in a position at least to tackle these serious problems?
    Mr. Barnett: I am happy to mark the anniversary, and I note as the right hon. Gentleman does, with great interest the enormous improvement in our economic position over the past 12 months.
    Sir G. Howe: Is it not equally right, just after the fourth anniversary of this Labour Government, to mark the fact that production in British manufacturing industry is still lower than it was four years ago, when this Government came to office—a disastrous record unequalled in any other country like our own anywhere else in the world?
    Mr. Barnett: Even that is not strictly true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see if he looks at the growth of GDP from the first quarter of 1974 to the latest comparative figures for the third quarter of 1977. We compare with many other countries, including West Germany. We are better than Italy. West Germany's growth has been very poor
    1726
    in the past four years. It is remarkable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to recognise the reality, but he will have many more years in Opposition to get used to it.
    Mr. Rifkind: When the right hon. Gentleman is claiming to have got inflation under control, should he not have the grace to admit that it was under his supervision that it went out of control?
    Mr. Barnett: I am always ready to be gracious on all kinds of matters, but the responsibility for the growth of inflation four years ago rests with the hon. Gentleman's party, and he knows it.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the growth of the money supply.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Over the month to mid-February, sterling M3 grew by a little over 1 per cent, on a seasonally adjusted basis.
    Mr. Hoyle: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is considering the Budget, will he take into account the need for more public spending and, if tax cuts are to be given, for import controls to ensure that any increased spending does not go on foreign goods?
    Mr. Davies: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take into account the need for high public expenditure, as he will take into account the need to reduce levels of taxation. I entirely accept that if we had substantial tax cuts, as the Leader of the Opposition was advocating the other day, to use the North Sea oil revenues, there would be an effect on imports and we should fritter away the benefits of the North Sea on those imports.
    Mr. Hordern: As both the Chief Secretary and the Minister of State appear to believe that the growth of the money supply is the principal cause of inflation, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain that the growth of the money supply measured by M3 has increased by 20 per cent, since last August and makes a mockery of any hope of keeping the rate of inflation below 10 per cent, for any appreciable period?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman must know, if he is a monetarist, as I believe

    1727
    he is, that one of the prime causes of the rate of inflation of the past few years was the disastrous money supply policy, if it can be called that, of the Opposition. They issued that wretched document "Competition and Credit Control", which brought the whole banking sector almost to bankruptcy.
    Mr. Pavitt: In striking what is a difficult balance between the amount of our income which we shall spend on public expenditure and the amount of tax relief which we get, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind, when formulating his Budget, that not many of us are prepared to spend our own money on other people's children, other people's grandparents, the disabled and the sick and, therefore, we need to do it communally? Will he please take these things into account when striking his balance?
    Mr. Davies: A balance has to be struck, and sometimes it is difficult to do so. We have to look at tax levels because of the effect of the present tax structure on people with low incomes. We have also to maintain high public expenditure.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister comment on the report in the recent Quarterly Bulletin of the Bank of England that in the nine months to mid-January M3 increased by 11 per cent, above the target figure of between 9 per cent, and 13 per cent.? Does that not clearly indicate that by the end of the year inflation will be above 10 per cent?
    Mr. Davies: No. The annualised rate of M3 since mid-April is 14¾ per cent. The figure over the past month shows that it is coming back to trend and by the end of this financial year we shall be back on the target trend.
    Sir G. Howe: Does not the Minister accept that the annualised rate over the past 10 months at 14¾ per cent, has been followed by an annualised rate over the past six months of 18 per cent, and that the growth rate for Ml is in each case running about 10 per cent, ahead of those figures? Why on earth is it that the Government continue to blame the inflation over which they have presided on the monetary expansion of the last Government and are blind to the risks of inflation which will follow from the money supply expansion now taking place?
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shows again in Opposition what the Tory Party demonstrated in office—that it does not understand the money supply. However much he wriggles and tries to reallocate the figures, it is clear that the Government have pursued a responsible montary policy, whereas a Tory Government pursued an irresponsible one.

    Budget Proposals
    Mr. Canavanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations he has received about his forthcoming Budget.
    Mr. Healey: My colleagues and I have received many representations, in the form both of deputations and of letters and papers. We are bearing them in mind in drawing up our plans for the Budget.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the many letters from all over the country which I have forwarded to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to include in his Budget a measure to increase public expenditure in favour of deserving causes such as pensioners and children receiving school meals? Will he stop all unnecessary public expenditure for the over-privileged, including the £1,000 per week pocket money which we give to a parasite like Princess Margaret?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. It is not permissible in this Chamber to pass derogatory remarks about the Royal Family. The word "parasite" must be withdrawn.
    Mr. Canavan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if my remark has offended you. I withdraw it.
    Mr. Speaker: It has not offended me. It has offended the House.
    Mr. Healey: In answer to my hon. Friend, I say that I will, as always, take care to make possible all deserving cases of public expenditure and to cut out all unnecessary forms of public expenditure.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Chancellor congratulate the Prime Minister on his newfound doctrine of listening to public opinion when discussing taxation proposals for the forthcoming Budget with

    1729
    his right hon. Friend? Will the Chancellor find out whether this new-found doctrine of the Prime Minister's relates solely to tax cuts which he thinks might be popular, or will the Prime Minister also listen to the voice of the public on nationalisation, immigration policy, law and order and education policy?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that listening to the public is not a new-found doctrine for the Labour Party. Our ability to take note of public views and to lead where leadership is necessary is reflected in the dramatic improvement in our election prospects, as indicated in recent by-elections and in today's opinion polls.
    Mr. Heffer: Since one of the bodies which made representations to my right hon. Friend was the national executive of the Labour Party, which has called for a reduction in taxation, particularly for lower-income groups, and a boost to the economy to help construction, health and education policies, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give us a clear indication that he will listen to this advice carefully and, I hope, follow it, particularly since the emphasis is to create employment and to reduce the serious level of unemployment?
    Mr. Healey: As my hon. Friend knows, we have listened in the most literal sense most carefully to all the views put forward to us by the national executive of the Labour Party. We have also listened to the somewhat different views put to us by the general council of the TUC. We shall take them all into account when we come to take decisions on the forthcoming Budget.
    Mr. Dykes: Now that the Chancellor has renounced, some time ago, the squeezing of certain unspecified people until the pips squeaked, may I ask whether he is now sufficiently broad-minded to look at the result of the French elections? Will he bear in mind that that result took place in a society and in an economic system in which all the rates of personal tax are more modest than in this country—reaching a maximum of 60 per cent.—where there is no distinction between earned and unearned income in the spurious way in which this Government insists upon, and where there is a much more just economic situation in terms of
    1730
    income, despite certain disparities in incomes at the higher levels?
    Mr. Healey: Perhaps I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the group whose pips I said I proposed to squeeze if I became Chancellor was the property speculators.
    Mr. Lawson: Rubbish.
    Mr. Healey: That is the only remark I have made about pips squeaking. Their pips are now too tired to squeak. As for the French election, I note whith great interest that the President of France has made it his first act, following the elections, to call for the type of co-operation between both sides of industry which has already been successfully achieved by this Government. The main casualty of the elections in France was that part of the Government majority which follows the sort of line followed by the Tory Front Bench.
    Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that only this week hon. Members from both sides of the House met the Tory deputy-leader of the GLC, who impressed upon us the need for much more public spending to ease the problems of the inner cities? He suggested that this increased public spending should be via the Budget and North Sea oil. That seemed a genuine appeal. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that on the next day the Leader of the Opposition said that the lion's share of any benefit to the nation from North Sea oil should arise as a result of cutting taxes? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is difficult to know whether that was a genuine expression by the Tory deputy-leader of the GLC or whether it was part of a piece of organised hypocrisy?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will know that we have already allocated a good deal of money towards renewal of our inner cities. We regard this as having a high priority for expenditure of the benefits obtained from North Sea oil. I take the point that to "blue" all the benefits of the North Sea in a short-lived spending spree, largely by the better-off members of the community, would not benefit the country in any way,
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a question not of "blueing" North Sea oil money on a

    1731
    spending spree but of whether it is used for public expenditure or cutting taxation? Will the Chancellor clear away the clouds of waffle in the North Sea oil White Paper and say clearly what proportion of the North Sea oil revenues he thinks ought to be used in increased public expenditure?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have already published their public expenditure plans for the next five years and, despite the determined attack by the Tory Party, received an overwhelming endorsement for those plans from the House last week.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the rate of value added tax on power-driven lawn-mowers.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware of the great advantage which would acrue following the reduction of VAT on power-driven lawn-mowers, and, indeed, on everything else? Is he not aware that a return to a flat-rate VAT of 10 per cent. would be greeted with great satisfaction by small businesses and those other unpaid tax collectors, the shopkeepers? Will he confirm that a flat rate of 10 per cent, would raise an extra £600 million in revenue?
    Mr. Davies: It may be that certain small businesses and shopkeepers would welcome a reduction to a flat rate of 10 per cent., although I believe that the difficulties have been exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that other Common Market countries have three or four rates of VAT and seem to manage quite well. The disadvantage of doing what he suggests is that there would be an increase in prices, which would not be to the advantage of the British people.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman's resistance to this proposal part of the Government's job creation programme?

    Widows
    Mr. Durantasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has held with widows' organisations in his Budget preparation.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary met a deputation from the National Association of Widows and the All-Party Group on Widows and One-Parent Families on 22nd February.
    Mr. Durant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that visit has become almost an annual pilgrimage? Is he further aware of the bitterness felt by working widows when comparing their take-home pay and tax with those of working married women? Will he do something about it in the Budget? Will he consider, for example, relieving tax on widows' pensions or some small earned income relief, which is another proposal put by the widows?
    Mr. Davies: I am aware that certain classes of widow in particular, especially those who do not receive an age allowance because they are under 65 and those who do not get additional personal allowance, suffer as a result of taxation. But it is not true to say that they are taxed in a different way from working wives. The take-home pay may be different for various reasons, but the tax rate at the end of the day is the same.

    Inflation
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that inflation is now under control.
    Mr. Healey: Inflation is falling and in single figures, in sharp contrast to the situation we inherited from the previous Administration, when it was well into double figures and rising fast; but it would be wrong to be complacent.
    Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman stick to his claim that inflation was caused by the last Government, who left office in February 1974, but that he had it under control and reduced it to 8·4 per cent, by October 1974? If that claim at the last General Election is true, will he please reaffirm it today and therefore say what has happened since that was the fault of the previous Government rather than of this Government?
    Mr. Healey: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when I referred to an inflation rate of 8·4 per cent. I was referring to the annual rate of the previous three months. Inflation on that calculation is now 7 per cent.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the rate of inflation was in February 1974, after four years of Tory Government, and what it was in February 1978, after four years of Labour Government? Can he also say whether he still thinks that we shall be in single-figure inflation by the end of this year?
    Mr. Healey: I cannot give the exact figures, but the inflation rate was 13 per cent, point something in February 1974. That was the situation I inherited from the Tories, along with threshold agreement arrangements which brought about 22 triggers of the threshold, increasing wages and prices by October of the same year. That was the first news to greet me when I arrived at the Treasury. The inflation rate in February this year was 9·5 per cent. It is still falling, and it will be well into single figures right through this year.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the significance of the public sector borrowing requirement in the whole question of inflation, is it the expectation of the Chancellor that during the year in prospect, 1978–79, the PSBR expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product will be lower than that experienced for the year just ending?
    Mr. Healey: I shall give my assessments in my Budget Speech. But the hon. Gentleman exaggerates the importance of the public sector borrowing requirement, or the public sector deficit, in determining the rate of inflation. West Germany's inflation rate is well below ours at this time, yet her public sector deficit, as she defines it, is 5 per cent, of gross domestic product, which is well above our rate.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in his first Budget speech he stated that the biggest single problem left to him by the outgoing Government was a public sector borrowing requirement of £4 billion?
    Mr. Healey: I recall that very well. I also recall that the right hon. Gentleman cuts a very much shabbier figure four years later.
    Sir G. Howe: If the Chancellor is right in his insistence on the importance of monetary policy over the past four years, why is he determined that the next Tory
    1734
    Government shall inherit a rate of monetary growth far in excess of his own target of 9 to 13 per cent.? Or will he confirm what the Minister of State has said—that the Government intend to take action to bring the monetary growth rate up to next April below the desired limit of 13 per cent.? Does the Chancellor believe that the consequences of the failure to control monetary supply will not come through in inflation until the Government have left office?
    Mr. Healey: The Tory Government left me with a money supply increase of 28 per cent, as against an increase in money GDP of well under half—indeed, almost one-third. At present, the increase in money supply is roughly the same as the increase in money GDP and will be back on trend by the end of this financial year. It is too soon to be certain whether it will be 13 per cent. or somewhat above. But in West Germany, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman always holds up as the paragon of monetary control, the money supply has been running at an annual rate of over 15 per cent, in the past few months over the general target of 1 per cent, last year. At some time over the next year it is likely to be 2 per cent, above the expected rate of money GDP.
    One would expect, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously somewhat attracted by monetary theory, that he would take some trouble to understand it before uttering the sort of claptrap we heard from him a moment ago.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: For the purpose of educating both the Tory Party and the monetarists in the Labour Party, as well as the Governor of the Bank of England, will my right hon. Friend enunciate to the House that there is no evidence whatever in this country of a link between money supply and the rate of inflation, except perhaps in land values? Secondly, will he also enunciate to the House that there is no evidence of any link whatever between the borrowing requirement and the rate of inflation or any of the other significant economic factors to which he has just referred?
    Mr. Healey: I am afraid that on this matter I cannot wholly agree with my hon. Friend. There is a link between money supply and the rate of inflation, although the arch-guru of monetarism.

    1735
    Mr. Milton Friedman, explained in a Nobel lecture recently that it was difficult to take a firm view as to how long are the lags in time between increases in money supply and increases in the rate of inflation. The one thing on which all economists of all persuasions are agreed is that the degree to which money supply was allowed to increase in the last two years of the Tory Government was a major factor in inflation over the past three years.
    Dr. Glynasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of inflation over the financial year 1973–74; and what was the analogous figure for 1976–77.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: The date on which data are collected in order to compile the April retail price index does not coincide with the end of the financial year. The index increased by 15·2 per cent, in the 12 months up to April 1974 and 17·5 per cent, in the 12 months up to April 1977. The equivalent figure for April 1978 will, on present trends, be significantly below its level a year earlier.
    Dr. Glyn: The Minister has not answered the Question. Does he agree that the average rate of inflation under the Conservative Government was considerably lower than under this Government? Does he also agree that it is very misleading to quote one month—as his hon. Friends have been attempting to do in the last two or three months—when the way to do it is over a complete year?
    Mr. Barnett: If they look at the figures, the hon. Gentleman and the House will find that the position on inflation is improving dramatically, and will continue to do so, in comparison with the position in February 1974, when it was rising equally dramatically.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister comment upon the Chancellor's earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) with regard to the public sector borrowing requirement? Will he confirm that the public sector borrowing requirement has a very important effect, since it poses a choice between the printing of money or the raising of interest rates, which has a
    1736
    severe effect on both investment and employment?
    Mr. Barnett: With respect, the trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he tends to take one single indicator and to look at it in isolation from everything else. That is not the way to judge the economy, inflation or anything else.

    Halfpenny Coin
    Mr. Neubertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to discontinue the use of the halfpenny; and what is his estimate of the percentage of transactions which involve the halfpenny as a price differential.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: There is no intention whatever to discontinue the use of the halfpenny. No estimates have been made on the percentage of transactions in which it is used.
    Mr. Neubert: As four years of Labour Government have halved the purchasing power of the pound, and as the halfpenny is now worth less than the old ½d., abolished in 1969, and is not worth much more than the farthing, abolished in 1961, would it not be more realistic to scrap it?
    Mr. Davies: No. I disagree with the hon Gentleman. If he looks at the recorded prices of groceries and small household items, he will see that the halfpenny figures in at least 20 per cent., and, therefore, it is still very important.

    Motor Car Taxation
    Mr. Jesselasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assuming no change in the rate of tax, how much revenue he would expect to raise from road tax on cars in 1978–79.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: The estimated yield from cars in 1978–79 at current rates of duty is £761 million.
    Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is continuing public concern about widespread evasion of the £50 car tax, which not only loses public revenue but is very unfair to the majority of car owners who pay the tax? What action is the Treasury taking to get cooperation from the Department of Transport and the police authorities to do something about it?
    Mr. Davies: As the House knows, the Department of Transport has announced that a survey is going on to determine the level of evasion. When the results have been looked at and the estimates have been made, no doubt my right hon. Friend will make an announcement to the House.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: In his original reply, did my hon. Friend include lorries and heavy vehicles, because the Question referred only to cars? Is he aware that one of the biggest groups of evaders is the "cowboys" who have heavy lorries and that the cost runs into hundreds of millions of pounds? This evasion has been growing for 15 years and the revenue has been losing hundreds of millions of pounds. Why is it that only now my hon. Friend is undertaking a survey?
    Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is quite right in one respect—that the Question referred only to cars. The total yield in 1979, including lorries and heavy vehicles, is estimated at £1,077 million. Of course there is evasion in respect of all types of vehicles, and the survey will look at that.

    Pay Policy
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he proposes to take to restrain wages when stage 3 of the present policy ends.
    Mr. Healey: It is too early to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us object strongly to the present pay policy and to the anomalies and injustices that are part of it, we would warmly welcome a Socialist incomes policy which would deal with all forms of income and wealth? If we are to have an incomes policy at all, that is the way in which we should be progressing.
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend knows that it is the Labour Party's intention to introduce a wealth tax after winning the next General Election with a majority that is adequate to ensure its passage through Committee. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for an incomes policy. I believe that there is growing understanding among the British people and the trade union movement that an unregulated free-for-all is not likely to be
    1738
    conducive to either economic health or social justice.
    Mr. Cope: Does not the Chancellor think that it is made even clearer in this morning's newspapers that the Government's attempt to restrain wages by means of contract clauses was grossly inadequately thought out in detail and in advance as well as being objectionable in principle?
    Mr. Healey: I do not think so. The interesting thing is that the objection in principle comes largely from the Conservative Front Bench, which was heavily defeated when it put its views to the House in successive debates in recent weeks. I am glad to see that both of the main employers' organisations are not prepared to fight the principle of sanctions through such clauses. We have had extensive discussions with them in order to make the proposals a great deal more acceptable than they appeared at first sight.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the Chancellor tell the House why it is that the Government have guaranteed to the firemen that they will be restored to comparability regardless of the financial constraints of the day and why he has not made the same promise to the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Healey: We have not yet taken any decision, or announced a decision, with regard to the Armed Forces. The decision in respect of the firemen was welcome to the House in general, although the Conservative Party initially appeared to be pressing the firemen to continue an indefinite confrontation with the Government. The whole House will be grateful for the remarkable success which the Government's pay policy has had during the current round, which makes nonsense of the predictions of explosion which came from the Conservative Front Bench only nine months ago.
    Mr. Lawson: In order that the Chancellor does not persist much longer with the illusion that he has total agreement in what he is saying, will he have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, in an important lecture the other day, said that normal collective bargaining must be restored in order to produce new relativities and

    1739
    differentials, which have become badly compressed over the last four years?
    Mr. Healey: I never expect to have the full agreement of the House, especially from Conservative Members. My right hon. Friend made it completely clear in the whole text of his lecture that collective bargaining must be operated in such a way that it does not lead to the sort of pay explosion which led the Conservative Party to introduce statutory controls on incomes not so very long ago.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 23rd March.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply.
    Today my right hon. Friend is in Washington, where he is having talks with President Carter.
    Mr. Neubert: Will the Lord President today be replying to the letter from the Communist Party which was sent to Labour MPs inviting them to join in a formal political alliance? What will his answer be? As this is the first anniversary of the Lib-Lab pact, does the prospect of another pact allure him?
    Mr. Foot: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not looked at these matters as closely as he might. If he read the newspapers more fully, he would see that the secretary of the Labour Party has already replied to the letter rejecting any such proposal.
    Mr. Forman: Will the Lord President also take a little time to drop a friendly memorandum to the Prime Minister pointing out that if the Government in a forthcoming General Election campaign were to follow the policies set out in the White Paper "The Challenge of North Sea Oil"—especially the proposals with regard to the National Enterprise Board—they would lead to rightful disaster for the Labour Party?
    Mr. Foot: I reject in total everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, including his suggestion that this might be an appropriate moment in time to send a billet-doux to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend meets the Prime Minister, will he mention to him that the whole House applauds his endeavours to achieve reasonable co-operation between the Powers of the free world regarding the present economic situation? Will he also mention to him that he ought to see the general secretary of the TUC and perhaps have a world conference held by the Confederation of World Trade Unions, because I am sure that they have a contribution to make as well?
    Mr. Foot: I believe that the trade unions have a contribution to make. Indeed, the trade union organisations of Western Europe have been urged by their Governments to adopt some of the measures which the British Government would like to see adopted much more widely. I believe that the whole country wants to see something really effective done on an internationtal scale and welcomes the initiative that the Prime Minister has taken—and will continue to take—until we get the widespread international action that is so sorely needed.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does the Lord President support or not support the proposals of his party's Scottish conference to nationalise the 220 largest manufacturing companies?
    Mr. Foot: The Labour Party does not support those proposals. Those proposals, and the proposals made by other sections and representatives of the Labour Party, will be discussed in the normal manner. The manifesto that we shall present at the next General Election will be devised accordingly to the general constitution of the party. But I can give a clear answer to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not accept the proposals that have been made by the Scottish section of the Labour Party.

    SOUTH AFRICA
    Mr. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Townsend: Can the Leader of the House explain the Government's approach

    1741
    to British investment in South Africa following the Foreign Secretary's speech at Carlisle last Friday when he said that it was Government policy to discourage investment in South Africa? If that is so, what is to be gained by adding to black unemployment in that country?
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member refers to a speech made by the Foreign Secretary. I would suggest that all hon. Members should study the whole speech, because that speech, made in Carlisle on 17th March, dealt with these matters very fully. We face a painful dilemma over investment and trade with South Africa, but we think that it would be wrong to be economically over-dependent on that link. We believe that fresh policies must be developed in both trade and investment, just as some policies have already been developed in relation to the arms embargo.
    Mr. Christopher Price: When he discusses these matters with the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House remind him of the code of conduct drawn up by the nine EEC countries? Will he tell the House what plans the British Government are making to monitor that code of conduct and to report the results of the monitoring to the House?
    Mr. Foot: I accept the importance of this matter. This was part of the consideration in the Foreign Secretary's mind when he mentioned these matters. About the way in which the reports should be made to the House periodically, I shall be happy to discuss this with the Foreign Secretary and see how we can assist.
    Mr. Rifkind: When he considers this matter, will the Leader of the House take account of the views of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi and other opponents of the Vorster Government who have claimed that the growth of the South African economy and employment and prosperity among the Africans are the best ways of exposing the impossibility of apartheid?
    Mr. Foot: There are arguments on both sides of this matter. That is why the Foreign Secretary, in dealing with this in Carlisle, put the matter in a proper sense of proportion. We believe that new policies towards South Africa must be developed and that we must take account
    1742
    of the fact that our dependence upon South African trade must be reduced.
    Mr. Brotherton: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to send a message to the South African Prime Minister telling him that the British Government applaud South Africa's help in the Rhodesia problem? Will he also say that on reflection the Government have decided to give their support to and promote the internal settlement because they feel, on reflection, that moderation is preferable to murder?
    Mr. Foot: Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have already made clear to the House the Government's attitude to the internal settlement and the desirability of assisting this with a proper long-term, full-scale settlement in Zimbabwe. We believe that this is the way to move. We welcome any assistance from South Africa in this matter, but that does not mean that there is any departure from the Government's rigid opposition to any form of apartheid that is operated in South Africa.

    WEST GERMANY (TALKS)
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister whether he expects to discuss the trade deficit with the West German Government when he visits Bonn.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply
    Bilateral trade deficits cannot be treated in isolation from the wider problems of the world economy, which my right hon. Friend discussed with Chancellor Schmidt in Bonn on 12th March. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Bonn again.
    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Leader of the House concerned not only about our deficit with West Germany but about our deficit with other EEC countries, particularly in manufactured goods? Will he tell those countries that they cannot solve their unemployment problems at our expense? Will he also tell them that failure to take any action could lead to import controls being imposed against them?
    Mr. Foot: The deficit in our trade with West Germany, other EEC countries and, indeed, other countries in the world is a matter of concern. We are doing

    1743
    our best to rectify it. There have been improvements in the balance as a result of improvements in our exports to West Germany. We are seeking to promote these exports as much as possible. The general methods of overcoming these difficulties were discussed by the Prime Minister in Bonn on his recent visit.
    Mr. Ridley: As a matter of general policy, will the Government, when unfavourable international economic comparisons are made, spend more time trying to improve our performance than trying to make other countries appear worse than we are?
    Mr. Foot: Certainly we shall present comparisons in the fairest way for all concerned. Maybe that will provoke the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) into occasionally making a patriotic utterance. However, that is a bit too much to hope for. He is too eager to damn everything done by this country, whatever the figures might say.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Leader of the House consider that there is any political significance in the fact that every Western leader today agrees that the worldwide problem of bilateral trade deficits cannot be solved by the free market mechanism? Does he not agree that this development wholly justifies the Socialist case made over the years, that there is now a necessity to plan world trade by interventionist policies? This can be done only if there is total rejection of the free market system in the Western world.
    Mr. Foot: There should be much closer and urgent co-operation, and this is needed to overcome the immediate problems between the nations and Governments to which reference has been made on the Question. If the British Government, particularly at this time, were to turn their back on such discussion, this would be an absurdity. That does not mean that we cannot get long-term arrangements for improving the whole way in which international trade is conducted, although I do not necessarily believe that we should take the line that my hon. Friend has recommended. We need an immediate and major effort to overcome the present problems, and the Prime Minister's efforts in this respect will have the wholehearted support of
    1744
    hon. Members on this side of the House and of the overwhelming majority of people in the country.
    Sir K. Joseph: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) right in believing that to a large textent the remedy for deficits lies in the hands of the Government, if only the Government would take the necessary steps to cut taxation and encourage enterprise and effort at all levels in the economy?
    Mr. Foot: We know that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) often agree with one another. That is not a compliment to either of them.
    Mr. Dykes: Will the Lord President agree that, whichever pair of glasses he uses, there must be some lessons to be learned from Germany and from the way in which the German trade unions have behaved over many years? Would he select some of the best examples and precepts of the German trade union movement that he would like to see followed by British trade unions?
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: High wages.
    Mr. Foot: The German trade unions have had considerable achievements to their credit over many years, and no one would deny that. The House should take note of the fact that many trade unions in Germany are now urging some of the extensionist policies that many of us wish to see. There is a close conformity of interests between trade unions in this country and in Germany, and we are seeking to foster these developments.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd March.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert).
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the employment and industrial problems on Merseyside are special and peculiar to that area? Does

    1745
    he agree that a much more sensitive approach is needed than that which is available under the current regional policy? Will he urge on the Prime Minister the need to take immediate action as an emergency measure and ask him to see a delegation of trade unionists and industrialists from Merseyside to discuss the reinvigoration and regeneration of industry in the region?
    Mr. Foot: I acknowledge, as I did on Monday, that there are special aspects of unemployment in Merseyside to which the Government must give special attention. All the proposals that were made in that debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will be discussed with the Prime Minister, and we shall see what action can be taken on those individual proposals.
    I understand that my hon. Friend and Labour Members who represent Liverpool constituencies will be seeing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry today. I am sure that they will put forward their case extremely strongly. Let us see how best we can move from there. I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and the desirability that the Government should explore all possible ways in which we can help.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the fact that the constituency interests of the Prime Minister and the Lord President dictated the Labour Party's policy on steel before the election, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that we should shortly have a debate on steel so that they may both take part and personally retract all the promises they made to steel workers at that time?
    Mr. Foot: I shall be happy to take part in such a debate, as, indeed, I took part in some of the debates with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in earlier years. I would be able to point out in such a debate, if it were held, that, if the right hon. Gentleman's policy on these matters had been followed, the whole of our steel-making capacity would have been closed down two or three years ago without a single new industry being provided. We must provide new industry on a much bigger basis. On many matters the right hon.
    1746
    Gentleman can instruct fellow Conservatives with great advantage, but before he makes any further boasts on this subject he should go back and look more carefully at what he said in those earlier years.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Foot—Business Statement.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business when the House resumes after Easter will be as follows:
MONDAY 3RD APRIL—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on The Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Gun Barrel Proof Bill [Lords].
Motions relating to the Public Health (Aircraft) and (Ships) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 4TH APRIL and WEDNESDAY 5TH APRIL—Further progress in Committee on the Wales Bill.
THURSDAY 6TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill and of the Co-operative Development Agency Bill.
Motion on EEC Documents R/2005/ 76 and R/ 2641/76 on freshwater fish and shellfish growth.
FRIDAY 7TH APRIL—Private Members' motions.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House say something further about the business for next Thursday week, when two Bills are to be taken together? Since the Co-operative Development Agency Bill is a matter to which the whole House attaches great importance, will he ensure that it will not be brought before the House at too late an hour for it to be fully debated?
Mr. Foot: I hope that that will not be the case. I hope that arrangements will be made to have the Second Reading of that Bill at a fairly early time during that day. I hope that the arrrangements will be such as to suit the convenience of the House. I think the House will welcome

1747
the fact that we have been able to bring forward this Bill at a fairly early stage, and I believe there will be a full opportunity to debate it.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Bearing in mind that in other years Governments of both political complexions have conveniently made announcements of increases and unpalatable statements during recesses, may I ask my right hon. Friend to promise that any such matters that may emerge in the recess, such as announcements about an increase in the television licence fee, will be held up until such time as we resume? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that such announcements are made to the House rather than that they should be slipped through and leaked to the Press during the recess?
Mr. Foot: Whatever may have been done by previous Governments, this Government have not acted in the manner described.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, they did. Ask your Front Bench colleagues.
Mr. Foot: We have no intention in this recess of following the bad example set by the Conservatives.
Mr. Lewis: The Government did it last time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy Easter.
Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the eagerness of the Leader of the House to debate the subject of steel, will he guarantee a debate on the White Paper very soon?
Mr. Foot: Of course there must be a debate when the Bill is presented to the House, As for other time for a debate, I would point out that a week or two ago it was the choice of the official Opposition—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman's influence with the official Opposition is not always decisive—to debate the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the subject of steel. That fact must influence the amount of time to be allocated to a further debate.
Mr. Spearing: May I draw attention to items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 on the Order Paper? They are three apparently innocuous Statutory Instruments, but is
1748
my right hon. Friend aware that they disguise no fewer than 11 EEC treaties, printed in seven volumes? If they are to be debated upstairs after the recess, is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be only one-and-a-half hours available to debate each treaty, which involves arrangements between, on the one hand, the EEC and Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon and between the EEC and Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco on the other hand? Will he undertake to allow the Committee upstairs to debate these treaties—which may be important but we do not know because we have not yet read them—for more than one-and-a-half hours?
Mr. Foot: I cannot give a promise, but I shall examine the matter in view of my right hon. Friend's representations and detailed knowledge of the subject matter.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more forthcoming about the steel debate? He will recollect that when we debated the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries it was not known that the Government were to secure the redundancies of 40,000 men. Is he not eager to make a further statement so that he can explain how many of the men affected will obtain the jobs which he personally guaranteed they would have if they were made redundant following the Beswick review?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows as little about this subject as he does about many of the other subjects in which he seeks to instruct the House in such a pompous manner. He is not aware of the undertakings given, as I am. The House will have to debate the proposals which the Government will make to assist the steel industry in the future. That is the position and has always been the case. All I was underlining earlier was that it was the choice of the official Opposition to debate the Select Committee's report. That must be taken into account in allocating further time. I am sure that will be seen as a reasonable proposition.
Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the National Health Service, particularly its administration? There are bitter feelings throughout the entire structure of the

1749
service following the reorganisation inflicted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). That reorganisation was as disastrous as the Conservative policies that were inflicted on local government. Therefore, in the interests of the health of the nation, may we debate these matters so that we may assess the damage done by the right hon. Gentleman's reorganisation and consider what must be done urgently to put the NHS right?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate on the subject. One of the difficulties of such a debate would be that one could find nobody in the House to defend the Conservative proposals.
Mr. Warren: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there has been so much delay in bringing forward legislation to revise the Official Secrets Act? When will that legislation be brought forward?
Mr. Foot: I cannot give any promise, but there is no prospect of such legislation this Session. We have said that there will be a White Paper on the subject. When that is produced the House will wish to consider what time it wants to devote to it. I repeat that there is no prospect of legislation this Session, eager though many of us would be to see the legislation brought forward.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether after the recess there will be an early debate on foreign affairs? Furthermore, when may we expect to see the report of the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Foot: In reply to the second matter, I do not have a date when that report will be brought forward. I imagine that it will not be very long. But if after the recess I can give an indication to my hon. Friend and the House when we are likely to obtain that report, I shall try to do so.
In reply to my hon. Friend's first point, I must tell him that we do not have an immediate proposal to debate foreign affairs. But he will be aware that there are various ways in which the House may choose to have such a debate.
Mr. Christopher Price: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that an EEC document on Cyprus was
1750
presented to the House yesterday and that, although it was entitled "Translation", a substantial proportion of it remained written in French? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the presentation of documents to the House in languages other than English is out of order and guarantee that the next EEC documents will be written in the English language?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly look at the point raised by my hon. Friend. Deep as is my respect for the French language, I agree that all documents presented to the House should be presented clearly in English.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye from the start.
Sir A. Meyer: Since no one wants to talk about Welsh devolution and many people want to talk about the effects of the Government's cuts on the steel industry in Wales, will the Leader of the House alter the business to enable the Secretary of State for Wales to explain why, having demanded in 1973 larger investment in steel in Wales, he is now supporting a plan that will mean a massive loss of jobs at Port Talbot in his own constituency?
Mr. Foot: The general position and the background to the situation on steel was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry yesterday and I think that most of the House understands that the general background is an unprecedented collapse of the steel industry throughout the Western world and beyond in the past six months. The hon. Gentleman and everyone else from steel constituencies must take that fact into account. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will, at the proper time, be prepared to engage in debate on the subject in the House.
Mr. Adley: In view of the tragedy being played out off the coast of Brittany, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that those of us who represent coastal constituencies in the South and West are extremely anxious that the Government should take positive action with our French partners to try to control the movement of oil tankers in the Channel and off our coast? Is he aware that there are a number of factors and events

1751
surrounding the latest collision which are extremely disturbing? Can he give an assurance that the Government will provide an opportunity to debate this matter?
Mr. Foot: This is a matter on which the Government and those responsible in the Government must keep the closest watch, even before there is any question of a debate. I am not ruling out a debate after the recess, but I am not promising one either. In the meantime, the Government are following with the greatest care what is happening and doing everything in their power to assist and ward off danger. My hon. Friend is going to the Channel Islands today and will be giving the most detailed consideration to ensure that we can assist in every way. After the recess, the hon. Gentleman and others may ask me again for a statement and we can consider the best way of approaching the matter.
Mr. Durant: When will the House debate the future of the water industry following the White Paper? If the right hon. Gentleman is proposing such a debate, will it be held in conjunction with the Select Committee's report on the future of the British Waterways Board?
Mr. Foot: I know that this is another candidate for debate, but I cannot offer priority for discussion in the immediate future, though I shall take into account the representations made by the hon. Gentleman and others.
Mr. Sims: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Press reports that the Home Secretary intends to introduce measures following the Younger Report on the treatment of young adult offenders? Is he aware that the report was published nearly four years ago and that, despite assurances given by himself and his predecessor to me, it has not been debated? Will he ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate this important report before measures are brought forward?
Mr. Foot: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look at any assurances that the Home Secretary and I have given on this matter and see what additional comment I should make. It may be that there are other possibilities of raising a debate. I shall check what the hon. Gentleman has said and
1752
when we resume I shall be in a position to give him a reply.
Mr. Budgen: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is now 18 months since the House had a major debate on the vital question of immigration? Bearing in mind that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration has reported recently, will the right hon. Gentleman invite the House to consider this matter because there are many who believe that the House of Commons has imposed some form of gag on this vital subject?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate at once any such suggestion. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to suggest to the country that any form of gag has been imposed. Such words are spread around and some people outside may be tempted to believe them. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not the case and replies that I have given him on numerous occasions disprove his claim. During the period when a gag could, allegedly, have been imposed, it was open to the Opposition to ask for a debate and they could have had it. The hon. Gentleman must not try to mislead the country.
The subject will have to be discussed in the House and the Select Committee's recommendations must enter into that debate, especially since some of the recommendations appear to raise some important questions of civil liberties—and I hope that the House will rally to support civil liberties. That will have to be discussed at the same time.

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

1. Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978

2. Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

3. Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978

4. Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978

5. Employment Subsidies Act 1978

6. Consolidated Fund Act 1978

1753

7. Civil Aviation Act 1978

8. Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Act 1978

9. University of London Act 1978

10. Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund Act 1978

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the seven motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Republic of Ireland) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme 1978 (SI 1978, No. 380) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committe on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1978 be
1754
referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 3) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Snape.]
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions relating to social security.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1978, which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amend ments) Regulations 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.— [Mr. Snape.]
  Question agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 15th November 1974 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) be amended, by leaving out Mr. Roger Sims and inserting Mr. Victor Goodhew.—[Mr. Snape.]

INSURANCE CLAIMS (LLOYD'S)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. Snape.)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) who is fortunate enough to be first on the list, may I say that his debate will end at the time stated on the Order Paper because I allowed in advance for the fact that there would be a Business Statement. However, if the hon. Gentleman or the Minister cares to be briefer, we should all be rejoicing.
12.18 p.m.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a situation that has given rise to considerable concern in the London insurance market.
Before turning to the specific matter in question, I should like to put things in perspective by beginning with a warm tribute to the London insurance market and particularly Lloyd's for the remarkable contribution it makes to Britain's invisible exports and to our economy generally. For example, the insurance industry, which employs more than 250,000 people in this country, contributed in the last year for which figures are available £740 million to our invisible exports, of which Lloyd's brokers and underwriters earned £434 million worth of invisible exports.
Against that background of commercial success, I hope that: it will be clear that any criticisms of individual situations should not be taken as an implied suggestion in favour of more Government regulation, Government intervention, nationalisation or State control. Those would be the four horsemen of the Apocalypse for the London insurance market and would bring disaster to it.
The price of the insurance market's present free enterprise success is eternal vigilance. That is necessary, above all, to protect the interests of those on whose savings the operation ultimately depends—the small shareholders, the investors and the "names", as they are known in Lloyd's. I shall be arguing for the need for improvements in the self-policing
1756
mechanism of the London insurance market, particularly within Lloyd's where its chairman and committee are the official regulatory body with a wide range of self-policing powers at their disposal.
The basic reason for my bringing this matter to the attention of the House is that some days ago an individual, whose views have since been backed by many other individuals, came to ask whether anything could be said or done in Parliament to bring about improvements in self-policing at Lloyd's that would protect their interests and other interests against certain injustices that were felt to have been done and against which the self-regulating authority had declined to offer any protection.
After studying the matter closely, I am bound to say that I felt there was so much substance in the anxieties expressed to me that Parliament should hear about this subject and its wider implications. Therefore, I turn to the specific question, which is an alleged insurance fraud generally known as the "Savonita" claim
This is the story. In November 1974 a car-carrying cargo ship, the "Savonita" sailed from the Italian port of Savona carrying more than 2,000 brand new Fiat cars destined for the American export market. About eight hours after sailing, a fire was discovered on the cargo deck. It was quickly extinguished, but not before some cars were said to have been damaged in various degrees by fire, smoke and water.
The ship returned to port and unloaded 301 allegedly damaged cars, all of which were declared to be a constructive total loss. The cars had been insured by SIAT which was at that time the Fiat-controlled marine insurance company. SIAT had in turn reinsured the cars on the London insurance market, principally with Lloyd's and Institute of London Underwriters' Companies. As a result, the London re-insurers were presented with a substantial claim. It is difficult to be precise about the exact value of the claim because of currency fluctuations, general average adjustment, an additional claim, which was hotly contested, for cleaning all the undamaged cars and other complicating factors. However, in simple, layman's round figures, suffice it to say that the total claim was for approximately £500,000.

1757
For a number of reasons the London reinsurers were immediately suspicious about the claim, and so were the British insurance brokers, Pearson Webb Springbett Limited, who were then handling it on behalf of SIAT. Accordingly, the London underwriters instructed Graham Miller and Co., one of the world's leading firms of international loss adjusters, to investigate the claim. A team of investigators, headed by the managing director of Graham Miller and Co., Mr. Bob Bishop, a former CID officer, went to Italy to make inquiries.
In due course Mr. Bishop and his colleagues produced three detailed reports on the "Savonita" claim and their contents make devastating reading, for Mr. Bishop discovered detailed evidence to show that a serious fraud had in fact taken place. According to his report the 301 cars which had been written off by SIAT as a constructive total loss had been sold to a Fiat dealer in Naples, a Mr. Dotoli, for approximately £65,000, or some 15 per cent, of their brand new value.
Mr. Dotoli, who according to the Bishop Report was aided and abetted throughout this nefarious enterprise by certain senior executives in the Fiat Group, proceeded to sell the majority, and perhaps virtually all, of the so-called damaged 301 cars to various customers at 80 per cent, of their brand new value. The Bishop reports give details of these sales, including owners' identities, chassis numbers, photographs and reports on the near perfect condition of the cars, which contrast dramatically with the original report of their total loss damage and so on. Mr. Bishop even went so far as to purchase, in perfect condition, one of the cars which was documented as having been ruined, thereby getting physical as well as documentary evidence of the alleged fraud.
In short, the Bishop reports provide a convincing picture that the reinsurance claim presented to the London market was a fraudulent one, and on that basis the London underwriters resisted the claim and refused to offer more than 10 per cent, as a generous commercial settlement through Pearson Webb Springbett to SIAT.
At this point in the story, Pearson Webb Springbett, which is a small firm of
1758
Lloyd's brokers, took the courageous but undoubtedly correct decision not to press SIAT's claim against the British insurance market.
By this time, pressure was building up. To summarise the situation, I can do no better than to read out a paragraph from a memorandum about the "Savonita" claim written by Mr. Malcolm Pearson, the chairman of Pearson Webb Springbett, to the chairman of Lloyd's, Sir Havelock Hudson, on 13th April 1976, which reads:
"You will remember that the leading underwriter, Mr. Roy Hill, and I came to see you recently about the above situation. You were somewhat surprised that we should have thought it necessary to discuss the matter with you, and we explained that we were worried that pressure might build up concerning this claim that could have eventually concerned yourself and your committee. Mr. Hill was worried that pressure might have been brought to bear from Italy to have the claim settled, and I was worried that other pressures within Lloyd's might have come into play. You told us to 'bat straight'."
Unfortunately a straight bat was not much use to Pearson Webb Springbett for it was suddenly, in effect, given out by the square-leg umpire, because the next thing that happened was that SIAT, surprisingly and most extraordinarily, dismissed Pearson Webb Springbett from handling the claim or having anything more to do with it. SIAT took another unusual step and instructed a much larger firm of Lloyd's Brokers, Willis Faber and Dumas, to collect the Savonita claim for it.
As Willis Faber and Dumas now began processing the London underwriters to settle the claim in full, Mr. Malcolm Pearson, in order to protect the good name of himself and his company, sought and obtained a formal written opinion from the Senior Treasury Counsel Mr. John Mathew, QC. In his opinion the Senior Treasury Counsel made a meticulous analysis of all the available evidence and documents in the case, including the Bishop reports and a significant internal Willis Faber memorandum which set out some arguments in favour of paying the claim in full. After commenting on all these, the Senior Treasury Counsel's view at the end of the day—I quote direct from his opinion—was as follows:
"We have no doubt that such enquiries as have been made to date disclose such positive indications of fraud that a full professional enquiry by any prosecution authority such as

1759
the Fraud Squad would very probably produce the evidence necessary to sustain a provable charge of fraud."
The opinion ends with these words:
"We would therefore suggest, that the right course for Mr. Pearson to take would be to again approach the Chairman of Lloyd's and, we think, the Chairman of the Institute of London Underwriters, finally to inform them of the complete picture to date, so that they can take any steps which they may feel compelled to take to protect the good name of Lloyd's and the Institute and any of their members who are involved."
Shortly after receiving that opinion Mr. Malcolm Pearson did as he was advised and sent it to the then chairman of Lloyd's Sir Havelock Hudson, who acknowledged receipt of it in a letter dated 13th August 1976 saying he had "noted the position".
What exactly was the position? The chairman and committee of Lloyd's had in front of them a well-known international loss adjuster's report, together with a legal opinion from the Senior Treasury Counsel, saying in the bluntest possible terms that a serious fraud had been committed and that the reinsurance claim should not be paid.
The chairman and committee also knew that Willis Faber was pressing the underwriters for the full payment of the claim. In addition, the chairman and deputy chairman later received further requests asking the Lloyd's committee to take action in the best interests of the London insurance market.
In those circumstances, what would it have been reasonable to expect the chairman and committee of Lloyd's to do? There were many courses of action that that august body could have taken, because, as the surpreme regulatory authority of the market, the Lloyd's committee has a huge range of powers at its disposal, including the power to send for persons and papers, the power to order internal investigations, a wide range of disciplinary powers and sanctions, including the power to withdraw licences from brokers or underwriters, and, of course, the power to call in the police, which would appear to be the Senior Treasury Counsel's implied suggestion.
However, what did the chairman and Lloyd's actually do? The sad answer is that they did absolutely nothing. They
1760
disregarded the Bishop reports and the Senior Treasury Counsel's opinion.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): One matter should be set right at once. Mr. John Mathew is a Senior Treasury Counsel, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that on this occasion he was advising in his private capacity as counsel and not as Senior Treasury Counsel?
Mr. Aitken: I understand that the position is that Mr. John Mathew, who is now no longer the Senior Treasury Counsel, was at the time the Senior Treasury Counsel, and the opinion appears under his name as Senior Treasury Counsel. Those words are there. Whether he was giving the opinion in his public capacity or in his private capacity seems to make little difference.
Why did the committee at Lloyd's disregard all these requests for action, disregarding all these not unimportant facts? Why did they not take any action?
Before deciding to seek this Adjournment debate, I knew that I must put these relevant questions to the Lloyd's committee, for if there was some good explanation why the self-policing powers of Lloyd's were not used, of course there would be no need to have this debate. Accordingly, I went to Lloyd's last week and met the present chairman, Mr. Findlay, his predecessor, Sir Havelock Hudson, who is still a member of the committee, and the deputy chairman, Mr. Gray.
Their answer to the basic questions was that the Lloyd's committee had decided not to intervene in the "Savonita" claim because it was a purely commercial matter. Moreover, there were two views about "Savonita", the committee explained. One was the Senior Treasury Counsel's view which I have already quoted. The alternative view, namely, that the claim was not fraudulent but was genuine and bona fide, had been expressed to them verbally by the other insurance brokers in the matter, Messrs. Willis Faber and Dumas. The chairman of Lloyd's confirmed that the committee had not then seen, or indeed asked for, any written reports or evidence from Willis Faber and Dumas to support their view; nevertheless, on the basis of having received verbal reports from Willis Faber and Dumas the

1761
committee had decided not to intervene and to leave the matter entirely to the commercial judgment of underwriters.
In fairness to Willis Faber and Dumas it must be said that they have always let it be known that they have had much more than verbal reports to prove, in their view, that Bishop's report was seriously wrong and that the "Savonita" claim was bona fide. However, such documentary evidence as may exist has never actually been shown to the Lloyd's committee.
The principal document emanating from Willis Faber and Dumas which some underwriters have shown as a reason for agreeing with the view that the "Savonita" claim was not a fraud was a memorandum on which the Senior Treasury Counsel had this to say in his opinion:
"We have seen a report dated 26th April 1976 by a Mr. Baker of W.F.D. for his deputy chairman, Mr. Prentice, which purports to answer some of Bishop's allegations. There may be some validity in one or two of the points he seeks to make, but we are largely unimpressed by his brief arguments, and we find it quite incredible that this short document can purport reasonably to dismiss doubts as to the validity of this claim as 'quite unfounded'. We can only assume that his views may have been influenced by the fact that his company had by then undertaken to collect the total claim."
The chairman and committee of Lloyd's have no doubt read that harsh comment, along with the rest of the opinion.
So where did that leave the regulatory body of Lloyd's? On the one hand, it had been formally presented with an opinion—not just any barrister's opinion, but the opinion of the Senior Treasury Counsel who is, in the hierarchy of the criminal justice, perhaps the most significant legal luminary in the country after the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney-General—and this opinion said that a provable criminal fraud could be sustained. It also had the international loss adjuster's report. It knew that its own Lloyd's underwriters claims office had refused to approve the "Savonita" claim because of suspicions of fraud. It had requests and exhortations to intervene to protect the good name of Lloyd's. On the other hand, it had a mere verbal report that the "Savonita" claim was not fraudulent, although that verbal report apparently was based on a written report
1762
which had already been sharply criticised by the Senior Treasury Counsel.
Mr. John Page: Does my hon. Friend know how many substantial disputed claims are swinging around in the orbit of Lloyd's at any time?
Mr. Aitken: I have no idea of the exact figure. No doubt there are frequently doubtful claims and suspicions, but it is rare in the extreme for a claim on which an opinion has been expressed that it is a criminal fraud to be put in the category that it is a claim that can be dealt with on a commercial settlement basis.
I find it very surprising that, given all the circumstances, the regulatory authority of Lloyd's decided to sit on the sidelines and leave this matter as something that could be left exclusively to the commercial judgment of underwriters, not all of whom were ever even circulated with the Senior Treasury Counsel's opinion by Lloyd's. I do not suggest that the honourable body of men who make up the committee of Lloyd's acted improperly, but perhaps they should reflect on the words of Edmund Burke:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
What actually happened once the chairman and committee had decided not to use any of their self-policing powers? The underwriters were then left in a very exposed position. In a market which today has an excess of capacity, underwriters from both the companies and the Lloyd's syndicates are desperately anxious to hold on to big accounts and are therefore vulnerable to pressures either to agree to low rates or to agree to questionable commercial settlements. In this case, the underwriters could, and I believe should, have been protected from such pressures either by the regulatory authority in the case of Lloyd's or by the senior management of the individual companies—if indeed any of them had ben notified of the Senior Treasury Counsel's opinion in these matters.
Also, it must be said in defence of the underwriters that apparently one underwriter's solicitors, Willis Faber and Dumas, had issued legal proceedings

1763
against them which demanded that the "Savonita" claim should be paid in full. The underwriters' solicitors, Ince & Company, eventually advised that it might be safest for their clients to make a full ex gratia commercial settlement of the claim without going into court—although how that sort of advice can possibly have prevailed over and above the Senior Treasury Counsel's advice that the "Savonita" claim was a provable criminal fraud is mystifying. Above all, some of the underwriters were put under considerable pressure to settle the claim effectively in full, and about 10 days ago they did just that, for the Italians have now received 96 per cent, of the money.
Allegations have now been made that the pressures put on underwriters was, in fact, undue or improper. Those allegations have in turn been strongly denied. I do not wish to comment on those allegations, particularly as it is now known that the police are investigating this whole matter, and also because the Lloyd's committee has at last decided to have its own internal inquiry into the alleged undue pressure aspect of the affair. Naturally, one welcomes those inquiries, but from the point of view of the names in Lloyd's whose syndicates have had to pay out on the "Savonita" claim, and the small shareholders in the insurance companies who also paid out on this claim, such inquiries are merely a case of shutting the British stable door after the Italian horse has bolted with the money.
In short, this whole matter is a salutary story, and one which may have profound implications far wider than the "Savonita" claim, since the actions of certain individuals in the affair give rise to grave doubts about the pattern of other Italian insurance claims which have been paid out by Lloyd's in recent years. However, as this wider field is now also under investigation by the appropriate authorities I shall say no more about it now.
I think that the House should reflect on the lessons and conclusions to be drawn from this matter. As far as the Italian end is concerned, I am sure that the much-respected chairman of Fiat, Mr. Giovanni Agnelli, who is in possession of the Bishop report and the Senior Treasury Counsel's opinion, will take note of the severe criticisms of one or two of his senior employees and associates in those documents and will take
1764
steps to put his own house in order, no-doubt with the help of the Italian authorities.
As far as the London insurance market is concerned, I stress once again that the solution to the problem that I have been discussing is not Government intervention or regulation, but better self-regulation and self-policing. It is indeed good to know that the chairman of Lloyd's has now ordered a full internal investigation into the "Savonita" affair, and that means that the committee of Lloyds is now doing its proper self-regulating job. That is enormously to be welcomed, and far from there being a loss of confidence in Lloyd's arising from this debate, I believe that there will, in fact, be renewed and strengthened confidence in Lloyd's now that the regulating body is doing, and is seen to be doing, its full self-policing duty.
I wish to say something about the role of Parliament in this affair, because during the last few days I have received a truly phenomenal amount of advice from various quarters about what I should or should not say in this speech. Indeed, there have been moments when I have felt rather like that over-advised soldier who is described in Macaulay's "Lays of Ancient Rome" as the person to whom
"those behind cried 'Forward'
And those before cried 'Back'".
Some people have even said to me that the whole reputation of the City of London will be damaged, that Lloyd's will somehow lose business by being forced to harmonise with EEC regulations, and that the reputation of the capitalist system and free enterprise, and even of the Conservative Party, will somehow be adversely affected just because I make a speech about Lloyd's in this House.
I feel that I must make a very brief answer to those criticisms. As far as the EEC is concerned, I hope that the Minister will give the Brussels Eurocrats a dusty answer and tell them to go away and regulate and harmonise the Italian insurance market before they try tampering with the British market.
As for the reputation of the City of London, the capitalist system and so on, I do not accept that in the long term damage will be done to a highly successful institution such as Lloyd's by a basically friendly voice saying in this House than an individual wrong has occurred

1765
and needs to be put right in future by better self-policing. That is surely a moderate and sensible request.
As for the wider issues, let us not forget that Parliament is not just a place for passing laws. We have far too much legislation anyway. Parliament is also traditionally a forum where the small man's problems, difficulties, grievances and sense of injustice can get a hearing on occasions such as Adjournment debates, sometimes with beneficial results.
Let us not forget either that, in this "Savonita" affair, small people were hurt. A small insurance broker lost a lot of business, some small underwriters were pressured into paying out a lot of money to replace motor cars which are being driven around Italy today in good condition, and many small investors may have had their savings whittled away by the alleged fraud.
As one who has always believed in open government and communication and in the accountability of public companies and institutions which enjoy the public trust, I see no harm, and indeed much good, both for the Conservative Party and for the House of Commons, in being seen to speak up for the legitimate interests of the small man against the pressures of the big battalions. That is why I am glad to have raised this issue in Parliament today.
12.41 p.m.
Mr. Tim Renton: We have all listened with interest and care to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet East (Mr. Aitken). I appreciate the reasons that he gave for feeling it appropriate to raise this matter.
Lloyd's is above all a self-regulatory and self-disciplining body. I must declare an interest, in that I am an "outside name" at Lloyd's, which means that I am a member of various underwriting syndicates but have no executive or working role at Lloyds.
Self-regulation cannot be a perfect instrument, any more than regulation by Government Department or by legislation ever is. Lloyd's has grown rapidly and successfully in recent years. It has taken on many new and complex risks. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), during business questions to the Lord President earlier
1766
this morning, raised the question of the "Amoco Cadiz". About half of the hull risk on that ship is placed with Lloyd's, which will also have a liability of about $19 million on pollution claims which will probably arise from that tragic crash on the coast of Brittany.
That emphasises the international business of Lloyd's. The hull is American and the pollution premiums are placed with Lloyd's from a variety of sources through the International Tankers Indemnity Association.
In this context of growth and change I do not find it surprising that underwriters and brokers complain to the committee at Lloyd's or to outsiders about things that sometimes go wrong there.
But the role of the committee is analogous to that of the Council of the Stock Exchange. It is not to settle individual claims or disputes between underwriters and brokers. It's role falls into three general categories. The first is general supervision of the conduct and growth of Lloyd's. The second is to admit underwriters and brokers to membership and then, when necessary, to discipline them. The third is to intervene whenever the the public interest or the good name Lloyd's is at risk.
The committee has intervened more frequently in recent years and the chairman of the committee has now decided to hold an inquiry into all the Lloyd's aspects of the matter raised by my hon. Friend. The outside aspects—the allegations of fraud and so forth—are being investigated by the authorities. That is the proper method, and I wish to say no more about that.
In this case. Lloyd's and the insurance companies paid the claims after three years of investigation. The main worry usually is that insurance companies do not pay or have not sufficient reserves to pay. That was the reason for the Policyholders Protection Act. That was not the burden of my hon. Friend's speech. Therefore, policyholders, both at Lloyd's and with the insurance companies, can take comfort because the probity and reputation of Lloyd's rest in the final analysis on paying claims when they are due.
With the general supervision behind it of the Department of Trade, I am sure that Lloyd's has a capacity to increase

1767
its international business further in the years ahead. It has made a remarkable contribution to Britain's balance of payments on the invisibles. To grow, Lloyd's must maintain its reputation for good self-regulation. It may be helpful to air this matter as my hon. Friend has done, but I am sure that he will agree that Parliament cannot form a judgment on the technical details—nor, I think, would he wish it to do so.
12.46 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): It is a well-accepted practice of the House that an hon. Member should exercise the greatest care and judgment before grave allegations of misconduct are made about named individuals, whether or not Members of this House, particularly if that misconduct is of a criminal nature. An hon. Member speaks here under the cloak of absolute privilege. If, as is possible, the charge to which the hon. Member alludes is mistaken, however innocent the mistake, no redress or recompense is available to the injured party, however gross the damage suffered.
Mr. Aitken: Will the Minister allow me?
Mr. Davis: No, I must get on.
Even if the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) believes that the charge is convincingly made out, he knows that police inquiries are being undertaken and that the professional body concerned with the discipline and reputation of its members is itself involved in an investigation. Therefore, I would have thought that it would have been better to resist the temptation to act and to condemn impulsively.
Mr. Aitken: May I correct something that the Minister has said? I was very careful not to name any individual in relation to any criminal activity. I would never do such a thing.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Member did name names. It is within the recollection of the House that he did so. He is drawing a distinction between naming a company and naming an individual, which is not convincing in this context.
I think that there is a risk that premature and ill-considered statements could prejudice the alleged offender but could also provide him with a hand-made
1768
plea, in the event of a prosecution, that he has been condemned in advance—not that I am suggesting that in this case a prosecution must inevitably follow. That is a matter for the police, not for me.
Even if an hon. Member is convinced that a scandalous state of affairs has arisen, should he not ask himself what is the best way of taking effective action to deal with the matters of which he complains? For all these reasons, in my experience, hon. Members are reticent about ventilating charges in public before they are sure that they can be made out, that other procedures have been tried and found wanting, that it is in the public interest that they should speak out at that time and that unless they do a scandal could be brushed under the carpet.
Let me make it absolutely clear, in passing, that I would never counsel an hon. Member of this House or allow myself or my Department to be lent to any suppression of the truth or to try to bury a scandal.
But the question is whether the hon. Gentleman has addressed himself properly or sufficiently to these considerations. In my judgment—and I regret to say this—I do not believe that he has. Although I do not want to comment on the merits of the questions that are before the Fraud Squad and the chairman and committee of Lloyd's—because it would not be right for me to do that—I think that the following issues are relevant to whether it was right to air the matter in way in which the hon. Gentleman has done, and whether the fraud in the United Kingdom on the underwriters has been convincingly established.
The hon. Gentleman has given a very full statement of one side of the case. He has not given a full account of the other side of the story. Perhaps it would have been unreasonable to expect him to do so. As I have said—and I must repeat—in my judgment it would be wrong for the House—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)—to form any final view now of the merits, without hearing what in a court of law would be termed to be the case for the defence. However, the hon. Member for Thanet, East has asserted that the allegation of fraud on the underwriters has been established convincingly. But is it

1769
right, even if one accepts that there is evidence—upon which I must not comment—that gives rise to serious disquiet about what happened on the vessel and subsequently in Italy, to come to that conclusion?
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to let me see counsel's opinion, from which he has quoted, in advance of the debate. I am grateful for that. It is abundantly plain that Mr. John Mathew was not, in this connection, advising as a Senior Treasury Counsel. He was advising as a barrister retained by a client, in the ordinary way. I am sure that he would have been deeply touched to hear the great distinction conferred upon him by the hon. Member, but I think that even Mr. Mathew would not have been totally convinced of its rectitude.
The hon. Gentleman also showed me his speech notes, for which I am grateful, but he added that he would not be naming names. Although he does not agree, I think that he departed unwisely from that position.
Let me turn to counsel's opinion itself. I recognise, as counsel has indicated, that it would be a very serious matter indeed if insurance brokers persuaded underwriters to settle a claim without disclosing to the underwriters documents which suggested that a claim was based on fraud and that it was bogus. But I want to turn to a passage in counsel's opinion which was not quoted by the hon. Gentleman but which is absolutely crucial:
"It is, of course, a different matter if underwriters, having been made aware of all the information available, for their own commercial reasons nevertheless wish to pay, because it cannot be a fraud upon them unless they are dishonestly misled."
Were the underwriters so aware? As far as I am concerned, the evidence remains to be established. I do not know, and the hon. Gentleman has not said that the underwriters were unaware of the position. All that the hon. Gentleman has said is that they did not have counsel's opinion before them. It was not incumbent upon anyone to provide them with that. It may have been helpful if that had been done, but it was not done. But if the underwriters were aware of this, then, quoting counsel,
"it cannot be a fraud".
1770
That must be a germane consideration which I ought to put before the House in its consideration of this matter.
I have been told that a considerable number of underwriters and insurance companies were involved in this claim, including several of the larger syndicates of Lloyd's underwriters and of British insurance companies. I have been told that the leading underwriters, at least, were aware of the terms of the loss adjuster's report, and some of them were aware of counsel's opinion—perhaps all of them; I do not know. I have not gone into an investigation of this matter. I am merely rehearsing information that has been given to me.
I am told—and this is important, and the hon. Gentleman conceded this—that they obtained legal advice before deciding to settle the claim. Perhaps I may remind the House at this stage that they were bound to settle the claim unless they could establish that it was fraudulent.
I add in parenthesis that, even on the hon. Gentleman's case, Mr. Pearson was advising a 10 per cent, settlement, which, even though that was derisory, did not suggest that the fraud was absolutely convincingly established.
As I have already emphasised, I have made no formal inquiries about the position. I do not wish, therefore, to express any opinion one way or the other whether the chairman and the committee of Lloyd's should have intervened in this matter. If the facts are as the hon. Member suggests, and if the underwriters were not aware of the relevant documents, clearly there would be grounds for deep anxiety about the case. But I am told that the underwriters were aware of the facts and decided to settle on legal advice. If that is right, I should have thought that there were no grounds for criticising them or the committee of Lloyd's.
I understand that the other allegation made here is that the second brokers had used undue pressure so as to persuade underwriters to settle their claim. That was an allegation introduced for the first time last month. I also understand that this is part of the wider dispute between the two brokers involved, who have accepted a suggestion from the chairman of Lloyd's that he should seek to resolve the dispute, and they have agreed to cooperate with him in that.

1771
I think that it was the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) who said that there is obviously a range of cases, from those in which a broker draws perfectly legitimate attention to the commercial consequences of a particular action, on the one hand, to quite improper pressure, on the other hand. The chairman and committee of Lloyd's all have considerable first-hand experience of the market, which gives them a unique insight into problems of this sort.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will now feel that it is appropriate—as I think he accepts—to allow them to complete their inquiries and avoid taking any further action at this stage which might make their inquiries even more difficult.
The matter lies as follows. Serious allegations have been raised and they are being considered by the police. Allegations are being considered by the chairman and the committee of Lloyd's. It is right that these investigations should be allowed to proceed, and proceed they will. I do not think that anyone in the House would wish to see a scandal buried. But as often happens—perhaps I am being too much of a lawyer about this—there are two sides to most situations, and perhaps this is one.
If I have been rather difficult and have offered strictures to the hon. Gentleman because I believe that it is not in the best interests that a situation such as this should be aired at this stage, as I have told him privately and now tell the House, I hope that he will recognise that there is a point of view in that behalf as well.
Mr. Aitken: I recognise, of course, that there are two sides to this case and two views on whether it should be raised in Parliament. However, the truth that must be faced is that it is only since it was known that this would be raised in Parliament that many of these measures, including internal investigation in all its aspects, started to happen. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that the public interest is not being ill-served by my raising this mater on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Davis: As I have said, there are two points of view to every situation. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to have his view, and I am entitled to mine. There are innumerable occasions when hon. Members write to me or come to see me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about situations in respect of public companies that cause them great anxiety, such as the dismissal of employees, sometimes, who have been, they say, defrauded. Immediately that is done, it is not ventilated on the Floor of the House in the first instance. An opportunity is given to the Ministers concerned to see what the situation really is.
In this instance, the hon. Gentleman, in his judgment, which he is perfectly entitled to follow, decided that he would apply for an Adjournment debate first, without alerting me to the situation. He subsequently did so. He was subsequently very frank and open about what he intended to say in the House. What I have said is that I believe it would have been infinitely better from the point of view of those who are charged and those who are carrying out the investigations if that situation had been allowed to proceed. If then an hon. Member feels that there exists a scandal which the establishment is seeking to avoid and to bury, it is, of course, a matter on which he ought to come to the House and pillory that establishment, and perhaps the Minister if he has been party to that situation. That was not the case here. In those circumstances, I hope that what I have done is to redress the balance a little, without coming to any definitive conclusion.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex for the tribute that he paid to Lloyd's. The hon. Member for Thanet, East paid a similar tribute, and I join them both in what they say. Lloyd's is a distinguished organisation which produces great benefit to this country. Its history of self-regulation is exemplary. I am not always in favour of self-regulation in this area, but I say that unhesitatingly about Lloyd's and I hope that it suffers no damage from the criticisms made here today.

CONCORDE (SONIC BOOM)
1.1 p.m.
Mr. David Penhaligon: I do not believe that the Minister will complain that he has not had correspondence about the issue I wish to raise. It is the subject of what are assumed to be Concorde booms over the South-West, particularly over Cornwall.
My interest in the subject began in 1971 or 1972 when Cornwall was under the flight path of the original supersonic test flights that took place over the length of the United Kingdom. My interest was aroused when one afternoon I was crossing the car park of the company for which I worked in Camborne. One of those flights was taking place overhead and I remember resolving that this noise had to be stopped and that we could not possibly allow direct overhead supersonic flights.
The noise was incredible. The Government paid out substantial damages as a result of those test flights on proven damage. Not long after I was elected to this House, the Minister announced—I think it was in 1975—that permission had been granted for the aircraft to land in America. I used that opportunity to question him further on supersonic booms and I was given the pledge that there would be no such booms over the West Country without the specific approval of the House of Commons. I felt relieved, thinking that the problem would never recur.
However, it was not so long after that that commercial flights started and the correspondence began pouring in. It has never ceased. I do not know how many letters I have had from constituents. The number must be in three figures. I have sent many of them to the Minister. He has clearly received a vast number about the subject because he has stopped the normal convention of "topping and tailing" letters himself, and has instead produced a circular which he sends out every two or three months—and I thank him for it—in response to the correspondence he gets from hon. Members.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): There is a distinction between sending an interim report as I have done and sending replies to letters
1774
which are always most elegantly topped and tailed.
Mr. Penhaligon: I intend no criticism of the Minister but merely to show that a substantial amount of correspondence reaches him on the subject other than that which I forward. A reply to a Question revealed that about 35 Members had taken this matter up at some time or another. Certainly those with constituencies neighbouring mine have experienced complaints similar to those expressed to me.
It is not just a question of the letters one receives. For each letter that a Member receives many more people intend to write. I know from walking around my constituency that the booms are a regular subject of conversation. I am frequently approached along the lines of '"'Ere, Mr. Penhaligon, when are we going to stop these booms?". Some of the letters have been remarkable documents, not the sort of thing that is written in five minutes in a fit of pique late one evening. I have received catalogues of times and dates and even indications of the intensity of the boom from constituents. Some of them I have forwarded to the Minister, and I have another which the Minister will be receiving soon. The problem is serious and widespread.
I accept that those who predict technological phenomena were caught napping on this one. I am sure that when the original Concorde test flights started along the channels on either side of Cornwall not many people estimated or thought that this problem would occur. But it does. I see from some of the papers sent to me that deceleration of Concorde destined for Heathrow starts over the Atlantic approximately 150 miles from Land's End. My first specific question therefore is just when does the aeroplane on a normal day and on a normal flight drop below Mach 1, which is the speed at which this problem occurs?
I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). It seems that Concorde booms have even been heard there, although, I gather, with nothing like the regularity experienced in my part of the world. We are told—and there is evidence to back this up—that a peculiarity of the weather makes the situation worse at certain times of the year. I get far

1775
more complaints in the winter than in the summer. We may therefore be entering a period of fewer complaints, but I fear that an increase in the number of of flights could counteract that.
The noise has been described as secondary booms, but many people in my part of the country, one or two of them of great technical expertise, question that suggestion. They argue that it is a refracted boom. A pressure wave from the supersonic flight is refracted by the changing densities of the air, and when it reaches ground level it virtually runs parallel to the surface due to temperature gradients. This means that the boom is heard over an incredible distance.
It was indicated at one time that the boom skirt would be no more than 12 miles wide. There is clear evidence that the same booms have been heard at places 40 or 50 miles apart. Information I have gathered locally indicates that impulse readings on a sound level indicator in the two-cycle/sec. range of as high as 111 decibels linear have been taken. I recognise that on the DBA scale the reading is less. The average impulse reading DBA is about 50, and that is not an enormous noise. Until I was elected to this House, I spent a lot of time trying to make rock drills and road drills a lot quieter. If we had ever achieved 50 DBA we would have regarded that as the ultimate achievement. For all that, however, the combination of suddeness and the low cycle range characteristic of the noise causes a great deal of irritation in my area.
The other peculiar factor is that virtually all the complaints are made about inward flights. I cannot believe that the aeroplane does not reach Mach I on an outward flight by the time it reaches Cornwall, and therefore it seems that the fact that the aeroplane is climbing rather than descending over Cornwall has a significant effect on the noise characteristics.
The complaints may sound frivolous but there are so many of them that it would be foolish to ignore them. There are regular complaints of cracked tiles and of china falling off shelves, particularly in caravans. Mothers worry that the bump is baby falling out of bed and rush upstairs to find that, fortunately, that is not so. In the Camborne area, which has a slight schizophrenia about
1776
noise because of the earth movements as the old mineworkings fall in, many people are genuinely worried that the noise is their back garden dropping 40 or 50 feet.
I believe that the Government recognise that this problem is unacceptable but that they will do nothing about it for political reasons. They are negotiating with African countries for permission to fly supersonically over those countries. I can see the difficulty. How can we convince the Government of Chad or the Government of the Central African Empire that Concorde causes no damage and no offence—indeed, it might even make the crops grow faster—when we cannot get our people to be prepared to stand the noise created by something flying 50 or 80 miles out to sea?
But for all that, the problem exists. The mere fact that it is politically embarrassing does not necessarily mean that we can continue to ask the people in my part of the country to stand the present difficulty. The political embarrassment revolves around the fact that if we cannot get permission to fly Concorde supersonically over those land masses there is only one route in the world where it might be a viable proposition, and that is the Atlantic route. Concorde does not have enough fuel capacity to cover the Pacific. Therefore, it is restricted to the Atlantic route unless permission can be obtained to fly supersonically over the land masses of Africa and Asia.
Nevertheless, I must ask the Minister why he does not instruct that the aeroplane slows down earlier. I cannot imagine that it could possibly take more than eight or 10 minutes more flight time from the American continent to our airport if the aeroplane slowed down 200 miles earlier. Two hundred miles might sound a long distance, but we are simply talking about 200 miles at 700 mph as opposed to 200 miles at 1,400 mph. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the difference would be about eight or 10 minutes.
I understand that the problem about doing that is that in order to make the aeroplane stable at subsonic speeds the nose configuration has to be changed and therefore the aeroplane uses more fuel. How much more fuel—and how many passengers should we lose if the plane had to slow down 200 miles earlier? I am told that the number of passengers

1777
lost would be two. So for the cost of eight or ten minutes more flight time and the reduction of profit due to having two fewer passengers—if that is so—my constituents are exposed to a "boom, boom" two, three or four times a night.
I have had a number of complaints from constituents about the response of British Airways to complaints made to it. In particular, one of my main technical informants, Mr. Vanstone, who is an aeronautical engineer, a member of the relevant institute and an export in sound technology, wrote to British Airways on 11th February complaining that a tile in his house had been broken. He received no reply, and I have been encouraging him to take a claim against British Airways to the local small claims court.
At some time or other this business must receive a legal hearing. What is the legal position? If a car drives past one's house and causes some damage, provided that one can get the number of the car or information as to the owner, one has a case which one can pursue. How can my constituents identify an aeroplane that is flying so fast that they hear it only after it has gone? What are we supposed to do? How are people supposed to know whether it is a French or a British aeroplane, or any other, if it has gone by the time the damage is done?
Even if he knows that it is a French aeroplane, how can a constituent of mine living in a small village possibly take out a claim against the French airline, especially when the damage is usually so small? We are talking about only a few pounds. But the time being saved is very little, and the convenience to the number of passengers involved is even smaller than that. I would like some indication of the legal position.
One of the Questions that I asked the Minister was answered on the line that the experts were of the view that the pressure wave would not cause damage to buildings or aggravate minor faults in sound structures. I presume that "sound structures" means buildings put up to Parker Morris standards.
My house is 200 years old, and a great number of the other houses in Cornwall are of a similar age. The tin miners and clay miners who built many of the houses in Cornwall knew nothing about Parker Morris. They built the houses
1778
by a system of shuttering, which meant building a wooden structure and each evening going out in the garden and shovelling in another foot of wall. That is the way in which many of the houses in Cornwall were built. To tell people living in my county that "sound structures" are likely to suffer no damage when their houses were built by such techniques is ludicrous. Damage is undoubtedly being caused, and it is only right that this should be recognised.
There is another problem which I do not take desperately seriously but about which a lot of people contact me. Some people allege that some of the booms are not caused by Concorde but have some other orgin. The reasons put forward are quite amusing at times, but there are allegations that there are other causes of these booms.
I should like the Minister to instruct the Observer Corps or a similar body to use its professional skills to make a chronological record of precisely when the booms are heard. In this way a meaningful record could be kept by professionals. It should be possible to eliminate the Concorde booms and to see whether in reality anything else is happening. I believe that this should be given considerable priority.
The Concorde booms ought to be stopped. I am by training an engineer and regard Concorde as a technical miracle, but it is, tragically, a technical miracle which on so many fronts has gone wrong. I do not, as a Member of Parliament representing 76,000 constituents, regard as progress the nightly exposure to three or four booms of 50 decibels intensity just for the convenience of a few passengers in an aeroplane and for the saving of eight or 10 minutes' flight time.
My constituents are asking what is to happen in 30 or 40 years if the problem is allowed to go unchecked. If world air flight should become supersonic, are the people of Cornwall and Devon to be asked to put up with supersonic booms, whether they be refracted or secondary, for every aeroplane that covers our part of the world on the way to America? I do not know how many aircraft a day fly over Cornwall to America, but it must be a substantial number. I do not believe that such a suggestion is credible.
I want an assurance from the Minister that that is a non-starter. I want an

1779
assurance that the idea of world supersonic flight arrangements, with daily flights over Cornwall, is a non-starter. It is an outrage that so many people are asked to suffer for the benefit of so few.
I have heard the argument presented in the House that those who buy houses near airports suffer greater noise disturbance than those in Cornwall. I have no doubt that that is so. But when people buy houses near airports, as some have good reason for doing, they are aware precisely of what they are taking on. People who came to Cornwall to live, or those who were born and brought up there, did not expect this phenomenon to affect their lives as much and as often as it does.
I do not believe that the problem should be allowed to continue without some action and correction. I put the following questions to the Minister. Is the problem a political one as we are trying to negotiate flight paths over the African and Asian land masses? Why cannot Concorde be made to slow down earlier? How many people would the aeroplane not be able to take because of the extra fuel used? Am I right in saying that the amount of time saved is only eight or 10 minutes? What is the legal position on claims for damages? Is it possible to use the Observer Corps to co-ordinate times in order to check out the cause of other booms, if they exist?
Finally, I should like to hear the Minister's comments on whether he believes that it is a credible proposition to ask the people of Cornwall to stand hearing the boom on three or four night a week—or perhaps even 30 times a night in 20 or 30 years—as a regular part of so-called technical advance. That is not my idea of technical advance. Technical advance must include a fair amount of quiet life. The booms caused by Concorde are for many of the elderly and others in my constituency the exact opposite of that. I assure the Minister that many people will await his reply with great interest.
1.20 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): One of the interesting characteristics of our business today is that I have to answer more than one debate. We have just completed a debate dealing with alleged scandals in insurance, and for that I donned my companies hat. Even the "Amoco Cadiz" was men-
1780
tioned, so I suppose that I could partially wear my shipping hat. In the present debate, I have an opportunity to wear my aviation hat, as, indeed, I shall in another debate to follow.
This is, therefore, an interesting state of affairs for me, although it has made it rather difficult to arrange at fairly short notice the necessary briefing which is essential if I am to do justice to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), which I shall now try to do.
I am very much aware of the concern in the South-West of England—and in South Wales as well—about the continuing problem of sonic boom. As the hon. Gentleman said, a number of hon. Members have lost no opportunity to remind me of it, and my regular correspondents have included the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), as well as many others.
As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, last November I circulated to hon. Members with a constituency interest in the problem an interim report on sonic boom prepared by my scientific advisers. I do not propose to go over the technical information in that report. Copies are available in the Vote Office for hon. Members—the copies have been there for some time, of course—and members of the public are able to obtain copies from my Department's Press office. I hope to publish a further report in a few weeks setting out the results up to that time of the research which has been undertaken and the means of alleviating the problem that are under current examination.
It may be helpful to the House and to those outside who are interested in this important issue if I describe the history of the sonic boom problem in the United Kingdom since Concorde entered commercial service and the attempts which have been made, and are still being made, to solve it.
It first became clear in 1976 that there was a serious sonic boom problem in the

1781
United Kingdom from Concorde's commercial operations. The first thing we had to do was to see where the booms were occurring and then measure their intensity. In itself, that was a difficult job because the places where the booms occurred and the days on which they occurred depended on atmospheric and weather conditions. For example, we found that our mobile monitoring units could go to a place where booms had been heard regularly for a week only to find that no booms occurred when they were there—rather like the doctor coming to a patient after being told over the telephone that he is desperately ill and finding that the patient has recovered by the time he arrives.
That was a factor which we had to face, and it did not subtract from the difficulties. However, sufficient data were eventually amassed, and at the same time the coastguards and a large number of members of the public sent us detailed reports which we were able to correlate with Concorde flights. I pay tribute to the many people within my Department, especially the coastguards, and to the members of the public for the assistance which they afforded in that connection.
It became clear that primary booms were being heard in the Channel Islands and along the South-West coast, and secondary booms were being heard throughout the South of England, although they were concentrated in the South-West. Following discussions between the United Kingdom and France, agreement was reached last September on an experimental change to the in-bound route of the Air France Concorde which was designed to remove primary boom from the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and to secure beneficial effects for the areas subject to secondary boom.
So far as we have been able to ascertain, the route change has completely removed the primary boom problem. I hope that that is right. Also, it has removed the secondary booms from most of the South of England, reaching up to Surrey, in fact, as I learned when I was receiving correspondence about that area some time ago. Nevertheless, it is clear that the problem still remains in the South-West and, to a lesser extent, in South Wales.
1782
Studies of secondary boom have been proceeding since the problem was first discovered, and the results of the route change have been an important input. The reports of sonic booms which we have received from members of the public have been fed into a complex computer programme which attempted to correlate the booms with aircraft manoeuvres. From these studies, it seems that most of the booms which cause disturbance are the so-called focused booms caused by the secondary sonic boom carpet becoming folded by the aircraft's movements while flying supersonically well out to sea.
The two movements which appear to be responsible are, first, the turn which the Air France Concorde makes as it enters the Channel, the second, the movement which both the Air France and the British Airways Concordes make as they point themselves downwards in order to begin deceleration to subsonic speed. The hon. Gentleman had a comment to make about that, and I shall come to it later.
Tests are already being made with British Airways to see whether a safe and practicable means can be found to reduce the focused booms caused by the pointing down, without creating undesirable side effects. If these tests show that there is a safe and economically reasonable procedure which can yield real benefits, Air France and British Airways will, I am sure, be willing to use it. But for safety reasons it would be quite wrong to skimp on the tests, and it will be some time, I am advised, before we shall know whether such a procedure can be devised.
French officials are very much aware of the continuing problem of sonic boom—we have never failed to seize an opportunity to ensure that they are so made aware—and it would be quite wrong to suggest that they are unsympathetic or uncaring about the situation. A meeting is being arranged with French officials now that the joint studies by the British and French manufacturers and scientific establishments have reached a sufficiently advanced stage.
In the meantime, discussions are already under way between the air traffic controllers of both countries about changes to the supersonic routes in the Channel so as to improve air traffic control and reduce the possibility of delays now that

1783
there is an increased volume of supersonic traffic to be handled. In these discussions, the Civil Aviation Authority is bearing in mind the need to design the new route structure in a way to test whether, as we hope, a straight route into the Channel will have beneficial effects for the South-West of England.
I am advised—I emphasise this—that serious problems from secondary sonic booms are probably almost unique to the United Kingdom because of the meteorological conditions prevailing here. They may be mirrored in the equivalent part of the Southern Hemisphere, but that is not our immediate concern today. I understand that the booms which were causing some disturbance in Canada came from the edge of the primary boom carpet from the route of the Concorde down beside the East Coast, and the route has since been altered by the airlines.
I understand also that the loud booms heard on the United States coast were found on investigation by the United States Naval Research Laboratory to be caused by military aircraft. Secondary boom could sometimes be just audible in quiet weather in the United States and Canada, and it can be measured with sensitive instrumentation, but it is not generally distinguishable from other noise. In addition, two years of scheduled supersonic flights across populated areas of the Middle East and two years of flights down the Italian coast have led to no difficulties.
I mention those matters because they illustrate that there may well be something unique about the situation in the United Kingdom to which we have to turn our attention. As I have said, we are already engaged on considerable research in that connection.
I turn now to the specific points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I take, first, the question of damage to buildings. Extensive tests have been undertaken not only here but in the United States and in France to establish the likelihood of damage from sonic booms of varying intensity. Primary sonic boom can cause damage, but for damage to occur the building needs to be almost under the direct line of supersonic flight, the boom needs to be focused in some way and the aircraft needs to be flying fairly low. Then the damage will normally occur
1784
over a swathe of land and will be clearly identifiable.
However, tests carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in the West Country before Concorde entered commercial service showed, for example, that supersonic flight directly over Truro cathedral caused no more vibration to parts of the structure than the cathedral organ, and considerably less to the belfry than the bells did. I am assured by my scientific advisers that secondary sonic booms of the intensity caused in the United Kingdom by Concorde's commercial operations will not cause any damage to buildings in reasonable condition and are less likely to cause gradual, cumulative damage than normal wear and tear and weathering.
If there is a serious problem in this regard, as the hon. Gentleman asserted, I shall seek advice from the technical advisers and the Building Research Advisory Centre, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about a specific problem.
Given the scientific evidence on the unlikelihood of damage to buildings in the United Kingdom from sonic boom caused by commercial operations of Concorde, the question of insurance against such damage is to some extent academic, especially as, if any damage were proved, the airline concerned would be strictly liable under Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. However, I appreciate that insurance would help to set people's minds at rest, and my officials will shortly be inviting representatives of the industry to discuss the problem of insurance, on the basis that insurers might now be in a better position to assess the risk, now that Concorde has been in commercial service for some time. I hope that that will be regarded as to some extent reassuring.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was difficult to identify a particular aircraft that might have caused damage. I do not think that it is as difficult with Concorde flights, because they are comparatively rare—
Mr. Penhaligon: At present.
Mr. Davis: We are talking about the present position. In any event, it is clear from the correspondence I have received from a number of hon. Members, when I have invited their constituents to let me

1785
have details of specific Concorde flights, that the problem of identification has not been particularly serious.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of bringing proceedings. It is a difficulty that is not confined to this matter. He spoke of the possibility of a motor vehicle causing slight damage to a constituent's property, for example. The constituent would seriously have to ask himself whether it was worth while taking the lorry driver to court over a cracked tile. That is the problem one faces with claims which are almost de minimis and claims which might range up to much more than de minimis—perhaps £20, £30 or £50—although there is a small claims court. That remains a problem which is not related only to this specific issue.
There is a legal remedy, to which I have referred. But that is not the end of the story. One must consider whether it is worth while to bring an action in the courts with the risks involved and the cost that might be incurred. One must balance the possible benefits of a successful court action and the risks one runs if one is not successful. As I said, that is not related solely to this topic by any means.
It is true that nearly all the booms heard in the South-West can be correlated with Concorde movements. Whenever we receive a report that does not tie in with air traffic control records of Concorde, we check whether the noise came from a military source. If it did not, we can check with the local authority and the police whether they know of any other possible causes. We can do little beyond that.
The most likely explanation in such cases is that the time was not accurately reported, perhaps because the watch of the person concerned gains or loses. There is a whole variety of reasons why it can be inaccurately reported. Accurate information on the time of a boom is essential if we are to try to correlate it with Concorde's movements. I know that that is appreciated by many people in the South-West.
The hon. Gentleman talked about British Airway's failure to respond properly or at all to a constituent's complaint. I am sorry about that. I am not responsible for British Airways' capacity to deal with
1786
it, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with a specific matter in mind I shall see that it is conveyed directly to the chairman of British Airways and is fully investigated. Alternatively—and this would be just as good—the hon. Gentleman could take it up directly himself.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether our concern was being diminished by overwhelmingly political considerations in negotiating routes for Concorde. That is not so. Indeed, the reverse is true. It is not to the advantage of Concorde operations that this sort of debate takes place or that it is public knowledge, as a result of letters written by hon. Members to me or letters published in the Press, that there is a disadvantage applying to Concorde's operations. Therefore, it follows that concern is felt by us as a sponsoring Department for airlines, by the Department of Industry, responsible as a sponsoring Department for the manufacturing aspect, and by aviation interests, whether manufacturers or airlines. It would be absurd to conceive that they were unconcerned, because it is completely contrary to their interests that anything adverse to Concorde's operations should rightly be ventilated here or anywhere else. They want to cure these matters.
Mr. Penhaligon: If the weather characteristics are unique and if the Concorde booms are found virtually nowhere else in the world, why is not the perfectly obvious, sane and sensible solution adopted—that the aircraft is made to slow down 150 or 200 miles earlier, thus adding a whole six minutes to its flight times?
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's zeal is amazing. I am trying to deal with his points in order, and that question is directly relevant to what I was going to say next.
The hon. Gentleman legitimately asked—it seems a very simple matter—"Why doesn't Concorde slow down earlier?" The answer is that there is a substantial load factor penalty, far greater than the hon. Gentleman has been informed. I am advised that if Concorde were to slow down as he suggests—I understand that at present the British Airways Concorde goes subsonic 50 miles west of Combe Martin and the Air France Concorde goes subsonic 50 miles west of Guernsey—the load factor penalty would be 12 persons, which is substantial. We must carefully consider that, and not

1787
simply accept it at its face value. These are factors being taken into account in the assessment of the position now being undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about supersonic overflight. He would rightly regard that as an abomination if practised over the South-West of England, perhaps, although he did not say this, in consideration of getting subsonic overflight rights somewhere else. It has been stated in this House and in another place on a number of occasions that there is no intention on the part of the Government of carrying out supersonic flights. My recollection of the undertaking is that there would be absolutely no question of this move being contemplated without Parliament being fully consulted. I hope that I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman.
It had not occurred to me to utilise the Observer Corps. I do not know whether it is being used. We have had the advantage of the co-operation of the Coast Guard and the public, who are alerted to the situation and concerned about it. These have provided us with a good deal of valuable help, of which we are making use in our investigations. If there is any additional help that can be usefully employed I would be glad to look into the suggestion and write to the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that I have dealt with all of the points put to me by the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising these matters because it gives me the opportunity to state publicly what is the other side of the coin, that there is a problem here of which we are aware. We are not unconcerned about it. We are trying to resolve it.
Mr. Penhaligon: I am pleased to hear that so much effort is being made to resolve this problem. Let us consider the possibility that changing the flight path and something else does not resolve the problem. There have been two or three attempts so far which have failed. Can the Under-Secretary give me an assurance, which I can take back to my constituents, that in that circumstance he will instruct the aeroplane to slow down earlier? Or is he telling me that if the problem cannot be solved by changing the flight path my constituents will simply have to put up with it for ever?
Mr. Davis: I am not saying that. The hon. Gentleman is trying to jump the gun a little. He is asking me a hypothetical question which, as far as I know, no Minister in any Government ever answers. We are undertaking a step-by-step analytical approach and conducting a research programme into this. We have seen a benefit in terms of the primary boom. We know that, as a result of the public help that has been given, we are making some progress with the secondary boom. It would be wrong for me to mislead the hon. Gentleman or anyone else about the eventual results of this research programme. I believe that some gain will arise but I do not want to be too optimistic.
I do not say that the problem will disappear. That is unlikely. My concern is to mitigate it considerably. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am deeply concerned about this issue. The French Government, too, have taken the problem on board. I hope that when I next report to the hon. Gentleman he will see that considerable progress has been made. Perhaps in the not-to-distant future it will be possible to provide relief to those whom he represents so well, on this issue and others.

BRITISH RAIL (ASBESTOS STRIPPING)
1.44 p.m.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject which is of concern to a considerable number of my constituents and which I have headed:
"The use by British Rail of premises near residential areas for the stripping of asbestos from rolling stock."
It is a matter of some anxiety to a number of my constituents in Strawberry Hill and the northern fringe of Teddington. In that area there is a large shed owned by British Rail which is now being used for stripping asbestos from carriages.
There is some fear in the district that pollution of the surrounding atmosphere might occur which might be harmful to health. I am told that this place is one of 26 in the country where this process by British Rail of stripping asbestos goes on. These areas include Hebden Bridge—and I understand that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) would like to

1789
intervene later in the debate, Mr. Speaker. I am willing that he should do so. These asbestos stripping operations are also carried out at York, Doncaster, Glasgow, Crewe and Ilford. I do not know the remainder of the locations.
In Strawberry Hill and Teddington, concern has been expressed at four levels. First, I should mention the Richmond-upon-Thames Borough Council. A number of councillors have been in touch with me to express anxiety. This week the general purposes committee of the council called for an urgent report and evaluation of the risk.
Secondly, a distinguished local doctor is raising the matter with the British Medical Association.
Thirdly, the parents of school children in the district are concerned. Within a few hundred yards of this shed there are three schools, the Stanley Road school with 647 children taking both the infants and the junior sections, the St. James Roman Catholic primary school with 293 children, and the Strathmore special school which has 71 children. There are, therefore, over 1,000 young children within a few hundred yards of this site.
Fourthly, Strawberry Hill residents' Association has taken a great interest in this matter and through its chairman, Mr. Willcocks, has, in my view, acted in a most responsible manner throughout. The association approached me last summer and as a result I went to see the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply to today's debate. He told me that he was satisfied that there was no danger and he followed this up with a letter which he ended by saying, on behalf of the Department of Transport:
"In our opinion, British Railways have acted very responsibly in this matter and have taken and will continue to take all the precautions necesary to safeguard the health, both of their own employees and of the public."
Because of the serious nature of any illness which could come about if there were any risk, the association was still not satisfied and wanted to make sure about the situation. It sought a report from Dr. Black, a local resident. I hope that no one will say that Dr. Black is an alarmist. He was formerly Her Majesty's chief inspector of explosives at the Home Office. He had oversight of and responsibility for examination of most dangerous
1790
substances and he is highly experienced, not in medicine, but in measuring a wide variety of dangerous substances.
Dr. Black reported to the association in September 1977. His report contained a number of worrying points which, for the time being, the association kept confidential while it sought meetings with British Rail to voice its anxieties. Having received no satisfaction from British Rail, at the end of January the association wrote to me. Unfortunately, there was about a two-week delay because at that time I was in hospital having a major shoulder operation following a sporting accident. On 6th March I went to see the Under-Secretary, taking with me Mr. Willcocks, the association's chairman. Colonel McNaughton, chief inspector of British Railways, was also present. This was prior to the annual general meeting of the association on 8th March. At the meeting, 180 people were present and a great deal of anxiety was expressed, although Mr. Willcocks conveyed to the meeting what the Minister and Colonel McNaughton had said.
The meeting passed two resolutions. The first was:
"The Health and Safety Executive should institute immediately a total review of the standards and procedures required with blue asbestos in order to ensure that the health of workers and the surrounding community is fully safeguarded."
The second was:
"Having regard to the uncertainties over the whole of the field and the fact that the Advisory Committee on Asbestos currently considering these matters is not likely to report in the near future, the work at the depot should be closed down until it can be shown unequivocally that it is safe to resume."
At this stage, I wish to declare that some years ago I had, but no longer have, an interest in the mining of blue asbestos. I understand that, by custom of the House, the moral obligation to declare an interest applies to present interests and not to past ones, and that therefore I am under no obligation to make this declaration, but I felt that I should tell both the House and my constituents of that past interest.
My interest was a small one. I owned about half of one per cent. of a company which indirectly owned about one-fifth of an asbestos mine in Africa. All the products of the mine were exported to

1791
countries other than the United Kingdom, mainly to the Continent and Japan. None of it came to the United Kingdom or to British Rail.
In considering the position of British Rail, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Ian Campbell, a member of the British Railways board, who, accompanied by the chief medical officer, Dr. J. Gellatly, came to see me at the House of Commons yesterday to explain British Rail's position on the matter beyond what Colonel McNaughton had said at the meeting of 6th March.
I come to the conclusion that British Rail should not be blamed in any way for having put asbestos into its carriages and locomotives, as it did from about the Second World War up to about 1967 or 1968. British Rail could not then have known the dangers of the substance. No one knew at the time. It should also be said that British Rail has an extremely high reputation in safety matters generally. Its accident record is extremely low. British Rail provides one of the safest ways to travel in the world. I am sure that it would be the wish of the board and of the employees and managerial staff throughout British Rail to do their best to ensure that everything they do is conducive to health and safety.
I also accept that British Rail is absolutely right to remove asbestos from 6,000 of its carriages, comprising about 40 per cent. of its total stock, and from 800 locomotives for the sake of the health not only of its work force but of passengers.
Clearly, one cannot simply throw away 6,000 railway carriages and 800 locomotives. The replacement costs would be colossal. I understand that a new carriage for an inter-city train now costs about £85,000 and for a suburban train about £50,000, whereas the cost of removing the asbestos is £30 million to £40 million in a planned rolling programme over four years, the cost of doing it in the case of each carriage being on average about £3,000 to £4,000.
Even if British Rail were to throw away 6,000 carriages, the asbestos could not just be left in them but would have to be removed somewhere, some time. Furthermore, British Rail is taking delivery of some 350 new carriages a year, and if 6,000 carriages were suddenly re
1792
moved fom service it would have to take between one-quarter and one-third of its trains off, so the transport system would break down. Thus, British Rail must be right to remove the asbestos from carriages and locomotives in a rolling programme. My quarrel with British Rail is that it is doing it in a residential area in my constituency and in 25 other places in the country, including a number of urban areas where people live and go to school, instead of doing it somewhere out in the country.
Of course, there are many dangerous things in every-day use—electricity, gas, cars, aircraft, petrol, drugs, from aspirin upwards, cigarettes, all sorts of chemicals used in the production of plastics, explosives, sulphuric acid, and so on. All these things are dangerous, and it is not necessarily wrong to produce dangerous things. But their use and transportation have to be controlled, or should be controlled.
It might interest the House to know that, in the last war, gas masks, which were issued to everyone, contained asbestos, and although the Germans never attacked us with gas, so the masks were not needed, everyone had to try them out and practise wearing them, except for babies, who had a different type of mask. So everyone in this country over the age of 38 or 39 who was living here during the last war has definitely inhaled asbestos; and, of course, it is used for all sorts of other things—in cars, in pipes, in lagging, and so on, although for some of these purposes white asbestos, which is not so dangerous, is used rather than blue.
Blue asbestos is in one sense different from the other things I have mentioned. It is a relatively new kind of substance named as potentially dangerous. I believe that there is an area of doubt about blue asbestos in that probably the doctors do not yet know all that there is to be known about it. But they seem to agree that the symptoms can take a long time—very many years—to appear.
Therefore, I want to put to the Minister five points arising from Dr. Black's report. He received notice of some of them at his meeting with me and from what I asked British Rail to pass on to him, but some of them he will not have had notice of.

1793
The first point relates to the regulations. I have here a copy of the regulations of the Health and Safety Executive, called "Asbestos: Health Precautions in Industry". The regulations relate only to what goes on in industry. In the sheds at Strawberry Hill the workers wear special clothing and breathing equipment. The unions have, rightly, been consulted. They have naturally been concerned to ensure that the workers engaged in the operation are completely safe, which presumably they are to the satisfaction of the Minister, British Rail and the unions. But the regulations do not apply to the surrounding environment.
I think that there is a gap here. We have no regulations relating to the quantity and size of the particles of blue asbestos that can be put into the surrounding atmosphere. This is not the fault of British Rail, which is not only complying, as far as we know, with the regulations but has a safety margin beyond what is required under the regulations. I should like the Minister's comments on this point, and I ask him whether he agrees with me that we should have some regulations relating to the surrounding environment.
Secondly, there appears to be no available data on the testing of the filters used. The holes of the filters are said to be 0·8 a micron—that is, 0·8 of one-millionth of a metre. I am told that the medically significant size of the fibres which doctors are concerned about is·25 of a micron. It would therefore appear that although the holes are tiny they are big enough for particles which may be medically significant to get through.
Is the Minister's information from the doctors that below a certain size there is no danger on the grounds that the particles would not stick in the lung but would be blown out? Is there any risk that extremely small particles, which may be almost impossible to detect, may be dangerous? Can we be certain that no harm can come from extremely minute particles of asbestos below the regulation size?
I should like to refer to the report of the Health and Safety Executive. It has issued an interim report; its final report has not yet come out. The executive has
1794
been at it for about two years. Will the Minister take some action to speed up the work which the executive is doing? How soon can we expect to get its report? Will he put the heat on the Health and Safety Executive? I cannot reasonably expect my constituents to believe other than what they have read in Dr. Black's report that there may be some risk while the Health and Safety Executive takes two years to pronounce on the matter.
There seems to be an element of uncertainty in this regard. The diseases which it is now known blue asbestos might cause are, mesothelioma, a form of cancer in the lining of the lung, and asbestosis which is related to silicosis. The second is less grave than the first, but it can be a very serious bronchial disease.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that it is highly probable that there is no risk. Unless he can say that he is absolutely certain—or at least certain beyond all reasonable doubt—that there is no risk to people in the surrounding area, and can prove it by measurements, I believe that this process should be stopped forthwith and moved out of Strawberry Hill and other built-up areas into the country where it can do no damage.
2.3 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: I am indebted to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for allowing me to intervene in this Adjournment debate, which relates to an important national issue. At the outset I should make clear that my interest in this matter stems from the fact that about 70 of my constituents have died from asbestosis and that 200 to 300 are currently suffering from the disease. They were not involved in stripping asbestos from railway stock. They were employed at Acre Mill at Hebden Bridge which manufactured many things, including gas masks, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I understand that British Rail's programme to remove asbestos from locomotives, guard vans and rolling stock was instituted in 1974 and is said to cost about £30 million, both in installing special asbestos sheds in which the stripping is done and in replacing it with glass fibre and aluminimum. I am told that this work is going on in a number of

1795
workshops. My own list includes Doncaster, York, Glasgow, Wolverton, Eastleigh, Derby, Crewe and Swindon.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman about the dangers of asbestos. But I would dissent somewhat from what he said about the knowledge of the dangers of asbestos. The first report highlighting the health risks of asbestos was published in 1906. That was followed by another report about the health risks experienced by workers during the war. Asbestos regulations were published in 1931 and 1969. Therefore, I and many others would argue that the risks associated with asbestos have been known for a very long time. We do not agree that the dangers have become apparent only in recent years.
While the dangers associated with asbestos have been known for a very long time, there is growing medical concern about the possible health risks associated with fibre glass, particularly risks associated with the size of fibre, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I agree with him completely that, according to medical opinion, the most dangerous asbestos fibres are the smallest fibres. It also follows that there is concern about glass fibre because these particles are extremely small and are thought possibly to give rise to some of the same dangers that we have seen from asbestos.
In his reply, will my hon. Friend state the cost associated with the British Rail programme? As I understand it, the rolling stock is stripped into skeleton form and extensive work is then done on the carriages. I would appreciate full financial information as to the costs involved. The work itself is extremely dangerous and arduous. We must clearly be concerned about the protection given to workers who are involved in this stripping work. I am also concerned about the position of British Rail staff who were involved in the workshops when the asbestos was originally placed in the rolling stock, locomotives and guard vans.
I would appreciate information from the Minister—if not in his reply, perhaps later in a letter—as to the total number of British Rail staff, past and present, who have contracted asbestosis; the number who have been awarded compensation by British Rail by way of damages and awards and the number who have been awarded industrial disability benefit.
1796
I have been assured that the actual conditions within the special asbestos sheds meet all the regulations. I understand that the air in those sheds is changed three times before the doors are opened. But I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that appropriate monitoring is done on dust samples at the time when the doors are opened. I should also like to know what monitoring is done in the general workshops compared with the special asbestos sheds, because I am advised that workers can be brought into contact with rolling stock and locomotives containing asbestos which are then subsequently transferred to the special asbestos sheds. I would appreciate any information which my hon. Friend can give as to the method of dust count which is carried out and also whether dust monitoring is performed on the ventilators. What about the effectiveness of dust monitoring in the asbestos sheds themselves?
In addition, I and a number of other people are extremely concerned about the waste aspects of asbestos. I should like to know what controls exist with regard to the dumping of asbestos waste. Clearly, there is considerable asbestos waste coming from the sheds which have been built to undertake this special programme.
I should like to know what action is being taken to ensure that old asbestos dumps are completely safe. I have received disturbing reports about the extremely unsafe conditions in some old dumps close to railway workshops. It is very important that the appropriate action is taken to ensure that these are completely safe and do not endanger workers or nearby residents.
We are also faced, not for the first time, with departmental difficulties. The responsibilities for asbestos are divided between the Departments of Transport. Employment and the Environment and the DHSS.
As far as the environmental dangers are concerned, the time is long overdue for a special Government unit to be established to co-ordinate action and ensure that these dangers are reduced sharply. At present there is a vacuum and one can encounter enormous difficulties with Departments which are responsible for certain aspects of the

1797
problem but which do not have a global view. I have been interested in this matter for four years, and I have suffered my fair share of Whitehall ping-pong.
I understand that within the last few days two new advisory committees have been appointed to advise the Health and Safety Commission. One of these committees is concerned with the construction industry and the other with British Rail. I am pleased that these committees have been established, but I am concerned that there is no representation on either of independent consumer interests. The committees are made up entirely of industrial interests—management and trade unions—and it is essential for an independent consumer interest to be represented. This is equally important in the construction committee as in the British Rail committee because there are important aspects of thermal insulation and demolition to consider.
I hope that the Minister will give some of the information that I have requested. However, I do not expect him to carry all these answers around in his head, so that I would be very grateful if he would write to me with the full information that I seek.
2.12 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I can well appreciate that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) should be concerned that residents of areas adjacent to railway maintenance depots where stripping off asbestos takes place should not be exposed to levels of asbestos dust liable to give rise to injury to health. However, I hope that when I have explained the precautions that are being taken he will be able to accept that adequate safeguards have already been provided to protect the inhabitants of Strawberry Hill in his constituency and of other similarly placed residential areas.
I also appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) who, as the House knows, has a long-standing interest in the problems of asbestos following the terrible tragedies that have taken place over the years in his constituency. I am sure that he will accept that these tragedies arose from a period when control of asbestos was almost non-existent. The situation is very different today.
Mr. Madden: I would not agree with that. I came to the conclusion long ago that these tragedies were due to the flagrant disregard of the controls.
Mr. Horam: But the regulations we have now are far more stringent than those that existed in the 1950s when the factory in my hon. Friend's constituency was operating. I accept that there could be disregard of the regulations that exist now. I simply point out that the regulations do exist. Whether they are regarded as adequate is another matter.
My hon. Friend asked a large number of questions and I undertake to write to him at length. He raised the question of the co-ordination of replies in so far as they extend over more than one Department. I understand this point, and the fact that this problem affects both people at work and the environment as a whole means that there is a problem of departmental responsibility. I hope he will forgive me now if I concentrate most of my remarks on the situation in Strawberry Hill.
First of all, I would like to explain why the Strawberry Hill depot and others like them were set up. Prior to 1969, before the dangerous qualities of blue asbestos in particular were fully appreciated, it was in widespread use for thermal and acoustic insulation and it found particular application in the construction of railway rolling stock. In passenger compartments the sprayed asbestos coating is concealed and protected by the interior trim, but in many drivers' cabs and guards' compartments it was merely painted over. This type of finish is prone to damage by scuffing and general abrasion with the result that the asbestos may become exposed and there is a risk of asbestos fibres becoming airborne.
Although extensive monitoring of rolling stock in use showed that levels of asbestos dust were well below the maximum recommended limits the British Railways Board concluded that the most prudent course of action would be to remove it. Thus there would be no question of any risk to its own operating staff or to the general public. It therefore put in hand a comprehensive programme to eliminate blue asbestos insulation from 800 locomotives and 7,000 passenger-carrying vehicles—a major task.
It is apparent that completion of this work will take a number of years, and the

1799
programme involves three separate stages. As an immediate precaution, any exposed insulation is sealed in situ, using a tough emulsion paint. This work is carried out by specially trained staff at regional maintenance depots. At a number of depots, of which Strawberry Hill is one example, the task of stripping asbestos insulation from driving cabs and guards' compartments is being undertaken. At these depots and at the main workshops where asbestos insulation is removed from locomotives and other vehicles during general repairs the work is carried out in specially set up "asbestos houses" of which the segregated portion of the depot at Strawberry Hill is a typical example.
The handling of asbestos, including blue asbestos, is controlled by the Asbestos Regulations 1969. These regulations require the provision of exhaust ventilation arrangements for a building where blue asbestos is being handled to prevent the entry of asbestos dust into the air of any work place. They also require that protective equipment should be provided for persons working where asbestos dust is present.
The regulations are particularly strict over the use of approved respiratory protective equipment and of protective clothing, over its cleaning after being worn, and the training of staff in its correct use. Other sections of the regulations lay down the procedures to be adopted for storage of the blue asbestos and its movement from a factory or similar work place.
Guidance notes from the Health and Safety Executive, issued in December 1976, supplement the asbestos regulations. They recommend that exposure to all forms of asbestos dust should be reduced to the minimum that is reasonably practicable, and in any case, occupational exposure to blue asbestos dust should never exceed 0·2 fibres per millilitre when measured over a 10 minute period. A fibre is defined as a particle of length greater than 5 micrometres, a diameter of less than 3 micrometres and having a length-to-breadth ratio of at least 3 to 1.
The precautions called for by the regulations have been achieved at Strawberry Hill and in all other workshops and maintenance depots on British Railways handling blue asbestos. In areas where personal protective equipment is not worn
1800
a ceiling figure of 0·05 fibres per millilitre is used as a basis for control. This is four times more stringent than the figure called for in the regulations and 40 times more stringent than for other forms of asbestos.
Mr. Jessel: Will the Minister say why, if the recommended level is 0·25 of a micron, the filters used have holes in them of 0·8 of a micron, which could let pieces measuring 0·25 go through?
Mr. Horam: I hope to deal with that point later.
Regular monitoring of the levels of asbestos dust within the "asbestos house" in all the ancillary buildings used by the staff for decontamination, changing, resting and feeding and the atmosphere at the exit from the main exhaust ventilation system is carried out. The regulations and guidance notes lay down no specific limits regarding the amount or sizes of fibres exhausted into the atmosphere in the neighbourhood of the works—the hon. Gentleman is right on that point—but Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a duty on employers to protect members of the public from risks to their health or safety from work activities so far as reasonably practicable. The point is covered not in the regulations but in the Act.
The responsibility for the content of the asbestos regulations rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as advised by the Health and Safety Commission, but the enforcement of the asbestos regulations at Strawberry Hill and other railway maintenance depots is carried out by the railway inspectorate of the Department of Transport under an agency agreement between the Health and Safety Commission and the Department. This empowers the railway inspectorate to enforce the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act on the railways, including maintenance depots. The railway inspectorate has worked closely with the scientific services department of British Railways since the decision was taken to handle blue asbestos at Strawberry Hill. In addition to checking the regular monitoring of the levels of asbestos dust by the scientific services and inspecting the premises, it has arranged an independent check of these levels, which have been carried out under the supervision of the occupational hygiene section of the factory inspectorate.

1801
The sampling of the air within the asbestos shed at Strawberry Hill and the rooms used by the staff involved in this work has been carried out at weekly intervals. Except in the immediate vicinity of the stripping work the dust concentrations have been well below the levels specified in the hygiene standard. Moreover, all personnel in the asbestos shed wear approved personal protective equipment. Dust respirators used for asbestos must be approved by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories. In order to gain this approval they need to meet a specification based on British Standard 440.
This involves testing the filters against a very fine aerosol of sodium chloride particles which certainly includes a significant proportion of particles below 0·5 micrometres about which the report raised doubts. It is believed to be a very searching test of filter penetration performance.
Effective monitoring of the level of asbestos dust outside the "asbestos house" is difficult because the concentration of dust is extremely low and very large volume samples are required to obtain meaningful results. The air from the exhaust filters at Strawberry Hill has been monitored regularly by British Rail since work first started. On only one occasion, on 23rd February this year, when an air sample of 550 litres was taken, was a measurable concentration of fibres recorded, and this was less than 0·001 fibres per millilitre using the optical method. This is at least 200 times lower than that specified for the occupational hygiene standard and just about at the limit of detection of this method. Different methods which are still in the course of development are needed to measure still lower concentrations. These figures do confirm, however, that the control on emissions to the open air is satisfactory.
The Strawberry Hill residents' association's case, based on the report prepared by Dr. Black, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, rests on two propositions. This relates to the third and second question asked by the hon. Gentleman.
The first proposition is that the most recent experimental evidence indicates that blue asbestos fibres of less than half a micrometre in diameter and exceeding
1802
10 micrometers in length are most likely to cause mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the chest lining. The second proposition is that the exhaust filtration system at the Strawberry Hill depot fails to remove these fibres and that therefore there is a consequent hazard to local residents. This is the central point with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
I cannot challenge the first proposition, except to say the evidence in respect of it is not yet complete. I am referring to the medical evidence on blue asbestos and mesothelioma. In other words, I do not challenge the proposition.
With regard to the second proposition, however, which is crucial to the residents' association's case, Dr. Black's report is less than adequate. He did not succeed in obtaining any information on the efficiency of the exhaust filters and assumed that they were ineffective against small particles. But before the air is discharged to the atmosphere at Strawberry Hill, it is passed through a primary and a secondary absolute filter. Those filters, in the same way as the respirator filters, are submitted to a sodium chloride penetration test, and the particle size ranges from 0·01 to 2 micrometers in diameter.
Moreover, fibres smaller than can be detected optically can be examined by an electron microscope. This procedure has been carried out by British Rail on a number of environmental samples and in no case were any of these very fine fibres detected. This is the central point about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned and which we discussed when we met. I repeat that none of these fine fibres has been detected by electron microscopy used at Strawberry Hill. This is a complex scientific operation, but the Health and Safety Executive's investigations confirm that these filters are operating, even against the fine fibres that concern the hon. Gentleman.
We must be concerned about the possibility of risk and we need to know all we can about the health risks of asbestos. This is one reason why the advisory committee on asbestos, under the personal chairmanship of Mr. Bill Simpson, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, was set up. The House will be aware from the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby on 6th March that the committee's first and second reports dealing with insulation

1803
work and the measurement and monitoring of asbestos in air will shortly be published. I undertake to ensure that those reports are made available as soon as possible.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reports will be carefuly studied, and if any further action needs to be taken in the light of its recommendations, this will be done. In the meantime, however, I consider that the expression of opinion in Dr. Black's report—namely, of grave concern about the health risks to workers and residents in Strawberry Hill—is not justified by the facts. This does not mean that I am complacent, and I give an assurance that the railway inspectorate will continue to exercise the necessary vigilance to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to control the health risks from asbestos at this and other similar depots throughout the country.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, Strawberry Hill is not the only depot at which this kind of work is taking place. It occurs at other depots. I wish to give the same assurances to those in other areas where this work is taking place as I do to those who live in Strawberry Hill. I repeat the central point that the grave concern which Dr. Black expressed about the health risk to workers and residents is not justified by the facts. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by these detailed points, particularly about the efforts to track the fine particles of blue asbestos about which he is concerned. We believe that every effort is being made on those lines.

HELICOPTER SERVICE (HEATHROW-GATWICK)
Mr. Speaker: I allocated half an hour for the debate to he initiated by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather). I earnestly hope that he will keep to the half hour.
2.25 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather: The subject I wish to raise is in the nature of a cautionary tale—or how not to inaugurate a new air route.
The route concerned is the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link which is, we are told, a temporary measure until such
1804
time as the M25 road link is completed. The route crosses my constituency and also the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). It crosses my constituency at points in Esher and Oxshott.
Public reaction to this proposal has been strong, but public relations by the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority have, in my estimation, been weak. It is also an example of the extreme sensitivity of people to any increase in aircraft noise, and this factor must be taken increasingly into consideration. The Minister will realise that there is an anomaly here. We read in the newspapers that people can still legally object to the noise emitted by animals such as geese, ducks and peacocks, yet have no statutory right to object to the noise from non-feathered flying objects.
The week before last, a series of tests were conducted along the route with a Sikorski SN60 helicopter and the results were not so intrusive as expected by many. But a great deal of hostility could have been avoided if the tests had been carried out before the objection period closed on 21st February.
The local newspaper, the Esher News and Mail, to which credit is due, took the initiative and carried out a survey immediately after the tests. The Minister may be interested in the results and the answers given by people interviewed in the sample. The first question asked by the paper was how had readers found the noise level. A total of 3·7 per cent. said that it was insignificant, 27·9 per cent. found it intolerable, 59·6 per cent. said that it was sufficient to divert from the task in hand, and 2·2 per cent. found the noise deafening.
The next question was:
"How did the helicopter noise compare with fixed wing aircraft noise?"
A total of 17·6 per cent. of those interviewed found it less noisy, 58·1 per cent. thought that it was the same, and 19·9 per cent. said that it was worse.
The next question was:
"How would you react if there were to be an 'unrestricted' number of flights each day?".
A total of 5·9 per cent. of the sample said that they would be untroubled, 59·6 per cent. said that they would be

1805
annoyed, and 28·7 per cent. said that they would be angry.
The last question was:
"Was the helicopter nose sufficient to disturb a good night's sleep?".
The answers were "Yes"— 72·8 per cent. —and "No"—19·9 per cent. This indicates that, although the noise levels were not as high as people expected, the new service will cause considerable concern and trouble to local residents.
The counts that we took during the tests were between 74 and 80 DBA, but this takes no account of the frequency factor, the fact that it was a weekday with a high ambient background noise level and a high wind that snatched away some of the noise. It was also winter so that few people had their windows open and no one was out trying to enjoy his garden.
Our main complaint is an environmental one, but no complaints on environmental grounds are admitted in the licensing inquiry conducted by the Civil Aviation Authority. The authority has the discretion, but is exercising it only to the extent of allowing one representative to speak on behalf of all the local councils—and there is a number involved—plus one for all the residents' associations and amenity groups involved. This means that the following groups will be unheard at the inquiry: the Oxshott residents, the Esher residents' association, the Black-hill residents' association and the Albany Close residents' association. They are all in my constituency, and I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) to point out that the Lower Sunbury residents' association will not be heard and nor will the St. Anne's first school PTA.
All those groups have major complaints, but will be allowed only one representative, who will also have to represent the Local Authority Aircraft Noise Council, which is a national body, and the Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups, which covers a wider area.
Mr. William Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the groups that he has mentioned—and I have similar groups in my constituency—are already irritated, annoyed and frustrated by living near Gatwick or
1806
Heathrow and that the sort of development to which he has referred will add to their frustration and annoyance and to the disturbance of their lives?
Mr. Mather: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have in common the fact that at licensing inquiries we cannot object on environmental grounds except on the discretion of the CAA which is using it on this occasion to limit representation of all these groups to one person. Indeed, we would not have had an inquiry but for an objection lodged by the London Country Bus Services Ltd. If the complaints had been solely on environmental grounds, there would have been no inquiry.
I have a number of questions for the Minister in connection with the licensing procedure. Will the licence prescribe the type of helicopter to be used on the route? Will the Sikorski, a twin-rotor helicopter of 21,000 lbs. all-up weight, which carries about 20 people, be the only helicopter operating on this route? What about the purchase by the British Airports Authority of the Boeing Chinook? This is a totally different machine. It can carry 90 persons and has an all-up weight of 51,000 lbs. If this helicopter is allowed to operate along the route it will be a totally different type of operation.
Will the licence limit the frequency of flights? Will they be limited to daylight hours, as envisaged by the BAA? Will the licence be for a one year experimental period, as the BAA suggests and as the Minister has laid down?
If the answer to the last question is "No", the matter will be left to the BAA and we have only its word to go on. We know from our experience in recent weeks that that word has changed in relation to the conditions of the operation. If this is to be the situation, the inquiry is valueless and I must advise those who are raising objections to continue to object to the granting of the licence.
The Civil Aviation Authority has a duty to promote and control civil aviation. Environmental questions are not part of its remit and it is not interested in the fortunes of bus companies or whether new air services will have an adverse commercial effect on them. It seems that the CAA will be judge and jury in its own court and this is grossly unfair.

1807
I am raising many important matters and the Minister seems to be in consultation with his officials. I must ask him to pay attention to the points I am raising.
There as also been a change in the conditions laid down by the British Airports Authority during the period of the objections. We were told in handouts from the BAA that it was to be a one-year application. The application now being made is for two years. We were told that the application was for limited frequency flights—two flights per hour—but it is now for unlimited flights. We were told that it was to be for daylight hours only. The unlimited aspect also affects the time of flights, and there may be night flights. We were told that it was to be passengers only, and now we are told that the application is for passengers and freight. During the period of objections, which expired on 21st February, the objectors were not informed of the changes, We have discovered them only by chance.
I have received a letter from the BAA—the Minister has a copy—of 16th March. The letter does little to reassure me. On Wednesday of last week, the day before the test flights took place, we were informed that the route had changed from the H9. The route is to be a modified H9 containing a dog leg. The route was different from that to which there were objections. Others who would have wished to object were left out. I submit that the objections were made on an entirely false premise. The objectors were conned.
The whole question of the validity of the inquiry and the objection process is in issue. The rules are evidently changed in the middle of the game. I submit that for that reason the inquiry is invalid and that it should be postponed until it is properly considered.
I bring a rather more serious matter to the Minister's attention. A constituent of mine, Mr. H. H. B. Capes, wrote a letter to The Times that was published on the Thursday of the week before last, in which he objected on environmental grounds to the inauguration of the route. My constituent holds an important post in a firm that supplies goods to British Airways. The managing director of British Airways Helicopters Ltd. telephoned my constituent's firm, spoke to someone at a high level and asked
1808
whether pressure could be put on Mr. Capes to desist in his objections. That is most improper conduct on the part of British Airways and raises fresh misgivings on the handling of the whole operation. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
In the early stages, it appears that there was a complete lack of research to ascertain whether the right sort of link was being proposed. As far as we know, there were no alternative route surveys to decide whether the H9 was or was not the right route. An alternative has been put to me by some of my constituents. They claim that the route of the M25 motorway, which is presently being built, would have been the right route to follow. That area is already blighted. No alternative road surveys were made and there was no traffic count. In answer to a Question tabled by myself, it was said that no traffic counts or road surveys had taken place.
There was no investigation into alternative aircraft that could be used. I have an interesting letter from Shorts, the aircraft manufacturers, from which I shall quote. It reads:
"We at Shorts believe that the use of helicopters on this service is wrong and that apart from the operational and economic disadvantages associated with large rotary-wing aircraft, insufficient attention has been paid to the question of noise irritation to residents living in the vicinity of the proposed 'helicopter corridor'. We have made strenuous efforts to provide the British Airports Authority with a suitable alternative by offering to lease them some of our Shorts 330 commuter airliners in order to carry out a trial evaluation of them but the helicopter lobby has proved too strong. It is, however, perhaps worth saying that quite apart from the other highly advantageous characteristics which the 330 has, above all it is extremely quiet and in our view this feature is of vital importance when considering the type of equipment to be used on this shuttle service."
I ask the Minister to let me know whether any investigations have been made into that sort of alternative.
This has been a sorry story. It is an object lesson in how not to inaugurate an air route. The Minister will know that those of us who deplored the cancellation of Maplin warned against the consequences of piling more and more traffic into Heathrow and Gatwick and the effect upon the people on the ground that that might have. We are now seeing our warnings coming home to roost. In this instance the effect on the environment

1809
has been ignored. However, I know that the Minister lends a sympathetic ear to our complaints about aircraft noise, and I hope that he will give this issue close attention.
We are allowed no objections on environmental grounds to the original H9 helicopter route. As the Minister will remember, there was the technical matter of the exact line of the route, and no environmental objections are being allowed. I submit that that is wrong. Attitudes must be changed, and if necessary the law must be changed. The damage is confined not only to the environment but to civil aviation, which is so important to Britain, and its public image.
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) was not in the Chamber when I said that the debate would finish at 3 o'clock. However, I have seen all the motioning. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief.
2.37 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker for calling me. I shall take only a minute from the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather).
The Minister will know that my constituency is over-flown by the proposed route. I emphasise the degree of suspicion that exists locally, which must be seen in the context of people's lack of civil rights in such areas. The Minister and I recall from our debates during the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill that people are suspicious about the ultimate intention of the applicant in this instance, along with the CAA and BAA. They are suspicious about when temporary routes will cease to be temporary and how long the activity in question will continue even when the M25 is opened.
2.38 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is primarily concerned with the environmental effects of the proposed helicopter service between Heathrow and Gatwick airports, and with the procedure for the hearing of objections. I do not quarrel with him in
1810
any way for the careful way in which he has put the matter. The hon. Gentleman has constituency interests.
Esher is on the proposed flight path. However, there are many wider considerations to which he devoted only a few words at the end of his speech. Those considerations have to be taken into account—notably, the need to build up air traffic at Gatwick so as to relieve the pressure at Heathrow. As that important and extremely relevant issue has barely been mentioned so far, I shall outline the Government's policy on London airports before I deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member.
The Government's airport policy is set out in the White Paper that was published on 1st February. It is our belief that the growth in demand for air services in the London area during the 1980s may be met by developments at the existing London airports. There is not time to debate whether we should or should not have proceeded with Maplin. I believe it to have been the whitest of white elephants. The project was abandoned. Our proposals are clearly set out in the White Paper. I do not have time to refer to them now.
The developments would all be subject to the appropriate planning procedures. They would provide a global capacity of 72 million passengers per year. In our judgment, that should be sufficient to cater for the growth in demand up to 1990.
We have adopted a sensible step-by-step approach which aims to provide adequate capacity within the London multi-airport system when it is needed. But there is one essential proviso, which is that we must be able to make full and efficient use of the available airport resources. This requires a redistribution of the load, which until now has rested so heavily and, if I may say so, somewhat inequitably on the people who live near Heathrow.
Therefore, we have stated clearly in the White Paper that in future Luton and Stansted should concentrate on short and long-haul charter services respectively, and that Heathrow and Gatwick should be the two major international airports for scheduled traffic in the London area. This is a relatively new role for Gatwick and positive steps were required to establish its reputation. For

1811
this reason my right hon. Friend announced on 5th. April last year that the Government had decided to transfer some air traffic from Heathrow to Gatwick and to ban all whole-plane charters from Heathrow so as to relieve the congestion at that airport. Some progress has been made in that direction, and some new services—Delta, Braniff, British Caledonian/Houston—are being established at Gatwick.
However, I shall not hide the fact that, while such decisions may be relatively easy to take, they are much more difficult to implement because of the resistance of airlines, which have perhaps been based on Heathrow for many years, and sometimes of their Governments, to any change in the status quo, but the fact is that Heathrow airport, without a fourth terminal—and that is subject to a planning inquiry—is nearing saturation. On the other hand, Gatwick has extensive new facilities and a capacity of 16 million passengers a year compared with a throughput of only 6·6 million passengers in 1977. Gatwick is clearly under-used, and the BAA is determined to achieve a better balance of scheduled traffic with Heathrow, and, in my judgment, rightly so.
The first essential is to continue to build up the range of services to popular destinations. There must eventually be an array of services and connecting flights, comparable with that at Heathrow, if travellers are to be attracted to Gatwick. It is also essential, in the meantime as well as in the future, to provide fast and reliable connections between the two airports, since it would be unrealistic to expect the services at Gatwick to duplicate exactly those of Heathrow.
The M25, a section of which will provide a link between the two airports, is in the process of construction. When it is completed it will be possible, I hope, to travel from Heathrow to Gatwick, or vice versa, very rapidly indeed, but at present it takes 75 minutes by public transport. We are dealing with a current problem. It is evident that such a situation cannot help the development of Gatwick, and it is for this reason that the BAA has proposed a helicopter link, to cater primarily for passengers who are in a hurry and need to catch connecting flights. This is not a novel idea. New York's three airports, Kennedy, La
1812
Guardia and Newark, are linked by a helicopter service as well as by inter-airport buses.
Having said that as a backcloth to the case, I should like now to deal with the matters that most concern the hon. Gentleman. These are the licence application and procedure, and the environmental implications of the proposed helicopter service. The House will understand that I am not able to comment in detail on the application now before the Civil Aviation Authority, or on the objections to it, because there is always the possibility when matters are before the CAA, that there will be an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade against the authority's decision, and we must not prejudge that situation in any way. We should be open to great criticism if we were to do so.
However, perhaps I might make some general comments on the procedures. The Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1972 lay down detailed provisions for air transport licence applications, objections and representations upon them, for hearings, for appeals, and so on. They provide, among other things, that the authority is obliged to hear only certain persons but may, if it thinks fit, hear others. These were not my regulations, but regulations laid down by the Conservative Government. In this case it has chosen to hear a number of bodies, which may be expected to express views representative of many other objections.
In deciding a licence application the CAA must have regard to its duties under the Civil Aviation Act 1971, the regulations, and those parts of the policy guidance which apply. In view of the representations made to it, I feel sure that the authority will be well aware that the guidance includes a requirement to consider environmental issues. But the authority must also have regard to a wide range of other considerations, including the Government's policy of encouraging the development of Gatwick, all of which must be given due weight.
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman—he made a specific point about this—that if there were no time limit, and if there were no restrictions on the right to be heard, it would not be possible to have a viable licensing system. The CAA could not operate with the necessary speed and effectiveness. As in many

1813
walks of life, a compromise has to be made between perfect justice and administrative practicability, and it is because the authority is mindful of its responsibilities that it has made this perfectly justifiable concession which the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, although his welcome is more qualified than is mine.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the authority has decided to hear a representative group of noise objectors, who will be able to put points raised by objectors who are not being heard. In this case the authority received no fewer than 60 separate objections on noise grounds. I am sure it will be seen that the practical problems of giving all objectors the right to be heard are very great indeed.
As regards the environmental implications, I cannot comment on the substance of the objections that have been made. I shall confine my remarks to the Government's policy on helicopter routes generally and the factual background to the helicopter link proposal. The Government do not prescribe helicopter routes on environmental grounds. The only part of the country where helicopter routes are laid down is the London control zone, where they are established by the CAA, for two reasons: first, to avoid conflict with fixed-wing aircraft in this very congested air space, and, secondly, to ensure that over the large London conurbation helicopters are flown so that in the event of engine failure they can land on an open space. Within those constraints the CAA takes account of its policy guidance and tries to ensure that the routes are designed to cause as little environmental disturbance as possible. But safety must come first, and the routes are laid down for reasons of safety.
Having said that, I do not wish to give the impression that helicopter noise is of no concern. Although there are particular difficulties in defining standards for helicopters—which I shall not rehearse now—experts are working on these problems, domestically and internationally, and helicopters are now one of the major areas of our noise certification work.
Turning now to the BAA's proposals for the helicopter link, I understand the concern that BAA's decision to alter its
1814
proposed line of flight between the boundaries of the London and Gatwick control zones has caused, but I assure the House that there was no sinister intention behind this late alteration in the proposed route for the service. BAA, the helicopter operators and the CAA National Air Traffic Services had been discussing for several months the provision of procedures for the helicopter which would ensure that there was no possibility of conflict with commercial traffic within existing controlled air space, allow the helicopter to operate between the two control zones on a reasonably direct route, and allow it to operate between the control zones at a height which was likely to be above the majority of general aviation traffic in the area, thus enhancing the safety of the service.
There were a number of difficulties which had to be overcome in these discussions, including the need to find a solution which did not worsen the environmental impact either of the helicopter service or of the general aviation traffic which uses the area between the control zones. When agreement was eventually reached it was announced immediately by BAA and NATS, and the helicopter's proving flights took place over the revised route.
On the question of frequency of service, although the licence is for an unrestricted frequency, this is normal in licence applications, and the BAA has assured the Government and those who have written to it on the subject that it does not intend to operate any flights between 21.15 and 06.30, that it plans to have 10 flights a day, and that the service has been approved by the BAA board for an initial period of one year, at the end of which it will be reviewed. These are matters that could be covered in an appeal. I say that because I have only a short period in which to reply to the debate.
The CAA is able to impose such conditions as it thinks fit in terms of the licences. I understand that this is a matter for the authority, and therefore I cannot comment on it. Questions of the type of helicopter and of unrestricted frequencies are all matters that are germane to the application now before the Civil Aviation Authority. The BAA considered using a fixed-wing aircraft but

1815
concluded that it would not be appropriate for this service. I hope that the BAA's undertaking about daylight flights will be regarded as sufficient.
I hope that I have answered the points specifically made by the hon. Member, but if I see that due to the constraints of time I have not done so I will write to him within the next few days.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) to open the next debate, I should advise the House that I have allocated half an hour for it and I shall be grateful if hon. Members will keep to the time.

WALSALL
3.0 p.m.
Mr. Bruce George: I seek to achieve two objectives with this debate. First, I want to convince the Department of the Environment that in view of Walsall's urban problems it should be included in the list of authorities scheduled to receive additional powers to assist industry under the Inner Urban Areas Bill. Secondly, I seek to improve co-ordinaion between Government Departments, particularly the Department of the Environment, and the metropolitan district of Walsall, especially with a view to attracting to the local authority a larger share of the money that may be available.
The Department of the Environment will have its own sources of information. I have raised in previous Adjournment debates the problems of Walsall's housing, hospitals and industry. The Minister will have studied the lengthy report that I submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I wish to comment on the dossier provided by the Walsall Observer, which has mounted a vigorous campaign over the last six weeks, with my unequivocal support, to identify some of the deep-seated problems of Walsall and propose potential solutions. The articles in the newspapers, the photographs supplied and the readers' letters articulate the problem more forcefully and dramatically than tens of thousands of words from me or other local politicians.
The prosperity that Walsall enjoyed in the past has ebbed away. Two centuries ago Birmingham was described as
1816
a "little hamlet near Walsall", but the roles have been reversed with a vengeance. The decline of Walsall as an industrial town and the manifestations of that decline are apparent to the casual visitor and to the researcher, and certainly to me as one of its elected representatives.
My analysis in a previous Adjournment debate two years ago on industry in the West Midlands, and Walsall in particular, is even more pertinent today. Our problems are not identical with traditional inner cities, but to treat our problems as significantly different or to prescribe alternative solutions would be a mistake. Walsall exhibits many of the classic inner city problems, though these are compounded by factors unique to the Black Country and to the West Midlands.
To visit some of the factories in my constituency is like going into a museum of industrial archaeology. The problems of the decaying capital stock have been exacerbated by the low level of reinvestment. The over-concentration on automotive-related industries and metal manufacturing leaves us very vulnerable. Our traditional industries barely survive, and the fact that unemployment levels are not as high as for the whole region masks the seriousness of the economic deterioration. We have been singularly unsuccessful in attracting modern growth industries to Walsall.
A cursory glance at the photographs I have sent to the Minister—all taken within half a mile of the town centre—would detect the most telling evidence of the state of physical decay. If I had included pictures of Darlaston, Caldmore, Palfrey, Pleck, Willenhall, and other such surrounding areas the overall impression could have been even more devastating. The dereliction of buildings and car parks in open spaces giving a passable imitation of bomb sites show that not only must the town centre be revivified but the districts surrounding it, such as Darlaston, must have their economies, environment and housing significantly improved.
The housing problem in Walsall is very serious. Unless we can adopt a more effective housing policy, the Walsall housing department might become, 10 years from now, one of the biggest slum landlords in the country. The housing programme that has been adopted is inadequate. We are not building enough council houses or doing enough modernisation.

1817
The GIA and HAA programme is derisory, and we are withdrawing support from the housing association movement which has done so much for Walsall in the last couple of years. Far more must be done in improving our council house stock and in modernising the private housing.
We are not fully utilising our precious land resources which ought to be reclaimed for housing and industry but which lie derelict. The Minister told me in a parliamentary answer that 3·7 per cent. of land in Walsall falls into the category of being derelict and that only 11 districts in England and Wales have a higher percentage. With some land there is the danger of subsidence due to limestone caverns. I must point out, too, the problems of environmental pollution. In fairness to the environmental health department I should explain that the levels of pollution have dropped, but according to the Warren Springs report environmental pollution in Walsall is too high. We have no right to expect Walsall to be able to rival Southport or Bournemouth aesthetically or in the purity of the air, but a good environment is conducive to attracting the new plant, investment and expertise necessary to stimulate our economy.
Walsall is an area of multiple deprivation, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins)—told me that there was no single definition of deprivation against which the circumstances of particular areas could be measured. But he said that whatever criteria were adopted, Walsall came out as deprived. These problems of urban deprivation, the problems affecting the elderly, the 15,000 new Commonwealth immigrants, the one parent families, the low-paid and those on social security are particularly acute especially in some of the worst affected older urban areas of Walsall.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments I used last Monday on the problems affecting hospitals in Walsall. I simply stress that those problems are very severe. Even when the new district general hospital is built by the mid-1980s we shall
1818
not have equalised our provision of medical services with that of surrounding areas. We deserve higher provision of medical services than hitherto we have grown to expect.
I have been hammering away tot months about the quality and extent of social service provision in Wallsall. I exempt the local authority officers from any blame, but unless we as a town recognise and act upon the disparity between resources in Walsall and those of surrounding areas, the clientele of the social service departments will suffer even further.
In spite of progress in positive discrimination in education there are still very serious problems—an unsatisfactory pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools, outdated buildings and a very low level—13 per cent.—going on to further or higher education. The national average is 22 per cent. Residents perennially complain about the state of our roads. A West Midlands County Council report over a year ago showed that the roads in Walsall were the worst in the county. Youngsters are always complaining to me about the total lack of entertainment in the town. These are the considerable problems which show how serious Walsall's predicament is.
It would be wrong to paint a picture of unrelieved gloom, because some good things have happened over the last couple of years. But the cumulative effect of neglect and inertia in the last half century is obvious. There are those who deny that the problems exist, or who blinded by political dogma, attribute all the blame to one party or group. There are those—I hope that I do not come into this category—who may suggest a solution. I have no monopoly of expertise, but I think that the town is suffering from self-inflicted wounds and deep inertia, and I want to do something about it.
With the Minister's support I can do something about it. However, the problems are great. The sheer enormity of the problems created by early industrialisation have been too great for the local authority adequately to deal with. There appears to have been a reluctance to raise our own money or, even worse, to

1819
seek money actively from elsewhere. There is definitely a reluctance to spend any money. Indeed, last year I understand that we underspent our housing allocation by £1½ million.
The consequences of this are clear. The appearance of the town and our contemporary predicament are evidence of all this. When money has had to be spent by Walsall, usually the cheapest solution and almost invariably the least satisfactory solution has been chosen.
In Walsall there is a great attachment to local communities and, in some cases, deep resentment that Walsall has annexed other local authorities and communities. Therefore, this is a major factor in the reason why people do not owe to the town the loyalty that is owed to other areas or a very strong sense of community attachment.
A great fault of Walsall has been a historic and contemporary failure to secure a large enough slice of the central Government funds that are available. This is the first year in three that we have applied for urban aid, despite these problems. We have secured under the national average of grants under the job creation programme. We refused to apply to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection in respect of its offer of a 100 per cent. grant for a shoppers' shop. We have withdrawn co-operation with the Housing Corporation, which has done so much. There is money available from many public and private sources that we have not actively sought.
I should like to see an officer appointed by the local authority whose single job it would be to find out what money is available to local government and private organisations and to go out and get it.
The local financial base has been too narrow. In the past, far too little has been generated by rates, and the rates paid by factories in the area have not always been sufficient to compensate for the additional problems that those factories have created. The rate support grant formula has been unfavourable to Walsall, and the commitment to major schemes such as land drainage has preempted locally determined scheme funds to the detriment of such things as attracting industry.
Among the solutions that I am pressing is a high-level committee of local
1820
authority officers and members to coordinate the attack on the urban problems, backed by a well-qualified research team, and co-opting, in addition, expertise from outside the local authority. I want to see better co-operation with neigbouring areas with similar problems. I want to see the industrial and employment objectives in the structure plan acted upon forthwith, particularly the appointment of an industrial development officer to work in conjunction with the Department of Industry, the unions and the very active chamber of commerce to achieve the objective of attracting industry back into our town. I want to see much closer co-operation between the various Government Departments—at central, regional and local level—and Walsall, with the officers, the community, the organised trade unions, the area health authority and the civic societies. We should all see the town's problems as a totality and not simply from our own departmental perspectives.
I ask my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues, in the next month or two, perhaps, to receive a delegation consisting of the three Walsall Members of Parliament, senior chairmen and officers of the local authority and the local leader of the opposition. to discuss ways in which policy co-ordination could be strengthened.
I reiterate the very important point that a component part of Walsall's urban demise is rooted in its decaying economy. The Department of the Environment offered £300,000 under the inner area construction scheme. The local authority acted swiftly and efficiently, and I must report the very great success in which we have allocated that £300,000. If we are capable of using that £300,000 to attract industry, we are capable of using more resources and greater powers.
Walsall has a long and honourable history, stretching back to the Middle Ages. It has so many assets. It has a skilled and experienced work force, good industrial relations and easy access to communications. The period of decline through which we are passing must be reversed. The problems of Walsall will not be solved exclusively in Walsall. The solution depends on improvement in the regional economy, the national economy and, of course, the international economy.

1821
With the powers that I am seeking, we could make considerable strides in regenerating our local economy, which would be to the benefit of the town and its population and to the benefit of the nation as a whole.
3.14 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has this afternoon raised a wide range of important questions affecting Walsall. As the House will know, this is by no means the first time that he has sought to highlight some of these problems, and he has presented his case with his usual care and thoroughness.
My hon. Friend has dealt with the inner city problems of Walsall. The problems facing Walsall, as he, I accept, understands, are not on the same scale or of the same severity as those of the authorities with special partnership and programme status. However, as my hon. Friend has so ably demonstrated this afternoon, that is no reason to dismiss Walsall's problems lightly or to think that they are not in need of special attention. Indeed, the Government have already recognised Walsall's needs, as my hon. Friend mentioned, by allocating it £300,000 under the inner city construction programme.
I understand, as my hon. Friend does, that the authority is spending this money on various industrial projects, which accords with the view set out in the White Paper "Policy for the Inner Cities" that industrial regeneration is fundamental to the long-term success of our inner city policy. Obviously, the injection of such modest sums will not go very far towards tackling their problems.
This programme was intended to provide a stimulus at the start of the new inner city policy, while the enhanced urban programme, the scope of which is to be widened from 1979–80 for non-partnership areas to include industrial, environmental and recreational provision as well as the traditional social projects, will give authorities an opportunity to experiment with new ideas and, in particular, to involve the local community in this work. I am very glad that Walsall
1822
has reversed its policy of recent years by submitting some applications for projects under the 1978–79 urban programme, which are currently under consideration within my Department.
The main thrust of any efforts to tackle inner area problems must, however, be made through the existing programmes of central and local government. Indeed, we have already made it clear that in the allocation of national resources we shall particularly bear in mind the special needs of authorities with inner area problems.
But, as my hon. Friend knows, resources are limited. We cannot give Walsall, or any other authority, all that it would like. Walsall must review its existing programmes, both to see whether they can be deployed more effectively and also to consider the possibility of giving an increased emphasis to tackling inner area problems. Clearly, this afternoon I shall not have time to discuss all the problems to which my hon. Friend made reference in his speech. I should like, however, to take the opportunity to discuss some of those which fall within the direct responsibility of my Department.
We fully recognise Walsall's housing problems. It is contending with a greater housing shortage than most West Midland authorities, and it is faced with temporary land shortages, particularly in the private sector. It also has some very difficult sites. It needs to rehouse families, with children, from tall blocks, and it has a large quantity of unimproved pre-war council property. In addition it has more than 3,500 sub-standard dwellings in the private sector.
We have already shown our concern. We included Walsall in the list of stress areas whose programmes we protected as far as possible against reductions in public expenditure in the course of 1976–77. Walsall's allocation of £18 million for housing investment in the present financial year, 1977–78, was historically a very high figure, which took full account of these problems. It is very disappointing that this allocation will probably be underspent by more than £1½million.
I am afraid that Walsall's bid for 1978–79 gave us concern for a number of reasons. As my hon. Friend knows, the council found it difficult to agree and to submit any proposals at all. I realise that the balance between parties on the council makes it difficult to reach agreement

1823
on a programme. But if housing investment programmes are to work, and if the major devolution of responsibility they imply is to be justified, members of all sides of the council must work together. It is just not good enough to turn in a series of unrelated proposals.
It was clear to us that the various strands of housing policy have neither been thought through as thoroughly as they might have been nor related one to another as well as they might have been. For example, the massive switch of public sector new building into building for sale utilising private funds proposed in the programme was not supported by any evidence about the need to make such a switch, the level of demand for such housing or the likelihood of adequate private funds being available. We welcome a fresh look at the way in which housing demand is to be met, but we expect some evidence of research to support changes in emphasis.
We also have doubts about the council's piecemeal and unco-ordinated approach to the much-needed improvement of large numbers of private houses and are disturbed by its decisions to discontinue environmental improvements in declared general improvement areas and to drop proposals to declare a housing action area.
Nevertheless, despite all these doubts we recognised the problems and gave a high priority to Walsall in the allocations made for 1978–79. In making our allocations we had to consider not only the needs of all authorities but the consistency of their programmes, the will to carry them out and the evidence of past performance.
Over the region as a whole, bids exceeded the finance available by 30 per cent. and it was inevitable that all authorities would receive less than they asked for. Revalued to 1978–79 outturn figures, we estimate Walsall's bid at £18·8 million and our allocation of £17 million amply demonstrated our conviction that the authority has considerable problems to tackle. This represents slightly more than 90 per cent. of the bid—a higher proportion than for almost any other authority in the region.
To this allocation must be added the money underspent in 1977–78 which the authority can carry forward to 1978–79
1824
and the substantial support which the Housing Corporation will continue to make available to housing associations working in Walsall—support which the authority declines to make available, as my hon. Friend noted.
We shall continue to work with Walsall to solve its problems. We hope to persuade the council to tackle with greater vigour the problem of improving its 3,500 sub-standard houses in the private sector, to continue with its solid programme of council house renovation, to think out more clearly the need for new houses in both the private and public sectors and to devise policies to meet these needs.
Housing investment programmes impose a new duty on authorities—to look at the totality of housing problems in their area and to devise integrated policies suitable for all sections. I do not think Walsall has yet come to grips with that new duty, but I anticipate that it will do so and I shall ensure that my Department continues to offer the authority any help it can.
Turning to other problems of land resources and physical development, I should like to say a word first on derelict and waste land. One of the major problems we have to face in our inner areas is the large amount of land lying derelict and disused. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently wrote to the chairmen of nationalised industries and statutory undertakers about their land holdings in inner areas and what could be done to bring disused sites back into use.
This initiative will, we hope, help to focus attention on this crucial problem. But for Walsall industrial dereliction is indeed a major problem. In 1974 Walsall had 396 hectares of derelict land representing 3·7 per cent. of the district's area. This puts it among the dozen or so authorities with the worst derelict land problems in the country. Since then, 18 such schemes have been undertaken, at a cost of £424,500, which have released 86·5 hectares of land for public open space and other uses.
I understand that a further scheme costing £30,000 is currently under consideration. We would expect to be able to authorise any new schemes the council brings forward. But there remains a massive problem to be tackled, and the

1825
situation is not helped by the uncertainty over what might happen to the limestone caverns beneath the city centre.
On the planning side, I hope that some of the uncertainties affecting future development in Walsall will soon be resolved. The Secretary of State hopes to give final approval to Walsall's structure plan by the end of April.
I am also pleased to see that Walsall, along with the West Midlands County Council, is making good progress in the preparation of local plans for the district, and the proposed local plan for the town centre should help to settle some of the problems that are causing such local concern. The West Midlands County Council's further work on structure planning, which is expected to lead to a submission in 1979, should keep up to date the wider planning context within which Walsall operates.
I said earlier that the main thrust of any attack on inner area problems must be through main programmes. Yet one of the key themes of our inner city policy is that work undertaken in different programmes needs to be pulled together into a co-ordinated programme of work so that they reinforce and support each other. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend make that point.
Clearly, such a co-ordinated programme needs to start from a common basis of agreement on what arc the problems facing Walsall. I should have thought that the excellent analysis of these problems of deprivation in Walsall originally carried out by the district's planning department for the county borough structure plan and since developed and used, for example, in selecting areas for assistance under the inner cities construction package, would be an excellent starting point.
However, as always, it is not easy to turn sound analysis into quick and responsive action. Here perhaps my Department's regional office may have a useful role to play, for it is in close touch already with some of these problems and is also building up some general experience of the problems and possibilities of deprived areas throughout the region. It also acts as a focus for co-ordinating the activities, in this respect, of other Departments and agencies, including not only
1826
the social service departments but the Department of Industry and the Manpower Services Commission.
While Walsall has been perhaps less badly hit by the recession than some of its neighbours, there is undoubtedly some concern about its economic future—which is vital to its regeneration. If the council feels that this might be of help, the regional office will willingly respond. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment for me to respond to my hon. Friend's request for a deputation from Walsall to meet me after Easter and to say that I should be delighted to receive one. I hope my hon. Friend will bring with him his fellow members and leading councillors. It will give me an opportunity to explain in greater detail Government policies which are relevant to Walsall. Perhaps more important, it will give the council the chance to set out to me its proposals to tackle the problems.
I look forward to hearing of the initiatives that the council would like to take, and I hope that it will be able to present a framework of problems and policies, within which it can identify particular priorities for action. I am sure that such a meeting will be very useful and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting it.
As my hon. Friend will realise, we are also currently considering which authorities should get the new powers in the Inner Urban Areas Bill currently before the House. I can assure him that we are well aware of the claims of Walsall and that they are being carefully considered. along with those of a number of other districts.
Finally, I should like to pick up another important theme of our inner city policy—that of community involvement. In the White Paper we said that involving local people is both a necessary means to the regeneration of inner areas and an end in its own right. It is important, both to discover the priorities of local people and to help them to help themselves, for when people have a sense of confidence in where they live and work, they find it easier to take a pride in maintaining and improving the area. This in turn can encourage and stimulate local industry and employment, so that they all reinforce one another.

1827
Nor should the contribution of private bodies such as trades councils or chambers of industry arid commerce be overlooked, particularly when it comes to the promotion of work and jobs locally.
There seems to be no lack of local interest in the problems of Walsall. if the recent campaign by the Walsall Observer "Wake up Walsall" is any indication. No doubt the council will not agree with everything said in that campaign, but the important thing is not to concentrate on points of disagreement but to seize the opportunity to encourage people to get involved in thinking about Walsall's problems and to see what measure of agreement can be reached. There is no simple recipe guaranteed to achieve this end and it is again another question that the council may find it helpful to discuss with my Department.
In drawing my remarks to a close, perhaps I might pick out the kernel of my reply this afternoon. It is that, although Walsall's inner area problems are not on the scale or of the severity to warrant it having a special inner city arrangement with government, nevertheless we recognise that Walsall has a range of inner area problems and that the general approach to tackling them is set out in the White Paper.
We would be glad to explore this further with the council and to offer what help we can, and this perhaps might be something we can discuss more fully if my hon. Friend brings the proposed delegation to see me as well as through direct contact with the regional office of my Department.

SHOPLIFTING
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise again the question of shoplifting. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for being here and I look forward to what she has to say.
I had an opportunity as long ago as 13th June 1972 to raise the problem that I should like to discuss now. In a nutshell, my proposition is that the more supermarkets and self-service stores there are, the more shoplifting there will be,
1828
and that the methods employed by the stores provide simultaneously a joy ride for criminals and a snare for the forgetful, the weak and the confused.
There are, we know, rogues aplenty, but I should like in a few minutes of the debate to concentrate on one aspect of the shoplifting question, the role of the stores themselves. I make it clear before I start that I have no wish to condone crime, but there is a case for a rather closer study of this particular crime, a need to highlight its peculiarities, to examine its causes and to consider its remedies.
With this in mind I have joined three local magistrates in and around my constituency to form a study group. The magistrates are extremely concerned with the social effects on many people who find themselves for the first time in their lives on criminal charges. Far too often we find that people of previously impeccable character, with no criminal record, are on a serious charge. Although there are no statistics yet available of how many people on shoplifting charges are for the first time on a serious charge, the Minister will know that I and many people await such a statistic with great interest when, as it is hoped, it is produced by the Home Office.
When we announced the setting up of this study group we had a response from all over the country, not only from individuals who had suffered from the problems of finding themselves on a shoplifting charge, but we had unsolicited letters from many professional people. I shall quote from a letter that I received from the probation and after-care service in Essex. The probation officer, Mr. Lawless, wrote to me in these words:
"I feel rather strongly that people who are not guilty have to go through quite a considerable amount of humiliation to clear their name, and often at the end of it are not able to do that."
The police themselves are only too well aware of both sides of the coin. The assistant chief constable, operations, of the Hampshire Constabulary attended one of our group meetings. He wrote to me afterwards saying
"Can I assure you that I do understand the concern you all feel about some shoplifting charges and the temptations which are created in some shops."

1829
It is the question of the temptations on which I should like to dwell this afternoon. I feel that magistrates are sometimes put in an impossibly difficult position in trying to deduce what was or was not in the mind of the person who comes before their bench for an offence of shoplifting. As one magistrate said to me, they are called upon to play God.
One of the problems is that people who find themselves on these charges are under enormous pressure to plead guilty because pleading not guilty can be expensive and can result in a very lengthy delay. There is also the publicity which inevitably surrounds these charges on which local newspapers up and down the country seem to thrive.
In Lymington the bench now does its best to ascertain what was in the mind of the person on a shoplifting charge. One of the questions which is frequently asked by the magistrates is "Did you intend to steal when you entered the shop?" Remarkably, some people who come before the bench pleading guilty have subsequently been acquitted when the magistrates have fully satisfied themselves on whether or not the person concerned had criminal intent.
I should like to give some statistics drawn from Written Answers from the Home Office. Ninety per cent. of those who come before magistrates' courts plead guilty. Of the 10 per cent. who plead not guilty, 52 per cent. are acquitted. Forty per cent. only of those who come before the Crown courts plead guilty, but the proportion of persons tried for the shoplifting of goods to the value of £5 or less who were acquitted at Crown courts in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 was 44 per cent., 41 per cent. and 43 per cent. respectively.
Those are significant figures, because the charges involving £5 or less form the majority of cases. Moreover, as a percentage of shoplifting offences reported by the police for the three years I have just taken, they accounted for more than 70 per cent. of offences which came before the courts.
During the years 1969–76 inclusive, the latest for which I can get statistics from the Home Office, the average annual percentage, including—I stress this—those who pleaded guilty, who were acquitted
1830
of burglary before the Crown courts was 6·4, whereas for shoplifting the proportion was 32·5 per cent. That brings me to one of the points which I stress—that the courts are being used as a deterrent by the stores and supermarkets.
Shoplifting is statistically an exceptional crime, and some of those involved are taking exceptional steps to deal with the problem. I shall dwell for a minute or two on the activities of an organisation known as the Association for the Prevention of Thefts in Shops, established. I believe, by 30 of the largest stores and supermarket groups. This organisation seems to have substantial funds at its disposal and it is conducting what I can only call a propaganda campaign throughout the country in an effort to give people the impression that all that goes on in shoplifting is the fault of the public and has nothing to do with the stores.
This organisation appears to have cohorts of beady-eyed young ladies who scour the regional and local Press for news items with which to fuel its propaganda machine. I myself have been a target. I like to think that I represent a large number of those who have so unfortunately found themselves on a shoplifting charge and who have not had the chance to have their side of the story heard.
The director of APTS is Lady Phillips. She recently wrote a 540-word letter to the Bournemouth Echo about me and my views. She mentioned my name six times, which was very kind of her. She is a very tough lady, well able to look after herself, but she does not seem to realise that there is another side to the story, the side presented by the Sunday People on 5th February this year when, referring to people who come before the courts on shoplifting charges and speaking of the stigma involved, it picked out the story of two individuals, saying,
"They are just two people out of the hundreds who have faced the terrible ordeal of being wrongly accused of theft from shops. And it could happen to you."
I see now that the APTS is reported in the Evening Standard this week to be making some very unusual proposals at its annual meeting in London.
"Theft from shops",
says Lady Phillips,
"add 2 per cent. to the cost of all retail sales."

1831
I am sure that that may well be so, but the House ought to ask itself why. My views about methods of trading are not dissimilar from the views which, presumably, encouraged the Home Office some years ago to ensure that prostitutes were removed from the streets. That was done in order to eliminate temptation.
Lady Phillips makes some suggestions which seem to revolve around Government activity. She says that the Government must take action. She refers to "Government action and protection", and then she asks "Why not recruit the public?" She does not say how. Are we to have vigilante squads or snoopers' brigades? Should they perhaps be armed? Is it suggested that one should cut off people's left arms?
Apparently, it is the Government's fault. It is the dishonest public's fault. Then Lady Phillips talks about
"the problems of education and unemployment."
The problem has all manner of aspects, but, according to the APTS, it has nothing whatever to do with the trading methods of the stores. Certainly not—that would be too much to suggest—from them!
Our study group has been told by one security company that up to 70 per cent. of lossses in supermarkets are due to staff thefts. We have had contact with a number of security companies, and the lowest estimate we have had for staff theft, as opposed to shoplifting by the public, is 55 per cent.
According to the APTS propaganda, however, goods taken by the public are "shoplifting" and goods which disappear at the hands of staff are "shrinkage". That is the view of the APTS, but, as I say, it is only one side of the story.
I am determined to see that the view of the public, of many magistrates, police officers, probation officers and many lawyers is heard as well. So often, the view of the stores seems to be that anything which increases their profits is acceptable, regardless of the social consequences of their action.
Recently many stores have stopped providing receipts, and this has produced another difficulty for many people who are apprehended when leaving shops. I have seen a number of letters from Marks and Spencer apologising to people
1832
for wrongful apprehension. It would be a good thing if more people knew that they have the right to sue stores for wrongful arrest. If they sued them, perhaps the stores would take a great deal more care about not only their trading methods but the way in which they deal with people whom they suspect of having taken goods without paying for them.
What is the end product? What is it that the stores and supermarkets, particularly food supermarkets, are trying to achieve? They hint that food in supermarkets is cheaper. On 13th February I asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection:
"what information he has on the relative overall cost of food at self-service stores and at traditional stores."
The answer was:
"There is no systematic statistical information on this subject."—[Official Report, 13th February, 1978; Vol. 944, c. 55.]
Therefore, the story put out by the supermarkets that these things are done in the interests of the consumer are hard to prove statistically.
There is a world of difference between what happens in Oxford Street, London, and what happens in the supermarkets of our towns and villages. Many of the stores in Oxford Street seem to assume that all their customers are dishonest, but in the countryside, in the towns, cities and villages, there still remains a much better relationship between the public and the stores. Yet the attitude of many of the large supermarket groups is constantly damaging this personal relationship.
If one is unfortunate enough to find oneself on a shoplifting charge in London one needs a steady nerve if one chooses trial by jury, because it may take up to 18 months to reach a court. The solicitors and barristers from various parts of the country to whom our study group has spoken have told us that the waiting time for a Crown court trial outside London seems to vary betwen two and five months.
One can imagine the strain and stress experienced by people waiting to prove their innocence. This is one of the great problems. Once a person has been accused of shoplifting, he or she has to prove his or her innocence when the case comes up. The police and court

1833
staff will often advise people to plead guilty, not necessarily because they are guilty but because it is quicker, easier and cheaper for all concerned. That is wholly unsatisfactory.
Let us look briefly at the work of the store detective. How does one measure the productivity of a store detective? Presumably, the only basis is the number of people he or she can push into a court. What is a store detective? The expression is a euphemism for someone who we are led to believe has been trained. I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about the Home Office views about the training or non-training of store detectives. Some of the big stores take a responsible view. But others take a rather different view.
Another problem is the ease with which alcoholic beverages can be obtained in supermarkets. Alcoholism among housewives is a growing social problem. This is not unconnected with the fact that whereas people used to have to go into an off-licence to buy a bottle of whisky or gin, they can now walk into a supermarket and buy it with the butter.
One of the favourite methods currently used by the supermarket groups to provide evidence to the courts for shoplifting charges is the till roll, the receipt provided in food supermarkets to those who have done their shopping. What often happens is that a person will be apprehended and taken straight to the managers' office and will not see the till roll. The first time it is produced is in court. In a recent case that I attended in my constituency a man who had been 30 years in the Hampshire police force was convicted of shoplifting almost wholly on the evidence of the till roll.
Someone recently told me in my surgery of experiences he had had on recent visits to a cash-and-carry warehouse in Bournemouth. In the first instance he bought a 12 lb. block of cheese costing £6·53. On his return home he checked the till roll against his purchases and found no item for £6·53, but there was an item of 53p that he could not account for—a discrepancy of £6. On his next visit to the warehouse, my constituent kindly and honestly volunteered to pay. However, on a subsequent visit to the same warehouse he was load-
1834
ing his goods into the back of his car when he found a crate of dog food that he had not ordered or paid for, and that was not registered on the till roll. If he had been apprehended as he left the store he would have been in an almost impossible position when it came to defending himself.
I am sorry if I have given the House or the Minister the impression that my only concern is with the innocent, or trading methods. Of course, shoplifting is a major social problem and I should not like the Minister to get the impression that I am in any way attempting to condone crime. What I want is to see the implementation of the methods of prevention that were recommended in the Home Office working party report, to whose work I referred in the Adjournment debate in 1972. Very few of those recommendations concerning preventive methods in the stores have been implemented, because the supermarkets say that if any one of them did so, it would put it at a competitive disadvantage. This seems to point to the necessity of taking steps to ensure that they are all required to adopt preventive methods.
I close by making some recommendations to the Minister. I should like to see all stores bringing their own prosecutions. More than anything else, this would ensure that they took a more socially responsible attitude towards shoplifting and the social costs involved than they take at present. I should like to see the staff of stores uniformed, so that the public can regard the staff as a deterrent as well as a means of assistance. There should be large warning notices about the dangers of leaving a store without paying for goods.
There should also be the provision of bag parks so that everyone who enters a supermarket is required to leave his shopping bag or handbag in the bag park before he does his shopping. This is done in a number of big stores and supermarkets and has dramatically reduced shoplifting.
Perhaps the magistrates should be given an additional role. Magistrates are required to license premises selling alcoholic goods. Perhaps some system might be introduced to give magistrates the power to license premises as self-service premises. If the Home Office were to lay

1835
down a code of practice and the magistrates were to do no more and no less with self-service stores than they do with places selling alcoholic beverages that could be of considerable assistance in preventing shoplifting. It is a major problem.
The statistics give the costs but they cannot show the hidden misery which even includes the occasional suicide by people who find themselves on shoplifting charges. My proposals would make life harder for the criminal and safer for the public.
3.47 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has pursued this subject with great dedication over the years. I have taken careful note of the points and the suggestions that he has made.
In spite of the discussion that has taken place in this House, it is still extremely difficult to judge the extent of shoplifting. In 1972 in England and Wales there were about 127,000 shoplifting offences known to the police. This had risen to about 181,000 in 1976. During the same period the number of persons found guilty or cautioned for this offence rose from 73,000 to 109,000. Regrettable though these increases are, they are, of course, but one part of the general increase in recorded crime over the period.
Shoplifting is a crime which tends not to be reported to the police unless a person is caught in the act, and even then it is not always reported. But if every detected case of shoplifting were reported to the police, this would still not reveal the full extent of the problem, because the amount of undetected shoplifting is an unknown quantity. There is the added difficulty of distinguishing between shoplifting by customers and thefts by shop staff which the hon. Member mentioned, The total cost of all such losses is commonly reckoned to be about 2 per cent. of turnover. Put another way, this means that every year the housewife has to pay out the equivalent of an extra week's shopping to cover theft. Clearly, offences on that scale must be a matter of concern, and it is right that everything possible should be done to prevent them.
It is generally accepted that self-service shopping has increased the opportunities
1836
for shoplifters as well as offering new hazards for the absent-minded. However, the development of large, open-display supermarkets seems to be generally welcome to the shopping public, as well as to those who run them.
Shoplifting is not, of course, merely a problem of dishonesty, and I accept that there are those who are sick, under stress, or genuinely absent-minded and make mistakes. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to decide when there has been a genuine mistake, because a suspect will often claim that he put the goods in his shopping basket inadvertently, even though there was a deliberate intention to steal. I am aware of the concern that innocent shoppers can be wrongfully accused—and, indeed, convicted—of shoplifting, although I am bound to say that I have no evidence that innocent people are convicted of shoplifting any more than I have any evidence that innocent people are convicted of other offences.
The law already provides the basis for distinguished between the shoplifter and the absent-minded shopper, in so far as this is humanly possible. As with any other form of theft, an essential ingredient of the offence is dishonesty, and a court cannot convict unless, having heard the evidence from both sides, it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was dishonest intent. Where relevant, the mental state of the offender is taken into account. I doubt whether the law can go further than this in protecting the innocent without allowing the guilty to escape justice, and it is right that these matters should be settled in a court of law. But a lot of safeguards can be taken to prevent shoplifting and minimise the risk to innocent shoppers.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Home Office's working party on internal shop security, which made several recommendations. Store detectives enjoy no rights in law additional to those enjoyed by the ordinary citizen. Any use of unlawful methods would be a matter for the courts. The Government have not so far been persuaded of the need for some form of control, registration or licensing of store detectives, but they are prepared to consider any evidence of such a need.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of sentencing policy. The sentence to be passed in any case of shoplifting is, of

1837
course, within the discretion of the court concerned. Maximum penalties give the courts plenty of scope. Besides the usual range of non-custodial penalties, magistrates' courts have available a sentence of six months' imprisonment and the Crown court 10 years'. The Criminal Law Act 1977 will increase the maximum summary fine for theft to £1,000 when the relevant sections come into force.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of acquittal rates. The proportion of people who plead not guilty to shoplifting and are acquitted is about the same in magistrates' courts as in the Crown court, and when compared with the convictions for burglary and theft the acquittal rates for shoplifting are not very different in proportion. The acquittal rate in contested cases for all indictable offences tried in the magistrates' courts was 55 per cent. and for all offences tried on indictment in Crown court 47 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received the hon. Gentleman's letter about till rolls, and the hon. Gentleman will be receiving a considered reply. My right hon. Friend found his letter extremely interesting.
I think that it would be fair to say that the police and shop managements would generally be reluctant to prosecute unless there were strong evidence that an offence had been committed. Shop managements in particular would wish to have regard to the time and expense involved in preparing a prosecution. Usually, a person is apprehended only after he has been seen to take an article, retain it and leave the shop without paying for it.
I now turn to the question of prevention, since I am sure we should agree that many of the difficulties which we have been discussing would be avoided if more shoplifting could be prevented. The working party on internal shop security made a number of recommendations in this area. Almost all the recommendations were addressed to retailers, and there were no recommendations for legislation or Government action. Legislation to require retailers to modify their selling methods or to make constructional alterations to their shops—for example to provide shopping bag parks, to which matter I shall return in a moment—would
1838
be a considerable innovation, requiring strong justification. There are limits to what the law should do to protect shoppers or others from themselves and I think we must see how much can be achieved through discussion and agreement before saying that changes in the criminal law are desirable.
Returning to the question of the provision of parking areas for shopping bags, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a matter which has already been considered in some detail by the Home Office standing committee on crime prevention. The idea undoubtedly has its attractions, but there are difficulties—not only for the retailers. It would be expensive in terms of staff and space it might cause congestion at check-out points and it could result in theft from customers' bags. Nevertheless, the Home Office approached seven of the largest food supermarkets in the country on the subject. They considered the suggestion but rejected it because they doubted whether it would be cost-effective and acceptable to their customers.
Mr. Adley: Will the Minister please contact the Carrefour hypermarket at Eastleigh and Wilkos in Bournemouth and get from them the results and the cost-effectiveness of the system that they have operated?
Dr. Summerskill: I shall certainly do so. But that still does not answer my point. We asked seven large supermarkets to provide parking areas for shopping bags but they decided against it. We must continually try to persuade the retailer to accept such a proposal. Even though it may be difficult, we must persuade the retailers of the arguments.
The Government will continue to do what they can to encourage measures to prevent shoplifting. It is relevant that the Association for the Prevention of Theft in Shops—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned at some length—was formed last year, which shows the public and retail interest in this whole matter. At least efforts are being made in the direction of improving our knowledge and understanding of the problem, and this increases the opportunities for discussing possible solutions. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's study group and I shall be glad to receive a

1839
report of any proposals which it might make.
Finally, I stress that the report by the Home Office working party entitled "Shoplifting and Theft by Shop Staff" contains a wealth of useful information in spite of the fact that it was published in 1973. It is still worth reading and it received wide and favourable publicity when it came out. I hope that this debate today, as well as serving to commend that report to retailers, will draw to the attention of retailers the methods preventing shoplifting which, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, is the main part of his battle.

SNATCHED CHILDREN
4.0 p.m.
Mr. John Stanley: I am glad to have the opportunity in the final debate before the recess to raise the subject of the problem of tracing snatched children. I acknowledge the very important help that I have had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) in understanding the legal implications of the present situation. I am referring not to a child who is snatched by a passer-by but to the more complex and problematical matter of a child who is snatched by one parent from the other. The most difficult aspect is when the snatch takes place before divorce proceedings are finalised and there is no clear determination of arrangements for custody or access.
I refer to a particularly distressing and heart-rending case that has occurred in my constituency—that of four-year old Mathew Allingham. Last summer his parents were in the process of getting a divorce. The divorce negotiations were proceeding perfectly amicably. Custody had been agreed in principle—Mathew was to go to Mrs. Allingham who would have custody, and access rights for Mr. Allingham had been agreed. Maintenance had also been agreed, as had the division of the proceeds of the matrimonial home.
In June last year before the divorce arrangements had been completely finalised, Mr. Allingham requested to be allowed to take Mathew away for a week's holiday. Mrs. Allingham agreed,
1840
and there were no grounds whatever up to that point for suspicion on her part. She went away at the same time and when she came back she found a letter from her husband which read:
"I have taken Mathew on an extended holiday. Do not worry. You know that I will look after him."
That was nine months ago. Despite the most exhaustive inquiries by the Kent police and others, and most rigorous, sustained and valiant efforts by Mrs. Allingham's solicitor, Mr. Richard Dresner, whose contribution I cannot praise too highly, Mathew still has not been found. Both he and his father have disappeared without trace.
This case has highlighted three major deficiencies in the arrangements for protecting what we all consider to be the fundamental rights of a child to preserve access to each of his or her parents. The first deficiency is the absence of mutual enforcement provisions, between this country and others, on wardship and custody orders. This is particularly relevant in this case. Mathew was made an interim ward of court almost immediately after the snatch occurred, but the wardship order was approved by an English court and was therefore only legally valid in England and Wales. It had no legal validity in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, let alone any Commonwealth countries, the United States or the EEC countries.
The present situation is that if one parent snatches a child away from the other parent and is able to get that child out of England or Wales, he or she is reasonably certain of avoiding the English wardship order. We already have mutual enforcement provisions on maintenance orders between this country and others. It is high time that we extended that principle to wardship and custody orders.
The absence of such arrangements at present are relevant to this sad and depressing case because Mr. Allingham has a brother in Canada and it may well be that he has taken Mathew there. The absence of any mutual enforcement provisions in regard to Mathew's wardship order means that if he is traced and found in Canada it will be necessary for Mrs. Allingham to institute legal proceedings in a Canadian court to secure the return of her son to this country.

1841
I come to the second major deficiency in the system. I refer to the absence of any form of legal aid in legal proceedings overseas. I said that if Mathew were found overseas, perhaps in Canada, it would in theory be open to Mrs. Allingham to institute proceedings in a Canadian court for his return to the United Kingdom. But that is only a theoretical option open to her. She is in receipt of legal aid, but because under the rules such aid is not available to pursue cases overseas, she would have no means financially by which she could initiate an action in a Canadian court for the recovery of her son.
Mrs. Allingham at present has the cards stacked against her. They are certainly stacked against Mathew's chances of being reunited with his mother. Mrs. Ailingham's son has been snatched and he might successfully be traced, possibly later this year or at some time in the future, in Canada. But if the present situation endures, Mrs. Allingham will find that her English wardship order has no legal force in Canada.
Mrs. Allingham will find that the fact that she is unable to obtain legal aid for an action overseas will leave her with no means of instituting proceedings in a Canadian court. She is left with one option—a highly disagreeable and distasteful one and one which is emotionally traumatic for her, and even more so for the child. The option lies in trying to arrange, by stealth and subterfuge, a snatch-back or counter-snatch. Because of the inadequacy of the present arrangements, Mrs. Allingham's solicitor has advised her that that would be the course to be followed if Mathew is identified overseas.
I suggest that in the latter half of the twentieth century in a civilised country it is morally indefensible that we should put a mother or father in a position whereby, to secure the recovery of a child, he or she is unable to use the procedures in court but is forced to engage in a snatch-back.
I suggest that, although I fully recognise that there are major problems to extend legal aid generally to matters overseas, in these circumstances the human considerations are so extenuated and fundamental that a special fund should be created to enable those parents who wish to have financial help to carry out pro-
1842
ceedings in courts overseas for the recovery of their children who are subject to wardship or custody arrangements in the United Kingdom.
Finally, there is a third deficiency, and that is the question of the tracing of snatched children. As I have discovered when examining all the ramifications of this case, it is surprisingly easy in Britain to disappear. One can change one's name very easily. We have no system of identity cards, and Government Departments strictly enforce the principle of the confidentiality of personal information that is given to them. I in no way wish to abandon any of those practices. I believe that it is right and reasonable in a free society that if people want to embark on a new life, for whatever reason, they should be able, if they wish, to change their names.
I certainly oppose the introduction of an identity card system and I attach the greatest importance to maintaining the principle of the privacy of personal information given to Government Departments. However, a case such as the one to which I am referring means that we need again to consider whether there are ways in which we can do more to protect the rights of snatched children and retain access for the parents from whom they have been snatched.
I should like the Minister to look at three courses of action that might help the tracing process in this country. Will she have consultations within her Department to satisfy herself that the powers available to the police are adequate and give them all reasonable prospects of identifying and tracing snatched children? I fully appreciate that the Allingham case is not a criminal matter but a civil matter and that therefore assistance given by police forces is on an ex gratia basis rather than in fulfilment of their legal obligations.
Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether it might be possible to do more through local education authorities to establish whether a snatched child is continuing to go to school in another area, perhaps under a different name? If Mathew is still in this country, he will shortly be of the age to start school, and this is another avenue which should be explored.
I should also be grateful if the Minister would consult the Secretary of State for

1843
Social Services, because the Department of Health and Social Security has access to the names and addresses of people receiving benefits and paying national insurance contributions. I understand that the Department regards the privacy of information given to it as a fundamentally important principle, but that it makes ex-exceptions when children have been snatched. I was glad to receive a letter from the Under-Secretary at the Department on 25th November. He said:
"I can assure you, however, that it is the Department's policy to help parents, guardians, courts or the police when they ask for the address of a missing child. Local social security offices have instructions that for this purpose they may make an exception to the normal rules of confidentiality and may provide the address of a child missing from home to the police or to a person known to be the child's parent or guardian."
However, although that may be the official ministerial view, the exceptions on confidentiality may not have percolated through to local offices of the Department. Mrs. Allingham received a letter on 16th March from the North Fylde office of the Department. She had been making inquiries about a possible new address for her husband in this country. Mr. G. B. Duffy replied to her:
"I must however, tell you that if then a later address was held in the Departments records we might not be able to let you have the address, such information being regarded by the Department as confidential. However while your son Mathew is the subject of wardship proceedings we would inform Tunbridge Wells County Court of the address at their request."
I am unhappy about the phrase "at their request". The onus should be on the Department to make details available to the court as soon as it has any new information about the whereabouts of Mr. Allingham. The onus should not be on the court to make continuing applications to the Department. I should be grateful if the Minister would look into that.
The case of Mathew Allingham highlights some glaring deficiencies in our arrangements for tracing snatched children. There are deficiencies certainly if a child is snatched and taken overseas, and possibly there are some deficiencies, too, in the tracing process in Britain. I believe that we owe it to every child to protect its right of access to its parents. I hope that the Government will accept that we shall be failing in our responsibility
1844
towards children who are snatched in future if we leave the present situation unchanged.
4.16 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) has raised a most distressing case. I am sure that the whole House will have great sympathy for Mrs. Allingham in the position in which she now finds herself. I hope that in my reply I shall be able to make some statement on the processes for the tracing of children in this country. I shall then move on to state the nature of the processes for tracing children abroad.
Where there is a court order such resources as are available from Government sources are made available for the tracing of children. As the hon. Gentleman said, these sources include records of the Department of Health and Social Security, and on occasions those of the Passport Office and the Ministry of Defence. The procedure is described in working paper No. 68 on custody of children (jurisdiction and enforcement) within the United Kingdom. That was completed for publication on 15th June 1976.
Since 1973 the police have been willing to give assistance in tracing a child where the enforcement of a custody or wardship order is in question. As the hon. Gentleman said, that was done in the case of Mathew Allingham. Where there is no court order, it is a discretionary for the Department of Health and Social Security and the police to assist in tracing children. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's surmise is right, that where it concerns a disappeared child, or a child with parent, it is almost certain that that discretion will be used in favour of giving help.
There are practical difficulties if a child is missing in the true sense—for example, if a child has disappeared from home without any apparent explanation. In those circumstances, the police will attempt to trace the child. However, it is rather different if the child is with one parent and the other parent is seeking to trace him or her. In those circumstances, the question sometimes arises of the motive of the parent concerned. That is why discretion is left with Government

1845
Departments and the police. In practice, I am sure that they would do everything possible to help.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider whether there should be wider powers of tracing given to the police, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. If a person who is claiming the custody of a child wishes to seek a remedy, it is open to the parents to initiate custody or wardship proceedings if they have not already done so. However, there are practical problems.
As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is surprisingly easy for a person to disappear in this country. Contrary to what many believe, there is no central source at which information about people's whereabouts is co-ordinated. The Department of Health and Social Security is probably the best source, but, as Mrs. Allingham found in relation to her husband, its information is sometimes out of date. That happens not infrequently.
It should not be thought that greater disclosure would always help in tracing. Only if we were to accept a much greater restriction of the freedom of individuals than we have hitherto been prepared to accept in peacetime would it be possible to improve tracing. It is difficult to improve tracing.
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, which I shall convey to my hon. Friends, about making inquiries of education authorities. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to investigate any possible deficiencies in the local offices and to ensure that guidance is getting through to them.
The answer to the question about an order not being enforceable throughout the United Kingdom is that an English order is not automatically enforceable in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and vice versa. However, this is not so great a problem as might appear at first sight, because it is not so difficult to mount proceedings in Scotland as in, say, Canada or France. Legal aid is available for such proceedings, and the judgment in the other part of the United Kingdom would obviously have great persuasive force. The Law Commission's working paper No. 68 recommends a system of
1846
registration which could resolve this problem. Legislation would probably be a matter for the Lord Chancellor and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices. However, as the working paper is only consultative at the moment, action will have to wait until the Law Commission has considered the matter in the light of the comments that are received.
The international enforcement of custody orders is an important and difficult question which has been under examination for some years by the Law Commissions of England and Scotland, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There have been and still are, extensive international discussions. I feel that quick solutions are not likely to be forthcoming, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government agree with him that this is an urgent problem and that it is important to find a solution quickly. Because of the increase in international travel this type of problem is bound to increase in the future.
The trouble is that it might be necessary to make different agreements with different groups of countries because of the different legal situations pertaining throughout the world. At present we are not a party to any international agreement relating to the custody of children, and it therefore follows that an English, Scottish or Northern Ireland court order as to custody is of no great effect in other countries; nor is an order made in another country of any effect here except in so far as it might be persuasive in leading a court here to make a similar order. This is and always has been the position. Although it might be said that this has always caused some difficulties, I have no doubt that the difficulties have increased substantially in recent years for the reason that I have just given.
It might well be asked why there is as yet no international agreement on these matters. Although the evil is universally recognised, and other countries suffer from this type of problem, it is by no means easy to find a remedy which will be acceptable to all parties.
The matters which have to be considered before one can get international agreement must be as follows. First, we think it is necessary that the countries reaching the agreement should accept the fundamental principle that the overriding

1847
consideration in the taking of decisions as to the legal custody of a child is the child's welfare, and that the decision should not be taken on some other rather arbitrary grounds such as whether one parent or the other has committed adultery, or does not happen to hold the religious belief which is held by the majority of the citizens of the State in which the decision on custody is taken, or some other rigid rule of that kind. Although such rules have existed in many countries they are progressively, fortunately, ceasing to be an obstacle.
Secondly, there has to be some means of deciding who is entitled to the legal custody of the child. In this country, and now in most other countries in the Western world, the rights of the mother and father are equal. Neither of them is entitled to legal custody of the child to the exclusion of the other until a court order is made. Before there can be any possibility of enforcing by law the handing of the child from one to the other, there must be a court order of some kind.
Thirdly, where there is a contest between the adults concerned but they are in different jurisdictions, some means must be found of resolving which court in which jurisdiction should decide the dispute on its merits. Generally speaking, this country, many Commonwealth countries and the USA, and some others, favour habitual residence or some variation of it, but many other countries prefer nationality as the appropriate test.
Although there is no formal agreement between the United Kingdom and any other country on the recognition of custody orders, it does not follow that a fresh decision on the merits has to he taken whenever a child is brought here from overseas or a child is taken overseas from here, because the court may well decide that it is in the child's interests for the overseas decision to be recognised, or, alternatively, that the child should be returned to his country of habitual residence for the decision to be taken there. There was a case in which the High Court decided that a dispute relating to two children should be decided by a court in West Germany. But it would obviously be more satisfactory if there were formal agreements, which is what the hon. Gentleman seeks.
1848
The United Kingdom is participating in some international negotiations. The most advanced are being conducted by a committee of experts of the Council of Europe, which, after considerable discussion, produced a draft covention during 1976. This draft convention has not commanded universal support amongst all member States, and it is now in course of being revised. If it is eventually accepted by all member States, it will cover most of Western Europe. Exploration has also begun in the context of the Hague conference on private international law.
Our first efforts will be made on reaching multilateral agreements, but failing that we shall have to try for bilateral agreements. Exploration has already begun within the Commonwealth. The subject was discussed at the Commonwealth Law Ministers conference in Winnipeg last August. We understand that this whole matter is to be followed up by the Commonwealth secretariat.
The hon. Member mentioned legal aid. It would require new legislation to set up a fund to provide legal aid in proceedings overseas, and that would be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's office. There are no proposals for such a fund. At the moment the better course would be to secure international agreement on legal aid being provided under and according to the rules applying in a country where the proceedings are brought. Discussions are taking place in the Council of Europe on this process in conjunction with the other discussions that I have mentioned.
Mr. Stanley: I agree that if we could get international agreement on the availability of legal aid in these cases that would be all well and good. Will the Minister also consider, however, that in the absence of such an agreement, and given that child-snatching cases continue to arise in which parents are prevented from instituting legal proceedings overseas, she should give the most serious and urgent consideration to the taking of unilateral action by the United Kingdom to help such parents to institute proceedings abroad for the recovery of their children?
Dr. Summerskill: I shall convey that view to my right hon. Friend and ensure that the Lord Chancellor's Department is aware of it.

1849
We should not forget, in discussing the prospects of international agreement, that such agreements cannot work unless, in the American phrase, the courts of the jurisdictions concerned give full faith and credit to each others' decisions. Every court feels instinctively that its own decisions should be recognised elsewhere but often, regrettably, it is a different matter when the question is whether a foreign court's decision requiring the return of a child to a person in another country should be recognised and enforced. In every country there is a tendency to think that it must be within the child's best interest to be brought up there rather than elsewhere, but I believe that this feeling is being overcome and that progress will be made.
1850
There is genuine hope of a satisfactory outcome to the discussions that I have mentioned. It would he misleading for me to suggest that an agreement involving different countries which have different legal procedures can be reached and implemented quickly. However, I assure the hon. Member and the House that considerable work is proceeding. Everything that the hon. Member has said concerning the particular case he mentioned will be referred to the relevant Ministers in this country, and every effort will be made to meet the points that he has raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock till Monday 3rd April, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 20th March.

DEFENCE
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Armed Forces (Trade Unionism)
  Armed Forces (Trade Unionism)
  Reciprocal Procurement (United States of America)
  Reciprocal Procurement (United States of America)
  Belize (Armed Forces' Pay and Conditions)
  Belize (Armed Forces' Pay and Conditions)
  Operation Keelhaul
  Operation Keelhaul
  Equipment
  Equipment
  BAOR (Teachers' Pay)
  BAOR (Teachers' Pay)
  Missiles (Contracts)
  Missiles (Contracts)
  Northern Ireland (Service Men's Deaths)
  Northern Ireland (Service Men's Deaths)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Beef Premium
  Beef Premium
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Wales (Less-Favoured Areas)
  Wales (Less-Favoured Areas)
  Milk
  Milk
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
WALES
  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Tan-Yr-Unto Corner (Road Improvements)
  Tan-Yr-Unto Corner (Road Improvements)
  Bilingual Education
  Bilingual Education
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Malawi
  Malawi
  Food and Agricultural Organisation
  Food and Agricultural Organisation
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Transistor Batteries
  Transistor Batteries
  Tea
  Tea
  Arthur Bell and Sons
  Arthur Bell and Sons
INDUSTRY
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Rubber Processing (NEDO Report)
  Rubber Processing (NEDO Report)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Doppler Microwave Landing System
  Doppler Microwave Landing System
  Sector Working Parties
  Sector Working Parties
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Industrial Strategy
  Industrial Strategy
  Development Grants
  Development Grants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Belize
  Belize
  Cyprus (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Cyprus (United Kingdom Citizens)
  Immigrants (Indian Sub-continent)
  Immigrants (Indian Sub-continent)
  Passports
  Passports
  Lesotho
  Lesotho
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Walsall (Expenditure)
  Walsall (Expenditure)
  Colleges of Education (Film Facilities)
  Colleges of Education (Film Facilities)
  Expenditure (West Country)
  Expenditure (West Country)
  Teachers and Staff
  Teachers and Staff
  Thomas Huxley College
  Thomas Huxley College
  Science Graduates
  Science Graduates
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Public Employees (Fees and Emoluments)
  Public Employees (Fees and Emoluments)
  Craigavon New Town (Leases)
  Craigavon New Town (Leases)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Trade Union Officials (Fees and Emoluments)
  Trade Union Officials (Fees and Emoluments)
  Employment Appeals Tribunal
  Employment Appeals Tribunal
  Roads Safety Council
  Roads Safety Council
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NEW YORK
  NEW YORK
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  QUESTION TIME
  QUESTION TIME
  CROSSMAN DIARIES
  CROSSMAN DIARIES
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
  BANKING (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES)
  BANKING (PUBLIC AUTHORITIES)
  UNITED NATIONS
  UNITED NATIONS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Ministers and Civil Servants (Transatlantic Flights)
  Ministers and Civil Servants (Transatlantic Flights)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Public Bodies (Members' Fees)
  Public Bodies (Members' Fees)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Press Hospitality
  Press Hospitality
  Official Opposition Whips' Office
  Official Opposition Whips' Office
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Ministers (Overseas Visits)
  Government Bank Accounts
  Government Bank Accounts
  Civil Servants (Retirements and Pensions)
  Civil Servants (Retirements and Pensions)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Firearms and Shotgun Certificates
  Firearms and Shotgun Certificates
  Remanded Women
  Remanded Women
  Convicted Persons (Deportation)
  Convicted Persons (Deportation)
  Beagles (Smoking)
  Beagles (Smoking)
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
  Television Licences (Abolition)
  Television Licences (Abolition)
  Metropolitan Police Force
  Metropolitan Police Force
  Prison Officers (Dartmoor and Isle of Wight)
  Prison Officers (Dartmoor and Isle of Wight)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Terrorist Visitors
  Terrorist Visitors
  Police and Traffic Control
  Police and Traffic Control
  Immigration Service
  Immigration Service
  Fire and Police Services and Departmental Staff
  Fire and Police Services and Departmental Staff
  Wembley Stadium (Traffic Control)
  Wembley Stadium (Traffic Control)
  Phencyclidine
  Phencyclidine
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Television (Closed Circuit Cameras)
  Television (Closed Circuit Cameras)
  Mr. Charles Lowe
  Mr. Charles Lowe
  Securicor
  Securicor
  Bail
  Bail
  Police Constable Williams
  Police Constable Williams
  Mr. Ahmed Kandil
  Mr. Ahmed Kandil
  Police (Pay and Allowances)
  Police (Pay and Allowances)
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Thames River Police
  Thames River Police
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  Mr. L. Macdonald
  Mr. L. Macdonald
  London Hospital Broadcasting Service (Advertising)
  London Hospital Broadcasting Service (Advertising)
  Rhodesians
  Rhodesians
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Young Chronic Sick
  Young Chronic Sick
  Doctors and Nurses (Cornwall)
  Doctors and Nurses (Cornwall)
  Battersea General Hospital
  Battersea General Hospital
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Health Services (Expenditure)
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Hospital Beds (Walsall)
  Hospital Beds (Walsall)
  Tomography
  Tomography
  Heath Road, Ipswich (Hospital Facilities)
  Heath Road, Ipswich (Hospital Facilities)
  1981 Census
  1981 Census
  Pensions and Benefits (Payment)
  Pensions and Benefits (Payment)
  Lodging Houses and Hostels
  Lodging Houses and Hostels
  Employees
  Employees
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Medical Ancillary Staff (Designation)
  Medical Ancillary Staff (Designation)
  Patient Records (Confidentiality)
  Patient Records (Confidentiality)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Benefits
  Benefits
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Kidney Patients (Merseyside)
  Kidney Patients (Merseyside)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Retirement Pensioners (Index-Linking)
  Retirement Pensioners (Index-Linking)
  Chemist Contractors (Dispute)
  Chemist Contractors (Dispute)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  Benefits (Immigrants' Dependants)
  Benefits (Immigrants' Dependants)
  Drugs (Manufacturers' Promotion Expenditure)
  Drugs (Manufacturers' Promotion Expenditure)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Hospitals (Telephone Calls)
  Hospitals (Telephone Calls)
  Kidney Patients (Attendance Allowance)
  Kidney Patients (Attendance Allowance)
  Immediate Care Schemes
  Immediate Care Schemes
  Self-Employed Persons (Insurance Contributions)
  Self-Employed Persons (Insurance Contributions)
  Gobowen Orthopaedic Hospital, North Wales
  Gobowen Orthopaedic Hospital, North Wales
  Hammersmith Hospital (Operating Facilities)
  Hammersmith Hospital (Operating Facilities)
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Thalidomide
  Thalidomide
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
ENERGY
  Gas (Supply)
  Gas (Supply)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Cars
  Official Cars
  Nationalised Industries (Energy Usage)
  Nationalised Industries (Energy Usage)
ENERGY
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Lord Attlee (Statue)
  Lord Attlee (Statue)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
  REFERENDUMS
  REFERENDUMS
TRADE
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Inflation Accounting
  Inflation Accounting
  Woollen Cloths
  Woollen Cloths
  Tanker "Amoco Cadiz"
  Tanker "Amoco Cadiz"
  Cigarette Exports
  Cigarette Exports
  Tyres (Imports)
  Tyres (Imports)
  UNCTAD (Common Fund)
  UNCTAD (Common Fund)
  USSR and Eastern Europe
  USSR and Eastern Europe
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Motor Cars (Imports)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Self-Service Shops
  Self-Service Shops
  Seal Pelts
  Seal Pelts
  European Community (Trade Deficit)
  European Community (Trade Deficit)
  Motorists (Damages Claims)
  Motorists (Damages Claims)
  Developing Countries
  Developing Countries
  Shoes
  Shoes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Incomes and Wealth
  Incomes and Wealth
  Ghana, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia
  Ghana, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia
  Commercial Taxation
  Commercial Taxation
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  Tax Relief (Pensions)
  Tax Relief (Pensions)
  Growth
  Growth
  Customs Regulations (Evasion)
  Customs Regulations (Evasion)
  Child Tax Allowances (Overseas Residence)
  Child Tax Allowances (Overseas Residence)
  Social Security Benefits
  Social Security Benefits
  Millionaires
  Millionaires
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Taxation (Household Groups)
  Taxation (Household Groups)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Health and Personal Social Services (Expenditure)
  Health and Personal Social Services (Expenditure)
  Industrial Strategy
  Industrial Strategy
  Road Fund Licence
  Road Fund Licence
  Invisible Trade
  Invisible Trade
  European Community (Investment Loans)
  European Community (Investment Loans)
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  Merchant Ships (Boarding Procedures)
  European Community
  European Community
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Child Care Costs
  Child Care Costs
  OECD Forecasts
  OECD Forecasts
  50p Coins
  50p Coins
  Government Shareholdings
  Government Shareholdings
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Pension Funds, Life Assurance and Retirement Annuities
  Pension Funds, Life Assurance and Retirement Annuities
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  European Community Finance Council
  European Community Finance Council
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Prices
  Prices
  Newcastle upon Tyne
  Newcastle upon Tyne
  Job Creation Schemes
  Job Creation Schemes
  Youth Opportunities Scheme
  Youth Opportunities Scheme
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Hotel Staff (Rates of Pay)
  Hotel Staff (Rates of Pay)
  Cleveland
  Cleveland
  Pay Settlements (Equity)
  Pay Settlements (Equity)
  Lonrho Group (Chairman's Salary)
  Lonrho Group (Chairman's Salary)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Engineering Craftsmen (Woolwich)
  Engineering Craftsmen (Woolwich)
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Community Industry Scheme (Greenwich)
  Community Industry Scheme (Greenwich)
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
SCOTLAND
  Seafield Hospital
  Seafield Hospital
  Social Work
  Social Work
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Hill Farmers
  Hill Farmers
  Firearms
  Firearms
  M8, Riddrie-Ballieston (Traffic)
  M8, Riddrie-Ballieston (Traffic)
  Children's Hearings
  Children's Hearings
  List D Schools
  List D Schools
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  District Councils (Capital Housing Allocations)
  District Councils (Capital Housing Allocations)
  Regional Council Chief Executives
  Regional Council Chief Executives
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
ENVIRONMENT
  Kirkby (Demolished Flats)
  Kirkby (Demolished Flats)
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Countryside Review Committee
  Countryside Review Committee
  Local Government Employees and Departmental Staff
  Local Government Employees and Departmental Staff
  Rate Support Grant (Cheshire)
  Rate Support Grant (Cheshire)
  Locally Determined Sector Borrowing Allocation
  Locally Determined Sector Borrowing Allocation
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Polyurethane Foam
  Polyurethane Foam
  Homeless Hospital Patients
  Homeless Hospital Patients
  Stroud Inner Ring Road
  Stroud Inner Ring Road
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  London Docks Development Board
  London Docks Development Board
  Advance Factories and Development Companies
  Advance Factories and Development Companies
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Roads (Northern Region)
  Roads (Northern Region)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Tyres
  Tyres
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  Crewe (Transport Museum)
  Crewe (Transport Museum)
  National Services
  National Services
  Humber Bridge (Lighting)
  Humber Bridge (Lighting)
  Community Bus Services
  Community Bus Services
  M4, Chiswick-Slough (Lighting)
  M4, Chiswick-Slough (Lighting)
  A52
  A52
  Trailers (Sleeper Cab Units)
  Trailers (Sleeper Cab Units)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
  Disabled Persons (Car Badges)
  Disabled Persons (Car Badges)
  Elderly Persons (Concessionary Fare Passes)
  Elderly Persons (Concessionary Fare Passes)

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

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION: HOUSE OF LORDS
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether improved facilities can be provided for internal communication by letter or circular between Members of the House of Lords.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, a Peer can hand up to six messages to a Doorkeeper in the Prince's Chamber or to the Attendants' Office in the Peers' Lobby. A self-service letter rack is also provided in the Prince's Chamber for Members of the House who wish to contact more than six Peers. Any expansion of these facilities would require additional staff and extra space for sorting, both of which would be expensive. An improvement on existing facilities could be achieved if Peers made more use of the self-service letter rack.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that reply is really very disappointing? Does he understand the complete nonsense of existing arrangements? A Peer goes to the board and asks leave to put messages for fellow Peers on it. Six messages, as my noble friend has pointed out, may be put there. The rest have to be taken to the Post Office for 9p stamps to be put upon them. Thereupon they are transferred from the Post Office to the board for noble Lords to collect. This seems to me absolutely ridiculous—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Cannot my noble friend find some way whereby a limited use of the facilities of this kind may be made? Is he aware that we have just formed a House of Lords industrial policy group and we wish to communicate with 35, 40 or 50 Members? There is an all-Party conservation group. They wish to communicate with—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: It is no good my noble friend looking so pained about this—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, there is no Order involved. I am still on my feet.
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will ask a direct question.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not need prompting to ask a direct question: I am asking a direct question, which is whether some improved facilities can be made. My noble friend has apparently said, No. I am asking him to reconsider the matter. Existing arrangements are ridiculous. I repeat that word, and we want better facilities—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has been in this House longer than I. This is the first time that I have heard any complaints about this facility. There is of course an administration subcommittee of the Offices Committee. A strong case will have to be made out there for any alteration. But I am prepared to consider this, so I am not being negative.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, will my noble friend refer this matter to a group of noble Lords who can report on the facilities of this House?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords, because there is an administration sub-committee of the Offices Committee. The noble Lord has been a Member of this House longer than I have; he is experienced and knows that the sub-committee exists.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider, or ask those responsible to consider, improvement in the self-service racks, since letters have to be of a particular size? Would it not be easier if the self-service racks took letters of different shapes and sizes?
Lord PEART: My Lords, there is a very good general information booklet which deals with letters. I think that information is excellent, but I am prepared to look at that request.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend accept that I am sure the whole House supports him in urging my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby to say what he wants to say in interrogative form? But would he be good enough to see that this rule is applied right throughout the House, to both Front Benches and the Liberal Party as well? We should all put questions into interrogative form or none of us should do so, one or the other.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree. I continually intervene to try to get Members to do that. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that great inconvenience can be caused because letters addressed to noble Lords and delivered by hand to this House cannot be sent on to them? There is no facility for sending letters on to Peers and sometimes weeks of delay can occur over important communications.
Lord PEART: My Lords, as I have said, I am prepared to have this matter considered by the administration subcommittee.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does it not go a little further than this in this sense: would the noble Lord also consider examining the possibility of having all mail stamped when it is addressed by one Member of the House to another?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will look at this suggestion. I will refer this matter to the administration sub-committee, for that is its purpose.

ZAMBIA: PAYMENTS TO BRITISH OFFICERS
11.11 a.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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, in the case of officers seconded under contract from the United Kingdom to the Government of Zambia, whether they are aware of the delay in the payment of gratuities and leave pay to these officers by the Government of Zambia when due.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, very few officers are seconded from British Government services, and those who are would have no difficulties over exchange controls since they are paid in sterling by their home departments. Most of those experiencing the difficulties mentioned by the noble Lord are Zambian Government employees, recruited and paid by them but in receipt of a supplementary allowance from Her Majesty's Government which is payable in the United Kingdom. Wherever practicable, these officers are given the chance to attend briefing courses at Farnham Castle at which they are made aware of various aspects of conditions of service and life in Zambia, including these difficulties. Ways of publicising the situation more widely are also being considered.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and appreciate the difficulties of going into this matter in a little greater depth, I hope he will understand that the supplementary question which I propose to ask is a constructive one. Is it not a fact that, in the case of the delays in the payments to which the noble Lord refers, Rhodesian sanctions and the closure of the border between Zambia and Rhodesia, together with the fall in the world price of copper, are causing grave difficulties to the Zambian Government? If that situation were to go on there could be the threat of disturbances in that area. Is the noble Lord in a position to tell us whether President Kenneth Kaunda has studied the internal settlement for Rhodesia or whether some representative of Her

1917
Majesty's Government has made helpful representations to him on that internal settlement?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly Her Majesty's Government fully understand the economic difficulties which are facing Zambia and which the noble Lord has summarised. They are, of course, causing considerable foreign payments difficulties for Zambia. I am quite sure that President Kaunda will be fully aware of the proposed internal settlement, but it seems to me that is a question which goes much wider than the original Question on the Order Paper.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, while I think all your Lordships will understand the economic position and the difficulties that the Zambians have at the present time, would it not be possible in cases of hardship for Her Majesty's Government to advance money to these officers, if they are in trouble, until such time as the Zambian Government can pay?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that would be possible. Some such system was operating in relation to Uganda when people were leaving that country, but the experience arising out of that has not been very fortunate. Therefore I think we would look rather closely at any suggestion of a similar scheme in relation to Zambia.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I appreciate the penultimate answer of my noble friend, is it not the case that Zambia has probably suffered more than Rhodesia as a result of its loyalty in carrying out sanctions against Rhodesia? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government seek, in consultation with President Kaunda, to settle this matter in a conciliatory way?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is true that, as a result of the unfortunate history of the last 10 years or more, Zambia has suffered not only through the reduction in copper prices but also from the disruption of her normal means of trade. I think my noble friend is aware that Her Majesty's Government are constantly in touch with President Kaunda in relation to the Rhodesian problem.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister have another look at this matter? Is it not really a question of the position of the officers themselves and of the money they have not been receiving, and not so much a matter of the obvious impossibility of Zambia being able to pay? Surely this Government should undertake to give some money to these officers to live on in the meantime, regardless of whether or not Zambia will be prosperous in the future?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the problem to which the question is directed is the repatriation of funds into this country and not the receipt of funds in Zambia on which to live. It is a question of funds being able to be repatriated to this country.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, as I understand the Question, it refers to the delay in the payment of gratuities and leave pay. That is money which these officers are entitled to receive as of now, and the Government should surely see that they are getting this money.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as I understand it, the problem of gratuities and leave pay is that they want to have those funds available in this country. It is that difficulty which is very difficult to overcome because of the balance of payments situation of Zambia.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend that he ought not to be put off by the Ugandan experience? Will he suggest that he will be dealing with a different sort of Administration, we hope, and that the chances of reaching an agreement on the question of repayment are more likely in this case than they have been at some times in the past?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I agree that each case has to be looked at separately, but, in relation to advancing funds to officers who have left a particular country, I think the experience in Uganda is relevant.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is there not a distinction which the Minister has failed to draw between an officer who is normally working for the British Government and who was seconded by the British Government to the Zambian Government, and

1919
an individual who goes out there under contract, for whom there is no relationship whatever with the British Government? Would he not agree that the Question rather smears that over when it talks of being,
"seconded under contract from the United Kingdom"?
An officer is either seconded or under contract: not both.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; but if my noble friend will look again at my original Answer I think he will find that that distinction is made clear.

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS OVERSEAS
11.18 a.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: 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 open or re-open this year any small diplomatic posts (or "mini-missions") of the type referred to in the CPRS Report, having regard to export promotion, aid, strategic and political criteria and historical friendly relations.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we plan to re-open a resident Mission in Honduras and to establish one for the first time in Gabon by the summer. The Honduran and Gabonese Governments have welcomed our initiative.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that Answer, particularly with regard to Gabon, because I know that President Bongo has been keen for this and there are many economic reasons for opening a diplomatic post in Gabon—
A noble Lord: Question!
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how it is, in effect, that such a decision has not been reached in respect of Madagascar? Would he explain how it is that after a decision was reached in July 1975 to close the post there, against
1920
what was felt to be a wrong decision—my Lords, I will leave it there.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know the noble Lord's particular interest in Madagascar and I have no doubt he is aware that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Dar-es-Salaam has been accredited as a non-resident Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Madagascar since 1975, when our resident Mission there was closed. This arrangement is considered adequate to maintain our essential interests there. But having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I shall certainly ask my right honourable friend to reconsider the case of Madagascar, though I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that my right honourable friend will need to have regard to other claims on our resources in these matters.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that it would be much better to replace these mini-missions and strengthen the trade side of our Embassies abroad, rather than continue to support the Crown Agents who do not seem to have done very well lately?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think the general principle is that it is left to Her Majesty's Ambassadors to decide how to deploy the manpower which is at their command, although one recognises that, in the mini-missions, specialisation is not easy.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government contemplating closing down any further Missions, other than those already closed down, as a result of the CPRS Report?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend has made it clear in another place that the Government will not take final decisions on the CPRS Review until they have heard the views of Parliament on the matter. The Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee, which has been taking evidence in relation to that review, has not yet reported, so that there is really nothing to announce about firm decisions.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, can he reassure the House that members of the

1921
British information services in the United States have not been notified that their services will no longer be required?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I should need notice of that question.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether, if no posts have yet been closed as a result of the Think Tank's report, his right honourable friend will take into consideration the fact that these mini-posts are extremely useful in the education field, because they find out which students want to come here? That was not mentioned in the Think Tank's report.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that that view will be conveyed to my right honourable friend, and, certainly, the value of so-called mini-missions is fully appreciated by my right honourable friend.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his initial statement this morning will cause disquiet with the Malagasy Government? Secondly, does he not agree that, in effect, two of the roles of a diplomatic post are export promotion and aid administration? Further, is he aware that, since the closure of our Embassy at Tananarive, our exports have not risen at all like those of Germany? Finally, as aid administration is part of the role of a post, does the Minister not welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have increased their co-operation assistance to that country since the closure?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I knew of the considerations in the noble Lord's mind, particularly those of trade and aid. With that in view, I indicated that I should be prepared to ask my right honourable friend to include Madagascar in his review of mini-missions.

SAFETY OFFICERS' QUALIFICATIONS
11.24 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 consider there is a need for all safety officers working for companies and factories to hold a Diploma in Safety Management and, if so, whether they will invoke paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which gives the power to the Minister to restrict performance of specified functions to persons with special qualifications.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's view at the present time is that there is not an immediate need for invoking, in the case of safety officers, paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. However, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission informs me that the question of the employment, training and qualifications of safety officers is under consideration by the Health and Safety Commission, following their Discussion Document on the subject published by the Health and Safety Executive in 1976. If the Commission's consideration of these basic issues points to the need for a nationally recognised qualification for safety officers, they will have to consider what those qualifications should be and whether they should be made mandatory.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful Answer. I think that the British Safety Council have very good standards which could be used, and they say that training can prevent about 50 per cent. of the accidents. When there were over 900,000 serious accidents and 30 million minor accidents, surely it is a good idea to have somebody trained?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, she will, of course, agree with me that training is in fact carried out at the present time, although it varies a great deal in content and duration. For her information, and for the information of the House, I would say that training is provided by universities, including Aston University and Imperial College London, and by a number of polytechnics and colleges of further education throughout the country, as well as by voluntary bodies, which include the Institution of Industrial Safety Officers,

1923
the Institute of Municipal Safety Officers, et cetera. The polytechnics and colleges of further education often use the examination and syllabus of the Institution of Industrial Safety Officers. So, at the present time, their training is carried on to a fairly high standard. But I can understand the noble Baroness's point. She is concerned with a registered diploma qualification and, as I indicated, this is a possible matter for consideration.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, in view of the fact that in most factories the employment of safety officers is a very hit-and-miss affair, and safety generally turns out to be the job of somebody who is just shoved on to it, and also in view of the very high loss of man-days due to accidents, will my noble friend urge the Health and Safety Commission to look at this matter very urgently?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Yes, my Lords. Certainly I can give that assurance. But I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there should be adequate consultation on this point between management and trade unions. In addition to safety officers, there are many other people in factories who have responsibilities and who should receive some training. It is the responsibility of the trade unions and management to see that these people are adequately trained.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the special training given to safety officers—
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords —
Several noble Lords: Order!
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords, I think that the last noble Lord to speak did so from those Benches.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any provision is made for training in the use of the almost unknown and unidentified poisons which are being used in manufacturing processes, and whether there are facilities for making representations as to the conditions under which it would be safe to use them?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's deep
1924
interest in these matters. But rather than give an answer on the spot, I should prefer to get the detail for him so that he may be fully satisfied and informed.
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords, is a possible path through this problem to give higher pay, first, to safety officers for their duties and, secondly, to qualified safety officers according to their qualifications, thus possibly building up the body of safety officers who are so needed in this business, rather than trying to make it statutory at once?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I would rather not embark on discussions on pay problems at this stage.

DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to announce that dinners will be available on Tuesday, 4th April, the day when the House resumes after the Easter Recess.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.]
11.29 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Export Guarantees Act 1975 (as amended by Section 4 of the International Finance, Trade and Aid Act 1977 and Schedule 1 to that Act), and Sections 1 and 2 of the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act 1972. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

OATHS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Oaths Act 1838 and the Oaths Acts 1888 to 1977, and to repeal, as obsolete, Section 13 of the Circuit

1925
Courts (Scotland) Act 1828. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two Stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through its remaining stages this day. —(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
11.30 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Scotland Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, viz.:—

Clause 1

Schedule 1

Clauses 2–18

Schedule 2

Clauses 19–21

Schedule 3

Clause 22

Schedules 4 and 5

Clause 23

Schedule 6

Clauses 24 to 38

Schedule 7

Clause 39

Schedule 8

Clauses 40 to 57

Schedule 9

Clauses 58 and 59

Schedules 10 and 11

Clauses 60 and 61

1926

Schedule 12

Clauses 62 to 64

Schedule 13

Clauses 65 and 66

Schedule 14

Clauses 67 to 77

Schedule 15

Clauses 78 to 80

Schedule 17

Clauses 81 and 82

Schedule 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, bearing in mind the number of clauses and Schedules, their nature and what lies behind them, is the noble and learned Lord of the opinion that a sufficient number of days has been allowed for discussion of the list he is now moving? Is it too late to consider allowing sufficient days to enable adequate consideration of these important clauses and Schedules to take place?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure that this is either the appropriate occasion or the moment to deal with the allocation of time for these matters. I have no doubt that a further opportunity will arise, of which I am quite confident that the noble Lord will take full advantage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) AMENDMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EMPLOYMENT SUBSIDIES BILL
11.33 a.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 3a.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to return to a question which I asked the noble Lord on Second Reading. Under Clause 2(2), there is provision that the Secretary of State shall in certain circumstances lay a Statement before the House of Commons with a view to obtaining a Resolution. The question which I now repeat is, why such a Resolution should not need to be obtained from both Houses, as in the case of the Industry Act 1972? It seems that there may be some inconsistency here, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clear up this point.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that there is no real difference of view between the noble Lord and myself on this matter. I think we need to be clear that we are speaking about two separate matters. The first is the provision in Clause 2(1) that the Secretary of State must seek the authority of the House of Commons via a Resolution before he sets up any new scheme under the Bill costing more than £10 million. The second is the provision in Clause 2(2) that before seeking such a Resolution he must lay a Statement before the House of Commons explaining his proposal.
Let us first consider the provision for a Resolution in Clause 2(1). It is normal for schemes of this kind to be financed by appropriation, and this means, as your Lordships will fully appreciate, that authorisation is a matter for the House of Commons. The purpose of Clause 2(1) is to ensure that large items of expenditure under this Bill can be scrutinised by the House of Commons in the normal way.
Now let us look at the provision for laying a Statement before the House of Commons in Clause 2(2). The purpose is, quite simply, to provide the necessary information about the proposed scheme.
1928
At this point I should say a few words about Clause 2(3). This subsection is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take emergency action without a Resolution of the House of Commons where he is satisfied that urgent action is required and a Resolution would involve an unacceptable delay. In such cases, the Secretary of State must lay before the House a Statement of the action he has taken and his reasons for it. The Bill therefore provides for a Statement to be laid in two different circumstances: first, before the Secretary of State seeks authority for a particular scheme via a Resolution and, secondly, when he needs to take emergency action and has to proceed without a Resolution.
I can assure noble Lords, as I did during the Second Reading debate, that although the Bill does not specifically provide for this, a Statement will be laid both here and in the House of Commons in both of the circumstances I have described. As I mentioned in the Second Reading debate, it is in any case normal practice for Statements to be made in both Houses when an important new scheme or package of schemes to combat unemployment is announced.
I hope I have said enough to make clear why the authorisation of individual schemes is a matter for the House of Commons. I hope also that my assurance that Statements will be laid both here and in another place will allay the noble Lord's worries on this point. I can assure him that the fact that the Bill does not specifically provide for Statements to be laid in both Houses in no way constitutes a precedent. With that explanation, I hope that the House will be satisfied. May I thank the noble Lord for raising the matter because, as a Member of the House of Lords, I have as much interest in it as he has.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for such a very full reply.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Submission to jurisdiction]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("agreement") to end of line 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not intend again to enter into a long argument on the subject. We discussed this matter quite fully during the Committee stage, but for two reasons I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to my Amendment. First, the noble and learned Lord said in his reply, which is to be found at col. 1494 of Hansard, that he imagined that the effect of the Amendment is intended to be that an agreement by a foreign State that a contract is to be governed by the law of the United Kingdom is to be treated as an agreement to waive immunity from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts. The point of my Amendment, which removes the two lines and the "but", is a question of submission to the jurisdiction and not a question of waiver of immunity.
Where a contract contains a provision agreeing the law governing the contract, whether it is municipal or international law, I believe it is correct to say that the choice of that law would influence the courts or the tribunal to be set up to decide the validity and interpretation of the particular agreement in question. So I think that this particular subsection (2) referring to waiver of immunity would be very much improved if those last two lines were deleted. I believe this causes more confusion than assistance in giving a guide to individuals entering into contracts with foreign States as to the submission to jurisdiction of that foreign State.
I am fortified in what I say by the support given to my original Amendment by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Wilberforce. If the lines are to remain, I think this has considerable competence in international law. As I say, I do not think this is the time to go into it, but I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord would look into it and possibly at some stage I could have a written reply and, if my right honourable friend in another place considers that it is justified, the matter could be raised again in the Commons. On that basis, I shall not seek to move the Amendment.
Clause 3 [Commercial transactions and contracts to be performed in United Kingdom]:
11.41 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("or other similar character) in which a State") and insert (", professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that proceedings relating to a commercial transaction in respect of which a State enjoys no immunity under Clause 3 include proceedings relating to professional services such as those which may be given by a physician or a surgeon, a lawyer or an architect. Where a State engages the services of such persons it is clearly acting in the same way as a private individual and should not be entitled to immunity. I hope that the Amendment meets the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, at the Committee stage, when she questioned whether the present wording would be adequate to cover professional services sought in anticipation of a commercial transaction which is later abandoned. I have looked at the wording to see if it was possible to enlarge their scope, and the words that I now propose will, I think, not only meet the example given by the noble Baroness but also embrace other activities like medicine and accountancy which ought to be covered. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for meeting my point and for going even wider. I notice that he took very great care not to define too closely the word "professional" but he certainly meets the point that I made at the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Contracts of employment]:
11.44 a.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 13, after ("where") insert ("the employee was recruited in the United Kingdom and was ordinarily resident there when recruited.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for accepting

1931
the second half of my original Amendment in the Committee stage in relation to this clause, but as he may remember I was very concerned with cases where individuals are recruited in the United Kingdom and where the contract is not necessarily made in the United Kingdom. Earlier, we were discussing in your Lordships' House the question of United Kingdom citizens who are working in Uganda where there is difficulty in the matter of payment and the fact that there is no action that these individuals can take against the Government in such circumstances.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that many people are recruited from this country. The contracts are not always completed in the United Kingdom and I believe that this is something which the Government should look at very much more closely than they have hitherto done. They should either accept the Amendment as it stands or at some stage give some kind of undertaking that the individual cases which have arisen, are arising and undoubtedly will arise in the future will have some kind of guarantee from our own Government. I beg to move.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, should like briefly to reaffirm my support for the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. This is a type of transaction which is becoming more and more current, and I certainly agree that Clause 4(1) is a little too restrictive. One would like to see Clause 4(1) adjusted in the positive form so as to correspond to the negative which appears in subsection (2)(b). This states that the subsection does not apply if,
"at the time when the contract was made the individual was neither a national of the United Kingdom nor habitually resident there".
Of course that is quite right. I should like to see the counterpart of that introduced into subsection (1), so that if the individual is a national of the United Kingdom or habitually resident in the United Kingdom or, to use the compendious expression, recruited by a foreign State, the immunity should not attach. The immunity is removed by the clause as drafted only,
"where the work is to be performed wholly or partly in the United Kingdom",
which is quite often not the case in these
1932
recruitment contracts. Without prolonging the discussion I would very much support what the noble Baroness has said and hope that at some stage, if not today, Clause 4(1) could be enlarged.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall shortly be moving Amendment No. 4 to Clause 4, and if that is approved a State will not be immune in relation to proceedings concerning contracts of employment made between the State and an individual where the contract was either made in the United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly or partly performed in the United Kingdom. The Amendment we are now discussing would add another class of contract which venture to think must be very exceptional, although both noble Lords have indicated that such contracts are becoming more common, which would lead me to give another thought to what is proposed. These are contracts which are not made in the United Kingdom nor are to be performed in the United Kingdom, and which recruit an employee in the United Kingdom at a time when he was ordinarily resident there.
I find it a little difficult to see justification for our courts entertaining litigation in those circumstances, even if the employer is a private individual and not a foreign State. The plaintiff's residence is universally considered insufficient, even unacceptable, as a ground for assuming jurisdiction and, equally, recruitment in the United Kingdom seems to me to be no adequate ground for giving jurisdiction to our courts. If our courts could not in any event entertain litigation there can be little point in providing that a foreign State is not to enjoy immunity in our courts in that litigation. It would appear that the only instance where a contract of this kind could be litigated in an English court would be where it contains provision that it is to be governed by English law.
The courts have a discretion to entertain proceedings relating to such a contract and in those proceedings, if the Amendment now proposed were adopted and its criteria applied, the foreign State could not claim immunity. But I venture to think that those cases must be rare. I doubt whether even the combination of English law, local recruitment and residence of the plaintiff in the United Kingdom establish sufficient links to justify removal

1933
of immunity; and I am afraid that in relation to Member States of the European Convention a provision of this kind could probably not be legitimated even by a declaration under Article 24. There are many difficulties in the way but if the noble Baroness would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment at this stage I shall certainly see that further consideration is given to this matter, either by further proceedings in this House or in another place.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I think it should be borne in mind that those of us who read our daily newspapers from one end to the other see an enormous number of advertisements by foreign governments for professors, technologists and scientists. These are in fact recruiting advertisements, but since, as I understand it, it is the foreign government itself which is offering these posts, the contract is actually finalised in the foreign State itself and these advertisements merely act as recruiting formulae. This is just to give one example to support my earlier statement that I do believe that there are an increasing number of instances where people are being recruited from this country and where the contract itself is actually made abroad. In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I should be most grateful if he would look at this again, and we could perhaps have it pursued in another place if seen fit. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from (" where ") to end of line 14 and insert (" the contract was made in the United Kingdom or the work is to be wholly or partly performed there.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment, to which I have already referred briefly, is to provide that a State is not to be immune as respects proceedings relating to a contract of employment between a State and an individual where the contract was made in the United Kingdom. At present, Clause 4 removes immunity from contracts of employment only where the work is to be wholly or partly performed in the United Kingdom. This Amendment meets some of the criticism
1934
that was made at the Committee stage. Then, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to an increasing number of cases of contracts of employment, generally made in the United Kingdom and involving British citizens, where persons are recruited by reason of their specific and special scientific or technical knowledge or their administrative capability, or for other specific reasons which, I am happy to think, send our fellow countrymen to all parts of the world. They are invited to render services abroad, particularly in less developed countries and, after themselves incurring heavy expenditure, they may find when they get there that their services are not wanted after all.
The noble Baroness quoted a case of an officer in the Armed Forces who was pressed to take such a job, but who, after waiting three months in the country concerned, was informed that there was no post for him. The noble Baroness properly, if I may say so, urged that such a person should have a remedy in the courts of this country. He cannot rely on Clause 4 as it is now, and accordingly this Amendment is now made. I hope it meets the point that was raised. I think it is a helpful improvement. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having met this point, and of course I strongly support the Amendment that he has put down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Ships used for commercial purposes]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to consider with this Amendment Amendment No. 6. In each case, the word "or" is added. This is a minor drafting point which was raised by the noble Baroness at the Committee stage. The insertion of the word "or" does not affect the meaning of the subsections concerned, but I think that the following of the wording of the clause will be improved by the insertion of the word "or". As the clause is concerned with shipping, perhaps an additional "or"

1935
is not out of place. I do apologise for that terrible pun. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert ("or").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Other procedural privileges]:
Lord WILBERFORCE Lord WILBERFORCE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("in an action in rem").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to take up a lot of time on this because it was fairly well discussed when the House was in Committee. It really should be considered together with Amendment No. 8, which was the one I moved at the Committee stage and on which some debate took place. Both Amendments, which are alternatives, concern the remedying of an injunction, which both I and my noble friend Lord Denning thought was an important head of relief to be available in certain cases. The anxiety expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which, if I may say so, I fully understand, is against the granting of an injunction against a State which may involve difficulties when it comes to enforcement. But I do not think that that is really a danger which is brought about by either of my Amendments. It is certainly not one into which I would desire to run the country. What I think both my noble and learned friend Lord Denning and I were concerned about was that the court should be empowered, where there is property in this country, to grant interim interlocutory relief of a kind which would prevent that property being removed. What very often happens is that property is held by some bank or third party and one wishes to secure that the money in that bank shall be held there and not removed pending determination of the dispute.
At the Committee stage I sought to achieve this by inserting (a) before (b) in line 33, where it says "Subsection (2)(b)", so as to read "Subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b)". I think the noble and learned Lord still felt that that might involve proceedings against a State itself, although subsection (4) merely refers to process in
1936
respect of property and does not refer to any process against the State itself. If the noble and learned Lord still thinks that that is a difficult Amendment, I venture to suggest an alternative here which would consist of removing from line 22 of subsection (2)(b) the words, "in an action in rem". If one deleted those limiting words, one would have in (2)(b) as it would then appear, a provision for the arrest, detention or sale of property which I should have thought was harmless, since it does not bring about a direct collision between the courts of this country and a sovereign State.
Having said that, which briefly repeats what I said at Committee stage, I just wanted it to be clear, in case the matter comes to be considered again in another place, that I do think this an important subject and one which will have to be dealt with somehow and at some time. I believe that the courts ought not to be deprived of the power to freeze assets in this country where there is a genuine and properly constituted dispute in which a State may be involved. So, formally, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 at this stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I fully understand that the noble and learned Lord is mainly concerned with preventing States from invoking immunity against court orders designed to preserve the property in dispute in the litigation before the court. The noble and learned Lord has indicated that he is not aiming at interlocutory injunctions generally, and in particular the kind of injunction which has come to be known as the Mareva injunction, a matter about which I learned much for the first time during our earlier discussion of these highly technical matters.
It was pointed out in Committee, and I think it remains valid, that the Government see very serious difficulties if court orders which are subject to personal sanctions were to be allowed against foreign States. I have a good deal of sympathy with the more limited objectives, but even orders for the detention or preservation of the subject matter of the litigation present, I think, some difficulties. Those orders, although they relate to particular property, nevertheless normally can be enforced only by a contempt

1937
process, which noble Lords may think is the kind of sanction which is inappropriate against States.
My own view, as at present advised, is that neither of the noble and learned Lord's Amendments will satisfactorily achieve his objective. The first, I venture to think, would leave the clause in a form which a court might find somewhat bewildering. References to "arrest" or "sale" of property are unaccustomed except in connection with actions in rem for ships. The second Amendment, I venture to think, would be so wide as to let in injunctions of a personal nature.
Accordingly, I am afraid that I still see difficulties in regard to these Amendments, but I am very willing to respond to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord that the matter should be further considered. We shall certainly do that, and I shall seek the best advice available to see whether we can find some way of meeting what the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's sympathy, though I would sooner have had his support. I should like to make it clear that the process I have in mind does not involve any process against the State—it would be a process against the third party, whoever it is is holding money. Thus, in the well-known case against the Bank of England, the company which I was then representing took out an injunction against the Bank of England from parting with certain gold bars. It was very effective and had very beneficial results when it was found that the Bank of England had miscounted the bars. There were a certain number which ultimately the plaintiffs in the case were able to recover. Therefore, it is not really quite so dangerous as the noble and learned Lord suggests.
However, with the support of his sympathy for the objective—I quite agree that my two Amendments are probably technically inadequate—I am happy to let the matter go, and hope that perhaps some more skilled tool than I have been able to bring to bear may produce the right sort of Amendment to give the courts the right remedy, and one which will not involve us in diplomatic incon-
1938
veniences. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Restriction and extension of immunities and privileges]:
12.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 12, after ("any") insert ("treaty, convention or other").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 11, which concerns the meaning of the expression "agreement" in Clause 2(2) and Clause 13(3), and includes in it a treaty, convention or other international agreement. As the international agreements mentioned in Clause 15 cover an identical class of international instruments it is necessary to use the same language here. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
(" ( ) Any statutory instrument containing an Order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This Amendment implements an undertaking which I gave in Committee. Its effect will be to make Orders in Council restricting or extending the immunities accorded under the Bill subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am grateful once again to the noble and learned Lord for having listened sympathetically to my Amendment on this particular matter. As he will recall, I had proposed an Affirmative Resolution rather than a Negative Resolution, but I thought that the noble and learned Lord gave very convincing reasons why it might be difficult in certain circumstances to have an Affirmative Resolution. For my part, I should be very happy to accept his proposed Amendment. However, perhaps I may be allowed to make a reservation.

1939
Should my right honourable friend in another place decide that he would prefer an Affirmative Resolution, I should like to leave the matter open. So far as I personally am concerned, I am fully satisfied that this would be sufficient guarantee in the circumstances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Interpretation of Part I]:
12.6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In sections 2(2) and 13(3) above references to an agreement include references to a treaty, convention or other national agreement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. This is a somewhat modified version of a Government Amendment moved during the Committee stage. Clause 2(2) of the Bill provides that the immunity of a foreign State may be waived by prior written agreement. Clause 13(3) provides that relief by way of injunctions and various other remedies and certain processes of enforcement are to be available against States with the written consent of the State concerned, and that any such consent may be contained in a prior agreement.
It is intended that these prior agreements should include not only agreements entered into for the purpose of a particular transaction or litigation by the parties, but also instruments by which the State involved has undertaken to waive its immunity in a manner binding that State in its international relations.
The new subsection makes it apparent that not only contracts are involved but also instruments like treaties and Conventions which are binding in public international law. I hope that this Amendment will deal with the questions that were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I should just like to say that I would regard this as an important Amendment and one which makes a significant addition to the Bill. We should be very grateful to the
1940
noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having proposed it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Short title, repeals, commencement and extent]:
12.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 41, leave out from ("proceedings") to ("and") In line 1 on page 14 and insert ("in respect of matters that occurred before the coming into force of this Act;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. If this Amendment is adopted the Bill will not apply to proceedings in respect of matters that occurred before the coming into force of the Bill. This Amendment meets the objective of an Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and strongly supported, as I recollect, by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, who thought that it was necessary and said that he was speaking not only on his own behalf but for others in the City who had expressed a view. It was put—and I fully sympathise with the argument—that the United Kingdom should not be seen to be acting in a way that would alter retrospectively the terms and Conditions of existing agreements, or upset the basis on which foreign States might have taken past decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, once again I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having met this point. It was a very important point and, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said, strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury. Perhaps in this connection I may be allowed to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give any indication under subsection (4) of the clause as to when he envisages that the Bill might come into force.
Lord O'BRIEN of LOTHBURY: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for this Amendment, which I believe to be a wise one.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, for their support for this

1941
Amendment. I am afraid that I cannot answer the question posed by the noble Baroness. It is a matter of urgency that the Bill should be enacted. That is why we have forced the pace a little upon noble Lords and the noble Baroness in trying to get this matter through so quickly. It was comforting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, that the City attaches great importance to this. I hope, therefore, that in another place the Bill will receive as speedy and sympathetic treatment as it has received here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978,

Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978,

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978,

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978,

Employment Subsidies Act 1978,

Consolidated Fund Act 1978,

Civil Aviation Act 1978,

Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Order Confirmation Act 1978,

University of London Act 1978,

Customs Annuity and Benevolent Fund Act 1978.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS) CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1978
12.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 9th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations make
1942
further arrangements, such as have been made annually in earlier years, for the calculation of mariners' primary and secondary Class 1 contributions consequent upon the changes, from 6th April 1978, in the percentage rates and earnings limits for contributions.
To avoid the need for separate regulations each year it is intended to put in a permanent form the basis on which a mariner's earnings should be taken into account for National Insurance contributions purposes. That is, where the earnings were in respect of a voyage period which fell in more than one income tax year and where there had been changes in rates and earnings limits for contributions during that period. Draft regulations to achieve this have recently been considered by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but their report is awaited. There is no prospect of these regulations—which are subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses—completing the necessary Parliamentary processes in time to operate from 6th April 1978.
As it is essential that regulations to take account of changes in rates and earnings limits which come into force from 6th April 1978 should be made to come into operation on that date these further regulations have been laid. But as I pointed out a moment or two ago, it is intended to introduce an order which will make this unnecessary each year. In the past it has not been necessary to trouble the House with such regulations as they were wholly consequential on the Contributions Re-Rating Order, and accordingly subject to Negative Resolution procedure. This year, however, the regulations are made partly in consequence of the Re-Rating Order and partly in consequence of regulations under the Social Security Pensions Act prescribing the earnings limits and, therefore, are not exempted from the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Subject to the later approval of Parliament, it is now intended that the permanent regulation should come into operation on 6th April 1979 and thereafter there will be no further need for separate regulations each year.
I now come to the detail of the regulations which I can, I think, take shortly. Regulation 1 provides that the regulations shall commence operation on 6th April 1978. Regulation 2 inserts into the

1943
principal regulations an interpretation of the term "The Re-Rating (No. 2) Order 1977" used in the draft regulations. Regulation 3 makes the last made separate regulation—that is, 88B of the principal regulations—subject to the new regulation. Regulation 4—the new regulation—continues the general pattern of special regulations which have been made each year for the calculation of mariners' contributions. It is required because the mariners to whom it relates, normally receive a settlement of earnings at the end of the voyage. The voyage may fall in more than one tax year, with the result that in the absence of special provisions the mariners' earnings would attract contributions at the rate existing at the end of the voyage rather than at the rates, and subject to the limits, appropriate to the periods of the earnings. As your Lordships know, contribution rates and earnings limits, which affect the amount of contributions, often vary from year to year.
This regulation has the general effect that where a voyage period spans 6th April 1978 the mariner's earnings are subdivided and contributions are calculated separately on the basis of the contribution rates and earnings limits applicable in the year prior to, and that commencing on, that date. Earnings are not, however, taxed specially in this way under the regulation where the part of a voyage period which falls in one tax year is no more than a month in duration.
If I may, I shall explain this a little further by saying that should a voyage commence on or after 6th March 1978 and continue beyond 5th April 1978, the earnings and the period of time in the first tax year of the voyage shall be added to those in the second tax year of the voyage, and contributions shall be calculated by reference to the total of the amounts earned during those two periods, the total length of the two periods and the rate and limits applying during that second tax year.
Alternatively, should a voyage commence before 6th March 1978, continue beyond 5th April 1978 but end before 6th May 1978, the earnings and the period of time in the last tax year of the voyage shall be added to those in the penultimate tax year of the voyage and the contribu-
1944
tions shall be calculated by reference to the total of the amounts earned during those two periods, the total length of the two periods and the rate and limits applying during the penultimate year. I know that this sounds extremely complicated and I do not think that I am in danger of over-simplifying it when I merely say that a good many mariners are at sea for a considerable period. They can be away for some months in the present tax year and then still be away on the same voyage for several months in the tax year which will begin on 6th April 1978.
The rates of contributions in both those years are different. We know the contributions are going up after 6th April. The earnings limits are going up, and it would be unfair to ask them to pay National Insurance contributions in the year when they are higher than they were in the previous year. Briefly, it means that they are being assessed for each period of the years in which they have been away. These special arrangements have been made for the industry for many years and are fair to the employers as well as the employees, and it can be done in such a way that it does not create undue administrative difficulties for the employer. I hope that that explanation is reasonably clear, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 9th March, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
12.21 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining this particular order. One realises in listening to the noble Lord how complicated this situation is. I was interested to hear that the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee is still awaited. Naturally this will very much concern the situation with which we are confronted. In regard to Regulation 4, on which the noble Lord dwelt at some length, it appears from listening to the noble Lord that, although contributions will be re-rated satisfactorily so far as the mariner is concerned, there may indeed be a tax disadvantage to the mariner because of the grossing up of earnings for a rather longer period.

1945
However, as we are awaiting the National Insurance Advisory Committee's report, I shall not comment further.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, once again we are indebted to the noble Lord for a clear explanation of what is, in essence, a simple proposition that is nevertheless complicated in operation. The noble Lord has made it clear that this is a proposal to cover the position where a voyage takes place in more than one year—spans the division between two fiscal years. It is, as he said, an interim provision until a permanent provision is introduced, it is hoped, next year. When the permanent provision comes, will it be by a Negative Resolution or an Affirmative Resolution? Is it just because of the peculiar situation this year that we have an Affirmative Resolution? I do not wish to question the precise proposals which the noble Lord has explained. We certainly are happy to support the approval of the order.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I believe that the tax does not present a problem. I think many of us have been in a position whereby we have been in receipt of monies in the middle of the year which has covered five months in one year and five or six months in the previous year. Speaking personally in this matter, I have never felt that I have been at a disadvantage, because it has been possible to make adjustments.
With regard to Lord Banks's point, I understand that it will be an Affirmative Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPORT OF LIVE FARM ANIMALS
12.25 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a Statement on the export of live farm animals. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Question asks whether the Government are able to make a Statement on the subject of the export of live animals. I do not expect to get the sort of Statement
1946
that I had in mind when I put down the Question, and indeed I am not inviting that kind of Statement today because the situation has obviously changed with the publication this morning of the Yellow Paper—which is perhaps a new colour in discussion documents in Parliament. Nevertheless, there are a few points and questions which I can put on this subject. Other noble Lords may wish to add to them.
First, can my noble friend, when he comes to reply, give the House any idea of the Government's programme with regard to the discussion of this Paper and the interval that is to elapse before conclusions can be reached? The second question is whether there will be an opportunity for a debate on the report in this House before the Government reach conclusions. I think both of those questions are important. I hope that, on a subject of this kind, it will not be regarded as sufficient for a debate to take place in another place only. We have a close interest in this subject here.
My next point regards the composition of the working group of officials who compiled this report. I take this to be a welcome sign of more open government. I think it is a genuine contribution to placing before Parliament and the public the considerations involved in a difficult and sensitive subject, often attracting a great deal of emotion, so that we can consider the facts calmly and closely before a decision is reached. That is far better than the Government making a Statement on their conclusions and saying that a Paper is in the Vote Office this afternoon. For the Government to listen before reaching conclusions is better than that they should not listen after they have reached their conclusions.
May we, at some suitable point, be told who comprised the working group of officials, merely so as to know what are their credentials and whether there were veterinary officers among the working group. After all, this is an anonymous group presented by the Ministers concerned to Parliament and to the public. It is an advantage when a report of any kind is produced for which the Minister is not taking ministerial responsibility. He has received a report and says, "Well, let it be published and let the public judge, let Parliament discuss, and then

1947
we will reach our conclusions." Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable to ask to know who were the working group officials. Recently, when there was a report on dogs and society from an inter-departmental working party, the names of the chairman and other members of the working party were published along with their report. I think that that is quite a reasonable thing to ask.
I come next to the size of this problem. It is obviously much greater today than it was some years ago. In Annexe B some figures are given which, as regards sheep, for example, do not tally with the figures published in The Times newspaper on 16th March, which I understand were given by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The numbers have risen significantly, the export of calves going up from 249,000 in 1976 to 394,000 in 1977. In Appendix B, the numbers given for calves do not differ significantly from the figure I have quoted, but, as regards sheep, there is a considerable difference. According to the figures given in The Times as coming from the Meat and Livestock Commission, the numbers of live sheep went up from 32,000 to 356,000, whereas Appendix B gives 200,000, so there is a big difference there.
In any event, the numbers are large. Apparently the Commission said that they did not think exports of sheep would rise again in 1978, partly because of the greater restrictions expected against British meat for sale in France. Difficulties on that head are referred to in the report. At the moment, I am simply indicating points which the Government should study before we come on to the subsequent debate.
I come to the welfare side referred to in the report relating to EEC regulations. It may be that the reply given by Commissioner Gundelach in the European Parliament on 16th March is later information than that contained in the Yellow Paper before us. I am indebted to Caroline Jackson, Press Officer of the European Conservative Group, for an abbreviated account of the reply given by Commissioner Gundelach, who said that the Commission was about to propose implementing regulations to tighten controls on transport and was also about to propose an action programme for animal protection.
That, incidentally, was in reply to a question put by Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams, a Member of the British House of Commons, who is a Member of the European Parliament. Commissioner Gundelach said that the Commission was quite satisfied that, in general, the conditions of slaughter were adequate in the Community, but that it had started proceedings into instances. Then he went on in the summary which I mentioned—and this is important—
"On the other hand, the Commission was not satisfied about the conditions for the transport of live animals and it was for this reason that they were concentrating on the proposed legislation and action programme.".
That rather suggests that, notwithstanding the recitation in the Yellow Paper of the regulations in the EEC, there is still some disquiet there about conditions of transportation and the need apparently to tighten up controls and have an action programme for what Commissioner Gundelach described as animal protection. That may be an important development too.
Another development is that, in order to protect their own industry, the French have imposed a still higher import tax on sheep and lambs going into France, with the result that there is likely to be a greater diversion of exports from this country via Holland to escape the imposition of this additional tax. So not only may the figures change but the destination of considerable numbers of sheep and lambs may also change. Nothing is up to date for more than about five minutes at a time in the world of today and therefore any report which is dated March 1978 almost requires one to ask on what day in March 1978 the report was concluded so as to know whether it is really up to date. Apparently, two things have happened since the completion of the report.
I come to another point which I believe is important: We should avoid the attitude of the animal welfare organisations being misrepresented. On page 8, we read:
"Views of the animal welfare societies: The animal welfare societies remain opposed as a matter of principle to the export of live food animals from the United Kingdom to the Continent".
I suggest one has to be very careful when using the words "of principle". This is not marriage or divorce or euthanasia, where people have very strong principles

1949
based on convictions which are not open to argument or discussions. The welfare organisations are not, I submit, in the position where they do not listen to what the facts may be or what the arguments are. Really and truly, the welfare organisations are opposed to something happening where the conditions under which it is happening are unsatisfactory; that is, where some cruelty may be imposed upon animals.
It may be that the animal welfare organisations in general concede to animal life rights which many human beings do not concede, and believe that animals can claim to have some rights of their own in the living world, in the environment and in their association with human beings. That may be, as a matter of principle, a rather different attitude towards animal welfare to that which many people have. I do not want it to be thought that the animal welfare organisations are just stubborn and unreasonable, are not open to argument and will not listen. It is not a matter of a closed mind based on some conviction which is unshakable; it has to do with the facts and what is happening.
On this matter of welfare, there was an interesting development recently when a meeting of port workers' shop stewards was held in Birmingham on 11th March. It was convened by the shop stewards of the Hull port workers and there appeared in the newspapers a report saying that the shop stewards from the ports were to recommend to their members that they should ban the export of live animals from British ports. That was a very significant decision for port workers' shop stewards to take; they must have some very strong grounds for disquiet if they go to the trouble of holding a special meeting on a Saturday to consider recommending such a ban to their members. I shall not dwell on the aspect of industrial relations involved in any such decision. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that these workers obviously have very strong feelings about the subject, otherwise they would not have convened a meeting for that purpose and would not have made such a recommendation to the port workers. That is a development of considerable importance.
Along with the question of calves being exported, a good deal of publicity was given to the visit of two Members of
1950
another place, and that visit—the visit of Mr. Mills and Mr. Hicks—is referred to in the report. The details appear in paragraph 50 and, after indicating what their experience was, the report ends:
"They have, however, suggested that exports of live animals for slaughter should be phased out".
That was quite an important conclusion for those two Members of another place to come to, bearing in mind that they both represent considerable agricultural constituencies. We can also welcome in the report the reference, in paragraph 46, on page 12, to the fact that the National Farmers' Union, the RSPCA, and the British Veterinary Association are getting together on an informal basis to form an export welfare group, which I believe will contribute greatly to a rational approach to this problem.
In general, my question mark about the report is this. While it is good in dealing with what has been suggested, and good in expressing the views of the various bodies consulted, I do not find in it any indication of close examination by the committee of the actual facts of welfare and of the observance of regulations. I have here voluminous papers, though I do not propose to refer to them in the few minutes more that I shall occupy the House, but it has been put to me that those who know about this will say that wide-spread disregard of the regulations is almost endemic in this trade, because, it is claimed, if one complies with the regulations fully, then, the competition being what it is, along with the steps taken by the French to keep one out, they lead to an uneconomic transportation industry of live animals. I do not see any evidence in the report which supports any conclusions about welfare. It is fairly obvious that when the numbers have risen to the extent they have, supervision and enforcement are bound to be more difficult than they were before. There cannot be a rise in the numbers I have quoted without very great strain being put on all the resources, on the veterinary officers and all concerned with the supervision and enforcement of the regulations.
It is an extremely useful report, and I congratulate the Government upon adopting this method of dealing with this difficult problem. There will be many questions asked about it. There will be probes into the basis upon which it

1951
reaches certain conclusions, but I hope that, in the end, we may have a combination of compassion, as well as realism, in reaching final conclusions.
Looking at the economics of exploitation of animal life in this particular regard, we all remember that when the bans were lifted, after the O'Brien Report of 1974, we were all very concerned with the balance of payments. We were ready to give up home consumption of food produced here if it would help our balance of payments. That situation is substantially changed now, and I do not think that the economics of this matter really relate to any problem about the balance of payments. They may relate to the balance of trade, but not, in present conditions, to any serious problem regarding the balance of payments. That aspect of the matter is, I believe, very different indeed. I saw the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, in his place a little earlier, and I was hoping that he would remain for this debate and, if necessary, say something on the subject. His committee, in 1973–74, devoted itself very earnestly to what must have been to him, and to the other members, a strangely unpalatable task. This now is the second chapter in that consideration. I hope that we shall be given adequate time not only to study it but to debate it in this House.
12.44 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would reply to a suggestion I wish to make to him. In his closing remarks he referred to the opportunities we would have to debate this important report, and I would draw his attention to the fact that as the report has been available in the Printed Paper Office only from 10 o'clock this morning, as he himself said earlier, your Lordships have been placed in a somewhat difficult position to debate it on a day when we are about to rise for the Recess—together with the fact that the report is somewhat lengthy, running to 44 pages. Does the noble Lord feel that it may be possible to take a further opportunity to look at this matter on some more suitable occasion, and that your Lordships may do better not to proceed with this Question at the moment? Would the noble Lord—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am sorry; I was looking at my papers as the noble Lord was speaking.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if the noble Lord is consulting his papers and considering this matter, perhaps I may continue with my remarks. I believe that we are under a particularly difficult set of circumstances, and while recognising most fully the public interest in, and the urgency of, this matter, I feel that this Unstarred Question merits much fuller consideration and investigation by your Lordships before we discuss it in the depths to which your Lordships are accustomed. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has anything to say at this stage. If he has, I should be only too happy to resume my seat—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I see that there are present other noble Lords who were hoping to contribute to the debate on my Question, and I think that we should have at least a preliminary reply from the Government on the first point I mentioned, on procedure.
Lord SANDYS: Very well, my Lords; I am only too happy to continue.
The noble Lord has raised a particularly important subject, from the point of view of both the agricultural industry as a whole and, further, the very wide interest in the European Convention, which is to come into effect in August 1978. I should like to go over a little of the history leading up to the report, and further to comment upon it in relation to the O'Brien Committee Report, because I believe that the two are most intimately linked. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to go over some of the history of recent years, because it may benefit some of us to refresh our memories upon it.
Your Lordships will recollect that there was a suspension of trade in 1973, and the appointment of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, took place in July of that year. The committee investigated most carefully the circumstances of the trade, and it reported on

1953
27th March 1974. Its report was considered, a debate took place in another place on 17th January 1975, and the resumption of trade occurred almost immediately. Since the trade was suspended a number of things have taken place, and I believe that it will be generally recognised that what has happened since 1975 has been, overall, to the benefit of the conduct of the trade in all its aspects.
But certain other factors had entered into the situation. In the first place, the numbers of fat cattle being exported have dropped, and the numbers of calves have been greatly increased. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred in particular to the very substantial number of calves. I shall not repeat the noble Lord's figures, but there was an increase in the past two years, between 1976 and 1978. Further, the transport arrangements have changed quite substantially. The introduction of roll-on/roll-off ferries has become almost universal for part of the trade with Europe; and there has also been a growth in the air transport of calves, especially to countries as far afield as Italy and North Africa.
The European Convention for the Protection of Animals during international transport is a Convention to which the signatories have given great consideration, and the charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is one with which certainly I most heartily disagree. He said—and I quote his words—that "widespread disregard of the regulation is endemic in the trade". This is a serious charge, and I think we ought to consider it in some depth.
At this point, I should like to refer back to the key paragraph in the report to which I referred earlier; that is, the O'Brien Committee Report of 1974—and I hope I shall not be trespassing on the indulgence of your Lordships if I read it. It occurs at page 22 of the O'Brien Report, where they say (and they begin, "If"):
"If we had come to the conclusion that the trade was inhumane, we should have had no hesitation in recommending a ban on that element of the trade which is carried on in live form. We have not come to such a conclusion, however, and we are therefore proposing a system of controls which we consider will safeguard the welfare of animals in the slaughter trade".
My Lords, they do not stop there, for in their consideration the O'Brien Committee
1954
went on to say this:
"We believe that by allowing the trade to continue under strict and respected conditions we could set a practical example to those other nations which trade in livestock, and thereby contribute to a general raising of standards."
I believe that that was the spirit of the O'Brien Report. They weighed the evidence most carefully, and they came to a considered verdict upon it. If it is the fact now, in the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that "widespread disregard … is endemic in the trade", I hope that, in a future debate, he will be able to lay before your Lordships his evidence to this effect, because I think it must be manifest that a very considerable improvement has taken place in standards generally, both in Europe and to the further shores of North Africa, since the ban took place. I think that the example set in introducing these regulations in this country, and the initiative taken by the Dutch in implementing their own legislation, has had some effect in improving standards generally.
I should now like to refer to one particular aspect which I know that those with much greater knowledge than myself, especially my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, would like to draw to your Lordships' attention. It concerns the basic need for an export trade of this sort. I go back to the summer of 1976, and to the drought that occurred during that year. That drought occasioned a very serious situation in the farm-feed world. It occasioned a rise in price of feedstuffs, especially hay, which doubled and in some cases increased a little more than that, during the course of the autumn of 1976. A very serious situation could have occurred—it had occurred in other years—when there were something of the order of 14½ million cattle and calves in this country to be wintered on fodder, and feed for only (and I quote figures roughly) about 13 million. It would have been a most unfortunate situation if the industry had been unable to feed those cattle within our shores, and therefore there was an excessive amount of slaughter of cattle, to the depression of the market and to the flooding of the trade generally. So, my Lords, this export of animals gives a breathing space in a situation such as that which I have described.

1955
Other circumstances must also be catered for, and it is surely the whole spirit of the Treaty of Rome, of which this country is a signatory, that we should be able to trade with our partners on an equivalent basis. Your Lordships have earlier drawn attention to the fact that there is an unfortunate situation in relation to the export trade between Ireland and France and between France and this country. I believe, and I am sure my noble friends believe, that it is a matter of great importance that we are ironing out the differences between all member nations of the EEC, to the benefit of trade between us all. This European Convention, to which attention has been drawn, comes into effect on 1st August, and the interim arrangements meanwhile, we must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, have been unsatisfactory, largely because the signatory countries felt they were unsatisfactory within themselves. They are now willing to concede that the Convention itself would be a more manageable system, and I believe that, as there are only four months which have to elapse between now and 1st August, the period involved is a relatively short one.
My Lords, I refer back to what the noble Lord said in regard to the shop stewards' meeting at the Port of Hull; and I believe that one should consider what the O'Brien Committee reported in regard to that situation. I believe that, in their considerations, the O'Brien Committee took account of a great deal of evidence, both from respected official bodies and from other welfare organisations in this country. I believe that we ought to investigate with great care the report which has been published this morning. I have penetrated only one-half of the report so far, but I noted that on page 18, in paragraph 70, there is this remark under the paragraph headed, "On the ferry". I quote the first sentence:
"It has been alleged from time to time that animals have been carried in excessively bad weather, but there has been no evidence that animals have suffered on these occasions."
I do not believe that that is a wholly accurate statement because, of course, there has been evidence in the past that live cargo carried by vessels travelling to the Continent and other destinations has
1956
suffered on occasions. Nevertheless, the situation has improved within the last few years.
In closing, I believe we should give much closer consideration to this report, and I would welcome the opportunity to do so if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, can arrange with the usual channels for a debate to take place after the Recess.
12.59 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, knowing very well that most of your Lordships are waiting impatiently for the House to rise for the Easter Recess, I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for having raised this Question; and, as I think some of your Lordships, at least, may be wondering why both he and I take up the time of your Lordships with what may be considered an unnecessary and unimportant matter, let me say that it is not an unimportant matter. To cause unnecessary suffering to creatures who are unable to defend themselves is morally wrong. It is just as bad with animals as it is in the case of small children. We heard during yesterday's debate a plea for better conditions for the mentally subnormal pace the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart; and very rightly, too! But it is every bit as bad to cause unnecessary suffering to animals who are unable to protect themselves. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I will go on as long as it is necessary.
There is one question that I should like to ask. When are the Government going to take some steps to rule out this quite hypothetical distinction between animals exported for immediate slaughter and those exported for further fattening. There is no distinction whatsoever between the two. The great point is that eventually they are both going to be slaughtered in Continental slaughterhouses. That is the fate from which we are trying to protect them.
A great deal of emphasis has been laid on the question of transport; but, although it can be very bad, transport is by no means the worst of the evils. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has quoted from the O'Brien Report but, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord and also to Lord O'Brien, a great deal has been

1957
discovered since publication of that report that they were unable to have access to. That knowledge has been made available to us by responsible people whose opinion one must take seriously.
As president of one of the societies which consider particularly this matter that we are discussing this morning, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for what he said about the welfare societies. I can say that we are very careful indeed never to make any statements that are not absolutely provable in fact. We are very careful to keep the emotional side—which unfortunately is only too ready, with some societies, to creep in—outside our calculations. But one cannot deny facts that have been proved by those who have seen them. Some of the conditions in Continental slaughterhouses are absolutely unspeakable—even since the EEC regulations which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
I welcome those regulations but there is very widespread evidence that they are disregarded. I am afraid that some may think that this is a serious charge, and in fact the noble Lord himself called it so. Well, so it is; but it is, unfortunately, a true one. I am not speaking from personal experience. I have never seen them myself—and thank goodness for that!—but the conditions in some slaughterhouses are completely outside the regulations and are unspeakably awful. Therefore, I hope that this entirely hypothetical distinction between the two will be withdrawn. I will not take up the time of the House further, but I hope sincerely that the time will come before long when the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I and others no longer have to keep on taking up your Lordships' time on this matter.
1.4 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall be very brief because we are all hoping to get home. I am possibly the only farmer to speak in this debate and the only person who is the chairman of an auction market where we have representatives from the welfare societies. We have a slaughterhouse. I do not run one, but we have one which is used by all the farmers and which is quite near.
May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the improvement in slaughterhouses in this country has come about
1958
largely as a result of the EEC regulations. The standard has gone up considerably, for the houses have to spend a great deal of money in bringing their standards up to the EEC Commission standards. I do not know about the French or the other foreign ones; but here it is true that, if you are running a slaughterhouse, you are not allowed to have it operating unless it fulfils the standards insisted upon by the EEC. Whether they insist upon those standards in France or in Holland, I do not know; but I can only tell your Lordships of what happens here. That is a fact. I would hotly deny that our slaughterhouses are thoroughly bad. Those in this country are extremely good. I do not believe that the Continental slaughterhouses would be allowed to function if they were not up to the same standards.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I never raised a word against slaughterhouses in this country. I know that they are excellent because our own society does regular inspections of them. They are of a very high standard.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, the standards have had to be raised—and that is my point—since the EEC Commission so decided. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will hear me out on this because he was in on the regulations which were originally started in this matter.
My Lords, I have had only a short time to read this report, but I should like to say that paragraphs 89, 90 and 91 are very much to the point in that the trade does depend on selling both carcass meat and live meat and that it is important that we should be able to sell live meat to the Continent because it is quite often the live bidding in auction markets which enables one to sell one's animals at a proper price. This is something which is really vital to the trade.
The French market is very important. Speaking now for the farmers in the hill country where we produce store sheep and store cattle, I may say that the amount of sales very often depends on whether or not the French market is open. Many a time I have been to the auction mart selling my own lambs and the word has gone round that the French market is open. Everyone knows then that the

1959
price of animals will be considerably better than if the French market were not open. One could say that about other EEC countries; but France is the biggest importer of our mutton.
I drew attention in my speech in the agricultural debate on Monday to the fact that, at the moment, the French market seems to be being operated in an entirely arbitrary manner. The French allow Irish sheep into their market free and they levy sheep that come from this country. I understand that the Government have, rightly, protested hotly about this and telegrams and letters have gone between the Minister of Agriculture and the EEC, where the French are represented. I hope that that will produce some satisfactory result; but, in fact, it is most important for the trade that these foreign markets should be available to us. One of the reasons that we are in the EEC is in order to be able to trade on an equal basis with the markets in Europe.
The paragraph in the report which refers to the question of backdoor methods is, I think, one that we must ask should be explored. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, I do not think that it is right that, in order to get our animals into the French market, they should have to go via Holland. That is breaking EEC Commission regulations. I hope that the Government will be very tough about this. I am sure that they will, because the Ministry of Agriculture is obviously well aware of these matters and I am sure that the Minister will be anxious to do what he can to stop this kind of arbitrary method of operations.
I have only had a very short time to read this document but I think it is very fair. It puts the case for those who are against the export of animals as well as the case for those who are in favour of it. I look upon this as a matter which is vital to the operation of agriculture in this country. It would be most unfortunate if we cannot export. I am sure that it is the right to export, otherwise we shall find ourselves without a big enough market. This is not because we are trying to keep our sheep or cattle away from our own people, but simply because they cannot buy all that we can produce in certain lines. We import a lot of food; but the fact that we can
1960
export commodities that are needed and wanted in Europe is vital to our trade. I am sure that the Government will back us up on this. I am speaking for a large proportion of meat and livestock producers and I am quite sure that we shall have the support of the Government. I hope that this document will be a help and not a hindrance in these matters.
1.12 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, my name is not on the list of speakers and I do not intend to make a speech. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply two questions. First, in view of the fact that it is obviously not possible for your Lordships to debate this afternoon a report which was published only this morning, and in view also of the fact that interest has been shown in all quarters of the House in this important subject, will the Government do their best to facilitate a debate after the Easter Recess?
My second question—to which I do not expect an answer now—is this: Will the Government consider whether, if, as the O'Brien Report said in 1954, there is still a surplus capacity in our slaughterhouses at home, this could be used to "accommodate"—if I may use that word—at least some of the live sheep and cattle now exported to the Continent?
1.13 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I also apologise because my name is not on the list of speakers. I suppose that for the past five or six years I have been more closely connected with this subject than most other noble Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising this matter. It is an extremely important issue, one that is often debated in various ways. I agree with him and hope very much that there will be a full debate in your Lordships' House because in this type of debate we tend to talk more sense than some other places.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he will do his best to speed up consideration of this problem as well as perhaps helping us to have a debate fairly soon. One matter is absolutely clear in this whole business of exporting, whether it is

1961
goods or animals. It is tremendously important to build up exports on a sound and firm basis. One of the reasons why the numbers have increased so much in the past year is because conditions have been looked after much more carefully. The trade have gone into this much more thoroughly. They have built up their contacts and the trade has grown in a way that I believe is broadly satisfactory to almost everybody.
I have two or three short matters to raise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about the comment in the report of what a good thing it is that the NFU, the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA should have got together working closely on this matter. This is not new. I set up an exactly similar operation about three years ago and it began to work extremely well.
It may well be that the present situation regarding the balance of payments position is not as serious as it was when the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, made his report; but this is not really the key to the question whether or not live exports should continue. The problem is much bigger than that. If the balance of payments problem is less, the problem of profitability on the hill farms and the farms that produce the sheep and the calves, in many cases from the hills, and also from the dairy industry, has become much worse. So on balance there are at least one or two arguments to be made.
Before I sit down I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that it is not just himself and his noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby who are keen to prevent unnecessary suffering—I think he expressed those words—to animals being exported or handled in various ways. Those of us in the business are all, for very good reasons, just as keen as other noble Lords to prevent unnecessary suffering. If one thinks of the auction marts to which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred, they receive a much worse price if the stock they are selling is not properly handled. The farmer, if he does not look after his stock properly, gets a worse price. Also the butchers get bad carcasses. So everybody who is concerned in this trade is just as keen as the two noble Lords to prevent unnecessary
1962
suffering. This is a point worth making because some of the letters the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, received—and certainly some that I used to receive—seemed to indicate that anybody who farmed did not care in the least how their animals were treated. The truth is the exact contrary. If one did not take that trouble there would be very few animals to look after.
1.17 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, the report which is the subject of this short debate was published only this morning. As the noble Lord said, he has had the opportunity to read only part of it. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said the same. My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby seems to have read the report completely. I must congratulate him on this. He has probably taken a rapid reading course and therefore has the advantage of many noble Lords. I cannot help agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the debate is somewhat premature. My noble friend was critical of the colour. He did not like the yellow. I can assure him that there is no significance in this colour. We wanted to avoid a political colour such as red. We also wanted to avoid the usual green. Apart from that, there is no significance in the colour of the report.
I thought that the noble Lord was a little disparaging about those who took part in the Committee. He asked me who they were. The group comprised administrators and veterinary surgeons employed in the State service. I should like to pay a tribute to them for their report and for the immense amount of work that they put into this. It may be helpful if I remind the House of some of the background to this report. Noble Lords will remember that the Government of the day—I think a Conservative Government—appointed the O'Brien Committee in 1973 to inquire into the exports of live animals for slaughter and to consider whether the welfare of such animals was properly safeguarded. The Committee concluded that a permanent ban on live exports was not justified on either welfare or economic grounds and that the most economic way to safeguard the animals' welfare lay in the implementation of

1963
common European measures, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
Following a free vote in another place at the end of 1975, the Government decided to allow the resumption of the trade under close veterinary control. Since that time, there have been a number of improvements to the welfare safeguards as a result of common EEC measures. In 1975, the EEC adopted a directive which required that animals must be stunned before slaughter. Last year, another directive was adopted which will give the force of Community law to the existing European Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport. This latter directive comes into effect on 1st August next. The United Kingdom has played a leading part in the Community's work for animal welfare, and I agree very much with the concern expressed by my noble friend and by the other speakers in this debate.
Criticism of the live export trade has, however, continued and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decided in July last year that he would give close and detailed consideration to all aspects of the trade and would study the views of the principal organisations involved. The agricultural Ministers therefore set up a working party of officials, and they have produced the report which is published today.
The report, which is comprehensive and straightforward, provides essential information to enable Ministers to reach a decision. The report is the result of detailed study which has taken place over the last eight months and which has involved consideration of evidence from 36 organisations and individuals and also visits by officials to those countries to which live food animals are permitted to be exported. Noble Lords will see in the annexe to the report the number of societies and organisations who gave evidence, including, I am glad to say, the RSPCA and the National Farmers' Union.
It is a comprehensive and clear study of the welfare, economic and legal aspects of the trade. It rehearses the evidence and arguments which were put forward by the welfare interests and also by the exporting interests; and it discusses them in depth.
1964
It sets out the relevant legal considerations and it concludes that on the welfare aspects there are considerations both for and against the continuance of the trade and that there are ways in which control of the trade could be extended further.
The conclusion on the economic aspects is that the weight of advantage to the United Kingdom lies in continuing the trade. The legal advice is that difficulty would be experienced in justifying a ban on exports under Community law. The publication of the report is an earnest of the Government's intentions to introduce more open Government, since the report is an example of the material supplied by civil servants as a factual basis which Ministers may wish to use when taking a policy decision. The Government thought it right and useful for the report to be published.
Before the Government make their decision, particularly on a subject of such wide general interest as animal welfare, Ministers consider it necessary to allow time for Members of this House and of another place, the many interested parties and the general public, to consider the facts collected in this most useful and far-reaching report, together with their implications. The report considers that the considerations are complex and that the answer is by no means obvious.
I have listened with the greatest interest to the various points raised by my noble friend and by other speakers and I am sure their first reactions to this report will be carefully noted by Ministers. It is clearly much too soon to do more than welcome this publication this morning, and Her Majesty's Government will need to take account of the points of view expressed today and in the coining weeks before they reach their decision on this important subject.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by other noble Lords, when a decision would be taken. As I say, it will need time to study the various implications, but it is hoped to make a statement in due course. With regard to a debate, as my noble friend the Leader and my noble friend the Chief Whip are sitting behind me on the Front Bench, and the Opposition Chief Whip is also present in the Chamber, I am sure it will be discussed between the usual channels. As I say, I am grateful to

1965
noble Lords for expressing their views, in so far as they have been able to do so, on this report. Those views will be carefully noted.

  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE NAMES
  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE NAMES
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS