Sitting of 19 May 1978

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

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions

Division No. 218]

AYES

[11.3 a.m.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Leadbitter, Ted

Stallard, A. W.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Litterick, Tom

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Richardson, Miss Jo

Viggers, Peter

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Ward, Michael

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Sandelson, Neville

Heffer, Eric S.

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Mr. Thomas Cox and

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Mr. Walter Harrison.

John, Brynmor

Snape, Peter

NOES

Fell, Anthony

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Hodgson, Robin

Moate, Roger

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg and

Onslow, Cranley

Mr. Toby Jessel.

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

VALUATION LISTS (POSTPONEMENT) ORDER

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Valuation Lists (Postponement) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Snape.]

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 1.

on the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Hon. Member: Object.
Mr. Speaker: Very well. I shall put each Question separately.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND MEASURE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 6.

NOES

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg and

Mr. Toby Jessel.

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

VALUATION LISTS (POSTPONEMENT) (No. 2) ORDER

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Valuation Lists (Postponement) (No. 2) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Snape.]

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 0.

Division No. 220]

AYES

[11.28 a.m.

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Horam, John

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

John, Brynmor

Snape, Peter

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Stallard, A. W.

Deakins, Eric

Litterick, Tom

Steel, Rt Hon David

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Richardson, Miss Jo

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Roper, John

Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Ward, Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Ryman, John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Sandelson, Neville

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Mr. Walter Harrison and

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mr. Thomas Cox.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

NOES

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg and

Mr. Toby Jessel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Valuation Lists (Postponement) (No. 2) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOMES INSULATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.36 a.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This relatively short Bill marks another significant stage in the development of the Government's overall energy policy. Until recent times, we were accustomed first to coal and then to oil and natural gas being available in plenty to power our economy. Oil, in particular, was treated as available in almost unrestricted amounts and at low or falling prices. Despite the few voices calling for better and more co-ordinated use of fuel the efficiency with which energy was used was treated as of little importance.
  Then came the dramatic effect of the fivefold increase in oil prices in 1973–74. In comparison with many other countries we may be relatively well placed, with substantial reserves of oil, gas and coal, but we are not immune from the difficulties of energy supply which will develop towards the end of the century—only 20 years away.
  Following the energy crisis in 1974, the Government adopted an active energy conservation policy and have reaffirmed its importance in the response to the First Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and, more recently in the Green Paper on energy policy presented to Parliament earlier this year.
  More efficient use of energy benefits both the individual user and the whole nation. Considerable savings have already been made through a programme of education. The "Save It" campaign has increased our awareness of the importance of energy conservation and has offered advice on appropriate measures, but there is a limit to what can be achieved by propaganda and exhortation alone.
  Last December the Government announced a major package of measures to encourage energy conservation. It included a 10-year programme to establish a basic level of insulation in existing public authority housing where it is lacking.
  952
  This programme will run at the rate of about 200,000 homes a year. Now, in this Bill, we are turning our attention to privately owned houses.
  Their energy consumption accounts for almost one-fifth of the total national consumption. About half total domestic consumption is for space heating and about 20 per cent. for water heating. The last 30 years or so have seen a general improvement in the efficiency of domestic appliances and a major shift in the distribution of consumption between different fuels. Oil and electricity consumption have risen more than fivefold; solid fuel consumption has fallen. Because of increased efficiency in energy consuming appliances overall domestic fuel consumption has risen relatively little but the amount of useful heat supplied has grown by 75 per cent.
  This increase in appliance efficiency has not, however, been matched by an increase in the thermal efficiency of much of our housing. New houses have to conform to specified standards of loft insulation. Almost without exception they are fitted with insulating jackets on hot water tanks. Many of our older houses, however, have the heat-retaining characteristics of an upturned colander. Up to 5 million non-local authority dwellings have no loft insulation at all, so losing up to 25 per cent of heat straight through the roof. An unlagged hot water tank can cost up to £1 per week in wasted energy.
  For some people, particularly the elderly on limited incomes, the result of such heat losses is that they simply cannot afford to heat their houses adequately. For them, insulation may bring social rather than financial benefits, and, although they will save little energy, basic insulation will make life more comfortable and healthy during cold weather.
  But for many people basic insulation measures such as those included in the programme for local authority houses can offer real energy and cash savings. The most cost-effective measures are a reasonable level of insulation in the loft space and a suitable jacket for the hot water tank. The Government have decided that the first priority must be to apply these basic measures to the whole of the housing stock. We have considered several possible methods to achieve this objective, and have concluded that direct

  953
  financial help to individual householders would be the most effective.
  We considered carefully whether to add these insulation measures to the existing house improvement grant system, but many of the rules and conditions under which house improvement grants are given would not be relevant to the specific insulation works we wish to promote. Given a potential market of about 5 million householders, we want to keep the administration of any grant scheme as simple as possible.
  It is also important that the new scheme should come into effect quickly. The longer the gap between its announcement and its introduction, the greater the difficulty for the insulation manufacturing industry, with which we have been in close consultation.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his colleagues had considered several possible schemes in addition to the present one. He specifically mentioned another form of grant. Can he tell us the nature of the other schemes that were considered and rejected?
  Mr. Freeson: I cannot do so in detail, but I can say that they were mainly variations of the grant system that we already operate. We also considered tax help and various other forms of help. I do not think that time allows me to go into all the details. If necessary I shall provide them in Committee or write to the hon. Gentleman. Essentially, we examined variations on the present improvement grant system.
  Having had the consultation and considered the alternatives, we have brought the Bill before the House as quickly as possible. In this way basic insulation work in private houses can go hand in hand with the work in local authority housing that is now being introduced. We aim to get this effectively started in time for the coming winter.
  I have said that the Bill does not stand in isolation but is part of the Government's overall energy policy. Another important part of that policy on which we have drawn in bringing the Bill forward is the research and development work carried out in the Department of the Environment both by the housing development
  954
  directorate and the building research establishment.
  We have a comprehensive programme of work under way to identify the extent of the energy conservation measures required in housing in the next decade and the priorities for action. The programme will explore possible changes in building construction and heating and ventilation entailed in further energy conservation measures. These changes are being tried out in actual building projects to identify and resolve practical issues, such as the usefulness of heat pumps, well ahead of their general application. We are also examining failures in existing estates, not merely technical problems but the decision-making process in designing and building. All of this will be important to future fuel efficiency and thermal standards.
  Meanwhile, as I believe that there is broad agreement with the Government's policy on both sides of the House, I hope that we shall see the Bill through all its stages before the new insulation season starts in the autumn. Certainly, the Government will aim for this.
  In essence, the Bill provides for payment of grants by local authorities to individual householders according to schemes prepared by the Secretary of State. Local authorities will be reimbursed by the Government for the full amount of grants which they make. The Secretary of State may also contribute to meeting administrative costs incurred by local authorities. I want at this point to pay tribute to the help and co-operation that we have had from the local authority associations in working up this scheme quickly.
  The Bill is short and its provisions are intentionally simple. Clause 1 requires local authorities to pay insulation grants according to schemes made by the Secretary of State. These will be laid before Parliament. The Bill provides that the first such scheme will be for insulating lofts and water supplies. Details of the works eligible for grant will be included in the first scheme, but essentially they will be the same as those included in the public sector programme announced some months ago.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Can the Minister tell us why even in the first scheme nothing is being done for the 5 million homes which have no

  955
  lofts or loft access, and why he has taken no account in the first scheme of the fact that more heat is lost through walls than through roofs?
  Mr. Freeson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is that it is simply not true. Otherwise, we should not have been introducing the scheme that we are introducing. We have based what we are doing on available knowledge about the greatest loss of heat experienced in domestic dwellings. There is no doubt that the main source of loss, economically and in terms of social and environmental conditions, lies with the lack of loft insulation—
  Mr. Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Freeson: May I complete at least a sentence? Available information is that the greatest loss of heat, the greatest cause of energy consumption, lies through lofts and not through walls.
  Mr. Rost: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House. In his own answers to my Questions he has confirmed that in the average building 35 per cent. of the loss is through walls and 25 per cent. through roofs. The Leach Report of the International Institute for Environment and Development, "Energy Conservation in United Kingdom Dwellings", and many other reports from within the Government's own Department of Energy confirm these figures.
  Mr. Freeson: We had better pursue this further. Our information is—and the insulation programme which is already operating in the public sector and which was accepted by the House some months ago is based upon this—that the quickest and biggest benefit that can be gained in this area is by having lofts insulated.
  Mr. Rost: That is not the point.
  Mr. Freeson: That is the point that I have been making. The biggest and quickest benefit to be gained in conserving energy and heat in homes is by having lofts insulated. I see no difference between saying that and what I said a moment or so ago.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The Minister was perhaps right in his second statement, that the biggest, quickest and perhaps
  956
  easiest benefit can be obtained through loft insulation, but in his Department's own publication "Warmth Kept In Keeps Heating Costs Down" the section "Where Does the Heat Escape?" shows clearly that 35 per cent. goes through the walls and 25 per cent. through the ceilings.
  Mr. Freeson: It is not our intention at the percentage figures. I am saying that the most economic way of getting the biggest savings in this area is by loft insulation. There is no question about this. I said at the outset that we were talking about financial, economic and environmental factors. If we take account of those, we see that loft insulation is the quickest way of getting some satisfaction in this area. That is all I am saying. It is not a contradiction of the figures. Perhaps we can pursue the matter in greater detail in Committee.
  I repeat that the quickest and most economic way of handling this matter is by getting lofts insulated. If we pursue the matter, we shall find in Committee that this is not a contradiction of the percentage figures. It takes account of the economics of the matter and the speed with which one can do the job. That is what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members read the Official Report, they will probably find that I have said it about six times in about two minutes.
  Mr. Rost: I do not think that we need to develop a quarrel on this matter, but the Minister clearly contradicted my figures showing that more heat is lost through walls than through the roof. I accept his reply that it is more cost-effective to insulate the roof than to insulate walls, because it is cheaper. Nevertheless, more heat is lost through walls than through the roof.
  Mr. Freeson: I shall try to deal with that point once more. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) interrupted and asked why the Government were choosing to proceed in the way that I have outlined. I think I said before he intervened that environmentally and financially the way in which we have chosen to proceed is the best way. There ensued a series of exchanges. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) have quoted the

  957
  percentages from the Department's publication. Those percentages are not a contradiction of what I have been saying, which I have since repeated four times, five times or even six times. No doubt the record will be read and it will be clear how many times I have said it. We shall go over these matters in Committee and the point will be established. I gather that Opposition Members agree with what I am saying, or what I am trying to say, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East. I hope that on those grounds it will be accepted that we should operate the policy that I have outlined in the first instance.
  Details of the works eligible for grant will be included in the first scheme, but essentially they will be the same as those included in the public sector programme already announced. There is one difference. We are not proposing to include draught-stripping in the first scheme under the Bill. That is not because we doubt the effectiveness of draught-stripping, but because it is almost impossible to define it for grant-aid purposes. However, its cost in the average house is very small.
  The Bill refers in detail only to the first scheme, but under its powers it will be possible to introduce further schemes. This is a longer-term provision to avoid having to introduce primary legislation again if it were decided to promote further insulation in future. That is not at present intended. Indeed, it will take some years to achieve nationally even the basic insulation that we now propose to grant aid.
  I have heard that since the Government's proposal to introduce this legislation some people have wondered whether to cancel orders for measures such as cavity-wall filling and double glazing because grant aid may be forthcoming under the Bill. That is not so. Those wishing to instal such insulation should not be held back on that ground. The financial help forthcoming under the Bill for loft and water supply insulation could enable some people more easily to undertake further insulation measures, such as those to which I have referred.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the enabling Bill, which has one scheme brought under it so far, is not to be followed in the foreseeable future by any
  958
  further scheme? Is he saying that the Government have no intention in the foreseeable future of bringing forward any other scheme?
  Mr. Freeson: It is not our intention at present to introduce further schemes. Let us get this scheme operating. As I shall seek to show, the present objective is quite a considerable national task. When we have achieved that, we can return to other matters.
  The initial scheme concentrates, as I have indicated, on loft and water supply insulation. That is because in that way we can get as quickly as possible the greatest economic and social benefits from the limited resources available to achieve a basic level of insulation within the whole of our housing stock. Once we get that we can consider further measures, but that which we are proposing is the quickest and most effective way financially, environmentally economically and socially of getting something done.
  Clause 1 provides that the rate of grant under the initial scheme will be 66 per cent. of the cost of qualifying works or £50, whichever is the less. Therefore, the maximum qualifying expenditure will be £75. These figures are based on information provided by the insulation material manufacturers. It is our information that £75 will be sufficient both for materials and reasonable labour costs for the average house.
  Although details of work, eligible dwellings and so on are to be defined within the scheme, the percentage rate of grant and the maximum grant for the first scheme are prescribed in the Bill itself. For subsequent schemes they must be prescribed by order.
  Insulation technology continues to develop. New products are already coming on to the market. It seems sensible, therefore, to give flexibility to the administration of the grant system subject to parliamentary control on the rate and limit of grant.
  Administrative details of the new grant scheme are still being worked out. Grants will probably be paid out on the basis of a combined form of application and declaration completed by the householder, whether he is an owner-occupier, tenant or landlord. The applicant will have to certify that his house is not already insulated and that he has incurred specified

  959
  amounts of expenditure in carrying out works under the scheme.
  The application form will be supported by receipts for materials purchased and for work carried out, and the applicant will agree to permit the local authority to carry out checks if it so wishes. It is intended that all dwellings that lack loft and water supply insulation will qualify.
  I turn to the way in which the scheme is to be financed.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Do I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that it will be possible for the applicant to make application after the work has been done? My right hon. Friend refers to the applicant producing receipts. If it is to be possible for the applicant to make application afterwards, the scheme is a welcome step forward. At present many people are deterred from applying for improvement grants, or they discover that they have made their application at too late a stage. That is a greatly inhibiting factor. Do I understand that my right hon. Friend will have a different system for the grants for the scheme?
  Mr. Freeson: The details are still being worked out. My hon. Friend raises the example of the improvement grant system and suggests that part of its operation is a greatly inhibiting factor, but that is not my experience. I am aware that some individual problems arise when works are started before application for grant has been agreed, or in some cases even made. However, there is some discretion allowed in certain circumstances to handle that sort of situation. However, it is not my information that it has significantly inhibited the use of the improvement grant system.
  My hon. Friend's intervention leads me to stray a little outside the scheme with which I am now concerned. We have not yet concluded the precise details of the administration of the scheme.
  Mr. Onslow: If applicants are not to be able to claim on the basis of receipts for work done after some starting date, everyone will wait until the Bill becomes law. That will mean that there will be a tremendous rush. Would it not be much to the advantage of the Minister's cause
  960
  that work should begin as soon as possible? Is it not essential that the matter should be cleared up at this stage? It seems fundamental to the whole scheme.
  Mr. Freeson: The point that the hon. Gentleman is raising on the timing of the Bill is not valid. It may seem valid superficially, but if people are aware that we are to introduce a system of this sort, subject to the Bill passing through Parliament fairly promptly, I doubt whether there will be much inhibition on the part of those now preparing to have works carried out in their homes this autumn in readiness for the winter.
  We must recognise the more important fact that we are not dealing with a Bill that will have an initial effect this coming summer or autumn. We are dealing with a Bill that will be operative for years to come. Whatever marginal hiccup may occur this year—I do not accept that there will be one—will cease thereafter because the Bill will be operating over the years to come. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman does not raise a valid point.
  From experience I do not accept that the fact that someone has had to apply for and get approval of grant before improvement work has started has been a significant factor in inhibiting applications. Of course, I accept that there have been individual problems. My inclination—this is a detailed matter that no doubt will be discussed further in Committee—will be to stand by the policy and practice that has been established, that public expenditure is not authorised until full information has been processed by normal application by the applicant to the local authority.
  I have already said that there are about 5 million uninsulated houses. Therefore, it is essential to regulate the rate at which grants are given if we are to maintain a stable demand on public expenditure and on the insulation industry.
  Clause 2, therefore, provides for the Secretary of State to make expenditure allocations to local authorities within which grants can be paid. Provision is made for total capital expenditure of £15 million for this year and for £25 million in 1979–80 and in later years.
  The objective is to grant-aid the insulation of about half a million houses a year

  961
  —that is a 10-year programme similar to that already announced for local authority houses. If that number of uninsulated dwellings are insulated each year, it is estimated that fuel savings of up to one million tons oil equivalent per annum will accrue after that period, valued at about £70 million per year. That is net of any improved environmental or social conditions that arise from insulation—the point there being that we do not necessarily get an immediate financial benefit because heating standards and environmental standards are improved, although people are often prepared to pay for them. This is a broad calculation of what will arise after we take account of that factor.
  The financial provision will also cover payment by the Secretary of State to local authorities for expenses in administering the Bill. A grant scheme which affects so many individual householders will mean additional work for the local authorities who run it. Therefore they should be reimbursed for the expenses they incur. We are discussing with the local authority associations the basis on which this should be done. It is probable that authorities will be able to claim a fixed fee per grant paid. The amount of the fee will be agreed with the associations and will be based upon average costs likely to be incurred in processing grant applications.
  Predictions about future energy supply and consumption are notoriously hazardous and this is not the occasion on which to venture into that field. But, whatever the future, energy conservation must be a priority objective. It makes good sense for the individual consumer. It makes good sense for the country as a whole. It buys us time by extending the life of our own resources.
  The Bill is another stage in the Government's overall strategy. It offers incentives to householders to invest relatively small amounts of their own money in insulation measures and will bring significant economic and social benefits. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I urge that it should proceed through its stages quickly so that consumers may start to benefit before next winter.
  Mr. Rost: Will the Minister consider the question I put to him, bearing in mind that a quarter of the housing stock or dwellings in this country have no loft
  962
  or loft access but nevertheless have uninsulated ceilings? Some of the people in those dwellings may be in greater need of help than those requiring loft insulation. Could they be given the equivalent provision for ceiling insulation?
  Mr. Freeson: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to dwellings in blocks of flats of one size or another. There might be some odd circumstances of which I cannot conceive at the moment. I will take on board the question of insulation of the total building, but at this stage, given that the scheme is designed to deal with two particular kinds of insulation, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to undertake floor insulation which would be involved between different levels of accommodation. I am speaking off the cuff, but I feel that it could raise a wide range of varying circumstances, from purpose-built blocks of flats to houses which have been converted into flats, where there have been building regulation waivers so that insulation of one kind or another did not have to be applied.
  I repeat that the objective here is to get the quickest financial and environmental benefit that we can out of a grant-aided system. We can look at other measures later when we are able to see the full effectiveness of the scheme that is at present proposed. But I will take on board the question of the top-floor insulation in circumstances in which lofts would in many case be involved, where blocks of flats have been so designed.
  With the permission of the House, I shall reply to any further points at the end of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), the Under-Secretary of State, who would have wound up the debate, has had to go to hospital for attention to an injury which most hon. Members are aware that he has suffered.
  12.3 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle. We regret that illness prevents the Under-Secretary of State from joining us this morning.
  It is appropriate first to review the background before we look at the specific proposals of the Bill. It is disappointing that it has taken five years, since the oil crisis in the autumn of 1973, for us to get

  963
  really substantive action out of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is not with us this morning, has consistently over the years sought action from the Minister. The Minister has ignored my hon. Friend's requests on more than one occasion, but, perhaps more surprisingly, the Minister's Department started its own programme for better insulated houses in 1973, to discover the energy savings which could be achieved if wall and roof insulation were substantially increased. I think that we should have been able to expect some action by 1975, or at the very latest by 1976, because the preliminary data was available by then.
  The Bill's modest proposals—I think that the Minister would accept that they are modest—have to be seen in the context of what our European partners are doing in this area. I am very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) for his very persistent questioning of the Government. Probably the most illuminating Question he asked was on 25th November 1977. It produced some fascinating information which indicated that other members of the EEC with similar climates to ours are taking matters a lot more seriously.
  In both Belgium and Denmark there is a 25 per cent. grant for insulation expenditure. As the Minister will know, in Belgium it is a means-tested benefit. In France there has been concentration on the pre-1948 dwellings, with special subsidies for thermal improvement. In addition, there are tax credits for insulating the main residence, and there are plans to extend this by further tax incentives.
  In Germany there are substantial tax allowances for older buildings, and there is a proposed 20 per cent. grant for insulation and modernisation. In cost terms it is substantially more generous than that what is being offered in this country. The proposed assistance in Germany is in the range of DM 4,000 to DM 12,000.
  Each of these schemes is, I accept, totally different from ours and probably attuned to the housing stock in each country, but the key point is that each is considerably more generous than has been offered this morning. Certainly the other schemes have been driven forward
  964
  with a greater degree of purpose than we have seen to date in the United Kingdom. As the Minister has said, we have to date very much relied on exhortation through the "Save It" campaign, which has cost several million pounds. We all have to recognise that it has not succeeded in this area.
  Perhaps surprisingly, when we look at the Bill in greater depth than a first cursory reading we find that home owners are not being as fairly treated as the Government would have us believe. The private sector has had to wait longer than the local authority tenants. As the Minister knows, his own Circular 23/78, which implemented insulation proposals for council houses, was introduced in March this year, but the Bill was published in May and will not, presumably, be on the statute book until later in the summer.
  Perhaps more importantly, the private sector will have to wait a great deal longer, as the Minister has indicated this morning, before there is a comprehensive programme of insulation for home owners. Circular 23/78 put forward, quite rightly, a global approach. It divided work into primary and supplementary categories, both of which were admissable expenditure for local authorities.
  The first or primary category included roof space insulation, cold water system insulation, and hot water system insulation, all of which are common to the scheme, but in addition there was draught-stripping to doors and windows.
  The second phase, which is again admissible expenditure, included expenditure on lofts—in terms of making access hatches—roof space ventilation, disused fireplace blocking, the closing off of air bricks, and door ironmongery. In some cases the point was made that repairs would be admissible. There is a contrast in emphasis between the two schemes.
  Another important point is that the Government's programme for council housing, which we accept and support, calls for 200,000 public sector houses a year to be insulated at an average unit cost of £100 to £125. That compares with the Government's contribution in the Bill of £50 a house. I hope that the Minister will explain why we have this variation of financial benefit between the two categories of houses.

  965
  With regard to timing, as we understand it, this is the first scheme, and the Minister should recognise that there is an urgency about getting it on the statute book. We shall certainly make sure that we give all possible assistance to him in this respect. The reason for the urgency is that 90 per cent. of the industry's sales are made from the beginning of August, continuing through the winter. The industry—I am talking about insulation materials for the roof—is working at well below capacity. The Minister gave a disappointing answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) when he said that the Government had no draft proposals for extending the scheme beyond this first phase.
  Let us look at the scheme. We know that it is concerned with roof spaces and certain water installations. There is little arugment about water installations and the benefits to be gained from their insulation. Therefore, I do not propose to continent further on that aspect. But I feel obliged to look more closely at the Government's choice of roof space insulation.
  It is true that in 50 per cent. of centrally heated homes the roof is probably the most cost-efficient area to be insulated first. Indeed, we now have that clearly on record from the interchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend.
  But if we look closer at the non-centrally heated sector, the evidence is not so clear. We are talking primarily about a home where the living room and probably the kitchen are heated. The kitchen is more naturally heated because of the cooking. The living room is the one room that is heated, probably by some form of gas or coal fire. There is increasing evidence that a strong case can be made out for a combination of double glazing and draught exclusion for the living room.
  I should like to refer briefly to double glazing, which is traditionally thought not to be a cost-effective manner of insulation. Recent work by the industry and interested parties, including the Government, shows that about 80 per cent. of housing stock could cost-effectively have the living room double glazed. The point that I make strongly is that for the non-centrally
  966
  heated house it is probably at least as cost effective as roof insulation.
  Who are the people who usually live in non-centrally heated houses? They tend to be poor people, the less well off, the older people. Should we not give first emphasis to such people, because they are in greatest need?
  I turn next to the point commented on briefly by the Minister regarding draught exclusion. Draught exclusion is most likely to be beneficial in older houses. By definition, they tend to be occupied by a fair number of old people. We are talking not only about draught strips around doors, but probably about joinery work. The Minister has in his constituency a number of houses in which the joinery is probably the best part of 100 years old and allows a great deal of heat to escape.
  The Government commissioned a survey by the Research Institute of Consumer Affairs on the cost of insulating old people's houses. The Government promised the report by last winter, but it has not yet been published. Where is the report? When will it be published? My information is that the report recommends that it will probably cost £250 per unit to get comprehensive draught-proofing of these older houses. That is an important dimension.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my hon. Friend considered that some older houses have skylights to let in light on, say, a well-type staircase? Such skylights, in effect, comprise part of the roof. They are often composed of two layers of glass. Does he agree that they should be included within the definition of "roof" for the purposes of the Bill, because a lot of heat escapes through glass in the roof?
  Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point to which we should perhaps address ourselves in Committee, because it has relevance in different parts of the country.
  After our experience with hypothermia and the problems of providing adequate heating for old people and the partially disabled, I am disappointed that the Government have not put forward positive proposals which would give specific benefit to these people, because they are in greater need than anyone else.

  967
  There is another category which the Government appear to have overlooked. It used to be thought that basically low-income families had a low consumption of energy. Yet the Government's evidence in their work shows, as I think anyone who thinks about it would expect, that a family with only the man going out to work and the mother staying at home with perhaps two or three small children has a high energy consumption. Such families tend not to live in centrally-heated homes. We shall look at this matter in more depth in Committee. I hope that suggestion will be received in the spirit in which it is offered.
  I turn now to the financial dimensions of the Bill. I have already made the point, which I think needs to be answered, that there is a disparity in the Government's contribution between the £100-£125 for council property and the £50 grant for the private sector.
  The Bill provides for expenditure of £15 million this year and £25 million next year. I hope that is not an indication of the rate of inflation. But as 90 per cent. of the market will still have to come by the time the Bill becomes law, it is not clearly evident why there should be this difference between the two years.
  The Minister said that the administration expenses would come out of the budget. We welcome that the Government have recognised that the Bill will put an extra burden on local authorities and that they should be recompensed for it. That is a welcome advance. I am sure that the local authorities will also welcome it.
  There are just over 500 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Let us assume that, for the sake of argument, 500 of them get going on the scheme. The Minister indicated that there will probably be a repayment on the basis of a fixed fee. If each authority employs one man, which in a district is not perhaps out of court, and he is paid a modest salary with overheads of, say £6,000 a year, that will cost £3 million or 20 per cent. of the first year's budget. Put another way, it will deny to 60,000 homes the benefits that the Minister wishes them to have.
  Mr. Freeson: Sixty thousand?
  Mr. Morris: The £3 million expenses will have to come out of the £15 million in the first year. I think that it would be more sensible if the administrative costs of the scheme were pulled out separately and there were a separate specific budget for home insulation. The Minister may be surprised that it works out at 60,000 homes, but that is the figure. When he realises that, he may want to think again.
  I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House earnestly hope that the administrative procedures will be simple. We do not want applicants to have to go through the rigmarole, as used to happen with improvement grants, of proving title and having endless visits. I hope that in Committee the Minister will be able to indicate clearly that there will be a simple procedure and maximum encouragement to people to take part in it.
  I should like to conclude with what I hope will be taken as a few helpful hints if we want a dramatic improvement in domestic insulation. First, urgent attention must be given to ensure that new homes meet higher energy savings standards. Even today, there is room for great improvement in that area.
  Secondly, we need to stop deterring people from increasing rateable values. The problem is that if someone installs double glazing or makes substantial changes, he is likely to have his rateable value increased. That is particularly relevant, because the Government have just announced that there is to be a further review of rateable values which is to come into force in 1982. On 9th January the Under-Secretary of State gave a particularly disappointing answer to a question on this matter. I hope that the Government will think again and issue suitable instructions to the Inland Revenue.
  Thirdly, as the Minister has rightly said, there is much work to be done in the area of domestic machinery and its energy consumption. Progress has been made, but there is much more work to be done.
  I confirm to the Minister that we shall do our best to give the Bill a speedy passage, though we shall feel free to iron out some of the surprising number of anomalies. But this is a new field, and anomalies are to be expected. We shall

  969
  want to consider them exhaustively and to try to get a simple, workable scheme that meets the needs of people who put in the insulation and is of great benefit to the country.
  12.21 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I echo the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). I agree that we should make this scheme simple and not have to go through great bureaucracy. He mentioned the question of rating, especially now that there is to be a reassessment. We know that there are great anomalies already. Central heating systems that were put in after a certain date are not to be taken into account in revaluations, but people who put them in before that date are still paying additional sums on their rateable value. I hope the Minister will consider this relevant point.
  My colleagues and I welcome the Bill. It goes some way to balance the situation between the public and private sectors, although not far enough. However, if some of the representations that have been made from these Benches have encouraged the Government to bring in the Bill, we are all delighted.
  One should judge the proposals on the basis of the question whether the money spent will be more cost effective in the sense of energy saving or will merely provide a more comfortable environment in which to live. I suspect that the balance will come down in favour of the latter, but it is a step in the right direction.
  I wonder whether certain existing heating systems are sensitive enough to cope adequately with the new situation that will be created. Alterations may have to be made to some of the complicated heating systems that are now installed in houses where advantage may be taken of this measure. I agree with the Minister that there will be considerable savings in water heating systems. That is one of the best points of the measure.
  My house is 150 years old. It is a three-storey house with an old tiled roof but with no felt lining underneath that roof. Yet I have a roof space which has been insulated. With the snow and gales of last winter, my roof space completely
  970
  filled up with snow. I spent the whole of one Sunday digging it all out. The snow and gales did not do much good to the insulation. I cannot claim that £50 will go very far towards getting my roof off and putting a proper lining underneath. When we consider schemes later, we should tackle this problem.
  There are hundreds of thousands of houses with slate or tiled roofs without any felt lining. It is all very well to put elaborate insulation underneath, but if, following a good south-westerly gale, rain or snow comes in, it is money down the drain. My experience is not a happy one, and if the grant is increased I should like to re-roof my house.
  The biggest problem is getting the work done. Although it is staged a bit with the money that is made available, it is unrewarding work for small builders, many of whom have gone to the wall over the last few years. It is dirty and unglamorous work, and there will not be a lot of money in it for them. Local authorities will have to help by quickly preparing a list of reputable firms that are prepared to specialise in this work. The local authorities can then pass the information on to those who apply. Otherwise they will be completely overwhelmed. Perhaps in Committee we can consider the matter of insurance covering possible breakage and accident.
  The pensioners and disabled people, whom we ought to help more than any, could be in difficulty about the limitations on the amount available. One envisages that in many of these cases private owners will themselves contribute and perhaps do some of the work themselves. But the £50 is probably insufficient for the pensioners and the disabled. I hope that the Minister will see whether he can help them a little more.
  May I ask what the position is in regard to VAT? Is this work to be chargeable to VAT? If so, that will add to the cost. If the work carried out is an improvement, as I suppose it is, it presumably qualifies for VAT. If it is new work, that would be avoided. I should like the Minister to give some thought to that matter before the Bill goes to Committee. Apart from that, I welcome the Bill and hope that it will be the first of a series of steps to deal with this matter.
  12.26 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Most of what I wished to say has been said by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) or the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).
  I urge the Government to go ahead as rapidly as possible with the preparation of an extension of the scheme to allow for work on draught exclusion. Will the Minister say how rapidly he hopes to be able to extend the scheme to include draught exclusion and joinery? Many of the worst cases to which the benefits of the Bill might be applied in my constituency are private tenancies, or tenancies of the Department of the Environment on the motorway route, where the condition of the houses is very bad because of the rotting of the windows and lack of adequate means of excluding draughts. The extension of the scheme would in many cases benefit those who are in greatest need of assistance.
  I greatly welcome the Bill. I urge the Government to keep the administrative scheme simple, and I should like the Minister soon to announce a date from which works will qualify. We are told that 90 per cent. of insulation work is done after the beginning of August. It is desirable that people should be able to make plans now to carry out their insulation work to avoid the initial hiccup to which the Minister referred. That could be done if, fairly soon, the Minister can announce that schemes that have been started, say, after 1st July of this year will qualify, provided that in other respects they meet the requirements of the legislation. That would ensure that the work that the Bill is likely to generate, which is another benefit, could be achieved as quickly as possible.
  12.28 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I declare an interest as a director of a public company which has considerable activities in home improvement and energy conservation.
  The Bill deserves to be debated. The Minister somewhat oversold it in his opening speech, when he described it as a significant measure. I was depressed, when he continued, to find that certain areas of the Bill do not appear to have been carefully worked out. Some of the
  972
  information in the Minister's speech was useless. I do not make a particular point about the fact that he solemnly told us that the end of the century is now only 20 years or so away, beyond saying that if it is thought necessary to tell the House that, it would be as well to be precise about the matter.
  I complain about the Minister's statistics on energy consumption. He has made an underestimation in suggesting that space heating accounts for only 50 per cent. of domestic energy consumption. If he took the trouble to read the recent report by the Consumers Association on energy efficiency labelling, he would find that it estimates that space heating accounts for at least 60 per cent. of consumption. I am surprised that the Minister was not able to produce more accurate statistics.
  The Minister said one thing that I welcome. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was disappointed with the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) received when he asked the Minister to clear up the question whether there were to be any other schemes, the House should welcome the news that there are no other schemes in prospect. Nothing deters private house owners from going ahead on their own more than the thought that if they do they will lose the opportunity to claim. The Government have already just about killed the solar heating industry stone dead by not responding to the Select Committee's suggestion that this should be grant-aided.
  It is extremely unpractical to create uncertainty in these matters. We should be realistic enough to assess such legislation in terms of the response that it will get from ordinary householders and not in terms of how good civil servants think it is or how much the Minister choses to praise it. That is why it was unhelpful for the Minister not to have been able to tell us more about the scheme, and whether people would have to go to their town hall to get approval before they could do the work or whether they could get the work done and claim on presentation of a receipt. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter, because it will have an effect on the take-up of the scheme.
  Mr. Freeson: I said that these details had yet to be worked out, but my inclination was that we should apply the same principle that we had applied in the past and ensure that applications should be considered and approved before work starts. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.
  Mr. Onslow: The sooner the Committee makes up its mind on that point, the better.
  The most depressing part of the Minister's speech was his reply to my intervention asking what other types of scheme had been considered. He admitted, rather reluctantly, that consideration had been given to a tax offset incentive, but that it had been dismissed. In fact, he gave a great deal of the game away.
  If we consider the scheme in the light of the response of the average householder, he is most likely to be stimulated into carrying out energy conservation measures in his home if he knows the range of choice and is given resources to take advantage of that range. That is why the report on energy efficiency labelling is important. I hope that we shall have an indication that the Government intend to follow it up fairly rapidly. I fear that, on present form, it is likely to lie somewhere and gather dust. That is depressing, because much of the information in the report suggests that there are many ways in which people could be encouraged to take advantage of the technology of energy conservation which is developing.
  Manufacturers of the most efficient devices could be given encouragement if they knew that full authoritative information was being made available as widely as possible and that ordinary people would have the resources to take up the product.
  My main point is that we shall never tackle this issue successfully unless we get into the tax incentive side of it. There are a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that this measure will do nothing for someone who has already been intelligent enough to insulate his loft. The Minister is dismissing a whole number of people who are known to be interested in energy conservation, who have spent their own money on it and would almost certainly like to do some, thing else.
  974
  Even the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who has left us, presumably to remove some other weather intrusion from his roof space, could serve as an example of the extraordinary variety of needs to achieve greater energy conservation in one's home. I doubt whether the hon. Member is more representative of the rest of the country in this domestic circumstances then he is in his politics, but if he has a problem and can solve it only by the means he needs to take to keep the snow out of his roof, he should be encouraged to do so.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: From what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, if his politics are anything like the way he runs his household affairs, I would not have a great deal of confidence in them.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman has put more succinctly the point that I was seeking to make, and I am glad to carry him with me.
  Many people in less peculiar circumstances than is the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will get nothing from the Bill. That is an admission of failure which the Minister should have been ashamed to make.
  There is nothing in the Bill that will stimulate householders to try to make good the enormous damage to the state of our housing stock that the last four or five years of financial stringency have created. The Minister has only to walk down one or two roads in his constituency to see the desperate state to which the exterior decoration of many private houses has sunk in the last few years. It cannot be in the national interest that this should be so and it is desirable that householders should be stimulated to make good that damage in a way that will contribute to energy conservation.
  I turn to the question of the employment effects of this legislation. It may do something for the small builder—I doubt that it will do very much—but there is no doubt that a wider stimulus to home improvement would do a lot more for him. If the scheme were extended to types of work at present outside the scope of the Bill, it would do much, not only for small building firms but in the significant area of moonlighting.

  975
  It will be known to hon. Members in many cases from personal experience, that a good deal of building and decorating work is done by men in their own time—men who are not necessarily too careful about returning their earnings for tax purposes.
  If we could return to a system whereby a prudent householder knew that for the first £200 he spent in a year on maintaining or improving his house he could claim an offset in tax, not only should we get a greater contribution towards energy conservation; there would be a significant effect on the number of people registered as gainfully employed and the Inland Revenue would probably benefit in the process. I should like to see this sort of legislation extended into that area.
  I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South, in his list of helpful hints at the end of his speech, made no mention of that possibility. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is now on the Front Bench, will make good that deficiency, because until we make it worth people's while to pioneer in energy conservation, we shall be left with second best if we have nothing better to depend on than Government grants.
  12.38 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I start by putting the Bill in its energy context, which no one else has sought to do. According to the United Nations' economic division for Europe, we shall be running out of energy completely in 79 years. At the present rate of growth of energy, there is 55 years use of oil and gas left and this country's North Sea oil and gas reserves will last for about 40 years. The duration will depend on the cost of oil, because that may make it more worth while to extract more oil, and technical features which may allow us to extract more oil and gas from the North Sea.
  However, we are certainly facing an energy crisis. It is not the crisis that we faced two or three years ago, when prices ran away and we found ourselves facing an energy and economic crisis, but a longer-term energy crisis which it is this generation's duty to tackle.
  So far, the Government do not appear to have recognised the importance of the
  976
  longer-term energy crisis. The situation is worse because of the temporary glut of oil reserves throughout the world. The stirring words we heard from the Government and many other quarters two or three years ago about the need for energy conservation have all been forgotten and we seem to be living in a fool's paradise from which we shall awake in the 1990s or at the turn of the century.
  For the Minister to say that the Bill represents a significant stage in the Government's energy conservation policy shows how little importance they place on energy conservation generally. A scheme for local authority housing was put forward at the end of last year and now we have this meagre scheme for private houses. It is clear from the £50 maximum, which is much less than the Government were intending to allocate for local authority housing, that the Government consider that they are giving a handout to assist the private householder and are not looking at the measure in the broader context of saving energy, which is what they should be doing.
  In my view this is not a measure to assist householders; it is a measure to assist the country to save energy. I was horrified to hear the Minister say that there was no intention of introducing any further scheme under the umbrella of this enabling Bill. The Minister seriously told us that this first proposed scheme with a £50 limit and a two-thirds rebate to occupiers is to be the only scheme under the enabling Bill. Yet in his Department's Press release he said that the scheme set out in the Bill was intended to be a 10-year programme for loft insulation. Taking these two statements together, it might even mean that the Government have no proposals to introduce a new scheme within 10 years.
  I fully take the obvious point that the worst thing that the Government can do now is to hint and imply that further schemes are around the corner and thus to halt the industry dealing with insulation of cavity walls and other energy saving industries. It would be a bad thing to imply that further schemes are coming because of the damaging effect on the industries concerned, but for the Minister seriously to state in such a categorical

  977
  way that no more schemes will be forthcoming must be wrong. He should introduce a much more comprehensive and definitive scheme, then to stick to it and sell it because it is the Government's job to give a lead and to ensure that energy is conserved for future generations.
  This meagre scheme will enable a do-it-yourself expert to lag a roof space of 45 square metres, if one is metric, or 500 square feet, if one is still Imperial. I have had estimates put to me, and apparently it would cost about £58 to buy 100 mm roof lagging to insulate that space, and the spare pieces could be used for lagging pipes and tanks. I am told that the jackets can be bought for £3·50 to £6.
  Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend not agree that 100 mm is a totally inadequate thickness for cost-effective roof insulation? It should be much higher than that anyway.
  Mr. Viggers: I agree entirely. It is true that 100 mm thickness is a token gesture—it is not enough, it is too little and too late. However, it is true that the 100 mm lagging could be laid by a do-it-yourself expert for £58. If it were done by an installer it would cost about £75.
  It would be possible for substantial savings to be made if there were a comprehensive system of roof insulation. I see no reason why the Government should not now give the kind of lead that they have a duty to give, by setting up and encouraging the kind of scheme for the insulation of lofts that was used for the conversion of gas heating systems and gas cookers. There was a substantial nationwide scheme to convert from town gas to North Sea gas, and the British Gas Corporation rolled through the country with information caravans. There was a wide campaign of information distribution to the public. This is the kind of scheme which is needed. It would reduce the costs of insulation and would have a substantial effect on energy saving.
  The insulation of a roof has an estimated pay-back time to the person who does the insulation of one and a half to two years. In other words, it takes a maximum of two years to get one's money back if the insulation is done properly.
  Wall insulation has a longer period of pay back—about four to six years. The
  978
  Minister tried to extricate himself from what he said earlier. He made an elementary error which I am sure was a lapsus linguae. He said that the largest amount of heat was lost through the roof. That is not true. Of course there is a substantial amount of heat lost through the roof—about 25 per cent.—but 35 per cent. is lost through the walls.
  It may be thought necessary for the Government to give some kind of lead to encourage people to insulate their roofs and lofts, but with a pay-back of one and a half to two years it should be easier to persuade them to insulate their roofs than to insulate their walls. Therefore, the Government should concentrate more money on encouraging people to insulate their walls where, in the long run, a larger amount of energy saving can be achieved. The Minister should not have turned his back on this, and for him to say that there is no prospect of wall insulation being considered is very sad.
  Very early in the schemes of insulation of cavity walls there was a suspicion that damp could be caused by cavity insulation. But there has been a considerable amount of investigation into this in recent years and I understand that 20,000 houses were checked recently and only 0·3 per cent. were found to have suffered any kind of damp. Therefore, cavity wall insulation now can be encouraged cheerfully by the Government.
  It is disappointing that only roofs are to be insulated under this scheme. There are many other schemes which should be encouraged. What about flat roofs on extensions of buildings? If one has a flat-roofed extension it is possible to insulate the roof by external methods, but there is no way one can get a grant for this.
  There is also the question of draught-stripping. In the kind of flats in which many older people live draught-stripping is the best and most effective way of stopping 15 per cent. of heat loss through draughts. But again, there is no prospect of a grant being made in that area, and similarly there is no prospect of grants being made for the insulation of floors, which account for another 15 per cent. of heat loss. Neither will grants be provided for the installation of better controls for radiators.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made the

  979
  point about the £15 million which is to be allowed under the scheme this year as opposed to the £25 million which will be allowed subsequently. This deserves to be amplified. Orders for insulation materials are normally placed by wholesalers and retailers through August into September and the market is virtually over by February. Some 90 per cent. of the market is in that period. If the Government are serious in wishing to implement this scheme, they should be selling it hard and expecting a take-up of the full £25 million in the first year.
  If the administrative costs are £3 million a year, it looks as if one-fifth of the first year's £15 million will be going in administration, leaving only £12 million as aid to encourage people to insulate their lofts.
  It is quite clear that the Government have not the enthusiasm about and drive behind the Bill that they should have. I was disappointed in not hearing a firm date for the commencement of the scheme. The industry would like to have a firm, anticipated date. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South indicated from the Front Bench that this Bill has the support of Opposition parties. Therefore, it should be possible to give a target date for the beginning of the scheme.
  There is a further detailed point. Any houses with any insulation in the loft space already cannot benefit from the Bill at all. It deals only with the 5 million completely uninsulated houses in the country, and it is a major disappointment that there is no incentive to those who have a limited amount of insulation. They should be encouraged to top up their insulation to modern standards.
  It is quite obvious from hearing the Minister that the Government believe that their record is moderately good on energy saving. The truth is that the Government have allowed the conservation campaign to lose momentum. In the hands of the Government this exciting opportunity to save precious energy has become becalmed and boring, and conservation, which has the longest running trailer in this country, has not become a main feature of our economy. It is time that it did.
  12.50 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Hodgson: I join my hon. Friends in giving modest congratulations to the Government on the Bill. There has been a lot of talk about the need for improved insulation, and it is to the Government's credit that they have taken a small step in the right direction. However, the Bill is patchy and idiosyncratic in its effect, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has pointed out trenchantly some of the more curious effects which may result from it, I want to develop at least one of the points that he took up—the question of the general scope of the Bill.
  When I first saw the Title of the Bill, I was extremely pleased because I thought that the Government were at last beginning to take on board a point that I have been pressing them to do something about for some time. As I read the Bill, however, I saw that it was confined to thermal insulation. I do not see why this restriction should be allowed to continue. Why should it not cover noise insulation as well?
  The problem with noise at airports is well known, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will want to say something about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is not present, unfortunately, would also, I have no doubt, want to say something in the light of the proposal to reopen the USAF base at Greenham Common. We have no airport in Walsall or its environs, so I shall concentrate on the question of motorway noise, because the M6 divides my constituency and the effects have been considerable not only in my constituency but in the constituencies of other hon. Members representing seats in the West Midlands conurbation.
  Many of our constituents have been denied help with insulation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 and under the 1975 noise insulation regulations that append to it, because great sections of the motorway in the West Midlands and other parts of the country were opened on or before 17th October 1969. As a result, our constituents have been precluded by the provisions of the Act from getting any assistance with insulating their houses. The choice of that arbitrary date has had two results. First, the question

  981
  whether householders receive help for insulating their homes is linked to the chance date of the opening of the motorway concerned; secondly, it has refused help to those who have been in need the longest. If someone has a motorway built past his home now, he will get help for insulation at once, but if a person has suffered a motorway going past his house for 10 or more years he is denied any assistance. That is completely illogical.
  I shall give chapter and verse with a particular example in the West Midlands. The M6 north of junction 9 was opened on 20th December 1968 and north of junction 10 on 15th September 1966, both dates falling outside the qualifying period under the Land Compensation Act. However, in the early years the problem of traffic noise was not so bad, because the motorway at that stage came to an end at those junctions. The total link had not been built. As a result, traffic, in order to avoid coming off the motorway at an exit situated in the middle of a conurbation, turned off earlier and used the main arterial roads skirting the conurbation as a means of avoiding having to drive through heavily congested urban areas.
  But from 24th May 1972, when the whole complex was completed and what is familiarly known as Spaghetti Junction was opened, that situation no longer prevailed and traffic volumes began to build up very considerably. The date of the opening of the whole motorway—24th May 1972—is, of course, after the date for compensation, even though the stretches I have referred to were opened before that date.
  I shall give the Minister an idea of how bad the situation now is. It is well demonstrated by a survey carried out by the metropolitan borough council in Walsall. On 4th May 1977, one year ago, the survey showed that over an 18-hour period, from 6 a.m. to midnight, the equivalent of 126,000 passenger car units are using the M6—and that is equivalent to 7,000 cars an hour, 117 cars a minute, two cars a second. That goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. The effect on social life, families and marriage can be imagined. This is one of the reasons why the Bill should be enlarged to allow people to get some assistance in these circumstances.
  982
  Earlier this year I was lucky enough to be able to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to remedy this idiosyncrasy, but I am afraid that the Government decided to oppose it. They are not prepared to see the modest sums expended that would enable people to take advantage of some help with insulating their properties against motorway noise.
  This is not just a problem of the West Midlands. It is a problem at Watford, on the southern end of the M1. I have had complaints from Manchester, Richmond, and all parts of the country about this problem. I see no reason why the scope of the Bill should not be extended to allow the £50 grant or the 66 per cent. of the cost to be given for help with insulation against motorway noise of the sort I have described. In any case, the Minister should bear in mind that much of such work on noise insulation will also have beneficial effects on the level of thermal insulation, so it is not as though we would not be doing something to remedy the thermal insulation problem even though the primary objective might be to do something about noise.
  My other main point concerns priorities among people to be helped. Here I draw attention to the special needs of the elderly and the handicapped. Unfortunately, many elderly people are also handicapped, suffering disabilities on both counts. We are faced with an increasing number of elderly people. The number of males over the age of 65 and females over the age of 60 will rise from the current level of 8 million to approaching 9½ million by the turn of the century, and this is a section of our community that has been badly disadvantaged, requires special assistance, and should get it through this Bill if it is properly redrawn.
  The special needs of the elderly and the handicapped are well understood by the Government. Indeed, they have produced a number of pamphlets, including "Keeping Warm in Winter" by the Health Education Council, designed to help elderly people with advice on how to keep warm. It contains a long list of other leaflets issued by the Government, such as "Help with Heating Costs", from the Department of Health and Social Security, "All About Keeping Warm", from the Solid Fuel Advisory Service,

  983
  and "Easy Ways to Pay" from the Electricity Council, and so on. There is also a heating addition available from the DHSS for single people, couples and married people generally. So the Government do understand that there is a need here, and I should like to see them show evidence of that concern and understanding by amending the provisions of the Bill. The handicapped, of course, have many problems similar to those of the elderly in this respect.
  Apart from any moral duty that the Government have to help these vulnerable social groups, there is a practical application as well, because the costs of the heating additions, the information services and so on all have to be met by the taxpayer. The Government's scheme for a 25 per cent. deduction from the electricity bill in the winter quarter—although again idiosyncratic because it does not cover solid fuels, gas and so on—is to be welcomed but it nevertheless is costing, according to a recent parliamentary Answer, between £11 million and £12 million a year, and if we were able to concentrate some of the assistance contained in this Bill on the elderly we would surely be able to make corresponding savings in the discounts and subventions that we are giving currently to old-age pensioners for their winter quarter electricity bills.
  "Help the Aged" has said that 2 million pensioners are living in heating conditions which, if they were working, would require instant prosecution under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. A 1972 survey showed that 55 per cent. of pensioners' rooms were below the minimum temperature required by that Act. A significant number of elderly people suffer from hypothermia in winter. They often have to be hospitalised at a cost of about £100 a week or more. Thus, the indirect cost to the State is enormous. So I hope that the Minister will not just say that it is a question of the amount of money that will be spent under the provisions of the Bill. If we concentrate our assistance on those who really need it, such as the elderly and the handicapped, we shall be able to make savings elsewhere. We shall be able to make savings in hospital costs, heating additions and discounts on electricity bills.
  984
  I turn to the question of the type of insulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) mentioned the joint research project the results of which have not yet been published. The Minister should bring that forward as quickly as possible. It was set up two years ago and the DOE has been deeply involved. We are entitled to see the results of that survey before we discuss the details of this measure in Committee. I understand that the project has been completed and, indeed, an article "Insulation and Energy Advice" published by the National Consumers Council last November foreshadowed some of the points that are made in the survey. We should have it on the table officially before we start the Committee stage.
  In conclusion, I return to the question of priorities. We have all been affected by fuel price rises. But most of us have been able to adjust our lives to take account of them. We have been able to reduce, consumption, install insulation or change to cheaper or more effective heatting systems. But the vulnerable social groups do not have those options. For them, there is often a brutal choice because to spend more on heating may mean going without a main meal. A choice between such necessities cannot be described as a choice at all. So I urge the Government to give further detailed consideration to the possibility of giving priority in this scheme to these vulnerable groups, who would so benefit from an improved standard of heating in their homes.
  1.2 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I was once described by a Government Member as "the hon. Member for thermal insulation" because of my persistent lobbying for improved insulation. But I can assure the House that I have no financial interest in this subject. Indeed, I stand to lose from this legislation because I have already insulated my home. My concern is motivated by the shameful waste of national resources continuing unnecessarily in the context of the global energy problems that inevitably face us in the long term. More particularly, I have been motivated by the shameful and unnecessary hardship, suffering and damage to health which is unjustified in our society today.

  985
  Needless suffering has been particularly evident this winter in all our constituencies among the low-income groups, the pensioners, the disabled and the housebound who need to use more fuel because they spend more hours in their homes. They are the people who can least afford to insulate and consequently suffer the greatest hardship. The disabled, the elderly and the pensioners cannot afford to do the job themselves.
  This brings me to the first criticism of the proposals. A flat contribution of a maximum of £50 might be fine for an active handyman who can do the job himself, as I have done. But it will not help the pensioners much because they will have to have professional or voluntary help to instal insulation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) was on the right theme. I support everything that he said. The suffering and hardship has continued unnecessarily. The Government could and should have set about this programme three or four years ago. There is no excuse for having delayed for so long getting off the ground an energy conservation programme with particular emphasis on insulation.
  We must put the proposals in their right perspective. The Minister was inclined to be self-congratulatory and complacent about the Government's energy conservation programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) rightly took him down a peg or two. What this measure can achieve in the overall energy conservation potential is very small indeed. Dwellings use 30 per cent. of the primary energy used in the country. Of that 30 per cent., two-thirds is used for space heating. In other words, 20 per cent. of our primary energy consumption goes into space heating our domestic buildings.
  We could save at least half of that with effective insulation. We could achieve a saving of 10 per cent. of our primary energy consumption by the effective insulation of domestic buildings. That puts the proposals in perspective. I have made some calculations. I do not expect a response immediately but I hope that when the Minister has had time to look at the figures properly he will contradict my calculations. I calculate that the Bill,
  986
  even when taken over a 10-year period, will save only 1 per cent. of that 10 per cent. potential saving of primary energy.
  If we were to launch a time incentive scheme for thermal insulation in domestic buildings, we could save about 10 per cent. of our primary energy. That would reduce our fuel bills by about £1 billion a year, which would produce savings in the economy as a whole.
  I concede that to achieve that 10 per cent. saving with a proper insulation programme would cost about £5 billion. I am sure that no one from these Benches would suggest that we should promote such Government expenditure at present. As enthusiastic as I am for such a scheme, I do not suggest that. I am simply putting the Government's programme in perspective. The expenditure proposed over 10 years is to be only £250 million compared with the £5 billion that will have to be spent either by private individuals or with the aid of incentives to achieve a proper insulation programme. I am talking not only about thermal insulation which is proved to be cost-effective.
  The average house requires at least £250 to be spent on it to make it thermally efficient. The proposals in the Bill are woefully inadequate. Even over the 10-year programme that is proposed the savings achieved will be only about 1 per cent. of our primary energy consumption. Much is being left undone or will have to be done by individuals and paid for out of their own pockets.
  The reality is that the Bill will help only a small percentage of domestic householders. It will provide only a basic minimum standard of insulation. It will not help those who have already insulated their roofs and who could use some assistance in insulating the walls, whether solid and requiring internal insulation, or hollow and requiring infilling. The Bill will not help those whose homes suffer a major heat loss through the floors and windows.
  The scheme could have been drawn more flexibly to incorporate the choice of a lax allowance or £50 grant to allow the individual to direct the money to the most beneficial and cost-effective thermal insulation for him. If the roof has already been insulated, why should an owner-occupier be penalised for having taken

  987
  the initiative? He is still faced with paying several hundred pounds for other cost-effective insulation, and a £50 grant towards that additional expenditure would be in the national interest.
  With over 5 million dwellings having lofts which cannot be insulated because there is no access to them, it is unsatisfactory that the £50 is not to be made available for internal ceiling insulation which is a source of major heat loss equivalent to the loss of heat through a normal loft.
  We had an argument at the beginning of the debate with the Minister about whether the heat loss through walls is greater than through the roof. It would have been perfectly feasible for the scheme to provide a grant for wall insulation. That omission is an admission by the Government that they have failed so far to tackle the root of the problem. They are going round in circles. They are providing funds to encourage minimal insulation of 300,000 to 500,000 houses a year when 300,000 dwellings are being built every year with totally inadequate thermal insulation standards.
  The Minister cannot claim that he has not had adequate time to consult the industry and to propose stronger mini-thermal insulation standards for domestic buildings. The time is long past when we should have been constructing to higher standards which would avoid the extra fuel cost, plus the waste of fuel due to ineffective insulation, at the time of construction. I hope that the Minister will deal with this point, because if we grapple with the problem from the start and build to the sort of standards that for years other countries have accepted as a basic minimum, we shall not be faced with so many inadequately insulated houses.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was right to highlight the inequitable nature of these proposals. Those who want to insulate other than the roof will be deprived of assistance. Suprisingly, the Minister has not touched on a further anomaly in the Government's energy conservation strategy, a strategy of which he seems so proud. We have here a proposal for spending public funds on a minimum degree of thermal insulation, but householders are still lumbered
  988
  with disincentives to conserve energy. Why are they still penalised by the imposition of VAT on do-it-yourself insulation materials? Why should those who buy double glazing or a more efficient central heating system be penalised by a higher rateable value and a subsequent increase in rates? That is a nonsense, and there is the further nonsense that those who wish to invest in solar panels, which will obviously greatly contribute to energy conservation, are also penalised by higher rateable value. Replies I have received from the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment give little encouragement for us to hope that the Government are taking that aspect of energy conservation seriously. I have been told that discussions are taking place with the Inland Revenue valuation department, but what is the point of talking if there is to be no action?
  If we are to approve the expenditure of public money to encourage insulation, at least we should remove the disincentives. We should give a real encouragement to people to take these energy-saving steps as well as helping them with public funds.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) referred to a reply I had to a parliamentary Question concerning the higher standards of insulation that operate abroad and the more adequate incentives that back them up. It is a pity that the Minister regards this Bill as the end of the story when he has to admit that we have a lot of catching up to do if we are to match other countries in the EEC on both building and insulation standards. It is a pity he has not taken on board the fact that other countries have taken energy conservation far more seriously and have for some years offered stronger incentives through tax allowances and grants to encourage better standards of insulation.
  In the long run, higher building standards will come only if the consumer demands them. Just as people today buy a new car only if the petrol consumption is to their liking, the time cannot be far off when a house purchaser will want to know the fuel running costs of a house before he buys it. In the meantime, one cannot blame the building industry for not building to higher standards. The Government could do more to encourage this trend by, in addition

  989
  to improving the basic minimum insulation standards, helping to condition the public into understanding that it pays to buy a house that costs more because it has been properly constructed because running costs will subsequently be lower.
  I regard this measure as a token admittedly it is better than nothing, but it is too little, too late. There is far more to do in this respect than in other countries, yet we are doing less. The fundamental weaknesses of these proposals have already been exposed by some of my colleagues, but one of the fundamental weaknesses is the fact that it fails to tackle the root of the problem—namely, that we are still building to inadequate standards. Furthermore, the Bill fails to offer flexible incentives to help those who wish to benefit.
  Moreover, even if these proposals go ahead as proposed over 10 years, they will still produce only one-tenth of the potential energy savings which we can now expect—savings which other countries are achieving by insulating all domestic buildings to higher standards. The admission that no further schemes are proposed under this legislation is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to persuade the Minister that there is a great deal more to be done and not much to be complacent about.
  1.22 p.m.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I wish to pursue the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). Before I do so, I shall take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who said that we should look at the Bill in the broader context of energy saving.
  We are all implored to save energy in every way—that is, energy from fossil fuels and electrical energy. This Bill is designed to save energy by giving people public money to put insulating material under the roofs of their houses, yet if material is put on the other side of the roof to save possible fuel and electrical energy in the form of solar panels, extra rates are charged on the house. That amounts to a tax on energy savings.
  I hope that the Minister in reply to this debate will try to explain why that is the case. I hope that he will not try to argue his case by drawing an analogy with other forms of central heating, such
  990
  as oil, gas or coal, leading to an increase in rates. That is not a true analogy in the context of the purpose of the Bill, which is to save energy. It is against the national interest to put oil, coal or gas central heating in a house., because more fossil fuel will be used, but it is surely in the national interest to put solar panels into a house because it saves energy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) referred to noise insulation. That subject interests me greatly, because my constituency is close to Heathrow. I very much hope that the Bill's provisions will be extended to apply to windows, which cause great heat losses. If windows are double-glazed, one can combine heat insulation with noise insulation. I sometimes wonder what co-operation, if any, takes place between Government Departments. The Department of Trade, which is responsible for noise insulation grant against aircraft noise and which from time to time considers extending the system—a process that I seek to encourage—is beavering away on that aspect, and the Department of Energy or the Department of the Environment is examining the matter from the point of view of heat insulation. One wonders whether they will ever get together to see whether they can co-ordinate their activities. I rather suspect that that will never be the case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East said that he had already put heat insulation in his roof and therefore would not qualify under the Bill. It is extraordinary that those who have shown initiative and independence in putting in heat insulation without the aid of a grant will be worse treated than the rest of the population who have waited for a Government bribe before they take action. That seems unfair. I hope that in the interests of fairness the Government will be prepared to consider paying those who have already installed heat installations of the sort envisaged in the Bill.
  1.25 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on his campaign. Over the years he has been one of the most persistent parliamentary questioners on this subject.

  991
  I suspect that, despite his misgivings about this Bill, he sees it as some response to the campaign he has conducted in recent years.
  Despite misgivings, I welcome the Bill in principle. It seems strange that in these islands which can be very cold and frosty during the winter, we are so much more careless about warming our homes than are other nations. Our houses sometimes seem to have been designed to let out the maximum amount of heat and to let in the largest number of draughts, and to ensure that pipes freeze at the slightest opportunity. Therefore, we welcome legislation that will encourage the nation better to insulate homes, perhaps to save energy, and to allow people to enjoy greater comfort in their homes.
  I gather that in international terms we come off rather badly. If I may be allowed to express rather a bad pun, in the lagging of pipes and tanks, as a nation we lag behind other countries. This Bill may help that process forward just a little.
  I wish to question the priorities in the Bill. I should like to examine whether, in relation to the improvement grant programme, it is right to give £15 million in the first year and £25 million in subsequent years for roof insulation. I am a great believer in the importance of the housing improvement programme generally. I should like to see this Government and any future Government give far more priority to home improvements than to new house building. There have been significant steps forward in recent years in increasing the level of grant for home improvements, but I am speaking as a member of a constituency which now faces problems because of the shortage of money to be spent on essential home improvements. On behalf of my constituents—perhaps there are other hon. Members in a similar position—I am entitled to ask whether it is right to spend £15 million on these proposals when we are not receiving the moneys we need for other projects of equal importance.
  Let me try to illustrate the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) mentioned the legislation on land compensation and the need for noise insulation grants. I could take him to some homes in my constituency
  992
  which are situated alongside a road that was started after the critical date. Those homes have double glazing, but for those homes it is very much harder to obtain indoor toilets than it is to install double glazing. We face the anomalous situation in which there are unimproved homes which gain other sorts of benefits. Not only can we now obtain double glazing for homes that have toilets at the end of the garden; we are able to obtain for them roof insulation before we can obtain grants to install toilets inside them. What an illogical situation it will seem to the occupants of those homes.
  No doubt the outside toilets can be double glazed, possibly with roof insulation to keep them warm, but we cannot obtain the few thousand pounds we need to improve the homes themselves. That is the situation as it will appear to many people who cannot obtain money this year, next year or for several years hence in order to undertake essential improvements.
  Let me refer to my own constituency, the boundaries of which are coterminous with Swale Borough Council. Last year we had a generous upgrading of improvement grants. The figures rose from a maximum of £1,500 or £1,600 to £2,500, plus extensive loans and extra allowances for repairs. Therefore, individuals can claim very much more for home improvements. Broadly speaking, I welcome that move as a step in the right direction.
  At the same time, new housing action areas have been designated to take up much housing improvement money. In one the district wants to give priority to improvement grants. That money is already earmarked for other priorities. Where does that leave the rest of the programme? The situation is so critical that already the borough council has been forced to stop all future discretionary grants. We should be grateful for a share of this money to get on with the ordinary improvement programme.
  The local authority asked for £540,000 for improvement work in the private sector and has been granted £360,000. It has had to announce an end to applications for discretionary grants. The Government have encouraged more generous provision, and their intentions are welcome, but they have based these responsibilities on local authorities without providing the resources. Ministers have given

  993
  a sympathetic response to a deputation from the borough council, which has been assured that any overspending on statutory grants will be met by the Department. But that does not help with discretionary grants.
  As for public housing, the local authority asked for £1½ million for the coming year to improve 216 homes. It was allocated £320,000, which is enough to improve 40. A total of 1,255 houses need repair and improvement in the borough. The authority now has to board up some of its houses because it has not the funds for improvement. Houses needing improvement are about 20 per cent. of the housing stock.
  This critical situation is not wholly the Government's fault, but they have got their priorities wrong. I would much rather devote resources nationally to home improvement schemes than to new house building or municipalisation. Apart from 40 houses in my constituency, over the next year the stock will continue to deteriorate. Is it right to approve a Bill that will allocate this money to loft insulation in the light of these desperate needs?
  We all know how personal and human those needs can be. Many houses are damp, and are without a bathroom or inside toilet. This money will often go to people who can afford it themselves, since it is not means-tested. Should we give £50 to someone who might be comfortably off while someone who is not continues to live in poor conditions? The Bill is more a public relations and cosmetic exercise than anything else.
  Even in this context, is the Bill the right approach? A separate Bill with a small maximum limit will minimise the benefit and maximise the bureaucracy. The grant will be separate from all other improvement grants, and £50 is relatively little today.
  We are told that one extra employee per housing authority may be required—about 500 people. That could cost several million pounds. Is it sensible to give £15 million and spend £2 million or £3 million on administration? This has gone sadly wrong and complicated an essentially simple operation.
  I am also sceptical of the statement in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
  994
  "It is not thought that these measures will require any additional central Government staff; if they do these will be met by offsetting savings."
  That is a little deceptive. Either it will require manpower or it will not. If it does, that must represent additional staff. Others might cease to be required, resulting in a net saving, but one cannot say that one is entitled to take any natural wastage to offset these bureaucratic requirements and conclude that no extra employees have been required. This is not important. If we had been told that a few people would be needed, we should have accepted it, and it would have been the more honest approach.
  I urge the Government to heed what has been said about allowing people to spend the money before they get approval. The Minister thought that it was right to follow the principles for general housing improvements, but there have been many problems in that respect. Some people have been refused grants because they have authorised work to start before getting local authority agreement.
  I shall not argue whether that is right or wrong in that context, but here we are talking about a grant of £50. That is a maximum, but I suspect that it will turn out to be a minimum. It is a simple operation; the production of dated bills showing the work done and the fact that it cost more than £75 should be sufficient. It could streamline the procedure and remove some of the irritations and doubts which have been described.
  Having welcomed the principle of the Bill, I still doubt the efficacy of this approach. When my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East started his campaign, the figures were much lower. It cost £15 or £20 to line a roof, but people did not do it.
  Mr. Jessel: It was worth more then.
  Mr. Moate: Yes, even under this Government, in their early days. Nevertheless, people did not respond. I wonder whether we shall get the response that we all want when people are asked to spend £25 for these purposes. If that is so, even at the rate suggested by the Government, it will be the turn of the century before we have all insulated our roofs. But if we combine the Government's

  995
  approach with a degree of apathy by the British public it will be long after North Sea oil has been totally exhausted before we get round to insulating our homes properly. How much worse it is if we are today still carrying on building houses without the elementary provisions that the Government are now encouraging for older homes!
  The Bill is right in principle. I am very sceptical about it in practice. I am not sure that it will be a major step forward. What I question very much is that we should be spending improvement money in this way when I would rather see it directed towards improving some of the sub-standard homes in my constituency, where we have been deprived by the Government of the necessary money in this financial year.
  1.40 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: It was not long ago that the Minister brought before the House for Second Reading a Bill to help home purchase. He introduced it with a certain amount of pride, but after he had listened to the debate, that pride was a little dented because then, as now, almost every speaker, while saying that the Bill did no harm, emphasised how little good it would do in relation to the scale of the problem. That is the verdict on this measure. It is a very small step.
  The success that we have in this country on conservation will depend primarily on the extent to which we give that issue priority and emphasis in all aspects of Government. There is here an opportunity for Ministers in various Departments to give real leadership and improve public understanding in a way that will bring about a response. We have not seen it yet.
  The Minister spoke of making sure that we had the quickest benefit. That is an entirely desirable objective, but it has taken the Government an astonishingly long time to introduce even this modest measure to improve and encourage a conservation programme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made very clear the scale of the need in the context of the problems of energy supply towards the end of the century. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East
  996
  (Mr. Rost), to whom we are all indebted for his probing on the subject of insulation, brought out very clearly what could be done in a total context.
  In a recent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) emphasised the importance of the role of Government in leading a national effort on conservation. He said:
  "There can be no question but that the first priority for policy must be the encouragement of energy saving. It is surely indisputable that whatever view we take on future energy supplies there is no possible case for wasting any at all."
  I hope that that at least is something on which we can all agree.
  The Friends of the Earth have done much more in improving public knowledge and awareness and in encouraging conservation than the Government have so far succeeded in doing What we have had is a slow response to a very apparent need, a lack of leadership and on occasions, it appears, interdepartmental or even intradepartmental muddle.
  There are a number of examples that one can quote. For example, there is part F of the building regulations. My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South-East and Faversham (Mr. Moate) have said how absurd it is that we go on allowing houses to be built to inadequate standards of insulation. This is probably best illustrated by the fact that in Sweden, where the climate is much worse than ours and the cold is very intense in winter, less energy is used for heating per house than we use. That is an indictment of the standards we have allowed and the standards we are now, for want of ministerial progress, departmental progress, allowing to continue.
  There is a lack of response by the Government to the comments of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on solar heating, the value of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). We must make progress on it, and the Government have a role to play in that.
  There is the Research Institute report on the cost of insulating old people's homes, which we all await with considerable interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) spoke particularly eloquently of the importance of this programme to

  997
  elderly and disabled people. I also have a particular concern for the elderly, of whom there are many in my constituency. If a report is commissioned—and that is entirely welcome—why can it not be brought out as quickly as possible? What is happening? Where has that report got to? When may we have an opportunity of seeing it? My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) asked the question, and I hope that we may have an answer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to the report on energy efficiency labelling, another important area in which we want to see progress.
  Then there is the matter of cavity wall insulation. Nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to this. To make sure that the record is straight on this matter. I hope that I can speak with accuracy if I quote from a leaflet prepared by the housing development directorate of the Department of the Environment. The figures which a number of hon. Members have mentioned—the loss of 35 per cent. of the heat through the walls and 25 per cent. through the roof—refer to the heat escape from a typical between-the-wars semi-detached house. To avoid misunderstanding, we should be clear that in a bungalow or any home with an above-average roof area a greater percentage of the heat will be lost through the roof. From a two-storey detached house or any property with an above-average wall area, as opposed to a semi-detached house, there will be an even greater loss of heat through the walls.
  However, the figures that have been quoted—25 per cent. through the roof and 35 per cent. through the walls—are a good average indicator for the majority of properties. This puts in perspective the importance we should attach to cavity wall insulation.
  Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that those who have shown initiative on insulating their homes, the people who have made sure that their hot water tanks and roof spaces are insulated, just the sort of people who would be most likely to turn next to the advantages to be gained from wall insulation, will feel very hard done by as a result of this legislation. There is nothing in it for them.
  998
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking asked why the Government could not let individuals use their initiative and be encouraged rather than almost discouraged. There is enormous scope in cavity wall insulation. It is estimated that there are about 10½ million homes with a cavity wall, of which roughly 8 million would be suitable. Yet, because of the Department's excessive caution, the bureaucratic controls that have resulted from that excessive caution in putting cavity wall insulation under the building regulations, the present progress is less than 30,000 houses a year, when about 8 million properties could be treated. The work is being carried out at a third of the 1974 rate, and employment in the industry is a third what it was then, because of the Government's bringing the work under the building regulations. Yet the Under-Secretary, whose absence we all regret, wrote to me in a letter dated 11th May 1977:
  "The failure rate which I quoted related to all the houses in the survey … However, accept that the incidence of rain penetration in houses up to three storeys, which were insulated well after construction was only 0·2 per cent."
  Surely that is the risk that we could readily accept. Even if there is failure for the 0·2 per cent.—that is two houses per 1,000—that is not an irreversible failure. It is a matter that may be put right. However, because of our fear on that score we seem thoroughly to have discouraged cavity wall insulation.
  The Government seem to be in a muddle between Departments. For example, the Department of Education and Science, in a reply to me of 18th January 1978, implied that cavity wall insulation was not a priority and was not something that it was planning to deal with in educational buildings. In a reply to me on the same day the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment wrote:
  "Cavity wall insulation is not included among the basic measures being undertaken under the first stage of the Government's energy conservation programme for local authority, new town and housing association dwellings."—[Official Report, 18th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 248.]
  However, the other Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), told me on the same day, when referring to the work of the

  999
  Property Services Agency, that about 20 per cent. of its planned expenditure on the civil and defence estate is on cavity wall insulation.
  Does the Department believe in cavity wall insulation or does it not? It appears that some parts of the Department of the Environment think that it might be a good thing while others are not so sure. That is a good example of the lack of leadership and what appears to be the muddle within the Department, which is leading to such poor progress on energy conservation.
  There are a number of questions that we shall need to ask and consider when we discuss the Bill in Committee. An important matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South—the date of operation. We are all aware of the seasonality of the work. Insulation work is normally concentrated into the winter period. That may be because those who might do it themselves are digging their gardens in the summer or mowing their lawns. However, there is a high degree of seasonality and for that reason it is important that the date of operation is as early as possible to avoid discouraging those who might be thinking of doing the work but who will hold off until the grant is available.
  The non-inclusion of draught proofing has been referred to by a number of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). That would be an important feature for the elderly. The elderly are more vulnerable to poor insulation and inadequate heating than any other group of society. They are especially vulnerable to draughts. That is because they tend to move around less and because in many instances they have to spend much of their life in only one or two rooms. The value to them of draught proofing is especially high. When we consider the Bill in more detail I hope that we shall be able to do something on that account.
  I am not clear whether tenants have the right to apply for the grant or whether it goes only to owners or long-lease holders. I hope very much that tenants will have the right to apply for grant.
  The linking of noise prevention and insulation was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.
  1000
  That is another matter that we shall need to explore in Committee.
  Another matter that will have to be discussed in Committee is the thickness of insulation that will qualify for grant. I hope that the thickness will not be kept to too low a figure. If anyone is to qualify for grant I hope that he will be required to use material of a thickness of at least 80 millimetres or three inches. Preferably it should be 100 millimetres. Even that sort of standard may not be enough to meet the scale of the problem.
  Will the grant be sufficient for those who are pensioners? They will have to depend upon a contractor. I agree that in some instances it may be possible to get the work done for £75, but in many cases I fear that it will not. In that event we must ask whether there will be any additional help available. Will those who are on supplementary benefit be able to obtain a special grant to cover the balance of the expenditure on an approved scheme? I hope that the Minister will consult his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Society Security on that score.
  If a scheme is approved and it cannot be carried out because the applicant is on supplementary benefit and does not have the resources to pay the balance, that should not stop the scheme and grant being made available.
  Administrative procedures are a worry. It is a matter that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. If there are grants as small as £50, there is a risk that administrative costs will be excessively high. These are all issues that we shall need to consider in Committee.
  I emphasise again that we support the Bill, small measure though it is. We very much support a more energetic programme of energy conservation. We regret that when it comes to moderate and sensible measures the Government seem to bring them forward extremely late in their programme. Not only that, they introduce them in a very small way. Judging by the number of Labour Members who have been present in the Chamber, it does not seem that there is great support for enthusiasm on the Government Benches for such measures. If the Minister's time was spent less on trying to work out how he can delay

  1001
  revealing to the House his review of the Rent Acts or bringing before us the report of the Economic Intelligence Unit on land availability, which might be of interest, he could devote more of his time to the worthwhile subject of energy conservation.
  There are questions that need to be asked and will be asked in Committee. I assure the Minister that the Opposition will do all that they can to deal with them speedily so that we may put this modest measure on to the statute book as quickly as possible. The question that remains in our minds is whether the Government are committed to a programme of energy conservation and when they will do more to demonstrate that commitment.
  1.57 p.m.
  Mr. Freeson: I shall try to pick up as many as possible of the points that have been raised during the debate, the general as well as the specific, in the time that is available. It will be appreciated—this was reinforced by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—that a number of the issues raised will be better pursued more fully in Committee.
  Much of the discussion that has taken place today was unintentionally wrongly aimed. Much of the comment has been critical of the Bill for not doing things that it could not do anyway. The Bill could not be designed to deal with all the energy conservation matters that have been raised in our debate; as well as matters that have not even been touched upon. It is a significant ingredient, but it is not a major piece of legislation covering all the many matters that have been raised today.
  The specific objective of the Bill is to enable a large number of privately owned houses to have their lofts and water supplies insulated and to provide powers to the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, subsequently to introduce other measures directed to better insulation.
  It is as well to get the psychology right. A Bill designed for one purpose does not cover all the interests involved. It does not mean that the Bill is justifiably to be criticised on that ground. There are more generalised matters that may be dealt with elsewhere. The Bill is one part of a general package of action announced
  1002
  last December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
  That package was not a final and conclusive statement. It included insulation by the Property Services Agency of its properties. The package includes National Health Service buildings, education buildings, local authority non-domestic buildings, and public sector housing, which I touched on briefly in my opening remarks. It also includes Ministry of Defence houses, in respect of the control of heating systems which are now the subject of building regulation revision. It covered advisory and training services in thermal insulation, information and advice to industry, demonstration projects, the study and discussion of the more efficient use of fuel in cars, and a range of other information and publicity matters.
  That package is not the whole of the story. The "Save It" campaign, against the background of which we can read the December statement, has had an impact on energy consumption in this country. It is not possible, obviously to define precisely the impact of an educational exhortative propaganda campaign. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that there has been a saving of about 6 per cent. in primary energy consumption in this country. If we could define matters more closely, no doubt other figures could be produced, but that in itself is a useful broad indication of what is happening. I do not say that in any bland, smug or complacent way. Nothing that we do marks the end of action.
  Several hon. Members have said that what we are doing here does not stand comparison with what is going on in other European countries. I appreciate that that might be an arguable point in certain respects in regard to the standards of houses and other related matters, but generally speaking there is no clear evidence that the general strategies or the efforts made by other countries are more advanced than the energy conservation campaign efforts undertaken in the United Kingdom in the last four years since the 1973 crisis. We are not yet able to evaluate the available information on a comparative basis.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The Minister referred to a saving of 6 per cent. in primary energy consumption. I hope that he is not

  1003
  ascribing all that to the "Save It" campaign. Surely what has contributed most to the saving is he higher price of fuel. Does the Minister agree that much of the reduction in primary energy consumption is a direct response to market forces?
  Mr. Freeson: Of course it is. Indeed, the point that the hon. Gentleman is making underlines my earlier point that a piece of legislation of this kind—or, indeed, the action that we took in the public sector housing field a few months ago—does not of itself provide a total solution. There are all sorts of factors on some of which we are giving a lead, depending on the particular field of activity.
  I was exhorted by hon. Members to keep the scheme simple. I had already said that that was our intention. I assure hon. Members that we do not need any exhortation on that matter. The intention is to keep it simple, and this is indicated already in the provisions of the Bill.
  Nearly every Opposition Member called upon me considerably to widen the scope of the grant system. This varied from one speaker to another. If I were to take all the proposals and to try to cost them, I believe that at a guesstimate it would cost about £1,000 million a year, never mind the £5,000 million that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) suggested.
  At least one hon. Member said that we should be undertaking a programme of the sort that was attempted during the course of the natural gas conversion campaign a few years ago. The investment figures involved in switching over to natural gas some years ago were in the region of £1,000 million, at mid-1960s prices. That gives some idea of what might be the result of adopting all the proposals which have been put forward so far in the debate.
  Mr. Rost: I am sure that the Minister was not intending to suggest that I was recommending that we should be advancing more than £50 per head under the Bill. What I said was that there should be a flexible application and that people should be able to use the money for whatever insulation purposes they desired.
  Mr. Freeson: I shall come to that point later. I accept that the hon. Gentleman
  1004
  was referring to a guesstimate of £5,000 million to achieve a 10 per cent. saving. I accept that he was not suggesting that it would be possible to spend that sort of money. But all the different proposals that have been put forward would undoubtedly add very considerably to the total cost, and there would have to be a switch from elsewhere. That would involve competition in the use of public expenditure, unless we were to add to the total expenditure.
  Coming so soon after a short season of constant attempts by the Conservatives to persuade the Government to cut back considerably on public expenditure this year, I find it difficult to accept the propositions that have been put forward today. As I have already emphasised, they would add considerably to expenditure. They would also add to the complications of administering the scheme. There would be a tremendous amount of work in checking and inspection. The criteria involved would be very detailed and difficult to establish, in seeking to assess whether certain expenditures were grant-aidable or not.
  We have sought to establish a simple scheme and to do it within the context of the limits on public expenditure within which we have to operate. We are not proposing an insignificant measure. I repeat that if we achieve the objective of insulating the loft and water supply of 500,000 dwellings per year in the private sector, once the scheme gets fully under way—we hope from 1979 onwards, although it starts this year—that will not be an insignificant achievement. It will not be a solution to all our energy conservation problems—it is not designed as such—but it will be significant, and I deplore the constant reiteration of the criticism that the proposal is modest or piffling, nothing to be particularly pleased about, and virtually meaningless. That is the kind of language that we have had from Opposition Members. One gets used to it, but it is not particularly relevant to our problems.
  We were criticised for the delay in introducing the Bill, as compared with our action in the public sector. A difference of three or four months is nothing to get hot under the collar about. In the public sector we do not need legislation. The powers are there and we are able to act. It is simply a matter of making

  1005
  the necessary budgeting and administrative arrangements with the local authorities once the policy is accepted. But in the private sector legislation is needed. We have no powers to grant aid other than by legislation, so there is bound to be some delay, but it is only a matter of months. If the Bill goes through quickly, we shall be operating the scheme in line with the local authorities' efforts. This year there is a difference of several months in the timing, but as from next year the schemes will be operating alongside one another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and other hon. Members referred to the importance of early timing, and asked when the scheme would operate. I cannot give a date until the Bill has gone through, but if we can get the Bill quickly through all its stages, we hope that it will start to operate by early autumn. If it can operate earlier still, so much the better.
  It was argued that there was a difference in equity between what has been done in the public sector and elsewhere. That is not so. The figures quoted as the unit costs in the public sector, which are the subject of Circular 23/78, and the figures with which we are dealing here are disparate figures. The unit cost relates to the total capital cost. It is not in itself the grant that is being talked about in the circular. The circular described the relationship between these kinds of works and expenditure on normal improvement work coming under the Section 105 programme.
  The grant-aided system is virtually identical, in that we are providing a 66 per cent. grant in both instances, subject to certain controls. There is bound to be a difference. We can never get a precise comparison between the two. On the one hand, we are dealing with tenanted properties which, for individuals, do not involve the improvement of a capital asset. On the other hand, we are dealing primarily, but not wholly, with properties which have the benefit of capital asset valuation to which we are adding by means of public money. Therefore, there is a distinction to be drawn between the occupants of local authority dwellings and the occupants of the majority of privately owned dwellings.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I am not sure that we would accept the argument about the difference in capital appreciation. But there is a finite difference. Draught exclusion is included in the public sector, but it is excluded in the private sector.
  Mr. Freeson: We can go into that matter in greater detail in Committee, if necessary, but that was not done, as I made clear in my opening, as a matter of policy. It was done because it was difficult, if not impossible, to get a definition for grant-aided purposes. Indeed, some of the remarks which were made in the debate, unconsciously I think, underlined that point.
  Hon. Members rightly referred to old houses with loose joinery and window frames. I have a house which has joinery of 80 or 90 years of age, so I well take the point. If we try to define that for grant-aided purposes and try to distinguish between the repair and the draught exclusion element, we shall get into a very difficult area. It is difficult to include that kind of situation for grant-aided purposes as distinct from the capital allocation-subsidy system which operates in local government and, in a somewhat different way, for housing associations. These are problems of definition, not of policy. In any case, the normal draught exclusion method is relatively cheap.
  I am prepared however—indeed, I am having discussions with my officials on this matter—to look at some possible flexibility where the scheme applies to elderly, sick and disabled people. I cannot say what the answer will be. I put on record the fact that although I am not confidence that I can do it. I am prepared to consider the possibility of the greater flexibility to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred in connection with the application of the money to the type of work to be done. There are problems in this respect. I reassure hon. Members that we are concerned about this matter.
  My Department, through its housing development division, has been looking at this problem in test cases. I do not wish to refer to reports that have been touched upon in the debate. However, we have been examining ways of assisting in the better insulation and heating of elderly and disabled persons' accommodation,

  1007
  even to the extent of a variety of minimum action within certain rooms in people's houses. We are looking at ways to make the improvement grant system more flexible in that connection. This matter overlaps other aspects of home improvement for people in these circumstances.
  I think that in due time—not in the immediate future, but not so long from now—we shall be able to take up many of the points that have been made about the position of the elderly and the disabled, including the remarks made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) in another context. I am looking at certain aspects in the context of the Bill. I am very concerned about this matter.
  It was suggested that administrative costs would be 20 per cent. I shall pursue that matter further in Committee. The point was made strongly, and millions of pounds were quoted. I assure hon. Members that, on the basis of consultations with the local authorities so far, it is not likely to be anywhere near the figure quoted. It will be well within 10 per cent., and maybe a good deal lower than that. That is on the basis of present consultations. But we are still looking at that matter. We should not get over-worried about it.
  Points were made about rateable values. The suggestion was that the impact of rateable value hits people when they make improvements to their houses. We can certainly consider whether there would be merit in practice in applying the principle applied to central heating systems, namely, that there is no immediate revaluation; one waits until the next general revaluation. We would have to consult other Departments and the Inland Revenue on that matter.
  I suggest that this matter has been overstated. If we are talking of an expenditure, outside the terms of the Bill, of £250 on double glazing or on other improvements which have been touched upon, let alone the £50 to £75 average expenditure on loft insulation, translating that into an annual value. I do not think that it will work out to more than pence, except in individual cases. We are speaking not about individual cases but about the general application of the grant
  1008
  system and how it might affect properties. We shall look at this aspect, but, as distinct from a hypothetical situation, it is not a real issue in practice when we look at the figures.
  Before I sit down, I should like to comment briefly on the points made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, He took the debate even more widely than his hon. Friends by talking about new building standards and so on. In the course of his speech, he reinforced the points made about building regulations outlined by other hon. Members.
  I am not at all bland, smug or complacent about building regulations. There is a long history of inadequate standards stemming from the many decades of cheap fuel in this country. I accept that in broad terms that has been echoed through market effects and Government action and policies stretching back over more than a century.
  However, it must be remembered that it was only in recent years—in 1975—that this concept, other than health and safety, was built into building regulations requirements. Of course, it was postulated earlier. In fact, I raised the matter in the few months when I was a junior Minister at the old Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1969–70. I asked that a review should be put in hand to widen the scope of criteria for building regulations. That has only recently come about. It takes a long time to get building regulations changed. That is another point that concerns me, but it is for another occasion. I should like us to be more selective and to foreshorten the time if we can. I recognise that many interests are concerned throughout the economy and industry. It is easy for me to say that and I should like to do it, but it is not so easy to put it into practice. I am sure that any hon. Member in my position would soon find that if he were not already aware of it.
  I accept that standards are not good enough. Our first priority on the building regulations was to deal with non-domestic buildings, because they had no standards whatsover under the regulations. That was the priority. We are now looking at the possibility of increasing the standards of domestic dwellings under building regulations. There will not be an immediate revision within the

  1009
  next few months, but we are considering it seriously. I hope that it will not take six years, which is the normal span, before we come to conclusions about the matter, because of the consultative process.
  In the meantime, standards are going up in practice. We shall seek to encourage this to the best of our ability. The standards in building regulations are minimum standards. They do not prevent people from adopting higher standards if they wish to do so. Nor will the Bill prevent people from doing many of the other things put forward in the debate. It is a contribution to a particular aspect of work which we think must be given priority for the financial and environmental reasons that I indicated at the outset. The biggest and quickest impact will be by means of the scheme that we are now putting forward.
  In introducing the scheme, we shall enable people to spend that much more money, if they so decide, on other kinds of additional insulation because they will have had the benefit of certain financial assistance for the priority that we are setting down in the Bill.
  I ask the House not to denigrate the objectives of the Bill. It will have the impact that I have described on hundreds of thousands of homes once the scheme gets going. It is not intended to leave the matter at that. Other measures and initiatives will be taken in the context of the Bill in due course and in other directions outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that we can all agree to give the Bill a
  1010
  quick passage and get it in operation well in time for autumn of this; year.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  HOMES INSULATION BILL

    HOMES INSULATION [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That provision may be made by an Act of the present Session for local authority grants towards the thermal insulation of dwellings in accordance with schemes prepared by the Secretary of State; and for—

    (a) the grants to be financed by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament (an authority not being required, or having power, to make grants in any year beyond those for which the Secretary of State has notified them that finance is committed for that year in respect of the authority's area);

    (b) the first scheme under the Act to be for the improved insulation of roof spaces and water supply, the grant available under that scheme to be, for any dwelling, 66 per cent. of the cost of the works qualifying for grant or £50, whichever is the lesser amount, with power for the Secretary of State by order to alter that percentage or money sum, or both; and

    (c) the Secretary of State to pay, out of money so provided, such sums as he thinks reasonable in respect of administration expenses incurred by local authorities in operating the Act.—[Mr. Stallard.]

  SOLOMON ISLANDS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  2.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Bill to grant independence to one of the last of our remaining dependent territories, the Solomon Islands.
  Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to recall briefly the history of the Solomon Islands and the developments leading, up to the introduction of the Bill.
  The Solomon Islands archipelago lies to the north-east of Australia. It stretches approximately 900 miles and consists of large, mountainous islands thrown up by volcanic disturbances and small coral islets. About 90 per cent. of the total population of 200,000 are Melanesian. The remainder include Polynesians, Micronesians, Europeans, Chinese and others.
  The first European to visit the area, in 1568, mistakenly believed that he had discovered the source of King Solomon's fabulous wealth. It was in this hopeful belief that the present name was given to the islands. In the eighteenth century many more explorers visited the islands, followed by whalers and the early missionaries. Then came the scandal later known as "blackbirding"—the recruitment of labour for the sugar plantations in Queensland and Fiji. The abuses to which this led provoked retaliation from the Islanders and many were killed during this troubled period. Conditions did not improve until 1893, when Britain extended her protection to the islands.
  During the Second World War, when the Japanese invaded the islands, the Allies were assisted by the Islanders,
  1012
  many of whom showed outstanding courage and loyalty in the Allied cause. After the war, recovery was slow. Government, Church, trading and plantation infrastructures had to be slowly rebuilt. As part of a continuous process of constitutional evolution, a ministerial system of government was created in August 1974 and internal self-government was introduced in January 1976. The present Legislative Assembly consists of 38 elected Members. A Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister is collectively responsible to the Assembly.
  On September 1977 a full constitutional conference took place in London when it was agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Solomon Islands should become independent in mid-1978 as a constitutional monarchy with Her Majesty as Head of State. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper, Cmnd. 6969, and presented to Parliament on 26th October 1977.
  The Bill which is now before the House accordingly makes provision for the Solomon Islands to attain independence and for various connected matters.
  Clause 1 provides for the independence of the Solomon Islands, within Her Majesty's dominions, as from 7th July 1978.
  Clauses 2 to 6 deal with nationality. They have a number of unusual features and call for some words of explanation. At the constitutional conference, the Solomon Islands Government would not agree that Solomon Islands citizenship should be conferred automatically on independence day to all those who derive their British national status from a connection with the Protectorate, that is to say, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and British protected persons who, or whose fathers, were born, naturalised, or registered in the Solomon Islands, and their wives.
  The agreement eventually reached at the conference was that only those who are indigenous to the islands will become citizens automatically on independence day. This will cover the great majority of the population. The non-indigenous minority—about 5,000—will be entitled to Solomon Islands citizenship if they apply for it in the period beginning six months before independence day and ending two years after independence day,

  1013
  In Solomon Islands law, this agreement will be reflected in the independence constitution.
  In our law, Clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill deal with what is to become of the British national status of those affected by the settlement. Those who do not become Solomon Islands citizens automatically at independence are expected to take up their entitlement to it by applying within the period allowed. The Bill provides for the national status of these people in the period after independence day. In doing so it does more than simply say, as is usual in independence Acts, that those who become citizens of the new State on independence day are thereupon to lose their British national status.
  Clause 2 provides that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have, within Clause 3, a connection with the Solomons Islands will lose that citizenship on becoming citizens of Solomon Islands. If they do not become citizens of Solomons Islands by 7th July 1980, they will lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies on that day and, if they would otherwise be stateless, will become British protected persons.
  Clause 3 defines those who have a connection with the Solomon Islands for the purposes of Clause 2. It excludes from the definition those who continue to have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency.
  Clause 4 provides that British protected persons of the Solomon Islands Protectorate will cease to be such on becoming citizens of Solomon Islands. If they do not become such citizens by 7th July 1980 and would otherwise be stateless, they will remain British protected persons until they acquire that or another citizenship. This clause provides, too, that those who become British protected persons under Clause 2(4) will also lose that status on acquiring citizenship of Solomon Islands or any other country.
  Clause 5 makes special provision, along usual lines in independence Acts, as to the status of married women. Clause 6 deals with the construction of the nationality provisions.
  Clause 7 and the schedule deal with consequential modifications of other
  1014
  enactments. Clause 8 deals with any appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that may be pending at independence. Clauses 9 and 10 deal with interpretation and citation.
  I now turn to matters not covered by the Bill but about which the House may wish to be informed. For many years we have operated a programme of aid and technical assistance to the Solomon Islands. This will continue after independence. Apart from our already substantial programme of technical co-operation we shall be providing development aid of up to £18 million in the first four years of independence. There will be additional development aid in the form of special project grants totalling £5 million, and budgetary assistance totalling up to £3 million. The whole of this aid programme, which amounts to £26 million, will be on grant terms. We have also secured an increase from £4 million to £6 million in the allocation to the Solomon Islands from the European Development Fund over a period of five years.
  Prospects for the Solomon Islands after independence seem good, although economic development will depend for some time on outside donors. In addition to British and European Development Fund aid, programmes from Australia and New Zealand have already begun, and the Japanese Government recently sent an economic mission to the islands to discuss their future aid policy which will begin upon independence. The Solomon Islands also expect to benefit from their membership of the Asian Development Bank and their proposed membership of the World Bank, and they intend to accede to the Lomé Convention.
  The successful outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of this Bill owes much to the efforts of all those involved. In particular, I must thank my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Overseas Development, for her help with the generous aid provisions. This is also the occasion to pay tribute to the Solomon Islands Government and especially the honourable Peter Kenilorea, the Chief Minister, for successfully bringing their country to the threshold of independence.
  I am glad to say that the Solomon Islands have already expressed their intention of joining the Commonwealth

  1015
  and, as a result, we can look forward to the prospect of continuing, in that important organisation, the close ties that already exist between us. I have no doubt that our long and friendly association with the Solomon Islands will continue for many years and I am sure that the House will wish to support a Bill to confer independence on an important newcomer to the Commonwealth and the international community of nations.
  2.32 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Minister in welcoming the Bill which enables the Solomon Islands to proceed to independence.
  There is no doubt that the Islanders have many friends in this country and in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is in the Chamber. He is a friend of the Islanders and has a deep knowledge of many of our dependencies, not only in the Pacific but in other parts of the Commonwealth. I am glad to see him here to support the Bill.
  We have a long association with the Solomon Islands, going back for many years. I do not intend to repeat the details of the history, but the Protectorate began in 1893, although, in one form or another, through missionaries, trading activities and so on, we have had an association for very much longer.
  Since 1976, the islands have had internal self-government. The constitutional conference held in September expressed a clear desire that the islands should proceed to independence within the Commonwealth, and I am sure that every hon. Member will warmly welcome and support that.
  It is heartening, when reading the report of the constitutional conference, to see that proposals for the constitution are to be based on firm, democratic principles which will undoubtedly create a common bond between the islands and this country. Indeed, paragraph 4 of the proposals says:
  "The Chief Minister placed great emphasis on the principle of individual liberty and the inappropriateness for the Solomon Islands of an authoritarian system of government. The constitution would be based on principles of democratic government and human rights
  1016
  which they had in common with the United Kingdom."
  It is important to stress that fact because it highlights the great common bond that we have with so many other Commonwealth countries.
  May I ask the Minister whether it is not slightly unusual that, in such a Bill, we do not have the final constitutional proposals before us? May I take it that the report of the constitutional conference more or less confirms the nature of the constitution that they propose to adopt on independence?
  The Minister highlighted Clauses 2 to 6, which concentrate on citizenship. I wish to probe this matter a little further in broad principle. I hope that the Minister can answer one or two questions so that we can clear up this matter. I mean no disrespect to the Islanders, but I wish to press the citizenship proposals a little further because they open up wider issues concerning citizenship which could affect any future independence Bills that come before the House.
  The difficulties stem from two aspects of the Bill. The first is the insistence by the Solomon Islands Government that they would like to have special provisions incorporated into the Bill regarding citizenship rights. That is unusual in an independence Bill. I refer particularly to Clause 2(2), (3) and (4). It would help if the Minister would explain why the Solomon Islands Government feel so strongly that these provisions should be incorporated in the Bill in this way.
  The second aspect of the problem that is causing difficulty is the provision that if, on independence or within a period of two years thereafter, non-indigenous persons fail to apply for citizenship or do not choose it, they will lose their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and will become what is known as—just to illustrate the confusion of our citizenship laws—British protected persons.
  The population of the Solomon Islands is just under 200,000 and is predominantly Melanesian, though there are about 5,000 non-indigenous people. We must be clear what our duty is to these people and what their position is likely to be.
  Can the Minister explain why the Solomon Islands Government feel so

  1017
  strongly about these provisions? Can he confirm that although the special provisions requested by the Solomon Islands Government are included in the Bill, they are, in broad terms, in line with citizenship measures implemented when other colonies have proceeded to independence? In other words, does this create a precedent that could produce complications for other independence Bills?
  My third question is whether there is provision within the Solomon Islands constitution for a system of appeal, to a high court or elsewhere, in regard to the applications for citizenship? Is there a right of appeal to the United Kingdom.
  Those who do not obtain citizenship, or opt for non-citizenship, become British protected persons. What are our obligations to them? This illustrates the confusion of our citizenship and nationality laws.
  It is most important that all the complications of the citizenship agreement should be made clear and that the Islanders should be made fully aware of the provisions of the Bill and understand its implications for them. I hope that the Government will make sure that this information about citizenship is disseminated.
  On our future relationship with the Solomon Islands, it is very important that we should maintain and strengthen our ties with that country. Any small dependency like this will suffer difficulties with its economy once it becomes independent. It already has an imbalance in trade. It is up to the British Government to do what they can to help in the early years of independence.
  This points to the wider question whether we should encourage a newly independent small dependency to adopt some sort of regional arrangements to assist with its economic problems. I am encouraged to hear about the Solomon Islands link with the Japanese and membership of the Asian Development Bank.
  The Under-Secretary has said that we shall provide overseas development aid for the Solomon Islands and that that country will automatically accede to the Lomé Convention. That convention is being renegotiated. Will the Solomon Islands accede to the convention before or after renegotiation? Whatever happens, will the Solomon Islands have a say in
  1018
  the renegotiation of the convention, which is bound to affect them?
  It is important to clarify the position, but I emphasise that we warmly welcome this Bill. We have long historical ties with the Solomon Islands which we hope, as a result of this Bill, will be renewed and strengthened in a new form. We wish the Solomon Islanders every success on their independence day—I understand it will be 7th July—and we wish them a prosperous, happy and democratic future.
  2.43 p.m.
  Sir Bernard Braine: As the Under-Secretary reminded us, with this Bill we are nearing the end of the long process of decolonisation. It should be a matter of considerable satisfaction that this massive historic task has been carried through, in the main, with the minimum of political difficulty and the maximum of good will on both sides.
  Britain has been linked with the Solomon Islands for 85 years. It is only right that after so long an association, the British Parliament should welcome this Bill and approve the general arrangements for the transfer of power. It is right that, after so long an association, that when we have concluded our discussion we should wish the new country all success in the task of shaping its own destiny in the future.
  I have had the pleasure of meeting and knowing some of the principal Solomon Island Ministers and their advisers. I share the confidence expressed by the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) that such men will be able to lead their country into the international community with skill. I, too, have been greatly impressed by the firm dedication of the Chief Minister to the democratic process.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer to our satisfaction all the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham. I am completely puzzled by Clauses 2 to 4. I do not understand what happens to persons who do not wish to apply for Solomon Islands citizenship by 7th July 1980 and who thus become British protected persons. My hon. Friend asked, rightly, what our obligations to these people would be. Shall we wake up in July 1980 to find that we have an obligation to admit them to this

  1019
  country as refugees, if circumstances bring undue pressure to bear on them?
  Politics is not just about power or the transfer of power from one sovereign Parliament to another; it is also about people. It is not sufficient to say that after a certain date persons who do not opt for Solomon Islands citizenship will become British protected persons. What in Heaven's name does that mean in the modern world? Have we always been able to protect such persons who enjoy that status in so many countries around the world which were subject to disturbance after the disappearance of the Raj?
  Happily, in the Pacific generally the atmosphere is one of such racial tolerance and understanding, gentleness and liberal attitudes that no such problems should arise. But it is not sufficient for the Minister to say that there are a number of people who on a certain date will not be citizens of the Solomon Islands but who will have the status of British protected persons. What will be their rights as human beings?
  There is good reason for taking an optimistic view of the future of the Solomon Islands. There is, after all, in that part of the world a "Pacific spirit", which in a strange, indefinable way binds together the Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian peoples who live in the myriad islands of that vast ocean. This augurs well for the future of the Solomon Islands and its neighbours Papua-New Guinea, Nauru, the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa.
  There was, however, a moment in the negotiations for Solomon Islands independence when the Government were proposing a financial settlement which smacked of paternalism. That would have been a very bad start for relations between Britain and an independent Solomon Islands. It is a great tribute to the Solomon Islands Ministers and their advisers, on the one hand, and the British Government, on the other, that the final settlement was very different and was entirely acceptable to both sides. That is good, and the House notes it with satisfaction.
  The importance of mutual understanding in negotiations cannot be underestimated. Britain is about to leave the Pacific. Tuvalu,
  1020
  the former Ellice Islands, will shortly receive independence. No doubt a Bill to this effect will come before the House soon. The Gilbert Islands will follow. It is imperative for the future that we should leave this vast area of the world—ringed as it is with friendly Commonwealth States, such as Australia, New Zealand and Fiji—with the maximum of good will. It is imperative that we retain the friendship not merely of the small new States which will have been created but of the older sovereign members of the Commonwealth with which we have worked closely for many years.
  I should like, if I may, to give a warning here. Unless justice is done to one small Pacific community whose case is well understood from one end of the Pacific to the other—from the Solomon Islands to Samoa, from Australia and New Zealand to Fiji and Nauru—that is, the Banaban community, whose treatment by successive British Governments has been oppressive and unjust for so long—by returning their island home to them, our departure from the Pacific will not be a moment for mutual celebration, for expressions of gratitude from those we have governed and a feeling of a job well done on our side, but a sour experience.
  Ministers should feel heartily ashamed, as I do, of the way in which this small Pacific community has been treated. This is not the time to go into that in any detail, and I do not propose to do so. What Mr. Justice Megarry described in the High Court as
  "a breach of the higher trust"
  covers the whole sorry tale in words far more eloquent than anything I could muster. All I shall say now is that I promise the Government that they will not have an easy passage for any Bill for Gilbertese independence unless justice is done to the Banabans. Indeed, they will find opposition in every part of the House.
  However, I wish this present Bill a swift passage. With its enactment, I hope that a message will go out to the Solomon Islanders that the British Parliament and people wish them in the future all success in their new role in the community of nations. I hope, too, that the happy conclusion of this affair will encourage the Government to behave more magnanimously, more generously, than

  1021
  they have been disposed to do hitherto in respect of one other Pacific community that has yet to reach its independence.
  2.52 p.m.
  Mr. Luard: The debate has shown that the substance of the Bill is not a matter of controversy in the House. Those who have spoken have all expressed their warm welcome to the Solomon Islands becoming independent, taking their place in the Commonwealth and becoming a significant member of the international community.
  The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) rightly drew attention to the commitment which leaders in the Solomon Islands have expressed to democratic principles and their determination to continue on democratic lines, which was expressed at the time of the independence conference and is expressed in the new constitution. He asked me about publication of the constitution. The constitution is now being printed and will shortly be available, but I will willingly if he so desires, write to him and give him fuller and further details. I described in rough form the type of constitution we are providing for. It is a democratic constitution and provide for the Solomon Islands to remain a monarchy, with Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State.
  The hon. Member for Shoreham and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) raised questions concerning some of the citizenship provisions, I shall answer them as well as I can. First, the hon. Member for Shoreham asked why there were special provisions concerning nationality in this case and what were the reasons why the Solomon Islands Government attached importance to them.
  I think the reason was that the Solomon Islands Government felt that they had a special obligation to the genuinely indigenous population—the Polynesian-Melanesian population. That did not mean that they were not prepared to grant citizenship to the 5,000 other people of European or Chinese extraction. They did not, however, feel that they had the same degree of obligation towards them but that they should be asked to express a clear commitment in the newly independent State, in the same way as Governments in East Africa had a similar idea when their countries became independent.
  1022
  Therefore, the Solomon Islands' Government have asked that these 5,000 people should themselves apply to become citizens of the Solomon Islands within the time limit I described, ending in June-July 1980. I certainly hope, and I think that it is hoped in the Solomon Islands, that the great majority of these people will apply and they will be accepted and in that sense they will have made the commitment that is required to become and remain citizens of the new State.
  Secondly, I was asked what will be the exact status of those who become British protected persons rather than citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as they are at present. I can give the hon. Gentleman the explanation he asked for. British protected persons are British nationals in the sense that the British Government may exercise diplomatic or consular protection over them when they are abroad and may grant British passports to them. But they have no right of abode in the United Kingdom, nor any right to vote in British elections—a right which, incidentally, citizens of other Commonwealth countries resident here possess—and those connected with the Solomon Islands will not be able to pass on their status as British protected persons to their children after 7th July 1980. That is roughly the status of these people as British protected persons. They will continue to receive the protection of the British Government.
  We are as concerned about their future as is the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the great majority of them will acquire citizenship of the Solomon Islands. Others may wish to acquire citizenship elsewhere. They may not necessarily wish to stay permanently in the Solomon Islands. This is one of the reasons for not giving them immediately Solomon Islands citizenship. If they are to move, for example, to other territories in the Pacific or to parts of Africa, it may be better that they should have some kind of transitional citizenship status and subsequently acquire some new status as citizens of another country.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked me what were the precedents for this action.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. He implies that such people, not having applied for Solomon Islands citizenship,

  1023
  and presumably after a certain date being not able to acquire it even if they had second thoughts, may apply for citizenship elsewhere. They may well do so, but suppose they are not successful. Is there not a residual obligation to accept them as citizens of the United Kingdom? If not, is not this provision, being entered into solemnly in advance, likely to put some people into limbo, being ultimately stateless persons? What is the good of giving people a protected status which one cannot in effect protect?
  Mr. Luard: I think the hon. Gentleman is implying that by becoming British protected persons these people will be thrown into limbo. I do not accept that view. But I agree with the general point that he is making—that no one should be left entirely stranded and stateless. Indeed, we have obligations under the statelessness convention. The hon. Member may be assured that we shall make a commitment to ensure that nobody is left completely stranded in that respect. For the moment it is reasonable to expect and to hope that these people will exercise their own option as to their future status. Their rights to enter this country will not be affected by what is suggested here.
  Sir Bernard Braine: We are trying to establish—and bit by bit it is coming out—that we could have a situation in which a proportion of these 5,000 persons could claim a right to enter this country because there is nowhere else for them to go. If that is the position, it is only honest for the Under-Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, to say that the Government are accepting the obligation of possible entry into this country of people who have been unable to obtain citizenship anywhere else in the world. If that is the position, the Government should say so, here and now, before the Bill is enacted.
  Mr. Luard: The hon. Member is talking about a hypothetical situation which it is impossible to envisage at present. Even if they had no citizenship of the Solomon Islands or some other territory, that does not mean that they have nowhere else to go. It is conceivable that there might be people who eventually find themselves expelled from a country and have nowhere else to go, as happened
  1024
  in East Africa and particularly in Uganda in 1972. Then, of course, we should have to consider carefully, as the then Government did on that occasion, whether we have an obligation to accept them. But we are not in that situation now.
  We have reached an understanding with the Solomon Islands Government. The overwhelming probability is that most of these people will acquire some other citizenship. We shall have to consider whether there is any residual obligation on our part. Under this Bill they will become British protected persons.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I apologise for not having heard the earlier part of the debate, but I was involved in the negotiations for the Solomon Islands' independence. Although I agree that there is a chance that the small group of Gilbertese might wish to make their homes in Britain—although they will probably want to go somewhere else—there is a question of principle involved which must go on the record in Hansard.
  I recognise the pressures on the Foreign Office to get rid of everything in the Pacific and on the Home Office to ensure that nobody in the Pacific has any right to come to Britain. But my hon. Friend is a Foreign Office Minister. All his predecessors in situations such as this have made absolute guarantees which, being on the record, have been honoured in fairly difficult circumstances in terms of the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians in this country. I hope that he is going to give that type of guarantee today.
  Mr. Luard: My hon. Friend is also talking about a hypothetical situation. At this stage we cannot make a categorical commitment. We can be reasonably sure that no one will be left totally stranded and that therefore some arrangement will be made. But for the moment we are providing that these individuals will become British protected persons and will continue to enjoy the protection of the British Government. The question of immigration to this country has not arisen.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to the Minister. He is giving way liberally because I know he wishes to help the

  1025
  House. But what he says will not do. Anything might happen in the future. It is easy for him to defend his present stance by saying that this is a hypothetical possibility. But there is no need to look into the crystal when we can consult the book.
  This was all said, or taken for granted, before citizenship arrangements were made for Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In the event a number of people of Asian origin in those countries—they were good citizens and good people—did not exercise the option of taking out Ugandan, Kenyan or Tanzanian citizenship. The consequences to them have been unhappy.
  The assumption was that because their ancestors came from India they would go back to India if they wanted to go anywhere at all. But that was not the view of the Indian Government, nor did it work out like that in practice. With all this experience, with the consequent pain and suffering which has affected thousands of people and which is a matter of direst concern to the people of this country it will not do for the Government to say that it is only hypothetical and involves only a small number of people in the Pacific.
  It may not be possible to block the Bill this afternoon but I hope that the Minister will tell the Government that here is a gap which raises problems which have not been thought through properly and that something must be done about it quickly.
  Mr. Luard: I shall take account of the views that have been expressed. These points are more for Committee than for Second Reading.
  Sir Bernard Braine: If there is no answer, the Bill will make no progress in Committee.
  Mr. Luard: The hon. Member takes a slightly strange view of this matter, given his position. One of his party's Front Bench spokesmen has said that if there is a recurrence of what happened in 1972 a Conservative Administration would not be prepared to accept people in this country in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is visualising a recurrence of that sort of situation. Perhaps he is dissenting from the view expressed by one of his leaders. He is cerainly
  1026
  taking a different position from that adopted by other members of his party.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Bill is not being disposed of this afternoon. It is possible that it will go to a Committee of the whole House. In my opinion the Minister is right to say that he has heard all the representations. The matter will be dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. Christopher Price: The Minister gave way to me, I think on the understanding that this is a crucial constitutional matter which, although we are on Second Reading, should be referred to since if affects not only the Solomon Islands but a number of other countries which will become independent. This matter is crucial to the future status of a number of individuals for whom the British Government have a responsibility.
  Although the Conservative Party has made certain statements, the leader of my party has never made the sort of statements to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred. Whatever the Conservatives might say, this hypothetical situation cannot be left as hypothetical. It is the sort of issue of principle which should be stated as a principle by the Minister on Second Reading so that we know where we are when we reach the Committee stage. The truth is that the Home Office and the Foreign Office are at loggerheads on the matter, and everyone knows it. The Minister cannot try to wear two hats at once and get away with it. I hope that he will put his Foreign Office hat firmly on and state the principle.
  Mr. Luard: I shall take account of the views that have been expressed on both sides of the House. I agree that this could be an important question at some time in the future. I do not believe that anyone in respect of whom we have a commitment at present will be allowed to be totally stranded. Rights of immigration are not being affected by what is proposed here. The Bill involves merely a small difference in status which will not affect the right to come to this country.
  I was asked what are the precedents for the sort of citizenship arrangements

  1027
  that are being planned in the Bill. There are one or two unusual features in that not all those people whom we usually expect to be given citizenship of the new country will get it automatically on independence day. That accords with the strongly expressed wish and view of the Government of the Solomon Islands. We usually expect that all those who were born, or all those who had fathers who were born, naturalised or registered in the colony or protectorate would obtain citizenship automatically in that way.
  But the Solomon Islands Ministers were concerned about people who were not indigenous to that country but who wished to become citizens of it. They are willing to grant citizenship as of right to those who apply either before or for a period of two years after independence. The Ministers were influenced among other things by the fact that early in the 1960s a number of people from the Gilbert Islands were brought to the Solomon Islands under the auspices of the British Government, and that many of these people have children born in the Solomon Islands. The Ministers felt very strongly that such people should apply to be given citizenship.
  Features such as these are unlikely, as far as the Government can see, to be found in other territories approaching independence. Indeed, the Tuvalu Bill, which is being considered in another place, does not contain any unusual provisions of this kind. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members. This is an unusual arrangement which we do not believe will create precedents which will affect territories elsewhere.
  I asked whether the Solomon Islands would be able to take part in the negotiations for the renegotiation of the Lomé Agreement. When its application has
  1028
  been accepted, which is expected to take place very soon, it will be possible for it to take part in the negotiations in common with the other ACP countries that are renegotiating that agreement.
  I hope that I have answered most of the main points raised in the debate. I may not have entirely satisfied some hon. Members. However, I undertake to look carefully into the points they have raised. I wish to give the assurance that the Government do not wish to allow anybody to remain in a position in which they become totally stateless. We have an obligation under the statelessness convention to avoid such a situation arising.
  These matters can be pursued in Committee if that is the wish of the House. For the moment I believe that the House as a whole has indicated support for the Bill and is behind the principle of independence for the Solomon Islands. I know that all hon. Members will join me in wishing very best fortune to this new State when it becomes independent in July.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stallard.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  SOLOMON ISLANDS BILL [Lords]

    INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    Motion made and Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]
    New Clause No. 1

      ACCESS TO CHILDREN BY GRANDPARENTS
      '(1) A magistrates' court, on making an order under section 7(2) of this Act regarding the legal custody of a child or at any time while such an order is in force, shall have power on an application made by a grandparent of the child, to make such order requiring access to the child to be given to that grandparent as the court thinks fit.
      (2) Subsections (5), (6), (7)(b) and (8) of section 7 and subsection (9) of section 9 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section as they apply in relation to an order under section 7(2)(b) of this Act.
      (3) Where a magistrates' court has made an order under subsection (1) above requiring access to a child to be given to a grandparent, the court shall have power to vary or revoke that order on an application made—

      (a) by that grandparent, or

      (b) by either party to the marriage in question, or

      (c) if the child is not a child of both the parties to the marriage, by any person who though not a party to the marriage is a parent of that child.

      (4) Section 11 of this Act shall apply in relation to the exercise by a court of its powers under this section on an application under subsection (1) or (3) above as it applies in relation to the exercise by the court of its powers under sections 7 to 9 of this Act on an application under section 1 of this Act, and any reference to a party to the proceedings in subsection (4) or (5) of section 11 of this Act shall include—

      (a) in the case of an application under subsection (1) above, a reference to the grandparent who has made an application under that subsection; and

      (b) in the case of an application under subsection (3) above, a reference to the grandparent who has access to the child under the order for the variation or revocation of which the application is made.

      (5) Where an order made under section 7(2)(a) of this Act in relation to a child ceases to have effect, whether by virtue of an order or direction of a magistrates' court or by virtue of any provision of this Part of this Act, any order made under this section regarding access to the child by a grandparent shall also cease to have effect.
      (6) A court shall have power to make an order under this section in favour of a grandparent of a child notwithstanding that the child is illegitimate.'—[Mr. John.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.12 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this clause we may take New Clause No. 2—Access to minors by grandparents under Guardianship of Minors Act 1971—and Government Amendments Nos. 31, 41, 47 to 49, 51, 53 to 57, 66, 67, 69 and 78.
      Mr. John: I am sure that you will be relieved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that the vast majority of amendments which follow the new clauses are consequential.
      This group of amendments deals with cases where a grandparent wishes to see his grandchild but, for one reason or another, is denied access. These cases can be most distressing, as the postbag of most hon. Members shows.
      I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who for a long time has championed the cause of grandparents. He has fought long and assiduously on their behalf and they have reason to be glad that they have so diligent a champion.
      Last Session the hon. Gentleman introduced a Ten-Minute Bill, which went the way of most Ten-Minute Bills, in the sense that it failed to become law. However, that did not deter the hon. Gentleman. He will know that over the months I have expressed considerable personal sympathy in this matter and, without wishing to claim the rights of parenthood, so to speak, it was I who put into his mind the possibility of a Government measure, namely, this legislation, as a suitable vehicle for tacking on such provisions. I am glad to say that in principle the Government wholly accept the principle enshrined by the hon. Gentleman.
      The two clauses as introduced and incorporated in Committee, namely, Clauses 70 and 71, in our view went somewhat too wide. Therefore, New Clauses Nos. 1 and 2 are designed to draw the matter rather more tightly. They are not drawn in a restrictive sense but are aimed at making clear the rights of grandparents, and they seek to draw the fine balance which sometimes exists between the rights of grandparents—rights which are natural and real—to access. At the same time,

      1031
      there is a desire to keep the principle of parental responsibility for children clear and to avoid anything which might, through the threat of proceedings, add to the tensions, worries and disharmonies in a household.
      The amendments would allow for access in two categories of case—namely, where the parents have separated or where one or both Is dead. They do not deal with the case in which the parents are divorced, because there is already power under the Matrimonial Causes Act for the divorce court to grant a grandparent access.
      The first new clause deals with the case where the parties are bringing matrimonial proceedings under Part I. This is where they are separated and maintenance and custody are being applied for. The new clause provides that where a court makes an order in a matrimonial proceeding relating to the custody of the child—that can, of course, include access—a grandparent may apply for access, either in the course of those proceedings or subsequently.
      New Clause No. 2 introduces a new provision into the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 to deal with the case where matrimonial affairs between the parties may not be the subject of litigation. Nevertheless, one of the parties applies either for custody or for access quite separately and where no matrimonial matter concerns the two parties, very often the only summons is brought under the 1971 Act. There is provision in Section 9 of that Act for any parent to apply for custody or access. Subsection (1) of the new clause therefore allows a grandparent to apply for access, either at the same time or afterwards.
      Another possible case arises where a custodianship order is granted under the Children Act 1975. That Act has not yet been brought into force, but this subsection would provide for the circumstances in which a child has been living with a relative or a foster parent. It seems right to anticipate the coming into force of that Act by providing for one of those circumstances and allowing a grandparent to apply for access.
      Finally, we have introduced a provision enabling a grandparent to apply for access if either or both of the natural parents
      1032
      is dead. That is contained in subsection (2) of New Clause No. 2 and is inserted in the Guardianship of Minors Act.
      The remaining amendments are either technical or consequential, with the exception of Amendment No. 78. That would remove from the Long Title words which were inserted by an amendment in Committee and which are unnecessary, since the Long Title already covers all the amendments relating to access by grandparents.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I thank the Minister of State, the Under-Secretary and their officials for the manner in which they have accepted the principle enshrined in the amendments in Committee, in which I have had a considerable interest for some time. I am also grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends, on both sides of the House, who were co-sponsors of my Bill and have supported the work that I have tried to do.
      My interest began a year ago, with the case of a family of constituents whose son and daughter-in-law had been killed and who found that they were denied access to their grandchildren. The tragedy that unfolded from that case and developed into several hundred other cases was simply that children were being denied the right to see their own grandparents. There was no question of custody or guardianship; people were being deprived even of the right to see one another.
      In some cases, grandparents had brought up their own grandchildren for six or eight years and had then had the children taken away; they were told that they could not see them even once a year.
      The important point was the establishment of the principle that grandparents had certain rights, the paramount consideration always being the well-being of the children. Some organs of the Press have called this a grandparents' charter. I have always tried to emphasise that my concern is for the children just as much as it is for the grandparents.
      I fully understand the difficulty that the Home Office had—it was a difficulty that I had as well—which was to try to establish the principle in the Bill while recognising the reality that there are cases in which parents are unworthy influences

      1033
      upon their children and grandchildren, where children have decided to get away from the shadow of an unhappy childhood of their own and to ensure that their children do not come under what they regard as baleful influences. The difficulty of this balance has caused a certain amount of delay in the enactment of the Bill, but I am satisfied with the amendments produced by the Minister of State.
      As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, virtually all cases are covered—separation, death and divorce under existing law—while the basic parental rights of parents over the lives and fortunes of their own children are maintained. I regard this as a modest but humane and compassionate amendment to the law. It affects rather more children and grandparents than is generally realised, certainly if the number of cases with which I have had to deal is any indication.
      The amendment offers the opportunity for happiness to a great number of children and their grandparents. It is one that has had the support of hon. Members of all parties. I am deeply grateful to the Minister of State, the Under-Secretary and their officials, as well as to my right hon. and hon. Friends, on both sides of the House, for making possible this change in the law.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2

      ACCESS TO MINORS BY GRANDPARENTS UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS ACT 1971
      'In the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 the following heading and section shall be inserted after section 14:
      "Access to minors by grandparents
      14A.—(1) The court, on making an order under section 9(1) of this Act or at any time while such an order is in force, may on the application of a grandparent of the minor make such order requiring access to the minor to be given to the grandparent as the court thinks fit.
      (2) Where one parent of a minor is dead, or both parents are dead, the court may, on an application made by a parent of a deceased parent of the minor, make such order requiring access to the minor to be given to the applicant as the court thinks fit.
      (3) Section 11A(2) of this Act shall apply in relation to an order made under this section as it applies in relation to an order made under section 9(1), 10(1)(a), or 11(a) of this Act.
      (4) The court shall not make an order under this section with respect to a minor who is for the purposes of Part II of the Children Act 1948 in the care of a local authority.
      (5) Where the court has made an order under subsection (1) above requiring access to a minor to be given to a grandparent, the court may vary or discharge that order on an application made—

      (a) by that grandparent, or

      (b) by either parent of the minor or.

      (c) if the court has made an order under section 9(1)(a) of this Act giving the legal custody of the minor to a person other than one of the parents, that person.

      (6) Where the court has made an order under subsection (2) above requiring access to a minor to be given to a grandparent, the court may vary or discharge that order on an application made—

      (a) by that grandparent, or

      (b) by any surviving parent of the minor, or

      (c) by any guardian of the minor.

      (7) Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to an application under this section as it applies in relation to an application under section 5 or 9 of this Act, and any reference to a party to the proceedings in subsection (2) or (3) of the said section 6 shall include—

      (a) in the case of an application under subsection (1) or (2) above, a reference to the grandparent who has made an application under either of those subsections,

      (b) in the case of an application under subsection (5) or (6) above, a reference to the grandparent who has access to the minor under the order for the variation or discharge of which the application is made.

      (8) Where at any time after an order with respect to a minor has been made under subsection (1) above no order is in force under section 9 of this Act with respect to that minor, the order made under subsection (1) above shall cease to have effect.
      (9) A court may make an order under this section in favour of a grandparent of a minor notwithstanding that the minor is illegitimate.—[Mr. John.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 3

      AMENDMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1964
      '(1) Section 2(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1964 (which provides that, for the purposes of the law relating to justices of the peace, magistrates' courts and other matters therein mentioned, a London commission area shall be deemed to be a county) shall have effect, and shall be deemed to have had effect as from 1st April 1974, as if—

      (a) after the words "magistrates' courts" there were inserted the words "magistrates' courts committees":

      1035

      (b) before the word "county", where it first occurs, there were inserted the words "non-metropolitan"; and

      (c) after the words "passing of this Act" there were inserted the words "and references to a non-metropolitan county in any enactment or instrument as amended or modified by or under the Local Government Act 1972."

      (2) Section 2(3A) of the said Act of 1964 (which provides that for the purposes of the law relating to magistrates' courts committees a London commission area shall be deemed to be a non-metropolitan county) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. John.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 76 and 77.
      Mr. John: I think that by now the whole House is familiar with the rather bizarre reform of local government which occurred in 1972 under the Local Government Act. It had many and varied consequences. One of the strangest is the technical defect that the clause seeks to put right.
      In paragraph 13 of Schedule 27 of the Act the definition of "petty sessions area" was changed in a way which inadvertently excluded petty sessional divisions in Greater London, because it referred to non-metropolitan counties and metropolitan districts, but not to London commission areas. This defect needs to be remedied before consolidation, and the Bill affords a good opportunity to do so. The method we have chosen is to amend the Administration of Justice Act 1964, since that contains the main provisions relating to the administration of justice in the Greater London area.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and adder to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 4

      POWERS OF ARREST FOR BREACH OF S. 14 ORDER
      '(1) Where a magistrates' court makes an order under section 14 of this Act which provides that the respondent—

      (a) shall not use violence against the person of the applicant, or

      1036

      (b) shall not use violence against a child of the family, or

      (c) shall not enter the matrimonial home, the court may, if it is satisfied that the respondent has physically injured the applicant or a child of the family and considers that he is likely to do so again, attach a power of arrest to the order.

      (2) Where by virtue of subsection (1) above a power of arrest is attached to an order, a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause for suspecting of being in breach of any such provision of the order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above by reason of that person's use of violence or, as the case may be, his entry into the matrimonial home.
      (3) Where a power of arrest is attached to an order under subsection (1) above and the respondent is arrested under subsection (2) above—

      (a) he shall be brought before a justice of the peace within a period of 24 hours beginning at the time of his arrest, and

      (b) the justice of the peace before whom he is brought may remand him.

      In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday, or any Sunday.
      (4) Where a court has made an order under section 14 of this Act but has not attached to the order a power of arrest under subsection (1) above, then, if at any time the applicant for that order considers that the other party to the marriage in question has disobeyed the order, he may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of that other party to a justice of the peace for the commission area in which either party to the marriage ordinarily resides; but a justice of the peace shall not issue a warrant on such an application unless—

      (a) the application is substantiated on oath, and

      (b) the justice has reasonable grounds for believing that the other party to the marriage has disobeyed that order.

      (5) The magistrates' court before whom any person is brought by virtue of a warrant issued under subsection (4) above may remand him.'—[Dr. Summerskill.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.
      Dr. Summerskill: The clause is a modified version of an amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). The

      1037
      Government undertook to reintroduce it on Report with the modifications necessary to take account of the magistrates' courts procedure.
      The clause will allow a magistrates' court to attach a power of arrest to a personal protection order or a domestic exclusion order, where the court is satisfied that the respondent has physically injured the applicant and considers that he is likely to do so again. Where the court attaches a power of arrest to an order, a police officer may arrest a respondent without warrant if he has reasonable cause for suspecting that the respondent is in breach of the order, and bring him before a justice of the peace, who may remand him, in accordance with normal procedure, to be dealt with by a court for the alleged breach. The clause retains as an alternative the power for a magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest, which was previously embodied in Clause 15(1).
      Subsections (1) to (3) of the new clause give powers to magistrates that closely resemble those already possessed by High Court and county court judges under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. However, they contain appropriate adaptations to take account of the differences between the two types of jurisdiction. The Associaion of Chief Police Officers, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation have all stated that they favour an addition to the Bill along these lines. I believe that the provisions of the new clause will have a powerful deterrent effect as well as affording speedy relief to the threatened wife and children. As such, I commend it to the House.
      Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 10 and 11 give effect to an undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in Committee. The hon. Gentleman introduced amendments that would have provided, on the face of the Bill, for the duration of so-called expedited orders—that is to say, of personal protection orders that are made in an emergency without the normal procedural requirements being satisfied. At present the Bill leaves that to be dealt with in rules of court.
      I had considerable sympathy with the honourable Gentleman's objectives but there were a number of difficulties about the way in which his amendments had
      1038
      been drafted. I undertook to consider introducing Government amendments. The amendments provide specifically both for the date when an expedited order is to come into effect and for its duration. They provide that the order will come into effect on the date when notice that it has been made has been served on the respondent, or such later date as the court may specify. The order will cease to have effect 28 days after it is made or on the date when there is a hearing in accordance with normal procedural requirements, whichever of those dates is the earlier.
      These provisions are generally in line with the Law Commission's recommendations, with the difference that the Law Commission envisaged that the matter would be dealt with by rules of court rather than in the Bill. The Law Commission did not suggest a specific period after which the expedited order should lapse. We have fixed a period of 28 days, after which the expedited order will lapse even if there has been no proper hearing. In fixing that period we have attempted to strike a balance between the interests of both parties.
      If the period were less than 28 days we do not think that the applicant would gain sufficient protection. It should be remembered that the 28 days run from the date when the order is made and not from the date when it takes effect. It may take some time to serve notice of the order on the respondent. On the other hand, we think that it would be unfair to the respondent for the period to be much longer than 28 days. If the order expires before the applicant has been able to obtain an order at a properly conducted hearing, she need not be left without protection. It will be open to her to apply for a further expedited order. That is already in the Bill, in Clause 15(4), which we are retaining subject to some consequential changes of drafting.
      The amendments do not contain any provisions relating to the method by which the respondent is to be notified that an expedited order has been made. That is left to the rules of court.
      As I said in Committee, service is a highly technical matter. It would not have been possible in the time available to carry out the necessary consultations and to draft complex provisions. I can

      1039
      indicate in broad terms what we are proposing to provide in the rules. We intend to provide that service should normally be effected by personal service on the respondent. However, where a single magistrate is satisfied that the respondent is attempting to evade service or that for some other reason expeditious personal service is not practicable, a single magistrate may authorise service by post. That is in line with the Law Commission's recommendations, and will ensure that the respondent's position is adequately protected.
      These amendments make clear on the face of the Bill what was previously left to rules. I think that it is desirable to have specific provisions on a matter of this importance, and I hope that the House will accept the amendments as an improvement.
      3.30 p.m.
      Mr. Roger Sims: I thank the hon. Lady for going a very long way to meet the points that I raised in Committee and for the time and trouble which have obviously gone into discussing the way in which the points can be met.
      I realise that the period must to some extent be arbitrary, and I accept that 28 days is perfectly reasonable. I am sure it is right that a point of this sort ought to be written into the Bill, and Amendment No. 6 meets it exactly.
      With regard to New Clause No. 4. I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady has been able to consult the various police organisations and that the clause has their blessing. It would appear to meet the point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), and it certainly has the support of the Opposition.
      Miss Jo Richardson: In welcoming the implementation by my hon. Friend of her undertaking in Committee to bring in the power of arrest, I wish to make one comment about a phrase in the new clause. I notice that the power of arrest may be used where the court is satisfied that the respondent has physically injured the applicant. I cannot quite understand why it should not have been that the respondent has used violence against the applicant.
      1040
      It seems to me that there will be a lot of difficulty for the courts in interpreting the words "physically injured". Does that mean that the woman concerned has to turn up with a black eye or a broken arm, or some other obvious manifestation, so that the court can see that she has been physically manhandled?
      In the domestic violence legislation there was some difficulty in drafting Clause 2. In the end, although I was not very happy about it, we talked about "actual bodily harm". I was not very happy about that, because it is also rather too narrow a definition for the court, or the judge in this case, to use before deciding whether to commit the man to prison.
      Apart from that, I am quite happy about the new clause and I am very grateful for it, because I think it will be of great help to many people. I should like to have an answer from my hon. Friend on the point that I have raised. If I am not satisfied with her reply I may pursue the matter further in another place.
      Dr. Summerskill: I am informed that "physically injured" means the same as "actual bodily harm", which has a link with Clause 14. That is why that phrase was used.
      From what my hon. Friend has said, however, it would seem that the overall term "violence" could be slightly vague in relation to what sort of violence ensued. I suppose that some people could interpret violence as mental or physical violence. But the legal reason for the use of the phrase "physically injured" is its link with Clause 14.
      Miss Richardson: Will my hon. Friend consider that it is possible for people to have had violence inflicted upon them without there being any physical manifestation? I have met women who have been bashed about, without showing any bruises or having a black eye or a broken limb, yet it has been obvious from their emotional state that they were not lying about what happened to them. I wonder how the courts will deal with that sort of situation, when the words in the clause are so narowly defined that physical injury has to be proved.
      Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend has given us food for thought, and I give an undertaking that we shall look at this

      1041
      point before the Bill goes to the House of Lords.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 5

      CONSTITUTION OF COURTS
      '(1) Where the hearing of an application under section 1 of this Act is adjourned after the court has decided that it is satisfied of any ground mentioned in that section, the court which resumes the hearing of that application may include justices who were not sitting when the hearing began if—

      (a) the parties to the proceedings agree; and

      (b) at least one of the justices composing the court which resumes the hearing was sitting when the hearing of the application began.

      (2) Where by virtue of subsection (1) above, among the justices composing the court which resumes the hearing of an application under section 1 of this Act there are any justices who were not sitting when the hearing of the application began, the court which resumes the hearing shall before making any order on the application make such inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case as will enable the justices who were not sitting when the hearing began to be fully acquainted with those facts and circumstances.'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause is intended to deal with a practical problem which arises in matrimonial cases causing difficulties for the courts and distress to the parties.
      I introduced a new clause for the same purpose in Committee. Certain reservations were expressed about the effect of that clause and I withdrew it in order to see whether we could meet the points which had been raised. We have now revised the new clause to take account of those points, and I hope that the revised clause will be accepted by the House.
      The new clause provides that, where a court has reached a decision on an application under Clause 1 and then adjourns to consider some further matter arising, if for some reason it is not possible for the same court to continue with the case, a differently constituted court may resume the hearing. At present, if the same court cannot continue—for instance, if one of
      1042
      the justices has died or is ill—the new court has to hear the entire proceedings afresh. This may cause considerable delay and distress.
      The new clause contains three safeguards, two of which were not in the new clause which I moved in Committee. The first is that the parties must consent to the reconstituted court continuing with the case. That provision was suggested by the Magistrates' Association. I think that it introduces an extremely valuable safeguard for the parties.
      The second new safeguard was suggested in Committee—namely, that at least one justice of the reconstituted court should have been a member of the court which originally heard the case. This safeguard is now included in the new clause.
      Finally, the new clause contains a further safeguard which was in the original version of the new clause and which we have retained. This is a requirement that the court which resumes the hearing, before it makes any order in the case, must make such inquiries into the facts and circumstances as will allow the justices who were not members of the first court to be fully acquainted with the case.
      These three safeguards will, I think, ensure that the power conferred by this clause will operate fairly and reasonably. We have consulted interested bodies about this proposal, as I undertook to do, and they have responded favourably to it. The Magistrates' Association proposed that we should insert the further safeguard of the consent of the parties, which we have done. As regards information as to what happened at the previous hearing, it will of course be open to the parties to remind the court of what facts which are relevant to the fresh issue emerged at the previous hearing, and the requirement that one of the justices should be present on both occasions is an extra protection.
      Mr. Sims: The clause is certainly an improvement on the clause that we discussed in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for taking it back and representing it in this form.
      There is obviously a problem here. One has to strike a balance between the problem of reconstituting exactly the same

      1043
      bench, which, for the reasons indicated, may not be practicable, and at the same time ensuring that an adjourned hearing in no way prejudices the positions of the parties involved.
      I am aware that some reservations have been expressed by some justices' clerks on the practicability of the operation of the new clause, but my view is that it is a reasonable way to proceed. This is just about the right balance. I am pleased to support the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 6

      AMENDMENT OF AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS ACT 1957
      '(1) In section 8(1) of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 as amended by section 56 of the County Courts Act 1971 for the words "the Crown Court" there shall be substituted the words "the County Court".
      (2) An appeal to the county court concerning affiliation proceedings shall be by way of a re-hearing of the case before a county court judge assisted by two justices of the peace.'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Helene Hayman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause deals with appeals after affiliation proceedings in a magistrates' court. When we discussed this issue in Committee there was universal feeling among hon. Members that the present system of appeals from affiliation proceedings was highly unsatisfactory. At the moment if a party to affiliation proceedings wishes to appeal against the decision of the magistrates' court, that appeal is by way of rehearing in the Crown court. The Crown court deals with no other domestic proceedings on appeal. Those domestic proceedings appeals in the main go to the Family Division of the High Court. That is where I suggested in Committee that affiliation proceedings appeals should be heard in the future. However, it was pointed out in Committee that there were considerable inconveniences to the parties concerned and in terms of the procedures available on appeal in the High Court.
      1044
      It was generally agreed that these appeals should be taken from the criminal atmosphere of the Crown court to a place where there were judges who were used to hearing domestic proceedings, and a place that was easily available to applicants throughout the country. It was agreed that these appeals should be removed to a place where a case could be reheard in full. It is one of the advantages of the present procedure—and something that we would not want to lose on appeals from affiliation orders—that the county court is the most appropriate place for them to be heard. They should be heard preferably by a judge used to dealing with divorce and other family work undertaken by the county court and two lay magistrates.
      In Committee, it was argued that the general review of the law on illegitimacy would cover this point and that it was necessary to wait until the review was completed before making any change in this aspect of the law. There was, however, general agreement that the stigma of this relic from the days when illegitimacy and fathering an illegitimate child were a criminal offence and all the proceedings concerned with that child were dealt with by criminal courts was such that we should anticipate the general review of the law of illegitimacy in order to prevent the distress to many participants in affiliation proceedings caused by the present system of appeals.
      For that reason I hope that we shall be able to change an unfortunate mis-siting of those appeals and put them back into a court which deals more normally with the private, intimate and domestic affairs of families.
      Mr. John: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) moves the new clause as she raised the matter in Committee. It was the general wish of the Committee that the question of affiliation appeals should be withdrawn from the criminal atmosphere and dealt with by a court which deals with family matters. It was generally recognised that it was inapposite that such matters should be dealt with in London rather than on a more local basis.
      My hon. Friend addressed her mind not so much to a matter of jurisdiction in the strict legal sense as to jurisdiction in the sense of geographical separation

      1045
      and a distinction between criminal and family matters. This is an objective that the Government fully accept.
      What is different and unacceptable, not only from my point of view but, more important, from the point of view of the Lord Chancellor, who has jurisdiction in these matters, is that the county court should be an appellate court from the magistrates' court. At the moment the county court, when exercising family jurisdiction, has a concurrent jurisdiction with that of the magistrates' court. It does not have any appellate jurisdiction from other courts. Therefore, there are a number of legal difficulties, not the least of which is that, if the new clause is passed, magistrates would not be able to claim any expenses for sitting on these matters. That is a powerful deterrent.
      3.45 p.m.
      Having accepted the spirit of the proposal, we consulted the Lord Chancellor and, in the short time available, all the circuits in this country. I can undertake on behalf of my noble Friend that, in future, all reasonable steps will be taken to segregate the hearing of affiliation appeals in the Crown court from its criminal business. This will be done either by arranging for these cases to be heard in county court premises—with the Crown court judge and two lay magistrates: in practice many Crown court judges are also county court judges—or by listing the cases to be heard in the Crown court buildings, but separately from the criminal cases.
      There are about 70 or 80 appeals a year, and while I cannot give an absolute guarantee that there will be no anomalies, because in some areas Crown courts and county courts share the same buildings, I can guarantee that the objective will be to take all reasonable steps to segregate the hearing of affiliation appeals from criminal business in Crown courts. I hope that, in the light of that practical assurance, my hon. Friend will not press the new clause.
      Mr. Sims: I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clause and I fully support what the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) is trying to achieve. It highlights the fact that much of our legislation is in something of a mess because we are trying to knit together legislation, covering
      1046
      various areas, which has grown up over the years. One of the difficulties that we get into is that civil matters are dealt with in a criminal atmosphere.
      On the other hand, if it will create difficulties, as the Minister has indicated, we should hesitate before pressing the matter too far at this stage. The precedent of transferring jurisdiction to the county court does not frighten me. I should have thought that it was a good precedent and one that we should consider in terms of the future structure of family courts. Certainly the problem of paying magistrates expenses for sitting in the county court does not seem to be an insurmountable obstacle.
      However, in light of the Minister's undertaking about the separate sittings for affiliation proceedings at the higher level, I reluctantly feel inclined to accept that assurance and not to support the new clause, much as I should have liked to do so.
      This is not the last that the Minister will hear of this problem or of the general need to restructure our courts to deal with these problems.
      Mrs. Hayman: Of course I am disappointed that the Minister has not been able to accept the new clause. I accept the spirit of what he has offered, but it is disappointing and it is a compromise. I hope that it will work satisfactorily.
      Probably the best thing for us to do today is to accept what has been offered in the hope that there will be a segregation of places for these appeals, to see how it proceeds and, when we review the whole of our law governing illegitimacy, to tidy up the matter at that stage.
      Mr. John: I undertake on behalf of the Government that we shall monitor how the undertaking works in order to provide material for when the overall review is conducted.
      My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) have both expressed their disappointment, but part of the difficulty is that we have had such a very short period between the Committee and Report stages to get something practical that we can do now.
      Mrs. Hayman: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. That information will give us the ammunition to come

      1047
      back to the subject in future. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause No. 7

      POWERS OF COURT WHERE PARTIES ARE LIVING APART BY AGREEMENT
      '(1) Where the parties to a marriage have been living apart for a continuous period exceeding three months, neither party having deserted the other, and one of the parties has been making periodical payments for the benefit of the other party or of a child of the family, that other party may apply to a magistrates' court for an order under this section, and any application made under this subsection shall specify the aggregate amount of the payments so made during the period of three months immediately preceding the date of the making of the application.
      (2) Where on an application for an order under this section the court is satisfied that the respondent has made the payments specified in the application, the court may, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, make one or both of the following orders, that is to say—

      (a) an order that the respondent shall make to the applicant such periodical payments, and for such term, as may be specified in the order;

      (b) an order that the respondent shall make to the applicant for the benefit of a child of the family to whom the application relates, or to such a child, such periodical payments, and for such term, as may be so specified.

      (3) The court in the exercise of its powers under this section—

      (a) shall not require the respondent to make payments which exceed in aggregate during any period of three months the aggregate amount paid by him for the benefit of the applicant or a child of the family during the period of three months immediately preceding the date of the making of the application;

      (b) shall not require the respondent to make payments to or for the benefit of any person which exceed in amount the payments which the court considers that it would have required the respondent to make to or for the benefit of that person on an application under section 1 of this Act;

      (c) shall not require payments to be made to or for the benefit of a child of the family who is not a child of the respondent unless the court considers that it would have made an order in favour of that child on an application under section 1 of this Act.

      (4) Where on an application under this section the court considers that the orders which it has the power to make under this section would not—
      1048

      (a) provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, or

      (b) if the application relates to a child of the family, would not provide, or make a proper contribution towards, reasonable maintenance for that child,

      the court shall refuse to make an order under this section, but the court may treat the application as if it were an application for an order under section 2 of this Act.
      (5) The provisions of section 3 of this Act shall apply in relation to an application for an order under this section as they apply in relation to an application for an order under section 2 of this Act subject to to the modification that for the reference in subsection (1) of the said section 3 to the occurrence of the conduct which is alleged as the ground of the application there shall be substituted a reference to the living apart of the parties to the marriage.
      (6) The provisions of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section which requires periodical payments to be made to the applicant for his own benefit as they apply in relation to an order under section 2(1)(a) of this Act.
      (7) The provisions of section 5 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under this section for the making of periodical payments in respect of a child of the family as they apply in relation to an order under section 2(1)(c) of this Act.'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Hayman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this, we may take the following amendments:
      (a) in line 34, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35.
      No. 2, in Clause 7, page 7, line 23, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 3, in page 7, line 28, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 4, in page 7, line 30, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 5, in Clause 11, page 12, line 33, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 12, in Clause 16, page 17, line 42, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.

      1049
      No. 18, in page 18, line 36, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 19, in page 19, line 2, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 20, in page 19, line 17, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 21, in page 19, line 34, leave out or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 22, in Clause 17, page 20, line 18, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where a magistrates' court has made an order under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act for the making of periodical payments, the court shall have power, on an application made under this section, to vary or revoke that order.'
      No. 23, in page 21, line 38, after '6', insert
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 24, in page 22, line 8, after '6', insert
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 25, in page 22, line 13, after '6', insert
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 26, in page 22, line 15, after '6' insert
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 27, in Clause 18, page 22, line 17, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 28, in page 22, line 33, leave out or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 29, in page 22, line 37, leave out or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 30, in page 23, line 14, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
      1050
      No. 32, in Clause 22, page 25, line 7, after 'Act', insert
      '(otherwise than on an application under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act)'
      No. 33, in page 25, line 26, after 'A', insert
      'otherwise than on an application under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act)'.
      No. 34, in page 25, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2A) Any order made under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act, and any interim maintenance order made on an application for an order under this section, shall cease to have effect if the parties to the marriage resume living with each other.'.
      No. 35, in page 25, line 40, after '(1)', insert
      'or (2AA)'.
      No. 43, in Clause 31, page 30, line 32, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 44, in page 31, line 12, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 45, in page 31, line 19, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 46, in page 31, line 31, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 50, in Clause 52, page 49, line 25, after '15', insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 52, in Clause 53, page 51, line 15, after '15', insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      Mrs. Hayman: This new clause and the consequential amendments deal with another matter that was discussed at some length in the Committee proceedings on the Bill.
      Although the new clause is very long, its aims are limited. In fulfilling those aims, we have worked on what is attainable and not necessarily what is desirable. When we considered in Committee the

      1051
      causes by which an applicant could go to court we felt that there was a severe limitation in the Bill in terms of the retention of some vestiges of the matrimonial offence.
      Until the day that there is an absolute "no faults" provision, whereby the status of separation in itself would justify a woman's going to court to ask for an award of maintenance, there will still be circumstances in which people need help from the court to sort out domestic and financial matters and that help is not forthcoming. The only way it could be forthcoming is on the basis of a quarrel which does not exist, a desertion that did not occur or a non-existent argument as to whose fault it was that one party left the matrimonial home.
      In Committee we dealt with the case of a husband and wife who had separated by consent. In these circumstances, and where the husband was actually maintaining his separated wife, although there was no formal or written agreement between the parties, that woman had no right to go to the court to get a maintenance order. She might well be under a great deal of strain and uncertainty. The amount that she is being paid for maintenance might fluctuate from month to month, but still might not constitute inadequate maintenance, and therefore grounds for her to go to court. She might want to organise her affairs and get a court order for maintenance in order to have security and certainty about her financial position. As the Bill was drafted there was no way that that woman could get a maintenance order.
      This new clause provides that where a husband and wife have been separated for three months and, the husband is maintaining the wife, that woman can, nevertheless, go to the court to get the agreement registered and formalised in order to ensure that she and her children get adequate maintenance and there is a court order to fall back on. This will ensure that she does not have to wait for the month when the cheque does not arrive. This is a limited provision and I hope that the House will accept it.
      Mr. Sims: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the skill with which she has produced a new clause which I think adequately meets the problem that we discussed in
      1052
      Committee. Indeed, when one reads it and the string of consequential amendments, the more suspicious mind might wonder whether a degree of collusion had taken place. The point is very well met. She obviously had the best possible advice.
      My only reservation is indicated in my Amendment (a), which is of a piece with a similar amendment No. 1, to Clause 6. It is simply that, on the face of it, it seems to me that if an arrangement had been reached along the lines that the hon. Lady indicated, whereby, say, the husband was paying the wife £10 a week and they came to court in order to register that arrangement in the terms of the new clause, the court, having examined it, might decide, under subsection (4), that it was not an appropriate order, and that in accordance with subsection (4) it should refuse to make the order, feeling that the husband could and should pay, say, £20 or £30 a week.
      Subsection (4) goes on to say:
      "the court may treat the application as if it were an application for an order under section 2 of this Act".
      That would mean that the husband, or his representative, having gone to court—indeed, he may not even have gone to court—on the understanding that an order for, say, £10 a week was to be registered, would suddenly find himself faced with proceedings under Clause 2 with virtually no notice and no opportunity to prepare his case.
      I cannot think that that would be in the interests of justice. There would be nothing to prevent the wife, should the court refuse to make an order, from immediately instituting proceedings under Clause 2, giving the husband reasonable opportunity to present his case. I am doubtful whether this proviso should be included in the new clause, much as I support the rest of it. I hope that the hon. Lady will be agreeable to accepting my amendment. If she did, I would be happy to support the whole of the new clause as thus amended.
      Mr. John: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) has tabled a new clause with consequential amendments, and if anyone takes law reform lightly this string of consequential amendments will show

      1053
      what a tangled web we have to weave even to achieve a moderate result. I think that she has rightly drawn a distinction between what is practical and what is desirable. What is practical we would all agree with; on what is desirable there might be room for disputes on both sides. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Government, I accept the new clause and I believe that it will be a good provision.
      There is only one consequential amendment to which I need draw special attention. It is Amendment No. 22, providing for the addition of a new subsection (2A) to Clause 17, which will ensure that an order made under the new clause may be revoked or varied and thus allow either party to apply for it if it becomes appropriate.
      In the time available we have consulted the relevant authorities, and none has raised objection in principle. We have, as my hon. Friend rightly said, provided for the situation where consent is not express but may be implied through conduct. I will use the term "a recipient of maintenance" in this connection, rather than "a woman" because, of course, a recipient of maintenance may be a man. The new clause will remove the uncertainty that a recipient of maintenance may face prior to an order of this kind being made. I cannot be as charitable about amendment (a) to the new clause, nor as charitable as I am going to be about the next amendment. Amendment (a) which I advise the House not to accept, is distinguishable in a number of particulars from the next one, which deals with express consent. Under Clause 6 as drafted, there is an express agreement, so the parties proceed in the confident expectation of an order being made. It would, therefore, come as a considerable shock, and I believe in practical terms would never mean that the case would go on that day, if the basis were changed.
      Because of the wording of the new clause, neither party can expect that an order will be made, because there is an express provision that the justices have to satisfy themselves that it is right to make such an order.
      It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. John: Where there is an express agreement about maintenance, it is more likely that the parties will have considered whether the amount is right and perhaps taken advice about it, but where it is done by implied conduct, the recipients of maintenance might think that it is not worth making a fuss and that they should be content with what they have.
      Under Clause 6 there is a possibility that husbands or wives will be discouraged from expressing agreement. They should not be so discouraged. The Bill will come under scrutiny in the Lords and I hope that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) will not press the amendment. We shall accept the new clause and the consequential amendments as they stand. This is a significant step, and I do not seek to minimise the improvements that the new clause will make.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 6

      ORDERS FOR PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN AGREED BY THE PARTIES
      Mr. Sims: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (6).
      Although we are now free to discuss the Bill into the small hours, I have no intention of detaining the House. My arguments on this amendment are similar to my arguments in the previous debate. I do not need to repeat them. It is possible that a husband could unexpectedly find himself faced with proceedings. In view of what the Minister said, however, I shall not develop my argument. I hope that the amendment is acceptable.
      Mr. John: I am prepared to accept the amendment. The cardinal principle is that any party to a case who expects an order to be made on certain grounds should have to face only what he thinks he has to face.
      In practice, I do not think that the amendment will make much difference. The power to deal with this situation if the magistrates are not satisfied is enshrined in the Bill. There is no way in which the matter can be transferred from a consent basis to a new basis without an adjournment and giving the other party an opportunity to prepare his answer. The amendment, although it is acceptable, will not change that practice.
      Magistrates' courts have power to receive an oral complaint. I expect that if at the end of some evidence the magistrates were not disposed to make a consent order, they would accept an oral complaint and then adjourn the case. The advantage of that is that all the evidence would have been taken and would be part of the record.
      By adopting the amendment, therefore, we shall not prejudice the applicant's case in any way, but we shall facilitate it by making sure that whatever evidence has been given does not have to be dealt with afresh the next time. I therefore advise acceptance of the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7

      ORDERS FOR THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN
      Amendments made:
      No. 2, in Page 7, line 23, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
      No. 3, in page 7, line 28, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'
      No. 4, in page 7, line 30, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 11

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF COURT UNDER SS. 7 TO 9
      Amendment made:
      No. 5, in page 12, line 33, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 14

      POWERS OF COURT TO MAKE ORDERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF A PARTY TO A MARRIAGE OR A CHILD OF THE FAMILY
      Amendments made:
      No. 6, in page 16, line 36, at end insert
      '(7A) An expedited order shall not take effect until the date on which notice of the making of the order is served on the respondent in such manner as may be prescribed or, if the court specifies a later date as the date on which the order is to take effect, that later date and an expedited order shall cease to have effect on whichever of the following dates occurs first, that is to say—

      (a) the date of the expiration of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the making of the order; or

      (b) the date of the commencement of the hearing in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, of the application for an order under this section.'.

      No. 7, in page 16, line 39, leave out
      'rules made under section 15(3) of this Act' and insert subsection (7A) above'.—[Mr. Bates.].
      Mr. Sims: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 17, line 2, at end insert:
      '(10) The court in making an order under subsection (2)(a) or (b) above may, if it thinks fit, define the matrimonial home to which the order applies.'.
      It arises from a discussion we had in Committee when I raised the question of the definition of the matrimonial home. I envisaged, for example, the situation in which an order might be made affecting the matrimonial home where it might not be clear whether it applied to a caravan in the garden of the home.
      The Under-Secretary indicated in Committee that she would look at the matter, and she was kind enough to write to me about it pointing out that the term is not new and that hitherto it had

      1057
      been found unnecessary to include a definition in legislation.
      She makes the point in her letter that the disadvantage of a tight definition is that it could limit the court's ability to apply its common sense to the issue before it. Circumstances, she says, could differ widely from case to case, and an interpretation which encompassed all the possibilities would be difficult to devise.
      I can see the strength of her argument about the difficulty of what I originally had in mind, which was defining "matrimonial home" in the Bill. But I believe that in her letter she goes some way to strengthening my doubts on the point. She says of the matrimonial home:
      "It may sometimes be difficult to determine where that place is, or even whether it exists at all".
      She says:
      "I think that in nearly all cases the courts would regard the garden of the house in which the parties had lived together as constituting part of the 'matrimonial home', and would accordingly make an order having the effect of excluding the respondent from both home and garden."
      I am not clear from that in what way it would be apparent that the court had thought that the matrimonial home included the home and garden. The hon. Lady goes on to suggest:
      "The courts … will use their commonsense."
      Of course they will, but it is possible that they might miss a point in discussing the case and coming to a conclusion. All sorts of difficulties could arise if the matrimonial home was not clearly defined.
      Therefore, in my amendment I suggest that when an order of this sort is made the Bill should ensure that if there is any possibility of doubt the court would have the power when making the order to define what it considers in this specific case to be the matrimonial home. That I think will get over the difficulty, which I accept, of putting a specific definition in the Bill.
      Such a provision would give the court the power, which is implied at the moment but will be explicit if the amendment is accepted, to define precisely what the matrimonial home is so that when the order is made—and they are important orders which are extensive in their application—the parties concerned
      1058
      shall have no doubt about what it means. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment which I believe meets this point.
      Mr. John: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's winning streak has run out in the sense that he has not convinced me to such an extent that I can accept the amendment.
      It is right that we should avoid ambiguity in such an order, and it is necessary to specify these matters so that not only the person against whom the order is made but the person in whose favour the order is made is in no doubt as to its scope and ambit. A good way of achieving this end is for the court to prescribe what is a matrimonial home in the circumstances of the case. I believe that it is unnecessary to give the court the power in this case, and that to specify the matter in the Bill may be disadvantageous in comparison with other Bills.
      It is unnecessary to give express power because they already have the power without its needing to be stated. This relates to the power of the High Court and the county courts when making orders under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 excluding a person from the matrimonial home. Courts ordinarily specify what they understand the matrimonial home to be. This is regarded by them as the course which should be followed because of the desirability of bringing about some certainty.
      Furthermore, I believe that this proposal would have undesirable effects. Although as a concept the matrimonial home is used in the domestic violence legislation and in that relating to matrimonial homes, it is defined in neither piece of legislation. If we give an express power in this Bill, it will throw doubt on the powers of the courts in the other two Acts and we shall have to amend them.
      One phrase that disqualifies this amendment is "if it thinks fit", referring to the court. That can be taken as suggesting that the court may not think fit to describe any particular matrimonial home. The phrase is certainly capable of that interpretation.
      I do not intend to leave the situation uncovered. If the hon. Gentleman will

      1059
      withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake to draw attention in the circular that will be issued to the dangers of ambiguity with regard to the matrimonial home and to recommend to all courts that they should specify in their orders what is meant by the matrimonial home in the particular case.
      These circulars are very influential in magistrates' courts. I believe that it would be much better to include the information in circulars than to use the provisions of the Bill, because that may weaken other Acts of Parliament bearing on these matters.
      Mr. Sims: In principle I always prefer Parliament to make clear in legislation what it intends to enact rather than to leave matters to be included in circulars. However, I see the strength of the Minister's argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

    Clause 15

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO ORDERS UNDER S. 14.
      Amendments made: No. 9 in Clause 15, page 17, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
      No. 10, in page 17, leave out lines 23 to 30.
      No. 11, in page 17, line 31, leave out from 'of' to end of line 33 and insert 'subsection 7(A) of section 14 of this Act of an expedited order shall not prejudice the making of a further expedited order under that section'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

    Clause 16

      INTERIM ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 17, line 42, leave out 'or 6' and insert
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 18, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'power' in line 12.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also take Government Amendments Nos. 14 to 17.
      4.15 p.m.
      Dr. Summerskill: These amendments relate to the powers of the court to make interim maintenance orders under Clause 16. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made some persuasive points in Committee. I undertook to examine the matter further. The hon. Gentleman was right in his argument. The amendments remove the requirement that the applicant or child should be in immediate need of financial assistance, so that it should be left entirely to the court to decide whether it is appropriate to make an interim order.
      There may be cases, for instance, in which the applicant has established a ground for a maintenance order but the court adjourns for preparation of reports on the children, in which case it is right that the courts should be able to make an interim order without having to be satisfied that the applicant is in immediate financial need. The amendments would give the court discretion. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Sims: I thank the Minister for meeting my point.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      No. 14, in page 18, line 15, leave out 'that child' and insert:
      'any child of the family who is under the age of eighteen'.
      No. 15, in page 18, line 16, leave out first 'the' and insert 'such a'.
      No. 16, in page 18, line 18, at beginning insert 'power'.
      No. 17, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'the court shall have power'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
      No. 18, in page 18, line 36, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 19, in page 19, line 2, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 20, in page 19, line 17, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 21, in page 19, line 34, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.

    Clause 17

      VARIATION, REVIVAL AND REVOCATION OF ORDERS FOR PERIODICAL PAYMENTS
      Amendments made:
      No. 22, in page 20, line 18, at end insert:
      '(2A) Where a magistrates' court has made an order under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act for the making of periodical payments, the court shall have power, on an application made under this section, to vary or revoke that order.'.
      No. 23, in page 21, line 38, after '6', insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 24, in page 22, line 8, after '6', insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 25, in page 22, line 13, after '6', insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 26, in page 22, line 15, after '6'. insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 18

      VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF ORDERS RELATING TO THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN
      Amendments made:
      No. 27, in page 22, line 17, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 28, in page 22, line 33, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 29, in page 22, line 37, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 30, in page 23, line 14, leave out 'or 6' and insert:
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 20

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF ORDERS
      Amendment made:
      No. 31, in page 24, line 12, after 'section', insert:
      '(Access to children by grandparents) (3)'.—[Mr. John.]

    Clause 22

      EFFECT ON CERTAIN ORDERS OF PARTIES LIVING TOGETHER
      Amendment made:
      No. 32, in page 25, line 7, after 'Act', insert
      '(otherwise than on an application under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act)'.
      No. 33, in page 25, line 26, after 'A', insert
      '(otherwise than on an application under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act)'.
      No. 34, in page 25, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2A) Any order made under section (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement) of this Act, and any interim maintenance order made on an application for an order under that section, shall cease to have effect if the parties to the marriage resume living with each other.'.
      No. 35, in page 25, line 40, after '(1)' insert
      'or (2AA)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 25

      POWERS OF HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT IN RELATION TO CERTAIN ORDERS UNDER PART I
      Mr. John: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 26, line 29, leave out from 'of' to end of line 37 and insert
      'an order under this Part of this Act'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government Amendments Nos. 37 to 40.
      Mr. John: These amendments are technical and are designed to clarify the relationship between orders made in a magistrates' court in matrimonial proceedings under Part I and orders made

      1063
      by the High Court or a county court in subsequent divorce proceedings. At the moment., Clause 25 provides that if a maintenance order, a domestic order or a personal exclusion order is made, where there are subsequent proceedings, the High Court or the county court may revoke the order made by the magistrates' court but it does not enable them to revoke any other orders such as those for custody, access or supervision or one committing the care of a child to a local authority.
      Often, the High Court or the county court, in order to achieve the result, then makes an order of its own, which has the unhappy and somewhat awkward effect of resulting in two orders applying at the same time. That could lead to confusion, although only one order, normally that of the divorce court, is effective.
      The amendments would remove that difficulty by enabling the higher courts to revoke any order other than a lump sum order made by the magistrates in the original proceedings. We have consulted the Law Commission, the President of the Family Division and the Lord Chancellor's Office about the amendment and they agree that it would be a useful improvement.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made:
      No. 37, in page 26, line 39, leave out 'any such' and insert 'that'.
      No. 38, in page 26, line 40, after second 'court', insert—
      'then, except in the case of an order for the payment of a lump sum,'.
      No. 39, in page 26, line 42, leave out 'that order' and insert—
      'the order made by a magistrates' court'.
      No. 40, in page 27, line 21, at end insert—
      '(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the effect of any order made by the High Court or a county court so far as it implicitly supersedes or revokes an order or part of an order made by a magistrates' court.'.—[Mr. John.]

    Clause 26

      APPEALS
      Amendment made:
      No. 41, in page 28, line 11, a end insert—
      '(Access to children by grandparents (3)'.—[Mr. John.]

    Clause 27

      PROVISIONS AS TO JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 28, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 60, 62, 63, 65 and 68.
      Dr. Summerskill: These are drafting amendments which take account of a technical change made in Section 15(1) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 by the Administration of Justice Act 1977.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 31

      ORDERS FOR REPAYMENT IN CERTAIN CASES OF SUMS PAID AFTER CESSATION OF ORDER BY REASON OF REMARRIAGE.
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 30, line 32, leave out 'or 6' and insert—
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 44, in page 31, line 12, leave out 'or 6' and insert—
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 45, line 19, leave out 'or 6' and insert—
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.
      No. 46, in line 31 [Clause 31], leave out 'or 6' and insert—
      '6 or (Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 33

      FURTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO ORDERS FOR CUSTODY
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 33, line 8, leave out
      'regarding the custody of a minor'.
      No. 48, in line 19, at end insert—
      '(3) Any order made in respect of a minor under section 9(1), 10(1)(a) or 11(a) of this Act shall cease to have effect when the minor attains the age of eighteen.'.—[Mr. John.]

    Clause 52

      COMPLAINT BY SPOUSE IN CONVENTION COUNTRY FOR RECOVERY IN ENGLAND AND WALES OF MAINTENANCE FROM OTHER SPOUSE
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 49, line 25 after '15', insert:
      '(Access to children by grandparents) (Powers of arrest for breach of s.14 order)'.—[Mr. John.]
      No. 50, in line 25, after '15' insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 53

      COMPLAINT BY FORMER SPOUSE IN CONVENTION COUNTRY FOR RECOVERY IN ENGLAND AND WALES OF MAINTENANCE FROM OTHER SPOUSE
      Amendment made: No. 51, in page 51, line 15, after '15' insert:
      '(Access to children by grandparents) (Powers of arrest for breach of s.14 order)'.—[Mr. John.]
      No. 52, in line 15, after '15' insert:
      '(Powers of court where parties are living apart by agreement)'.—[Mrs. Hayman.]

    Clause 59

      EXTENSION OF POWERS OF COURT TO MAKE ORDERS FOR MAINTENANCE UNDER S.34 OF CHILDREN ACT 1975
      Amendments made: No. 53, in page 60, line 28, leave out 'child's mother or father' and insert:
      'mother, the father or a grandparent of the child'.
      No. 54, in page 61, line 22, at end insert—
      '(3A) An authorised court shall have power to make an order under subsection (1)(a) in favour of a grandparent of a child notwithstanding that the child is illegitimate.'.
      No. 55, in line 40, at end insert—
      '(c) in section 4(2) of that Act the reference to section 6 of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to section 39 and 40 of this Act'.—[Mr. John.]

    Clause 70
      POWERS OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS AS TO ACCESS TO CHILDREN BY GRANDPARENTS
      Amendment made: No. 56, in page 69, line 16, leave out Clause 70.—[Mr. John.]
    Clause 71
      EXTENSION OF S. 9 OF GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS ACT 1971 IN RELATION TO GRANDPARENTS
      Amendment made: No. 57, in page 69, line 27, leave out Clause 71.—[Mr. John.]
    Clause 84

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 80, line 31, leave out '("and")'.
      No. 59, in line 32, at end add:
      '("a London commission area which is not divided into petty sessional divisions and a petty sessional division of a London commission area")'.—[Mr. John.]

    Clause 86

      SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 60, in page 82, line 4, leave out '27(4)'.
      No. 62, in line 6, after 'paragraphs 1', insert '11A'.
      No. 63, in line 9, leave out '27(4)'.
      No. 65, in line 11, after 'paragraphs', insert '12A'.—[Dr. Summerskill]

    Schedule 1

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 66, in page 83, line 20, leave out 'and'.
      No. 67, in line 28, at end insert:
      '(c) where the order contains a provision for the legal custody of a child, the court shall

      1067
      have power, in a complaint made by a grandparent of the child, to vary that order under the said section 8 by the addition to the order of a provision requiring access to the child to be given to that grandparent;
      (d) where the court by virtue of paragraph (c) above, varies the order by the addition of a provision requiring access to a child to be given to a grandparent, the court shall have power to vary or revoke that provision on a complaint made—

      (i) by that grandparent, or

      (ii) by either party to the marriage in question, or

      (iii) where the child is not a child of both the parties to the marriage, by any person who though not a party to the marriage is a parent of the child, or

      (iv) where under the order a child is for the time being committed to the legal custody of some person other than one of the parents or a party to the marriage, by the person to whose legal custody the child is committed by the order.'.—[Mr. John.]

    Schedule 2

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 68, in page 85, line 38, at end insert:
      '11A. In section 15(1)(a) of that Act for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
      "(ii) section 21(1) and 27(3) of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978":.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
      No. 69, in page 88, line 15, at end insert:
      '28A. In section 14(3) of that Act for the words "and 10" there shall be substituted the words "10 and 14A(5) and (6)".
      28B. In section 16(5) of that Act after the words "magistrates' court under" there shall be inserted the words "section 14A of this Act regarding access to a minor by a grandparent or under".'.—[Mr. John.]
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 90, line 14, at end insert:
      39A. In section 4(6) of that Act for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".'.
      This is a technical, consequential amendment. The Bill provides in Clauses 9 and 28 that where a person is liable to pay maintenance under a maintenance order he shall notify the court of any change in his address. The Bill raises the penalty for failure to comply with this requirement from a maximum under existing law of £10 to a new maximum of £50. There are a number of penalties
      1068
      for corresponding offences in guardianship and other legislation which have similarly been increased from £10 to £50.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 90, line 31, leave out paragraph 42.
      No. 72, in line 36, leave out 'that Act and insert the Children Act 1975'.—.[Mr. John.]
      No. 73, in line 41, at end insert:
      '44A. In section 46(3) of that Act—

      (a) in paragraph (a) for the word "payments" there shall be substituted the words "periodical payments or pay a lump sum";

      (b) in paragraph (b) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the word "periodical".'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

      Mr. John: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 91, line 12, at end insert:
      'The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 (c. 50)
      48A. In section 2 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 at the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted:
      "In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day,
      Good Friday or any Sunday".'.
      The amendment follows from the power of the court to attach a power of arrest for breach of an order, which we have put in a new clause. It allows the court to take account of Christmas Day, Good Friday or Sunday, but not Saturday or any Bank Holiday, in bringing the person before the court within 24 hours. This assimilates it to other criminal legislation. It also gives the accused a considerable advantage, because on those days his access to legal advice and, more particularly, the means of defending himself is so limited that a little extra time in custody is more than compensated by the fact that he is more likely to be prepared when brought before the court.
      Miss Richardson: I seek clarification. Are we saying that if a man is arrested on a Saturday night he will be brought before the magistrate under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill, or before a judge under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, not before the Monday? Who is advantaged? My hon. Friend said that the accused was advantaged. I do not want the person who is being battered

      1069
      to be subjected to the possibility that the man might return.
      Mr. John: The amendment deals with the circumstances in which the man is in custody and has to appear before the magistrate on remand. The person who is battered will be adequately protected. We are seeking to draw a balance. On certain days the courts are difficult to convene and it is difficult for the accused to be advised properly. On the other hand, there is the need to bring the

      '1961 c.39

      The Criminal Justice Act 1961.

      In Schedule 4, the entry relating to section 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.'

      No. 76, in page 92, line 5, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 2(3A)").'.—[Mr. John.]

    Title
    Amendments made: No. 77, in line 8, after '1952', insert
    'to amend section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1964'.
    No. 78, in line 8, leave out 'to further amend section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971'.—[Mr. John.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. Sims: We have nearly completed our proceedings on another Bill that is likely to be implemented in parts and on unknown dates. That is not entirely satisfactory for those who will be involved. I hope that before our proceedings are completed the Minister will be able to give a clearer indication than was given on Second Reading of the likely timetable for implementation.
    We have nearly completed proceedings on another Bill the details of which will be implemented by rules over which Parliament has limited control, or by memoranda and circular over which Parliament has virtually no control. To some extent that may be inevitable. I confess that I
    am rather uneasy, as it is important that Parliament should make clear what it intends. We have had problems recently, for example, with the Bail Act. There have been problems in the interpretation of what Parliament intended when it enacted that measure.
    The departmental attitude was illustrated in our discussions in Committee.
    accused before the court, as is traditional, for remand within 24 hours. The person assaulted need not fear. It is a provision that would extend custody before remand rather than diminish it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 92, line 4 at end insert—
      When dealing with a clause that gave power to a single justice to call for reports in certain cases, I suggested that it would be appropriate for the justice's clerk to be able to call for reports. The Under-Secretary of Sate replied that that was the Government's intention but that they intended to make that clear by rule rather than writing anything into the Bill as that was the normal practice. It would seem far more satisfactory if such matters could be written into Bills. However, that was an indication of the way in which these matters work, which I do not think is entirely satisfactory.
      The Bill is a complex measure, which repeals completely the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. It amends 28 other Acts and repeals parts of 24 others, some of which have not yet been implemented, such as the Children Act. We all know the reason for that. However, it means that it is virtually impossible for a lawyer, let alone a layman, to take any Act of Parliament on any topic and to be able to say "This is the law". The probability is that it will not be the law as part of it will have been implemented and other parts will not. Further, it will be subject to consequential legislation, rules, circulars and memoranda.
      Having got that complaint off my chest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we welcome the Bill as going a long way in removing the criminal atmosphere from domestic proceedings, and the feeling that some parties to these proceedings have had, that one party was endeavouring to prove guilt or misdemeanour against the other.
      I welcome the Bill also as a step towards the establishment of family courts.

      1071
      I repeat the view that I expressed on Second Reading, that the measure will be treated as a step towards family courts and not simply as an excuse for inaction. A good deal of work has been done on the question of family courts, notably by Judge Jean Graham Hall, and by the Finer Committee.
      The House will recall that the Finer Committee devoted a good deal of time and trouble to examining family courts and the way in which they might be set up. It set out six major criteria, one of which, in paragraph 4.283, was that
      "the family court will be a unified institution in a system of family law which applies a uniform set of legal rules, derived from a single moral standard and applicable to all citizens.".
      That is an aim to which all of us would aspire, and we can say that the Bill is a timid step in that direction.
      When the Finer Report was considered by the House, the then Secretary of State for Social Services indicated that there were formidable economic, administrative and practical difficulties in implementing the Finer recommendations. Indeed, the right hon. Lady's words were that the Government could
      "see no prospect of accepting the recommendations for family courts".—[Official Report, 20th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 60.]
      That statement was viewed with disappointment by many people. It is noticeable that, although those claims were made that there were formidable economic, administrative and practical difficulties, to the best of my knowledge they have never really been spelt out, let alone investigated.
      Perhaps, therefore, I may draw the Minister's attention in advance to a valuable study of the family courts, which has been undertaken by a sub-committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers and is to be published on Wednesday of next week, showing the way in which such courts could be introduced. I commend this study to the Minister and will make a point of ensuring that he has a copy to study and to pass round his Department.
      The document suggests that we could progress by evolutionary rather than revolutionary means towards a family court structure, and that the difficulties
      1072
      are by no means as formidable as they may at first appear. I hope, therefore, that the Bill and the document to which I have just referred will give further impetus not only to discussion but also to action in the area of family courts.
      There have been some very useful discussions on the Bill both in Committee and today. It is certainly a measure which has been improved during its passage through the House of Commons, thus perhaps reversing the more common practice, and proving that the Commons has considerable value as a revising Chamber. In expressing the hope that these improvements will be acceptable in another place, we wish the Bill a speedy passage on to the statute book.
      4.34 p.m.
      Mrs. Hayman: Before the Bill is given its Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that it is only right to explain the somewhat churlish attitude that right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in these debates may have taken to the Bill. It is hard to raise one cheer, let alone two or three, for the measure, partly because, even in dealing with the magistrates' jurisdiction in domestic matters, we have not seen in the Bill a complete abolition of the concept of the matrimonial offence. We have not seen the magistrates' jurisdiction really brought into line with that of the divorce courts. That is a disappointment to us all.
      The other great disappointment concerns the courts that will administer this piecemeal reform of family law. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) recommended my hon. Friend the Minister of State to read a pamphlet from the Society of Conservative Lawyers. I recommend him to read the Labour Party manifesto of 1974, which pledged us to implement family courts. It is highly unsatisfactory that we have not progressed in that area. It is one measure which, without straight financial provision to families, would make an enormous difference to the lives of most one-parent families and to the traumas which exist in families when marriages break up. I hope that the next Labour Government will be elected on, among other things, a pledge to implement family courts and that they will have a programme to do so in their first Queen's Speech.
      4.36 p.m.
      Miss Richardson: I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman). At the risk again of appearing to be a bit churlish, we are very disappointed that the Government did not grasp the nettle and look at this whole matter with a view to introducing the concept of family courts now.
      Far from agreeing with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that this is a step on the way, I am fearful—I put it no higher—that this new measure will stop us from going forward to a system of family courts. It is so complicated that it will take a long time to bring in all the various provisions, and magistrates' courts will take a long time to get used to it. Therefore, we shall be saddled with it for possibly another 15 or 20 years. I should have preferred that we cut our losses on this measure and started again with a totally new concept.
      I am particularly disappointed that we have not got rid of imprisonment for maintenance default. We had a real chance to do something here. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend and I were unable to convince the Committee on that aspect. Be that as it may, we have done what we can to help to improve the Bill. We are grateful to the Government for at least accepting some part of what we suggested.
      4.38 p.m.
      Mr. John: Despite what has been said, I thank all hon. Members who served on the Committee for their labours on the Bill. We often talk with our tongues in our cheeks about improving a Bill as being the function of the Committee, but I think that has been done here in a number of instances.
      Obviously at this late hour I cannot reply in detail to certain points. If the Committee had written into the Bill all the provisions suggested by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), we should not have got through in the time available. We certainly should not have had the consultation which the rules permit us to have. Therefore, I promise to consult all the relevant bodies on the drafting of the rules.
      On the question of what we do or do not implement, I am constantly amazed at the abandon with which we set up
      1074
      bodies, such as the Law Commission, and the abandon with which we want to go contrary to their advice when they give it. The Bill is based on the 1971 working paper of the Law Commission, which has been extensively discussed and has met with general approval. When the House sets up a body to give it advice, I believe that it is at least right that it should try to abide by that advice before moving on to some other concept. Unfortunately, we always seem to be four jumps ahead of ourselves on law reform.
      I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) and of the hon. Member for Chislehurst, but I undertake to read the document from the Society of Conservative Lawyers. I have read the Labour Party manifesto. I will re-read it, and that should take care of my summer holidays.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.).
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
      That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Potatoes) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.—[Mr. Stallard.]
      Question agreed to.

  DRIFT-NET FISHING (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: I note that the Minister who is to reply to the debate comes from the West of Scotland. I come from the North-East of Scotland. The matter that we are debating is entirely Scottish. There must be a message there for someone.
  I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and to the public at large the continuing and,

  1075
  inded, what is worse, the intensifying of the ban on the drift netting for salmon off the Scottish coast.
  This ban was imposed on the fishermen of Scotland, all of whom at that time operated small boats of about 40 feet, in 1962. That measure which went quickly through the House, was described by Sir William Duthie, who was my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Banff, as the worst piece of class legislation that ever went through Parliament. Sir William found it necessary to resign from the Tory Party in protest at the time. Since then, these fishermen have still been denied the opportunity to get a fair share of the catch of salmon which yearly return from their feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and which swim around the coast of Scotland seeking to return to their river of origin.
  Let me make it clear at the outset that it is in everyone's interest to ensure that the salmon cycle continues in perpetuity and that there is no desire on the part of anyone in Scotland to seek to damage the salmon stocks. Scotland's fishermen have proved beyond doubt that they are the most responsible fishermen in the whole of the North Sea. They adopt conservation measures whenever any stock is in danger. The salmon is in no danger and the huge catches in recent years by the bag net and drag net operators surely prove this to be the case. The fishermen of Scotland are seeking only a reasonable share of the catch of the salmon that swim within three miles of the shore.
  At present, because of the ban which was so unfairly imposed by a Tory Government in 1962, only two sets of people can get an opportunity to catch salmon. First are the riparian owners—individuals, trusts, or companies who believe that because they happen to own land on the banks of a river they have also some God-given right to dictate to other people how they should or should not conduct their business. No one is suggesting at this stage that salmon swimming in the rivers within the banks on their land do not belong to them. But in passing I should like to say that I am somewhat amused to find that the law says that these landowners may not take water from the river, but they claim that the
  1076
  fish that swim in the river are all theirs. I shall let that fly stick to the wall at the moment.
  The second group of people who have the right to catch salmon are those operators who net the salmon at the mouth of the rivers as these salmon pass from salt water into fresh water. At present, these net operators totally close the mouth of the river for six days of the week, and the salmon have only about 24 hours out of the seven days in which they can run the gauntlet of the nets and reach the river.
  The Minister knows better than I of the vast profits that have been made in four of the past five years by these salmon fishers. In some cases the lease to such fishing has become virtually a licence to print money. There are very few operators who would not gladly concede one day of the week so that the salmon could have 48 hours, or preferably 54 hours, in which to reach the lower reaches of their parent river. If this were to be the case and the mouth of the river were to be opened that bit longer, there would be salmon for everyone.
  Everyone is well aware of the tremendous lobby that riparian owners, anglers and netting operators have, especially in the House, and of the continual shout that goes up whenever salmon angling is poor. But the fact that salmon are not rising to the angler does not mean that the salmon are not in the river. As the salmon do not feed at all while they are in the river, the wonder is that they ever rise to a lure at all. If the water level is not right or the weather is not suitable, the angler goes home in a huff blaming everybody but himself for his lack of luck. If that same fisherman came back to the upper tributaries of the main river in the dead of winter he would see salmon lying dead, dying or diseased and would realise the appalling waste of fish that would otherwise have reached the housewife's table at a reasonable price.
  It is in a genuine desire to see that a fair proportion of the fish reach the market at a reasonable price that the sea fishermen round Scotland's coast want to have the right to fish for salmon under a strict licensing system such as has worked so successfully off the Northumberland coast all these years.

  1077
  These fishermen are prepared to abide by whatever rules are drawn up and I commend the Northumberland scheme to the Government. The fishermen who have approached me and my colleagues in the SNP claim that they are even prepared to pay a reasonable levy per pound of salmon landed to pay for the stocking of every tribuntary with salmon fry—young salmon—as a double insurance in case nature has missed one tributary.
  These men are further prepared to abide by rules governing the length of nets allocated per man and will abide by a quota placed on the number of salmon to be caught annually. Here they would take advice from scientists. But they are not prepared to abide by the continuation of a grossly unfair ban where two sections of the community, which are backed by high finance, are allowed exclusive access to this one fish stock, while they are totally denied it.
  Even more disgraceful has been the action of certain of the riparian owners who virtually take the law into their own hands and promote one of their number to be a bailiff, who takes advantage of unfair laws to seek to act as some kind of Don Quixote and boards fishing vessels at sea and tries to arrest fishermen he suspects of poaching even when no policemen are present. This is a dangerous concept. The Government ought to look into the present situation and search their own conscience whether they wish to perpetuate this grossly unfair ban, which is in essence one law for the rich and another for the poor Is the Minister so proud of a situation where his Government, so-called Socialist Government, back the action of a self-confessed Fascist who believes that Adolf Hitler was right?
  I would appreciate it if the Minister in his reply will tell the people of Scotland just how far he is prepared to go in backing the action of the dangerous gentleman with the double-barrelled name. Will he also tell the House how much public money was spent last year in trying to catch men whom he chooses to call poachers?
  Everyone has heard of the unacceptable face of capitalism, but surely that face was at its ugliest in 1962 when this unfair and unrighteous ban was passed by the House. There was no real evidence that drift netting had caused a shortage
  1078
  of salmon at that time. Certainly there was disease around at that time.
  How can anyone justify the claim that a drift net is a deadly weapon? These nets hang a maximum of three fathoms deep and fish can surely get round, under or over the nets if they choose. Drift netting can be carried out only in favourable weather. It can never be as deadly efficient as the sweep nets which are used in the rivers so that no salmon can pass them.
  If there is a scarcity of salmon, why have the Minister and his colleagues never taken steps to regulate or monitor properly the actions of these net operators? Why is it that the Minister's counterparts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, who have jurisdiction over the coasts of England, have never sought to impose such a ban in England? The Minister knows and should admit that the method of licensing small boats administered by the Northumberland fisheries committee works well, fairly and equitably. I do not blame Scottish fishermen for seeking parity with their near neighbours. They are also seeking parity with their partners in the EEC.
  Surely the Minister sees that there is no legitimate ground for continuing this grossly unfair ban. There have been four Socialist Governments since 1962. Is it not time that we began to see the social face of Socialism? Surely it is time to bring an end of this "one law for the rich and another for the poor" syndrome.
  Scottish fishermen are no longer prepared to be treated as second-class citizens. There has been increasing evidence of that in recent months. Some small boat operators have been driven to defy this unfair ban because of the shortage of other species of fish.
  The Government must give strong evidence to justify the continuance of the ban and impose it equally throughout Britain. Indeed, they should attempt to impose it throughout the EEC. The fishermen of Scotland regard the ban as a fundamental denial of basic human rights. They request—indeed they demand—its immediate withdrawal.
  4.52 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): The hon. Member made an interesting speech. He

  1079
  gave reasons why one of his predecessors resigned from the Tory Party. I thought that he might have told me his reasons for resigning from the Tory Party.
  I have not time to go into such interesting topics as the unacceptable face of capitalism.
  I recognise that this is a subject of growing public concern. But I notice that this concern is not shared by the SNP in its draft fishing policy statement to conference next weekend. There is no mention at all of the importance of salmon fishing, or of the problems raised by the hon. Member. Indeed, the only reference is a resolution supporting the Government line. I look forward with interest to see what happens next weekend in Edinburgh.
  Acts of violence have occurred and threats of violence have been made. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member would not wish to be associated with them. He said that fishermen are not prepared to accept the present system. I am sure that whatever his arguments he is not advocating that they should defy the law because if that were so we should have even more trouble than we have had in the past.
  There is widespread misinformation and misunderstanding about the law and the reasons for it, and some degree of encouragement to break the law appears to have been given.
  The issues at stake are not whether there should be a licensing system for the catching of salmon but whether methods of catching in the sea, by drift netting or other methods of gill-netting which are at present illegal in Scottish waters, should be made legal. Nor are they issues between the interests of poor local fishermen and wealthy salmon proprietors.
  I remind the hon. Members of the facts of the situation. Recorded Scottish salmon catches, despite fluctuations, have shown a continuing decline in recent years and in 1977 totalled 1,081 tonnes for salmon, grilse and sea trout. The first sale value of the year's catch was approximately £4 million. The number of jobs in the coastal netting industry was approximately 1,250.
  In addition, the annual economic value of the angling interest is substantial and has been estimated at £10 million to £15 million by my Department. I quote these
  1080
  figures not only to illustrate that the salmon is of prime economic importance to Scotland, particularly to the rural and remote areas, but to show that the issue is not just between the interests of local fishermen and salmon proprietors.
  I make no apology, therefore, for saying that my first concern is with the conservation of salmon stocks. Apart from the effects on young stock in the rivers of predation and pollution, they are vulnerable on the long migration at sea, particularly to heavy predation by seals, and on their return have to run the gauntlet of drift nets and fixed nets round our coasts. Fortunately, perhaps, the present legal methods of catching—by rod and by sweep net in rivers and by fixed nets on coasts, with the restrictions on their use, such as close times, which are imposed by law—have served to provide a balance which has succeeded in conserving our stocks.
  The Hunter Committee accepted this but recommended that conservation measures should be taken further. Its aim was to restrict catching to the rivers of origin, or locations close to rivers of origin, so that individual river stocks could be managed on a self-sustaining basis. Although we have not yet been able to achieve this, as a policy it has been endorsed by international expert opinion, and it is the basis of existing international conventions and of discussions now going on at the Law of the Sea Conference.
  I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's attitude in this matter. He is usually defending the authority of the Law of the Sea Conference in other respects in terms of fishing limits, but he does not seem willing to accept the trend in international conventions even towards tightening up and proceeding on a river basis, avoiding any catching at sea whatsoever. Moreover, it has been accepted as the objective of Government policy by successive Administrations.
  The trouble with drift netting is that with the introduction of new technology in the shape of monofilament nets it has become a very deadly method catching salmon. But because fish are damaged and some drop out of nets, it is a wasteful and unsatisfactory method. Most important, it is indiscriminate, taking runs of salmon as they make their way up the coast without regard to the conservation of stocks of individual rivers.

  1081
  The Hunter Committee in 1963 looked at the then developing situation exhaustively and considered whether the drift net could be the basis of a controlled licensed system for catching salmon. Its conclusion—which is equally valid today—is that it would not provide a system which could be effectively regulated and controlled throughout Scottish waters. In effect, licensed fishing would merely lead to unlicensed fishing.
  The hon. Member said that a licensing system operates effectively in English waters, and the fishermen claim they would be capable of enforcing a licensing system themselves. I shall come back to that point. I must tell the hon. Member about other countries' experience of netting salmon at sea.
  Canada has largely banned it because of the threat to her stocks due to drift netting at sea. Iceland—a country whose virtues in fishing policy are often extolled by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—has never allowed it. It is allowed under licence by Norway and Ireland. Other European countries have, in the past, for one reason or another, virtually exterminated their own salmon stocks.
  The Irish, whose experience is much more relevant to us, have a licensed drift-net fishery, and along with it a flourishing illegal fishery which has put stocks in jeopardy, and the Irish Government are making strenuous efforts to retrieve the situation. It is an object lesson for Scotland, where, fortunately, salmon stocks have been reasonably maintained over the years. Our nearest neighbour, England, lost much of its salmon stocks in years gone by—stocks are probably little more than one-tenth of Scottish stocks—and if the hon. Member wishes to follow the English example of introducing drift netting as a legal method, Scottish stocks would certainly go the same way. Let me explain the situation to him as between England and Scotland.
  The licensed fishery which operates in England is largely confined to the Northumbrian coast. Catches in this area average 182 tonnes of salmon per annum, whereas coastal catches elsewhere in England and Wales are no more than 78 tonnes. The main reason is that tagging results suggest that of the total Northumbrian catch the bulk, perhaps
  1082
  more than 70 per cent., of these salmon are making their way back to Scottish rivers. I would have expected the hon. Member to display his usual party opportunism in a campaign to get the Northumbrians to stop drift netting rather than to want to join them. It is true that the Northumbrian fishery is a licensed fishery regulated by the Northumbrian Water Authority, by byelaw.
  The number of licences issued is severely restricted to those who traditionally held them and it is gradually being reduced, so the trend is not in the direction that the hon. Member is advocating. The historical difference between England and Scotland is that in England there is a public right of fishing for salmon in the sea—which is controlled by licensing—whereas in Scotland the rights in the foreshore are held privately by the Crown where they have not been the subject of a grant of title to other persons, and are leased to fishermen by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
  However any Scottish fisherman wishing to fish for salmon can offer for a Crown lease for coastal netting. Numbers of Scottish fishermen do hold these leases, but in operating them they must observe the law and fish by the traditional legal methods, that is, the sweep-net or bag net, and so on. Thus, Scottish fishermen are not prohibited from fishing for salmon. They can bid for a lease but they must fish by the acknowledged methods with their built-in restrictions in the interests of conservation.
  The alternative of drift netting illegally is, of course, a tempting choice. It offers big catches and quick profits. It has been estimated by people in the trade that illegal catches in 1977 were worth £800,000. But as I have said, the level of catches would not last for long if drift netting were allowed as a legal method of fishing.
  Mr. Watt: Does the Minister agree that the number of salmon that go "out of the back door" from the rivers and from netting stations around our shores amount to about that figure in value? I am sure that the Minister knows that not every salmon taken out of the rivers is recorded.
  Mr. Brown: Yes, but that is different from suggesting that they are caught by illegal methods. That is the worrying factor in the figure that I have given.

  1083
  The level of catches would not last for long if drift netting were allowed as a legal method of fishing.
  The hon. Member has said that if licensing can work in the Northumbrian area, why not in Scotland. There is a simple answer. The Northumbrians are operating on a small scale on the fringe of the Scottish salmon industry and their fishery largely depends on Scottish stocks being rigorously protected by the present methods of fishing.
  It would be very different to have the same system applied to the whole of the Scottish salmon stock all the way round the coast. Regulation and enforcement in the interests of conservation on an appropriate scale would be impossible. I acknowledge and appreciate the good faith in which the fishermen advance the argument that they themselves having collaborated in licensing arrangements for herring and no doubt in the future for other species could exercise discipline over salmon fishing. I doubt whether they have appreciated the differences. For instance, it would be difficult to land and sell a valuable herring catch unobtrusively, though from time to time I hear rumours that there is a wee bit of doubt—
  Mr. Watt rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way. There are always rumours that perhaps not every herring landed is officially recorded. I ask the hon. Member to consider the difference. An individual salmon can be worth as much as £20. It is easy to smuggle out one fish. I know that herring are scarce, but an individual herring is not yet worth £20, otherwise I suspect that there would be quite a few herring coming through illegal marketing sources.
  Mr. Watt: The Minister appears to have lost the point. The stock of salmon in a river depends not on the number of fish reaching the top waters but on the stock of food in that river. Suppose that six salmon—cocks and hens—get to the top water, they will provide sufficient young salmon to utilise the whole food stock in that river, and find their way back to the sea. There are too many salmon reaching the top waters that have not been caught by the fishermen.
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure that the hon. Member is right, and I am sure that he would not claim to be an expert on the
  1084
  sex life and the feeding habits of salmon. There is some experimentation going on in salmon ranching at present which might assist in increasing the number of fish in the rivers. In all my deliberations and discussions I have never heard it seriously argued that the situation is caused by lack of food. I have never heard that put forcefully by any of the experts or parties concerned.
  If there is to be a system of licensing we would be in real difficulties in deciding who should get those licences—anyone or the highest bidders? How would catches be controlled—by close times, by length of net or quotas? Nevertheless it is tempting Providence to think that there would not be an encouragement almost to illegality, given the price of a single salmon at £20. With the best will in the world the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for which I have great respect, would find it hard to cope with the mavericks both inside and outside its ranks, who are only interested in a quick killing.
  There is no doubt that the only way in which to preserve Scottish salmon stocks is to ensure that they are caught only in the rivers and on the coasts, and not in the sea.
  I hope that I have shown that there are good reasons why we must uphold the current policy and enforce the present law. I deplore most strongly the public encouragement that has been given that there is any kind of moral right or reason for breaking the law. It gives me no pleasure to see the Navy and our protection fleet taking action against our own fishermen. But the law must be observed and I hope that fishermen will understand that as in the past there are good reasons why this should be so.
  Within the context of wider fishing issues we must enhance our reputation on the conservation of fish stocks of all species within our control.
  Equally, we should apply that to salmon and I hope that the hon. Member for Banff will help to convey to interests outside our determination to ensure the continuation of a valuable species of fish which enhances tourism and gives jobs to many people in Scotland. Up to now the present system has proved to be the best.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Five o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  "The Government Record"
  "The Government Record"
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  North Atlantic Assembly
  North Atlantic Assembly
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dogs (Fouling of Footways)
  Dogs (Fouling of Footways)
  Birmingham (Local Government Boundaries)
  Birmingham (Local Government Boundaries)
  Criminal Responsibility (Children)
  Criminal Responsibility (Children)
  Young Persons (Secure Accommodation)
  Young Persons (Secure Accommodation)
INDUSTRY
  British Leyland (Car Imports)
  British Leyland (Car Imports)
  Financial Assistance
  Financial Assistance
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Transistor Batteries
  Transistor Batteries
  Newspaper Industry (Monopolies Commission Report)
  Newspaper Industry (Monopolies Commission Report)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Smoking (Deaths)
  Smoking (Deaths)
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Benefits (Jurors and Councillors)
  Benefits (Jurors and Councillors)
  Home Confinements
  Home Confinements
  Renal Dialysis Units
  Renal Dialysis Units
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Area Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Old People's Homes
  Old People's Homes
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Short Brothers Ltd.
  Short Brothers Ltd.
TRANSPORT
  Disabled Persons (Car Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Persons (Car Badge Scheme)
  Buses (Brakes)
  Buses (Brakes)
  Continental Lorries
  Continental Lorries
  Motorways (Repairs)
  Motorways (Repairs)
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Lorries (Accidents)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Road Construction (Injurious Affection)
  Road Construction (Injurious Affection)
EMPLOYMENT
  Deltaflow Limited, Birmingham
  Deltaflow Limited, Birmingham
  Caprice Compacts Factory, Caernavon
  Caprice Compacts Factory, Caernavon
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
  Industrial Earnings
  Industrial Earnings
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Health and Safety (Universities)
  Health and Safety (Universities)
ENVIRONMENT
  Mr. Leslie Chapman
  Mr. Leslie Chapman
  Liverpool Street and Broad Street Stations
  Liverpool Street and Broad Street Stations
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Northern Regional Strategy Team (Report)
  Northern Regional Strategy Team (Report)
  Radioactive Leaks
  Radioactive Leaks
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Draughtsmen (Tax Allowances)
  Draughtsmen (Tax Allowances)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Assembly Members (Taxation)
  European Assembly Members (Taxation)
  Ministers and Civil Servants (Taxation)
  Ministers and Civil Servants (Taxation)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  National Savings Certificates
  National Savings Certificates
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Liverpool Workers' Art (Exhibition)
  Liverpool Workers' Art (Exhibition)
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Mr. J. W. Dawson
  Mr. J. W. Dawson
ENERGY
  Policy
  Policy
  European Community
  European Community
  Coal
  Coal
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Fuel Consumption (Scotland)
  Fuel Consumption (Scotland)
SCOTLAND
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Kidney Disease
  Kidney Disease
  Secondary Schools (Fifth and Sixth Forms)
  Secondary Schools (Fifth and Sixth Forms)
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Electricity Consumption
  Electricity Consumption
  Sea Refuse Disposal
  Sea Refuse Disposal
DEFENCE
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Service Personnel (Resignations)
  Service Personnel (Resignations)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Service Personnel (Housing)
  Service Personnel (Housing)
  "Fast Jet" Pilots
  "Fast Jet" Pilots
  Service Families (Benefits)
  Service Families (Benefits)
  Jaguar Squadrons
  Jaguar Squadrons
  Northern Ireland (Working Week)
  Northern Ireland (Working Week)
  Manpower
  Manpower
  RAF Personnel (Training Costs)
  RAF Personnel (Training Costs)
  Baggage Allowance
  Baggage Allowance
WALES
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Low-paid Workers
  Low-paid Workers
  Area Health Authorities (Health Education Staff)
  Area Health Authorities (Health Education Staff)
  Inner Urban Areas Bill
  Inner Urban Areas Bill
TRADE
  Seal Skins (Imports)
  Seal Skins (Imports)
  Holidays (Cancelled Bookings)
  Holidays (Cancelled Bookings)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  UDN Salmon Disease
  UDN Salmon Disease
  Dogs (Animal Worrying)
  Dogs (Animal Worrying)
  Wheat (Intervention Stocks)
  Wheat (Intervention Stocks)
  European Community (Surplus Foodstuffs)
  European Community (Surplus Foodstuffs)
  European Community (Farm Guarantee Budget)
  European Community (Farm Guarantee Budget)
  Christchurch Bay (Inshore Fishing)
  Christchurch Bay (Inshore Fishing)
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Sheep
  Sheep

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

INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
11.5 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The problems of our deprived inner areas are deep seated; they have grown in intensity in recent years and it will take considerable time to overcome them. When the Bill is enacted it will undoubtedly make a practical contribution towards alleviating the crucial problem of our inner city areas, which is the lack of employment.
We last debated inner city problems in March 1977 on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. We anticipated—as we so often do in this House—the statement in another place by my right honourable friend on the partnership approach to inner city problems and the subsequent White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities. The Bill before the House today is based on proposals contained in just one paragraph of that White Paper. Let us be quite clear that this Bill is only one element of the Government's inner areas policy which should be seen in the context of the considerable range of measures that are already under way.
The White Paper drew attention to the three main problems of the inner areas: economic decline, physical decay and social disadvantage. With the decline of industry and commerce have come the decay and desolation of the local physical environment. Vacant, derelict sites, boarded-up houses, abandoned factories, disused canals and litter all combine to create an atmosphere of despair.
The Bill enables local authorities in inner areas with acute problems of social and economic stress to take a more positive role in developing their local
604
economies. In collaboration with the private sector, authorities will now be able to remove some of the physical symptoms of decline by making loans and grants available for works on land and by setting up industrial improvement areas. In the worst-hit areas authorities will be able to help firms with the high costs that they face, such as rents.
Before I describe the detail of the Bill, I think it is simpler to tell the House of the progress of other aspects of inner city policy, in particular the partnerships. The key feature of the Government's policy for inner city areas is a new commitment to a co-ordinated effort by local and central government. Noble Lords will recall that the three inner area studies—Liverpool, Birmingham and Lambeth—all emphasised the need to co-ordinate the work of the public services. We concluded that if a real impact were to be made we had to concentrate on areas with the most severe problems.
Seven partnership areas were chosen: Newcastle/Gateshead, Manchester/Salford, Liverpool, Birmingham, the London Docklands, Hackney/Islington and Lambeth. In all of them there are severe problems of multiple deprivation: concentrations of social problems, bad housing, overcrowding, single-parent families, problems of unemployment and low income. For each partnership area a three-year programme based on an assessment of the inner area needs and priorities for action is being prepared. This covers all local and central government activities and a concerted approach is being developed which involves Ministers and local authority members. Each area has a partnership committee chaired by a Minister from the Department of the Environment and includes Ministers from other Departments. There will therefore be a hard look at how the policies of Government Departments, their agencies, and local government working together affect the area, whether they are in conflict or whether they reinforce each other.
The Government have allocated specific additional resources to those seven areas. For example, Liverpool was allocated £11 million for immediate spending under the "construction package" in last year's April Budget. It has £2·5 million from the urban programme for this year to get

605
the partnership under way and £10 million per year for succeeding years, and other areas have broadly similar sums. The whole programme is likely to involve £1 billion over the next decade.
In addition, much larger sums are now being spent through the existing central and local government programmes, and the partnerships will review these programmes to see that the money is spent effectively. The initial partnership programmes will be completed by September and reviewed annually. Obviously it will take some time to deploy the extra resources and make changes in existing schemes, but action is already being taken.
If partnership arrangements are to be successful, they must involve local people in developing ideas and projects for their own areas. The partnership committees consist of those elected to make decisions —Ministers and members. But voluntary groups have a tremendous contribution to make, which must in no way ever be underestimated. Indeed, the White Paper stated:
"Involving local people is both a necessary means to the regeneration of the inner areas and an end in its own right."
These words are now being turned into action.
The partnerships have already, each in their own way, drawn on local groups for help and advice. The views of tenants' associations, amenity groups, ratepayers' organisations, local chambers of commerce and trade, local union interests and others, including individuals, are being sought. Special newsletters have been produced, public meetings held. Yet I am well aware that there are criticisms that not enough has been done to involve voluntary bodies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is going to meet the National Council for Social Services to see what more can be done specifically to involve local people more deeply in the partnerships. This is as much 'a wish of the Government as it is of organisations concerned.
There are other areas in cities with difficult problems that also need to be tackled, and, after consultation with the local authorities, my right honourable friend selected 15 more for special attention. These authorities have been asked to prepare three-year programmes to deal
606
with their inner area problems. They have also been given between £1 to £2 million from the urban programme. These are the areas which are known as "programme authorities".
Beyond this my right honourable friend has recently said that he proposes to give 14 additional districts with serious inner area problems the powers in the Bill. All this together means that 43 local authorities with the most acute social and economic problems in their inner areas, and with a population comprising around 15 million people, will be directly involved in the improvement of the physical fabric of their areas and the promotion of employment.
However, the public sector cannot revitalise these inner areas alone, nor indeed should it. Obviously the private sector has an essential role. The Bill allows local authorities to help local industry and commerce, particularly the small- and medium-sized firms, which fit more neatly into inner areas. Of course the initiative must come mainly from the firms themselves, since only they can find the opportunities for development and growth which suit their particular expertise and capacity.
Large firms have a dual role. First, industry, the banks, retail chains, insurance companies all have considerable existing investment in these areas. If only to protect and develop their own investments, these companies should be looking for prospects in the inner cities. Secondly, larger firms can look at ways of encouraging the smaller enterprises, and some firms are already doing this. Others contribute indirectly through organisations like the Action Resources Centre. Noble Lords, with their many industrial and commercial connections, might consider urging this kind of approach on firms with which they are involved. I know, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is doing this already.
Now I turn to the Bill itself. The first clause indicates how selected districts become "designated districts". Each tier of local government for the designated districts—that is the county council and the district council in England, the region and district in Scotland—will be able to make use of the relevant powers; that is, it will be a "designated district authority".

607
Clause 2 provides the first of the new powers. Designated district authorities will be able to offer loans for the acquisition of land or works on land—loans up to 90 per cent. of the value of the security and at commercial rates of interest. This new power will enable the designated authorities to assist industrialists to acquire and develop land where other sources of finance are not readily available.
In last year's debate noble Lords emphasised the importance of rehabilitation. Two particular authorities, Rochdale and Tyne and Wear, have pioneered industrial improvement areas where the aim is to arrest the spiral of decline, to rehabilitate and convert buildings as well as improving local amenities. We have been very much impressed with what these two authorities have done, and Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are designed to provide all designated district authorities with specific powers to declare industrial improvement areas and make loans and grants for improvements to the amenities of their area and to make grants towards the cost of converting or improving industrial or commercial buildings. These two powers —the long-term loans and the industrial improvement areas—will be available to all 43 of the selected districts.
Clause 6 deals with the establishment of partnership arrangements. It is important to give these arrangements statutory recognition, since the Minister's participation in the development of a programme or partnership might be said to conflict with his other statutory responsibilities—for example, those relating to planning or compulsory purchase. Clause 7 provides for the Secretary of State to define partnership areas, here called "special areas", within which the additional powers in subsequent clauses of this Bill may be exercised.
The next three clauses—8, 9 and 10—provide the powers specifically for the partnerships and are aimed at dealing with problems of land and buildings that arise particularly in inner areas. Many vacant or disused sites in inner areas contain the remains of older buildings or have been used for dumping waste, and the cost of new building on these sites is often considerably greater than the cost of using a "green field" site. Clause 8 therefore provides that,
608
in partnership areas, the designated district authorities can make loans for site preparation works and for the servicing of land and the provision of access roads. Although the loans are to be at commercial rates, the interest on them may be waived for up to two years, and this will to some extent compensate for the extra costs of using these sites rather than green field sites.
Firms often have to close when redevelopment forces them to move from old low-cost premises to newer ones with higher rents. Clause 9 will therefore allow designated district authorities in partnership areas to make grants towards the rents of firms taking new leases on industrial or commercial premises, and we hope that this will give an impetus to new development. The Bill does not itself prescribe the maximum amount of grant. That is left to later directions, but we envisage that the maximum should be the equivalent of between one and two years' rent, depending on particular circumstances.
Some firms will want to buy or build their premises rather than rent them. Clause 10 therefore provides that designated district authorities may, in partnership areas, give interest relief grants to small firms that take out loans, from whatever source, to pay for land or buildings or works to buildings.
Clause 11 helps to streamline the planning process for inner areas. At present, local plans cannot be carried to the stage where objections are considered at a public local inquiry until the structure plan has been approved. In particular cases it will now be possible for local plans to be publicised and adopted notwithstanding the absence of an approved structure plan for that area. The full public participation procedures will, of course, be followed. This arrangement will reduce the risk of delay in developing an up-to-date local plan where one may be needed to replace an out-of-date development plan.
Clause 12 is a small, consequential provision to ensure that these selected local authorities' general powers to spend under existing legislation will not be restricted by the new powers. Clause 13 corrects a minor flaw in previous legislation dealing with derelict land clearance. Grants of 100 per cent. towards the cost

609
of derelict land clearance are available in the assisted areas and in any area where a derelict land clearance area is declared, except for Greater London. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry recently announced a number of new derelict land clearance areas, including inner Birmingham and the docklands area of London. This clause provides that 100 per cent. grants can be paid in this derelict land clearance in London.
Policies pursued since the war involving wholesale redevelopment, high-rise housing and a lack of understanding of the difficulties facing local industry have, unfortunately, contributed to the decline we are now trying to reverse, and we hope local and central government have learned from past failures.
This Bill, together with inner city policy in general, places a much greater emphasis on making the best use of the existing physical environment. The local community will have to be more tolerant of the needs of its own industry and build on the skills of its own people. The central importance of employment to inner city areas cannot be overestimated and is now well understood. This Bill gives additional powers to local authorities so that they can involve themselves more closely in the development and maintenance of local prosperity.
"Partnership" is the word that crops up most often in this policy. Specifically, it means joint involvement of central and local government in the task of reviving the worst-hit areas of our cities, but to be successful our inner city policies require a partnership between local authorities, local industry and, above all, local people. It is this co-operation this Bill seeks to develop and I therefore commend it to the House.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, with regard to the county part of this legislation, can she say whether this applies only to metropolitan areas or whether it will apply countrywide with regard to counties, because I can hardly see how it would work as well as the districts?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as I pointed out, the designated areas in England apply to county and district, but they are called
610
"designated districts". How it works out in detail I think we shall be discussing further at the Committee stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
11.23 a.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like, from these Benches, to give a very warm welcome to this Bill and a particular welcome to the Bill in its amended form. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on agreeing to extend its scope, as they have done quite remarkably in another place. The rehabilitation of the inner cities, coupled as it is to the problem of creating jobs and improving employment, and allied, as we believe it to be, with the future of the small firm, is one in which we, as a Party, have for some time taken a lively interest.
We had a debate in this House on 20th July on the economic situation, and I spent much of my speech on this subject. I expressed the view that over the years we had taken far too many incentives out of our economic system and that we needed to restore them. I drew attention to the alarming rate at which the smaller firms had been disappearing within the inner urban areas, and I pointed to the fact that too high a proportion of our gross national product was devoted to the public sector at the expense of the private sector.
I expressed the hope then that one Minister should be given sole responsibility for looking after the interests of small businesses and the self-employed, because we had come to the conclusion that it is in this field of the small business and the self-employed that one gets the fastest multiplier in creating jobs, and we believe that this is an important fact. We made to the Prime Minister the proposal, on which he acted very swiftly, that Mr. Harold Lever should be given responsibility for this area. This is much welcomed by our Party. I believe that that appointment, and the conferences which he held in London and the Provinces, is already paying dividends. Certainly more people have become aware over the last six to 12 months of what has to be done in the inner cities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also accepted, and is implementing, six changes to help small

611
businesses which we have proposed to him. I shall not detail these, but taken together they provide considerable help for small businesses and the self-employed.
I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton, who has great experience of these problems on Merseyside and the Wirral. We look forward also with great pleasure to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady David. Turning to the Bill itself, I do not pretend that the noble Baroness suggested that this one measure will solve the inner urban area problem. Far more than an Act of Parliament will be required, but at least this is a contribution to it which I welcome. It is a well-structured contribution. I do not agree with those who say that the amount of money and financial assistance envisaged in the Bill is so small as to be derisory. Money is important, but what come first are new ideas, new initiatives and imaginative schemes which, with some help, will get off the ground and prove viable. If the people and the viable projects come forward, I believe that the cash will be found. Indeed, it will have to be found, and there is a reasonable degree of hope that it will.
We should remind ourselves of the nature of the inner city problem. In a nutshell, it is that the able and the skilled have moved out of the inner cities—indeed have often been encouraged or forced to move out—and what is left, and what moves in, is the deprived citizen, the unskilled, the illiterate, the inarticulate. There is a high percentage of unemployment, and a high percentage of young and particularly young black unemployed. This is the trend which we have to reverse as quickly as we can. The Bill provides financial assistance and gives powers to local authorities to help and encourage projects which will result in greater employment. This is all to the good, but a great deal more than new powers and financial help will be needed.
I am impressed with the people in the Department of the Environment who are dealing with this problem, and the grip which they already have on it. They realise that real progress in beating the inner city problem will be achieved only by a new attitude being developed in local
612
government towards business and commerce. Local authorities have to learn to understand how business actually works, and what it requires from them to be successful. Some local authorities already have excellent people with this outlook, and they are getting on with it. Others still have to develop it, for, as the noble Baroness said, if anything needs a real team effort, it is the regeneration of the inner urban areas. Above all, what is needed is a long-term commitment to the development of viable commercial enterprises which will give new hope and scope to the urban population.
I believe that the key to fostering this long-term commitment is to establish a firm partnership of local government with practical business people and the voluntary and community organisations in each area. This is the American practice. What is needed now is a forum to bring all these interests together. I say this because I believe we have in this country a great deal of latent talent waiting for the opportunity to develop. I do not believe that there is a single type of project on which the rehabilitation of any one area depends, but I am impressed with the contribution which the workshop type of project can make. A number of these have come into existence particularly in London, but also in other parts of the country, and have met a real need. One example which particularly impressed me, although I saw others—the co-operative at Rotherhithe, and Clerkenwell, Wandsworth, Lambeth—was the Barley Mow Workspace unit at Chiswick. In a former wallpaper factory, offices and workshops have been created, the smallest unit being 10 ft. by 10 ft., and the largest probably 10 times that size.
Thanks to the pioneering work of John Morton, 91 businesses covering more than 200 people have been provided with very good accommodation and many common services, which relieve them of many of the administrative chores and risks which often deter bright young people with good ideas from taking their first steps in the business world. This can be copied, I believe. The only bottleneck at the moment would be the training of managers to give the confidence to a unit like this and to administer it for the first few years at least, so that the risks are taken out of it. But it is a very impressive unit.

613
Similar enterprises have sprung up in other parts of London and in the Provinces. Common to all of them is the provision of low-rent premises and someone to run the project who has a flair for non-bureaucratic administration and an ability to cut through red tape. Many of these small one-man, two-people or three-people units have already in them the seeds of new, expanding companies which may well in time become household names. It is therefore vital that opportunities should be provided at local level to release the talent of the new caftsmen and entrepreneurs who are coming forward. It is in this area that private enterprise has a lot to contribute. It is the intervention and the interest of private enterprise that will provide the impetus which is needed if real progress is to be made.
The harnessing of private enterprise will take many different forms and be none the worse for that. But as a start—it may well be that this can be built into the existing structure, into the partnership committees, or it may have to be something which runs parallel with them—I should like to see an enterprise forum in which are represented central Government, local government, Government agencies such as the Manpower Services Commission, which has a tremendous job on hand and is doing it very well, and the Training Services Agency getting together with private enterprise, and neighbourhood and community organisations, to identify and smooth out problems, not forgetting the contribution which can be made by local polytechnics, technical colleges, business schools and similar organisations in the area. Often these bright new ideas originate in the polytechnics. I have seen some of them being developed only in the last week or two.
A forum of this kind, which can be an extension of the partnership committees or an additional organisation, can help to assess the viability of new ideas. It could set up small sub-committees with private enterprise people—accountants and others—who can help these people to develop their ideas and take out some of the risks. The private sector in any organisation like this must be represented by top-calibre industrialists who are sympathetic to solving the problem of the inner urban areas. In a number of ways private enterprise can help, and is
614
helping, firms to start up. It can provide expertise, management and commercial skills. It can second people to individual projects to help get them started. It can provide specialised training. It can sometimes provide second-hand equipment, which may be the one item missing to enable a project to get off the ground. It can provide modest finance on reasonable or subsidised terms. It can organise bank guarantees for modest sums. All these things are needed in one project or another.
I should like to see a consortium of top firms in the partnership areas being organised to see how best they can help to get things moving. There is a tremendous opportunity here for private enterprise and the private sector. I am very impressed with the amount of activity already being undertaken in the inner cities. But often good ideas are frustrated by a lack of flexibility in the arrangements which are authorised. This is something we can discuss at the Committee stage. For instance, a building is available from the local authority. Equipment has been provided, perhaps by the Manpower Services Commission. Cash grants will also be available towards the employment of people on the register of unemployed. But nowhere can one find the cash to carry out a viability study, a feasibility study or a market survey. This is the one item missing from the package. This is where flexibility is required.
There is a case where suitable buildings are available for development just outside the partnership area but which will create employment for people living inside the area; but they cannot be used because they are the wrong side of the boundary by a quarter of a mile. Again, flexibility and discretion are required to get things moving. These "Catch 22" situations continue to arise and there must be more flexibility.
I believe that there is so much talent and imagination available but unused that our top priority is to provide an opportunity for it to develop and give it all the help and advice we can. Countries like Germany and the United States have provided these opportunities and have reaped the rewards. We must do the same. I offer a very warm welcome to the Bill.
11.36 a.m.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House on this occasion. I had not thought to make my maiden speech so soon after being introduced to the House, but as a member of a local authority and as a member of the Board of Peterborough Development Corporation, I felt that I had some experience relevant to this matter. This is a modest Bill, but I am glad that it is not quite so modest as when it started. I welcome it as making a real contribution to the enormous problem of our inner urban areas. Any step must be welcome which can help to bring back and regenerate industry and firms, to bring, back jobs to the people there, and I hope encourage others to come back, perhaps a greater variety of people than live there now. I hope that the Bill will achieve these objects and that manufacturers and industrialists will be content to refurbish and return. I am anxious about whether the powers given to local authorities will be used forcefully enough, used quickly enough, and whether the mechanism is right.
This Bill is primarily an enabling Bill. I am not quite clear exactly what will be the powers of the Secretary of State. He may specify designated districts (Clause 1). He may give directions as to the making of grants and loans and impose conditions (Clauses 4 and 8). He may enter into arrangements with council or councils in an area where a special need exists (Clause 6). But he cannot make an order in respect of a special area without the consent of that authority (Clause 7). The whole machinery seems to me a little slow-moving and cumbersome, dependent perhaps on too many people, and not vital enough.
As a good local authority member, of course I do not want to see central Government dictating to local government, but can action be taken speedily enough? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell me how she thinks that it will work. From the debates on this Bill in another place it was quite clear that the mechanics of how the Bill would work were a major anxiety and a question that was constantly raised. The idea of partnership between central and local government is attractive, but will there not need to be a strong executive arm to
616
get things moving, an executive arm responsible for land assembly, main infrastructure and site services, new building and rehabilitation?
I am aware that the White Paper discussed "The Agencies for Action" and considered new town style development corporations to tackle inner areas, saying,
"that they could be expected to bring single-minded management, industrial promotional expertise, and experience in carrying out development".
But the Government turned down that idea in favour of the establishment of a partnership between central and local government, while admitting that changes in approach would be necessary. The White Paper said:
"Local areas with inner area problems will need to be entrepreneurial in the attraction of industry and commerce".
I am not sure that entrepreneurial expertise is the foremost characteristic of local authorities, although there may be honourable exceptions. But it is what the chief officers of new towns have developed.
Having seen at first hand how efficiently and effectively the new town arrangements work in partnership with county and district councils, I am a keen admirer of that way of doing things. The New Town Act combines all the powers that a development corporation needs for planning, land acquisition, development, management, disposal, and for the funding of its activities through central Government. It has to get a variety of formal and informal consents and agreements at both local and national levels, but it has independent status and singleness of purpose. Its organisational structure, with a chairman and a small representative board and a chief executive who has full authority and carries full responsibility, is geared to rapid action. There can be consistency and continuity in policies and programmes, quick decision-making and the possibility of being adventurous and imaginative. I hope the arrangement suggested in this Bill will work as well.
I understand the reasons for the Government's choice of the partnership, and the importance they place on accountability to the local electorate, but I should like reassurance on how decisions can be reached and acted on swiftly. If it should

617
not work—and we all hope it will—would the Government think of an Old Towns Act, setting up old town development corporations to get things moving? In this context I think it is not insignificant that Dockland Settlement found no manager as a result of its advertisement, and that two new town general managers—Mr. Thomas from Peterborough and Mr. Roche from Milton Keynes—were later offered the job and turned it down. I am aware that the situation is different there. There are five boroughs, the GLC and the ILEA all to be co-ordinated, but I think one can draw inferences.
I should like to comment on what some see as a conflict between the policies of revitalising the inner cities and continuing with the new town programme. I think there is no conflict, that both are necessary and that they are in many ways complementary. The new towns are now taking a number of the disadvantaged: the low income families, the semi-skilled, the unskilled, and some of the unemployed and single-parent families. They can help in this way. The need for reasonable rented housing is great and this the new towns can provide and, what is more, in green and pleasant surroundings.
The consultants' report on the inner urban areas—the Lambeth section—recognises that what can be done to arrest the decline of jobs in Inner London is limited. Even sizeable expansion in trading will not overcome the mis-match of jobs and skills. There must therefore, it seems to me, be more effective measures to help the less skilled and less affluent to move. These people caught in the housing trap are unable to buy, unable to move, and unable to rent reasonably because of the long council waiting lists. The waiting lists in the housing stress areas remain very long. I am sorry I do not have the up-to-date figures, but last year the number on the waiting-lists was 93,000 in the inner boroughs and 43,000 in six other boroughs with problems, and I do not expect that the figures are very different now.
The new towns can help people to move to houses they can afford and, just as important, they can set up training schemes and skill centres so that those going there can try to acquire greater skills than they have at present, skills which are now very much needed when
618
labour-intensive firms are getting fewer. The consultants in their study say:
"We do not believe that further dispersal will impoverish London: a less congested London should be cheaper to run".
I would ask that there be no further cutbacks on the new town programmes. Whatever is done—and assuming that the policy in the Bill is right, as I trust it is, and that the plans work—inner urban renewal could not, I suspect, begin to have a very significant effect within the next five to 10 years. I see no reason why low-income families living in bad conditions and wanting to move—and between one-quarter and one-third of those who answered questions in the Lambeth study said that they wanted to move—should have to wait for such a large proportion of their lives. I hope your Lordships do not think me guilty of special pleading for the new towns. I just want to repeat that I think that inner urban renewal and the continuation of the present new town programmes should go ahead together in harmony and not in conflict.
I have two questions to ask my noble friend before I sit down. Could the Government give consideration to the problem of excessive land assembly costs? The way land is valued needs examination and I think there should be a new approach. I was interested to read, in speech after speech in the debates on this Bill in another place, anxiety over land values, land being hung on to, land lying idle. My second question is: Are we moving towards a clear, coherent, comprehensive policy in terms of all the areas receiving aid?
11.47 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am very glad to be the first person in this debate to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady David, on her maiden speech, which I think we would all agree was fluent, well informed and made a very useful contribution to this difficult subject. This subject—the revitalisation of the inner cities—requires all the experience and acumen that can be brought to bear upon it and experience coming from the new towns will be particularly valuable. I wish, as the noble Baroness suggested, that special development corporations for the old towns could have been established. If that were feasible

619
my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker would have established one for the docklands in 1970 and we would by now have eight years' valuable progress behind us. I am afraid that anybody who goes to the docklands now can see, unfortunately, that that is not the case. However, even if that solution is not practicable, I think the insights and experience, the acumen and entrepreneurial skills of the new towns are applicable and I hope the noble Baroness will help us to see as the Bill proceeds how they can be brought to bear.
The Bill provides a very welcome change from the long complexities and controversies of the Scotland Bill—which nobody seems to want very much—to a short, simple Bill which I think everybody agrees is most necessary and desirable, and which I should be surprised if everybody taking part in this debate did not welcome. It is a short, simple and agreed Bill but the problems underlying it are as complex and long-lived as any that we have to face. I was therefore glad that the noble Baroness began her remarks by giving a review of the progress that has been made in the past year across the whole field of the inner city policies. As she said, I initiated the debate on this subject just over a year ago. At that time only the summary reports of the inner area studies were out. Now the White Paper and the full studies have both been issued and I think it is useful to make the debate on the Bill an occasion for reviewing progress, as the noble Baroness has done.
I have a few questions but I think I should prefer to leave those to the Committee stage. They are relatively minor compared with the broad span of progress in the inner cities. I think that this Second Reading debate is an occasion more for that. As the noble Baroness says, the inner city policies are only in a minor degree a matter for new legislation. Most of what is needed is to be achieved by administrative action reflecting new approaches. I imagine that Her Majesty's Government would want chiefly to be judged by their own stated aims, the aims stated in the White Paper which, to take paragraph 103, the concluding paragraph, can be divided into four headings.
There is the involvement of the private sector—and the noble Lord, Lord Byers,
620
has already introduced that in full measure —and the steps that can be taken to attract private investment. I think we shall want to hear more as we go along about how that can be done. I am glad that this Bill reflects the valiant pioneering efforts by the Borough of Rochdale and the far-sightedness of the County of Tyne and Wear in getting a Private Bill of their own which conferred on them the powers that will now be available to everybody.
The second strand of the Government's policy is the collaboration with representative groups in the community, and I think there is more to be said about that. The third is the scope for the voluntary bodies to participate, and the fourth is greater sensitivity to the views and needs of the individual citizen in the inner cities. These are the approaches cited as, "the ultimate touchstone of success", to use the Government's own words. Like many other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for instance—concerned with this topic, I have been up and down the different cities of the country since our last debate, paying particular attention to the City of Newcastle in the county of Tyne and Wear where these powers have been available. I believe that the noble Baroness, too, has been there recently, though looking at other things to do with the heritage.
My special interest in Newcastle arises from the fact that I am chairman of the trustees of a body called "Taskforce North" which, in conjunction with the City of Newcastle, the county of Tyne and Wear and the Manpower Services Commission, is running an enterprise called "Townscape" which is designed to involve the young unemployed and the voluntary bodies in scores of small projects of environmental improvement identified and suggested by local people through their local councils. I think this is auguring quite well, because the right framework for this kind of local involvement has already been provided and the area in question has already available the powers provided in this Bill.
From the rest of the country I receive rather less satisfactory reports. I know that these reports have gone to the Secretary of State from the National Council of Social Service. I am glad to hear from the noble Baroness that she

621
will respond to them, but I think that the House ought to have the gist of them because, if true, they are rather serious.
The NCSS has been monitoring the inner cities programme and these are the salient points which they make:
"There have been long delays in seeking the involvement of local organisations and community groups. It has not been sufficiently well understood that this needs to take place from the outset to be successful".
I think I had better read most of this:
"The timescale imposed on local authorities by the Department of the Environment for drawing up their inner area programmes for the next three years is so tight that firm proposals are being required by June or July of this year, leaving insufficient time for consultation and involvement.
"Ministers have not pressed the local authorities to establish an adequate framework for the involvement of local communities and voluntary organisations. Apart from Newcastle-upon-Tyne"—
and I can vouch for the value of the fact that it is there—
"Islington, Leicester and Sheffield … with few exceptions, the quality and quantity of information being made available by local authorities is inadequate for local organisations and local communities to identify opportunities for involvement and make a proper contribution to the planning process".
Finally,
"In most of the areas, local councillors have not been adequately briefed on the background work being carried out …".
and one cannot afford to leave out the local councillors in work of this kind.
So the proposal which the NCSS have made to the Secretary of State—and I am glad to know that he will be discussing them with them—is that they should develop adequate frameworks to involve local communities, that the finer points of detail must he worked out locally but guidance must be given. The final point they make is that the experience which has been acquired in some areas must be applied to many others, and the wards and the councillors should be used more extensively. I do not think I need say any more about that; but if the Secretary of State has a meeting with the NCSS during the passage of this Bill I think it will be useful if the noble Baroness can give us some report of progress.
So much for participation. The other aim that Her Majesty's Government set out in the White Paper is to attract private
622
investment. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in what he said about that. As he has said it, I do not think I need say much more. I think it would be important if the noble Baroness not only could repeat the many exhortations that there have been about the importance of private investment being attracted but could give us some examples of such success and progress as there has been. We have had some from the noble Lord, Lord Byers, but anything indicating the way in which this can be done, the key to success, would be valuable.
The further strand in all this which the noble Baroness, Lady David, was right to dwell on is the need for a co-ordinated and corporate approach both at central Government level—Whitehall—and at local government level. It would be useful to know a little more at appropriate moments as the Bill progresses about what the progress here is. How does the Whitehall machinery stand now? Have we still a Cabinet committee chaired by Mr. Shore or has that been succeeded by something else, and how is it working out? At the local level, it would be interesting to know what forms of area management ate now proving most useful. This was one of the devices identified as likely to be useful. Experiments have been taking place for many months now. They take a number of different forms. It would be interesting to find which forms are proving most useful and where they are being adopted.
Finally, the question of priorities. I suggested a year ago that the extra efforts, such extra resources as there were available, and the new approaches that are most likely to prove fruitful, should be applied where they will show early results and teach useful lessons on which other authorities which were less advanced and less imaginative could then draw. At present I do not see too many concrete results or very many useful lessons. If they are there, let us hear about them during the passage of the Bill and let us have them published. Rather I see an ever thinner spreading of resources over a score or more of partnership and programme cities, with 14 more in the pipeline, and rather too few signs of new and imaginative approaches. Here I would very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that it is these new and imaginative approaches and ways of doing things

623
which really must come first before huge extra resources are applied to problems which so far have just cropped up whatever has been made available.
I hope we can obtain an encouraging response to questions like these from the noble Baroness as the Bill goes through. I think we are all very grateful for the information she has given us so far.
What we have to guard against is a feeling which I am afraid exists and which must not gain ground. The opportunities really to make some progress in reviving the inner cities which appeared last summer must not be allowed to fade away. If this does happen, I think that the disillusionment which is already so widespread and which is such a weighty factor in the whole problem of dealing with the inner cities will be perilously compounded. I hope that that will not happen.
12.1 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, I crave even more than the customary kindness and indulgence and, indeed, patience which I believe your Lordships' House gives to maiden speakers, first, because I have the good or bad fortune to have followed a maiden speech of such high standard from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that it makes it very difficult for me to follow her, and secondly, because I have spent the last 21 years in the hurly-burly and the rum-bustuous politics of local government on Merseyside. I suspect that the translation to your Lordships' House will engender the sort of feeling that a lay preacher would have on being asked to preach a sermon in St. Paul's Cathedral.
I do hope, however, that the experience which I have gained over these many years in local government at most levels may be of some help to me in debates in your Lordships' House. I hope that you will forgive me if, in moments of great excitement or emotion, I descend to the patois of local government and possibly describe the noble Lord on the Woolsack as "my Lord Mayor" or some such title. I hope that I shall be forgiven if that does happen from time to time, as I believe has happened in another place.
624
I thought that the debate on this Bill was a suitable opportunity for me to make my maiden speech, since I have been involved in very much of the action on Merseyside County Council and on Wirral Borough Council during the consideration of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill and the promotion of the Merseyside County Council Bill, which I believe is at present before your Lordships' House. Many clauses in Part 2 of that Bill seek to deal in different ways with the very problems that this Bill tries to remedy, namely, problems to do with inner urban regeneration.
In addition, I have for many years represented an inner urban area of Merseyside ill Birkenhead called Claughton on the county council, on the old Birkenhead County Borough Council and on Wirral Borough Council, and I have had first-hand experience over a great number of years of the kind of inner urban deprivation with which this Bill seeks to deal. In fact, the division I represent has within it the nationally notorious Oak and Eldon Gardens—a block of 214 high-rise houses built only 18 years ago and now being demolished because of their unsuitability. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, I have personal experience of extremely high levels of unemployment. There is a level of unemployment in Merseyside as a whole of 14 per cent., but in areas of the kind I represent that very often gets up to 20 to 25 per cent. I have experience of closures of small businesses through slum clearance and through the removal of non-conforming uses under the Planning Act. In very many cases the opportunity for employment, if there is any at all in the area, means a long and extremely expensive journey for the person who is seeking employment to an area perhaps 10, 15 or 20 miles away from his home.
In general, therefore, I welcome the proposals contained in the Bill, strengthened and broadened, as my noble friend Lord Byers has said, during its passage through another place. In particular, I welcome its extension to commercial developments. I must say, however, that my enthusiasm is limited to two cheers rather than the more customary three. One thing has been a disappointment—and this had been touched on. Those of

625
us who have been engaged in local government over many years have grown more and more depressed by the erosion of the powers that local government can wield by the considerable decrease, during the years that I have been in local government, of the powers that local government possesses; by the ham-stringing nature of the financial arrangements so that fewer and fewer councillors at county and district level feel that they are doing a useful job, with a consequent reduction in the number of people willing to come forward to take part in local government and a lowering in the standard of councillors generally. Whatever Party we belong to, we must recognise that it is a fact, in spite of reorganisation, that the erosion is reducing the interest and enthusiasm of the kind of community leaders who used to take a great part in local government.
I fear that the Bill itself to a certain extent erodes the freedom of action of local authorities. It continues this process. Noble Lords will perhaps recall paragraph 54 of the White Paper, which states:
"The Government intend to introduce legislation to enhance the powers of local authorities with serious inner area problems to assist industry".
The Bill does not do this in those terms. Before local authorities can enjoy these enhanced powers, they have to follow a sort of municipal "Pilgrim's Progress". The first problem is to become a designated district—a distinction which is granted by the Secretary of State. The next obstacle is to have an industrial improvement area within that designated district. Again, the Secretary of State makes that decision. The final hurdle—the top of the pile—is to become a "special area" within a designated district and within an industrial improvement area. That special area status is again a matter for decision by the Secretary of State.
The problem, therefore, as far as I am concerned is, first, that the Secretary of State controls the whole apparatus, and secondly, that the Bill is based on a broad-brush approach. If "designated", all is well; if not "designated", all is lost. I can think of many districts which are largely areas without inner urban problems but which have within them small towns which perhaps have serious inner urban problems but which are not designated and cannot therefore hope for
626
the advantages of the Bill. I apologise if I bore noble Lords, but, again, take Merseyside. Four of the five districts of Merseyside are designated. Liverpool is a partnership area. Wirral is a programme area. Sefton is largely an urban residential area but has an inner urban area problem in Bootle and is therefore designated. St. Helens is designated. But there is a fifth district, Knowsley, which has no inner urban problems because it is very largely a new town—a new area. However, it has problems equal to those of the inner urban areas except for the fact that it has modern slums rather than old slums; it has modern factories which are running down rather than old factories which are running down.
One of the things which concerns me about this Bill is the fact that all kinds of provisions, incentives and carrots are given to the building of factories in inner urban areas which will then attract—because of the grants given, the rent-free periods and so on—the owners of factories in outer urban areas to take on a factory in an inner urban area, leaving the factory in the outer urban area vacant and without any incentives for it to be reoccupied. So, while the Bill deals with inner urban areas—and, as other noble Lords have said, one gives a welcome to it for going a long way to cure the problems of inner urban areas—I suspect that before long your Lordships will be called upon to consider a Bill to cure the outer urban problems which will flow from the success of this Bill. This is not a joke; it is not an exaggeration. This is a real problem which already exists in certain parts of the country that I come from, and I suspect that we should really be considering—and I hope we shall—making it possible to extend the benefits of the Bill to outer areas which do not at present qualify as inner urban areas, but which have exactly the same problems because of modern dereliction. I thank your Lordships for your patience in listening to me.
12.11 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity of congratulating the makers of the two maiden speeches in this debate today, both my noble friend Baroness David and the noble Lord who has just addressed your

627
Lordships. Both of them clearly have very considerable experience in local administration, and they are to be congratulated on having seized this very early opportunity on a very appropriate Bill to demonstrate to your Lordships what experience and ability they have. They have already enriched your Lordships' House and we shall look forward to hearing them on this kind of subject, and indeed others, in the future. I feel almost as though I am making a maiden speech myself. Although over the last two years I have inflicted dozens of speeches on your Lordships, this is the first time that I have addressed the House without that expert advice that I used to receive, and indeed to need and appreciate, when I stood at that Box.
This is a Bill which, like the other speakers in the debate have said, should be very warmly supported. Over the last few days I have been asking myself what is the reason for the warmth that I have felt when I approached the Bill, and my mind went back to what I think was one of the last speeches that I made in another place some years ago. I was then speaking on a local employment Bill which provided grants for development areas and intermediate areas, or "grey" areas as they were then nicknamed, and at that time I was representing a dockland constituency in East London which had entered upon difficult times. I shared that area with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I hope that some of the remarks that I shall make will receive his approval.
I suggested in another place that it was unwise to provide assistance only for the extensive geographical regions in the North of England and in Scotland which were categorised as development or intermediate areas. I pointed out that the South-East of England was regarded as being prosperous and not warranting special aid, but that within such a region, generally prosperous, there could be quite sizeable, though relatively small, areas just as much in need of help as the major areas of industrial run-down. It seems to me that the central purpose of the Bill that we are now considering is to take note of just that kind of area. Whether it is in London, in Liverpool or in Birmingham, or in any of the major
628
urban areas, and whatever the overall prosperity of those particular cities, it is recognised now that there are these black spots which need special treatment. It seems to me that the Bill provides a more discriminatory instrument of assistance than some of its predecessors. Therefore, in making my contribution to the debate today, I want to pursue those thoughts that I expressed in another place, and I should like to draw on my experience in East London, and earlier on in Essex beyond London. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, in two or three sentences, I indicate the scope of that experience.
If I can go back to the Election of 1950, I was Parliamentary candidate for the Billericay constituency, much of which has now been developed as the new town of Basildon. At that time, in the early 1950s, it was an area which presented a very real social problem. It was neither town nor country. It was a sprawling mess of semi-development. People had gone there after the first World War; they had bought plots of land and built their own, most inadequate, homes without any amenities, with no roads, no sewage plant, no electricity supply, and much of the area was, therefore, capable of being described as a rural slum. It was this that in course of time the new town of Basildon was to replace.
Subsequently, for a period of nearly 20 years, I represented the southern half of the borough of East Ham, which was to supply much of the population which took up the houses in the new town of Basildon. During that period I witnessed the serious decline in our own area; a decline in the industry, in the size of the population, in the skills that were available and in the general economic and social strength of what had been the formerly thriving town of East Ham and its neighbour, West Ham. I hope that this Bill will provide the means of restoring health to those areas which had been denuded of their strength under earlier arrangements.
What I like about this Bill in particular is that it raises no great slogans, it provides no panaceas and it offers no shibboleths. It does not pretend to bring sweeping changes throughout vast areas, as some earlier Acts have done. It is discriminatory. It is selective and, I belive, it is capable of bringing help to the districts

629
which need it most. That, I suggest, is a welcome change from much that has gone before. Both in town planning and in industrial development large imaginative ideas and new miraculous techniques, very often the bigger the better, have too often been the order of the day, and all too little regard has been had for the social consequences of implementing those big ideas. I suggest, if we look back over the post-war period, that two things together —the adoption of too sweeping administrative changes on the one hand, and the uncritical exploitation of modern technology on the other—have more often than not created new problems in an attempt to solve old ones.
Let me give an example. It seemed clear to us in the immediate post-war situation that areas like East London were unsatisfactory places in which to live. They had been bombed; their industries had been damaged; their homes were in any case old and had then subsequently suffered war damage, and in many areas, of course, slums had developed. What then seemed to be the solution? It was to move the population out to the new towns which were initiated by the first Labour Government. And, in addition to the new towns, of course, progressive local authorities had their out-borough estates. Applicants for houses were told that there was little opportunity for rehousing in the town of their birth, but if they were prepared to move out into the areas of new development then it would be possible to find them a house. Many a time in my advice bureau as a constitutency Member of Parliament, I listened, as many, all indeed, of my colleagues listened, to pathetic claims for rehousing, and we had to tell that story: No, there was no chance of rehousing within the borough, but there would be a chance of getting a house outside, either in the borough properties in outer Essex, in my case, or in the new town of Basildon.
I was perhaps helping to solve individual family problems, but I was, willy-nilly, at the same time helping to denude the borough which I represented. What we were in fact doing was moving out the younger elements of the population, the newly married couples; often moving them away from existing jobs in the hope that there would be jobs in the areas to which they moved. We were leaving behind the elderly, the grandparents, and
630
the unskilled. That is what has happened in the inner urban areas and that is why we need this Bill.
I am by no means suggesting that the building of new towns or of out-borough estates was wrong. I should not like to leave that impression. It was necessary that many people should move out of overcrowded cities into better homes and a better environment. What I am suggesting is that the emphasis was wrong. The movement outwards, which was inevitable and correct, should have been counterbalanced by equal and parallel concern about—and an equal expenditure on—the social problems that the outward movement left behind. We are legislating, in this Bill, with the benefit of hindsight. We are trying to put the clock back—or, rather, to get the pendulum to swing back. It is a sad reflection that the mistakes we now all recognise were allowed to be made in the first instance.
But it was not only in housing policy that the emphasis was wrong. The Bill provides for aid to industry in the inner urban areas. Here again I can illustrate what went wrong—or, rather, what was allowed to go too far—in respect of industrial development in the past. We were too ready to exploit on a large scale what was new and wonderful in technology, without due regard to the residual problems that were being created as a result of that exploitation.
May I give two examples from the area to which I have already referred. When, in 1955, I first went to East Ham, I visited the vast Beckton Gas Works, which was considered to be the largest in Europe and supplied much of London's gas—gas derived from coal. It also had an important products works as a subsidiary undertaking. It was not long before North Sea gas became available. This led to the rapid transformation of the Beckton Gas Works. It was no longer necessary to bring coal to change it into gas and therefore no longer necessary to have the products works. All that was required now was to distribute the gas which flowed from the North Sea or was brought in tankers from even farther afield.
No doubt those who were responsible for the technical change were advised, in a sense rightly, that the change would be

631
economic; that it would be much cheaper to use North Sea gas than to make gas out of coal. But, as has so often happened in the various problems in our national life over this period, one major element of the equation was left out. What the accountant cannot take into consideration in deciding what is more and what is less economic is the social cost. The jobs of those who worked in the products works would be no longer available. Valuable plant was no longer to be used. That area of my constituency was to become derelict, as it now is—a depressing monument to a new technology which was right in a sense, but which was too ruthlessly and rapidly pursued.
Here again, let me make it clear that I am not a Luddite. I do not believe that a fundamental mistake was made in utilising North Sea gas. Of course it was right to take advantage of nature's bounty. What was wrong was to ignore the gap that was being left in the social structure as a result of the change of technology. We should have ensured that resources were pumped into that part of the social structure that had previously been served by the coal-based gas works and by the products works. That was the time when new industry should have been encouraged to replace the old in that inner urban area. We are doing it now through the Bill, but it would have been better done 10 years ago.
My second illustration has become particularly topical and threatening these last three weeks. It concerns the Royal group of docks which I shared with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. These also were a major part of the life in that part of London, but whereas when I first became acquainted with that area the docks were full of ships, very few ships now come that way. Basically, this has, again, been in response to a new, modern, wonderful technology—the development of containerisation, which is particularly associated not so much with the Royal docks but with the Tilbury docks further down the river. We were discussing this in the House a few days ago. Now we read in the report of Mr. Cuckney, the chairman of the Port of London Authority, the ominous words threatening that the retention of the upper docks cannot be justified much longer. Of course, I recognise the reasons for the decline in the
632
viability of the Royal docks. It is a history that I need not go into. But I cannot believe that it is right that that important physical asset, which the Royal docks certainly are, should be closed down and that the area around them should simply be left to stagnate and die.
We read in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that it will enable the Secretary of State to enter into partnership arrangements, as my noble friend has described, and that one of the partnerships relates to the major programme of urban renewal for the London docklands area. That programme is set out in great detail in the publication, the London Docklands Strategic Plan. In includes provision for 8,000 houses on the land immediately North of the Royal docks. It was derelict land and we wished it could be used for houses. For technical reasons that was not possible. But the proposal now is to put 8,000 houses in that area.
What folly it would be for one public authority to go ahead with that housing development and for another public authority to abandon a major source of jobs for many of the people for whom the houses are intended. When we talk of jobs, it is not just the dockers we have in mind, but the craftsmen, the boilermakers, the carpenters, the transport workers and many others whose livelihoods depend on those important docks I hope that the Government—I hope my noble friend will convey this message—will count the costs which do not appear in the balance sheet of the Port of London Authority. Otherwise a very bad mistake could be made.
The major lesson that we should learn from experiences of the kind that I have referred to is that it is people who matter. I was glad to hear some such phrase in my noble friend Lady Birk's opening speech. So often, both before he died and since, a famous phrase of Dr. Schumacher's has been quoted in debates such as this, that "small is beautiful". That was the thought-provoking title of his book. But what is less famous, but even more thought-provoking, is the sub-title of that book. He called it not only Small is Beautiful, but "A Study of Economics as if People Mattered". I notice the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his place. He first taught me economics. He, I hope, will agree that we ought to have more study of economics as though people mattered.

633
It should be our constant endeavour to legislate here and in another place as if people mattered, and I am not sure that we always do. But I have no doubts on that score in relation to the Bill. I believe it is designed to bring industry to the people, to bring jobs to the people, and to bring a better environment to the people; not moving people out to the green and pleasant land, but to make the environment in which they live in the inner urban areas a pleasant place to live. That is why I give the Bill my warm support.
12.32 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, if the noble Viscount who follows debates with such assiduity will forgive me, I propose to take no more than two or three minutes, after listening to this excellent and informative debate, and a few seconds to say how delighted I was to listen to the noble Baroness's speech, and also to the melodious speech of, I think, a fellow-Welshman. I have been a baritone, and I think that together we could render "Watchman, what of the night?", one tenor and one baritone, if the House should ever need it.
A noble Lord: Why not now!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: The noble Lord had better be careful—we might do it now. I am delighted, and say, if I may, with all sincerity, that I am sure we have two valuable additions to this noble House.
Now, having been forgiven by the noble Viscount, I will intersperse the small point I thought was worth making, although it may be more important at the Committee stage. The noble Baroness who opened so ably mentioned, in passing, canals. I am interested in our canals commercially —I do not mean financially, but in their commercial use—but more especially in their use. The old artefacts and the old technology should be kept alive, and where they come in the 43 areas and in our inner cities I hope that there will be a lobby that will intelligently use the Bill to keep alive canals in those areas. They are part of the nation's social furniture, which should not be "Beechingised" completely. I do not mean by that that they should all be left open, willy-nilly, but they give comfort, succour and
634
exercise. There are 3 million fishermen, for a start, and now more young people than ever are taking trips on the canals. In places like Stoke-on-Trent, to convey clay and pottery canals are being used commercially; but they need financial help. And in the inner cities, if we are making them anew and offering help, this is somewhere where capital and engineering technique and know-how can be used.
I have taken two minutes. That is all I wished to say. I may enter into the Committee stage. I thank the House for my having usurped the position on the sheet, because I was too lazy to put down my name.
12.35 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, my first and very pleasant task is to join in the congratulations to the three maiden speakers. To the noble Baroness I say that it seems that for distinguished ladies in local government there is no surer step to your Lordships' House than to join the Peterborough Development Corporation. She now comes in the wake of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and brings equally sound experience with her.
To the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, I simply say that there can perhaps be no more apposite moment for somebody from Merseyside to join in your Lordships' debates. It was certainly in Liverpool that my eyes were first opened, through some of the voluntary organisations, to what the inner city problems looked like and felt like on the ground. He will be able to tell us more about this and direct us aright on the Bill as it proceeds, and on many other topics as well.
To the noble Lord, Lord Oram, all I can say is that he sails just as well under his own colours as he did under the Government's. What he has done is to deliver a most interesting and penetrating analysis of some of the misguided and short-sighted policies and decisions which we, alas! have all taken in the past and which have given rise to a great part of this problem, the result of which is a multiplicity of social problems of unemployment, of crime, of misery and hopelessness, with the attendant strains

635
that they place upon the police, social workers and many other public services, all of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, listed earlier.
It has seemed to me for a while, and I am glad to say that it has seemed to those on these Benches for even longer, that this was wrong. That is one of the reasons why my right honourable friend the Member for Worcester, Mr. Peter Walker, when he was Secretary of State, instituted the inner urban studies to which we are now so much indebted. It always seemed to me personally, since I started looking at this problem, that it was madness to allow industry, commerce and housing to spread out into the countryside and take thousands of acres per year from agricultural use while we left in the centres of our towns areas of useless dereliction and ill-begotten environmental horrors.
I would say to the noble Baroness, that now that we have the new structure plans before the Department of the Environment for consideration and approval we may have an opportunity to do something about this. I was recently looking at the Surrey Structure Plan in draft, and that indeed says something about the opportunities for redevelopment, even in the towns of Surrey, which are not notorious for their dereliction. At the same time she would, no doubt, like to pass on for general use the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, about a little more tolerance for nonconforming users, even in residential areas, the departure of which is rightly blamed for many of the losses of jobs. This was the topic on which I spoke in my noble friend Lord Sandford's debate about a year ago.
In the light of the useful explanation that the noble Baroness gave of the provisions of the Bill, and in the recognition that it forms a small part of the jigsaw that the White Paper explains in full, I too should like to join from this side of the House in welcoming it. The Government will then be judged on their implementation of their policies as a whole, and how well they work out.
I would say in passing that, although the noble Baroness commended to us Clauses 9 and 10 as being helpful towards the real problem that either the dis-
636
possessed or the new firm often finds it difficult to buy or rent properties, there is apparently no relenting on the Government's side as regards the refusal to allow local authorities to dispose of freeholds in a general way, because they insist on their Community Land Act problem. That does not help in this respect.
A number of points have been suggested to me through representations made, and I find that all the local authority organisations are at one in deploring that the Bill has to be discriminatory, and that they cannot all join in the powers and opportunities that it gives unless they are like Tyne and Wear and Rochdale, which promote their own private legislation. I understand and sympathise with conscientious local authorities all over the country which wish to take positive steps in this direction. I also join with them in the hope that there will be opportunities for further candidature to join the 43 local authorities already named. Now that the criteria for inclusion on the list have been spelt out more clearly, particularly at the Report stage of the Bill in another place as well as in the White Paper, I imagine that they will have the opportunity to argue their case. I suppose that it is purely a matter of coincidence that so soon after the right honourable Member for Blackburn argued in favour of the inclusion of that town in the list, lo and behold, when it was published in May it appeared to have been included. I am sure that other Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary pressure can be brought to bear by those who would wish to come in.
I understand their aspirations, but equally I can see that if the Government are not prepared to make available more than the £80 million between now and 1981, then we shall almost inevitably have discrimination; because I very much agree with paragraph 81 of the White Paper that in the course of this exercise we must aim "at early and demonstrable results". It is no use on this task if we do not show that we can succeed. Everybody will lose heart and we will achieve nothing. In that context, if the money is not sufficiently generous there will have to be discrimination. I stress, with the noble Baroness, Lady David, the need for quick and successful results, because otherwise there will be disillusionment.

637
We have already had a year since the White Paper was published, a year in which to look at the experience of the arrangements that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has spelt out for us and into which the pattern of this Bill fits. Of course, it has not all gone smoothly. I will not disrupt the harmony of this debate by listing again the various factors which the Government have stirred into the economic soufflé, which have had such a disheartening effect on private businesses. I suppose that everybody would know, except perhaps the noble Baroness, the disincentive of the development land tax at the rate at which they insisted on introducing and continuing it. But I do not want to sour matters which have so far gone so smoothly by rehearsing those, although they are matters into which my right honourable friend the Member for Henley went and where we think that we could make significant changes for the better. But one point is quite right: with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I join in the emphasis that has been placed on small businesses during this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, also referred to this subject. It is no monopoly of the Liberal Party to take this stance. My Party has been stressing the importance of this for a very long time, and it is only to the good that the Socialist Party has at last come round to our opinions.
There is one slight disadvantage under this Bill which has been drawn to my attention: It is that, although we have this £80 million to be distributed largely under the urban aid programme under its new shelter in the Department of the Environment and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales, by contrast—and this will particularly harm the other local authorities which are not to be designated or to have partnership arrangements under this Bill—there has been a savage cut in the borrowing limits which have been allowed for local authorities in the locally determined sector. The figures are startling. In 1975–76, the amount allowed was £484 million; but in the last year it went down to £233 million. Those who are better at arithmetic than I are able to tell me that in real terms, taking account of the value of money, that is a drop of 60 per cent. Those other local authorities will have these much more limited resources with which to do the
638
kind of work that we are talking about today, whereas the lucky ones will have the money under this Bill. So it is not by any means a universal success story.
I join in what has been said about the volunteers. My noble friend Lord Sand-ford has read out the letter from the National Council for Social Service, and I too was perturbed by it. So I commend the wisdom of the Secretary of State, as announced by the noble Baroness today, in going to see that body in order to try to make sure that these failings are put right. If I can give any advice at all from first-hand experience on this matter, the National Council for Social Service, with its links with local councils for social service, ought to be able, if anybody in the voluntary world can, to help the Government to direct aright the sort of emphasis that they should place in each individual town on the role that the volunteers can play. I think that is the route through which the most helpful contribution by the volunteers may at any rate be identified by the Government. It is always a difficult task for Government to see which voluntary organisations in the field are the ones which ought to be courted and brought into the co-operative exercise. I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness stressing that aspect and I hope that the negotiations will be speedy and successful.
There is an aspect of this Bill which worries some who are interested in the housing situation. Whereas I am happy to see that jobs are to be encouraged not only as the Bill originally stood in terms of industrial jobs but now, by a change in another place, in the commercial world as well, we are not, at least in this legislation, doing anything about the housing problem which is a feature, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, explained, of the inner urban problem. One special problem that I have heard about which gravely affects those who wish to buy private houses and rehabilitate them in the inner urban areas is that with the arrangements as they are at present the local authority cannot give an improvement grant to a person until he is the owner of a house, but unfortunately that person cannot get a mortgage to buy the house and become its owner while the house is unimproved. There is a vicious circle here which must militate against the rehabilitation of inner

639
urban substandard housing. Now that there is this emphasis by the Government on rehabilitation rather than complete clearance and rebuilding, this might be something at which the noble Baroness and her Department would like to look.
The other day I went to a seminar in the City to try to explain some of the advantages of investment in London. I had only 24 hours' notice and I did not have time to do as much research as I should like. I will not bore your Lordships with what I said because that was insignificant; but I want to tell the noble Baroness and the House what the investors said. There are only two points which I think are of interest at this stage. The first is that they were, to my eyes and ears, anxious to assess the opportunities for investment in inner areas and, on that occasion, the inner areas of London about which we are talking. They had money for industrial investments and other commercial investments of that kind. Indeed, some of them are already co-operating with the Grater London Council and the London borough councils in this field. So that is encouraging. But they did say that one of the disadvantages of the inner urban areas, particularly inner London, is the problem of transport, especially getting their vehicles with the goods to and from the factories and warehouses that they would contemplate putting up.
I was therefore extremely pleased to see that at the end of the annexe to the White Paper, in paragraph 33, there is this emphasis on the necessity to bring into collaboration the transport authorities as well. I hope that no oversight will allow that aspect of the matter to be disregarded. They also said—although I think that this is not such a problem in the provincial cities—that the level of rates in London is a great deterrent to people who contemplate investing here. That is also a matter for the Department of the Environment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford and with the noble Baroness that investors are important and that we must make sure that we also identify their needs and see what we can do to help them. I come back in the end to the essence of this matter in which I so much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram. This is an exercise for people; it is not an exercise for the benefit of local govern-
640
ment or central Government. It is a method whereby those bodies may help the people who live in these areas and of course, as I have said already, they will be powerfully assisted by the voluntary organisations. I believe that it was the voluntary organisations which first identified the impossibility under the system of some years ago of getting co-ordination between the multiplicity of departments in local and central Government which must, as the White Paper now recognises, be drawn together before one can get a coherent solution to these problems. It is no use if the Parks Department will not speak to the Housing Department, which will not speak to the Transport Department or whatever it may be. Here we have the source—or so I was told at first hand—of the despair and disillusionment of these areas.
I believe that we now have the machinery to put this right. We have heard of the way in which the committees have been structured under the partnership arrangements, with a Minister in charge, and how all the various bodies get together. But I believe they will need not only to have the help of the volunteers, as has been so much stressed, but will also have to ensure most carefully that what they are doing is what fulfils the aspirations and wants of the people who live in the areas in question. It is no use planning for them: one must plan with them.
In this context, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness one question about Clause 11 of the Bill, relating to local plans. This matter was not very much discussed in another place, but it seems to me that if an opportunity is being sought in this measure to bring forward the time when a local plan can be considered, so that one does not necessarily have to wait for the approval of the Structure Plan, there are at least two advantages, and perhaps the noble Baroness can spell out more. First of all, there will be an opportunity in the course of the consideration and formulation of the local plan for public participation to identify the sort of things that people want done in their area. I was very interested to see the sort of things that have already been selected to be done in the dockland area described in an interesting Press notice from the noble Baroness's department. There is nothing like the exercise on a

641
local plan to give people the opportunity to choose which way they would like their area to be fashioned, so far as local plans can do it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why this clause is in the Bill.
The other point seems to me to be this: once a local plan is approved, there will be powers under the Town and Country Planning Act for local authorities to acquire land in accordance with the plan and in order to fulfil it, which they will not be able to—except on the chance occasion under the Community Land Act as it now stands—without the local plan being approved. This again may help to speed up the development of the right sort of advance in these areas. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us a little more about this.
I should like to end by saying that although this is a small Bill it is part of what could be a really valuable and imaginative set of measures to enable the heart and the morale to be put back into the inner urban areas. We shall never succeed unless we persuade people that they are good places to live in and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that they must be made pleasant places to live in, so that people can be proud of their local area and can be proud to have their place of business there or to work there. They should be places where the morale of the whole community is raised from the depths where it now sometimes lies to the heights that will make it attractive, make it buoyant and make it successful. Then we shall have no further need of intervention from Government because from there on the matter will go ahead entirely under its own steam. That must be what we are all seeking. We do not wish perpetually to try to get this matter right; we must get it right first of all so that after that it can go ahead on its own initiative and of its own volition. If this Bill helps in that direction, then I am glad to welcome it.
12.51 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I first pay my tribute to the two maiden speakers who have contributed to this debate in such an outstanding way today. It is very interesting that a debate of this sort which takes place at an inconvenient time on a Friday morning should have attracted two maiden speakers of such
642
quality. I think it gives extra prestige to the Bill. My noble friend Lady David showed such clarity, knowledge and thoughtfulness in her contribution that it is quite clear we have a welcome addition and support to our Benches. She has also learned very quickly, I am afraid, the art of asking not just pertinent but very awkward qusetions. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, spoke with great experience, humanity and understanding about one of the partnership areas we have been discussing today. It is always a pleasure in the House to have people who speak directly from their own experience.
We have had not only a wide-ranging and useful debate but an extremely good-humoured one, covering all the general questions of inner city policy, as well as the Bill itself. I cannot tell your Lordships how pleased I was to hear the word "people" used so often and to have humanity coming into a Bill such as this which is mainly a structural device. I was particularly pleased that there was such a general welcome given to the Bill, and even though Lord Evans gave it two cheers rather than three I will not hold that against him. I am also very grateful for the tribute paid to my Department by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. What has been said has demonstrated the concern of noble Lords for the inner areas and the people who live and work in them. They showed a very deep concern and interest.
I am sure, having listened very carefully to everything that has been said, that this Bill will be of considerable help. It is not, as I said originally, a complete panacea or completely comprehensive, but it will be of considerable help to local authorities in overcoming inner area problems. We have seen what authorities such as Rochdale can do with an ingenious application of existing powers. With the custom-made powers in this Bill I am sure that much more can be done. I think this is where the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, on the need for flexibility and imagination is very applicable, and I agree with him entirely. I also agree with my noble friend Lady David that we must always look out for cumbersomeness and clumsiness in administering these measures.
One of the problems is that when one is dealing with complicated policies it is

643
extremely difficult to get them as streamlined and as swiftly carried out as one would like. It is also true that when one is implementing policies of this sort in a democracy one of the prices we pay is a certain slowness in execution. But I think she will agree it is a price worth paying.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, both stressed the importance, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of the private sector and, certainly, of small businesses. So far as industry generally is concerned, I do not have a great many examples to hand at the moment, but from memory I know that Marks and Spencer have made a great contribution, as have IBM and BP, and there are various efforts all over the country. I take the point very much of the noble Viscount on the importance of transport and, in fact, the whole of the infrastructure that is needed to back up these endeavours.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount referred to the criticisms that the NCSS have made of the way in which voluntary groups have not been sufficiently involved in the partnerships and elsewhere. I indicated at the beginning of this debate that the Government were concerned that local organisations, whether voluntary or representing business and commercial interests, should be fully involved in the work of each partnership as it prepares its programme of action, but I have to repeat that we also think it right that the final decisions on the programme should rest with the democratically elected members of the local authorities and the Government, who really are the only people who can be charged with this sort of accountability. But as I said, and I am glad that the noble Viscount responded so well to this, my right honourable friend is aware of the criticisms and proposes to discuss them with the NCSS.
I said, and I repeat, that we were all very much impressed by the way that my noble friend Lady David brought to the House her experience in local government, particularly when she was discussing the new towns and old towns and suggested that maybe one day we would need an Old Towns Act. I think the point here is that a new town is established
644
in an area with a relatively small population and the prime job is to get houses, factories, shops and schools built. The development corporation concept, with this single-minded purpose, is very well suited to getting the new, large-scale development under way, but in inner areas it seems to me we have a complication and plurality of a number of problems. We have sizeable populations, we have existing local authority responsibility for many of the services, such as social services and education, that determine the quality of life in the area. It is right, therefore, that local authorities, with their accountability to the local electorate, and also their history and tradition in the area, should be in the lead in measures to improve our inner cities.
The measures that are necessary not only involve physical development but also improvements to all the major public services. Local authorities have the power, if they wish to use it, to delegate many functions to officers or subcommittees, if they wish to ensure that action is taken as speedily as possible; but the decision is theirs. The Government are firmly of the view that this is right, that the elected representatives should have the principal voice in determining the future of their areas. But I certainly agree with my noble friend that we need to ensure that speedy and effective action is taken. We also need to balance this against the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. His point was that we were working to too tight a timetable, so we must find the right balance between these different views.
I think I should emphasise here that we intend the three-year programmes to include the practical proposals that my noble friend Lady David seeks. Those programmes will be completed by the summer and Government decisions will, I hope, follow, swiftly. It was also suggested that land prices in inner city areas are artificially high and that this may deter developers. Naturally, it is sensible for all land owners, whether in the public or private sector, to dispose of surplus land at the best price reasonably obtainable, given the conditions of the market and the purpose for which it is being disposed. This may mean disposal below the cost at which the land was originally acquired.

645
Local authorities, like anyone else, may sometimes be reluctant to sell land below the cost of acquisition because they, after all, have to balance their books; but they are not bound by historic costs, and many dispose of land at market value, taking into account the current prospect for development. We are encouraging them to do this. We also have encouraging evidence that a number of local authorities in inner city areas are already adopting this approach, and that as a result demand may be picking up.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, in his very practical contribution to the debate stressed his concern for local government to have greater freedom of action. The Bill in fact brings a significant extension of the powers of local authorities and I think, again, some of the points he touched on really extend, quite rightly, even further than this debate and are concerned with the results partly of the Reorganisation Act, which I personally think was absolutely catastrophic, in 1972. It also raises a very difficult point. As the powers are more comprehensive, the matters that local authorities have to deal with are not only larger in scope but require far greater expertise, knowledge and time. This is a very real problem which the Government appreciate, and Ministers in my department spend considerable time discussing and thinking about it.
The noble Lord also raised the point of the powers being available only to the selected designated districts. It is, in my view, important that resources and cash be concentrated in the inner urban areas, and also in those which have the highest needs and the greatest priority. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was rather worried that the butter was being spread too thin; so it is, again, a question of trying to get that balance right. We recognise very well the problems of the outer development areas, and for Kirkby, for example, its special development area represents just part of the Government commitment to Merseyside, as the noble Lord is well aware.
My noble friend Lord Oram, in what the noble Viscount referred to as another maiden speech, demonstrated, as I think he was saying, how release from Front Bench responsibilities allows a widening of the horizons. When he referred to not being able to have help from the Box,
646
at least he can keep his eyes ahead—as the pigeon arrives it does make one have to keep one's eyes down. His account of the processes of change in the East End, and his very considerable knowledge of his own constituency area, showed just how our inner areas have suffered from the individual decisions of families; and I thought his interesting description of the outward movement of population emphasised the importance of people having confidence in the future of their inner areas, which I believe is the key to the prosperity of these areas.
I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that we have already improved the Bill during its passage by including a power to assist with the cleaning and refurbishment of canals. So, his social furniture is not going to be "Beechingfied". I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, accept the need for discriminating measures in favour of inner city areas and, as he was speaking from the Front Bench opposite, this was, if I may say so, an extremely helpful contribution. But I am not going to let him draw me—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: What I said was that if there was going to be a limitation on the amount of money, then inevitably there would have to be discrimination.
Baroness BIRK: That was obviously not only implicit but said, and I was taking that into account. This is one of the criteria on which we are working. But I am not going to be drawn by him on development land tax or the Community Land Act, particularly as we discussed it—and I took the debate myself—only recently. I decided then that I would not discuss community land religiously every Friday because it was very bad for my health.
I accept that the LDS allocation has been restricted, but that reduction keeps public expenditure within bounds which is so important for our economic policy and also reflects the extra use of current funds by authorities for capital expenditure. This is a financial problem with which we have to live at the moment. On the housing improvement point which was also raised by the noble Viscount, I can say here that there is nothing we can

647
do about this through this Bill. I heard several "Hear, hears" from behind me and from beside me, from my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, and I will carry back his query to the Department for consideration.
The noble Viscount also asked about Clause 11. If I may repeat what I said on opening, I think he is quite right that we should have this on the record as it was only barely touched on, if at all, in the other place. The provision allows local plans to be prepared to reflect the new policies for inner areas. The points that he made were, I am sure, legally correct but, if necessary, we can look at them again in Committee.
My noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Byers—and, differently in one way or another, I think every noble Lord who has spoken—stressed the need for early and demonstrable results. This, frankly, is what we are aiming at so long as we do not rush too rashly into errors. The Bill is designed to give local authorities effective powers to stimulate and encourage their local economies—this is what it is all about—and our endeavour to see that they get on with it as quickly as possible. Authorities have many ways of helping industry indirectly through planning, provision of housing for key workers, and also through transport schemes. They are all now well aware of the importance of taking the needs of industry into account. This is a running theme all the time. But, for the first time under general legislation, they will be able to assist industry and commerce more directly.
Again I emphasise, as noble Lords have done throughout the debate, the potential role of the private sector which must take initiatives and seek out opportunities for development in the inner city areas. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Viscount again stressed the importance of the small businesses strategy on the financial side which is not covered in this Bill but which is entirely complementary to it. I will refrain from making a political point over this. Let us say that the great thing is that the strategy is agreed and the policies are being carried out.
With the backing of the local authorities and the private sector, these areas should
648
once more become good places in which to live and work. The test of success, as we are absolutely all agreed, is whether we can create a working and living environment which attracts people back to the inner cities. I can only say how it filled me with glee and raised my spirit and morale to hear noble Lords on all sides of the House emphasise that all these measures can come to nothing unless they are for the people as well as about the people, that they really put heart and morale into them and do not merely remain on the drawing board. I honestly believe that this is one measure which would help us to achieve this, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT 1948 (VARIATION OF FOURTH SCHEDULE) ORDER 1978
1.16 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order 1978, laid before the House on 10th April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move first the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the same time I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (Variation of First Schedule) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on the 12th April, and to move this formally later.
The purpose of the England and Wales Order is to bring the wording of certain short term improvements listed in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, for which compensation is payable to outgoing agricultural tenants, into line with current thought on the subject; to extend the payment of

649
compensation, and to add a new tenant right item in Part II of the Fourth Schedule.
It may help your Lordships if I explain the background to this order. The rights of both landlords and tenants of agricultural land are set out in the Agricultural Holdings legislation, notably the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, as amended. They may also be set out in the tenancy agreements. These rights include those matters for which the tenant may claim compensation from his landlord on quitting the holding and, for that matter, those items for which he may not claim compensation. Improvements for which compensation is payable without the consent of the landlord and other matters for which compensation is payable are set out in the Fourth Schedule to the 1948 Act. But farming techniques change over the years, as I need hardly say. The Schedule no longer fully reflects modern farming practices and is therefore no longer a complete list of those items of husbandry which a tenant may carry out without the consent of his landlord, and for which he is entitled to claim compensation.
Valuation is a highly technical matter and is normally carried out by valuers engaged by the landlord and the tenant to represent their respective interests, with recourse to arbitration in the event of disagreement. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is advised on these matters by a committee of experts called the Committee on Agricultural Valuation which is set up under the authority of Section 79 of the 1948 Act. The Chief Surveyor of the Land Service of ADAS is the chairman of the Committee. The Committee have issued four reports, all of which have been published. The Statutory Instrument which we are considering today arises directly from the third and fourth reports.
If your Lordships would now turn to the order, we can consider its detailed provisions. It is rather complicated. I suggest that we deal with the Schedule first because it details the changes that are to be made. The Schedule amends certain wording of Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the 1948 Act and adds a new tenant right item to Part II of the Fourth Schedule. First of all, paragraph 1 runs together into one item—the liming
650
and chalking of land which are items 3 and 5 of the Fourth Schedule. These are now held to be similar husbandry operations. Secondly, it modernises the wording of item 6 by, in effect, substituting the word "fertiliser" for "artificial manure". Thirdly, it amends paragraph 7 of the Fourth Schedule. This paragraph relates to the unexhausted manurial value from feedingstuffs not produced on the holding which are consumed by horses, cattle, sheep or pigs or poultry folded on the land as part of a system of farming practised on the holding.
The Amendment will have the effect of extending compensation to the consumption of such feedingstuffs by intensively managed poultry on the holding. In modern day agriculture the system of intensively managed poultry is much more widely used and intensive poultry units are now sufficiently large and numerous for the quantity of manure to be significant. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Order concerns a tenant right matter which does not at present come within the compass of Part II of the Fourth Schedule. It is, I understand, generally accepted among farmers that there are benefits to be derived from the practice of alternate husbandry or ley farming—in other words, a period of grass followed by a sequence of arable crops.
A special scientific working party, appointed by the Minister's Committee on Agricultural Valuation, considered the matter and concluded that there was benefit to be derived from this practice. The scientific working party's ideas have since been subjected to complex field experiments. Although these must continue over many years to obtain a critical assessment of average results, the results so far, taking into account differences between experiments on different soils, show in general terms that benefit can be derived from the use of leys. It would seem eminently reasonable, therefore, in all circumstances to make it possible for compensation to be payable in respect of the residual value of leys. This is therefore what paragraph 2 provides for. To complete the picture, I should point out that the order will be followed, as recommended by the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, by regulations under Section 51 of the 1948 Act to prescribe the method

651
of calculating the value of a qualifying ley, but these regulations are not yet before the House.
May we now look at the articles in the order. Article 3 is the main operative article and gives effect to the Schedule to the order. Article 4 deals with the effect of the new provisions on existing tenancies and follows the lines of the 1948 Act itself. Sections 47 and 64 of the Act gave existing tenants the right to choose between compensation based on custom and statutory compensation under the 1948 Act. Paragraph 1 of Article 4 does the same for the residual value of leys, but brings the material date forward to the time when the order comes into operation.
I should explain, however, that under the Act choice of customary or statutory compensation applied to all the items specified in Part II of the Fourth Schedule as a whole. The tenant could not choose one form of compensation for some tems and another for the remainder. Consequently, a tenant who has already chosen statutory compensation—that is, a pre-1948 tenant—would have to accept that form of compensation for the new item in respect of the residual value of leys if the contrary were not specifically provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 4 are consequentials. I must tell your Lordships that the Minister is required by Section 78 of the 1948 Act to consult organisations affected by any order to be made under this section and the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association have been consulted on this order and have agreed the changes.
In the case of the Scottish Order, the Amendments are to the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, which is equivalent to the Fourth Schedule to the English 1948 Holdings Act. The effect of the amendments is to modify Part III of the First Schedule, which deals with improvements for which compensation may be payable to the tenant at the termination of the tenancy, without previously informing the landlord or getting his consent to the improvements. The amendments are given in the Schedule to the order, which is, in effect, identical to the first paragraph of the Schedule to the English order, and the changes are
652
being made for the same reasons that I have ventured to explain in dealing with the English order.
However, the obvious differences between the two orders is that, unlike the English order in the second paragraph of its schedule, the Scottish order does not provide for the addition of a new paragraph to the Schedule to the Act to deal with compensation for the residual value of temporary pasture. The reason is that a new paragraph on these lines would not be appropriate to Scotland because of the different climatic and other physical conditions. As a result of these differences, even on land where there is continuous arable cropping, the level of organic matter seems to be maintained above the levels found where continuous cropping is similarly practised in the South. The evidence from both experimental and advisory work indicates that it is rarely possible to identify conditions in Scotland where crop growth could be significantly improved by additional organic matter from more or longer leys in the rotation.
The Scottish Standing Committee for the Calculation of Residual Values, being aware of the proposals being made for England and Wales, considered whether it should recommend a similar Amendment for Scotland, but concluded that it would not be appropriate to Scottish conditions. I should also add that, in terms of Section 79 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, the Secretary of State for Scotland is required to consult with appropriate interests before making an order under this section. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the Scottish Branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors were accordingly consulted and have agreed to the Amendments embodied in the order. My Lords, I beg to move the first order standing in my name.
Moved, That the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order 1978, laid before the House on 10th April, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
1.28 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for introducing these two important orders, one for England and Wales and the other

653
for Scotland. As they relate closely to each other, there is little point in making two speeches, so I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I shall be making only one, on artificial fertilisers and—bringing in the word which I rather like—just ordinary manure. First, in regard to England and Wales, the change may be given a very gratified welcome, which would be more enthusiastic were the drafting of its terms more explicit. I have never seen a more difficult order to try to pull together and make a speech about. It makes me wonder who can make these orders in such language that we find extremely difficult. I was dismayed to find the words confusing, not to say unnecessary.
The first alteration to the Fourth Schedule to the 1948 Act affecting England and Wales appears at first sight unnecessary and even laughable, where "chalking" is taken out and then, confusingly, put back in again. The remaining Amendments are more serious and relate to improvements to grassland cultivation. Of course, one must recognise that in the last 30 years techniques of grassland management have changed, and hence the new expression "qualifying leys" replaces the original short leys. It is the phraseology which I find difficult, and the alterations make it even more disturbing. One only wishes that in the Ministry of Agriculture—that is probably unfair; in other Ministries as well—the advice of Sir Ernest Gowers was heeded. His well-known book, Plain Words: A Guide to the Use of the English Language, was published in 1948 at the very time of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and here we are now discussing orders that are very difficult to understand.
If we read the proposed terms of the order, which change the Fourth Schedule, we notice how different it sounds. What was lucid is now opaque; what was brief is now lengthy, and what was easily understood has now to be read three times before the meaning begins to emerge. "Fertiliser" is replaced by "artificial fertiliser" when all I knew about the farming world—not being a farmer—was that the word was "manure". So why bring forward this order? If the reasons are technical they could be more readily expressed. When I turn to the parallel alterations to the Scottish Act of 1949, I find the situation
654
much easier. It is certainly not so confusing. The references to grassland and compensation are omitted so we have that worry less on our minds when we try to read through this order.
I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the terms of these two orders have been fully discussed with the National Farmers' Union, the Agricultural Valuers' Association and the Country Landowners' Association, so I need not ask him about that. But may I ask him two questions relating to the regulations that he said would be laid at a later time during this Parliament? Can he let the House know when these regulations will be laid, and whether they will be subject to Affirmative or the Negative Resolution? I shall understand if he cannot answer at the moment, but it would be useful to the House to know, if not now, at a later date. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his extra explanation of these orders. I hope that what I have said contributes a little to the matter, although I am rather confused by the phraseology.
1.34 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for what he has said. I agree that these are extremely complicated orders but, if I may say so, he seems to have understood them very well. On the question of chalking and liming, as I have said, the net effect is to couple the chalking of land with the liming of land as one item, since they are now considered to be equivalent. In fact, the values in the 1969 compensation regulations in respect of both items appear under "Liming of Land", so it is really modernising the nomenclature.
With regard to the old-fashioned word "manure", this also is a change in nomenclature, as it deletes the reference in item 6 of the Fourth Schedule to "artificial manure" and substitutes "fertiliser", since all artificial manures are now commonly referred to as fertilisers.
I agree that these are very complicated orders, although, as is customary, there are explanatory notes at the end of each of them. I was interested that the noble Viscount reminded us of the words, which I always remember, of Sir Ernest Gowers,

655
about plain words. When these orders go out after approval by Parliament, they are always accompanied by a note from the Press Office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explaining exactly what happens with them and how they will affect the individual tenants and landlords. The National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association are, of course, au fait with them and have been so from the beginning because, as I said in my original speech, they have been consulted on them and have agreed.
The noble Viscount asked me about the further regulations to which I referred in my speech. They will be laid shortly and it is hoped, should your Lordships approve them and approval is also given by another place, that they will come into operation at the same time as these orders, which is 1st July next. They will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I hope that answers the various points that the noble Viscount has raised. I beg to move the first order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS(SCOTLAND) ACT 1949 (VARIATION OF FIRST SCHEDULE) ORDER 1978
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (Variation of First Schedule) Order 1978, laid before the House on 12th April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to move this Motion formally.
Moved, That the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (Variation of First Schedule) Order 1978, laid before the House on 12th April, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1978
1.38 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 5th April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move
656
that the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 5th April, be approved. I think I can take this order very shortly, and remind your Lordships that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 came into force on 27th July 1971. It was to run for an initial period of five years, but contained provision for its extension by an order approved in draft by Resolution of each House of Parliament for up to a year at a time. It had been so extended on two previous occasions. Without those two extensions, the Act would have expired and a number of charitable and sporting organisations would have lost a significant part of their income.
Noble Lords will perhaps recall why the Act has been extended in the past, but I hope that it will be helpful if I refer to the background and explain why a further extension is now sought. The competitions with which the 1971 Act is concerned are competitions for prizes based on the outcome of sporting events, especially football matches, and the proceeds from these competitions go in support of charities or sports. The Spastics Society and some cricket and football clubs are examples of bodies which have derived substantial income from this cource.
A judgment by your Lordships. House in 1970 in the case of Singette and Others v. Martin established that a competition of this kind did not constitute lawful pool betting as had been supposed but was an unlawful lottery and led to the introduction of the 1971 Act. Its purpose was to enable organisations already promoting the competitions to continue to do so within a system of licensing and control established under the Act and administered by the Gaming Board for Great Britain.
Since 1971, the number of bodies relying on the 1971 Act for fund raising has decreased but several continue to place substantial reliance on pool competitions for their incomes. Ten licences under the 1971 Act are extant, although I understand that only seven pool competitions continue to be run at present. The Gaming Board continues to exercise its powers under the Act to safeguard the interests of the competitors and to secure continued financial benefit for societies named in the certificates granted under the Act.
As I have said, the 1971 Act was introduced as a temporary measure, but the question as to what the future arrangements might be is part of a wider issue; namely, what contribution should be made from the proceeds of gambling towards the support of other activities, including sport. The wider question is currently being considered by the Royal Commission on Gambling. In the view of the Government, it would not be appropriate to take any final decision on the future of pool competitions until we have been able to consider what recommendations the Royal Commission may make on such competitions and on the wider question to which I have referred. Unless this Act is further extended, the Act will expire on 26th July 1978. The Royal Commission is expected to report this July. It seems to the Government that it is necessary that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 be extended for a further period of one year. Accordingly, I ask the approval of your Lordships to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 5th April, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
1.42 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining this pools order. The way that he has explained it allows us to understand that it will now continue for a further year. He and I had a few words last year about this pool. I believe that it is going on all right, except for the things about which I should like to ask. The first thing that interests me is the Royal Commission. The noble Lord has mentioned that the Royal Commission will report in July. This has been an experimental time of five years for this order; and, by now, I should rather have liked to see the Government place it into the Lotteries Act. I wonder whether the Government have any idea at this moment about whether they will do this within the coming year or in the next Session. Or are they waiting for the Royal Commission report before doing this? I feel that this is one order that could save us all a great deal of trouble in your Lordships' House if it could be properly placed into the Lotteries Act.
658
Referring to the Lotteries Act, are the Government happy with the situation as it stands, with 10 licences granted under the Lotteries Act? Are many other licences to be granted? What ideas have the Government on the maximum licences they would like? How many firms will take part in lotteries? My further question to the noble Lord is about the money that the Government receive from the pool. I should be interested if he could give us some outline of where this money is disbursed by the Government; into what charities; or, is it held back and then given to a charity when it appeals? Could the noble Lord give us a little more information on that point? I see no reason to proceed further with questions on this order, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for his support of this order and for his comments and observations. I will try to deal with the questions in the order in which he asked them. As I indicated, the Royal Commission on Gaming is expected to report in July of this year and, quite frankly, at this stage the Government have no idea what will be in the report. We have no advance knowledge of it. It might be far more comprehensive than we expect, and we would expect something comprehensive from such a commission. It will take some appreciable time, first, to read the report and consider its implications. It may well be possible that the Government would not be able to act upon any of the recommendations in the immediate future, and therefore it may be necessary to come to your Lordships' House to ask for a continuation of this order, perhaps for another year. I think it reasonable to say—and I hope that I am not wrong in this—that one of the outcomes of the Royal Commission may be a consolidation of all the Acts. I know that this is what the noble Viscount would like to see. But I ought not to give an undertaking to your Lordships' House that there will not be a renewal, because in certain circumstances it might be quite right and proper that there should be
With regard to the number of firms, perhaps I ought to say at the beginning that the number of firms which are empowered to function under this Act

659
was specified in the 1971 Act, and they cannot be added to. I cannot remember the exact number, but at the present moment there are 10 which hold licences, of which seven are taking full advantage of the Act. But, in any case, the number cannot be added to; that was specified at the very beginning. The noble Viscount raises the question of the money. In point of fact, the aggregate average turnover has shown a tendency to decrease since the Act was introduced. The most recent figures show it to be about £24·8 million, of which approximately £3·6 million, that is 15 per cent., is paid to the benefiting societies which fall into two groups. One group is concerned with providing financial assistance for sport, principally football clubs; the second with charitable aims, including aid to the Spastics' Society, and to polio and cancer research. Whoever undertakes the promotion of one of these is obliged by law, and it is seen to be carried out, to ensure that 15 per cent. of total income goes to the beneficiaries. It has meant a total of about £3·6 million.
The pool betting tax is 33⅓ per cent. but is shown as 28 per cent. because, before the pool betting tax is applied, the 15 per cent. which is given to the beneficiaries is taken away. So it is 33⅓ per cent. Of the remainder which in the final figures must show at 28 per cent., although the pool betting tax takes 33⅓ per cent. Prizes account for 28 per cent.; agents' commission 15 per cent., because people are paid to sell tickets; printing and stationery 3 per cent.; staff wages—which include fees to the promoters who are employed full-time doing this—come to about 7 per cent., and office costs about 4 per cent. So administrative expenses, 29 per cent.; 28 per cent. for prizes; of the total amount, 28 per cent. pool betting tax; and the beneficiaries 15 per cent., make a total of 100 per cent. which on the basis of these calculations seems reasonable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (No. 4) ORDER 1978
1.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord
660
Goronwy-Roberts) rose to move, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order 1978, laid before the House on 11th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Schedule to the order contains the Act concerning the Election of Representatives of the European Assembly by direct universal suffrage, taken with the Decision of the Council of the European Communities of 20th September 1976 to which it is annexed. The text of the Act and Decision, in the form of Cmnd. 6623, was laid before Parliament in October 1976.
If the House approves the order, the Act and the Decision to which it is annexed will become formally defined as a Community Treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act. The European Communities Act gives effect to all the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions embodied within a Community Treaty. But only Community Treaties formally defined as such, under Section 1(3) of the Act, have direct effect in the United Kingdom. Without the approval of both Houses of Parliament to the Act and Decision listed in the Schedule to the order, they would create rights and obligations at the international level, but could not, for instance, be invoked by individuals before the courts of this country.
The Act has the character of an international agreement. Article 16 of the Act requires that it enter into force only after notification by Member States of the completion of their respective constitutional requirements for adoption of its provisions. In Britain, constitutional practice has required that we first enact the European Assembly Elections Bill, which received the Royal Assent on 5th May, and also secure Parliament's approval to the specification of the Act and the Council Decision of 20th September 1976 to which it is annexed, as a Community Treaty, before we proceed to ratification. This approval we now seek.
With your Lordships' permission, I will describe briefly the contents of the Act and the Decision of 20th September 1976. The Decision consists of a preamble citing the articles of the Community's constituent treaties giving

661
authority for direct elections, and reiterating the target date of May-June 1978 for direct elections, which was set by the European Council in Rome on 1st and 2nd December 1975, followed by short provisions concerning the publication, adoption and entry into force of the Decision and its accompanying provisions.
The annexed Act contains in Articles 1 to 4 the most important provisions agreed between Member States concerning the elections and related matters; that is, the framework within which the national provisions adopted by Member States are to operate. These provisions require elections by direct universal suffrage; they set out the number of representatives from each Member State; they prescribe a five-year term for the Assembly; and they make clear that the representatives vote on an individual basis. Article 5 provides for the possibility of a dual mandate. Articles 6 to 13 provide for disqualification, procedural and supplementary matters. Article 14 lists those articles in the constituent treaties which are to lapse with the coming into force of the Agreement. There are also three brief Annexes which form an integral part of the Act, and a declaration by the Federal German Government concerning the application of the Act to Berlin.
There have been few political issues so extensively debated in recent years as direct elections to the European Assembly. The commitment to eventual direct elections to the European Assembly "on the basis of direct universal suffrage" is embodied in Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome to which we subscribed on our accession to the Community. There had been several attempts prior to our accession to work out a generally accepted system of direct elections, but they had all foundered on the difficulties of devising a uniform system of election acceptable to each Member State.
At the December 1974 meeting of Community Heads of Government in Paris, it was agreed that a new effort should be made to achieve direct elections "as soon as possible", and, recognising the difficulty of reaching agreement on a single electoral system for the whole Community, it was subsequently accepted by both the Assembly and the Council that it would initially be necessary to
662
allow the choice of the electoral system for the first round of direct elections to each Member State. Article 7 of the Act annexed to the Council Decision of 20th September 1976, however, requires the directly elected European Assembly to draw up a proposal for a uniform electoral procedure, so the search for a uniform system has not been abandoned. It has only been postponed.
The Government participated fully in the negotiations leading up to the signature of the Act annexed to the Council Decision of 20th September 1976 on direct elections, and during this time had frequent occasion to consult and take into account the views of both Houses of Parliament on the significant constitutional issues involved. In February 1976 a Green Paper on Direct Elections was published. This was followed by debates in both Houses, and the setting up of a Select Committee in another place, which produced three reports, together with published evidence, which were also debated. Following signature of the Council Act in September 1976 the Government published, in April 1977, a White Paper which was the subject of Parliamentary debate.
The House will recall that the first version of the European Assembly Elections Bill was published on 24th June, 1977 and was given Second Reading in another place on 3rd July by 394 to 147 votes. The Bill was reintroduced into Parliament in a slightly amended form on 9th November, and was finally approved in another place on 16th February by 159 votes to 45. Your Lordships gave the European Assembly Elections Act a fair passage through this House, and following approval of the Bill at Third Reading on 4th May, in a form unamended from that in which it had left another place, it received the Royal Assent on the following day, 5th May. It now only remains, as I stated earlier, for Parliament to agree to the specification of the Act of the Council and the Decision of 20th September 1976 annexed to it as a Community Treaty, before we proceed to ratification.
The position as regards ratification of the Council Act is that all Member States have now done so except France and Britain. France has completed all the necessary Parliamentary procedures, and is in a position to ratify at any time. The

663
Council Act comes into effect only after completion of ratification by all Member States. Until the Act is in effect, there can be no legal decision by the Community regarding the date of direct elections. Article 10 of the Act requires that the decision should be taken by the Council of Ministers acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly. The decision of the European Council meeting in Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April in favour of the dates 7th to 10th June 1979 was a political decision, and it needs to be confirmed by the Council of Ministers acting in accord with the Article 10 procedure before it has legal effect. Moreover, Article 13 of the Act, which requires unanimous decision by the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Assembly after consulting the Commission, provides the legal basis for the determination of emoluments of directly elected members. The Government believe that emoluments must be decided before direct elections are held.
Early ratification of the Council Act of 20th September 1976, which approval of draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) No. 4 Order 1978 by both Houses will enable the Government to do, will permit all necessary steps of implementation, such as determination of emoluments, to be taken at Community level in ample time before the date of direct elections next year. I am sure that after the extensive public debate there has been on direct elections in this country, your Lordships will welcome the earliest possible ratification of the Council Act by the United Kingdom which will demonstrate to our Community partners our firm commitment to holding direct elections on the dates of 7th to 10th June next year. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) No. 4) Order 1978, laid before the House on 11th May be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
2.1 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, your Lordships, particularly the right reverend Prelate, would not welcome another long and impassioned speech from me on the subject of direct elections and, indeed, it would be quite inappropriate to the order
664
that we are now discussing, which we have just heard explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. The order, which is the subject of today's debate, is simply one more stage in the complicated legal and constitutional series of procedures which lead up to direct elections. There is really little point in your Lordships examining in detail most of the provisions of this older or the explanatory memorandum that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or, indeed, the decision of the Council published as Command 6623.
This is a piece of machinery to implement what has already been decided politically. But it is a complex and difficult procedure to set up elections in this country for an assembly elsewhere and the provisions of the European Communities Act make me want to ask just one or two questions. Looking at the explanatory memorandum that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided on 11th May this year, I notice that on the penultimate page, in paragraph 10(c), there was a comment about the direct applicability of community law. I think this is a subject that it is worth spending just a second or two in examining, because the applicability directly of community law is a subject which has a relevance far wider than the order that we are looking at today.
I note that in this memorandum the Foreign and Commonwealth Office say that the extent to which Community treaties are directly applicable as law in the Member States is a matter to be determined by the courts and ultimately by the European Court of Justice. And later on they say that it is thought that, although no undertaking can be given as to the completeness or accuracy of the list, the following articles of the annexed Act contain, or may contain, directly applicable provisions, and then a list is given. I am sure there are very good reasons why the legal advisers to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have not been able to be more certain than this provisional indication leads us to believe. But could the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, say whether it is really so uncertain, it is really so unclear, because we have been studying this subject for long enough, I think, to

665
be able to be a little more confident in at least guessing what was not directly applicable and what was.
The other question I should like to put is connected with the decision taken in Brussels on 20th September 1976. As I understand it, this order has the decision to which I am referring annexed to it, so that the decision is, in some way, associated with, or part and parcel of, the order. This question may he more pedantic, but at the time in which this decision was drafted the date for direct elections was still considered to be likely to be May/June 1978, and that is the date which appears in the decision. That decision is itself attached to the order which we are now asked to approve.
My second and final question to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is this: Why have we got the wrong date in the document being attached to an order? If it does not matter, why do we need to have it there? If we have got to have it there, should we not have the right date? There may be an explanation that he has already given which I did not follow, but it would be helpful to know why this decision which is now outdated is still to be annexed to the order that we are discussing. Once again, I say "God speed" to the process of direct elections. This order is part of the constitutional provision laid down by the European Communities Act. I hope we can give it a speedy send-off from this House and help the process of direct elections to happen soon.
2.7 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, one of the less agreeable consequences of being one of those whom your Lordships' House has selected to send to the European Assembly is that it is almost always impossible for any of us to attend those debates in your Lordships' House at which EEC matters are dealt with. This may perhaps on some future occasion be a matter which can be dealt with by the usual channels. I shall listen with interest to the reply that my noble friend will give to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on these various constitutional questions that he has raised. The noble Lord, as is well known in the House, has devoted a very large amount of his time to European matters, and the House will be grateful
666
for the meticulous attention which he has devoted to these important constitutional matters.
I rise merely to say this: Over the past two or three years it has been very fashionable in this House and in another place, and it has been, to some extent, echoed on the Continent of Europe, to say that somehow the United Kingdom has been lagging behind all the other EEC countries in its support for the Community and, in particular, in regard to the holding of direct elections. This manifestly has not, in fact, been so. The constitutional provisions in the United Kingdom tend to be rather more complex than those of other Member States, in which democracy, compared with our own, is in many instances of comparatively short-term standing. It is quite right, therefore, that the United Kingdom Parliament, as represented by this House and the other place, should devote very considerable attention to these matters before taking the very grave steps of far-reaching consequence to the people of the United Kingdom, before they proceed to ratification of these matters.
I observed when my noble friend was speaking that he mentioned that France had still to ratify the treaty, but he omitted Italy. It is my understanding, although I may be imperfectly informed, that there are still some constitutional obstacles in Italy which have so far inhibited it from ratifying the treaty. If I am wrong, I shall he happy to be corrected by my noble friend. But I hope that the time has now arrived when the story that the United Kingdom is somehow lagging behind the rest of its eight colleagues in support of the European Community may be killed. In point of fact, as I have found over the nearly three years' experience I have had with the European Community, when it has come to legal action or giving legal force to Community decisions, it has been precisely the United Kingdom that has been almost always ahead of the rest.
I hope that people who criticise our Ministers on the Council of Ministers in Europe, and sometimes when they criticise their delegates, will remember this; that is, that we are regarded in Europe now as being an active and constructive force for the promotion of the European ideals as defined by the Prime Minister in another

667
place about a year and a half ago, that the representatives of the United Kingdom of all Parties are zealous in their duties, that we are not behind the rest. Indeed, in Community committees in the Assembly plenaries the attendance record of the United Kingdom delegates is a very significant percentage higher than that of any other nationality in the Community. We have acquired—not I particularly, but all my colleagues—a reputation for being the hardest workers in the Community institutions.
I shall not detain the House further. I merely use this occasion, which shows once again the orderly and typically British constitutional progress that we are making, to say that we should no longer be told either by the British Press or the British media generally that we are somehow lagging behind or dragging our feet in Europe. There are times when British Ministers find it necessary to stand up for what they consider to be legitimate British interests. I can assure your Lordships that the representatives of other nations are not backward in fighting for the interests of their own countries. It should therefore not be a matter of reproach that when one of our own Ministers—and I have in mind particularly Mr. John Silkin—stands up for the legitimate rights of this country without impinging in any way on the European ideals or on our policy of co-operation in Europe, he should receive our whole—hearted support. I can assure your Lordships that it is common practice for the representatives of Germany, of France, of Italy and of the other Member States to sustain what seems to them to be their own national interests within the overall concept of the Community. It is not right that we should be behind in this respect or that we should be reproached. Subject to what I have said, I support the order before the House.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his very clear explanation of this Instrument, may I quicky ask a question of my noble friend Lord O'Hagan? I understand that he quoted from the explanatory memorandum of the European Communities Elections Act and implied that the terms were very vague. As I understand that they have no legal force whatsoever, does it really matter
668
Whether they are very specific or very vague?
2.15 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am for the general welcome for this order which came first from the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. This was followed by a most interesting speech of great impact by my noble friend Lord Bruce. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, raised two points, first as to direct applicability and the uncertainty, as he called it, of the definition of "direct applicability" which we have been able to put forward in the explanatory memorandum. I shall put it like this. What is said in the explanatory memorandum under this head seems to me to offer a high degree of certainty. A clear list of articles which could reasonably be expected to come under this heading is given there, so the degree of certainty is pretty high, but naturally there the caveat is set; literally no one can be absolutely certain about the full extent of applicability until matters are tested in the courts and ultimately possibly in the European Court.
I have thought about this in looking at successive orders of this kind, and I recognise the point that the noble Lord is making. I would suggest to him that this is the fair and perhaps safe way of putting it. The evidence of applicability is there. The pretension to final comprehensiveness necessarily is not there. The noble Lord also raised the question of the date which is included in the print—I put it no higher—of the decision. This reference was to the objectives set out when the decision was taken. It is in the preamble, not the operative part of the decision.
Consider afresh that Articles 9 and 10 of the Act lay down the procedure. I quote from Article 10, sub-article 1:
"The Council acting unanimously after consolting the Assembly shall determine the period referred to in Article 9, sub-article 1, for the First Elections".
Therefore, regardless of the incidence of a printed date in the preamble, as I would call it, the clear basis for action is laid down in Article 9, sub-article 1 and in Article 10, particularly sub-article 1.
I agree that the noble Lord did not make a big point of this, but it was right

669
that he should raise it. We should watch the phrasing and the printing of these Instruments, whatever their status, whether preambular or operative, as they come before either House. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington made a valuable contribution. We know him as one who has served, and is serving, with distinction and prominence in the Assembly. He referred to the fact that possibly there were other Members who had not ratified, and asked whether Italy had in fact ratified. He is quite right. Italy has ratified. What Italy has not done is to enact its electoral law. The Italian constitutional procedures differ from our own. They can ratify in advance of the passage of electoral legislation. So when I said that the only two Members of the Community who had not yet ratified were France and Britain, I was also correct. Indeed, so was my noble friend when, by implication, he wondered whether the full procedures which we would normally attach to ratification had been adopted by Italy. It is a case not without precedent in my relations, personal and political, with my noble friend when we have both been right.
The noble Lord made the point which needs to be made—and I was very glad he made it—that we have not lagged behind. We have genuinely and energetically gone about this business with expedition. This country does not lightly undertake obligations of an international character. When it does, when it finally decides to accept them, it works hard and makes a good job of it. I believe a very good job is now being made in the delineation of boundaries which should, any minute now, be published as a first set of recommendations, leading up to adoption by Parliament, perhaps in the autumn, and leaving the political Parties in our free democracy six or seven months to run up to the elections to be held between 7th and 10th June; so good progress has been made.
It is true that the first date, the target date, the objective, could not be reached. We were not entirely alone in the difficulties we encountered. As I have said before at this Box, the difficulties were not of our making. There were other circumstances bound up with our tradition, our practice, and for that I think we may take a little time.
670
I welcome what he said, and indeed what he has said more generally about the acceptance, the enthusiastic acceptance of our membership of the Community, our intention to make our contribution to improve and strengthen the Community, but like every Member of the Community, to assert our reasonable national interests. It has always been said that we can more effectively do that once we are inside the Community. We have taken that to heart, and I would suggest it ill behoves anybody to complain when any Minister from the British Government does precisely what the most enthusiastic protagonists of accession said should be done, and could be done so much better once we were inside. This is precisely what our Minister of Agriculture has been doing and what no doubt other Ministers in the future, not only from Britain, will be doing.
To the noble Lord, Lord Morris, may I say that I am very grateful for his interjection. I see no reason to dissent from what he said. Certainly this will be part of our thinking in the future, as in the past. With those remarks I no longer wish to stand between the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the right reverend Prelate, an interesting but somewhat hazardous situation to be in. So, once more, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE
2.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, your Lordships' attention has had to range during the last three-and-a-half hours over a very wide spectrum, and I must now bring you into the world of the Church of England. The Measure that is before you is an omnibus measure. It picks up a number of details which arise from time to time and which are not of sufficient importance to warrant a separate Measure for each

671
one. Therefore, in order to avoid occupying too much of your Lordships' time, we have put them all together in one Measure and bring them to your Lordships' attention. I hope that you will agree with me that this Measure is entirely uncontroversial and need not cause your Lordships any great concern. However, I am sure you would want to know what it is you are being asked to agree, and therefore I should like to take you briefly through the Measure.
The first clause requires special majorities for certain Measures passed in the General Synod. It is anomalous that under the Worship and Doctrine Measure any new service that is approved of by a Canon must have a two-thirds majority, whereas if the Church of England wants in any way to alter the Book of Common Prayer this has to be done by Measure, has to be done by coming to Parliament, and it would be possible for such a Measure to be introduced with a majority of only one person in the General Synod. There is nothing that is immediately in the pipeline regarding this part of our activities. But supposing—I say, supposing—the Church of England decided that it was right to ordain women to the priesthood, this would need a change in the Book of Common Prayer. It is felt in the Synod that it would be totally inappropriate that a matter of such importance could theoretically be passed by one vote in the General Synod and brought to Parliament for Affirmative Resolution. Therefore we think it right that if ever it is intended to ask Parliament to agree to a change in the Book of Common Prayer, it should do so only if there is a two-thirds majority in the General Synod. That is what is provided for in Clause I.
Clause 2 deals with certain people who would come under the Measure which provides that all clergymen in future must retire at the age of 70. This Measure is not retrospective and therefore does not affect those who were in their beneficies on 1st January 1976. If a man moves after that date, then he immediately becomes subject to the requirements of this Measure and would have to retire at the age of 70. If, on the other hand, he is still in the benefice which he held before 1st January 1976, then he can go on indefinitely because he has a freehold.
672
But it does happen in the course of pastoral reorganisation that two benefices are brought together and create a new parish, and therefore technically, one of the incumbents would be in a new benefice. It is felt, however, that it would be unjust that, while because of a pastoral reorganisation scheme he was technically in a new benefice, he should not enjoy the benefits which were written into the Measure; that is, that it should not be retrospective. Therefore those clauses in the second part of this Measure provide that such a clergyman shall continue with his freehold, even though technically he would otherwise have come under the provisions of the 1975 Measure.
Clause 3 empowers the Church Commissioners to arrange that their accounts shall start on the first day of the year. This is at the request of the overwhelming number of dioceses most of whom keep their financial year from 1st January. By law, all parochial church councils have to account from the first day of the year, and it therefore seems much more convenient that the accounts of the Church Commissioners should also observe the same period during the year.
Clause 4 makes one or two small adjustments in the constitution of the Church Commissioners. Thus, for instance, of the eight Commissioners, four of whom are nominated by Her Majesty, and four by the Archbishop of Canterbury, two are required at the moment to be Queen's Counsel. It is thought that this is rather an unnecessary provision, and although it would be free to Her Majesty or to the Archbishop to appoint all eight as Queen's Counsel, we think it better that there should be only one that is statutory. Why there should be one at all I am not quite sure, although I imagine that it probably dates from the early times of the constitution of the Commissioners themselves. The other two clauses refer to the representatives in the General Synod that their timing may be more appropriate and that, if one ceases to he a member of the General Synod, he shall make way.
Clause 5 deals with the representative from a diocese on to the Central Board of Finance. It is thought very desirable that, unless it is the diocesan secretary himself who represents the diocese on the Central

673
Board of Finance at Church House, the member should at least be a member of his own diocesan board of finance. So that would be made statutory. Clause 6 is honouring an assurance which I gave to the House when we were considering the Parochial Registers and Records Measure. It will be remembered that certain noble Lords felt very strongly that those libraries or institutions which are diocesan record offices but are not local authority offices should be under some restriction as to the fees they can charge. I gave an assurance that, although we could not write that into the Measure, because it was too late, we would in the next Miscellaneous Provisions Measure provide for this. Therefore, the Bodleian, the Borthwick Institute and Canterbury Cathedral Library will be allowed to charge only those fees that are approved in a Fees Measure by the General Synod.
Clauses 7 and 8 take us into a rather recondite area of the law. Under Clause 7, if land has been acquired under Section 13(1)(e) of the New Parishes Measure 1943, it cannot be sold later on. In order to make this clear to me, my legal friend who advises me gave me an instance. A church may have been given or have acquired a piece of land which it intends to turn into a car park, and then it finds that it cannot afford to tarmac it and so it lets it out as allotments. This may have happened over a period of years. Then the church may decide that, after all, it does not want a car park anyhow, and wants to sell the land. If it has been acquired under Section 13 the church cannot sell it. It is thought desirable that it should have the power to do so, and therefore that this sort of land should be put under the powers contained in Section 17 of the Measure.
Clause 8 again deals with a rather obscure situation. Suppose there is ecclesiastical property which it is required should be acquired by compulsory purchase. If there is no incumbent, there is no fee simple, and therefore there is nobody who can write a receipt. Therefore, the land cannot he compulsorily acquired. This is becoming a rather more likely situation because in the course of pastoral reorganisation we have very often had to suspend the presentation of a benefice and put in a priest-in-charge. But if a part of the ecclesiastical property
674
was required under compulsory purchase, it could not be so done because nobody possessed the fee simple. And so it is suggested that in those circumstances it should be the Church Commissioners who can sign the receipt and enter into the necessary negotiations.
Clause 9 deals with a situation where sometimes in a parish there is some ecclesiastical building which has not been consecrated, which has only been dedicated. It may be a very distinguished building, and therefore it is desirable that it should come under the Inspection of Churches Measure 1955, which makes it necessary that over every period of time the church shall formally he inspected by an architect. Since it is not consecrated, it does not automatically come under that provision, and we think it desirable that the bishop should have power to order that such a building should come under that Measure.
Clause 10 deals with a problem of the Diocese of Oxford. The Diocese of Oxford is unique in that its cathedral is a college chapel. Therefore, the Diocese of Oxford does not come under the Cathedrals Measure. If any other diocese wants to change or alter its cathedral statutes, it can do so by the machinery that is set out under the Cathedrals Measure whereby a scheme can be laid before the General Synod and be objected to if necessary. This cannot happen over the Diocese of Oxford. The particular problem here is that, like every other bishop, the Bishop of Oxford has power to appoint 24 honorary canons. This is a way in which a bishop can recognise meritorious service to his diocese, and it is an honour which is greatly appreciated by the clergy.
The Bishop of Oxford has one of the largest dioceses in the country, and therefore he wants as much freedom as possible to be able to confer honorary canonries on his clergy. But as things stand at the moment, if an honorary canon retires and continues to live in the Diocese of Oxford, he cannot be removed, except with his acquiescence, from his honorary canonry. It is conceivable, therefore, that all the honorary canons could be retired clergymen, and this very much restricts the freedom of the bishop to he able to give honour to those who deserve it. Therefore, this clause will provide that, in the Diocese of Oxford,

675
if a clergyman resigns, ceases to be beneficed or licensed to serve or if he attains the age of 70, automatically he shall vacate his honorary canonry and the bishop will be free to honour somebody else. This is not retrospective and does not affect the present honorary canons, and, of course, it does not affect the right of the bishop to appoint someone who has been removed from the honorary canonry in this way as a canon emeritus, so that he will be able to continue to call himself "Canon", even though he may not have that status in the cathedral.
Clause 11 has to remedy a rather unfortunate circumstance. When the Incumbents (Vacation of Beneficies) Measure came before these two Houses in 1975, for entirely proper reasons in another place, an Affirmative Resolution was not provided. This somehow escaped the notice of those who were drawing up the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976. Now that the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure has received the Royal Assent in 1977—because we remedied the mistake that had been made and which was observed in another place—we need in the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976 to refer to the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977 and not 1975.
In the second part of that, since Section 85 of the Pastoral Measure was repealed and substituted in the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1976, we need to make the proper reference in the Endowments and Glebe Measure.
Finally, Clause 12 deals with certain property which is, under the Queen Anne's Bounty Act 1714, placed within the authority of the Church Commissioners. When this land is vested in them one of their officials from No. 1 Millbank has to make a pilgrimage to the High Court, and in a large ledger is written in the acquirement by the Church Commissioners of, say, a vicarage. This is considered to be rather an unnecessarily demanding act for what may be a very small piece of property which is already registered in No. 1 Millbank. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has indicated his readiness to forgo this piece of business. Therefore, it is thought that it is unnecessary that this journey should be made from No. 1 Millbank
676
to the High Court in order to register this small detail.
I have said that this Measure is uncontroversial. When it came before the General Synod for final approval, it was received by the House of Bishops with Ayes in favour, 38; Noes, None. By the House of Clergy it was received with Ayes, 124; Noes, None, and by the House of Laity with Ayes 136; Noes, 1. I do not know what matter so irritated the one person who voted against the Measure, but I hope that your Lordships will consider that the vote showed that it is completely uncontroversial and will give the Measure an Affirmative Resolution.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. —(The Lord Bishop of London.)
2.41 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I do not think I have ever seen anybody come to this House and introduce a Measure of 13 clauses referring throughout only, so far as I can detect, to the Instrument itself. I must congratulate the right reverend Prelate on an extremely exhaustive and clear elucidation of a Measure which your Lordships will welcome, as will almost everybody except possibly the non-residentiary canons of Christ Church Cathedral who do not happen to bask in the favour of the Bishop of Oxford. If I may pick up a small point, it does lie in the Bishop's power not to enforce the provisions in Clause 10 against a non-residentiary canon who otherwise would not qualify to retain his honorary canonry.
There is little, if anything, to alarm your Lordships in this Measure. Clause 7, which caused temporary concern to my noble friend Lord Denham is in fact harmless and relates to circumstances which are actually surprisingly common. The obstacles to the progress of planners in Clause 8 are removed without the necessity of filling vacant livings when the choice is not ripe to be made.
In Clause 2 we find what is an eminently sensible departure, which avoids the

677
unnecessarily early retirement of clergy doing a good job in a parish which is being reorganised. The ministry is one of the few professions in which the effectiveness of the person in office is apt to continue to increase until very late in life, and although there are occasions when one would wish that it was possible kindly to retire an incumbent, the occasions on which one regrets an enforced early retirement are far more numerous.
I have reserved to the end what I regard as the principal feature of this Measure. It is one which I and, I think, many of your Lordships not now present who have spoken in debates on the Prayer Book, will welcome warmly. That is Clause 1, which requires a special majority for any alteration in the Prayer Book, not only, of course, over such a major matter as the introduction of women priests, but also over matters which many of us hold very dear concerning changes in the language and order of service—the liturgy and the Litany. In those respects, the Synod should be better qualified to form a judgment than your Lordships' House. There is always some inhibition in your Lordships' House about speaking against a decision of the Synod. This, I think, will be less necessary as a result of this Measure, and once again I thank the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on his introduction of it.
2.45 p.m.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, further to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just said, I should like to make one controversial comment on what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, said about the majority votes in the Synod. I agree, of course, that to bring about a change in the Prayer Book by a majority of one vote is dangerous. But, knowing how stupid men can be, I consider that on a possible question, such as the ordination of women, a majority of two-thirds is not nearly high enough I suggest 99.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY: OVERLAPPING BENEFITS
2.46 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to
678
reform the rules relating to overlapping Social Security benefits. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Question asks what plans the Government have to alter the rules affecting overlapping Social Security benefits. I look forward as always to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for taking part in this short debate.
The basic rule relating to overlapping Social Security benefits is that only one payment can be made from public funds for the same purpose for the same period. The application of this rule gives rise to the greatest proportion of the letters on Social Security matters which I and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place received. It is not really understood and is the cause of a great deal of bitterness, which has arisen particularly acutely over the introduction of child benefit, where people who expected to benefit have found that in fact they do not.
May I just look briefly at the effect of this rule on supplementary benefit. Child benefit is merely deducted from supplementary benefit. One can see some logic in that. Supplementary benefit, after all, seeks to provide a minimum level of income maintenance, It is means-tested and all other sources of income must be taken into account. When the retirement pension is raised, supplementary benefit is raised at the same time. If that were not done, the argument could be urged that the poorest were gaining nothing at all. The difficulty about that arrangement is that it is very difficult indeed to take people off supplementary benefit. In fact, one does not do so, and the Government have devised the two-pension approach—the two-pronged approach of the 1975 Act with the basic pension and the earnings-related pension—to get round that point. The earnings-related pension will not be added to the supplementary benefit and will, in time, take people off supplementary benefit.
However, with child benefit, when rises occur, as in April of this year and April of next year, when supplementary benefit is not being received, the supplementary benefit recipients—the poorest—get no

679
extra. As I said, there is logic in this, but it has this effect of the poorest receiving no help, which is not understood, and it causes anger and disillusionment. It would therefore be better to find a system which did not require the application of this particular logic.
The way to do this is to get away from means-tested benefits. This could be done by the introduction of a tax credit system. If the Government were to convert the personal allowances—the single person's allowance and the married couple's allowance—into positive tax credits or payments like child benefit, a major step in that direction would have been taken. Under a tax credit system, supplementary benefit would become a thing of the past, except for a very few who slip through the welfare net which the credit income tax system provides.
There is one anomaly with regard to child benefit and supplementary benefit which I referred to in our recent debate on the family and which I should like briefly to mention now. Next November the one-parent family will receive for the first child £3 child benefit, plus the special benefit of £2 which is reserved for the first child of any single-parent family. That is a total of £5. But the supplementary benefit level for a child under five is £4·40 and the extra 60p—and it will be £1·60 from next April—is deducted from the remaining supplementary benefit; and so the benefit of that 60p, or later on £1·60, is not received by the single-parent family. In my view that position should be rectified, and it could be done by increasing to £5 the supplementary benefit scale for a child under five.
Now I should like to look briefly at the effect of the rule and National Insurance benefits. I have said with regard to supplementary benefit that there is some logic in the arrangement, but that it is not understood and the sooner we change the system the better; but I am not convinced that there is always a logic where the rule about overlapping benefit is applied to National Insurance benefits. These benefits are paid as of right, in the main on the basis of a contribution record; they are not means-tested, and other income, however large, is not taken into account. Why then should one National Insurance benefit be set off against another? Remember that the rule is
680
that only one payment can be made from public funds for the same purpose for the same period, and it all revolves around the interpretation which is placed on the phrase "same purpose". The Government tend to argue that National Insurance benefits are designed to provide income maintenance and, therefore, they are all, or almost all, for the same purpose. I can see that unemployment and sickness benefit have the same purpose and should be so treated, but I wonder whether this can really be said of unemployment benefit, invalid care allowance, widow's pension and invalidity pension.
May I give your Lordships very quickly four examples of overlapping National Insurance benefits. A non-contributory invalidity pension is now being paid to handicapped married women who are both unable to work and unable to carry out their normal household duties. At £10·50 per week this is equal to the addition for a wife paid with the retirement pension or invalidity pension. If in fact the husband of a woman receiving the non-contributory invalidity pension is himself receiving retirement pension or invalidity pension, then he will lose the whole of the wife's addition which goes with that pension. The argument is that the housewife's non-contributory invalidity pension and the husband's pension are both maintenance payments, but the able-bodied wife of a pensioner is able to earn £40 per week before the husband's pension is reduced and is able to maintain the household. The housewife's non-contributory invalidity pension is paid for a disability which does not apply to the able-bodied wife, and it is ridiculous that the National Insurance benefit should have to be the same for both courts.
Secondly, widows who wish to train to acquire new skills using the training opportunities scheme, known as TOPS, are also faced with the problem of overlapping benefits. A widow cannot get widow's benefit plus the normal weekly payments which are made to trainees. She has to choose whether to claim widow's benefit or widowed mother's allowance and receive a reduced training allowance, or whether to opt to receive training allowance only. A working widow receives benefits plus wages, but the trainee widow does not receive what really is the equivalent of wages, the training allowance in addition to her widow's benefits.
Thirdly, widows who are working full-time cannot claim unemployment benefit or sickness benefit on top of widow's benefit, even those who pay the full-rate National Insurance contributions. While they are working full-time, of course, they receive their widow's benefit, so they are receiving their widow's benefit and their salary or wages from their occupation. The widow's pension is not reduced when a widow is in employment; so why is unemployment benefit refused when she is unemployed but with a full contribution record?
Then, fourthly and finally, there is the case which I raised in this House last November. A married woman in employment can qualify for maternity grant and maternity allowance. She gets the maternity allowance on the basis of her own contributions. If she is widowed during pregnancy then she cannot draw the maternity allowance in addition to any widow's benefit to which she may be entitled. She can have the one or the other, but not both, although she can draw any earnings-related widow's benefit to which she is entitled. Therefore, a woman who has lost the support of her husband's earnings will receive less maternity benefit than a woman who continues to enjoy the benefit of her husband's earnings, yet the widow's benefits replace in part the husband's earnings and derive from his contributions while the maternity allowance replaces in part the wife's earnings and derives from her contributions. Surely, the one should not be offset against the other?
I have put forward four cases where it seems to me that the application of this rule produces a thoroughly illogical situation. To sum up what I have been saying, there appears to be a logic as far as supplementry benefit is concerned, but it is not generally understood and it is widely resented, so the sooner we move to another system—and I suggest a tax credit system—the better. With regard to National Insurance benefits, sometimes the application of the rule is logical but often it is totally illogical. Again, a tax credit system would solve the problem, but I have no doubt that the application of the rule to National Insurance benefits should be reviewed right away in the context of the present system. I hope that in answering this Question the noble Lord
682
will indicate that the Government are aware both of the anomalies to which I have drawn attention and of the depth of feeling which surrounds these issues.
2.58 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for drawing the Government's atttention once again to the problems of those who, having been widowed, are left alone to cope with their own finances, and who have problems with the overlapping benefits system. I will be brief because it is a Friday afternoon and also because the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has taken most of my points. I should like just to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on 17th April, in the debate on the problems of widows. It was this:
"The restriction on a widow receiving both her widow's pension and the full amount of the training allowances stems from a long-established overlapping benefits principle which goes right throughout our social security system ".—[Official Report, 17/4/78: col. 935.]
Well, of course, it does. I know that, and I am well aware of it. But what I should like to say is that this principle is man-made and I do not believe that it is irrevocable or irreversible. I should like to say that it is high time that this Government, or any following Government, looked much longer and much harder at the problems that arise from the overlapping benefits system.
This week we have received in our office two letters from people who have been widowed recently and who have, before their widowhood, been granted invalidity pensions. One suffers from multiple sclerosis; in the other case the position is not so serious. The one suffering from multiple sclerosis received £28·50 a week. She was also helped by her husband who contributed to the family finances and no doubt kept her in food and lodging. He died, and directly he died she was obviously made a widow and was told by the Social Services Department that she would no longer get her invalidity pension of £28·50 but would at once be reduced to £17·50. I think the noble Lord will tell me that she gets immediate payments of, I believe, £24·50 for 26 weeks. All widows do that and all widows are grateful for that. However, it ceases after 26 weeks, and this particular woman will go hack from £28·50 to

683
£17·50 on which, of course, she will have to pay tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned the sickness and unemployment overlapping benefit. This seems to me particularly unfair. They are all unfair. I am only talking about women who, throughout their lives, have been working and have paid full contributions. I think this is the point. So many people seem to think that women going out to work, do not pay full contributions and more or less live off their husbands. That is not so. Those who perhaps know more about this than I do know that, having paid full contributions, it seems to be particularly unfair that quite suddenly they are not allowed to have a second amount of money from Government sources.
As regards the education grant, we have had eight cases in the office this week of people who have small children, and who want to take further education courses, have applied for a grant and are not allowed to have both a grant and a widow's pension. They still have to keep their children, but they are not allowed the grant. All eight of them have stopped the course because they cannot afford to do it.
I shall not prolong this debate, but I want to ask the Government three questions. One is whether in the future they will look to see if the overlapping benefits rule could be less inflexible. It seems that there is this particular rule by which everybody in all the offices in the country has to abide, and I think it is far too inflexible.
Will they also look into making special provision for widows and one-parent families with children of school age? Those people have great financial difficulties due to inflation and, where they cannot take an extra course because their widow's pension will be docked, it seems to he particularly hard.
Will they also treat all applications and cases individually and on their merits? This might mean a means test but I do not think that would be a bad thing. I do not think that any widow or one-parent family would resent this. There is nothing to be ashamed of. If it could be treated with more sympathy and understanding, I think that those people who
684
are left alone to try to cope not only with earning their own living but also with keeping their children, and sometimes their brothers and sisters and perhaps aged parents as well, would have a better deal. We went over this very complicated subject when we were talking about widows and, as it is late in the afternoon, I shall not add any more.
3.4 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think that the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for raising and for explaining these incredibly difficult regulations. In another place, I think on 10th May in a Statutory Instruments Committee, the Minister said that he believed he could understand these regulations. Yet he admitted that he had had to read his brief several times in order to grasp not merely the regulations but the issues raised by them. I think that is probably one example of how difficult these overlapping regulations tend to be.
For my part, I owe the House an apology in that I am not guilty of wanting to run away from this debate or from the complications raised by it; simply, the normally well-oiled machinery of the usual channels suffered a minor malfunction in one respect: my name did not appear on the list.
So far as the debate this afternoon is concerned, the basic position in these pension and social security matters is that no one can receive two benefits for the same purpose. It appears to be the case that a vast number of variations exist on this simple proposition. Clearly, some anomalies give rise to legitimate grievances, especially in the case of widows, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has ably pointed out.
The regulations become really intricate when we enter the field of the new benefits which have arisen to help the disabled. I believe it is the case that someone who is disabled could, and very often does, receive, first, a disability pension, secondly, a mobility allowance, and, thirdly, an attendance allowance. All these are paid without any problem of overlapping to the basic recipient of the pension on top of any one maintenance benefit such as an invalidity pension or the unemployability supplement. I wonder

685
in passing, whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whose help I gratefully acknowledge in unravelling some of the more distant problems of this legislation, may be able to confirm—probably at a later stage—that the attendance allowance that we are discussing now is indeed that one which is dependent on National Insurance contributions. I hope that I have that part of it right. If I have it wrong, perhaps he will let me know at a later stage what is the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, does us a service in asking how and when we can begin to reform or even to consolidate this legislation—all the Acts, the Statutory Instruments, the Orders and Regulations which are so relevant and so necessary. The facilities available in this House are first class but I found that the updating of Statutory Instrument Number 554 of 1975, referred to in the Overlapping Benefits Regulations for today, 1978, as "the principal regulations", makes it incredibly complicated to follow the regulations of this year. Certainly I and, I believe, the House admire the staff of the Ministry who have to explain all these problems and individual cases to the public.
There are over 60 different types of benefit. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may be able to tell us, as he probably has the information, how many permutations of these 60 individual benefits there are. I think the noble Lord has done some mathematics and will have some idea of the figure. My mathematics are not that hot, but I should certainly be pleased to hear from the noble Lord, as I understand there is a very large number of permutations.
Surely this number of permutations from the individual benefits is one outstanding reason for at least attempting to consolidate some of this legislation, as so much of it is not easily understood, even if it were easily obtained. I believe that much resentment is caused by not being able to ascertain the correct entitlement to one or more forms of benefit by members of the public.
There are so many forms of benefit, some of which are treated as overlapping and some are not. Some of these benefits are taxable and some are not. Some benefits are contributory and some are
686
non-contributory. I think it is small wonder that various groups become upset and possibly disenchanted. Each case, whether individual or relating to a group, large or small, tends to be something of a one-off operation for the staff at the Ministry and naturally gaps and what I would call "lacunae" appear. Each of these raises a grievance which is remedied with commendable speed in some cases and with less speed in others. This means that the main Act has to be amended and the process of amendment may result in a fresh grievance which will be felt among those who have not gained from the particular amendment or change.
It is late in the afternoon and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for raising this problem and for what I would call his courage and his skill in explaining the cases so clearly. I believe he was right to recommend the tax credits scheme. I do not say this merely as a Party point, but I hope it could be a major step to simplification of this jungle of legislation. I also believe he valuably highlighted another major source of grievance, which will be dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod—that of widows, who do not receive what would be received by a married woman when both the married woman and the widow are taking a Training Opportunities Scheme course. This I believe to be a valid point.
It is sad that so much effort and thought in providing abuse-proof benefits going to those who should receive them, have resulted in these regulations and in Acts which are far beyond the ken of the public, in spite of the leaflets which one can find in post offices and Ministry offices all over the country. These regulations are indeed complicated, but I believe them to be necessary. Having said that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, once again, and look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has to say.
3.11 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I sometimes think that we are over-ready to thank noble Lords for initiating debates or putting down Unstarred Questions. However, I do so today sincerely, because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has rendered a service in bringing this

687
subject forward, one, to invite the Government to express an opinion on this matter, and two, to draw noble Lords' attention to the situation. I am glad that he has raised this matter of overlapping benefits. The subject has latterly attracted some attention in various quarters, and is sometimes, I know, a subject unpopular in some quarters so far as the social security scheme is concerned. If noble Lords will bear with me, I will try to explain these provisions, why they are necessary, and their purpose in the scheme.
I do not think that anybody in your Lordships' House would run away from acknowledging that in we this country have a right to be proud of our social protection schemes. While individual rates of benefit may not always be as high as those in other countries—where they are matched, if I may say so, by a correspondingly heavier contribution burden—everyone in employment in this country is covered by a contributory scheme, and there is a safety net in the form of supplementary benefit for those who did not achieve membership of the National Insurance scheme. The social security scheme is supplemented by a wide range of measures that help the poorest earners, by the child benefit system, applicable to all, by other schemes such as war pensions, which provide benefits for special groups of people, and others.
The contributory National Insurance scheme provides benefits on a massive scale. I am trusting to memory, but I believe there are something like 11 million people in this country receiving benefits from this field. Obviously some will, in a sense, not be treated as well as they think they ought to be treated. We must keep in the forefront of our minds that the expenditure from the National Insurance Fund will reach something like £11,000 million this year, and the expenditure will be financed by employers to the tune of £5·2 billion, by the tax-payer via the Exchequer to the extent of £1·9 billion plus £400 million interest on the National Insurance Fund. The balance, which is slightly less than one-third of the total outgoings, namely £3·5 billion, will be paid in contributions by insured persons.
I want to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. I am not getting at her—I think she will know this by now—but
688
when we talk about the fact that people have paid for this we might remember that the contributions from the contributors are less than one-third of what we pay out. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, may well say that we have to take the employers' contribution into account. I do not deny that, but if we are talking about what people have paid for, they have paid less than one-third of the total amount that we paid out. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, knows better than most of us that the scheme is financed on this pay-as-you-go basis and I should have thought that, looking at what has been paid in and what is paid out, it is fairly advantageous.
I have never gone into this but I ask myself the question: What benefits would I have received if I had asked an insurance company to provide me with benefits for the amount of money that I have paid into National Health Insurance? I think that it would be a pretty poor benefit all round. I do not think that for the amount I have paid each week for a good many years, any insurance company would have given me the cover that I can get if the occasion arises.
I think that married women do particularly well under the National Insurance scheme. Not only do their pensions start five years earlier, but if they have not contributed they still get a dependant's retirement pension on the husband's insurance and a range of widow's benefits. In 1976, which is the last yar for which we have figures, 65 per cent. of our 8·3 million retirement pensioners were women. Of these, about one-third had pensions on their own insurance; the other two-thirds in about equal proportions were drawing either a dependant's retirement pension or a full rate retirement pension by virtue of their deceased husband's contributions.
I think this is a very important point. One of the things which is so often said by persons who dislike overlapping benefit rules is that their benefits have been paid for by themselves or by their husbands, and that we are cheating them out of what is rightfully theirs. I do not want to go back over how much has been paid in, but it is a criticism which is often made without any justification. Not only do the potential beneficiaries contribute less than one-third of the money spent on

689
benefits, but contributions are levied at the same rate whether or not someone has dependants. There are a good many people in the scheme who are paying precisely the same rate who have no dependants and never will have. They may well say that they are being unjustly treated.
My Lords, you may ask what is then the contributory basis of National Insurance or, to put it another way, what is the philosophy behind it? I think it is this: the payment of contributions secures membership of a National Insurance scheme and full membership entitles the contributor and his dependants to benefit as of right according to the rules of the scheme. That is pretty well the philosophy behind any scheme of this kind. Overlapping benefits are part of those rules. They ensure a degree of equity between beneficiaries in different circumstances, and between those who contribute and those who receive benefits. My short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is that it would not be equitable if one permitted overlapping benefits. It may well be that the system is inadequate but I think that the system that we are working on at the moment does give equity.
When one discusses overlapping benefits one usually has in mind some particular case, for example, a widow pensioner who normally works and cannot be paid sickness benefit on top of her widow's benefit when she falls sick. But it is not difficult to think of a case where someone might be entitled to several benefits at the same time. We know that if we got rid of the overlapping benefits rule it would be possible for some people to receive eight to 10 different kinds of benefits. There are 43 different benefits provided by the Social Security and Social Security Pensions Acts alone. Then there are the various benefits under the Child Benefit Act, War Pensions Instruments, the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Scheme, the old cases act, supplementary benefit, Family Income Supplement and a range of benefits paid by the Manpower Services Commission for such things as training, rehabilitation, youth training, premature retirement and so on, and all these benefits are either comparable to, or in some way complement, benefits under the insurance scheme.
The more mathematically minded of your Lordships—and let me say, quite
690
frankly, it does not include me, and I do not think it includes the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—may wish to attempt a count of the possible combinations and permutations of these 60-odd benefits. I am told that there may be more than 4,000 permutations. In this situation, but for overlapping benefits rules, it could become something of a lottery and weekly benefits of, in some cases, over £100 a week could be paid to some individuals who were lucky enough—or perhaps I ought to say unlucky enough—to satisfy the conditions for several personal benefits at the same time. All this at a time when the basic rate of a retired person's pension is £17·50 a week.
This state of affairs is not difficult to explain. What has happened is that every contingency, such as sickness, unemployment, retirement, widowhood and so on, is recognised in social security law by specific provisions which give the claimant a complete benefit, consisting of personal pension or allowance, increases for dependants, sometimes an earnings-related addition or graduated benefit, special additions to benefit such as invalidity allowance related to age of onset, benefits designed to meet extra expenses connected with some aspect of disablement, such as attendance allowance or mobility allowance and so on.
As I have said, it is perfectly possible for someone to satisfy the conditions for two or more sets of benefits. For example, everyone entitled to industrial injury benefit will also satisfy the incapacity test for sickness benefit. It is important to bear in mind that the contingency for which both sickness and injury benefit are provided is the need for a maintenance benefit because of the interruption of earnings due to incapacity for work. If this is due to an industrial cause, benefit is payable at a preferential rate and leads into disablement benefit, which is compensation for the lasting effects of an injury, even if capacity for work is not affected. But it is well understood—at least I hope that I can say that is is well understood—that the injury benefit is a replacement for sickness benefit, and no one would expect us, when someone qualifies for injury benefit, to pay sickness benefit in addition.
I said a moment ago that it could be quite frightening if we did not have this

691
overlapping benefits rule. I do not want to spend a long time on it, but would this be really logical? It would be perfectly possible for some person to satisfy the qualifying conditions for a whole range of benefits. A widow could qualify for a widow's pension obviously, for sickness benefit, for injury benefit in respect of a recent accident. If she was pregnant when her husband died, she could qualify for maternity benefit. She might be able to qualify for an earnings-related supplement to sickness benefit and an earnings-related supplement to maternity allowance, bringing her in a weekly income of £95 a week.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene, but he seems to be working on the assumption that what I was arguing was that the rule should be abolished completely. That really was not part of my argument. I drew attention to four specific examples where it seemed to me that the rule was illogical. It would appear that it is up to the noble Lord either to say that it is not illogical and why, or else to say: "It is illogical, but for various reasons, such as administrative convenience or expense, we cannot do anything about it". I am not arguing that we should abolish the whole of the rule as it stands at the present time. I am asking the noble Lord to think that it may be wise to review the present working because of the number of anomalies which have been revealed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I will not carry on with this. I thought I had something which was pretty good, but I will not carry on with that. I do not want to waste anybody's time. But if I am asked whether I recognise that there is an anomaly, I think, generally speaking, that we would say that, Yes, in certain cases there is an anomaly. I would then say, if I was asked whether we are prepared to rectify it, that I think that it would be virtually impossible to do so without creating more discontent than exists at the present time, having regard to the basis of our National Insurance policy. As I said, the philosophy of it was to provide a benefit commensurate with what people have paid in, to see that they have a reasonable amount to compensate
692
them for the situation in which they find themselves. If they have not, there is, of course, the second string—that of supplementary benefit, about which I should like to say something later.
In the present situation I think that this is as much as we can do, having regard to our resources. I do not think that one could hope to have overlapping benefits in some instances without facing up to the fact that there would be a large number of people who would quite rightly want to know why they were not entitled to overlapping benefits in their particular circumstance. Noble Lords will know that in many instances overlapping is prevented by conditions laid down in the Act for the receipt of benefit. For example, a person who claims unemployment benefit must show that he is capable of work, if he has to show that he is capable of work before he can get unemployment benefit, obviously sickness and unemployment benefits—both maintenance benefits payable during an interruption of earnings—must be mutually exclusive; one cannot have the two.
Similarly, the Act does not permit the payment of sickness or unemployment benefit to people who are over pensionable age and retired. A retired person may receive only one basic retirement pension, so a married woman cannot have both a dependant's retirement pension on her husband's contribution and a basic pension on her own contributions. But there are many situations like this where she would be entitled to whichever is the greater, as the noble Lord knows. The overlapping benefits regulations as such merely mop up, as it were, all the cases where duplication is not prevented by a provision built into the main legislation. Your Lordships may be interested to know that it has been estimated, although I admit that it is not easy to calculate this precisely, that it would cost something like £2,000 million a year or more to remove all the provisions preventing duplication. I know that the noble Lord is not suggesting this. What I am saying is that, if one does it in one area or one field, I do not know what the justification would be for not carrying it to its logical conclusion. This is a tremendous problem.
It is not just this large amount of money that would be at stake. One has to face that, in a sense, benefits would become a

693
kind of lottery and any semblance of equity would go out of the window. I said this before. It is a price that no Government could afford to pay. All the way along the line one has to see that there is some kind of equity. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that what I am describing is a very complicated situation indeed. It is more complicated than it was in 1948, when there were only 13 benefits in the National Insurance Act and about 11 in the Industrial Injuries Act. Since those days, another 19 National Insurance benefits have been added to the list and, as more benefits are added, more provisions against overlapping must also be added to keep the scheme sensible.
We are not the only country which has this kind of structure. I am told that provisions against overlapping feature also in the schemes of other countries, and relevant reciprocal agreements as well as EEC Regulations also contain provisions in this matter. It might be helpful if I explained fairly briefly the criteria on which the overlapping benefit rules are based. First, a person may not receive at the same time more than one of the basic personal maintenance benefits of the scheme or any analogous benefit. These benefits include not only sickness and unemployment benefit, which I have already mentioned, but such things as widow's, invalidity and retirement pensions. The amount of the higher or highest of these benefits is, of course, the one which is paid.
Only one special addition of the same kind may be paid on top of the basic benefit, but special additions of different kinds are not affected. For example, a disabled person could get a disablement pension, a mobility allowance and an attendance allowance on top of one of the maintenance benefits such as invalidity pension or unemployability supplement. Only one dependency benefit is payable for any one dependant at any one time, and a person who has a personal maintenance benefit cannot count as a dependant. Once again, any balance of benefit can be paid if the personal benefit is lower than the dependency benefit would be.
May I give an example of that—although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, himself referred to it. A married woman could, because of deficient contributions, qualify for sickness benefit
694
at less than the standard rate. If, for example, her sickness benefit was at the rate of £7·35, her husband, who was an invalidity pensioner, could get £3·15 for her, bringing the total benefit up to the rate of dependency increase of invalidity pension to £10·50. So she gets no more money. She can exercise her right in one direction, but it must be taken into account. We take the view that this is quite the right thing to do. I was going to give other examples, but perhaps I could leave that for the time being.
From next April, earnings-related additional components will become payable under the new pensions arrangements on top of invalidity, widow's and retirement pensions. These are meant to be special additions for the purpose of bringing benefits up to a level related to a contributor's earnings, and they are the counterpart to occupational pensions which are not affected by the payment of State benefits. We have consequently made regulations to ensure that these fall within the second rule I have mentioned, and remain payable on top of the best basic maintenance benefit to which a beneficiary is entitled.
Additional components may be inherited, and in this situation the overlapping rules follow the precedent of the Pensions Act to ensure that no one can get more additional component from two sources than would be the biggest amount one contributor could have earned. We are also providing that graduated retirement benefit, like additional component, will not be lost in overlapping situations. In view of the time, perhaps I might turn to one or two matters which have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question of child benefit and supplementary benefit. In so far as there is a problem here—and he admits that there is some logic about this—it arises from the Government's success in phasing in child benefit and achieving such a good rate of child benefit so quickly. Noble Lords will recall that the aim of supplementary benefit is to bring a family's income up to a given level, and this includes allowances for children. In assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit, a family's income from all sources is added up and supplementary benefit is awarded to meet the gap. If income from other sources such

695
as child benefit goes up, the amount of supplementary benefit needed to cover the gap is reduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, by the same figure. If this did not happen, the Government would fail in their aim of replacing means-tested benefits by universal benefits, and would not help the problem regarding incentives.
There is nothing new in this approach. In the past family allowances were offset against supplementary benefit, and increases in them led to corresponding reductions in supplementary benefit. The need for this to happen was well recognised, if I may say so, by Frank Field of the Child Poverty Action Group in his letter of 17th April to The Times in which he encouraged the Government to stand by this policy as a way of getting people off means-tested benefits. But, in view of the strength of the noble Lord's feeling on this, I would draw the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security to the points raised by the noble Lord.
One must bear in mind that supplementary benefit is designed to meet the needs of individual families. However much some people may dislike means-tested benefits—and I am not myself altogether wedded to the concept of means tests—I think one must recognise that, if not in all cases, in the majority of cases it is a workable and fair way of dealing with a situation and being able to assess each individual family's needs and to meet the needs of that particular family.
The noble Lord raised the question of a tax credit system. If he asked me why the Government do not take it on board, I think the short answer and the true answer, as things stand at the moment, is cost. I do not think we would agree on that. I have heard the noble Lord say before that perhaps the Government have made too much of this question of cost, but we have done our own costing. But having said that, I think in a sense it could be said that child benefit incorporates many of the features of a full tax credit system even if it does not go the whole way. One does not know but that perhaps in time something may be done about it.
I wanted to deal with the question of the widow who takes one of the full-time Government-sponsored training courses
696
who forfeits her National insurance widow's pension and relies on training allowances. She can do that, or she can keep her pension and allowances for children and get an abated training allowance. This is not the whole story. If a widow takes the second of these options, and she keeps her pension and allowances for children and gets the abated training allowance, she will receive first her personal widowed mother's allowance at the current weekly rate of £17·50; secondly, an abated training allowance of £8·20, and the balance needed to bring her benefit up to the standard personal rate of training allowance of £25·70; thirdly, National Insurance allowances for her dependent children at the higher rate of £8·40 per week—those normally paid with training allowance are at the lower rate of £4·50; fourthly, an earnings-related addition for training allowance based on her previous earnings, if any, at a weekly rate of up to £15·42; and, finally, an allowance to cover various expenses connected with her training. We take the view that these arrangements make adequate and fair provision for her; that she really is not at the disadvantage that sometimes, I think, people are led to believe.
I think the only other thing I want to refer to is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who wondered whether there could not be some elasticity in these matters of overlapping benefits. Frankly, of course, that is not possible. Who is going to make the judgment? We have 600 local offices working to the rules laid down in the various Acts—in other words, laid down by law—and we cannot possibly give managers of our local branches discretion to administer matters according to their own judgment without there being (shall I say?) some injustice to many. It is one of these things that are laid down; it must be applied. And although one would like to think that there is always a measure of discretion, I do not think there can be a measure of discretion in matters of this kind. My Lords, I conclude where I began, and say that I am grateful we have had this opportunity to discuss this subject. I know my right honourable friends in my Department will be looking at this, and I hope that perhaps one of these days we can give an account which will be more acceptable to some of your Lordships.

  TUVALU: AID SOURCES
  TUVALU: AID SOURCES