Sitting of 4 December 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  To be considered upon Thursday.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
Lords amendments agreed to.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time upon Thursday.
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Job Release Scheme
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the job release scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): Take-up of the job release scheme has grown considerably since its expansion on 1 May this year. Forty-five thousand, seven hundred applications were accepted between 1 May and 7 November, and the total number receiving job release allowance has risen to 55,000.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree, fully taking into account the problem of resources, that a flexible retirement system is becoming increasingly attractive? Will he carry out some research and try to find out whether it is possible to bring in such a scheme in stages?
    Mr. Prior: There is such a scheme in operation in the United States which generally results in people retiring earlier on a lower retirement benefit than they would otherwise obtain. I do not think that we can afford such a scheme at this stage, but I shall give further attention to the matter over the next year or so.
    Mr. John Grant: Will the Minister confirm that the special extension of this scheme to disabled people has been particularly helpful this year? Does he not agree that all employment schemes are inter-related? Will he therefore comment on the reports that the cuts in the special temporary employment programme are under serious reconsideration? If not, a number of good schemes will be murdered.
    Mr. Prior: No further cuts are contemplated in the special temporary employment programme after the cuts which were made during the summer.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about job release for disabled persons. Two thousand five hundred disabled persons have benefited from the scheme, and

    209
    we should give further encouragement to it.
    Mr. Madel: Will the Minister confirm that, although the scheme is currently helping a number of people to find a job, a person's release under this scheme depends on negotiations between employer and employee? The employer's attitude is bound to be influenced by the local labour market conditions.
    Mr. Prior: The employer must guarantee that he will find someone else to take the place of the person who is released. That is bound to have an effect on the take-up of the scheme, which is why, in all probability, the number of people taking up the scheme in the South-East has been lower than in other parts of the country.

  North-West
  Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce unemployment in the North-West.
  Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce unemployment on Merseyside.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): Every effort is being made to concentrate Government help in the areas of highest unemployment. This applies to parts of the North-West and to Merseyside in particular. However, real jobs can be created only by a successful partnership between Government measures and the energies and efforts of management and workers.
  Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that since his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry downgraded the area of St. Helens from special development area status to development area status official notice has been given that the Rockware Group Ltd., a manufacturer of glass containers, is to make a further 460 workers redundant early in the spring of next year? Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he is aware of the new job enterprise named Index of St. Helen's and whether he and his right hon Friend have been invited to take an important part in making the new job enterprise a success?
  Mr. Lester: We are aware of Index and we have taken some interest in it. There is no direct connection between the redundancies declared by Rockware and the suggested reduction in the status of the area of St. Helens from SDA to DA. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a delegation to see the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. I understand that my hon. Friend is considering carefully the arguments that were advanced.
  Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that the 900 workers now occupying the Meccano factory in Liverpool were not given the statutory notice? These workers, some of whom have given 20 years and 25 years' service to the company, were given 20 minutes' notice by the management. So much for co-operation from management. The Minister will be aware of the reply given by the Prime Minister to me last Tuesday, when she accepted that there are serious and grievous problems on Merseyside. When shall we see the Government taking positive action to alleviate the problems instead of merely paying lip service to them?
  Mr. Lester: The Department is investigating the special circumstances to ascertain whether there was any reason that prevented the company from complying with the requirements of employment protection legislation. I suggest that we wait until the facts are known before we decide whether a penalty is applicable. The unions involved are able to take the company to an industrial tribunal if it has not complied with its side of the bargain.
  We all recognise the severe difficulties on Merseyside. Ministers have paid a series of visits to the area and they will continue to do so. We are trying to co-ordinate the efforts of all the Departments. We recognise that that is the only way in which we shall make an impact on Merseyside. I suggest that that is the only way in which to proceed.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has my hon. Friend considered the recommendation of the North-East Lancashire Development Association that the phasing out of intermediate area status for North-East Lancashire should take rather longer than the three years proposed?
  Mr. Lester: That is not a matter for the Department. However, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's remarks will be considered. There is a review of all these changes before they take place.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Minister aware that in the Lancashire textile industry there is redundancy after redundancy and closure after closure? Will he consider again with urgency the need to reintroduce in North-East Lancashire the full panoply of temporary employment subsidy measures? Does he understand that previously they were a great help?
  Mr. Lester: The real problem is that the TES measures, for example, had an adverse effect on Merseyside and prevented jobs from being created in that area. If we are to concentrate Government assistance where unemployment is at the highest levels, we are proceeding in the only way possible. We have a sophisticated system of notifying redundancies, but we do not have an equally sophisticated method of notifying the availability of jobs unless they are provided by Government assistance. We must be careful that we judge redundancies against the number of new jobs that are created, which must be more than the redundancies in the long run.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How can the Minister say that every effort is being made by the Government to assist employment in the North-West and on Merseyside when every action that the Government have taken has seriously damaged employment prospects in those areas, not least the withdrawal of intermediate area status from one half of my constituency, which has serious employment problems? When are we to get the opportunity stakes of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks so blandly? When will my constituents have proper employment opportunities?
  Mr. Lester: Intermediate area status in half of the hon. Gentleman's constituency cannot have had such a great effect. Of greater effect is the operation and co-operation of trade unions within his constituency in implementing the special measures. If he could get the trade unions to co-operate, we might be able to spend the budget that we have allocated.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress made in paying compensation under the Pneumoconiosis, etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979; and if he will make a statement.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): These have not proved easy regulations to prepare and it is disappointing that we have taken longer than expected to resolve the problems. This we have now done, and the draft regulations will be laid tomorrow. We hope to ask Parliament to approve them before Christmas so that they may come into operation on 1 January. First payments should be made shortly thereafter.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that in view of the anxiety and disappointment aroused by the delay there will be a welcome for his statement? Will he give an assurance that the position of widows, especially those who have been widowed for over five years, will be safeguarded? Will he also give an indication that the position of slate quarrymen, who may have left their places of work with a low percentage of dust that has increased subsequently, will be recognised and that the cash will be paid early in January as he has said?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Slate quarrymen and other sufferers of diseases within the Act will be taken into account in the regulations. Their diseases have a different pattern of progression from coal pneumoconiosis. That will be taken into account. Payments will take place within a few weeks of the coming into operation of the regulations on 1 January.
  Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that there is a deep sense of grievance on the part of many pneumoconiosis sufferers and their trade unions about the operation of the present system for paying compensation? Will he consult the Department of Health and Social Security about the abolition of the pneumoconiosis medical boards and their replacement by general practitioners and local consultants who could give evidence about pneumoconiosis?
  Mr. Mayhew: The Department of Employment does not have responsibility for the pneumoconiosis medical boards. The right hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters and he will know that the regulations under the Pneumoconiosis, etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 tie the entitlement to benefit to there being either disablement benefit awarded by the pneumoconiosis board, following a finding by the board, or death benefit.
  Mr. Burden: Has the position of those suffering from asbestosis been considered?
  Mr. Mayhew: Asbestosis is included within the ambit of the Act. I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that widows with an entitlement going back beyond five years will be looked after in the scheme controlled by the regulations.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Further to the supplementary question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and further to the Minister's recognition that there is a close link between that which my right hon. Friend raised and the eligibility of benefit under the proposed regulations and the operation of the medical tribunals, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is widespread disquiet, illustrated by the case reported in The Guardian today of a person who has been awarded £10,000 damages for mesothelioma arising from asbestosis, where the panel refused to accept that the person concerned was suffering from an industrial disease? That is only one of many cases. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will discuss that issue with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  Mr. Mayhew: I shall examine the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

  Unemployed Persons
  Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in Great Britain.
  Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Prior: At 8th November the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,292,284 and in the United Kingdom 1,355,203.
  Mr. Evans: In view of the appalling number of redundancies now coming through as a result of the Government's policy, does the right hon. Gentleman expect the level of unemployment to reach 2 million before the Easter Recess or the Summer Recess?
  Mr. Prior: The level of unemployment is serious and I think that it will worsen. That is not as a result of Government action. Had it not been for some of the measures that we have taken, I believe that it would have been considerably worse.
  Mr. Canavan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 30,000 jobs have been lost this year alone in Scottish industry and that the Government's only response to the mass exodus of multi-national companies is to cut regional assistance, to cut the powers and budget of the Scottish Development Agency, and to sack its chairman? Is it not about time that some sanity was introduced to even this Government's policy before Scotland is crippled industrially by the mad policies of the Iron Lady and her tin man at the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Prior: If it comes to sanity, do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will require help from the hon. Gentleman. Far more important than the loss of jobs is the creation of new jobs. Many of the jobs that are being lost are old jobs in old firms and old processes. What must be considered in our unit costs, productivity and industrial relations is how to create new jobs.
  Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware that those figures include the highest unemployment figures ever known in the Northern region? Does he further know that the main cause of that disastrous situation is the lack of confidence in all who are concerned with the Government's new regional policy? As a matter of urgency, will the Secretary of State

  215
  arrange a meeting with the northern TUC and the northern CBI to see how that policy can be best modified to suit the particular needs of the Northern region?
  Mr. Prior: The Northern region has difficult problems and if the northern TUC or CBI would like to come and see me, I shall make myself available at any time.
  Mr. McCrindle: Can my right hon. Friend explain why such a shortage of semi-skilled and skilled workers remains in the public services during a period of high unemployment? Could it be that we have not yet sufficiently restored differentials for skill and that short-term unemployment benefits are untaxed, which means that we are failing to provide an incentive to people to take up existing job vacancies?
  Mr. Prior: There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. There is not sufficient differential between skilled and unskilled rates of pay. In many parts of the country where unemployment is high, it is difficult to get people to work at weekends and do shift work. That is a new social phenomenon that must be dealt with. Labour Members know that and they could help.
  Mr. Heffer: The policies of the previous Government partially worked—they did not entirely work—but is it not clear that this Government's policy of total laissez-faire is an absolute disaster? Is it not time that the Government returned to a policy of intervention in economic affairs?
  Mr. Prior: No, Sir. There is a degree of interventionism, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the retention of special development area status for Merseyside and in other areas. Those matters must be judged by using common sense and reason. Had the previous Labour Government been returned to office, they would not have been able to keep their public expenditure programmes going. Former Ministers in that Government have said that. We must all learn a few lessons and do the best that we can.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peter Walker. I beg your pardon—Mr. Peter Bottomley. [Laughter.] Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind the compliment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not mind either. Does the Secretary of State agree that predictions on unemployment are difficult, and that those who were predicting that by Christmas there would be 2 million unemployed will be just as wrong as those Opposition Members who predicted that, when they came into office in 1974, their policies would avoid the massive increase of unemployment that was soon witnessed by the whole country?
  Mr. Prior: I am certain that such a question will earn my hon. Friend quick promotion.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: As the Minister has implied that he is in favour of intervention, will he intervene amongst his colleagues and Front Bench spokesmen—such as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—and stop them from attacking the trade union movement? Does not the Minister recognise that industries are and have been closing down on Merseyside, although they have a good record of industrial relations? Meccano is one example, and its closure is another nail in Merseyside's coffin. Does he not realise that the people of Merseyside are sick and tired of having the problems of that area blamed on the militancy of the trade union movement? The trade union movement is militant because those problems exist anyway, and the Government should intervene and do something about them.
  Mr. Prior: That sort of intervention is not helpful. Members representing Merseyside constituencies could do a great deal to help, rather than do some of the things that they have done in recent years.
  Mr. Skinner: Explain.
  Mr. Prior: In recent years Merseyside Members have very often added to bad industrial relations in the area.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware whether any Labour Member has encouraged the trade unions not to put in excessive wage claims? Such claims can only lead to increased unemployment.
  Mr. Prior: No, but there will be another opportunity for the Opposition to

  217
  give some encouragement in that direction during the next few weeks. I hope that I shall be introducing the new Bill before Christmas.
  Mr. Varley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he is surrounded by Cabinet colleagues, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry, who are actively promoting unemployment, the House seeks a statement from him that he will carry out his job and promote employment and job opportunity measures?
  Mr. Prior: As I entirely reject the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I need not reply to the second part.

  Industrial Management (Participation)
  Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to encourage wider participation in the management of industry.
  Mr. Prior: There is nothing more important for improving industrial relations than getting better communication between management and its work force, and the involvement of the work force in matters affecting it at its place of work. I have lost no opportunity to support worthwhile initiatives—such as the issue of guidance by the CBI and other influential bodies—designed to help this process.
  Mr. Haselhurst: If my right hon. Friend agrees that one of the most important contributions that could be made to the progress of British industry would be to get rid of the spirit of partisanship that has overlaid it for so long, does he not think that that will continue to lack urgency unless he shows tangible support for it?
  Mr. Prior: I wish to avoid legislation on that front because it might have the opposite result to that desired. Everything that we can do to persuade and cajole management into better communication, and greater involvement on the shop floor, is essential if we are to solve our industrial relations problems.
  Mr. Radice: If the Secretary of State is really interested in wider industrial participation, will he make representations to the Secretary of State for Industry to ensure that the trade union board mem-
  218
  bers at the Post Office are reappointed after 31 December?
  Mr. Prior: I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will examine all the available evidence carefully and even-handedly before arriving at any decision. I am not, however, entirely satisfied that this has proved to be a good experiment so far.
  Mr. Needham: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is prepared to consider introducing a code of practice on employee participation? He mentioned that subject several times when he was shadow spokesman for employment.
  Mr. Prior: I am always prepared to consider it. However, I would prefer a joint approach between the Government, the TUC, and the CBI.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Secretary of State believe that it is possible to induce management to introduce any form of worthwhile worker participation in industry without legislation?
  Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir.

  Unfilled Vacancies
  Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated current level of unfilled vacancies compared with the total number of unemployed in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Prior: The number of unfilled vacancies at employment offices in the United Kingdom in November was 231,000 which is estimated to represent about one in three of all vacancies in the economy. The total number of registered unemployed in November was 1,355,000.
  Mr. Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many constituencies, such as my own of Nelson and Colne, where, despite a regrettable positive unemployment figure, we have many job vacancies for skilled and semi-skilled workers? Is he aware that in our particular area there are dozens of habitable terraced houses costing £3,000 to £6,000 each?
  Mr. Canavan: On 15 per cent. mortgages.
  Mr. Lee: One of Britain's worst characteristics is the inability to change and the lack of mobility of labour.
  Mr. Prior: We certainly require maximum mobility of labour. A number of factors such as rent control and an inability to provide housing prevent mobility. In spite of that, however, 8 million or 9 million people a year go on and come off the register. In many cases, if employers require skilled people they will probably have to pay more for them.
  Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that on Tyneside in the skilled trades between 12 and 50 men are chasing every vacancy, and that for unskilled work there are 200 men chasing every vacancy?
  Mr. Prior: The further north one goes, the fewer the vacancies and the more unemployed workers there are chasing them. However, even in the North of England, in areas of high unemployment there are job vacancies, particularly involving shift and weekend work, which remain unfilled. There is something going on here which hon. Members know about, and we must all do what we can to help.

  Ex-British Railways Employees (Human Rights)
  Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a progress report on the cases of the three ex-British Railways employees currently before the European Commission of Human Rights.
  Mr. Mayhew: These unfortunate men claim that as a result of the Labour Government's trade union legislation and their consequent dismissal by British Rail the United Kingdom has failed to secure them the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. We vigorously opposed that legislation, and propose to correct it. The new Government on 9 July, by the Solicitor-General, made submissions on their legal responsibility for British Rail, and on the legal interpretation of the convention. They expressly abandoned one of the submissions of their predecessors, that the legislation was necessary, and stated that their own policy towards the closed shop would ensure that the circumstances of the claimants would not arise in future. The commission's pro-
  220
  cedure is now to seek in confidence a friendly settlement.
  Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he agree, notwithstanding a decision by the European Commission of Human Rights, that this case and others underline the need as a matter of urgency to amend the law relating to the closed shop, and that to do so is merely to restore the basic right of individuals? Does he agree that there is no way in which that can be taken by any fair-minded person as an attack on the unions?
  Mr. Mayhew: I agree with my hon. Friend. These cases reveal the great injustice that results when people can be sacked without compensation solely because they have declined to join a union after the introduction of a new closed shop agreement. We shall put that right.
  Mr. Flannery: Why do the Conservative Government always attack the trade unions in legislation when they come to power and defend those who are unwilling to pay for being in a union but want a free ride and accept the wages that a union negotiates for them? The Government want to give freedom to people who are not in unions while denying it to those who are.
  Mr. Mayhew: Many millions of trade union members voted for the proposals which the Government publicised in their working paper. They recognise that it is far better that members of trade unions should be voluntarily recruited and that there should be proper safeguards for the rights of those who do not want to join a closed shop.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the law as it stands is, as it has been for many years, neutral on the question of the closed shop? Is he further aware that, when this case was referred to Strasbourg, Ministers in the previous Government gave no advice or direction, and did not seek to influence those who would be dealing with the Government's case at Strasbourg? Those people were left to deal with the matter on strictly legal and judicial principles. Does the Minister realise that his departure from that, in that Ministers are now giving guidance and seeking to influence those engaged in the judicial process, is a

  221
  gross departure from the precedents in this matter?
  Mr. Mayhew: I entirely reject that argument. The advice that the right hon. Gentleman's Government did or did not give is a matter for him and is no part of our responsibility. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General attended at Strasbourg on 9 July in his capacity as a law officer to make representations, among other things, as to the legal interpretation of article 11 of the convention on behalf of the United Kingdom, and to indicate that the attitude of the new Government towards the closed shop was markedly different from that of their predecessors.

  Unemployed Persons
  Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the level of unemployment; and what difficulties are being experienced in industries or services involved in shift work in obtaining labour, especially skilled labour.
  Mr. Prior: At 8 November the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,292,284, a percentage rate of 5·5. Some industries report problems in recruiting people for shift work. Certain manual engineering skills are in short supply nationally; others in certain geographical areas.
  Mr. Latham: Does not the high number of unemployed and the serious skill shortage in certain areas, as anyone reading the Leicester Mercury on any day will know, suggest that the so-called black economy might be a lot larger than anyone realises?
  Mr. Prior: I suggest that the black economy has been growing in this country, as it has in other countries, for a number of years. However, I think that the reductions in tax and the ability now to pay higher rates for those with high skills will help to ease this problem.
  Mr. Concannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain parts of the country and certain industries are used to shift work? I refer in particular to the mining industry. What kind of Government policy is it that puts that at risk by allowing short-term imports of foreign subsidised coal?
  Mr. Prior: If it is producing efficiently I see no necessity for any jobs in the coal industry to be put at risk.
  Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties in filling skilled vacancies is the shortage of instructors at certain skillcentres and the lack of agreement with the unions that when a person has completed a course he is qualified for a particular job? Will the Government have another talk with the TUC on this matter?
  Mr. Prior: At national level the TUC has generally been very co-operative over this matter. There have been a number of difficulties, however, at local level. One of our problems is the difficulty of making certain that we are training people for the skills of tomorrow rather than, perhaps as all too often happens, for the skills of yesterday.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Secretary of State making any studies of the consequences for employment, or the lack of it, of the importation last year of over 800,000 cars and over £1 billion of steel?
  Mr. Prior: These are tragedies for employment in Britain. If we can secure good industrial relations and steady work, there is a great deal more that we can produce at home to the benefit of domestic employment, the balance of payments, and our whole society. I strongly commend what the hon. Gentleman said.

  Training Opportunities Programme
  Mr. Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of trainees in the training opportunities programme have subsequently entered employment in their field of training or a related trade.
  Mr. Prior: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that three months after completing their TOPS training during 1978–79, 59 per cent. of adults were in a job using the skills they had learnt. In discussions with the commission I have emphasised my concern that its training efforts should be aimed at providing the skills for tomorrow's needs, not yesterday's, and I will be having further discussions with it on ways of improving the training services it provides. I welcome useful suggestions on how this can best be achieved.
  Mr. Rathbone: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a better application of Government expenditure than the vastly expensive jobcentres which are indiscriminate in their direction and in their constituency?
  Mr. Prior: I think that jobcentres have a part to play in improving the uptake of jobs, but I thing that the organisation has been a bit too extravagant in recent years, and we shall be looking at that problem. I am deeply dissatisfied with the amount of money we are spending as a nation—not just the Government—on training, and yet we have more vacancies for skilled people at a time of recession than ever before. Something is not right with our training exercise. A review is needed and is taking place. In due course we shall present proposals to the House.
  Mr. Hooley: If the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with training, why has he cut back Government subventions to the training boards?
  Mr. Prior: I do not believe that I am cutting back on any subventions which are going into the provision of the skills of tomorrow. However, there is a lot of wasted expenditure on training boards, as on other parts of our training services. We are determined to put that right.

  West Midlands
  Mr. Parkasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the future employment prospects in the West Midlands during the next 12 months.
  Mr. Jim Lester: There is no doubt that the region's industrial base has been badly hit over the last five years. However, I would not accept that the area is suffering from inevitable permanent decline. If we can create the right climate for industry, then I am certain that the West Midlands will reap the benefits.
  Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that we have heard that answer on about five or six different occasions? Does he agree that, as the Government are aware that thousands more people are to be made redundant in the West Midlands as a result of the Edwardes plan, they should reconsider their policy of nonintervention?
  Mr. Lester: Unemployment has fallen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by 452 since April 1979. That is a great contrast between February 1974 and 1979, when it rose by 9,086, with the interventionist policies of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Bulmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that job prospects in the West Midlands would be much improved if the trade unions at British Leyland put the long-term commercial interests of that company before any other consideration?
  Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is true that there is a new feeling in the West Midlands, as in other parts of the country, that the only way in which we shall solve our industrial and economic problems is by working together. I hope that that will come through in the coming months.
  Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister agree that he is painting a pretty picture of the West Midlands? Bearing in mind the promises made before the election by the Conservative Party, whose members have not carried out their promises, and the fact that the employment situation is a dismal failure, will the Government put the Secretary of State for Industry into hibernation until the next general election, because there will be more people out of work than in work?
  Mr. Lester: I am delighted to answer the question. We have kept our promises. We have removed the restrictions on industry. We have restored to companies the ability to manage and to work with their work force. We have restored to workers incentives to use their skills. Those policies must have resulted in the figures I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park).
  Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend look into certain interesting experiments which have taken place between industry and schools in parts of the West Midlands whereby would-be school leavers are able to do a day or half a day at work in their chosen jobs? Will he look at the results of that scheme to determine whether it is worth applying nationally?
  Mr. Lester: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is chairing a Committee to consider schemes of this kind. We recognise that if this country is to succeed

  225
  we must have a much better understanding at a much earlier stage of our industrial processes, where the wealth is really created. I am happy to say that there are many other schemes of a similar nature helping to educate young children, before they are 11, into the realities of our economic life. All these schemes must be helpful in the long run.

  National Union of Local Government Officers
  Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to meet Mr. Geoffrey Drain, general secretary of the National Union of Local Government Officers.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet Mr. Drain, but he would be very pleased to meet him at any time.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister take early steps to meet Mr. Drain of the National Union of Local Government Officers and give him an assurance that his Department will do all in its power to resolve the dispute in the British universities between the non-teaching staff and the university vice-chancellors, who are refusing appeals machinery which is available throughout the public sector and to other employees?
  Mr. Mayhew: I am aware of this dispute. The Goverment take no part in disputes involving the negotiating machinery of university clerical staffs. This dispute is entirely a matter for the parties concerned.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister assure NALGO that the Government intend to change their policy of opposition and dislike of the public sector? Will they recognise the economic illiteracy of their present policies and understand that the public sector could act as the best possible trigger for an economic recovery in this country?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to reform the law relating to unfair dismissals.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Government's proposals in relation to unfair dismissal were
  226
  published in a working paper on 25 September which was lodged in the Library of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that his Department commissioned a survey of 30 small firms, which showed that no small businesses suffered particularly from the unfair dismissal laws and that in fact only 17 per cent. of them thought that the industrial relations laws at present were a hindrance? Will he therefore accept that his own Department's survey showed that no change to these laws on unfair dismissal could be justified on grounds of significant burden on the employer?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. Surveys commissioned by my Department have shown that significant numbers of small firms have been influenced in their employment policy by the provisions of the Employment Protection Act for unfair dismissal. Many surveys commissioned by chambers of trade and similar organisations have reinforced that message. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I am not surprised that his policy is so inappropriate to the needs of small businesses.

  TOBACCO INDUSTRY (THIRD WORLD)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with co-ordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Health and Social Security regarding aid to the tobacco industry in the Thirld world; and if she will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are close contacts between the Departments concerned. The aid programme supports tobacco growing in only three developing countries and to a very limited extent.
  Mrs. Short: Does not the Prime Minister think that £3¼million of aid to help the tobacco industry in the developing world is very much more than we should be spending, bearing in mind that the Department of Health and Social Security accepts that smoking is a very dangerous activity? Would it not be better to use that aid to encourage the production of crops that would be useful to all the people of the developing world?
  The Prime Minister: As I believe the hon. Lady is aware, as she has asked a number of questions, we give aid to tobacco crops only when tobacco is the best cash crop for the country concerned. To withdraw aid in those circumstances would be damaging to the country and would rob it of a good deal of foreign earnings.
  Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister move very slowly before introducing domestic legislation which has as its aim the further imposition of the Government's will in the area of smoking? Does she not agree that the voluntary agreement which has been in existence between the Government and the tobacco companies has worked extremely well over the past few years and that the Government should be trying to build on that agreement rather than introduce further restrictive legislation?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the voluntary agreement has worked well. I believe that we should be very slow indeed in thinking of imposing any statutory regulations.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
  The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Speaker of the Knesset. Later this afternoon I shall be meeting the King and Queen of Tonga. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
  Mr. Stanbrook: As the present high level of the minimum lending rate and, therefore, interest charges by building societies are due to the continuing high level of public spending and Government borrowing, and as some local and public authorities claim, falsely, that the economies they make can be made only at the expense of direct services to the public, will my right hon. Friend today give a lead to a citizens' campaign to search out, expose and destroy bureaucratic waste, over manning and general inefficiency such as is characterised by too
  228
  many public authorities and Government Departments?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's thesis that high public expenditure leads to high public borrowing and that high public borrowing leads to high interest rates. Indeed, looking back over the period of the last Labour Government, the time when we had interest rates low was the time when the IMF came in and insisted that we reduce public expenditure and when we got the public sector borrowing requirement down to £5½ billion. Interest rates were then rapidly reduced from about 9 per cent. in that year to 5 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend's thesis, and I hope that all Ministers in this Government are crusaders for sensible savings in public expenditure.
  Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister spend a little time today considering the points made in the House yesterday about the high cost of public spending on the EEC? Will she consider preparing a White Paper indicating the economic and political implications for this country of our leaving the EEC?
  The Prime Minister: No, I will not think of producing a White Paper to that effect. I answered questions for about three-quarters of an hour on that subject, and I do not think that I can usefully add anything further.
  Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noted the article in the Daily Express today calling on individuals to draw attention to national and local waste? Surely that is a better idea than leaving it to bureaucrats who cannot see the wood for the trees.
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I firmly believe that there are a lot of reductions to be made in the administration of public services of one kind or another. Too many authorities are cutting services to the public when they should be reducing bureaucracy.
  Mr. James Callaghan: As the question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) related to the hardship that will be suffered by those forced to pay high mortgage interest rates, will the Prime Minister begin a crusade to ensure that they receive their tax rebates early? Is she aware that a notice was put out

  229
  after the House adjourned last Friday to the effect that the Inland Revenue would not be able to pay the higher tax rebates for some months, although the interest would be paid from 1 January? That extra rebate could be as much as £2 or £3 a month or even a week, and will the right hon. Lady undertake a crusade to stir up the Inland Revenue?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks back, he will find that when mortgage interest changes are made tax reliefs take a little time to catch up, and that has been the case for quite some time. In Scotland, where the procedure is already carried out by computer, the reliefs will be granted almost immediately. We have made an arrangement that, where anyone suffers hardship because immediate relief is not available, he may contact the Inland Revenue local office and relief will be given as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister today reflect on the decision, which she is alleged to have endorsed, to replace the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency? I speak as a Scottish Member and the leader of a party to which she does not belong, and the fact that the chairman was appointed by a Labour Government is neither here nor there. Sir William Gray has done a first-class job and the Government's action in replacing him seems petty.
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have appointed and reappointed many people who held office under the previous Labour Government. There are times when at the end of a contract we agree to appoint someone new, and that is not a bad idea.
  Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 December.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave a moment ago.
  Mr. Price: Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate herself on dropping the Freedom of Information Bill in the wake of the Blunt affair, and at the same time try to restrain her colleagues' predilections for censorship? Will she also study the broadcast of the Secretary of State for the Environment in which he
  230
  said that BBC reporting of demonstrations should not be allowed to undermine the nation will? Will she restrain such Fascist overtones from her colleagues and support our free and independent broadcasting services instead of attacking and undermining them?
  The Prime Minister: In a free country, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is free to say what he thinks, as is the BBC.
  Mr. Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reflect on the fact that the more Moscow criticises her so-called "Iron Lady" stance, the more convinced are the people of this country that her warnings about Soviet military power should be heeded by the West?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that it is right to warn our people and others in Europe about the fact of Soviet military might and the threat that it poses to this and other free countries in the Western world. I shall continue to do so.
  Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Lady ponder today what sort of achievement it is that, as the first woman Prime Minister, she is introducing sexist and racist legislation that will make lots of women in my constituency second-class citizens? Although possessing British nationality, they will not be entitled to have their husbands here with them in Britain.
  The Prime Minister: We have answered that question many times before and during the election, when I was tackled on the matter in a highly public question and answer session. We undertook during the election campaign to do exactly what we are doing, and we shall continue to carry out that manifesto pledge.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend have time today to consider the problem that our steel industry faces in getting coal through the port of its choice? Will she make sure that that industry can import its coal wherever and whenever it wants, at the cheapest price, and, if need be, that our manufacturing industry can import its steel wherever and whenever it wants and through whichever port it chooses?
  The Prime Minister: I am most concerned on a number of counts, not least that referred to by my hon. Friend. The

  231
  steel industry needs cheap coke but does not seem able to get the agreement of the National Union of Mineworkers to obtain it. I hope that people will carefully consider the matter. If they insist that the steel industry has to have expensive coke, they will deprive some steel workers of their jobs.
  Mr. John Evansasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 December.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier.
  Mr. Evans: Will the Prime Minister take a few moments off today to consider the disgraceful way that her Ministers railroaded through the Industry Bill Committee this morning and extended the sittings motion? Will she then have a discussion with her noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to ascertain when he intends to introduce his Bill of Rights to protect minorities?
  The Prime Minister: I am always ready to have a discussion with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Such discussions are always rewarding.
  Mr. Latham: If my right hon. Friend wants a crusade against public spending and waste, does she agree that it would be popular on the Opposition Benches to put the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) in charge?
  The Prime Minister: I have read on many occasions what the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said about the need for public expenditure savings. We have implemented some of those savings, although I believe that there is still some way to go.
  Mr. McNally: Will the Prime Minister find time later today to meet a delegation visiting the House this afternoon which represents 18 British Aerospace factories? If she did so, she would hear the genuine and authentic voice of British Aerospace which would tell the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to stop meddling in the industry.
  The Prime Minister: In any industry there is usually more than one voice. I am sure that if the delegation asks to
  232
  see a Minister from the Department of Industry, one of them will oblige. I am sorry that I cannot do so.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend today consider the fact that the increase in Britain's net contribution to the EEC, which has increased from £16 million to nearly £1,000 million a year, requires the understanding and support of the Opposition as well as that of our Community partners involved in the renegotiations?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, we managed to secure some reduction in the contributions, but we still have a long way to go in persuading our EEC partners that this country must have vastly increased receipts from Community expenditure.
  Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the right hon. Lady take time off today to consult her right hon. Friends about the appalling tragedy facing Meccano in Liverpool, and will they take particular account of the means and manner in which the notice to the work force was delivered?
  The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. As I understand the facts, only a few minutes' notice was given that the firm was to close. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Employment Protection Act about 90 days' notice is required unless there are special circumstances. We are inquiring into whether those special circumstances existed. If they did not, I understand that the firm is liable to pay a penalty in the courts.
  Mr. Dover: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new towns up and down the country, particularly in central Lancashire, are building a great deal of housing for rent? That places a heavy drain on public funds. It is also uneconomic in terms of long-term financial arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend make a decision about whether new towns should continue to build housing for rent or whether private developers should be allowed to build private houses for sale?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure to which new town my hon. Friend refers. A number of new towns provide for more and more private housing. If they continue to do so, it is a good thing that

  233
  more land should be made available for it.

  IMMIGRATION (DEBATE)
  Mr. Dubs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon the House is to debate immigration. Is it in order that such an important debate takes place when the Government are to make two ministerial statements? That will reduce the opportunity for the House to discuss immigration problems.
  Mr. Speaker: As the House will have expected, a large number of hon. Members have indicated that they hope to speak on immigration. Therefore, I hope to have the co-operation of the House in limiting the question period on the statements.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.
The Commission has given careful consideration to the second report of last Session from the Services Committee regarding the future of the catering services The report covered all the catering facilities in the House, both those for Members and for other users.
The Commission has, in particular, considered the Committee's main recommendation that the Refreshment Department should become
"a fully fledged Department of the House with its own administrative head".
It suggests that, within such a framework,
"the total number of the permanent staff of the Refreshment Department would be established annually and their wage and related payroll costs borne on the House of Commons (Administration) Vote. Major equipment costs would continue to be paid for out of the allied service Votes and ancillary costs such as heating, lighting and printing would also be met in the same ways as under the present system. The remainder of the operation would be borne on a separate trading account, which would be expected to show an overall profit.
…Meal and bar prices would accordingly be based on the cost of raw products together with direct expenses, such as paper products, laundry services, cleaning, the costs of additional (casual) labour and other departmental overheads".
The Commission can see no prospect of putting an end to the difficulties which have for many years beset the operations of the Refreshment Department other than by an arrangement of this nature, and has taken note that it has been given power under the House of Commons (Administration) Act to bring such an arrangement into effect. It has accordingly decided to use its power under section 4(3) and schedule 1 of the Act to create a new Refreshment Department as a House Department, and to delegate its functions concerning staff to the head of that Department. It also decided to appoint Mr. John Smillie, the General Manager of the Refreshment Department, as head of the new Department. The Commission proposes that the new arrangements shall be effective from the

235
beginning of the next financial year, that is, from 1 April 1980. The effect of these decisions will be that the head of the Refreshment Department will be in complete control of all the catering staff, responsible solely to the Commission; the executive function of the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee—conferred upon it by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of each Parliament—will accordingly cease.
However, the Commission understands that the Sub-Committee is ready to continue to function and to make its experience and its knowledge of the needs of hon. Members available, in an advisory capacity, to the Refreshment Department—and in matters of great importance through Mr. Speaker to the Commission. The Commission is aware that many administrative details will need to be settled before the new system is brought into operation. Work to this end has already begun. It is happy to record that, as one important step, a new and comprehensive pension scheme has been agreed which, it is informed, is fully acceptable to the existing members of the Refreshment Department.
The Commission considers it of prime importance that the operation of the new system should be subject to the most stringent financial controls from the outset and that every effort must continue to be made to economise in the catering facilities of the House. At the same time, the Commission considers that the Refreshment Department should not be encumbered by any debt accruing from the past. Therefore, it has agreed that the existing bank overdraft, and any further debts necessarily incurred during the months in which the present arrangement remains in force, should be paid off out of the House of Commons (Administration) Vote. The cost of this is covered by the contingency reserve and there is no net addition to public expenditure. A revised Winter Supplementary Estimate will be presented later today.
The Commission is well aware of the concern raised in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the report of the Services Committee, to which reference has been made, regarding the possibility of drastic changes in the nature and use of the existing refreshment outlets and would assure the
236
House that no such changes are at present contemplated.
I express the hope that the new arrangements will put the catering services of the House on a permanent, satisfactory and reasonable basis.
Mr. Foot: I know that the House wishes to proceed to the next business, so let me say to the right hon. Gentleman as swiftly as possible that we agree that the House of Commons Commission deserves the support of the House in carrying through the work of the establishment of the new Department. We are especially glad that the discussion on the pension scheme, which should have been in operation years ago, has now been brought to fruition. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the fullest possible consultations have been held with the Catering Sub-Committee? If he is to seek to secure its assistance in the future, no doubt those discussions have taken place. On the question of the money, I wish him a good press in the Dail Mail.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expression of good wishes for the new Department. We have been in the closest consultation with the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee and the Committee's members. The scheme has their full support. I look forward to receiving the excellent press in the Daily Mail which I am accustomed to receiving.
Mr. W. Benyon: Is not one of the most interesting facts to emerge from this report the small proportion of meals served in the Palace that are served to hon. Members? In those circumstances, would it not be better to consider some form of meal voucher, depending on salary, which could be taxable?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The system should not be complicated unnecessarily. I do not believe that meal vouchers will help. However, my hon. Friend is right when he points out that only a small proportion of the meals served go to hon. Members. Out of the 3,500 meals served daily in the Palace, only 400 are consumed by hon. Members.
Mr. Joseph Dean: I am sorry that I have to take issue with the Leader of the House on his view that the discussions

237
have the unqualified support of the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. As the one Opposition Member who attended that Committee, I deliberately withheld my support for the proposals, although I did not vote against them.
I have only just obtained a copy of the statement, which says that authority and control over the manager will pass from the Catering Sub-Committee to the Commission. I am not sure that hon. Members would want to serve as nodding donkeys on the Sub-Committee. The statement also mentions financial control. Can the Leader of the House tell me whether additional staff will have to be employed to ensure that financial control is carried out? Mention is also made in the statement of the elimination of past debts. I hone that that does not include the debts of some hon. Members, which are not inconsiderable. I hope that if authority is passed to the Commission, that matter will be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Commission will have responsibility for the Refreshment Department ultimately, but I hope that there will be the most harmonious co-operation between the head of the Refreshment Department, the Commission and members of the Catering Sub-Committee.
I do not anticipate that any additional staff will be needed to exercise strict financial control. Of course, any debts owed to the Refreshment Department by hon. Members will stand. They are not affected by the new arrangements, and I am sure that they will be speedily discharged.
Mr. Freud: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with losses of the Refreshment Department in excess of turnover, it would be cheaper to allow us all to take what we now purchase, though that would admittedly result in a substantial washing-up problem?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful contribution.
Mr. Rost: If taxpayers are being asked to write off past losses of the Refreshment Department, may we at least have an assurance from the Leader of the
238
House that there will be no question of any further subsidies from public funds for catering in the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is the sincere hope of the Commission and myself that the Refreshment Department is now on a reasonable basis, given the peculiar conditions and hours that have to be worked by employees and the services that have to be provided. I can give no guarantee, but I hope that no future subsidy will be needed.
Mr. James A. Dunn: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and his proposals. May I suggest that they are the end product of submissions made by the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman in 1974? Notwithstanding those recommendations, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the future role of the Catering Sub-Committee? There are many problems that cannot be resolved by administration alone, including, for example, the adjustment of prices within the House. The Sub-Committee has a future and a role to play, and I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider his decision immediately.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that I have indicated that the Sub-Committee will have a constructive role to play, but we are on new seas and we shall review the situation as it develops. Adjustments can be made. I pay tribute to the work of the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman served and the subsequent Committee of 1978–79. A number of Committees have made suggestions, but this is the first time that something has been done about the recommendations.
Mr. Porter: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to economy, but will he also direct his attention to the question of quality? I noted with interest his reference to raw products and paper products. I had the opportunity to eat both at lunchtime today.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my responsibility to plan the meals, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to the Catering Sub-Committee.
Mr. Cryer: Will the new arrangements ensure that the press facilities, including food, drink, printing, heating and lighting, are charged fully to the press owners and that the current subsidy, which must

239
be in excess of £50,000 a year—a fact generally omitted by the Daily Mail, incidentally—is met? Will the Leader of the House ensure that under the new arrangements the subsidy to the private dining rooms is brought to an end and that, in the interests of open lobbying, the list of bookings of those dining rooms is brought into the open?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman's question about private dining rooms is a matter for consideration by the Refreshment Department, which must have discretion as to the charges made.
With regard to the press, labourers are worthy of their hire, and members of the press are worthy of their meals. They render services to the House and I believe that they should be given their meals on the same basis as everyone else. I hope that that view will get me a good press in the Daily Mail.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a Ten-Minute Bill after the next statement, before we turn to the main business of the day. I propose to call two more hon. Members from each side of the House.
Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend consider the nonsense of keeping catering staff here late into the night and often into the early hours of the morning, and the large number of taxis that are kept waiting in New Palace Yard to take them home? Surely we can move into the twentieth century with vending machines and microwave ovens.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the Refreshment Department, who work very long hours for the convenience of hon. Members. They realise that we work long hours and they respond. We should be satisfied with that and thank them for their efforts.
Mr. Cyril Smith: As the longest-serving member of the Catering Sub-Committee in the House, may I suggest that the Leader of the House should reconsider his answer about subsidies to the Press Gallery in view of financial arrangements made with the Press Association about subsidies to the Press Gallery? Will the right hon. Gentleman
240
make clear that the debt that is to be paid off by the Government under the new arrangements has accrued over many years and is not a debt that has been incurred in any one year? Is he aware that some of us have reservations, and have expressed them in the Catering Sub-Committee, about the management of the Refreshment Department and that, while we wish the Department well, we wish that a different form of management had been considered by the Commission?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is right about the debt having accumulated over many years. The interest charges—£600,000 a year—were becoming out of control. They were a large part of the so-called subsidy on hon. Members' meals.
I will not reconsider my decision on the Press Gallery, because the relationship between the Press Gallery and the Refreshment Department has been a source of much friction and it is important that the new Department should get off to the best possible start, with the least possible complication.
Mr. Neubert: As the amount paid in wages is now half as much again as the income of the Refreshment Department, will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there should be any subsidy it will be largely directed to payment of staff who work long, late and unenviable hours in order to provide a much-appreciated service in response to the demands of the Palace of Westminster as a place of work?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend has put the case extremely well. In adopting the new arrangements for the Refreshment Department, we are following the example of other legislatures in similar positions, such as those in Australia and Canada.
Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman said that all the staff will come under Mr. Smillie, but I presume that he means that all staff concerned with financial control will come under the Accountant and not the head of the Refreshment Department. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the wages of the employees of the Catering Department will now, in conformity with the spirit of the House

241
of Commons (Administration) Act, if not its direct words, be raised so that they equal those of similar employees in the Civil Service of the Crown? Finally, will he confirm that in all cases prices will conform to those in Civil Service First Division messes?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Accountant will, of course, retain his normal financial responsibility. As to wages and prices, it would be quite wrong of me to lay down the law on such matters when it is precisely to deal with those matters that we are setting up this new Department of the House.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to make this point, but would it not be advisable to let those of us who have served on the Sub-Committee, who may know more about it than other hon. Members, make a comment?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may think and feel that way, but that is not so of necessity. I called a former Chairman of the Committee, and I cannot be expected to remember all those who have served on the Committee through the years.
Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) may have forgotten that you called at least three Opposition Members who at one time or another have served on the Catering Sub-Committee.
Mr. Speaker: A lot of hon. Members are anxious to speak in the debate on immigration, including the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

STEEL INDUSTRY
Dr. Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Another ministerial statement is to follow, but have you yet had an approach from the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement about the steel industry? There have been further reports in the press today about the statements being made to steel workers and we have had the threat of a national strike. It seems as if the House of Commons is the one body in the country to which no statement is to be made this week about the dire state of the industry.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such approach.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF FISHERIES MINISTERS' MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 3 December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.
The Council agreed in principle to decide on total allowable catches for 1980 at its next meeting in January in the light of the latest scientific and other relevant evidence. Work will also go ahead on drawing up a catch reporting scheme with the objective of a decision being taken at the same time as that on TACs. I made it clear to the Council that we would agree to catch reporting only if a satisfactory agreement was reached on TACs.
The 1979 framework agreement with Canada agreed to by my predecessors was ratified. I retained the United Kingdom reserve on agreements with third countries. It was agreed that the Council would meet again in January when it is hoped that further progress will be made towards a common fisheries policy.
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that brief statement. First, I hope that he has no intention of allowing this issue to be trawled over, or caught up, in the budgetary argument and that it is still an issue that must be dealt with on its own merits. Secondly, is he aware that catch reporting is extremely important in the light of the Germans taking more than 40 per cent. above their quota in the last year? Although I note that he is to maintain pressure on total allowable catches to ensure that Britain gets her fair share, we shall watch with interest his use of the veto if, next January, he is not satisfied on both catch reporting and total allowable catches.
Although the right hon. Gentleman has had a number of bilateral talks on fisheries policy with the Council of Fisheries Ministers, I hope that he can assure the House that he is not giving way on our plan on a piecemeal basis. Finally, is he
244
still confident and optimistic that in the coming months he will be able to make progress towards a fishing agreement that will be acceptable to the whole of the British fishing industry?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, first, for the opportunity of making absolutely clear that the negotiations on fishing will be conducted totally on their own merits. Certainly the objectives of the negotiations are still, I believe, totally shared on both sides of the House, and that remains the Government's objective.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of catch reporting. In fact, there is no point in having TACs if one does not have catch reporting and if other countries are avoiding them. I discussed this matter with the industry before the meeting, and I met its representatives again after the meeting yesterday, and it was satisfied with the progress that was made. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if we were not satisfied with the TACs we would certainly veto the TAC arrangements, which would automatically mean that we did not have catch reporting. As to the right hon. Gentleman's comments with regard to a piecemeal basis, it is absolutely vital that we move towards a position where we agree the individual aspects of the policy while keeping our reserve upon them until total agreement is reached.
Mr. Wall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is anxiety in some sections of the industry about the piecemeal approach to the CFP? Will he give an undertaking to negotiate on a satisfactory total allowable catch, national quotas and the protection of the interests of British fishermen?
Mr. Walker: I willingly confirm all those points. With regard to the question of a piecemeal approach, as I think my hon. Friend knows, we are working very closely with the industry. We meet before each Council meeting and again at the Council meetings. In fact, the last point raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) concerned the bilateral talks that we have had with other European countries, and he asked whether I was confident that we would reach agreement next year. I am sure he

245
appreciates the complexity of this matter, and that one could not possibly express confidence before one had entered the more difficult parts of the negotiation. However, I think that the atmosphere at yesterday's Council meeting was the best that there has been recently, and there is a genuine determination to get a sensible agreement.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the value of fish around the coasts of EEC countries is about £1,000 million. Can he confirm that he rejects the last EEC offer made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) that Britain be required to give up £150 million worth of its own fish to the EEC for the privilege of retaining £100 million worth—50 per cent. less? Can he inform the House what is the minimum value, or the percentage of total, that is acceptable if Britain is to accept an EEC fishing policy?
Mr. Walker: If I may say so, that would be an absurd thing to do because the scientific assessment of fishing stocks is changing all the time. For example, the assessments made in these TAC proposals are totally different from what they were when the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was negotiating. I do not think that there is any disagreement on either side of the House as to Britain's basic objectives in obtaining a fishing agreement. The hon. Gentleman knows full well from his considerable experience in this sphere that the fishermen of this country desperately want an agreement to be obtained, because they know that it is in the interests of fishing in this country as well as of Europe as a whole.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that yet again after a meeting on fisheries there has been no visible progress whatever towards a common fisheries policy? Is he aware that during the period when my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was in office we continually had meeting after meeting with no decisions arrived at? He now appears to be following precisely the same pattern. I do not accuse him of delay, but is it not the case that the objective of all the other member States is to delay agreement until the
246
eleventh hour because 1982 is rapidly approaching? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse the allusion, but what can he do to get his skates on?
Mr. Walker: I do not think that that assessment is correct. I believe that all the members of the Community wish to reach an agreement on fishing. I think that there are a number of reasons for that, one of which is the depletion of stocks which is taking place and the lack of a conservation policy. Secondly, all the other countries are suffering from uncertainties in their own industries. Thirdly, I believe that they want an agreement before other countries that are currently applying join the Community. For all those reasons, I believe that there is a desire to reach agreement.
What we achieved yesterday was to get off the hook inasmuch as the Eight had agreed to a fishing policy in the absence of the right hon. Member for Deptford in Berlin, and we were still negotiating on that basis. We are now negotiating on the basis of the latest TACs, and that is a much more healthy foundation upon which to make progress.
Mr. Sproat: Did my right hon. Friend manage to get any confirmation that the French Government were subsidising the fuel costs of the French fishing industry? Did he find out by what system of subsidy it is possible for Dutch vessels to land fish in Dutch ports and then have it carried mainly overland to Aberdeen where it is offered at a cheaper price than fish landed at Aberdeen?
Mr. Walker: We did not discuss subsidies yesterday. The French have subsidised the cost of fuel to their fishermen for a long time, and I hasten to add that quite a few English fishermen have taken advantage of that.
Mr. Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. He is moving in the right direction, though very slowly. Is he aware that time is running out for my inshore fishermen, who see their catches dropping year by year? We have been talking for 10 years. Will my right hon. Friend say that he will ban beam trawling if an agreement has not been reached by the beginning of next season?
Mr. Walker: We are at present reviewing the position of beam trawling.

247
I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to reach agreement on inshore and long distance fishing and at last we are making progress towards that end.
Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister tell us whether there have been any discussions about regional schemes, which are of great importance to my constituency, and parts of the Channel? Secondly, when will the limits be discussed again?
Mr. Walker: Many members from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency were present in Brussels yesterday and obviously we discussed the position with them. I believe that they were in agreement with the attitudes of Scottish fishermen in general and shared the pleasure that some progress is being made in this sphere. As to the nature of the final agreement in terms of quotas, fishing plans and so on, that will come at a later stage of negotiations. We shall, of course, keep in close touch with the industry.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general approval of his intention to deal with fisheries as a separate issue? Is he also aware that, as regards the Scottish inshore fishermen, the agreement, when it is arrived at, should be based not on quotas but on limits that are properly policed?
Mr. Walker: Yes. Limits and enforcement of those limits are combined, and, in a wider context, obviously, quotas. I agree that enforcement is absolutely vital, and within our own limits I think that there should be enforcement by the British Government.
Mr. James Johnson: I compliment the Minister on his pledges and determination so far, but is it not a fact that in all the negotiations our so-called partners in the EEC have so far displayed nothing but naked, political self-interest? On the vital question of total allowable catches, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that about two-thirds of the total stocks in the EEC fishpond are round our shores, yet we have never been offered anything more than about 25 per cent.? That means that, allowing for discrepancies and inaccuracies in the calculations, well over a quarter of a billion pounds
248
worth of fish is caught in our waters by our so-called partners.
Mr. Walker: Yes. That is why in the bilateral talks that I had with all the member States—with the exception of Luxembourg which, as far as I know, has no great fishing interest—I made clear the current position of the British Government, and the attitude towards those fishing stocks is not the view of one particular party but a view that is shared by the whole House of Commons.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To offset any impression that the Prime Minister's newfound willingness to compromise on Britain's just demands might extend in any way to fishing, will the right hon. Gentleman affirm both that the ability to impose national conservation measures is an essential part of any settlement for this country, and that in the event of any of our national conservation measures being struck down by the European Court he will take steps to exempt those measures from the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972, and that in the interim he will conform with the Court's ruling with as much alacrity as France has done on lamb?
Mr. Walker: No, I would not give that confirmation. If the Community is to operate, it will not operate on the basis of each individual country deciding to ignore the law. We cannot deplore the illegal actions of the French Government and then take the same action ourselves.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the three hon. Gentlemen if they feel that their questions are vital, but it will reduce the time available for debate on immigration.
Mr. Dalyell: What was said about the effect on fishing stocks of the grey seal, which is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility and not that of the Scottish Office or the Home Office?
Mr. Walker: Nothing.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that consistently it is not the setting of quotas, TACs and the reporting of catches but the need to insist upon an adequate licensing system that alone provides sufficient support for conservation? Where has

249
this decision left successive and successful licensing?
Mr. Walker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have currently had consultations with the industry about the possibility of a licensing system. But when we have a common fisheries policy with quotas we have to decide with the industry a sensible and sane system of licensing.
Mr. Leighton: Is it not true that one of the reasons why the meeting was convivial was that the Minister gave way on a number of issues? Previously the right hon. Gentleman told us that he would not deal with any of these matters piecemeal and would block every issue until there was a common package. Yet at this meeting he agreed to the EEC making agreements with third parties which previously were to be blocked until we had a common fisheries policy.
Mr. Walker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement. I shall read it out to him again, as he apparently did not hear it. The appropriate line was:
"I retained the United Kingdom reserve on agreements with third countries."
Mr. Leighton: Not for Canada.
Mr. Walker: Not for Canada, no. What I did was to ratify the agreement made by my predecessor. So the hon. Gentleman is actually criticising my predecessor for having made an agreement with Canada, and I will pass his criticism on to my predecessor. However, as that agreement expires in two weeks, it was not a very big concession.
Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that British fishermen have suffered dis-proportionately as a result of their respect of conservation and their control of fishing effort? Furthermore, will he make it absolutely clear that there will be no question of his agreeing to national quotas in advance of agreement on all the other elements of a common fisheries policy?
Mr. Walker: Yes.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of Health and Social Services in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Waddington.]

MAPS
3.57 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make illegal the publication or sale of maps that do not bear the date upon which the information contained thereon was valid.
In view of the importance of the ensuing debate and the uncontroversial nature of my proposed legislation, I shall be brief.
In any reasonable society there is a balance between commercial enterprise and consumer protection. There are aspects where we overdo consumer protection, such as long-life milk, which seems to have on it a legend saying that it should not be drunk after a certain date when to me it seems quite undrinkable at any time, and there are areas where the commercial entrepreneur has too much of his own way. I believe that the publishers of maps are among the latter.
The axiom of caveat emptor is all very well, but buyers who look for a date on a map are in a quandary because usually there is no date on a map. Some years ago I tried to bring in this legislation with common consent from the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and the House, but when the Bill reached the Second Reading stage the Government Whips objected. Therefore, I am trying once more.
I understand that when introducing new legislation one must seek to establish whom that legislation will harm and whom it will help. This Bill will help all those who buy maps, which is most people. The only people it can possibly harm are the publishers of maps who decide to have extravagant print runs. I do not believe that I was sent to the House to protect them.
My Bill seeks to make it obligatory for maps, guides and gazetteers to bear the date upon which the information contained therein was valid. A map will also have to have a price on it. That would avoid what happened to me a few months ago. I bought a map which had
252
a sticky ticket on it showing the price of 75p. When I removed the ticket the price read 1s. 6d.
It might be argued that we already have an Act that outlaws the sale of outdated road and town maps, but I understand that the Obscene Publications Act deals with literature that is offensive on grounds other than those contained in my Bill.
The only valid complaint about this Bill—apart from mumblings from those who invest money in stocks of outmoded maps—came from a motoring organisation which believed that the reprinting and updating of maps would be expensive. I wonder whether that organisation bothered to compare the price of even the more expensive maps with the tension, the fury and the cost of petrol experienced by a motorist who is trying to find a road that no longer exists, or, more frequently, who arrives at his destination and finds that there is a new road which he could have taken had it appeared on the maps. Ordnance Survey maps are dated, as are some others, and it is the intention of my Bill to make the sale of an outdated map an offence.
This Bill seeks to do less than the Obscene Publications Act. If a complaint is upheld, no one will be prosecuted under my Bill. However, the authorities will seize the inaccurate cartography and pulp it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Cyril Smith, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Edward Gardner.

MAPS
Mr. Clement Freud accordingly presented a Bill to make illegal the publication or sale of maps that do not bear the date upon which the information contained thereon was valid: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 February 1980 and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

IMMIGRATION
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Before we start the debate, I must remind the House that it will be quite impossible to call everyone who wishes to speak. However, it will be possible to call many more if right hon. and hon. Members co-operate.
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That this House approves the White Paper on Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules (Cmnd. 7750).
On 14 November I published a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for the revision of the Immigration Rules. I now invite the House to approve these proposals. This does not mean that my mind is closed to suggestions for modification of the draft rules contained in the White Paper, but I invite the House to give its approval to the Government's general approach.
There are certain categories of people who have a continuing claim to come to this country. Traditionally we have always been extremely generous in taking people from all parts of the world who find themselves in difficulty. The latest example of this is the 10,000 Vietnamese refugees whom we are committed to accept. An earlier example is that of the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. Those who were under pressure to leave Africa have been admitted at a controlled rate under the special voucher scheme. We have always made it clear—and this is emphasised in the White Paper—that the special voucher scheme will continue. Then there are the wives and children of men settled here in recent years. About half the total of acceptances for settlement have been the wives and children of those already settled here. Indeed, the right of a Commonwealth citizen settled here on the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1971 to be joined by his wife and young children is protected under section 1(5) of the Act.
The claim of the passport holders to come under the special voucher scheme is a consequence of our Imperial past. The claim of the wives and children largely
254
stems from the primary immigration which took place before the coming into force of the 1971 Act. We have the right to expect that immigration outside these categories will cease, except in circumstances of the most urgent need. It is in this belief that the Government have framed their proposals.
I turn to the proposals for the revision of the Immigration Rules contained in the White Paper. Our proposals on husbands and fiances have aroused the greatest interest. Since the rules were changed in 1974, marriages have been contracted with the primary aim of enabling men to come here to work and settle. There can be no doubt about that.
The 1973 figures for husbands from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan show that we accepted for settlement, both on arrival and on removal of the time limit, no more than 200 men. In 1974 the equivalent figure was about 2,200. In 1975 that figure had more than doubled to about 5,000. In 1976 the figure was more than about 6,300. Thereafter the flow was affected for a time by changes in the Immigration Rules and the giving of less priority to applications from husbands and fiancés. However, in the 12 months to mid-1979 the equivalent figure was 5,600 and we know from the number of applications in the pipeline that the pressure to come by this route is as keen as ever.
What we are discussing is the question of men being able to use a provision in our immigration control which enables them to settle on marriage when they could qualify to come in no other way. We must stop this loophole. The Government have a clear mandate to do so.
Mr. Cyril Smith Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale) rose—
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall give way, but I must emphasise that Mr. Speaker has asked that as many people as possible should speak in this debate. Every time I give way, I stop some other hon. Member from speaking. I hope the House will appreciate that.
Mr. Smith: Does the Home Secretary agree that under the existing law, if it can be proved that an immigrant is coming to this country for a marriage of convenience, he can be returned? There are instances of this in the past four years. Therefore, what is all the fuss about?
Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me he will hear further reasons for my proposals.
Inevitably this means that the ability of some women who have settled here to be joined by their husbands and fiances will be removed. This is the price that we have to pay to stop marriage being used as a device to achieve admission to the United Kingdom. It is reasonable to provide that a husband or fiance should not be admitted if the marriage has been entered into for immigration purposes. That is sensible. Indeed, the Labour Government have already so provided to exclude those who do not intend to live permanently with their wives. I see nothing strange at all in the requirement that the parties to the marriage should have met.
I have already made it clear that it is not part of my intention to affect the position of a girl who was born abroad because her parents happened to be out of the country at the time. I made it quite plain in my statement that we would treat her as though she was born here. I have always made it plain that both she and our citizens born here would be able to be joined by their husbands and fiancés for marriages that were not contracted for immigration purposes.
Nevertheless, the argument has been put to me that the rules should confer not a discretion but a right on women born here to be joined by their husbands. It has also been suggested that women who happen to have been born abroad because their parents were out of the country at the time should have their right to be joined by their husbands written into the rules and not left to the exercise of discretion outside the rules.
I have considered these arguments carefully and they seem to have great force. I am glad to be able to inform the House that I accept them. The new rules, when laid, will incorporate both suggestions. They will provide that no woman will be able to bring in her husband or fiance if the marriage is primarily in order to obtain his admission to the United Kingdom, or if one of the parties no longer has any intention of living permanently with the other, or if the parties to the marriage have not met. Otherwise, an entry clearance will—not may—be issued provided that the woman is a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies who
256
was either born in the United Kingdom or born to a parent who was born here.
We cannot go further and extend the provision to all women who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. This would mean leaving the door open to further primary immigration because of the facility of registering minor childdren as citizens under our nationality law.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall give way once more.
Mr. Lyon: The upshot of that concession is that it makes the whole issue much more racialist. What the right hon. Gentleman has just said shows that it discriminates between one citizen and another. Will he now tell us what legal advice will be available about whether his proposals are in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Mr. Whitelaw: That is a matter for the courts when the time comes for them to consider it. It is not a matter for me at this stage. I reject entirely the accusation that the proposals are racially discriminatory. Increasing numbers of children from the ethnic minority groups are born here and there is no intention of preventing them from bringing in their husbands to join them, provided that the marriages are not contracted for immigration purposes.
Our proposals have been criticised for discriminating between the sexes, and it is true that some women settled in this country will be treated less favourably than men in their ability to bring in their spouses. Nationality legislation and the Immigration Act prevent us from applying the same provision to men. A woman who is a Commonwealth citizen and marries a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies with the right of abode. All herself acquires the right of abode. All wives of such citizens may register as citizens themselves and acquire the right of abode. In these circumstances, it would be fruitless to attempt—
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way; he is always courteous in these matters. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon)

257
about this being a matter for the courts and that this House will be asked to appprove his proposals tonight, surely the House should be advised by a Law Officer of the Crown about whether these proposals are in conformity with, or in breach of, the European convention.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am coming to that. Since the proposals put forward in 1969 by the Leader of the Opposition are exactly the same as mine, I should have thought that what happened then was the same as what is happening now. I am surprised that anyone in Opposition should raise the matter at all.
I have already mentioned that under section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 the wives of Commonwealth citizens settled here on 1 January 1973 must remain as free to come and go as they were before the passing of that Act. Clearly, therefore, men cannot be treated in precisely the same way as women. This emphasises the importance of the Government's commitment to new nationality legislation. We said that we would introduce a new nationality Bill to define entitlement to British citizenship and to the right of abode in this country. That remains our intention. Although we cannot introduce a Bill this Session because of the parliamentary timetable, I intend to publish a White Paper in the coming year.
Let me remind the House that the change in the marriage rules is not a novel one. In 1969 the Leader of the Opposition, then Home Secretary, removed the right of entry of Commonwealth husbands and fiances. He said—these are his words—that the
"abuse of the concession is inconsistent with the general scheme of Commonwealth immigration control".
The reversal of the right hon. Gentleman's policy in 1974 by his successor in the Labour Government as Home Secretary was not undertaken without preliminary reservations.
In March 1974 the then Minister of State at the Home Office commented, in another place, as I reminded the House on 14 November, on the danger that
"…if this matter were to be mishandled by the present Government or by their successors we could experience a substantial new wave of immigration".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 1974; Vol. 350, col. 794–5.]
258
In August 1974 Mr. Roy Jenkins nevertheless changed the rules. But the ensuing increase in the immigration figures demonstrates the validity of his initial reservations about the change.
After the changes affecting husbands and fiances, the proposed change which has attracted most attention is the tightening up of the requirements for the admission of dependants other than wives and young children. We said that we would do that. We cannot accept immigration commitments solely by virtue of a person's preference for living in this country or the fact that certain family members are settled here. Children aged 18 or over will in future qualify for settlement only where the circumstances are of the most strongly compassionate nature. Special consideration will, however, be given to daughters under 21 who formed part of the family unit overseas and who have no other relative to whom they can turn.
Parents and grandparents aged 65 or over, and widowed mothers, already have to show that they are wholly, or mainly, dependent on children in this country who can support and accommodate them. In future they will also have to show that they are without other relatives in their own country to whom they can turn and that they have a standard of living substantially below that of their own country. I do not see why, when elderly relatives have a choice of living with relatives here or in their own country, the presumption should be that they should come here.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry. I said that would not give way again. I have given way several times.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not give way.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to points at the end of the debate. I think that that is the best way of proceeding.

259
Where those relatives would otherwise be uncared for, that is another matter. Parents and grandparents under 65, and more distant relatives, will not qualify for entry save in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Whitelaw: No. I have given way. I am trying to get on. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) can raise his point in debate and it will be answered by the Minister of State.
Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Gentleman is dodging.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not dodging anything. I have said that I shall not give way.
A number of other changes in the rules are designed to make it more difficult for people who come here for temporary purposes to prolong their stay with the object of achieving settlement or of going to ground and evading the control altogether. Anyone who has been concerned with the operation of the immigration control knows that there is a constant and massive pressure against that control by people not just from the Indian sub-continent but from all over the world who wish to work and settle here. We cannot ignore the possibility that changing circumstances in any part of the world may create new pressures or encourage people here on a temporary footing to put off their departure. This requires, and receives, our constant vigilance.
Evasion of the control may take the form of illegal entry or of overstaying, but the rules are very relevant to the problem of overstaying, to which the right hon. Member for Leeds. South (Mr. Rees) rightly drew attention after my statement on 14 November.
Under the previous Administration a special survey was authorised in an attempt to discover the extent of overstaying.
I understand that the survey ran into serious difficulties. Briefly, the problems in accurately matching the very large number of landing and embarkation cards
260
made it impossible to arrive at estimates of overstaying which were subject to acceptable margins of error. Because of the margins of error, the survey does not enable any reliable estimate to be made of the number of overstayers, as defined for the purpose of the survey.
The previous Government announced in their White Paper last year that plans to provide computer support for the system of checking on departures were well advanced. Those plans will be brought to completion and should do much to meet the problems. Meanwhile, some useful general conclusions can be drawn.
First, the survey shows that we have reason to be concerned about the effectiveness of our present measures. The survey indicates that overstaying occurs to an extent which justifies the further development of means to tackle it. Secondly, the survey shows that it is unrealistic to expect every potential overstayer to be identified on examination at ports of entry. While an effective control on entry remains a prerequisite for effective control as a whole, for those who enter and overstay effective after-entry measures are necessary. To the extent that its resources allow, the Home Office—with the immigration service—is improving the means of following up cases of overstaying, frequently with the help and cooperation of the police.
Thirdly, important lessons have been learnt about the use and handling of landing and embarkation cards. To make the selective checks on the embarkation of passengers as effective as possible, the number of cards which are currently being collected is being reduced. Fourthly, we have been able to take account of the problems of overstaying when preparing the proposed new Immigration Rules.
A frequent abuse is by the passenger who claims to be coming here for a temporary purpose when his real intention is to prepare the way for settlement. The new rules will make this much more difficult. Visitors and students will not be able to remain for another temporary purpose if this carries with it the prospect of eventual settlement. Visitors will be prohibited from taking employment. There will be a time limit of one year on any visit. It follows that in future

261
people will not be able to come in as visitors or students and once here apply to remain for work or to set up in business, or as a self-employed person or as a person of independent means. It will be more difficult for people who are here for temporary purposes to dig themselves in with a view to overstaying and evading the control.
To set up in business or self-employment, applicants will need to produce evidence that they have a reasonable sum of capital available for investment here and that their activities are likely to generate employment in this country for people already settled here. The capital sum required will be £100,000.
Persons of independent means will also have to show more than that they have substantial resources. They will have to show some special connection with this country, or that their entry would be in our interests. Entry clearance will be needed beforehand in all these cases.
We believe that it is right and proper in the new Immigration Rules to place something of a premium upon honest and straightforward dealings with us. A number of changes are directed to this end. For instance, it will be made clear that a person who holds an entry clearance for which he does not qualify, or which he obtained by deception, will be liable to be refused entry. An immigration officer, when considering whether to grant leave to enter, will be empowered to take account of a passenger's previous immigration history. Any application to remain in this country may be refused if it is from an overstayer or from someone who employed deception to secure entry. These and similar restrictions will inhibit people from switching the basis of their stay in order to prolong it and perhaps finally to gain settlement.
It is right for me to say something about the changes that we shall introduce to prevent people from coming here to exploit our social services. Throughout the draft rules are requirements that persons admitted in various categories should not have recourse to public funds. Where there are requirements in the rules that a sponsor in the United Kingdom should he willing and able to maintain and accommodate his dependants, we may in future seek an undertaking to that effect.
262
The rules on political asylum and refugees will be amended to bring them more closely into line with the provisions of the convention relating to the status of refugees and with current practice. Power will be taken to require a student in receipt of an award from his Government or an official agency to leave the United Kingdom on completion of the studies for which the award was made. Such awards are often made with a view to scarce skills or qualifications becoming available to developing countries which are desperately short of them. It is reasonable that a student in receipt of such an award should be required to put his new qualifications to the use intended.
New provisions relating to au pair girls will restrict the arrangement to nationals of Western European countries. We shall impose an age limit and stronger controls on their taking employment. These changes will deal with some widespread abuses. The rules on working holidaymakers will similarly provide for an age limit of 25 and an aggregate time limit of two years.
I shall mention briefly the position of work permit holders. I remind the House of the written statement on 14 November by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment setting out more stringent criteria for the issue of work permits. In the Immigration Rules, we have reviewed, as recommended by the Select Committee, the categories of employment for which work permits are not required. We have also introduced an entry clearance requirement for some of them. Prohibitions have been introduced on the employment of dependants both of work permit holders and of students.
The measures that I have described, and which are set out in detail in the White Paper, are necessary and reasonable. People have a right to expect that primary immigration should, in view of the other claims on us, be kept to an absolute minimum. That is what the Government's proposals will do. Their numerical effect, when they come fully into operation, will be to reduce recent levels of immigration by about 3,000 or 4,000 a year. Moreover, some actual or potential sources of primary immigration which might in turn lead to further immigration under the existing rules will

263
be blocked. Despite these firm measures, I can assure the House that there is nothing whatever in these proposals which affects the rights of people lawfully settled to remain in this country.
From what I have said to the House this afternoon, it must be clear that the changes in the rules in the Government's White Paper go far wider than some of the particular provisions that have aroused most interest and controversy in recent weeks.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is presenting proposals on the basis that they comply with manifesto commitments and on the basis—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing not with manifesto commitments but with the White Paper.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: My point of order is that the Home Secretary is not being candid about the implications of his proposals, in particular in relation to the impact of the proposals on dependants who will be totally banned because—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate; it is not a point of order.
Mr. Whitelaw: A comprehensive revision is essential because, save in respect of husbands and fiances, the rules have remained substantially unchanged since 1973. In today's circumstances, and with six years' experience of operating the rules behind us, it is clear that considerable changes are necessary, if not overdue. The combined effect of this revision should be to produce a more practical, effective and reasonable set of instructions to which the immigration service can work in the often thankless but highly important task which successive Governments and Parliaments have laid upon it.
The measures which have proved controversial, relating principally to husbands and fiances, must surely be seen against the background of the commitments into which this country entered, to which it has held and to which it will continue to hold, in the interests of
264
uniting wives and children overseas with their heads of families already settled here. Moreover, this country's response, not least in recent months, to catastrophe and suffering overseas and to the refugee problems that that has created has been and continues to be a most honourable one.
But I believe that the whole country—and this House—accepts that a limit had to be drawn somewhere. In this White Paper, the Government have sought to achieve a reasonable and practical answer to this most difficult question.
I know that there are those who, accepting in many cases that basic conclusion, none the less believe genuinely that the control of immigration can be wholly separated from the question of developing better race relations. But the general view of successive Governments of both parties has been, ever since the first Commonwealth immigration controls in 1962, that tighter controls have been necessary in the face of continued immigration pressures. They have taken that view because of the impossibility of advancing the cause of better race relations when public anxieties about further primary immigration are so strong.
We must, as a nation, seek to deal with the problem thoroughly and in a way that will carry public confidence and acceptance. Only by doing so will we be able effectively to tackle the great challenge of improving race relations. Nor can we afford to wait, for we are moving into a period when increasingly we are dealing not with immigrants who have come here from overseas but with our own fellow citizens who were born here. They are not immigrants, nor should we speak of them or treat them as if they were. The Government's proposals are founded on that.
On behalf of the Government, I should like to restate the policy to which I have consistently referred, both before taking office and since coming into Government. We are as a Government positively committed to improving race relations. I have referred to that work as a challenge, and it is one to which we in the House and the whole country must respond.
4.44 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, to leave out from "House"

265
to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'declines to approve the White Paper on the Immigration Rules on the grounds that it violates the principle that the rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed.'
The value of this debate compared with other debates on Immigration Rules over the years is that we have a chance to influence the Government before we change the rules. From what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon and from views which have been expressed, I feel that we should use the debate to bring to the notice of the Government many of the anomalies as well as the principles to which we object, in the hope that further changes will be made before the rules appear in their final form.
Many hon. Members receive correspondence about immigration. It is clear that many people believed the Prime Minister when, as Leader of the Opposition, she said that Britain was being swamped. But statistics reveal—
Mr. Greville Janner: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rees: I shall give way later, but I wish to advance my argument first.
The figures show clearly that we are not being swamped. They show also that the total effect is 2,000 to 3,000 people. In terms of dealing with the sort of immigration that is taking place, that is not relevant. I am concerned that there are many people who at election time and since believed that the proposal is to make a profound change in terms of numbers. It is not. In the one respect of fiances, it is a very small number. It is not worth the candle to make people believe that something much bigger is being attempted. That is wrong, both morally and in other ways.
Mr. Tony Marlow: (Northampton, North): The right hon. Gentleman believes that it is wrong for people in this country to feel that we are being swamped. I received a parliamentary answer today from the Minister of State, Home Office that in the last 20 months 353,000 Iranians entered this country. I asked him further how many were still in the country and how many had left. [Interruption.]
Mr. Rees: There are two answers to that. First, nothing that has been said this afternoon would deal with that problem, which is my argument. Secondly, if the Home Office believes that 353,000 Iranians have come to this country to settle, it should do something about it quickly.
Britain is not being swamped by immigrants. Other proposals about the register and the quota have gone. I am concerned about the fiddling of Government policy on fiances. It is offensive.
I have always believed, and I am not prepared to change my belief in Opposition, that there should be control of immigration. But the main plank of Government policy that we have heard this afternoon is not connected with that issue. The Secretary of State for the Home Department dealt with the question of overstaying and the difficulties that arise because of the card problem. The problem of overstaying is real and should be dealt with, but there is no division on that issue. The basic argument is about fiances. I shall return to that question and to that surrounding dependants later in the debate.
I regret the use of the numbers game. It has not been mentioned this afternoon, but we should discuss it. It is important that we should cease to talk about immigration in that sense. We have a real problem in the inner city areas, and the House should put its mind to that and to the legislation which the Labour Government introduced, which does not appear to be a subject for debate.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I have talked a great deal about the numbers game in the past. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is no longer appropriate to discuss it?
Mr. Rees: The statistics show clearly that there was in the past—
Mr. Marlow: There are statistics.
Mr. Rees: There was a great deal of primary immigration into Britain in the 1950s and the 1960s. The changes made to the issuing of employment vouchers and work permits over the years have removed primary immigration to a great extent. Basic immigration into Britain is not what it was. There are many people who were born in Britain who happen to

267
be black or brown. It is important that we put our minds to allowing them to play a major part in our affairs. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) wants to take the same approach as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I suggest that he remembers what was said when the Jews came here in 1906. The Jews now play an important part in the House on both sides of the Chamber.
It is important for us to ensure that more black British people play a part in local government and central Government. That will be a sign of success. They are an important part of the British people.
Mr. Nick Budgen: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is in favour of more legislation to introduce the principle of reverse discrimination?
Mr. Rees: I was saying that in the inner cities it is important that the urban programme and other such policies are developed.
The present rules are still drawn under the 1971 Act. I am glad to hear that a White Paper is to be published next year.
Is it the Government's aim to introduce a British nationality Bill? I hope that they do so. We should deal with fiances in that context. The argument is offered that women and men are treated differently because the position of men is enshrined in the nationality Act, but it will be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to do what he has announced this afternoon if the rules are enshrined in a new nationality Act. The issue will not disappear when a new measure is introduced. What has been announced this afternoon will not, in my view, be supported by a new Act.
Even in the present atmosphere, I shall pick two or three good features in the rules. The rules are wide-ranging and three of them have been described by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, which the Home Office grant aids, as welcome steps forward. The advisory service
"welcomes the opportunity proposed for applications to be made to the Home Office for a letter of consent on behalf of a prospective entrant by someone in the United Kingdom as
268
an alternative to an application for entry clearance to a British mission overseas."
In my experience, that is an important step forward.
The advisory service also welcomes
"the provision that a person named in a work permit may have the opportunity of appealing to an adjudicator when refused entry at a British port."
That is also an important step forward. The advisory service notes
"that in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of the decision, which is only too often some time after the application, the applications of children of persons settled in the United Kingdom will not normally be refused entry clearance if he/she has reached the age of 18 after the date of application."
I ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions which I hope will be answered today. If they are too complicated, I hope that they will be answered later.
First, I refer to the greater recognition of Britain's responsibility as a signatory of the United Nations Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Certain changes were begun when I was Home Secretary. I shall not make a heavy point of that. However, it was always in my mind that Britain's record under all Administrations was good on political refugees. We compared favourably with other countries. I want to be sure that in taking on board in a different fashion what is done through the United Nations the changes will not be restrictive of our traditional right to deal with political refugees from wherever they come.
When an EEC national enters Britain to take or seek employment, he may be accompanied by his spouse, children and grandchildren of any age if still dependent, as well as dependent parents and grandparents. On the other hand, those already settled here from other countries may bring only their spouse and their dependent unmarried children under 18. There is a great difference between people coming here from the EEC and those coming from elsewhere.
I could understand the Government's position if all were to be treated alike. However, the EEC is to be expanded. The legislation to bring Greece into the EEC has passed through the House. People from a wider Europe, including Southern Europe, are to be in the EEC. If there is a numbers problem, and if

269
there is the problem of relatively underdeveloped countries, the numbers that the Home Secretary claims to be dealing with will be removed to a large degree by the EEC's extension in Europe. In any event, there is discrimination.
One of the anomalies brought to my attention involves the patria United Kingdom citizen who was not born here but who has obtained patriality after live years of stay, who may work and settle in EEC countries and who has the right to be joined by her spouse and immediate dependants, including parents and grandparents. That girl is in the absurd position of being deprived of that right in the country in which she was brought up. There appears to be—
Mr. F. A. Burden Mr. F. A. Burden(Gillingham) rose—
Mr. Rees: I shall give way when I have dealt with this example. A German national woman, for instance, may have the right to settle and work in the United Kingdom. If she marries an Indian with Indian citizenship, he will have the right to join his German wife in the United Kingdom if he comes here to settle. That which is proposed appears to be a violation of EEC law. We cannot say that we are in the EEC for one purpose and act differently for other purposes.
Mr. Burden: During the time that the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary, was there any occasion on which he refused entry to a fiance from the Indian sub-continent of a girl in this country who had not seen her husband?
Mr. Rees: I shall deal with that. I shall do so in a proper context. I say now that I did so on a number of occasions. That is why I altered the rule in 1978. I was not in office in 1973.
There are proposals for widows and widowers over 65 and grandparents. They will be admitted only if they are wholly or mainly dependent on sons and daughters settled in the United Kingdom, provided that they have no relative in their own country and they have a standard of living substantially below that of their own country. If the provision is read literally, it will make it impossible for such a person to spend his or her declining years in the United Kingdom with his or her children and grandchildren as he or she will be reasonably
270
required to be in receipt of funds from the family here. How can they comply with that and yet be living at a standard that is lower than that of their own country? That is an important issue to which the Minister of State must put his mind. There will be great trouble if the wording of the rules stays as it is.
Has there been abuse of the dependent family, the old people over 65? I have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who was the Minister responsible when I was Home Secretary, whether there was abuse. I cannot recall that there was. Indeed, it is extremely difficult for old people to enter this country. I should like to know the abuse that has taken place as a result of people aged 65 years and over coming into the country.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: My right hon. Friend will probably be more familiar with the figures than I am, but I believe that I am right in saying that the total number of dependants aged 65 or over, or children aged 18 or over, who were admitted in 1978 was 3,124, and that 1,362 came from the Indian sub-continent. The traffic in grannies that the Home Secretary is so anxious to abolish, and which he is seeking wholly to abolish, is trifling.
Mr. Rees: Whatever arguments may be put in other respects, the idea that immigrant grannies will result in procreation and a larger population does not meet the facts of life as know them.
What is the reason for the restriction on au pairs? If there is abuse from certain parts of the world, let us stop it. Yesterday I made inquiries with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. Are large numbers of people from the Philippines coming into Britain? If so—I did not know that—that situation should be dealt with on its merits rather than by saying that au pair girls may come from only one part of the world. Any evidence of abuse would be important.
It has been stated that students will have to show that they are able to maintain and accommodate themselves without working in Britain. There is to be a ban on spouses working to maintain the student. I was a student abroad for a short time, and I accept that it is important to have sufficient funds when

271
one is studying abroad. Our university and polytechnic courses are not like those in the United States, where it is normal for students to work while they are carrying out their courses. However, it is wrong that the spouse of a student coming here to study is unable to take a part-time job while her husband is studying at the university. That is a small point and it would not raise grave problems of unemployment. It would involve part-time work in a restaurant or in the university cafeteria. I do not know why that restriction has been added to the Bill.
I turn to the vexed question of fiances and husbands. The Home Secretary has used the word "exploitation" as regards the right—that is what it is—of fiances and husbands to come here. What does that mean? I took action to deal with abuse two years ago and I was not exactly popular.
Surely the Home Secretary is not saying that arranged marriages are an abuse. An arranged marriage that is a marriage of convenience is different, but the tradition in Asian families of marriages being arranged by the parents is not an abuse. We may not like it and it may be foreign to our experience of marriage. Where there was abuse, I took steps in 1978 to deal with it. About 300 people were denied entry. Sometimes Asians came to my constituency interviews and told me that after a year almost to the day the man had walked out but had been allowed to stay in Britain. I sent those men out on the basis that it would be conducive to the public good if they were not allowed to remain in the country. I am against abuse, but my argument is that arranged marriages are not an abuse.
Mr. Allan Roberts: I shall give another example of the Government's failure to understand the culture of the Asian communities. Not only is the Home Secretary unwilling to accept that it is a part of Asian culture that marriages are arranged, but he fails to accept that certain members of Asian communities have more than one name, and are known by more than one name.
A young Liverpool boy, Gias Uddin, aged 18 years, has been in detention for about five months because an immigration officer heard that in his village in
272
Bangladesh he is known by a different name. The immigration authorities say now that he is not the son of the father. He was accepted as such when he came into the country four years ago. That is another example of the Government's failure to accept that cultural differences exist and that must be recognised if Asians are to be considered fairly and equally before the law.
Mr. Rees: I have no wish to make any case other than the one that I am making about arranged marriages. There are problems concerning different names, and entry certificate officers and immigration officers face that problem. It is not only a question of culture but a problem faced by all Governments as they must make arrangements to establish the proper name of an immigrant. However, there is abuse on occasion, and that abuse gives rise to the sort of thing that has happened today.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The Government want to equate arranged marriages with marriages of convenience. My right hon. Friend may be aware that I asked the Home Office questions on that point and those questions were answered on 9 November. The Home Office has no evidence. It has no figures of the numbers of marriages that break down within the United Kingdom in the first year. The figure of 356 that has been referred to by my right hon. Friend is the number of applications that were refused. They were refused because officials abroad thought that they were going to be marriages of convenience. Only 169 of those cases were from the Indian sub-continent.
Mr. Rees: As fast as we discuss immigration on the basis of past evidence, there is a change in the pattern of immigration. Far more people want to come into Britain, apart from those from the Asian sub-continent.
The Minister of State has apparently said that fiances and husbands are used as stepping-stones for others to come into the country. I would like evidence of that. Does it mean that some years later someone attempts to get an aged parent into Britain?
Mr. Budgen: Yes.
Mr. Rees: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West

273
knows all the answers, but perhaps the Minister will give some.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): References have been made to the comment that I made at the Conservative Party conference concerning stepping-stones. I was talking about a process of migration. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me for my evidence. My words were taken from a book called "The Myth of Return" written by a social scientist called Dr. Mohammed Anwar. The author is on the staff of the Commission for Racial Equality, and in that book he said:
"Like the Pakistanis, the early Italian settlers provided an important link for the new arrivals who were helped in the initial stage of settlement, thus facilitating the eventual adjustment to the American environment. So the kin/village-based clustered residences of Pakistanis in Rochdale (and other areas) are not a chance phenomenon but the result of social processes distinguished by the obligations of migrants to provide stepping-stones for their relatives and friends."
I was talking about the process of migration, and that is well documented in the book to which I have referred.
Mr. Rees: There are most interesting sociological discussions on immigration, particularly at the turn of the century, into the United States. Apparently, that is happening in Rochdale now according to the hon. Gentleman. He argued at the Conservative Party conference that fiances and husbands were used as steppingstones for others. We deserve relevant statistics.
Mr. David Young: Will my right hon. Friend deal with a concern that is felt by members of the immigrant community, many of whom have been here for a number of years? They feel that these measures are both racially and sexually oriented. One immigrant who came to my surgery on Friday evening asked how, in view of these proposals, the British Government could in any way claim to want to provide for a good relationship in Rhodesia. He said that there seemed to be an attempt to act, on a sexually and racially motivated basis, against women of Asian origin who had been in this country for a long time.
Mr. Rees: I know from my visits to Bolton that my hon. Friend has a great interest in this matter. That is the under-
274
lying theme of our argument and I shall seek to return to it in a moment.
On the question of fiances, the numbers involved are small and the abuse can be dealt with under a change that I made to the rules two years ago. I cannot accept the suggestion that arranged marriages constitute an abuse. Many immigrant groups have told me in the last day or so that, if the Government believe that they do represent an abuse—and we have heard no evidence to support that suggestion—it might be a good idea for the Government to talk to them to see what can be done. Those groups are interested in knowing what the abuse can be.
I wish to refer to two anomalies, one of which I think has been dealt with by the change that has already been made. Given, particularly with Pakistani families, that parents may come at different times from their children, it is possible for two children in the same family to be here, one having been born in Pakistan and the other in this country. Under the Home Secretary's rule, and bearing in mind the closed nature of Asian families, there is the problem that children born a year apart will be treated differently. I ask the Home Secretary to examine this matter before he produces the final rules.
I think that the Home Secretary has dealt with a question that was put to me today which illustrates the value of a change that can be made. I had a letter from a former Member of this House—Mr. Ernest Thornton. He wrote concerning his son who had been working in Uganda but who is now back in this country. He had twins who were born in Kampala in 1968. Under the way in which the law was at first drawn up, the twins, one being a boy and the other a girl, would have been treated differently. I only hope that that sort of nonsense will be taken care of by the change that the Home Secretary has announced.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Since, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, men and women cannot be treated equally on the question of fiances and spouses because men's rights are entrenched in law and women's are not, why when the right hon. Gentleman was the Home Secretary did he not put them on the same footing? If he explains that.

275
we may have a lot more sympathy with the attitude that he has adopted.
Mr. Rees: I am not seeking sympathy in that respect. My predecessor, Mr. Roy Jenkins, altered the law in 1974 in spite of all the difficulties of bringing legislation before the House. That arrangement will stand until the rules are changed again in the next few weeks. There are 2,000 or 3,000 people who are affected in this way, and, unlike the situation in 1970, the number will get smaller.
One question arises out of the exchanges that arose from the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell) asked the Home Secretary:
"The Home Secretary has repeatedly said that an Asian girl in this country and her intended fiance in India or in Pakistan should meet before marriage. Under which section of the immigration rules will the fiance…be allowed to come here to meet his intended wife?"
The reply was:
"As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has advised me—he knows all about these matters—the fiance can come as a visitor in the first place."—[Official Report, 14 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 1344.]
Is that to be put in the Immigration Rules for the benefit of the entry certificate officer? That was not a chance remark by the right hon. Gentleman. It was confirmed with the Minister of State, who is an expert and knows all about these matters. I hope, therefore, that when the rules come on to the Floor of the House that provision will be written into them, because that is what the Home Secretary and the Minister of State said.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that I subsequently wrote to the Home Secretary to ask him whether he meant what he had said. I have not yet received a reply. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer now.
Mr. Rees: I think that we shall have an answer before the day is out, but in any case an answer was given on the Floor of the House. I am prepared to press the Minister of State, but I do not think that we need worry because that answer was given here in this Chamber.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I raise with my right hon. Friend something else that was said on the Floor of the House but which is proving to be misleading, to say the least? The Home Secretary gave an assurance on two occasions that those in the queue would be considered under the old rule. He did not go on to say that the officials had made it clear that, though those cases would be considered under the old rules, if entry was refused the people concerned would not be allowed to appeal under the old rules. The appeal would have to be made under the new rules under which they would not qualify for entry. In such cases, therefore, the right of appeal is removed from anyone who is in the queue.
Mr. Rees: That is an important point and I am sure that it will be cleared up before the debate ends. That is the purpose of the debate.
There has been talk in the press about the European Convention on Human Rights. This issue must be cleared up. There was an article in The Sunday Times on Sunday by Mr. Hugo Young, and I have received letters on this matter. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General that it would be a good idea if the Attorney-General gave us his view on this tonight. The article stated:
"There is no serious doubt that the new Immigration Rules, due to be rubber stamped by the House on Tuesday"—
I do not think that they will be rubber stamped—
"are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, a document which Britain signed and ratified long ago. Very soon"—
I understand that this is happening—
"someone will launch an action in Strasbourg claiming that the exclusion of foreign fiances from coming here to marry British citizens is a breach of Articles 3, 8, 12 and 14 of the convention. And after long delay they will establish their case."
The Home Secretary says that that is a matter for the courts. However, the reason why I pick up the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend is that in another place Lord Wade is introducing another place Lord Wade is introducing a Bill of Rights. I cannot pretend that there is unanimity on either side about whether there should be a Bill of Rights and whether it should be enshrined in the law. The Labour Party and the Liberal Party in the other place have been asked

277
to join in discussions with the Lord Chancellor about whether a Bill of Rights could be enshrined in the law.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot want to discuss whether the European Convention on Human Rights should play a part in our policy while doing something in this House that is contrary to the convention and at the same time ask us to engage in discussions on a Bill of Rights. It is most important that we hear the Government's view on that this afternoon.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree by the same token that to introduce the changes to current immigration law is putting the cart before the horse in that it is proposed to change nationality law and to define citizenship? That is the grotesque nature of the debate today.
Mr. Rees: I have already said that when it conies to enshrining what is being done on the fiance-husband citizenship law it is extremely difficult to put forward an argument.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the provisions in the proposed Immigration Rules consitute a clear derogation, in relation to our co-signatories, of our undertakings under the Helsinki Final Act? Will he urge that there should be a legal view on that from the Government before the debate closes, particularly in relation to male fiances and aged dependants?
Mr. Rees: The Prime Minister, quite properly in my view, is constantly telling us at Question Time that the Helsinki agreement is not being carried out on the other side of the Iron Curtain. I must confess that I was not aware of my hon. and learned Friend's point. It is important that we have a view from the Law Officers about this matter this afternoon.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pressing the point that I made. Quite apart from any question of Lord Wade's Bill, does he agree with me that it has been the invariable tradition of Parliament not to enact legislation in any shape or form that is not in conformity with our international obligations, and especially the European convention? Therefore, if there is the
278
slightest doubt about the matter, it must be put right before the House can possibly come to a decision on it.
Mr. Rees: The Home Secretary has heard what was said. He is always concerned for the rights of the House and, indeed, for government to be conducted in a proper way. I hope that he has listened and that we shall hear a statement from the Attorney-General this afternoon.
I have raised some matters. Others will be raised in the course of the evening. This is what I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends. On the basis alone of the Conservative Party manifesto, which is called in aid very greatly at the moment, that
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed,"
I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Opposition amendment, that the House
"declines to approve the White Paper on the Immigration Rules on the grounds that it violates the principle that the rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before their race, colour or creed",
5.22 pm
Mr. Edward Gardner: In the interests of brevity I should like to confine myself to one aspect of the proposed rules that is causing, and has caused, some concern, and put before the House my personal reasons for justifying the support of that rule relating to husbands and male fiances.
There are three reasons why the proposed change can, and should, be supported. The first is that marriage as a means of entering, working and settling in this country is being abused—and has been abused—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the evidence?"]—just as it was, and even more than it was, in 1969, when the present Leader of the Opposition, the then Home Secretary, decided to end the concession, as he believed, and told the House on 30 January 1969 that there was an abuse that must be ended. He tried to end that abuse by removing the previous concession for husbands to come here and for fiances to come to this country to marry women United Kingdom citizens.
The second reason why I believe that this rule should be supported is that there was a unanimous recommendation by an

279
all-party Committee on race relations and immigration in 1978 that all further major primary immigration should be brought to an end. The proposal in the rules contained in the White Paper which is now before the House is the proper and justifiable means of doing that.
Dr. Hampson: Nevertheless, that argument does not get over the fact that, in terms of primary immigrants, three times as many are coming here through British men bringing in their fiancees. Therefore, we are trading men and women unequally.
Mr. Gardner: I agree. I hope that by the time I have finished I shall satisfy my hon. Friend that the way in which I suggest the matter should be dealt with is the proper one. However, that is for the future rather than the present.
Without entering into what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, or what was described as the numbers game, may I point out, as a matter of fact and as a matter of serious argument, that in 1969. when a Labour Home Secretary, the present Leader of the Opposition, introduced the restrictions that he did, the numbers that he dealt with were those who had come in in 1968. They amounted to 1,676, which is far, far below the figures with which we must deal today.
As we have heard, and as every right hon. and hon. Member appreciates, in May of this year the Conservative Party manifesto undertook to put an end to that concession. I am not—and I want to make this absolutely clear—seeking to argue or to persuade the House that the proposed rules are perfect. They are far from perfect—inevitably so—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are illegal."]—but they are far better and have been improved out of all recognition by the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has honed down the crudities of the solution that was imposed in 1969.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the increasing abuse since 1969. What he is doing—as the Home Secretary did—is to quote the New Commonwealth figures. If he considers the figures applying to the rest of the world, which are usually white
280
women bringing in white men, the truth is that the increase has been much greater. If he is talking about abuse through an increase in the figures, the abuse is greater on the aliens and Old Commonwealth side than on the New Commonwealth side. Why is he saying that to allow white women to bring in white men is removing some of the worst crudities? It increases them.
Mr. Gardner: I am dealing with statistics on the same basis as they were dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary. It is on that same basis that I am putting this argument.
I have conceded—indeed, it would be difficult to do otherwise—that, within the constraints of the inanities—because that is what they are—of the present law as it relates to nationality, it would be difficult to produce flawless rules. I suggest that the blame for that lies firmly on the Nationality Act 1948. It is perhaps one of the worst pieces of legislation to have passed through the House. It is complicated, obscure and unrealistic. I hope, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated, that it will be reformed root and branch.
The defects of that Act are numerous. It has left us without any separate citizenship. There is no such thing as a citizen of the United Kingdom. Our passports are false declarations. They declare us to be citizens of the United Kingdom and the colonies. We are nothing of the sort. As a result of that ridiculous Act, if a child is born in a foreign country his parents can register him within a year of birth as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies at the United Kingdom consulate. If the same child were born in a Commonwealth country, that privilege would not exist.
The basis of the status of the British subject, under the Nationality Act 1948, is allegiance to the Crown. Almost before the print was dry on the statute, that basis began to disappear in relation to many countries. The privilege of being a British subject, which was supposed to carry with it the duty of allegiance to the Crown, was continued by the force of law contained in that Act, even where the countries had become republics.
That absurdity is best demonstrated by the fact that there are more than 950

281
million British subjects in the world, and presumably most of them are not aware of or do not understand their status.
Therefore, I welcome warmly my right hon. Friend's statement that he will publish a White Paper on nationality in the new year. That prospect provides hope for the first step towards recovering a sense of realism in our legislation. I hope that it will form a sound, just and acceptable basis for our future immigration rules.
5.33 pm
Mr. David Steel: While listening to the Home Secretary opening the debate, I was reminded of the hon. Member who used to write in the margin of his speaking notes" weak point—shout". The right hon. Gentleman shouted so consistently throughout his speech that it appeared to consist of a series of weak points. I have always had great respect for the Home Secretary. However, it was significant that in his speech he simply recited to the House details of changes which we are capable of having read in the White Paper, without justifying those changes or providing figures to support them. Therefore, we are left to seek further information from the Minister of State when he winds up.
I have decided to speak on behalf of my party in the debate because I believe that this is a sad chapter in the continuing story of our immigration changes. Since 1968, we have consistently opposed changes in the legislation. On that occasion, the Liberal Party was not alone but was joined by hon. Members from the other two major parties in some number. I hope that that will be the case tonight. We intend to support the reasoned amendment that has been tabled by the Opposition.
We also opposed the 1971 Act. We take the view—the correct view—that immigration into the country is already very strictly controlled and that our primary task as politicians is to stop wittering on about immigration and deal with the problems of race relations within the community. That view is not confined to my colleagues or myself. I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the recent statement that was published in the Church Times by the Joint Council for
282
the Welfare of Immigrants. It was signed by about 18 bishops of the Anglican Church, including the bishops of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and London, and the prospective Archbishop of Canterbury. Point 6 of the statement underlines the view that I have just expressed:
"existing legislation already strikes at the root of the family life of our coloured brethren—demand for further legislation can only in the end degrade the society which requires and enacts it even more than it does its victims"
Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
Mr. Steel: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, like other hon. Members, I shall be sparing in giving way.
Mr. Bell: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the fact that his party also opposed the Immigration Act 1962, which was the first to impose any control, and voted against the annual renewal of it in the two following years.
Mr. Steel: I dare say that it did. However, I am dealing with the time that I have been in the House and involved in these matters.
Unlike the Home Secretary, the Minister of State, in an important article in The Daily Telegraph today, gave reasons for the rules that are being advanced. I have based my remarks on what he said in what was the most up-to-date statement in advance of the Home Secretary's speech.
I believe that the reasoning behind the Introduction of the rules is false. Perhaps it is worth standing back and trying to see what are the Government's real aims. At the beginning of that article, the Minister of State said:
"Quite clearly, the first aim is to reduce the numbers coming in to this rather crowded island with its relatively high unemployment. This should help to defuse the tension caused by the feeling of being under pressure felt by part of the indigenous population of Britain."
Before I go further, may I say that I believe that, on that point, the Government go seriously wrong. This is a reopening of the echoes of the word "swamped" which was used by the Prime Minister when she was Leader of the Opposition. The Minister of State

283
gives the game away in the next sentence when he says, almost in parenthesis:
"As it happens, the numbers accepted for settlement have stabilised in recent years, but that is mainly because our immigration system has stemmed them."
Precisely. Should we not begin with that statement and get it across to the false propagandists in this country that major immigration into the country has been over for some years? All the myths and stories should be put into their right context. It is the responsibility of us all, but primarily of the Government, to ensure that the emphasis is put in that way and not on phrases about swamping overcrowding, high unemployment, and so on.
I turn to some of the specific proposals in the draft rules. I shall not repeat what has been said—and, no doubt, will be said—about the rights of women to bring in fiances or husbands. In the article, the Minister of State conceded that that will affect between 1,000 and 2,000 persons only. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) indicated in an earlier interjection that the Government already have the power to deal with abuses of the system. I should like to hear confirmation from the Minister of State that last year only 175 male fiances or husbands were refused permission to stay after their probationary year.
Is it the Government's case that there are other abuses that they have not been able to control, or are they simply trying to appease the pressure in the Conservative Party from certain quarters, which should be opposed rather than appeased, by bringing in the regulations? It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic, but the right hon. Lady, having gained her unique position as our first woman Prime Minister through the sacrifices of those women who were oppressed in previous generations, appears to be using her first year in office to bring in rules that are oppressive for the rights of women.
Moreover, I believe that the Government are guilty of allowing a misunderstanding about the nature of arranged marriages to become confused with marriages of convenience. I feel strongly about the matter. As some hon. Members know, for part of my childhood I was brought up in Kenya and have many personal friends among the Asian and other communities there.
284
I want to tell the Home Secretary of an experience that I had concerning arranged marriages. Shortly after my marriage I went on holiday with my wife to Kenya to show her the country that I knew so well. On the aeroplane on our way out I happened to sit beside an Asian boy of about my age. He was going out to get married and told me that he had never met his bride. The result was that we spent the journey discussing the ethics and morality of the arranged marriage system as opposed to our system. By the end of the journey, he had at any rate convinced me that there was a great deal to be said for a system that we find difficult to understand. The families on both sides of the potential marriage arrange the suitability of the partners, and the process of entering into love and a loving relationship begins after marriage.
The Asian boy's argument is difficult to counter. Who are we to say that our tradition of marriage, which may follow after a few weeks of emotional involvement, is inherently superior to theirs, particularly in face of high divorce statistics and marriage breakdowns?
Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to my article in The Daily Telegraph this morning. I quote a couple of sentences from it:
"We have nothing against arranged marriages as such but marriage arranged for the purposes of migration (sometimes with a dowry coming, abnormally, from the man's family to the woman's) is a different matter. There can be no doubt what is happening."
That is the point that we are trying to get at. We are not trying to get at the abuse that was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in his 1977 changes, which is partially covered already. There is clear evidence that marriage is being used for the purpose of migration. The marriage may last or it may not. The point is that young men are coming over to this country through the channel of marriage just in order to get here.
Mr. Steel: My point is that the Minister of State has a duty to tell the House what evidence there is of those abuses and why the Government are not dealing with them under the present power.

285
I was using my experience to reply to what the Home Secretary said in his impromptu answers when introducing the statement. I do not have Hansard in front of me, but he appeared to be saying that it was high time that people learnt to meet each other before they got married. It is that argument that I am trying to counter. We have to understand other people's traditions, and our way is not necessarily theirs.
A new problem that has emerged among immigrant communities in this country is tension between the older generation, who are attached to these ideals, and the new generation, who, because they mix with our society, sometimes wish to break away from them and may not want to take part in arranged marriages. From talking to members of immigrant communities, one learns that there is considerable conflict between the generations. However, that is a generation problem and not one between ourselves and the immigrant communities. At the end of the day they have to solve that problem for themselves and it is not for us to intervene. We shall not listen to the tales of one or two girls and then say that we believe that the habits and culture of an immigrant community, built up over generations, should be changed.
The Shadow Home Secretary mentioned the right under the rules of EEC nationals to come here and bring their husbands. Can a woman national of any Community country come here with the right to live and work in this country and bring her husband, who might be an Asian, with her? It would be nonsense if that right were upheld for all other EEC countries except our own. I cannot see how the Government can leave the rules in that unsatisfactory state.
I believe that we can benefit and learn from the tradition of the extended family and the degree of family care and responsibility in immigrant communities. The existing rules impose cruel hardship and distress on families. They sometimes have to wait two years, and perhaps a further one and a half years on appeal, before coming together. People can be separated from their children and elderly dependants for as long as three and a half years under the present rules, before we even come to the new proposals. What does that do for the dignity of family life?
Mr. Burden: We should put the matter in perspective. The previous Government refused in my constituency to allow the parents of two Indian doctors, who between them were earning £16,000 a year, to come here for three months. These people were prepared to give all sorts of undertakings that their parents would return, even to the extent of buying return tickets to India at the time of entry. Permission was absolutely refused by the previous Government, so for heaven's sake let us not imply that this Government are solely responsible.
Mr. Steel: The hon. Gentleman has completely missed my point, which is that we are already imposing severe hardship. I am not talking about which Government may be in power. It is a fact of life that, whichever Government operates them, our existing Immigration Rules are harsh and extremely distressing to the families concerned. We should be conscious of that fact when considering these new rules.
I turn now to the arguments about numbers and unemployment. The Home Secretary read the section on au pairs without justifying the changes in any way. Under paragraph 26 of the draft rules, future au pair arrangements will be limited to girls. For the sake of brevity I shall not do so, but I am tempted to quote an experience that I had some years ago when the Home Office admitted an au pair boy to my constituency and said that there was no precedent.
This is a further piece of sex discrimination. It is limited to girls and those who are nationals of Western European countries, including Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, and they have to come and live as members of an English-speaking family. Who is to check on whether the family is English-speaking, what is meant by that rule, how will it be policed, and why is there a new restriction on where an au pair girl may come from? Those questions have not been answered.
The Shadow Home Secretary also mentioned the new rule on overseas students. One increasingly gains the impression that future students from overseas will have to be exceedingly rich. It seems reasonable that dependants, and particularly wives or husbands of students here, should be allowed to earn money to contribute to their spouse's fees and subsistence while studying.

287
I come back to the beginning of the article in The Daily Telegraph, which states that
"the first aim is to reduce the numbers coming into this rather crowded island with its relatively high unemployment."
What is the present scale of working holidays among Commonwealth citizens in this country? I am advised that between 15,000 and 20,000 Australians alone come here each year and take what are called working holidays. I am not against that. It is a good thing for young people to come from any part of the world to gain holiday experience and at the same time try to earn money. However, to what extent does it run counter to the statement in the article?
I have in my hand a copy of a newspaper which is distributed free of charge among the Australian community in London. It is called Australasian Express and it is full of job advertisements. I read to the House a half-page advertisement from an employment agency called "Adventures with…"
"Tales of a land of milk and money…"
It is in the form of a cartoon of a person arriving with a suitcase and saying:
"Thought I'd come to the old country. Having a look round, hoping to make some friends and a few shil's…Then a friend suggested I look up"—
the name of the agency—
"who told me about well paid working holidays…"
The girl from the agency says:
"Hullo. Terrific to see you…Yes, Super-wages. One job straight after another, where you want it, when you want it."
Later it says:
"thanks for the introduction to the…offices. Now I'm off home with a nest egg and a promising future."
Another advertisement stated:
"How's the money holding out? If it's not, it's time to get some temporary work. After 5 years in London, we're pretty well-known. We've got a whole bunch of really great clients who always have stacks of temporary work to be done".
If about 15,000 to 20,000 jobs a year are going to that one community, that makes nonsense of this whole paraphernalia of rules which will control a smaller number but impose real hardship on the families in other countries.
288
As parliamentarians we ought to be mindful of a further objection. These rules cumulatively add greatly to the discretionary powers in the hands not only of the present Home Secretary and of all future Home Secretaries, until the legislation is changed, but of the immigration officers.
We have always prided ourselves on not having detention without trial. Unhappily, that is a serious and growing side consequence of the present Immigration Rules. I can see that consequence growing under the rules before us today.
What about the registration of citizens, especially those wishing to register their children as British citizens? I have been in correspondence with the Minister of State about individual cases. I share the anxiety that has already been expressed in the House about the importance of maintaining the rights of hon. Members to ask questions on these matters. The Minister alleges that it is taking two years for naturalisation and 13 months for registration. His justification for that is that the Home Office has been receiving considerably increased numbers of applications for citizenship in recent years. The reason for that increase is the anxiety about what these rules would contain. The Government, when in Opposition could have helped to reduce the number of applications by removing those anxieties.
At the end of the article in The Daily Telegraph, the Minister states that the rules
"should—in due course—take some of the tension out of the problem of race relations".
That is the most misguided conclusion of all. To treat immigrants as though they have to be counted in what is callously called in the House "the numbers game", like some form of leprosy that has to be quantified, is damaging to race relations.
When the Home Secretary made his recent statement, I asked him to reflect on what sort of society we were becoming. I say that because I had a recent meeting with one of the high commissioners from a Commonwealth country. He pointed out that in his country, where they were struggling to maintain a democracy being undermined by demonstrations in the streets by those loyal to the other side of the Iron Curtain, they were now facing a position where fees for overseas students

289
had been increased, where British Council assistance had been cut, where the aid programme had been cut, where they were having to turn to the Soviet Union for a major fertiliser contract, and where the queue on the streets of their capital for emigration was to be extended. Yet they are expected to extol the British and Western traditions and their deep attachment to the Mother of Parliaments.
The Home Secretary cannot be proud to present these rules to the House. They are shoddy and disgraceful, and the Mother of Parliaments should ensure that they are withdrawn.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: As the House can see, there are more than 30 hon. Members wishing to speak, almost all of whom have a large constituency interest in the subject. I shall be able to call a considerable number of hon. Members only if speeches are confined to about 10 minutes. I cannot enforce that; I can only appeal for brevity.
5.57 pm
Sir Nigel Fisher: I shall respond at once to your request, Mr. Speaker, and be brief in the interests of colleagues on both sides of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) will therefore forgive me for not following him precisely. I shall confine my remarks and criticisms mainly to the matter of fiances and husbands, as that is the most controversial matter before us.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot deny that his proposals discriminate against women and against race. He justifies them on the grounds that the existing rules have, in some cases, been abused and that some people have gained entry into Britain by the device of a bogus marriage deliberately designed to evade the rules. We all deplore that sort of cheating and wish to see it stopped. But are the proposals in the White Paper the best means of stopping it? Any voter reading the immigration section in the Conservative Party election manifesto would have assumed that it was our policy to reduce the number of new immigrants. The manifesto did not specifically state that, but that was the clear implication.
290
As more people have left Britain than have entered it in the last decade, it was not a question of numbers. It was a question of race. The objective was to reduce the number of coloured immigrants. Even if one accepts that as a laudable objective—which I do not—the White Paper proposals are not an effective way of bringing about that objective. They will make practically no difference to the numbers. My right hon. Friend has told the House that about 3,000, perhaps 4,000, will be caught in the non-entry net as a result of the new rules; but how many of those will be the evaders—those who are contracting bogus marriages in order to secure entry—as opposed to those contracting genuine arranged marriages according to Indian custom? I do not believe that my right hon. Friend knows the answer to that question, but it is surely central to his justification for paragraphs 50 and 52 of the White Paper. The only evidence that we have of numbers is that between 1977 and 1979 356 men were refused settlement because they had abused the rules. That was about 3 per cent. of the applications dealt with during those two years.
The number of men coming to Britain for genuine arranged marriages is not large, and the number coming for bogus marriages, where the main motive is to gain entry to Britain, is probably very small indeed. The Government are incurring quite a lot of criticism in terms of principle for a minimal result in terms of numbers. More information should be forthcoming about a possible breach of the European Convention on Human Rights under these rules. We may have been in breach of the convention for some time, but I should like to know what the position is. If my right hon. Friend's purpose is really to deal with the deliberate evaders, could he not adopt two criteria?
One criterion has already been incorporation in the White Paper—namely, that the parties should have met each other. That seems quite reasonable. The other criterion might be to extend the existing provision that the couples should remain married for one year to any longer period that my right hon. Friend may prefer, perhaps three years or five years. That would give evidence of the stability and lasting quality of the marriage.
Mr. Alan Clark: It is not our business to monitor people's married lives.
Sir N. Fisher: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to intervene instead of lounging about.
Mr. Clark: I accept my hon. Friend's reproof. I have known and respected him for many years, but I am curious about the new principle that he appears to be introducing—namely, that it is the business of the State to monitor the marital regularity of people's associations.
Sir N. Fisher: That is precisely what the White Paper proposals will do.
If the purpose is just to deal with the deliberate evaders, could not the Home Secretary have adopted, first, his own criterion about the parties having met and, secondly, a rather longer period of marriage to show that it is a real and lasting relationship?
On the issue of sex discrimination, I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has made a considerable concession in allowing British women born overseas and with at least one United Kingdom-born parent to be granted an entry certificate for their foreign-born husbands. That goes quite a long way to meet the problem of British girls born abroad while their parents were in the Foreign Service, engaged on business for a firm with extensive overseas interests or working as missionaries or in the Armed Forces. However, while helping to reduce sex discrimination, that concession is in fact more discriminatory against race.
Another part of the White Paper that I consider to be rather mean is paragraph 48, which will exclude widowed or elderly parents or grandparents unless their standard of living is substantially below that of their country as a whole. It would be quite difficult to have a standard of living substantially below the Indian standard, and consequently almost all ageing Asian widows or widowers will almost automatically be denied entry.
Miss Joan Lestor: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but is he aware that the position is even worse than he has suggested? The dependent relative will have to have received money from relatives in this country in order to qualify for entry, and that will automatically raise his or her standard to a level above the normal standard of the country concerned. It is a Catch-22 situation.
Sir N. Fisher: That is a valid point and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning it.
Having pleased Opposition Members with my approach so far, I now have to say something that will not please them so much. They will understand from what I have said that I dislike the new rules very much indeed. I think that they are racist in tone and are rather contemptible for that reason. I believe that up to about 40 or 50 of my hon. Friends feel the same way. If we all voted against the rules, or even abstained, the Government would be defeated. Some of my colleagues will vote against the rules or will abstain. I shall not, and I should like to explain why, if the House will be patient for one minute.
Older hon. Members will concede that I have consistently opposed the line taken by my party on race issues. They may recall that I opposed the then Conservative Government on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. I think that I was wrong to do so, because it soon became apparent that some control was necessary. I also opposed the Labour Government in 1968, when my own Front Bench and party supported them, on the East African Asians issue. I am sure that I was right to do so on that occasion.
Tonight there are other considerations for me. The new rules are based on the Conservative election manifesto, to which as candidates all my hon. Friends tacitly, if not overtly, subscribed.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The amendment contains the exact words of the Conservative election manifesto. If the hon. Gentleman votes against the amendment, he will be voting against his own manifesto—and he agrees that the amendment is completely justified.
Sir N. Fisher: That is a rather convoluted argument. I realised that the words were the same. I thought that it was quite clever to have chosen them, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention destroys my case.
Mr. John Hunt: My hon. Friend referred to the election manifesto commitment. In the case of grandparents, the proposed rules are much harsher and more unreasonable than the reference in our manifesto. They are most inhumane and should be reconsidered.
Sir N. Fisher: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I referred earlier to the provision relating to grandparents. It is very mean and I feel strongly about it.
I acknowledge that the election manifesto is an inhibiting factor for me and my hon. Friends. However, much more important to me is the blow that a defeat for the Government would be to the Home Secretary, for whom I have a great personal affection, and to the Prime Minister, whom I greatly admire and who is beset by many major problems in other matters of even wider significance.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) shakes his head. Does he think that there is nothing to be said for loyalty to one's party? We rather prize that, though I appreciate that our view is not shared by some Labour Members. I feel a keen sense of personal loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Clive Soley Mr. Clive Soley(Hammersmith, North) rose—
Sir N. Fisher: I have given way several times and I shall not give way again.
For me there is a conflict between conscience and loyalty. In conscience, I would vote against the White Paper with enthusiasm. In loyalty, I shall go into the Government Lobby, albeit with a heavy heart. My only consolation is that Mr. Blunt said on television that he had put conscience before loyalty. Perhaps, therefore, I may not be altogether wrong in putting loyalty before conscience.
6.8 pm
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is so much that I detest in the White Paper that it would take me too long to go through it in detail. I shall therefore address myself precisely to the arguments of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) and his hon. Friends, because they alone can save the Government from taking the rash step of implementing the proposals in the White Paper.
The hon. Member for Surbiton said that he owes a loyalty to his party which must transcend what he concedes is an abuse of his conscience in supporting the proposals. If the proposals do not go through, the Government will have escaped from a hook on which they do not want to be but on which they hung
294
themselves when in Opposition, when they failed to understand the reality of immigration control and the pattern of immigration into this country.
The case that the Home Secretary has used to justify the proposals is that there must be some reduction in the rate of immigration. He has proposed a change that will reduce immigration by between 2,000 and 3,000. If he had wanted to do so, he could have reduced immigration by 4,000 by abolishing one simple rule—the grandpa trial rule which allows Commonwealth citizens who have a grandparent born in this country to come here.
Four thousand people came in last year by that route alone, and all were entitled to come to work. They were primary immigrants. That is far more than the estimated 2,000 to 3,000 mentioned by the Minister, because half of them are elderly relatives who would not come here to work. Only half would be black fiances. Therefore, when we talk about numbers the fact is that there are better ways of reducing the numbers. The only difficulty is that the numbers that would be reduced would be white and not black. The hon. Member for Surbiton should consider that matter in determining whether it is right to go down this path.
Of the 3,000 or 4,000 who will be caused distress by these changes, half will be fiances from the Indian subcontinent. At the moment, 5,000 people from the Indian sub-continent are in the queue, mainly in Islamabad and Delhi. In both cases the waiting time for interviews is about two years. The Home Secretary has agreed that people will be considered under the old rules provided that they submitted their application before the introduction of the White Paper. All 5,000 will, therefore, have to be considered under the old rules, although there will be no appeal under those rules. In those circumstances, it will be two years before even half of the 2,000 to 3,000 become a reality. In that time we shall have had a decision of the European Commission on Human Rights. That is beyond peradventure.
So many people are queueing up to go to the European Commission that it will be difficult to get on to that queue, but what is certain is that there will be a hearing and that it will be adverse to the British Government. I say that with a degree of confidence, because when the

295
hon. Member for Surbiton and I voted against the 1968 Act we did so on grounds of morality and legality. That matter was taken to the European Commission on Human Rights by a number of applicants. A decision was made by the Commission during my time as a Minister. A decision of the Commission is provisional. It allows the Government to decide whether to accept it or to appeal against it either to the Council of Ministers or to the European Court. We decided that it was better to go to the Council of Ministers because that would take some time, during which the number of Asians waiting in the queue would be reduced to minimal figures since the voucher scheme had been enlarged. Indeed, that is what happened.
In 1977 European Ministers did not say that the Commission was wrong. They said that the grievance that had been raised by the Asians had been ended by the time that they came to decide. In its provisional ruling, which hon. Members will have seen, because the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has released it, the Commission considered a particular application by three Asian husbands to join their wives in this country. Despite the fact that the provision that obtained between 1969 and 1974 was wider than, but similar to, the provision in these rules, the Commission said that it was contrary to article 14 of the convention and that it was illegal.
Since this Government, like the previous Government, accept the overall authority of the Commission, it means that we would have to change the law or withdraw from our adherence to the convention. The Government have not disclosed their legal advice on this issue. I asked a question in this regard yesterday but received an evasive answer. If this White Paper were a Bill and we were going into Committee, we would have the right to call the Attorney-General to give us the advice that he has tendered to the Government on this matter.
Does the hon. Member for Surbiton still think it right to support the Government on a proposal which, first, is unlikely to attain the benefits that the Government want and, secondly, is in violation of the convention and is likely to be deemed to be illegal, as a result of which it will never have a practical
296
effect? Before it can have a practical effect, the Commission will have ruled against it. Surely it is better for the hon. Gentleman to get the Government off the hook by making it impossible for them to go ahead tonight.
Sir Nigel Fisher Sir Nigel Fisher rose—
Mr. Lyon: I shall give way in a moment. It is true that this issue is only one of a great many contained in the document. There are some good ones, but almost all the changes are bad. The fact is that if we do not pass these rules all that will happen is that the existing rules will continue in force. If the Government want to change their mind, do a proper analysis of the rules and come forward with good rules, they can table them at any time. No one will object to an improvement in the rules.
Sir Nigel Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that we are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that is not definitely and positively the case. Some hon. Members, including myself, have asked for advice on this matter, but it cannot be assumed that we are in breach of the convention. If so, why were we not previously in breach of it? Why have we never been criticised previously?
Mr. Lyon: I told the hon. Gentleman that there has been only one case that has raised the issue, and that case went against us. It raised the specific issue in relation to fiances that is contained in the change of rules. There is a ruling of the Commission. If the Attorney-General came here today, he would have to say that that ruling would he binding upon the Commission in the future. In those circumstances, the decision has been made. I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman would not want to accept my advice, but if he does not believe me why does he not press for the Attorney-General to come here this evening, before we vote, to say whether or not Conservative Members will be voting for something that will be vitiated within two years by a convention to which we are signatories and which we accept as binding? In those circumstances, Conservative Members will not embarrass the Government. They will get them off the hook.

297
In addition, the question of parents and grandparents is now to be dealt with under the "distressed relatives rule". I have asked a number of organisations that have been concerned with this matter for many years how many cases they have ever heard of in which a New Commonwealth immigrant came in under the distressed relatives rule. I was a Minister for two years and I dealt with about 30,000 cases myself, but during that time I cannot recollect one case that got through the net of the distressed relatives rule because, for the reason indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), it is so tight. If one has to be dependent upon a person here, it means that the person here has been sending money. Any money that is sent immediately raises one's standard of living above the standard of living of those around.
The only way in which such people can come in is by the Minister exercising his discretion outside the rules in order to get them in. That is the way in which I got them in. But it is impossible to get them in under the rules. Indeed, the tribunal that deals with appeals against the decisions of the Minister has on three occasions ruled that it is impossible to define a circumstance that would come within the rules and that the rules ought to be changed so that they are clearer about what is intended by the phrase "compassionate circumstances".
Mr. William Wilson: My hon. Friend probably realises that the practical implementation of the rules before the adjudicators and the tribunal accounts for as much experience as any hon. Member may possess. He was perfectly right to describe the difficulty of succeeding in relation to a distressed or dependent relative. I can tell him quite frankly that it is virtually impossible to succeed. The effect of the change in regard to parents and dependent relatives virtually means that parents will not be admitted.
Mr. Lyon: I agree. The tragedy is that that applies to elderly black relatives but not to elderly white relatives, because to send money to the United States does not raise the standard of living of a relative above the general standard in that country. So white parents can be brought in, but not black parents. Under the exist-
298
ing rules, relatives can be brought in only if they are over 65, are dependants and can be wholly maintained by the person bringing them to this country. So there would be no charge on the social services for bringing such relatives here. The result is that an old person in declining years is able to live happily with his family. Why should that not happen?
I would change the rule concerning parents and distressed relatives. I fought for two years to do so. I wanted to improve the possibility of bringing elderly relatives to this country. It is only right that a son or daughter who wants to look after his or her parents during their declining years, and who has the ressources, should be allowed to do so. It is monstrous that we should cause distress to 2,000 families simply because we want to reduce the number of coloured immigrants. The desire to do that is based on one reason—namely, that Members of the Conservative Party want to pander to the race prejudice of a limited minority.
The real reason for the proposed changes in the rules has long since passed. The Home Secretary's speech was a voice from the past. We had this argument between 1976 and 1978. It was put with deep conviction by a number of interested bodies. In 1978 the Select Committee produced a report that was totally condemned by everyone who was in favour of good relations. The outcome of that debate was that the Churches, the newspapers and many people who had not taken part in the debate previously suddenly expressed their views. That report changed the climate of opinion.
At present there is no support in this country for the kind of changes that the Government propose to make. They did not win the Government one vote at the general election. There was no major change in the feelings of the white population on the issue in any of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members. What the Government achieved was the alienation of the black vote. Even the West Indians voted for Labour in the general election, and they have not done that for a long time. The truth is that the West Indians who voted at the last election recognised not necessarily that they would be personally affected but that the proposals of the Conservative Party discriminated against people because they were black, and only because they were

299
black. That completely undermines any hope of harmonious race relations.
Under the Government's proposals, a black citizen born in this country will not be able to marry according to custom or culture in the way that a white person born in this country can. Someone who was not born here but who is a patrial citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies because he has been here for five years and taken out citizenship will not be treated the same as a white citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies.
That dilemma will have to be written into the new change in our citizenship law that will take place next year. If we differentiate between one citizen and another, we shall either have to change that when the nationality law is enacted or deal with the matter now. Hon. Members are the only people who can prevent this change by voting with us tonight. I appeal to hon. Members to stop the Government from making fools of themselves, because within two years they will have to retract what is decided here today.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) must have forgotten his promise to me. I must tell the House again that if hon Members do not restrict themselves to speeches of 10 minutes or less, many who have constituency issues to raise will not be able to take part in the debate.
6.24 pm
Mr. Ronald Bell: I shall be brief and, therefore, I shall leave unsaid what I have said in the House many times.
I suppose that the connection between politics and humbug is too old and well established to be seriously challenged, but I believe that there is more humbug in the approach to this subject than to any other subject. First, how can we possibly operate a selection process, or a barrier of any kind to immigration, without some form of discrimination? The very process implies discrimination and it is sheer dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
Secondly, the purpose of limiting immigration is not, or should not be, the improvement of race relations. Again, that is the kind of facile hypocrisy that too easily finds its way into hon. Members'
300
speeches. We all know why we want to limit immigration. It is because we do not want to see too rapid or too great a change in the population of our country. I have said many times that some movement across the frontiers of geography and history is not only permissible but desirable. It can enrich a community. However, too rapid and too great a movement damages a community and destroys its sense of identity.
Therefore, I am opposed to immigration because of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) called the numbers game. I did not enter public life because I was bothered about the immigration of coloured people. Such a concept did not exist to any material degree in those days. But when the numbers increased in the late 1950s and early 1960s, any person who was not worried about it was neglecting his duty.
It is no good the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) saying that he was not here at the time. The Liberal Party voted against the legislation in 1962, as did the Labour Party. Some of my hon. Friends opposed that legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) frankly admitted that he was wrong about that. The Liberal Party leader of the time said that the Bill was the most disgraceful that had ever been introduced into the British Parliament and that every British subject in the world—there were 600 million of them—had as much right to come and live in Britain as any of us. One cannot get sillier than that.
The astonishing thing is that all those people, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and others, having been so utterly wrong about that—they all confess that now—have not lost their confidence in their own judgment by one iota. They are still absolutely certain that their judgment on each issue as it arises is just as infallible as it was in 1962.
I have a certain sympathy with the Home Secretary. Here he is being battered and abused for not doing what people such as I want him to do. He is not actually doing anything. I suppose the reduction of immigrants will be about 1,500 to 2,000. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South said that all this immigration was past history. Is it? There will be more than 40,000

301
immigrants from the New Commonwealth alone this year. All those who overstay or who are illegal entrants must be added to that number.
I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend had to say about the severity with which those who overstay would be scrutinised. I have heard that so often previously. Sir Frank Soskice, when he was Home Secretary, was worried about that. He published a White Paper about it in which he set out his anxieties and assessments. But it was such a good White Paper that he became Lord Stow Hill in a couple of months, because the Labour Party was outraged.
The number of people who overstay continues decade after decade. We must make no mistake about that. Year after year more than 50,000 new immigrants enter this country and will continue to do so until we do something far more effective than is to be found in the White Paper. It could be asked by some "What does it matter?" The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will certainly say "Are we not all as good as one another?" Why not have as many tropical people as we can? That is what we are talking about. We are talking about New Commonwealth immigrants. We all know that. I have never pretended anything else.
I think that the answer is to be found in the numbers game. If it is true—and I do not believe it—that the number of Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants in this country formed only 3½ per cent. of the population in 1976, according to the same statistics they accounted for 8 per cent. of the births in England and Wales. Either there are far more here than is admitted, or they are multiplying at double the rate of everyone else. When one localises these figures, one comes up with the astonishing result that about one-quarter of the births in the whole of greater London are coloured.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does it matter?
Mr. Bell: The hon. Member may say that it does not matter. I say that something like that in a period of only 20 years certainly matters. In Westminster, 54 per cent. of the births are to mothers who were not born in any part of the
302
United Kingdom. Only about 18 per cent. of these are coloured. Therefore, we are not talking only about coloured immigration. We are talking about immigration—[An HON. MEMBER: "From the EEC as well."] That is true, but no hon. Member can suggest that I am a supporter of the EEC. The totality of immigration must be looked at and we must ask ourselves whether the rate and magnitude of the change are more than the community can stand.
Mr. Soley: The hon. and learned Member's argument appears to be that our society is changing too rapidly. Is he suggesting that those born here are not brought up to be British, or is he suggesting that there is something genetically different about them?
Mr. Bell: Of course there is something genetically different about them. One gets one's genes from one's parents, not one's place of birth. This is a preposterous illusion nurtured by many Labour Members who believe that where one is born decides what one is—in other words, a kitten born in a kipper box is a kipper. That is too ridiculous for words. All these matters are psychological.
A slow change is a beneficial change, but the sort of change that we have seen in the last 18 years is cataclysmic. In London that rate of change cannot be tolerated if people are to continue to feel a sense of history and destiny.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is nonsense.
Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for York says that that is nonsense, but I do not think that he has much sense of either destiny or history. Those who are not proud of their ancestors will not be proud of posterity.
The White Paper is well-intentioned and the Home Secretary has defended it with his customary vigour. However, the fact is that it will do nothing to stop the rate of change in the population of this country. Much more must be done. We need action involving legislation. That legislation must involve dependants, and the East African traders. It must also bring into significant operation the provisions of the 1971 Act on the assisted repatriation of those already here.
6.34 pm
Mr. David Ennals: I shall be very brief because a lot of hon. Members wish to speak. Also, I have a bad throat, so the longer I speak the less audible I shall be.
I hope that the Home Secretary will have noted the contributions from the two speakers from his own Benches. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) made it absolutely clear that he was totally opposed to the White Paper. I congratulate him on having the courage to say so, but I regret his lack of courage in not joining us in the Division Lobby.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) thinks that the White Paper is no good for him because it does not go far enough. Actually, we must be thankful for small mercies. In the Conservative manifesto there were a number of proposals, most of which have been swept under the carpet. I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to the debate and then put this White Paper under the carpet in the same way.
I was amazed and distressed by the Home Secretary's speech. He spoke as if he had no personal knowledge at all of the lives and problems of the minority groups in this country. He spoke as if he had no understanding of their culture, their worries, uncertainties and insecurities. Even in that sense, the modest but despicable proposals in the White Paper will do great harm to race relations in Britain. That is why I want to see no more of this document, except for one or two small things that are welcome. For example, I welcome the greater recognition of the United Kingdom's responsibilities as a signatory to the United Nations convention and protocol on the status of refugees. But what makes the White Paper so objectionable is its discriminatory clauses—discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and religion.
It is interesting to see this quotation from the draft rules:
"Immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom."
Suppose that an immigration officer did that. How could he, when an au pair girl may only come from Western Europe and dependent relatives from Asia will be excluded if they have a distant relative
304
in their own country or they have an exceptionally low standard of living? How can he, when marriages which have been arranged in strict conformity with the customs of the Sikhs and Hindus are ruled out in the rules before us? This shows the Home Secretary's absolute failure to understand a principle which, while not practised by most people in this country, is practised by Hindus and Sikhs and is something in which they believe. It would be difficult to prove them wrong.
Sir Raymond Gower Sir Raymond Gower(Barry) rose—
Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way, but time is short and many others wish to speak.
On the question of arranged marriages, I was interested to receive representations from the Indian Workers' Association The association said:
"The Home Secretary should honour his election pledge to the Asian voters that he would 'take into consideration the historic, social and religious dictates' of the Asian community."
That was an election pledge. The home Secretary should think about that. I also saw a resolution adopted by the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. I did not realise there was such a society, but apparently there is, and it passed a resolution saying:
"The Anglo-Asian Conservative Society urges the Government to respect the traditions and values of the ethnic minority community, as frequently acknowledged by our Party in the past."
I turn to a number of points about the rules relating to refugees. I welcome the recognition given in the White Paper to the status of refugees. However, I believe that more should be done in terms of the rules that are written out. In the proposed revised rules, discretion is still given to immigration officers to decide when cases shall be referred. The immigration officer has to make a judgment when a person arrives whether he is claiming asylum and is seeking to be regarded as a refugee.
No obligation is placed on immigration officers to consult the London representatives of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees or the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. No machinery has been set up for determining the status of the person claiming to be a

305
refugee. No reference has been made to the apply for visas through British missions overseas.
I make these points about refugees partly because I have a declared interest. I am the chairman of the council of the Ockenden Venture and a member of the standing conference on refugees. We have now, perhaps, a bigger problem. More refugees are being forced to move from one country to another than at any time in our history. Therefore, it is important, if we are to have new rules at all, that we get them right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will proceed only with that part of the rules.
We know generally how the vote will go at the end of this debate, though we do not know exactly. I hope that the Home Secretary will weigh up the arguments and realise that this White Paper is not something of which he should be proud. I do not believe that he is proud of it. I do not think that he wanted to put these proposals forward. I believe that he was obliged to do so by his Cabinet colleagues and by the Prime Minister.
One of my hon. Friends said that no votes were at stake in this issue. I disagree. Some votes were at stake in the general election, but the general election is over. We should now be deciding not whether we commit ourselves to the fulfilment of stupid pledges but whether we do the right thing about race relations in Britain. No part of this country and no organisation—except the extreme Right and the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield—which believes in better race relations will want to see this White Paper become the new rules. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to think again.
6.42 pm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I shall briefly explain why I find it impossible to support the Government tonight, though I do so with great sadness. I am sad that the need to make this speech or take such action has arisen. I feel particularly sad that the Minister making the proposals that I cannot support is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has been an inspiration to my political career until today. He was of great help in the winning of the Loughborough constituency and was particularly successful in attracting the sup-
306
port of the Asian community there. No one has a longer record than my right hon. Friend as a distinguished servant of my party or a more consistent record as the friend of the underdog and the underprivileged in our society. It is not without considerable soul-searching, therefore, that I decided that I could not support his proposals.
I have never held myself up to be an expert in Home Office affairs. I came to this House from industry, and my primary interest in politics is economics, not home affairs. I have not taken a consistent or long-term interest in immigration statistics. That perhaps enables me to approach this subject from a slightly different viewpoint from that advocated by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).
This matter concerns the rights of individuals, not the numbers game. The decision to be made as a result of this White Paper has to do with the rights of existing British citizens. It has very little to do with the number of people coming into this country. The particular proposal that I find it impossible to support concerns husbands and fiances. I shall trace the history of the development of this issue. Several people have said that it was part of our manifesto commitment. They are wrong. It was not. We stated in the manifesto that no British woman should be able to bring her husband or finance into this country. There was an outcry at that—not least from myself and my white constituents. That justifiable outcry forced the Government to reconsider and restrict that limitation to a smaller group of people.
There was a further outcry, and the Home Secretary has now announced that the group will be further restricted. The restriction imposed on the group to which these limitations apply does not meet the basic principle. It is not the definition of the group that is wrong. What is wrong is the principle of creating a group of female citizens who will not be able to bring their husbands into this country.
Some of my hon. Friends may well ask about the rights of the majority. They may ask why the majority should not be entitled to impose what they think are reasonable rules on the minority. The answer to that is that the health, or lack of it, of a democracy is judged largely by

307
the effectiveness with which it defends minority rights. The reason why I find these proposals difficult to accept is that they use the majority to steamroller the minority.
There is, perhaps, no clearer illustration of that than the development of the issue through the restriction of the groups to whom the proposals will apply. Perhaps that is the reason why spokesmen for all the major Churches, including the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Chief Rabbi, issued a joint statement today which rejects the proposals which the Government are asking the House to approve. The Churches call upon the Government to allow a free vote this evening.
I regard the debate as being about human rights and not primarily as a race relations issue. That approach does, to a degree, evade the issue, because while the debate is about human rights it does affect race relations. That effect is clearly directed towards recent immigrant arrivals. They are the people at whom we are aiming—both white and coloured—and that makes the situation worse.
The Home Secretary said that Government policy was designed to remove from recent immigrants the immigrant label and to enable them to take their place as fully fledged equal citizens before the law. I hope devoutly that that will remain part of Government policy. The effect of this proposal, however, will be to pin the immigrant label permanently on to those individuals who have arrived here during the last few years. It will set them apart and afford them different rights from the rest of us. That must have an effect on race relations, although, ironically, the majority of people, even in the restricted class that we are discussing, are white.
The proposals will apply to the 300,000 people who have arrived in this country from Southern Ireland—in similar circumstances to coloured immigrants. Sadly, they will also apply to the families of the 100,000 Jews who arrived as refugees from Hitler's Germany in the 1930s. Despite the fact that the proposals apply to whites as well as coloureds—the majority of them will be white—they cannot avoid having an effect on race relations.
308
That effect will be detrimental in those communities which I believe are making a major, and growing, contribution to our society. I have observed those communities as a Member of this House and also, before coming here, as a business man. I speak of the contribution made by Asian small businesses to employment and job prospects in many of our inner cities. We have all seen the contribution they make to London Transport, to the National Health Service, and so on. What have those people done to deserve second-class citizenship status? They are here and they are citizens.
Before I came to the House I was an export salesman. When I travelled in Holland and West Germany, I was often told by customers that they admired the way in which we treated our large immigrant population. They said "Not for you the squalid conditions in which the Gastarbeiter lived in German cities. Not for you the hijacking of trains and the taking of hostages in town halls which typifies the Dutch treatment of Moluccans. You take them into your society and give them equal status." I hold that principle very dear indeed. There is no argument about the need for immigration control. The argument is simply about the indivisibility of citizenship. I could not possibly support any desertion from that principle.
6.51 pm
Miss Sheila Wright: I should have had more respect for the Government and the Home Secretary in particular—who does not usually have the dyed-in-the-wool racialist attitude of some of his hon. Friends—if they had come to the House and said outright that they do not like the numbers of black and brown faces in our community and that they will do everything that they can to prevent even a small additional number of them from coming here. I should have had more respect for them if they had said honestly that they had devised further ways to penalise those who are already here and who are, theoretically and in law, British citizens. Let us make no bones about it—this is a racialist proposal. Only secondarily is it a sexist issue.
I do not intend to deal at length with the question of husbands and finances, because that has been well covered. The case against the hypocrisy involved has

309
been made not only by my hon. Friends but by many Government Members. It has been made clear that there is no evidence of a large increase in primary immigration at this time. Neither Ministers nor hon. Members who support the White Paper have explained why existing machinery cannot be used to prevent abuse.
The Government have attempted to buy off Back Bench revolt by altering some of their proposals for women who were born abroad when their parents were abroad on Government or other business. They have attempted to buy off the revolt against proposals which involve white women. I have news for the Home Secretary. He has not succeeded. I know well one person at least who was born abroad and whose father, grandfather and Dutch great grandfather were born abroad. She is a British citizen, but I am assured by a lawyer that if she were to try to bring in a foreign husband she would be caught by the regulations. I am talking of myself, and it is fortunate in those circumstances that I am already reasonably happily married and unlikely to want to bring in anybody from abroad.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I sympathise with what the hon. Lady says, but she misunderstood the concession made by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary said that protection would be extended to a British girl if one of her parents was born in the United Kingdom.
Miss Wright: Neither my parents nor my grandparents were born in this country, so the rule would still apply to me, although I am legally allowed to be a Member of the House.
I am not really bothered about the few white faces which will be caught by the legislation. I am far more bothered that the United Kingdom Parliament will probably support legislation which clearly is aimed at a minority of British citizens whose faces are black or who are women. That is the principle which we are discussing, as the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Dorrell) so bravely said.
I am also extremely worried about the provisions for elderly parents. I do not know how many hon. Members have had anything to do with the Indian subcontinent. I spent the first 20 years of
310
my life in India. Many of my friends and constituents come from various parts of India. In many Asian families there is a greater feeling of personal responsibility for the elderly than there is in families here. It is appalling that the House should propose regulations which will make it more difficult for British citizens with brown or black faces to take on responsibility for their elderly parents when they become most in need of care.
Many of those who will be affected by this rule are already sending money abroad for their parents. The net result of that care and responsibility over the last 10 to 15 years is that those parents will be excluded from coming to join their children because those children have, by sacrifices, raised the living standards of their parents above the average low standards of the country from which they come.
That proposal comes from a party which has made great play of the need for personal responsibility and supporting the family. I hope that the Government will think again and alter the provisions so that elderly people may be cared for by their children. Such elderly people will not produce more children. They do not have dependants that they can bring into this country. It will be a tragedy if the House agrees that it is right so to alter the laws of the country that children are prevented from supporting their parents and that children are prevented from being with their elderly parents.
7 pm
Mr. Tim Brinton: I have listened with close attention to every speech today, and particularly to the fluent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). I rise with a heavy heart because it is a difficult decision for any Member to make as to which way to vote this evening. However, my heart and my head tell me that I must support the Government tonight, and that I shall do.
My constituency has a total of approximately 7,000 immigrants, mainly Sikhs. I am in close touch with them, and I have listened carefully to their views on the White Paper. There is one big stumbling block. It is that, sadly, the Government could not keep to what they said they would do in their manifesto.

311
Immigrants in Gravesend have said that if only the Government had stuck to their guns they would not have been seen to be leaning on us. That makes my heart heavy.
I am not surprised, but I am saddened by some of the Opposition arguments. They were expected. I cannot understand how Labour Members feel—I am sure sincerely—that the right way to sort out our race relations problems is to allow matters to drift. If there was one item of proof during the general election—here I answer the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—it was my majority in a marginal seat. I know, because I was told by them, that many immigrants voted for me because I supported the Conservative Party's manifesto. They know, as the vast majority of people know, that we have now to take measures to protect the immigrants who are already legally here. That is the vital issue, and that is why I shall support the Government tonight. Although I am dissatisfied with the way in which they have changed things, I look to them to put matters right in the next few years.
I do not accept the rumours that the register should be put under the carpet and forgotten about. The register was a vital part of discovering the dimensions of the problem. How many dependants are waiting to come into Britain? We do not know that accurately. There should be a fair quota system, across the board, across the world, so that there will be no accusation of racial prejudice.
I give the Government the benefit of the doubt tonight, and I shall vote with them. But may they hold to their other pledges as time goes by.
7.4 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: The new rules are to be deplored because they are an insult to women in general and to Asian women in particular. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves.
The rules should be rejected for three reasons. The first concerns the attack which is implicit—almost explicit—on the Asian custom of arranged marriages, which are a major part of the culture of a minority people. The Government are attacking a basic part of their culture. That is immoral and unethical. In addition, it is impractical, because the custom
312
of arranged marriages will die out in time as the younger generation adapts to new ways.
The second reason why I oppose the new rules is that they are a vicious attack on widowed and elderly persons overseas who will be excluded from entry into Britain. That attack hits at the concept of the wider family—a concept whereby the Asians and other minorities could teach the rest of us a great deal about family care and kinship. In addition, the attack goes against the concept which is being developed—certainly in the DHSS and other Government Departments—that young people should look after their parents more and not leave it to local authorities and the State to look after them when they are too old to look after themselves. The Government are speaking with two different voices. The new rules will do them no service.
Thirdly, the new rules are a violation of articles 3, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under article 3 they submit a section of our population to degrading treatment. Under article 8 they contain a lack of respect for family life, and under article 14 they discriminate on grounds of sex, race and colour.
I put three questions, which are linked, to the Minister, which I hope he will answer when he replies, since it is obvious that a Law Officer will not be present for the vote tonight. Were the Law Officers consulted on the new rules in relation to the European convention? If so, what was their opinion? If they were not consulted, is the House to assume that the Law Officers are satisfied that there is no breach in the rules of the United Kingdom obligation under the European convention?
The rules are so discriminatory that they are bound to undermine good community relations. They pander to that most irrational of emotions—a vague feeling that something has to be done. That is immoral and impractical and the main reason why they should be rejected tonight.
7.8 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I fully support the Government's general plan to reduce immigration into Britain. That is no doubt in the interest of the coloured population living in Britain. For

313
a number of reasons, including our poor economic performance and the sustained high unemployment of recent years, there has been a new wave of anxiety over immigration, which the Opposition should recognise.
Certain actions taken by the previous Labour Government had the effect of increasing Commonwealth immigration. The Labour Party conference called for the repeal of the 1968 and 1971 Immigration Acts. Improved community relations depend to a large extent upon demonstrating to our constituents, including immigrant constituents, that future immigration will be kept to a minimum and that it will be efficiently and fairly handled.
I cannot support the Government's plans for husbands and male finances. Therefore, I shall not vote with the Government tonight. I listened with respect to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). He said that he would put loyalty above conscience. He is a man with remarkable courage and a great political record, but I say to him, with due respect, that that is intellectually indefensible.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are faced with the dilemma of naturally supporting their party colleagues or associations. If we ever reach the point where we pass a proposal, however muddled, out of loyalty, the House will be in danger of falling into disrepute. I do not doubt that there is public anxiety over the abuse of traditional arranged marriages as a means of bypassing immigration controls, but I do not believe that the Cabinet should have agreed to these proposals being put before the House. I am totally convinced that there is an alternative way forward. Why should not the onus be on the individual concerned, male or female, to prove to the immigration officials that he or she has a genuine case?
I sympathise with the predicament of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Looking back, I think that perhaps he and I realise that we would have done better to have kept to the firm ground marked out by the all-party Select Committee rather than move on to this new and untenable ground which the Select Committee skilfully avoided. I do not believe that the final result will be worth
314
the price that we will be asked to pay. We shall lose the support of many people whom we have recently won over, and their support will be crucial in the political and economic battles that lie ahead.
All this is being done to reduce a small and dwindling category. We are talking not about hundreds of thousands but about hundreds. The Home Secretary's new concession is of major importance and must be recognised as such. It removes some of the problems, but it makes the final result even less worth the price.
I have three main objections to the proposals. First, what are a Conservative Government doing passing a regulation which, on the face of it—I am no lawyer—is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights? The Conservative Party is the party of law and order. Its members believe in carrying out Britain's international obligations. We had a field day in Opposition watching the Labour Government being censored by the courts. Here we are inviting international legal censorship. Secondly, a regulation that requires so many exceptions and extensive discretion goes against the basic principle of our parliamentary democracy. It should not be supported by Back Benchers.
For a moment, I ask hon. Members to leave aside the heated subject of immigration and to consider parliamentary procedure. Flexibility and political discretion are always desirable, but we are being stretched far beyond the grounds of reason and tradition. The exceptions far outnumber those covered by the rules, and that cannot be right. Why should a small number of law-abiding citizens have to wait to be lifted out of their predicament by the slow wheels of bureaucracy and a liberal and tolerant Home Secretary at some future date? What have they done to merit such a penalty?
My third objection is that the proposed regulations openly and blatantly discriminate against women. Those who vote for the regulations have the assurance of no less a person than my right hon. Friend that they will be voting to discriminate against women. That is not in dispute. That has been stated by my right hon. Friend. Their vote will be for ever marked on the pages of Hansard. It will form part of their political record to defend in their constituencies.

315
I remind my right hon. Friends of our campaign guide. It states:
"Acts of discrimination against women have remained, until very recently, widespread in our society. Conservatives regard this attitude towards women as quite unacceptable and have taken extensive and vigorous action to change the law so that women are treated as equal citizens in our society."
Some seven months later we are changing back the law in an important area.
Long after the esoteric economic debates in the House have been forgotten, the 1970s will be remembered for the new opportunities given to women in Britain. We have often shown the way to the rest of the world. Surely 1979 is a singularly inappropriate year in which to seek to lower the status of women in our society. It is exactly because only a tiny number will be involved that we should all be especially cautious, for one of our duties is to protect minorities from the excesses of majorities, to lift up the weak and not to ride over them with the strong.
Many foreign-born British women were once refugees from the tyranny of Hitler's Germany and from Hungary and Vietnam. We are being asked to withdraw certain rights given to British women when these rights will still be granted to women in every other member State of the EEC. In due course they will be given to women in Greece, Spain and Portugal.
I ask my right hon. Friend how I can explain to the women in Bexley that tonight I agreed that they should have fewer rights than those in Bonn, Brussels and Boulogne, or, for that matter, Dublin. I think that he must accept that if I were to support the Government tonight I should be able to give them no satisfactory answer. The rights that we are talking about vitally affect their homes, their loved ones and their very lives.
At this eleventh hour I appeal to my right hon. Friend, who has long commanded the respect of both sides of the House, to think again about these proposals. They have caused deep concern on the Government Benches. I ask him to withdraw them for further and detailed consideration. They have racial undertones and they go against the one-nation tradition that I know he and I both cherish. In the long run, I believe that
316
they will be damaging to the fortunes of our party and our Government, and above all our country.
7.15 pm
Mr George Morton: In presenting the proposed changes in the rules, the Government have overreacted to the obsession of some of their supporters. They had a duty to try to inform the British people of some of the facts of immigration. It was not part of their duty to exploit misconception and encourage prejudice. It is much to the credit of Conservative Members such as the hon. Members for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) that they have presented so well the case that I wish to advance.
Immigration numbers have been falling and are now quite small. In presenting their argument tonight, the Government must have understood that the reduction in numbers that they will achieve by their mean restrictions will be quite small. However, the effect of the reductions will be considerable in personal terms.
Some concessions have been made, but they are not enough. I turn my attention to the group on which most attention has been focused—namely, British women who married foreign men. The objections to the proposals are right. There is a pretence that the proposals are not biased racially. However, a case presented itself to me last week of a woman in my constituency who was born in India. Her family had been born in India. The family has a long tradition of service in the Army and the Church in India. This lady is now divorced. She is living in Britain with her children. She may not take her children out of this country. Were she to marry a foreigner, she would have to choose between her husband and her children.
From what we have been told by the Home Secretary, I am sure that the case I have outlined would receive special treatment because the lady has a white face. Why should a woman born in similar conditions of a family from India but of Indian parents and who came here when she was a child be denied the same consideration?
Rules 50 and 52 are specifically directed against arranged marriages. They have already been argued against. The

317
Government fail to understand the difference between an arranged marriage and a marriage of convenience. There is the assumption that all arranged marriages are for the purpose of bringing a man into Britain. That is a gross distortion of the traditional system of marriage within Asian communities. The rules will cause problems for those who are trying to maintain their traditions and who may not wish to follow the Western practice of romantic choice.
More importantly, the arranged marriage has not shown an obvious lack of success when compared with the Western system of choice. On the contrary, it may be said that there is more stability and more family solidarity in the Asian system than in ours. That system may rely on a Victorian standard of propriety being more important than feelings. Surely that finds support among Conservatives. However, the custom is changing. We shall not see it working in the same way indefinitely. Already there is much more consultation of the partners. There is much more consultation throughout the family. Prospective partners are not persuaded to enter into marriages that they do not want.
I recognise that there are occasions when girls feel torn between the pressure of the society in which they have lived at school and the pressure of the family. In these cases they need to be supported in their efforts to decide what tradition they will follow. It is not right to use the immigration laws to force them into particular decisions. There is already adequate provision for dealing with those abuses that the Government make so much of. However, they find it difficult to provide much evidence of those abuses.
The Government's concern with numbers and not with people is shown in their treatment of elderly relatives. One would expect a party that claims such belief in family values to encourage people to provide homes for their aged parents, but the Government are preventing that as regards ageing parents from India or Pakistan.
It has already been said that the rule will require the parents to be dependent on their children and living below the general standard of living of the country. That will prove an effective barrier to anyone coming into Britain. The number
318
of parents who want to come here is relatively small, as few old people want to leave the home that they have lived in all their lives in order to move to a foreign and cold country. Why should the Government make such an effort to keep out that small group of people and so break up those families? Those families have no intention of letting them become a charge on the State.
I was also worried about the general restriction on students and their dependants, because we in Britain have an important part to play in education. That ties in with other Government policies on overseas students. I sympathise with Home Office Ministers in the number of decisions that they have to make and the pressure upon them from hon. Members concerning particular cases. However, the only way to reduce that pressure is to make the principles behind those decisions clearer and fairer and to reduce the need for discretionary powers.
The proposed changes will make the rules less just. The demand for special consideration will increase because of the increased discretion given to the Secretary of State. I fear that the general attitude behind those changes is one that distrusts brown and black faces and looks for inconsistencies and misunderstandings that can be claimed as instances of deception. That attitude encourages ill-informed people to blame immigration for our economic problems. We need changes in the Immigration Rules, but they must be clear and just.
These proposals are unfair because they are selective on the basis of race and sex. They are not justified by the situation and will be damaging to community relations and to the image of the United Kingdom abroad.
7.22 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful for the fact that I have been called in such an important debate, as I have a large number of immigrants in my constituency. I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton). In overturning a large Labour majority, when the number of immigrants in my constituency was greater than that majority, I proved that the Conservative Party has a great deal of support from the immigrant population in marginal seats.

319
So much legislation has gone through the House, and so many rules have been made over the years, that the real feelings of the indigenous English population have been totally ignored. Many English people have lived here for years, and their ancestors for many generations before that. I hope that this change of rules is merely the hors d'oeuvre before the main course of a register and quota system. I hope that this is only the start of many new rules.
Many thousands of people, particularly in the Midlands, are looking to the Conservative Government to make substantial changes in those rules and to allay the fears that have inevitably built up since many thousands of immigrants came into the country during the 1950s. Those fears are justified because whole areas of our urban environment have completely changed in character and culture and in their social personalities.
At a result of that large, and at times seemingly unending, influx of itinerant travellers, Britain has become the haven for many who seek new fields. The rules only scratch the surface of a dramatic change of character that has been suffered by our Midland towns. I speak for the oppressed majority—those who were born here, and their parents and grandparents before them. If the rules give them some preference over those who have recently settled, I applaud that. I hope that these rules precede many of a similar type.
I regret that at the moment the Government have not seen fit to introduce a register of dependants and a quota system. There was genuine alarm at the prospect of a large influx of settlers claiming their rights, possibly through some political decision made in their country of origin. They seek a refuge on our tiny island, which is already overcrowded. They seek refuge on an island where our social services are already overstretched, particularly in the present times of financial stringency and economic hardship.
While Britain must not be seen to be hard-hearted, we must be realistic. The possibility of another entry on the scale of that of the Ugandan Asians is present in people's minds. That does more to engender rumour and suspicion than anything else. There must be strong grounds
320
for ensuring that we are aware of the exact extent of our commitments. If necessary, the rules will have to be changed to ensure a measured and controlled entry.
In our deliberations on immigration, we must never forget the feelings of the indigenous population—including those who have already settled here. These islands have been the home of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish for many generations. Many have known no other domestic base and many have not travelled beyond these shores. However, there is still a great sense of national pride, a sense that this is our heritage by birthright, to be jealously guarded against violent change and intrusion.
Two world wars have been fought with equal ferocity and they have deepened that sense of patriotism that makes a man proud to be British. How often in recent years have we lamented our faults and failings whilst our European neighbours have prospered. It is against that background that we consider these new rules. There is nothing racist in the view that England is for the English, particularly when space is a diminishing commodity.
It is natural that people should view with alarm the prospect of further intrusions into their heritage. What other country in the world, with such limited resources, would welcome an addition to the consumers of the cake that has taken so long to bake? What other country willingly keeps its doors open to any jet-age traveller who happens to like the prospect of settling in the United Kingdom? People feel a threat to their very identity, and naturally they begin to rebel against that. That is the backcloth that we must preserve.
The finance rule was being abused as an easy form of entry. It was abused for financial gain by interested parties, and often against the wishes of those forced by religion to practise it. Visitors do overstay, and visas are ignored. The number of illegal immigrants is suspected to be alarmingly high. Can we blame a Government who have been elected with a clear manifesto commitment for attempting to correct at least some of the abuse? Can we blame the Government when we see both Labour and Liberal parties intent on opening further those doors which they

321
opened before, to allow in virtually any traveller that knocks? Can we blame the Government for speaking for the majority, whose wishes are largely ignored against the fanatical panderings of the Left with their phoney consciences? The Government are taking measures that are fair to all.
I am bitterly disappointed that, if anything, the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment. That commitment said that we would put an end to the concession for male finances. The proposal has been watered down and is now unnecessarily complicated. However, it must be supported on the basis that it is the forerunner of much to come. At last a Government have grasped the nettle and have recognised the facts. They should ignore all the scurrilous attempts—some, regrettably, from my hon. Friends—to cloud the issue with talk of racial and sexual discrimination, and discrimination against anyone who chooses to live here.
A wealth of legislation, highlighted by the creation of the Race Relations Board and the Commission for Racial Equality, as well as numerous other quango organisations, has been established to protect the interests of this tiny minority. I believe that such publicity has brought to them the glare of opinion against the best interests of the indigenous and the newly arrived population.
Further changes of rules must unashamedly contain distinctions that are protective of our indigenous population. Only by such actions will the Government keep faith with the opinions of the vast majority of the people of this country.
7.31 pm
Mr. Edward Lyons: A number of points are raised by the rules, including work permits. That subject is barely worth mentioning since 58 were issued in the first quarter of this year to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whatever the Government do to reduce that number will be insignificant in effect.
There are two major points in the rules. One relates to male fiances and husbands and the other relates to aged dependants, with which I shall deal first. From India, Pakistan and Bangladesh fewer than 1,400 aged dependants were admitted for settlement in 1978. They
322
were over child-bearing age. They will not do anything to breed. They will not work. They have a few more years of life left. They are not an immigration problem. They are not allowed in at present until their families here can prove that they can maintain and accommodate them reasonably.
The Government are moving in in a big way in order to reduce the figure of 1,400. They are doing so by saying that before these 70-year-olds and 80year-olds can come in to join their daughters and sons they must prove that the parents' standard of living is substantially below the general standard of living of their country, although that would be impossible because loving relatives here would send money. Furthermore, they must have no relatives in their own country. Because of the extended family system, they are bound to have such relatives.
The proposal is racist because in Australia or America the extended family system does not exist, and it is much more likely that someone there will have no relatives. Furthermore, the sort of contribution that relatives here could make to an aged parent in a country of that sort would not bring an impoverished person up to the average level. Therefore, the new rules in effect say that Britain will be humane to people from rich, white countries who can come here to live out the last five or ten years of their lives, but that persons from the Indian sub-continent cannot do so.
It is then worth considering the Helsinki agreement which hon. Members on both sides of the House have intensively supported. We have criticised countries such as the Soviet Union for not observing it. Britain has signed that agreement. This is what it says about elderly people:
"The participating States will deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family, with special attention being given to requests of an urgent character—such as requests submitted by persons who are ill or old. They will deal with applications in this field as expeditiously as possible."
The Government say, incomplete derogation of their undertakings under the agreement, that they will no longer do that in relation to the co-signatories under that agreement, which include EEC countries and other countries such as

323
Austria, Sweden, Cyprus and Malta. There is a complete derogation in these rules as they are now proposed from the undertaking to co-signatories.
It is not just a question of co-signatories. Britain insisted on this clause being inserted in the Helsinki agreement because it thought that that was an acceptable way for countries to behave. There is no reason why we should not use that standard of behaviour towards all countries, not just to co-signatories. In fact, we are not proposing to use it to anyone. That is a matter of shame.
The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) spoke grandly about immigration. What does this issue have to do with immigration? We are talking of only 1,400 elderly people coming in in a year, and they are supported by their families. They will not be allowed in unless they come from a rich country and unless they are white. That is shaming to this country and it makes people like me who are interested in human rights not know where to look.
I have returned from Namibia and Swaziland as a member of the all-party human rights group. I have been preaching human rights. The Russians will not let me into the Soviet Union. They have refused me entry four times because I want to see them carry out the rule of law under the Helsinki agreement. When I return here, I find that we are reneging on the Helsinki agreement.
Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for referring to the Helsinki declaration, because I have been examining it, too. It seems to me that we are in breach of a number of its provisions. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we are also in breach in that when a marriage is contracted permanent residents can be transferred to a State in which either partner is normally resident?
Mr. Lyons: I was about to come to that point, because the Helsinki agreement, dealing with husbands and wives, states:
"The participating States will examine favourably and on the basis of humanitarian considerations requests for exit or entry permits from persons who have decided to marry a citizen from another participating State."
We have put a gloss on that which will astound the other signatories to the agree-
324
ment. We are no longer to consider favourably requests for entry permits from persons who have decided to marry a citizen from another participating State unless the person marrying her was born here or had a parent born here. There is nothing in the Helsinki agreement about that.
If an English girl marries an Austrian but neither she nor one of her parents was born here, even though she may be a United Kingdom citizen under the Helsinki agreement, she will be unable to bring her Austrian husband here to live. That is a complete derogation. The Helsinki agreement set out civilised standards of conduct to be applied by the participating countries. In order to prevent 2,000 people a year from coming here, we are saying that we shall not abide by that agreement. The Government would rather that Britain was regarded unfavourably internationally than honour their international undertakings and conform to a reasonable standard.
The present waiting time in Pakistan for male fiances and husbands is now two and a half years. The Government have quite rightly said that the people who are on that list will be exempt from these rules. These statistics will show no reduction in the numbers of male fiances or husbands from Pakistan until mid-1982. The waiting list in India is a little less than that. Furthermore, in the first quarter of 1979 no fiance was admitted from Bangladesh, which has a queue more than double the size of the queues in India and Pakistan taken together. Therefore, if the object of the rules is to cut immigration, they will have no effect in respect of Bangladesh.
Why, therefore, are the Government doing this? It is to appease their supporters who wanted to adopt an apparently racist stand. Their supporters must know that the measures they are proposing relate only to India and Pakistan. We see from the figures for the first quarter of 1979 that the highest number of male fiances allowed in amounted to four persons from Barbados or Jamaica. There was one from one country and three from the other in one quarter. That is about 12 to 16 persons a year. That is what we are talking about.
The Government want to be hypocritical. They do not want to say "We are aiming purely at India or Pakistan."

325
They produce a whole paraphernalia of rules so as to disguise their real objective. In the present situation, the rules are obviously sexist, racist, meant to bluff Government supporters, and hypocritical. In the end they will bring no credit to those who vote for them. The Government are seeking to cash in on prejudice and determine, as a writer in The Sunday Times recently said, who will rise above the swamp. That is what we have here.
I am the last to criticise the work of the people in the administrative office at the Home Office. They are eternally courteous. They work until 9 o'clock at night. They are helpful when they can be. I have all praise for them. However, there is nothing in these rules which helps to solve the problem of delay, which is the major factor of irritation in this country. Nothing in these rules will make any appreciable effect on the delay. However, it is the delay at our stations abroad, the delay waiting for further inquiries to be made and the delay waiting for appeals which cause nearly all the trouble. Solicitors and Members of Parliament are creating a mass of paper work for the Home Office, which creates more in reply—all arising out of delay. Nothing in these rules will remove that delay. In my view, they are a disgrace.
7.41 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I want to concentrate on just one line of thought in my remarks this evening. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, a principle that has generally been accepted in this House, in the Conservative Party manifesto and by public opinion at large is that all British citizens legally settled here have the same rights and obligations under the law. Nevertheless, the tensions inevitably produced by the inflow of a large culturally and racially distinct minority have put that principle under great pressure from contrasting directions.
For example, there are those who would ameliorate these effects by giving special opportunities to immigrants already here—positive discrimination, as it is euphemistically called. By contrast, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, with equal logic, and I am sure equally hopeful intent, sought to prevent some of these effects ever arising by reducing the number of immigrants. I am solidly with him in that general purpose up to the
326
point, as with the section on fiances in the White Paper, where the rights of a category of British citizen legally settled here are reduced in the process. That is why I am afraid that I cannot support the White Paper.
It is so easy to ignore the damage done by treating people unequally before the law, especially when the number affected is tiny. There is no doubt that the belief that the law, or public policy, has been adjusted in favour of coloured people has served to reinforce resentment among a troubled white majority. I believe that the same effect will be felt among the coloured minority as a result of that part of the White Paper.
However, the point is of much wider significance than that. What people—white, coloured and nowadays even female—need to feel is that the law, if nothing else, is exactly the same for everyone and that the rules that give it effect neither favour nor penalise any particular category. It is not that the law will not affect and will not bear differently on different groups and different individuals in their myriad different circumstances. What is wrong is to remove a right from a whole category just because it is abused by some. The Government's job is to deal directly with the abuse, especially as in numerical terms it is obviously very small indeed.
The only permanent anchor for all groups in a society, particularly where there is fear and antagonism, as there undoubtedly is over coloured immigration, although I do not want to exaggerate it, is the knowledge that, whatever else they may have to complain about, the law treats everyone with equality. That evenhandedness provides security and stability for the whole of society, and we undermine it at our peril. That belief has been eroded over the past few years because of a process of government by nudge, wink and special exception. The country looks to the Government to halt that process and not continue it.
Mr. Budgen: Surely the concept of equality under the law simply means that once the law has been passed it will be impartially administered. It does not have anything to say about what the law will be before it is passed.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. It is generally accepted

327
that the law should apply without distinction across the board. It should not be adjusted so that it takes special note of a particular category when those in that category are directly affected not by the principle that lies behind that law, but by the particular place that they come from or who they actually are.
Mr. Budgen: How would my hon. Friend apply that principle to, say, unequal taxation under income tax laws?
Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with the immigration debate this evening and not a pedantic point about the application of law.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am sure that that point was hoisted in by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lloyd: As to the income tax categories, it is perfectly possible to move oneself from category to category by one's own efforts. It is not possible to alter the place where one was born.
It was put to me even more persuasively that it was even easier to move oneself about under this Government. It was put to me persuasively by my hon. Friends, as it usually is on such occasions, that the change would affect so few that it was quixotic to object. That is an argument that can be turned back on itself. Why fracture faith in the universality of the law for such a paltry reduction in numbers? It is not worth it. My right hon. Friend is quite right to be concerned about numbers. It is numbers, rather than race or culture, which create the problem that he faces.
There would have been much more force in my right hon. Friend's proposal if the new rule also covered foreign fiancees of British men. I know that he feels that that is impossible without a change in the law. I am not actually recommending it here. But that really would have begun to produce the substantial decline in numbers coming in, as the influx of brides is considerably greater than that of male fiances. Some of my hon. Friends have, nevertheless, argued that it is primarily male immigration that must be halted.
I do not know how my hon. Friends manage these matters in their constitu-
328
encies, but in mine it takes two to produce a family. Therefore, it does not matter very much in the numbers game whether the wives or the husbands are imported. "Ah", comes the reply, "but the intention to exclude male fiances was in the manifesto." Indeed it was—and so was the phrase
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law."
I know that some members of the Opposition have recently refreshed themselves on that entry. I always replied, when questioned on this topic during the election, that the eight specific changes listed would be subordinated to that overriding undertaking. I still hope, somewhat wanly, that it will be.
Before I conclude, I make one other observation. As a critic of the White Paper, I have been impressed by the willingness of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his Ministers of State to listen to suggestions and accommodate them when they felt that they could, not so much because they were pressed but because their instincts in this matter had none of the prejudices ascribed to them by some hon. Gentlemen.
Where I part company from my ministerial friends is over the view that it is their duty to hurry forward, in a very sensitive and complex field, where there has been insufficient time to examine or think through the broader implications of what is proposed. We are due for a comprehensive nationality Act in this Parliament. I ask my hon. Friend, in his summing up not to abandon the new rule on fiancés but to postpone it for a more complete consideration with the nationality Bill, with which it properly belongs. It is much better to get it right than to get it now.
7.49 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: To some extent, there is logic in what the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) had to say in his concluding remarks. They fit in with my earlier intervention, which suggested that before the House is asked to approve a change in the immigration laws we should see the promised nationality Bill or citizenship Bill which has been so long delayed. All hon. Members support the necessity for that Bill, especially with regard to our membership of the EEC.

329
Therefore, the Government have got their timing wrong and, as I said earlier, they are putting the cart before the horse. The present rules obtain from the 1971 Act, which came into force under the Government led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Although we opposed that Act, describing it as "racist", we always respected the honourable position of the right hon. Member for Sidcup on the question of race relations. When Lord Carr was Home Secretary, he faced the Ugandan exodus crisis admirably and Britain did the duty that it had to do.
These proposals contravene paragraphs 3, 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I feel, as do some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we should have had the presence of a Law Officer in the debate to clear up that matter. Either classes of complaint are taken to the European Court or individual cases are taken, and if these rules are ever applied such cases will follow thick and fast. In some respects, the White Paper contradicts the Immigration Act 1971, particularly those parts which deal with patriality. Oddly, through all these years, we have determined that patriality is not achieved by place of birth, but it can be bestowed upon someone by virtue of achieving British subjecthood, regardless of colour. That matter requires close examination.
The whole scenario should be geared to the question of Britain's membership of the EEC and what prevails in the EEC in matters of human rights, sex equality and so on. Our accession to the EEC, with all the rules that were imposed upon us, including the free movement of capital and labour within an ever-growing large area of Western Europe—soon to be joined by Greece, Portugal and Spain—adds a new qualitative situation, taking into account the standards of living of the member States.
When the House approved the 1971 Act, that went simultaneously with accession to the Treaty of Rome. From the beginning, we dubbed it a racist Act, because it accepted the concept of patriality extending to two ancestral generations and allowing free entry into the country. Ever since, unknown millions of white people have been free to come and go as they please, at least so far as the law is concerned. At the same time,
330
black and brown people of the New Commonwealth were virtually shut out. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) drew attention to that fact.
All those matters are bad enough. One redeeming feature was when the previous Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, brought in an amnesty for relatively few immigrants who had been working here for years—called illegals—and restored the right of spouses, regardless of sex. All three Race Relations Acts since 1965 have sought to outlaw race hatred. They were all initiated by Labour Governments with some Tory support and some Tory hostility.
Sex equality under the law now prevails inmost civilised countries. However, Britain still treats British passport holders waiting overseas on a sex discriminatory basis. That attitude is behind the publicised case of the woman and her three sons in Bombay. She is still over there in spite of public outcry in Britain. Nevertheless, it was good to see white neighbours here rising to her support when the Home Office said that she had to go. That is an object lesson in real race relations, harmony and friendship that extends across the barriers of cultural ancestry.
Overall, I did not find the attitude of the previous Labour Government much to write home about on occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for York was removed from his post of Minister of State, Home Office. He appeared before the Select Committee that was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the present chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, about that matter. The reason for his removal was that he upset the civil servants too much. I was the longest serving member of that Committee, which was set up in 1968 after the sensation-seeking speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was formerly the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—a clear case of a Wolverhampton wanderer, if ever there was one. Effective admonishment of him has come from the Tory ranks.
I applaud the contributions of the young hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). I believe that the speech of the hon. Member for

331
Loughborough will stand the test of time. It will be considered to be one of the most forthright, principled statements that we have heard from the Government side of the House for many a long day. Young Tories have been particularly outstanding in this respect and provide opposition to the gross racist and sexist proposals that are currently before the House.
It was a joy to hear and see those young Tories on the television at the Blackpool conference. My name was mentioned on two occasions during the course of the conference. I do not know whether to feel flattered or not, but I have always felt that people who believe in racial harmony should seek their allies wherever they may be found, whether or not that is outside the party. If the two major parties of the House cannot reach general agreement on this matter, God help race relations in the country.
It is well known that I have struggled with this matter ever since I have been in this place. We on the Select Committee were successful in our last report—against the odds and with the press breathing down our necks. We did not go to the excesses of the present White Paper in proposing to take away existing rights. Unlike the present proposals, we underscored equal sex rights and showed how to speed up lawful entry. We did not propose the destruction of the arranged marriage system. We were mindful of the likely pattern of future events. I believe that as the hon. Member for Ealing, South all I should have some knowledge of these matters and what is genuinely likely to occur.
It is wrong of the Home Secretary to try to hit the arranged marriage on the head with a club. Some bad marriages arise out of the present arranged marriage system, but the Government have not made out their case properly in this regard. They have not proved—as they might seek to—that the minority of the cases are the rule.
I do not believe that the Government have a great amount of evidence to show that boys are being brought to the girls. To some extent, that is against the cultural practice on the Indian sub-continent, as I well know. Even if they had evidence, it is still a question of the rights
332
of these girls being taken away by the White Paper.
The Home Secretary alluded to a conversation that he had with me. I do not mind his doing that as long as he gets it right, but he can have no excuse for his submission.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member doubtless heard what Mr. Speaker said earlier and would wish me to draw to his attention the fact that he has spoken for 12 minutes.
Mr. Bidwell: I accept the general principle that speeches should be reasonably short. However, my name is put to the amendment on the Order Paper, and I wish to allude to one further matter, although it has been mentioned many times.
When presenting the Paper the Home Secretary met with fierce disapproval from these Benches, which was echoed to some extent from the Conservative Benches, on the matter of aged dependants. He said that, if there were relatives or offspring remaining with those aged dependants in the country of origin, it was not unreasonable to expect them to look after the old folk. However, India is not a little country like the British Isles; it is a sub-continent, and there may be many miles separating a lonely old person from remaining relatives. That old person may be a widow or a widower, although frequently it will be a widow because females have the habit of living longer.
I am ashamed that in the Select Committee, struggling for two-party agreement, we did not battle harder, but the civilised approach would be to loosen rather than tighten the regulations. The anxiety on that matter within immigrant communities has wide public support. The Home Secretary has a reputation for compassion, and I hope that he will think once, twice and thrice before adopting these harsh proposals.
8.2 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), amongst others, used phrases, such as "honourable position" and "political advantage", but I hope that, in the interests of brevity, he will forgive me if I do not follow him.
The Home Secretary and the Minister have tried hard to balance the two sometimes conflicing needs for fairness and for

333
containing the future inflow of immigrants, but the White Paper is not entirely successful because of its basic sex discrimination. That fact has been mentioned by many hon. Members, but I should like to re-emphasise it. A distinction exists in the White Paper between husbands and wives, male and female fiances, and the location and state of parents' nationality as between boys and girls. The official Opposition's amendment does not deal with that matter. It makes no mention of bias by sex, but only by race, colour or creed, and the admonition of hon. Gentlemen that that bias would be eliminated if we voted in favour of their amendment is without foundation.
In opening, the Home Secretary intimated that the White Paper is conditioned by the laws of 1948 and 1971. I am not a lawyer, but I recognise that that may be so. However, if it is not possible to effect equality of male and female under present law, the importance of a new nationality Bill is all the greater. Can the Minister reassure us, first, that a nationality Bill will be brought before the House within this Parliament, following the White Paper which he promised will be published early next year? That Bill is crucial to clear up the idiosyncrasies, sadnesses and mix-ups in the application of our race relations and immigration laws. Secondly, can the Minister reassure us that the imbalance of the new orders which are likely to be laid on the basis of the White Paper will be corrected in the nationality Bill?
Equality of the sexes is correct as a point of principle. The Conservative Party has a track record to be proud of, and, if I may say so, I include in that tribute my family, which, uniquely up to this time, in previous years had two hon. Lady Members of my name at the same time in this House.
It is a point of practice under the law. The European Convention on Human Rights has been mentioned, but there has been no mention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which may have some bearing on the matter.
There is anxiety about race relations and inequality of treatment on the basis of race, colour and creed, but also about equality of treatment between men and women. Many inequalities exist in the law, but that is no argument that they should continue to exist in new laws and
334
orders. The law should not take a backward step to greater inequality but should go forward to achieve less inequality, and on that basis I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister.
8.7 pm
Mr. Arthur Davidson: These rules have run into so much trouble because they have dishonourable antecedents. They were born out of deceit and expediency. Prior to the election, a few Conservative Members, although not all, were content to give the impression that the country was being swamped and that if they got back the swamping would halt. When they got back they had to look round, and expediency came into it. The expediency is that, bound by the impression that they created, they have had to produce a de-swamping measure, and this is it. They looked around to try to find someone whom they could stop from entering Britain.
On whom did their eyes alight? They have chosen the over-80s—the Grandparents. That is especially dishonourable because the Home Secretary knows, and every Conservative Member knows, that there is not a queue of grandpas, grandmas and old parents desperately wanting to enter Britain. Nobody over 60, 70 or 80 is anxious to move unless it is really necessary. The Government know perfectly well that those from the subcontinent in their 70s and 80s will leave their homes, uproot themselves and travel long distances only if they genuinely wish to join their families. If the White Paper is a de-swamping measure, it is a pretty squalid one.
It is also dishonourable that the Home Secretary and the Conservative Front Bench will next week, the week after, or the week after that, be attending in their evening suits some Pakistani dinner, and they will say "The one thing that we value about the community life of immigrants in this country is the strong family ties. We value it and wish that the same example could be set throughout this country."
That is the message the Tories give at that sort of dinner. Yet here they are, producing a squalid little White Paper which will hit at the very heart of family life. They cannot justify it by numbers, because the numbers are not there. There is no flood of 80-year-olds into Britain and there never has been. Equally, there

335
has never been a flood of fiances trying to enter Britain. That argument has been exploded over and over again in the debate.
I do not wish to take up too much time, as other hon. Members wish to speak. A sordid little measure such as this is not worth speaking about at any great length. I praise those Conservative Members who have expressed their disgust at the measure. It is more difficult for them to make that sort of speech than it is for Opposition Members.
I wish to conclude, as I began, with a general criticism. Any measure that is born out of deceit and expediency dies a dismal death. This measure will meet the same fate. It will do no good for the Conservatives at the next election to knock on doors saying "You are a shopkeeper and a natural Conservative. We would like you to join our party," and then in the next breath to say "Members of the white community, we are trying to stop immigration. Look at what we have put on the statute book—those marvellous Immigration Rules. That did it. That stopped the fiances".
Mr. Ennals: What about the widows?
Mr. Davidson: The widows too. It is a dishonourable little proposal. It is a deceitful little proposal. It deserves the hostile reception that it has received tonight.
8.13 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to express my concern over the provisions contained in paragraphs 50 to 55 of the rules. My views are similar to those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). Paragraphs 50 to 52 provide that women who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, and were born in the United Kingdom, may, subject to certain stringent conditions, bring their fiancés or husbands into the United Kingdom for permanent residence.
I have no objection to the stringent conditions. My objection is that, whilst fairly oppressive restrictions are placed on women, virtually no restrictions are placed on men. Those measures are sexually discriminatory. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that that has been conditioned and brought about
336
by the provisions of the 1948 and 1971 Acts. If that is true, I wish that the proposals had been postponed until that previous legislation had been amended in order to avoid this unfortunate result.
I am also concerned about the fact that the potential rights conferred by paragraphs 50 and 52 are limited to women born in the United Kingdom. Whatever gloss the House may choose to put upon the rules, there is no doubt that that restriction is discriminatory on racial grounds.
During the general election campaign I, in common with many other Conservative candidates, was asked about the Conservative Party's attitude to immigration. I repeatedly said that I was in favour of further curbs but that I was absolutely determined to ensure that immigrants who were legally settled here and were United Kingdom citizens should be treated in precisely the same way as indigenous United Kingdom citizens. That statement was wholly in accord with our manifesto.
I have to say, and I do so with enormous regret, that the limited rights proposed in the White Paper are discriminatory and are contrary to the assurances contained in our manifesto.
Another objection is that the proviso that the women in question should be born in the United Kingdom is unnecessary. I am happy to support the conditions contained in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) in paragraphs 50 and 52. They are quite stringent enough to prevent the abuse to which the Home Secretary referred. I shall therefore find it difficult to support paragraphs 50 and 52. They would be made much more acceptable to me if men and women were treated equally and if the requirement that the woman—or any person—should be born in the United Kingdom were deleted.
It is essential that we should protect the rights of British girls who happen to be born abroad because of the temporary absence of their parents from the United Kingdom. It is a matter of particular concern to me, because I have in my constituency many RAF and other Service families, many of whom have daughters who were born abroad. There is nothing in the White Paper to protect those women, and it is essential that

337
they should be protected and that the protection should be enshrined in the rules. I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend said on that point. I welcome his assurances, but I doubt whether they go far enough. My right hon. Friend is proposing to extend the rules to United Kingdom citizens who were born in the United Kingdom or were born of parents one of whom was born in the United Kingdom.
That is a great improvement, but it does not go far enough, because it does not protect females born outside the United Kingdom of parents who were themselves born outside the United Kingdom. That is not an uncommon circumstance in Service families.
I have drafted certain proposals and put them to the Minister of State and the Home Secretary for consideration. I very much hope that they will be seriously considered, because they would avoid this particular anomaly and injustice.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry that I did not hear the earlier part of my hon. Friend's speech. In courtesy to him, I should say that I have received his proposals. When we are considering the drafting of the new rules following the debate, we shall certainly give every possible consideration to them.
Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I conclude by paying a tribute to him. I am the first to acknowledge that this is a very difficult matter. I recognize that the Home Secretary has approached it in a compassionate way and has been willing to compromise. But, despite that, my view is that the proposals are defective, for the reasons that I have already outlined.
I shall not vote against the Government. To do so would be to give aid and comfort to opposition Members, and in no circumstances would I wish to do that. For that reason, I propose to vote against their amendment. But on the substantive matter, the approval of the revision of the rules, I have to say, with very great regret, that my present intention is to abstain.
8.21 pm.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I shall not follow the speech of the hon.
338
Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I wish that we had the system in this House that applies in the Senate or the Congress in the United States, so that I could place my speech in the record, as many of the points that I wish to make have already been made admirably by my hon. Friends.
It is a squalid White Paper. It is sexist, it is racist and it is inhuman. Some of my hon. Friends have said that it is also probably illegal. But, despite all those defects, we understand that the Government intend to persist with this shabby White Paper. We therefore have to consider the political reasons why their insistence is so strong.
The main reason—and here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—is that the Tory Party considered two years ago that there were votes in the immigration issue. The Tories thought they could win white votes by the immigration scare, and it was the leader of the Tory Party, now the Prime Minister, who used the word "swamped" It was the Prime Minister who implied that there was still mass primary immigration into this country.
From the Government Benches we denied that assertion and tried to point out the facts. If we look at the statistics, we can see beyond any shadow of doubt that the large immigration into this country now is of dependants and from Britain's residual obligation to United Kingdom passport holders. The 1977 figures and the 1978 figures make that clear beyond any shadow of doubt.
Conservative Members have failed, either willingly or unintentionally—to give them the benefit of the doubt—to take account of what the statistics tell us. We now see the worst of all possible worlds in the proposed changes in the, Immigration Rules. When the Tory Ministers moved into the Home Office the facts were presented to them, but because of their manifesto commitments, and particularly because of the strong position and the strong views of the Prime Minister on these issues, they were in the position that, despite the evidence that they had not been telling the people of this country the absolute truth about immigration, they had to do something about those commitments. We therefore have this shabby White Paper, which will have an adverse effect upon a small

339
minority, the Asian minority, in this country.
For those reasons I believe that Conservative Members should join us this evening in voting against the White Paper to show that the House totally disapproves of it. Primarily, it is an attack upon the social and cultural conditions of the Asian community in the United Kingdom. For Conservative Members, particularly the Home Secretary, to pretend that this is the introduction to good race relations in this country suggests to me that they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. I have a large Asian population in my constituency, and it does not see this White Paper as the introduction to the promised land. It sees it as the thin end of the wedge. They ask "This today, what tomorrow?"
The alternative that we should be pursuing, and I wish that the Home Secretary would pursue it, is to shout from the rooftops the message that there is no mass immigration into this country, that we are reuniting families and carrying out our obligations to United Kingdom passport holders and that they are good humanitarian motives. We ought to be pursuing that kind of objective rather than continuing with this dirty little White Paper.
I should like to repeat some of the points that many of my hon. Friends have made about the sexist and racist nature of specific parts of the rules. Men will still be able to bring in their spouses, whereas women may do that if they were born here, if they are citizens of the United Kingdom and if they have met their spouses. I realise that the Home Secretary has said that if they were born here or are citizens of the United Kingdom they will be able to bring them in, but, nevertheless, the rules say that they may. That is sexist because it discriminates against women. It is racist because the need to have met is a direct attack upon the arranged marriage system. There is no truth in the assumption that now seems to fall easily from the lips of Tory Members that the arranged marriage is a marriage of convenience. On those grounds, the White Paper is racist.
The paragraphs dealing with dependants are the most inhuman that I have
340
read in any legislation in all my life and in my short period in this House. I deal with many constituency problems relating to aged dependants. It is virtually impossible at the present time to get an aged dependant into this country. People in the Home Office can think of numerous reasons to prevent them coming in, and now they will prevent them altogether. Dependants abroad are in a classic Catch-22 position. If one lets one's parents starve abroad one might be able to get them in, but if one does one's family duty by sending them a mere pittance in British terms, but a lot of money in terms of the standard of living abroad, one denies them the opportunity to come to this country.
All of us ought to vote against this shoddy White Paper to show that Britain still has some self-respect and that we are prepared to defend basic human rights.
8.28 pm
Mr. Nick Budgen: I should like to begin by taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) when he said that in his opinion all the specific promises made in the Tory Party's manifesto at the last election were covered by the initial remarks, that the rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law.
Surely that must have only a limited meaning in that in most respects the role of this place, and the legislature in any country, is to make proper discrimination between various classes of persons. For example, I do not suppose that those who are in favour of penal capital taxation would say that it was wrong to make a distinction between a multimillionaire and a man who, for the sake of argument, leaves £10,000 to his children. Surely that is a breach of the principle of equality before the law as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. Surely the concept of equality before the law simply means that once a law has been properly passed in this place or the legislature of any country it will be equally administered.
I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and my hon. Friends who will not be with us in the Lobby tonight that I understand why our party's proposals are so little understood. This

341
House should be the place where the conflicting theories of the great parties are regularly and vigorously debated. Unhappily, during the previous Parliament the subject of immigration, which on any basis is an important subject, was debated only twice. I regard that as little short of a scandal.
It does not surprise me that many of those who fought at the last general election should, as a result, have only a rough idea of the proposals made by our party at the last election. Those proposals combined an appearance of decision with a number of expressions that can be variously and differently interpreted. That is unfortunate. I think that that arises from a stifling of proper debate about our proper proposals.
On the other hand, it must be recognised on all sides that when, for instance, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the second paragraph of an article in The Daily Telegraph today
"Quite clearly, the first aim is to reduce the numbers coming into this rather crowded island with its relatively high unemployment",
he understated the present attitude of the British people.
I am bound to say to my hon. Friends who will not be joining us in the Lobby tonight that I find their position difficult to understand. Some of my hon. Friends stated plainly at the last election that they did not support the detailed proposals in our manifesto. They made it quite plain to their electorates, and in some instances even to the leader of our party, that under no circumstances would they support the detailed proposals set out in our manifesto. If they vote against us tonight or do not join with us in the Lobby, in my opinion their position will be constitutionally perfectly correct and easy to understand.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is making an important point. However, I am sure that he has not forgotten that the manifesto said, in terms of United Kingdom citizens who were immigrants and who were living legally in this country, that
"their opportunities ought to be equal"
to those of the indigenous population. There is nothing in the manifesto that suggests that any changes that might be introduced will be racially or sexually discriminatory.
Mr. Budgen: I understand that a number of important principles are set out in our manifesto that are apparently mutually incompatible. Of course I do, and I very much regret that. I consistently asked in the House that we should have debates on this matter.
Mr. John Watson: In view of the apparent incompatibility of the sentence in our manifesto which reads
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed",
did my hon. Friend disown that sentence in his election address?
Mr. Budgen: I think I made it quite plain that, in my opinion, the overriding requirement of an incoming Tory Administration was to curb the rate of immigration as quickly and efficiently as possible, consistent with any detailed and specific promises made in the past. I always recognised that that would be very difficult to do and for that reason I consistently and awkwardly pressed for a debate in the House. I recognised that this was an area in which the Tory Party might run into serious problems by making wide, general statements that were misunderstood in the country. My hon. Friends who are careful and intelligent observers of political argument have demonstrated how this has been misunderstood—
Mr. William Wilson: I am trying to follow the hon. Member's argument about the manner in which the Conservative Party made up its mind on immigration policy. Do I understand the hon. Member as saying that, had we discussed the matter in the House and had the benefit of speeches from the Labour Benches, Conservative Members would have been able to make up their minds more accurately about immigration in language that everyone could understand?
Mr. Budgen: Yes, I believe that they would have done, and that we would not have had the passage in the manifesto in which there are statements of principle which are inconsistent with one another.
I have the greatest respect and sympathy for those of my hon. Friends who boldly stated to the electorate that they would have nothing to do with the proposals in the manifesto. Their position

343
is sound. However, I find it difficult to understand those of my hon. Friends who felt that the Tory Party's proposals were popular and that they might have a crucial effect on marginal seats in the Midlands, and went along with them knowing that if and when they got into the House of Commons they would do their level best to undermine those proposals. I do not think that that is a proper constitutional position, and I hope that my hon. Friends will reconsider.
I hope that there will be no going back on the detailed proposals that have been made by the Government. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friends who have difficulty in understanding the manifesto, but certainly the Home Secretary cannot claim that difficulty. He had the good fortune to be Opposition spokesman on home affairs when the Conservative Party was last in office, and he is Home Secretary now. That elliptical passage in the manifesto arises particularly from a speech that he made on 7 April 1978 in Leicester. I am sure that he would consider himself bound by the eight specific promises in the Tory Party manifesto.
Much has been said about the importance of bringing forward a new Bill on British nationality. I remind hon. Members of the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary welcomed the Green Paper. He said as long ago as April 1977:
"Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome this Green Paper as a recognition of our changed overseas relationships and as an opportunity to provide a more rational basis for our immigration policies based on citizenship? Does he appreciate that the present obscurity of our nationality laws gives rise to widespread fears of unending millions who might claim entry into this country and that this anxiety must be removed, and removed urgently? Will he, therefore, accept that the Green Paper must be used as a basis for action and not as an excuse for prevarication?"—[Official Report, 27 April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1228.]
Today his vigorous promise is that some time in 1980 he will present a White Paper for further discussion. I do not find that an indication that his promises are being acted upon with the same urgency as that with which he pressed the Labour Party when it was in Government.
I am somewhat disconcerted by the fact that in his opening speech the Home Secretary said nothing about the register.
344
Has the register been abandoned? Will we go back on the detailed promises which, I assert, helped us to win so many marginal seats in the Midlands? I do not know. I hope not. I also hope that the Home Secretary will use his very considerable power in the Cabinet to obtain legislative time in the next Session for the introduction of a register. The register was not someone else's idea, and we are not simply having a difference of view about it between spokesmen in Opposition and spokesmen in Government.
The register was referred to by my right hon. Friend in his Leicester speech. It will come very ill from him if he, as the second most powerful figure in the Tory Party, says next year that he could not get legislative time for the register. The promise of the Tory Party was perhaps vague, but it was good that immigration, as we have seen it in the years since the war, would be brought to a clear end. The present proposals will reduce immigration by between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. I cannot believe that the continuance of 85 per cent. of immigration, such as we have seen in recent years, is bringing immigration to a clear end.
There has been, I regret to say, a lot of muddle in our immigration policy. There has been a lot of room for misunderstanding. We now need very careful consideration of this difficult problem. Most of all, we must avoid leading those who voted at the last general election down the garden path. I do not believe that the British people are incapable of facing difficult truths. I do not believe that they would wish to be conned or in any way treated deceitfully. Specific promises have been made, and they must now be honoured.
8.43 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: When these rules first came out, I took a fiendish delight in looking up the number of hon. Members—particularly on the Tory Benches—who had been born abroad. I did this because it seemed incredible that the Government were prepared to legislate against women born abroad. If those hon. Members had a sex change, such legislation would apply to them.
Since the rules were published, some changes have been made in what

345
was first proposed—for many obvious reasons. As has already been said, the white lobby has been placated. Concessions have been made. What alarms me is that every time we have a debate on immigration—I can go back as far as 1966–every concession that is made is always followed by the next demand, and the next demand is always worse than the concession just made.
Tonight the hon and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said that these proposals do not go far enough, that we must do more and that we must carry on from here. There is little left to do if we continue along this road.
We are debating these rules a day or two after the announcement that the three Patel children will not be allowed to join their mother in this country. She has legal custody of them. That decision has been made by the Minister of State, Home Office, who, I understand—as a result of further delving into Members' interests—once received a prize for the work that he did in connection with World Refugee Year. By that action and others, the hon. Gentleman contributes to World Refugee Year.
One is tempted to chase the red herrings. Hon. Members have mentioned the numbers involved, the rapid change in culture and the increase in the birth rate. There are many immigrants in my constituency. Many of them have settled in Slough. However, the position about falling numbers on the school rolls in my constituency is the same as in other parts of the country. It is nonsense to say that immigrants are responsible for increasing the number of pupils in our schools and that the birth rate is unfair and unbalanced. The school rolls in my constituency and in others are said to be responsible for cuts in education expenditure. The debate is about the abuse of the system by husbands and fiances. The abuse of the system represents about 3 per cent. of the total of husbands and wives who are allowed in, according to the numbers who are refused entry. That is a small percentage.
The Home Secretary and others referred to bogus marriages. They argued that marriages break down because they are bogus and are entered into only as a means of entering the country. I do not know how one can prove that. Many
346
marriages break down, but they are not arranged. The divorce rate is rising and the number of marriages that break down within two years is increasing. It is impossible to prove that a marriage breaks down because it is bogus.
The legislation is designed to affect Asians more than any other group. However, only half of the alleged abuses involve Asians. The Government should deal more in fact rather than make misleading statements.
To their credit, several hon. Members have referred to the contradiction in Tory Party policy. It is said that once an immigrant is here he is treated as an equal. That is no longer true. We now have different categories of women. It now matters where a woman is born and who her parents are.
I asked the Home Secretary about adopted girls. Many married couples have adopted girls, from Hungary, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Those children are part of a family unit. I am told that they shall not be excluded from the rules but that their positions will depend on the conditions of the adoption. The Government stress the importance of family units. What will these proposals do to a family with an adopted child? Must we now find where that child's original parents were born in order to decide whether she has the rights that other women have?
I do not want to repeat the arguments about the EEC. I have criticised immigration policy and I have always argued that the only acceptable immigration policy is one which does not involve colour and country of origin. We must have a policy which is based on jobs available and a host of other criteria but which has nothing whatever to do with colour or country of origin. Until we have such a policy, race will always be an issue.
Many Government Members have claimed that the rules will solve the problem of numbers. They may deal with the few husbands and fiances, and even elderly dependants, but they will not solve the EEC problem. In the old days when we argued about immigration, the number of aliens coming into the country was rising in almost direct proportion to the number of Commonwealth immigrants who were not being allowed in. The

347
number of people from the EEC who will be allowed to enter Britain is outside these rules, just as the Iranians are outside them. The contradiction of EEC women married to non-EEC men exists. The argument about the widening of the EEC to include Greece, Spain and Portugal puts a totally different complexion on the process of immigration control.
It is nonsense to say that we shall reduce numbers of immigrants by these rules, if that is desirable, because it is blatantly not so. There is the contradiction of a patrial United Kingdom citizen who was not born here but who, because of her five years' residence, may work and settle in all the EEC countries and may be joined by her spouse and by her immigrant dependants. However, she has no such right in the country of which she is a citizen. How is that sensible? How does that make people equal under the law?
The converse is also true. The removal of the concession for elderly dependants is the most shameful and empty aspect of the rules. It is a concession to the racialists in our society. It is shameful because there is no reason for it. If people are concerned that black babies will be born, let me allay their fears: elderly people will not have babies. There can be no justification for refusing elderly people the right to join their families except that of pandering to prejudice.
As I said in my intervention—and I hope that the Minister who replies will answer my point—the part of the rules dealing with dependent relatives states that they will be allowed in only if they are totally dependent on a person in Britain and their standard of living is below the normal standard of living of the country from which they come. However, if the relative in Britain is sending them money their standard of living will be raised. It is a Catch-22 situation. As has already been said, if a person has a dependent relative in some other part of the world, where there is a high standard of living, similar to ours, and he sends money to, say, America or Germany, the standard of living has not been raised. In that context, if a person is white he will not be caught by the rules.
348
Why did the Home Secretary say that there was an assumption that, because a person had an elderly relative in the Indian sub-continent, that relative should want to live in Britain? That should not be the assumption. The rules remove the choice. They do not give elderly relatives the option to come to Britain, except in exceptional circumstances, which have been undermined already by what has taken place.
I shall be brief. I have not yet spoken for 10 minutes. Some hon. Members went way beyond the time allotted to them.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was not an allotted time.
Miss Lestor: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would not mumble.
Mr. Powell: If the hon. Lady does not like my mumbling, I shall speak to her.
Miss Lestor: I do not like the mumbling of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish him to talk to me either.
The tragedy of the rules is the uncertainty and insecurity that they will bring to immigrant communities in Britain. One thing follows another for those who thought that they had settled here and who thought that they and their children would be accepted here. It is a shabby concession to what is believed to be the presence of widespread racialist feelings. I do not believe that that is true. If it were true, the country would be in a bad state. Every time we concede to the racialists in this shabby and unnecessary fashion, we do not stop further demands. We simply whet their gluttonous appetites for more; and that is what these rules do.
8.54 pm
Mr Ivor Stanbrook: I congratulate the Government on having made a start in implementing their manifesto commitments, albeit with a modification. I look forward to the implementation of the rest of their programme.
I gather from Opposition speeches—and from one or two from the Government Benches—that the critics of this policy are concerned about the element of discrimination. What immigration rules are not discriminatory? Almost every country in the world bases its

349
nationality law on discrimination. The prime rule of that law in almost every country is the place of birth. The prime rule of immigration law is place of birth, either of oneself or one's father. Similarly, in our matrimonial law and that of most other civilised countries, most countries provide that the husband has a duty to provide a home for and to maintain his wife. There is no duty on the wife to maintain her husband. Our immigration law must take account of that. If the women's rights movement wishes to enforce its view of women's rights in terms of immigration, it should ensure that discriminatory provisions of this sort in matrimonial law, for example, are repealed.
The consideration above all others that must be respected by this place is the overriding national interest. That is the factor that I believe the Government are following in their proposed Immigration Rules.
One or two Opposition Members have claimed that the Government's proposals are in breach of the European convention. One can assess the quality of that objection by referring to the wording of article 3 of the convention, which was referred to specifically by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). The article states:
"no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
One does not have to be a lawyer to realise that that obviously does not fit the case of a foreigner who is not allowed as of right to join his wife in the United Kingdom. That is the essence of the problem.
We may forget about any breach of the convention. The overriding law is what we take to be in the national interest of the British people.
I suggest that we accept the proposed rules and enact a new nationality law without further delay. Let us get on with the rebuilding of the British nation, a nation in which no one is labelled an immigrant, a nation in which no one owes loyalty to another country or to the ways of life of another country, a nation in which we are all united in enjoyment of the privilege of living in the best country in the world.
8.57 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: For the past 10 to 20 years we have had an immigration debate. That debate has had a number of sad but possibly expected consequences. One of the consequences has been to obscure from the public, and I fear from some hon. Members, the true facts of immigration into Britain.
The debate has obscured the fact that our immigration controls are among the tightest and the strictest in the world. It has obscured the fact that our present immigration rules are already racist in their effect. It has encouraged the public to feel prejudiced towards others in our community. It has added to the feeling of insecurity felt by the members of minority communities. The debate has made people feel that they are unwanted or rejected by the host community. That is an unfortunate and reprehensible result of the continuing obsession with immigration from which we have suffered over the past 10 or 20 years.
Some hon. Members have talked about their belief in racial harmony and their opposition to racial discrimination. I find it difficult to understand how as a country we can profess to be opposed to racial discrimination yet practise discrimination at the point of entry. That seems to be hypocrisy. If we are being hypocritical in that sense, we shall not achieve good relations. That is because our protestations that we are opposed to discrimination will not be believed.
I turn briefly to the difficulties that the elderly will face under the proposed Immigration Rules. It seems that there will be almost no possibility of elderly dependants from the Asian sub-continent achieving entry into Britain. It will be more difficult for them to come here than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. I hope that the Minister answering the debate will give an example of how an elderly dependent Asian can possibly come into the country under the new proposals.
I turn briefly to the power of immigration officials.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we hope soon to begin the winding up of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman could be brief, I

351
would be grateful. I called him to speak for the last few moments until 9 o'clock.
Mr. Dubs: I shall be very brief. Under the new rules, immigration officials will have even more arbitrary powers. I refer, for example, to the references in the rules to the consequences of a delayed application—they will make it unacceptable. That comes from a Government Department that sends out letters referring to delays of two or three years and saying that people must not complain about such delays as that will delay their applications even further.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and other hon. Members have already referred to the European Commission on Human Rights. The report has not been published, but, given the misunderstandings about it, I shall place it in the Library. An important part of that report says:
"a special importance should be attached to discrimination based on race: that publicly to single out a group of persons for differential treatment on the basis of race might in certain circumstances constitute a special form of affront to human dignity."
This White Paper is an affront to human dignity.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker I do not raise this point of order in a spirit of playing parliamentary games. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), have referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. All of us have received letters and seen articles arguing that the rules are contrary in some way to the European Convention on Human Rights. It has also been mentioned that those rules are in some way contrary to certain EEC regulations. Given the current mood, hon. Members may not feel very strongly about that. I have in front of me the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. It refers to the reunification of families, marriages between citizens of different races, and travel for personal and professional reasons. All those subjects are relevant to the debate.
My point of order is that we have not had a view from a Law Officer of the Crown. Are these rules contrary to a "law" to which we have subscribed?
352
We should know the facts and we should know them tonight. Before the regulations are laid on the Floor of the House, a Law Officer should give his view.
Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman courteously informed me that he would raise that point of order. I am therefore in a position to give him a reply to which he and the House are entitled.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is a tradition that the Government do not disclose any advice that they may receive from the Law Officers. However, the Government have, of course, considered collectively the full implications of these proposals, including the question raised today about international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We believe that we have strong arguments with which to justify those proposals if they are challenged.
Mr. Edward Lyons Mr. Edward Lyons rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be taking time away from his hon. Friend I. understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for 13 or 14 minutes during the debate.
Mr. Lyons: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your point, but my right hon. Friend did ask about the effect of the Helsinki agreement. The Secretary of State made no reference to the effect of the rules on our obligations under that agreement.
Dr. Hampson: Are not the activities of the Front Benches an abuse of the procedures of the House? The Chair often exercises discretion to allow Back Benchers to run beyond 9 o'clock in order to accommodate all the Back Bench speeches. It so happens that I was the one Conservative Member still to speak.
Mr. Bob Cryer: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that in Standing Committee hon. Members have the right under Standing Orders to call for the attendance of a Law Officer. The rules are legalistic in their effect on people. Even at this moment, can you clarify whether the House, which is more important than a Standing Committee, has the same right to require the attendance of a Law Officer to explain the

353
important legal international implications on which we have had no authoritative statement?
Mr. Speaker: First, I say to the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who was the last Member likely to have spoken from the Government Benches, that our rules are not made to imprison us. There are times when we bend them a little, but not so much that they get out of shape. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I have nothing to add to what the Home Secretary has already said.
9.6 pm
Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Any new proposals in the White Paper that can be welcomed as an improvement in our Immigration Rules are regrettably completely overshadowed by other major proposals which are totally unacceptable. It is these that have dominated today's debate and made it impossible for the Opposition to accept the document. I hope that Conservative Members will follow the shining examples of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and several of his hon. Friends. I regret that not one lady Member from the Conservative Benches saw fit to oppose the policy of the first woman Prime Minister on a matter involving the rights of women.
The White Paper has a dishonourable history. It started with the Prime Minister's notorious television interview last year. She successfully fanned the flames of racism and gave the word "swamped" a new meaning in the English language. To add fuel to her fire, a series of Conservative manifesto pledges were hastily cobbled together regardless of the complexities of immigration control or of the overall practical effects of the proposals.
The White Paper is a product of the schizophrenia which bedevils the Conservative Party over immigration. The symptoms were manifested at the party conference this year, and have been again in today's debate. From the Right comes a mindless unreasoned clamour for more controls, and from the Left a plea for at at least some show of tolerance towards the ethnic minorities. It is no wonder that we are presented with a document containing one major election pledge
354
broken and another one watered down, along with the reservations expressed by the Home Secretary in his opening speech, which were designed to get him off one of his hooks, and a further reassurance during the debate.
The result is an unjustifiable, muddled, shamefully discriminatory set of proposals which should be rejected by the House. The Home Secretary has claimed that the new rules will be easier and clearer to operate. To that I can only say that his idea of clarity and ease are not mine. He has created two classes of people living in this country, both of which will have to be redefined when the citizenship White Paper comes out.
First, let us deal with men. Regardless of their citizenship or birthplace, if they are settled here they can by right be joined by a fiancee or wife from anywhere in the world. Then there are the women who were born here or who have a British parent. They, I am glad to learn, are now to be given the absolute right to be joined by a husband or fiance from anywhere in the world. I trust that that statement by the right hon. Gentleman means that those women will be treated in exactly the same way as the men. However, there is the other class of women—the second class of women. They are lawfully settled here but happen not to have been born here, and nor were their parents born here. These women are not even mentioned specifically in the White Paper. They are more or less non-people.
The Prime Minister's election cry is still ringing in my ears, if not in the ears of Government supporters. She proclaimed that
"People lawfully settled here will have nothing to fear."
That was echoed by the right hon. Gentleman and no doubt by other hon. Members. There seems to have been some confusion during the debate among Government supporters about exactly what the Conservative Party manifesto said. They can be reminded very quickly by looking at the Order Paper, as the Opposition amendment is exactly the words of their manifesto, which said:
"The rights of all British citizens legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed. And their opportunities ought to be equal too."
The White Paper makes a mockery of that election pledge. All women legally

355
settled here but not born here will not be equal before the law, nor will their opportunities, following marriage, be equal.
The original Conservative election pledge about fiances and husbands has been amended, and amended again. We are left with a shabby compromise that is as offensive, divisive and heartless as the original proposals. Why does not the Home Secretary admit that the new rules are specifically designed to exclude coloured men at the expense of the rights of many women? To do that, he has introduced a totally discriminatory innovation in our immigration control.
I am proud that one of the first actions that the Home Office took under the Labour Government of 1974 was to change the rules and allow women lawfully settled here to bring in their foreign husbands—a change that was not opposed by the Conservative Party. The Minister of State said that the new rules would keep out—this was before the Home Secretary's reservations expressed today—1,500 to 2,000 men a year. He said that that was not an insignificant figure, but the hardship and suffering of many women involved is not insignificant either. I refer to women who may have dependent, elderly parents or other close relatives here; women whose jobs and careers are here; women who wish to stay here for health or financial reasons; women who simply want to live in their own country. Those women will have to choose between husband and country. Is that what is meant by Tory freedom of choice?
I have noticed several sexist pronouncements by the Government recently. First, we had the Secretary of State for Social Services urging mothers to stay at home and be full-time housewives. Then the Secretary of State for Employment proposed to restrict the rights of mothers who worked for small firms. That narrow-minded and outmoded stereotyping of the female role was echoed by the Home Secretary. He justified the original election pledge on husbands by saying:
"In accordance with the customs of Europe and the Indian Sub-Continent, the abode of the husband should normally be viewed as the natural place of residence of the
That is an obsolescent philosophy unworthy of the Home Secretary's high in-family."
356
tellect. Anyway, in his new rules, with complete inconsistency, he now applies what he calls the customs of Europe and the sub-continent to some women but not to others.
The right hon. Gentleman was more impressive a few weeks ago when he stood at that Dispatch Box and proclaimed that the Government were committed to the Equal Opportunities Commission and would certainly support its work. Today, that fighting talk has become meaningless. He is denying equal opportunities to thousands of women. On television he has argued that that is justifiable discrimination. In another place his junior Minister called it "reasonable discrimination" I call it totally unjustifiable and totally unreasonable to discriminate between men and women, or between one woman and another, about their right to live in their own country with whoever they choose to marry.
Mr. Tim Renton: If the hon. Lady feels that way, why is that not expressed in the amendment that the Opposition have put down?
Dr. Summerskill: All the issues are covered by the all-embracing amendment that the Opposition have put down.
Primary immigration must be tackled—that is the point made about the fiance proposals. However, that aspect relates to the minority of the immigrants. It accounts for 1,500 to 2,000 men a year. Are not the 20,000 non-British women who entered this country last year considered to be primary immigration? They were accepted for settlement. Many of them will take jobs, use our social services and travel on public transport. Many of them may even produce children. They should be considered as primary immigration as they make up the majority of it.
The Government now believe that any arranged marriage without a meeting is suspect. Is there to be only one meeting? Should the immigration officer decide whether or not that meeting is proper, or whether it takes place for long enough? Under Asian religion and culture, the arranged marriage is as real and lasting as any other marriage. In 1976 the Home Secretary said:
"Everyone who has come here has been free to practise his or her own customs and religions. We have guarded these freedoms jealously for centuries, and we are justly

357
proud of them"—[Official Report, 5 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 964.]
The arranged marriage is one of the oldest Asian customs. The proposals in the White Paper show an insensitivity to the tradition. It is not the function of the Home Secretary or of Parliament to sit in judgment upon the practice. How people decide to enter into matrimony is entirely their affair.
There is a problem about the reluctance of the Asian bride, and people are concerned about protecting the liberties of the Asian woman. That involves social change and education but not discriminatory immigration controls. I believe that, as the second and third generations grow up, the practice will die out. However, it is not for the Home Secretary or Parliament to interfere with or stop the practice.
When it comes to the abuse of the arranged marriage, that is a different matter. If we want to stop that abuse, we should stop the abuse itself and not interfere with the arranged marriage, thus preventing genuine marriages. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pointed out that we introduced new rules in 1977 to tackle that abuse. They provide that where a marriage overseas has recently—
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way—[Interruption.] Before my hon. Friend—
Dr.Summerskill: Please!
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before the hon. Lady leaves the consideration of the conditions, will she tell the Members whether she agrees or disagrees with the conditions contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Dr. Summerskill: I listened with great admiration to the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I agree with every word that he said and hope that his right hon. Friend comes round to that view.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is nice to be flattered by the hon. Lady, but will she please direct her attention to my question? Does she agree or disagree with the conditions contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)?
Dr. Summerskill: I should need notice of that question to answer it. Unless the
358
hon. Gentleman wishes to read those subparagraphs to the House, I cannot off the cuff tell him which they are.
Mr. Douglas Hogg Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
Dr. Summerskill: We introduced measures that contained specific power to refuse admission or settlement in any case where the marriage was believed to be one of convenience. At the end of 12 months, checks were made to ascertain whether the husband was still living with the wife. As my right hon. Friend said, those rules were introduced with reluctance, but they were necessary, and still are. Bogus marriages should be tackled. I sympathise with those women, some of whom are my constituents, who are rightly distressed and angry that they have been the victims of arranged marriages to men concerned only with gaining settlement in this country. Even if that deception was only on a small scale, it had to be stopped.
What was the result of the measures taken in March 1977? The then Minister of State was asked to provide the number of husbands who had been refused leave to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage to a woman settled here in the two years ending 31 March 1971. That number was only 356 out of nearly 11,600 applications, and of those 356 only 120 were husbands from the Indian sub-continent. The deception was and is on a small scale, and it is being detected and dealt with.
Have the Government evidence of abuses of the practice of arranged marriages that are not being dealt with by the measures started two and a half years ago? If not, there is absolutely no basis for the continued assertion that the arranged marriage is still being successfully exploited to enable men to enter this country illegally.
The White Paper is victimising many women born abroad who contract a genuine non-arranged marriage to a foreigner, as well as attacking the arranged marriage. The injustice of these proposals will lead to ridiculous anomalies.
Mention has been made of the EEC context. An Italian or German woman living and working in Halifax can bring into Britain a husband from anywhere in the world, but a woman living next door, brought to this country by her

359
father when she was a few months old, will not have the same right although the whole family is lawfully settled here.
There could also be the case of two sisters in a family that has been settled here for over 20 years. If one sister was born here and the other was a few months old when the family arrived, they would be treated in totally different ways if they wished to marry a foreigner. Meanwhile their brother would have the absolute right to bring in a wife from anywhere in the world.
We have also heard about refugees. There are thousands of women who have come to this country as refugees from Hitler's Europe, from behind the Iron Curtain, Vietnam or anywhere else whence we receive refugees. Their parents were not born here and nor were they. They fled once in their lives. If they marry a foreigner, they must leave again, and simply because they are women.
It was a Labour Government who put on the statute book the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, and the proposed new rules are contrary to the spirit of both those great Acts. They are totally illogical and an attack on human rights. They are racist in purpose and sexist in effect.
I come now to one of the most sensitive areas of immigration control, that involving elderly dependants. We are dealing with old age and bereavement, isolation, dependency on grown-up children and distress. We totally reject the proposals regarding elderly dependants.
The Minister of State has publicly conveyed the impression that a husband admitted for settlement carries with him a general right of entry for other members of his family. That is a complete misrepresentation of the position, in spite of the excuse that he gave the House earlier, which appeared to be based on the opinion of a professor and not upon statistics or evidence.
It is essentially the narrow category of elderly dependent parents and grandparents only who may eventually qualify as a result of a husband being settled by way of marriage. Under the new rules it will be virtually impossible for elderly parents to settle in Britain. They must
360
be proved to be in great poverty and to be completely alone before being allowed to join their relatives. Many of my hon. Friends have given examples of how these rules will work in practice and the Catch-22 position in which people will find themselves. And the Conservative Party is the party of the family! Asian families have a tradition of strong family ties. They believe that the young should care for the old. Surely that is something to be admired.
How many elderly parents do the Government hope to keep out by this change in the rules? Last year fewer than 1,500 were admitted to settle in Britain. If they are allowed in, do the Government envisage their causing chaos at the employment offices?
Mr. Burden: I have been trying to follow the hon. Lady's argument. When she was at the Home Office there were several occasions on which I made application for elderly parents to come and stay for a short period—three months or even less—with their children. They were prepared to give guarantees that they would return to the Indian sub-continent at the end of that period. They were refused permission to enter.
Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point. We are saying that the present rules are firm and that we do not wish excessively restrictive and inflexible rules to be put in their place which will cause great personal distress. Of all the immigration rules, I feel that those relating to the elderly should be considered with the greatest humanity and compassion.
There are similarly restrictive rules being introduced concerning young people, children between the ages of 18 and 21. How many youngsters a year do the Government hope to keep out of Britain by the new measures? I suggest that it will be insignificant compared to the distress in the families affected, quite apart from the anomaly connected with the EEC regulations.
Other rules for visitors, foreign students and businessmen are so excessively bureaucratic that they will victimise the careless far more often than they will identify abuse. If the Government will not listen to our views, they should listen to the Joint Committee Against Racialism, which is an alliance of the three main

361
political parties and of religious and immigrant groups. It is a responsible and respected body. It says that the proposals are extremely disturbing, discriminatory and will damage racial harmony. The new rules are opposed by the Churches. They are opposed by the Commission for Racial Equality, which says that several of the proposed changes are harsh, unnecessary and undesirable. The Government will find that many hon. Members will make more representations than ever before if the new rules are to receive the compassion, humanity and fairness which will be required.
The Home Secretary should practise what he preached when he said in 1976:
"I hope that the Government"—
that is, the previous Labour Government—
"will actively seek the co-operation of the representatives of the various ethnic minority groups in this country."—[Official Report, 5 July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 971.]
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the new rules are actively seeking non-co-operation. They may be welcomed in Bath and Bournemouth, but they will not be welcomed in Birmingham and Bradford.
We should concentrate on other aspects of improving race relations, and the new rules are not the way to do it. We should implement the Race Relations Act and find a fair way of treating those already settled here. I assure the House that the existing immigration controls are as firm, as humane and compassionate administration permits.
The changes will have only a marginal effect on the numbers kept out, and restricting the number allowed to enter is apparently the object of the exercise. However, the rules will create feelings of resentment and insecurity among minority communities and will cause unnecessary hardship and distress and lead to a deterioration in race relations.
Furthermore, the White Paper contains shameful and inexcusable rules that discriminate against women. That is why we shall vote against it and in favour of our amendment.
9.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): This has been a debate not only of divergent views but of
362
a combination of broad themes and specific points. I hope that the House will understand if I start with some of the specific points and move on to the broad themes, particularly the question of husbands and fiances, which has clearly been the major theme in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made a number of specific points and asked a number of questions. I shall answer some of them, but I hope that he will understand if I do not answer them all; there was rather a lot. I shall also pick up one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's points that have a general bearing on the course of the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman and a number of my hon. Friends said that when the nationality Bill is introduced it will deal with sex equality. Having just looked at the right hon. Gentleman's Green Paper on a nationality Act, I do not think that anyone could say that it was a clarion call for sex equality. It paid some obeisance towards sex equality but was much more eloquent in pointing out the difficulties and complications involved than in giving clear-cut answers. However, I accept that it is an important point. It was also raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
I cannot at this stage say exactly what we shall put in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend announced earlier, but there is no doubt that we are bound to give careful consideration to the whole question of securing equal treatment between the sexes. By any standards, that will be an important development in this area.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and other hon. Members raised the implications of our membership of the EEC. It is true that a woman who is an EEC national who comes here to work may bring her husband with her. If he is not an EEC national, she would be better placed than women citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies whose husbands are excluded under the new rules. But that is inevitable in view of our obligations as a Community member. That point is of theoretical interest only. Few women from other EEC countries are likely to seek to import non-EEC husbands in that way. Nor

363
is there any evidence of exploitation of the provisions.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House raised what is often described as the Catch-22 position of aged parents. It is not possible to estimate precisely how many will be able to come under the new proposals. It seems reasonable to suppose that the numbers will be small—I accept that—and that they may be extremely small.
We shall consider the argument that the combination of the dependency requirement with the standard of living criterion makes it too difficult for parents to come. I cannot say more than that, but I hope that the House will feel that we have listened very carefully to this point in the debate.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that under the existing rules it is already extremely difficult for aged parents to come? Not only must money be sent but the tribunal has shown on a number of occasions that it is necessary to satisfy the tribunal that the money is necessary for the parents' upkeep. The number of people who have been allowed to come in as aged parents has been very small indeed.
Mr. Raison: That may be true, but I have just said that we shall consider the points raised in the debate, and I cannot see the point of the hon. Gentle-man's intervention.
With regard to au pairs and the decision to restrict entry to Western European au pairs, the original concept of the au pair arrangement was that daughters above school age of families in this country and abroad changed places for a year or two, that each was treated as a member of the host family helping with small jobs about the house, as a daughter in her late teens or early twenties would usually be expected to do, and would take the opportunity to learn the host's language and something of the way of life in that country.
For many years now, this arrangement has, by tradition, been a European one. Girls who come from further a field are open to exploitation, especially now, when it is impossible to obtain work permits for resident domestics. We do not
364
restrict the entry of au pairs from EEC countries, from which a large proportion of au pairs come. The restriction is not new in principle. The previous Government issued work permits for domestic employment only to West Europeans.
I have been asked what evidence there is of abuse of the au pair arrangement by girls who are not West Europeans. We do not keep separate figures of refusals of au pairs, but since the issue of work permits for resident domestics was restricted earlier this year to West Europeans there has been a good deal of pressure to admit, as au pairs, girls from the countries which were so excluded.
The question of refugees was raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and also by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). I was asked whether the changes relating to refugees—which I think the right hon. Member for Leeds, South welcomed broadly—would make the rules more restrictive. They would not. The changes are designed solely to bring the rules more into line with the provisions of the convention relating to the status of refugees and with current practice.
The right hon. Member for Norwich, North gave broad support for the changes that we have introduced. I note that he believes that we should have gone further. I think he knows that we have already considered very carefully additional matters that he would have liked us to cover in the rules. It is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman also considered them when his party was in power. We have concluded that the changes in the White Paper are as far as we can reasonably go.
I want to clear up a point which arose out of exchanges on my right hon. Friend's statement the other day concerning visitors coming here to meet fiancees. I have been asked for clarification of the reply that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave, on my advice, to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member asked under which section of the Immigration Rules a fiance would be allowed to come here to meet his intended wife. My right hon. Friend replied that a fiance could come as a visitor.

365
That is the position under the current rules, and it will remain open under the new proposals for any fiance who persuades the immigration officer that he intends to return to his own country at the end of his visit to enter as a visitor under paragraph 17 of the draft rules in the White Paper. But it is certainly not our intention that the new rules should be circumvented by the entry as visitors of people who do not qualify to come as fiances, with a view to settlement after marriage.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that no immigration officer will accept that a person who is coming here as an intended fiance is a person who will leave at the end of his visit, and that therefore those visits are always refused?
Mr. Raison: Under the new rules, the situation will obviously be somewhat different. There will be a defined requirement for people to have met. I believe that immigration officers, when they are satisfied that the application is genuine, will recognise that it will be reasonable for people to come here with a view to meeting their intended fiancé so long as they do not try to queue-jump by remaining after that has happened. There is absolutely nothing in the rules to prevent that happening.
I turn to another point that arises out of the question of finances, and that is the question of siblings born in different places. Obviously, it is inherent in the Government's proposals that those born in different places will be treated differently. One must acknowledge that. However, I should add that difficult cases can be considered for exceptional treatment outside the rules. Indeed, it is one of the characteristics of our system that there is very wide discretion to the Home Secretary in effect to take any decision that he wishes outside the rules.
I have tried to answer some of the detailed points. I should now like to turn to the broad and important question of husbands and male fiancés. Obviously, this is the area in which there has been most disagreement. I acknowledge that some of the disagreement has come from my own side. We heard what the whole House will recognise as an impressive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). I do
366
not agree with what he said, but he spoke honestly and with courage. Others of my hon. Friends also made their views clear.
The Opposition amendment refers to the equal
"rights of all British citizens legally settled here…whatever their race, colour or creed".
Oddly enough, as has been pointed out already, it does not mention sex under those categories, no more than did our manifesto. It is quite clear, of course, why neither the Opposition amendment nor our manifesto mentions sex, because we know perfectly well that sex equality does not exist under our nationality and immigration laws. They are not based on sex, and that is a fact that must be recognised.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: But the law in this country under the Sex Discrimination Act is very clear, and equality before the law covers that as well.
Mr. Raison: With respect, the law in this area is not covered by the Sex Discrimination Act. It is covered by the Immigration Act and the Nationality Act. Those are the laws under which we must operate in the area about which we are talking. That is an inescapable fact.
I remind the House that in our manifesto we gave clear notice that we intended to tackle the problems of husbands and fiances. Of course, we said then that we would go back to the pre-1974 arrangements which, as the House knows, was introduced by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It may be asked why we need the new additional restriction that we are proposing. As we have said to the House time and again, there is a general aim simply of reducing numbers.
It is proper to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said earlier—that numbers are a serious factor in this respect. In 1973, no more than 200 husbands from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan were accepted for settlement, whether on arrival or because of removal of the time limit. By 1976, after the change had taken place in 1974, that figure had risen to more than 6,300. Since then, there has been a small drop because of the greater priority that has been given to dependent wives and children. In the 12 months to mid-1979, the equivalent figure was 5,600. However, the number

367
of applications in the pipeline shows that the pressure remains unabated. At the end of October there were about 6,000 husbands and fiances in the sub-continent queues.
Therefore, there is a real pressure to come in here. As a result, our belief that this is one of the ways of controlling immigration and of removing numbers, not in spectacular quantities but in real quantities, is, I believe, justified. In addition, as the House knows, we have a particular aim, which is to cut back on primary male immigration. What do we mean by primary male immigration? What is the difference between that and the immigration of women? That was a question asked by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill).
There is a significant difference, apart from the sex difference, because it is generally true that the young man seeking to come to the United Kingdom for the purpose of marriage is economically motivated. The reason why women come here is not primarily economic but so that they can build a family. It would be fair to say that the attitude of the two sexes in this respect—if I am allowed to say it nowadays—is different. That certainly underlies our approach to this matter.
Dr. Hampson: Surely my hon. Friend must accept, in view of the figures he sent to me in a parliamentary answer, that three times as many females as males from the Indian sub-continent arrive in this country. Those women go to the highly populated and industrialised centres and produce children, many of whom are males who enter the labour force.
Mr. Raison: I accept that fact, which is well known. However, I see nothing discreditable about our willingness, over the years, to admit wives and children. It is morally right, and the fact that it is a statutory requirement is inescapable. I have already said that there are elements of discrimination in our present law, but much greater hardship would be entailed if we said that we would not admit wives and children than is contained in the decision we are putting forward today.
Dr. Summerskill: This is a very important point. Why is it morally right
368
to allow in wives but not morally right to allow in husbands?
Mr. Raison: I have already tried to meet that point by saying that I believe that there is a difference between the migration of young men, whose motivation is primarily economic, and the migration of women who come here to build up their families. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Halifax wishes us to change our attitude towards women and children. I hope that she does not. But there is a difference and there are practical consequences.
I have no doubt that marriage is used as a means of securing entry. What we are concerned about is not what might be called the normal to-and-fro movement by which young people may meet, marry and seek to live in the country of one or the other; we are talking of a predominantly one-way traffic. From my recent visit to the Indian sub-continent, I know that that happens. I have heard, on a number of occasions, young men who were seeking to come to the United Kingdom for the purpose of marriage openly and frankly say that their objective was economic. They have said that the reason why they wish to marry somebody whom they have never met and about whom they know very little is that it is the only way in which they can secure entry into the United Kingdom. There is absolutel y no doubt about that. Any Opposition Member who doubts that should go to the Indian sub-continent and listen to some of the interviews that take place.
I should also make it quite clear that we are not talking about the bogus marriage of convenience. We have said this over and over again, in spite of which the hon. Member for Halifax still did not seem to understand. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South tried to deal with this matter through his change in the rules in 1977. As a result of that, a few hundred marriages a year are being caught.
Mr. Stanley Cohen Mr. Stanley Cohen(Leeds, South-East) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, The Minister is not giving way; therefore, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Raison: We are not talking about the marriage of convenience that takes

369
place purely to secure entry and then collapses. That is dealt with under the present rules, if somewhat imperfectly. We are talking about marriages that may last but are merely for the purpose of immigration. This happens at present, and the question that we had to face was how to deal with it.
In our manifesto we talked of going back to the 1969–74 approach to this problem. Broadly, that was the approach of blocking the lot. On examination we felt that this was not the right answer. For one thing, the hardship provision, which was an ingredient of the old rules, and which meant that girls did not have to live abroad if it meant a lower standard of living, was not really workable in current circumstances. At the same time we had to face the fact that nowadays it is unacceptable to stop British-born girls who marry men from overseas from living here. There is no doubt that throughout the country that point of view has been put over very strongly, and we have had to take account of it.
The same applies to British girls who have been born overseas fortuitously. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he understands this problem well and that he proposes to alter the draft rule to ensure that these girls will count as British-born in this respect as long as one of their parents is a United Kingdom and colonies citizen who was born here. My right hon. Friend is anxious that any anxieties that exist on this matter should not continue, because we are determined to meet the problems. It may well be that others will have to be dealt with under discretion, because it is difficult to shape the rules. But the situation of daughters of Crown servants, business men and so on will be considered sympathetically.
The point has been raised about the distinction between those citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who are born here and those who are born overseas but are registered or naturalised citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. In putting forward these proposals, we are recognising essentially that those who have always had a substantial connection with this country and who see it as their country of origin will be able to bring in their husbands. If we said that all citizens of the United Kingdom
370
and colonies could bring in their husbands, that would effectively permit the bulk of husbands and male fiances to come in. After all, all girls who are settled here, even if they are not at present citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, would in time be able to register or be naturalised. Therefore, to adopt this approach would be virtually meaningless.
I must stress that Asian girls born in this country who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies are in exactly the same position as white girls born here. Obviously the numbers of those will increase as the years go by.
Some hon. Members inclined to the view that our proposals are in some way more sympathetic to the Asian community. I stress that compared with the 1969–74 situation our new proposals mean that more Asian girls will be able to bring in their husbands, provided that they meet the marriage or immigration conditions.
It is argued that our proposals should be the same for both sexes. But, if we are to tackle immigration problems through marriage, this is not possible under existing legislation. Section 2(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 provides that women citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies marrying men with the right of abode in this country thereby acquire that right of abode themselves. However, the opposite is not true. Secondly, under the British Nationality Act 1948 any wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies may also register as a citizen and acquire abode if her husband is patrial under the 1971 Act. Thirdly, under the 1971 Act the wives of Commonwealth citizens here before 1 January 1973 have their pre-1973 position preserved. All these conditions apply only to wives. On the other hand, it is obvious that they would, in effect, also apply to female fiancees who would have the chance to marry and secure the status which is secured by this legislation. Therefore, it is very difficult to produce something that is identical for the two sexes.
What about the criticism put forward that we are in some way attacking the culture of the sub-continent by our conditions which restrict marriage for immigration purposes? I believe that fundamentally this restriction on marriage for

371
the purpose of immigration is reasonable. After all, that is not what arranged marriages exist to provide.
Arranged marriages are not intended to create the opportunity for people to move to another country. There may be deep-seated cultural reasons for them, but we are not tackling that problem. It seems to me that the requirement that two people should have met before they marry is eminently reasonable. Whatever we may think of arranged marriages, I doubt whether it is right to have an arranged marriage when the partners have never met. In recent weeks I have met large numbers of Asian women. Many of them, when describing what they regard as a satisfactory arranged marriage, agreed that the bride and bridegroom should meet before marriage. We in the Home Office, and in our posts overseas, receive heart-rending letters from girls who do not wish their fiancés to be allowed in.
Mr. Cyril Smith: How many?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) knows that it is wrong to shout from a sedentary position when someone else is speaking. I call the Minister to continue.
Mr. Cyril Smith: How many letters did the Minister receive? Did he—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Raison: We shall consider carefully the points made in the debate. This has been a debate about a White Paper, not about the final rules. While our position may unquestionably offend some people in terms of theory or theology, in practice is based on common-sense realities.
The proposals will not result in great hardship. Exceptional cases of hardship can be dealt with under the discretion of the Home Secretary. Our proposals will help to seal off an avenue of
primary immigration. That is important.
Our package will not satisfy everyone in every respect. I recognise that. Having listened to the debate, I realise that some of my hon. Friends would have liked a great deal more and others would have liked less. I claim that our proposals will effect a significant reduction in the number of immigrants. They will help to contain the possibility of large-scale future migration into this country.
I return to the issue of husbands and fiancés. We must recognise that in Bangladesh, for example, there is no great demand by husbands and fiancés to be allowed to come here. The figures are small. That is because of the period in which the migration occurred and the young marriageable age group came on to the scene.
Our proposals tackle real abuses. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said that the proposals get to grips with the problem of overstaying, which will be one of our principal difficulties in the future.
I am certain that, above all, the proposals maintain our pledges to wives and families. I believe that we have got it right. To pull this package to pieces would be damaging to immigration policy and race relations. This issue has aroused deep feelings. Immigration always does that. We have a chance to move away from the prolonged wrangle and to move on to a period of positive race relations, about which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has spoken so often and so eloquently. I ask the House to support the White Paper and to reject the Opposition amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 296.

Division No.117]

AYES

[10 pm

Adams, Allen

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Allaun, Frank

Beith, A. J.

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Alton, David

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Buchan, Norman

Anderson, Donald

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bidwell, Sydney

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Campbell, Ian

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ashton, Joe

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Canavan, Dennis

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cant, R. B.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Cartwright, John

Hooley, Frank

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Clark, David (South Shields)

Horam, John

Race, Reg

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

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

Radice, Giles

Cohen, Stanley

Howells, Geraint

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Coleman, Donald

Huckfield, Les

Richardson, Miss Jo

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cowans, Harry

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Crowther, J. S.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Janner, Hon Greville

Robertson, George

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Dalyell, Tam

John, Brynmor

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Davidson, Arthur

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rooker, J. W.

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ryman, John

Deakins, Eric

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sandelson, Neville

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sever, John

Dempsey, James

Kerr, Russell

Sheerman, Barry

Dewar, Donald

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Dixon, Donald

Kinnock, Neil

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Dobson, Frank

Lamble, David

Short, Mrs Renée

Dormand, Jack

Lamborn, Harry

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Douglas, Dick

Lamond, James

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Leadbitter, Ted

Silverman, Julius

Dubs, Alfred

Leighton,, Ronald

Skinner, Dennis

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Dunnett, Jack

Litherland, Robert

Snape, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Soley, Clive

Eadie, Alex

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Spearing, Nigel

Eastham, Ken

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Stallard, A. W.

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

McCartney, Hugh

Steel, Rt Hon David

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

McElhone, Frank

Stoddart, David

English, Michael

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Stott, Roger

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McKelvey, William

Strang, Gavin

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Straw, Jack

Ewing, Harry

Maclennan, Robert

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Field, Frank

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Fitch, Alan

McNally, Thomas

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Flannery, Martin

McWilliam, John

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Fletcher, L. R. (llkeston)

Magee, Bryan

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marks, Kenneth

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow,Shettles'n)

Tilley, John

Ford, Ben

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Torney, Tom

Forrester, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Foulkes, George

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Maxton, John

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Freud, Clement

Maynard, Miss Joan

Watkins, David

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Meacher, Michael

Weetch, Ken

Garrett, W. E (Wallsend)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Wellbeloved, James

George, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Welsh, Michael

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Ginsburg, David

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Golding, John

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Whitlock, William

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Graham, Ted

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Newens, Stanley

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Ogden, Eric

Winnick, David

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

O'Neill, Martin

Woolmer, Kenneth

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Haynes, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Wright, Sheila

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Park, George

Young, David (Bolton East)

Heffer, Eric S.

Parker, John

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Parry, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Pendry, Tom

Mr. John Evans and

Home Robertson, John

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Mr. George Morton.

Homewood, William

Prescott, John

NOES

Adley, Robert

Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)

Best, Keith

Alexander, Richard

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Alison, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Biggs-Davison, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Blackburn, John

Ancram, Michael

Bell, Ronald

Blaker, Peter

Arnold, Tom

Bendall, Vivian

Body, Richard

Aspinwall, Jack

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

374

375

Bowden, Andrew

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Myles, David

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neale, Gerrard

Bradford, Rev. R.

Hannam,John

Needham, Richard

Braine, Sir Bernard

Haselhurst, Alan

Nelson, Anthony

Bright, Graham

Hastings, Stephen

Neubert, Michael

Brinton, Tim

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Newton, Tony

Brittan, Leon

Hawksley, Warren

Normanton, Tom

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Nott, Rt Hon John

Brotherton, Michael

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Heddle, John

Osborn, John

Browne, John (Winchester)

Henderson, Barry

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hicks, Robert

Parris, Matthew

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Buck, Antony

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Budgen, Nick

Hooson, Tom

Pattie, Geoffrey

Bulmer, Esmond

Hordern, Peter

Pawsey, James

Burden, F. A.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Percival, Sir Ian

Butcher, John

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Butler, Hon Adam

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pink, R. Bonner

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pollock, Alexander

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, George

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Jenkln, Rt Hon Patrick

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Channon, Paul

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Prior, Rt Hon James

Chapman, Sydney

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Proctor, K. Harvey

Churchill, W. S.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Raison, Timothy

Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rathbone, Tim

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kilfedder, James A.

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Clegg, Walter

Kimball, Marcus

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cockeram, Eric

King, Rt Hon Tom

Renton, Tim

Colvin, Michael

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rhodes James, Robert

Cope, John

Knox, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Corrie, John

Lamont, Norman

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

Lang, Ian

Ridsdale, Julian

Cranborne, Viscount

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Critchley, Julian

Latham, Michael

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Crouch, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dover, Denshore

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Ross, Win. (Londonderry)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossi, Hugh

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rost, Peter

Durant, Tony

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Royle, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Loveridge, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Luce, Richard

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Lyell, Nicholas

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Eggar, Timothy

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Elliott, Sir William

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Emery, Peter

Macfarlane, Neil

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Eyre, Reginald

MacGregor, John

Shersby, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Silvester, Fred

Fairgrieve, Russell

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Sims, Roger

Faith, Mrs Sheila

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Speed, Keith

Farr, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Speller, Tony

Fell, Anthony

Madel, David

Spence, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Major, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Marlow, Tony

Sproat, Iain

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Mather, Carol

Stanley, John

Forman, Nigel

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Steen, Anthony

Stevens, Martin

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mawby, Ray

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Fox, Marcus

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fry, Peter

Mayhew, Patrick

Tapsell, Peter

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Mellor, David

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tebbit, Norman

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Goodhart, Philip

Miscampbell, Norman

Thompson, Donald

Goodhew, Victor

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thorne, Neil (IIford South)

Gorst, John

Moate, Roger

Thornton, Malcolm

Gow, Ian

Molyneux, James

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Monro, Hector

Trippier, David

Gray, Hamish

Montgomery, Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Greenway, Harry

Moore, John

Van Straubenzee, W. R.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Morgan, Geraint

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Viggers, Peter

Grist, Ian

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Waddington, David

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Wakeham, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mudd, David

Waldegrave, Hon William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

Murphy, Christopher

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

376

377

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Wheeler, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Walker-Smith. Rt Hon Sir Derek

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wall, Patrick

Whitney, Raymond

Walters, Dennis

Wickenden, Keith

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ward, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Wolfson, Mark

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put: —
The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 252.

Division No. 118]

AYES

[10.16 pm

Adley, Robert

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Knox, David

Alexander, Richard

Eggar, Timothy

Lamont, Norman

Alison, Michael

Elliott, Sir William

Lang, Ian

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Emery, Peter

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ancram, Michael

Eyre, Reginald

Latham, Michael

Arnold, Tom

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lawrence, Ivan

Aspinwall, Jack

Fairgrieve, Russell

Lawson, Nigel

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)

Farr, John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fell, Anthony

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Loveridge, John

Bell, Ronald

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Luce, Richard

Bendall, Vivian

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Lyell, Nicholas

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Forman, Nigel

McCrindle, Robert

Best, Keith

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Macfarlane, Neil

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fox, Marcus

MacGregor, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Blackburn, John

Fry, Peter

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Blaker, Peter

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Body, Richard

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Madel, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Major, John

Bowden, Andrew

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marland, Paul

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Goodhart, Philip

Marlow, Tony

Bradford, Rev. R.

Goodhew, Victor

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gorst, John

Mather, Carol

Bright, Graham

Gow, Ian

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Brinton, Tim

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mawby, Ray

Brittan Leon

Gray, Hamish

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Brooke, Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Brotherton, Michael

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

Mayhew, Patrick

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mellor, David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Grist, Ian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Grylls, Michael

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Buck, Antony

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miscampbell, Norman

Budgen, Nick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hannam, John

Moate, Roger

Burden, F. A.

Haselhurst, Alan

Molyneux, James

Butcher, John

Hastings, Stephen

Monro, Hector

Butler, Hon Adam

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Hawksley, Warren

Moore, John

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hayhoe, Barney

Morgan, Geraint

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Heddle, John

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Henderson, Barry

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Channon, Paul

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mudd, David

Chapman, Sydney

Hicks, Robert

Murphy, Christopher

Churchill, W. S.

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Myles, David

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hooson, Tom.

Neale, Gerrard

Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

Hordern, Peter

Needham, Richard

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Nelson, Anthony

Clegg, Walter

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Neubert, Michael

Cockeram, Eric

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Newton, Tony

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Normanton, Tom

Cope, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Corrie, John

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Costain, A. P.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Osborn, John

Cranborne, Viscount

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Critchley, Julian

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Parkinson, Cecil

Crouch, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Parris, Matthew

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Dover, Denshore

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Patten, John (Oxford)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pattie, Geoffrey

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Kilfedder, James A.

Pawsey, James

Durant, Tony

Kimball, Marcus

Percival, Sir Ian

Dykes, Hugh

King, Rt Hon Tom

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Pink, R. Bonner

Pollock, Alexander

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trippler, David

Porter, George

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Trotter, Neville

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Shersby, Michael

Van Straubenzee, W. R.

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Silvester, Fred

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Sims, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Prior, Rt Hon James

Speed, Keith

Waddington, David

Proctor, K. Harvey

Speller, Tony

Wakeham, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Spence, John

Waldegrave, Hon William

Raison, Timothy

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

Rathbone, Tim

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Sproat, lain

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wall, Patrick

Renton, Tim

Stanley, John

Ward, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Steen, Anthony

Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Stevens, Martin

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Wheeler, John

Ridsdale, Julian

Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Rifkind, Malcolm

Stradling Thomas, J.

Whitney, Raymond

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Tapsell, Peter

Wickenden, Keith

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Wiggin, Jerry

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Tebbit, Norman

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Rossl, Hugh

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rost, Peter

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Royle, Sir Anthony

Thompson, Donald

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

FELLERS FOR THE AYES:

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mr. Anthony Berry

Shelton, William (Streatham)

NOES

Adams, Allen

Dormant), Jack

Horam, John

Allaun, Frank

Douglas, Dick

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

Alton, David

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Howells, Geraint

Anderson, Donald

Dubs, Alfred

Huckfield, Les

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Dunnett, Jack

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Ashton, Joe

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Eadie, Alex

Janner, Hon Greville

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Eastham, Ken

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

John, Brynmor

Beith, A. J.

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

English, Michael

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Bidwell, Sydney

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Ewing, Harry

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Field, Frank

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fitch, Alan

Kerr, Russell

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Flannery, Martin

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Kinnock, Neil

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lamble, David

Buchan, Norman

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lamborn, Harry

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Ford, Ben

Lamond, James

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Forrester, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Campbell, Ian

Foulkes, George

Leighton, Ronald

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Canavan, Dennis

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Cant, R. B.

Freud, Clement

Litherland, Robert

Carmichael, Neil

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Garrett, W. E (Wallsend)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Cartwright, John

George, Bruce

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McCartney, Hugh

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Ginsburg, David

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cohen, Stanley

Golding, John

McElhone, Frank

Coleman, Donald

Gourlay, Harry

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Graham, Ted

McKelvey, William

Cowans, Harry

Grant, George (Morpeth)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Crowther, J. S.

Grant, John (Islington C)

Maclennan, Robert

Cryer, Bob

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

McNally, Thomas

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

McWilliam, John

Dalyell, Tam

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Magee, Bryan

Davidson, Arthur

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Marks, Kenneth

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Haynes, Frank

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Deakins, Eric

Heffer, Eric S.

Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds Wed)

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Dempsey, James

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Maxton, John

Dewar, Donald

Home Robertson, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dlxon, Donald

Homewood, William

Meacher, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Hooley, Frank

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

380

381

Mikardo, Ian

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Rooker, J. W.

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Tilley, John

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Torney, Tom

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Rowlands, Ted

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Ryman, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Morton, George

Sandelson, Neville

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Sever, John

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

Newens, Stanley

Sheerman, Barry

Watkins, David

Oakes, Rl Hon Gordon

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Weetch, Ken

Ogden, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Wellbeloved, James

O'Halloran, Michael

Short, Mrs Renée

Welsh, Michael

O'Neill, Martin

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Palmer, Arthur

Silverman, Julius

Whitlock, William

Park, George

Skinner, Dennis

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Parker, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Parry, Robert

Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Pendry, Tom

Snape, Peter

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Penhaligon, David

Soley, Clive

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Spearing, Nigel

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Prescott, John

Stallard, A. W.

Winnick, David

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Woodall, Alec

Race, Reg

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Radice, Giles

Stoddart, David

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Stott, Roger

Wright, Sheila

Richardson, Miss Jo

Strang, Gavin

Young, David (Bolton East)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Straw, Jack

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Mr. John Evans and

Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Mr. Terry Davis

Robertson, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House approves the White Paper on Proposals for Revision of the Immigration Rules (Cmnd. 7750).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the justices of the Peace Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lords James Douglas-Hamilton.]

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr.BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]
The Chairman: I have selected the only amendment tabled, which is to clause 72.
To save the time of the Committee, I will, with its leave, put together the Questions on clauses 1 to 71.
Clauses 1 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  10.30 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 72, page 44, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
  The purpose of the amendment is to leave out a subsection inserted in the Bill in another place in order to avoid infringement of the privilege of the House of Commons. The Bill, as appears from its long title, is a consolidation Bill, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. As I informed the House during the discussion of the money resolution last week, two of the recommendations made by the Law Commission propose changes in the existing law which, although unlikely to have any such effect in practice, could, in theory, increase a charge on the revenue. The House will recall that I identified those recommendations as those made in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the appendix to the report of the Law Commission, Cmnd. 7583. I offer to enlarge upon those recommendations if the House so wishes, but I assume that those who are interested will have read them in the interval. I shall not take
  384
  the time of the House on the matter, unless requested.
  The recommendations were approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and they are embodied in the Bill. Accordingly, in passing the Bill, the other place made a privilege amendment in the usual form. A money resolution authorising any increase in expenditure attributable to those recommendations has been passed. The time has now come to remove that subsection which was inserted only for the purposes that I have identified.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for coming here to explain the position. The effect of the removal of the clause seems to be purely a matter of privilege, and some of the changes that the recommendations of the Law Commission might impose as a result of absorption into the consolidation measure will not be affected
  On Second Reading I made the point that the amount of money payable to magistrates in the form of national insurance or social security charges should not be affected. The Solicitor-General will be interested to know that since I made my remarks I have received several letters from magistrates who claim that they are concerned at the sacrifices that ordinary working people have to make when appearing on the bench. I do not wish to stray too far down that path as I may be called out of order.
  However, I emphasise that it is important for the Solicitor-General to come to the House to make clear the position on such legislation. It might be considered relatively unimportant and it is being dealt with late at night, but it covers a wide range of important judicial activity. If the Solicitor-General wishes to enlarge on his explanation, he will have a ready and eager reception.
  The Solicitor-General: I make only this comment. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) used the phrase "relatively unimportant", and I suppose that in relation to some other measures this is relatively unimportant. However, that is not to say that it is not of considerable importance in itself, and I hope that I stressed that fact on Second Reading.

  385
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that those who have written to him have nothing to fear.
  Mr. John Morris: The House is grateful for the Solicitor-General's explanation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The Chairman: With permission, I will put the Question on the three schedules together.
  Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now 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, with an amendment.

  SWEDEN (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I welcome the opportunity to raise the question of the commercial representation of the United Kingdom in Sweden and in particular in Gothenburg. The subject arouses wide interest outside if not inside the House.
  When one thinks of Sweden, one immediately thinks of Stockholm, but from the the point of view of imports from Britain the port of Gothenburg is considerably more significant. Last year it had a total cargo turnover of 20 million tons while Stockholm had only 4 million tons. Of that 20 million tons, 1 million tons came in from, or went to, British ports. About 54 per cent. of goods entering Sweden enter through Gothenburg.
  Sweden is the third largest export market—after Switzerland and the United States—of the United Kingdom, excluding the EEC. With its population of 8 million, Sweden purchased £1,170 million worth of British goods last year.
  386
  The staff in our consulate-general in Gothenburg has for more than 200 years provided a significant service in achieving those figures. It numbers 16 and last weekend all were given notice of dismissal. All that will remain will be two freshly employed secretaries, supervised from Stockholm, and a diplomatic career officer without significant commercial experience in Sweden who is being posted from America.
  The staff are all bilingual. They know the agents and distributors and have contacts with the retailers and wholesalers over an ever-increasing area. Their total cost to this country is £150,000. To cut down on that expenditure, which helps to earn this country £1,170 million from exports, we are leaving Gothenburg with a staff of two, a non-Swedish diplomat and overall supervision from Stockholm, from where someone will travel from time to time. All files will be transferred to Stockholm and the remaining back-up in Stockholm will be diplomatic and not primarily commercial.
  I accept that the Civil Service must bear its due share of Government economies, but I argue that if the Government had been in possession of all the facts that I have enunciated the cuts in our representation would not have been made in Gothenburg. Ignoring the cavalier way in which the loyal staff have all been dismissed—and they have given us many years of service—it must be conceded that a cost of £150,000 is a mere drop in the ocean compared with what is earned for this country in terms of trade.
  It is not realistic to argue that one Diplomatic Service officer can maintain and build up the contacts that a bilingual staff of 16 have done up to now. Over the past 15 years, the Plowden committee, the Duncan Commission and the Berrill report have all made abundantly clear that the priority for British representation abroad is to maintain a commercial presence. In friendly countries, the diplomatic niceties are not as vital as the maintenance of our trade links.
  Gothenburg may be Sweden's second city, but in Europe as a whole, and in Scandinavia in particular, it enjoys equal status with the capital. Decentralisation has been a feature of Sweden for many years and the distance between Gothenburg and Stockholm is something like the distance between Edinburgh and London.

  387
  Could we imagine someone in London travelling from time to time to Edinburgh with any pretence of knowledge of the distributors, wholesalers and others involved in Edinburgh's commercial life? What nonsense it would be if we tried to run Edinburgh's commercial life from London. When talking about costs, we must add the cost of servicing if someone will have to travel from Stockholm to Gothenburg.
  For only a small saving we are putting at risk the field work built up over many years by bilingual commercial officers who know the agents, distributors, wholesalers and importers—those who buy from Britain. I ask my hon. Friend whether a diplomatic officer who does not speak the language can by travelling the country as usefully search out the business community firms interested in obtaining their supplies from Britain. Can he, with the same intimate knowledge, report on trade news and general market intelligence to our exporters here?
  The cost of maintaining locally engaged commercial officers is approximately 40 per cent. of the cost of a third secretary diplomat. Therefore, before this decision is implemented, I ask my hon. Friend at the very least to keep two of the local commercial officers instead of importing the Diplomatic Service officer.
  Only 18 months ago, we had more than 100 staff in the British Embassy in Tehran. We must have hundreds in Paris, NATO, Belgium and in the EEC. Could we not, in common sense, and with British interests firmly in mind, make the 16 savings from one of those five embassies and leave Gothenburg as it is, or at least leave it not so significantly reduced? Even Stockholm itself, bearing in mind that Gothenburg takes 54 per cent. of Sweden's imports, has suffered no cuts at all, although the press attaché has volutarily decided to take early retirement. That cannot be fair. Even if cutting out representation in Sweden was the last throe of a dying economic policy, for the survival of Britain it cannot be right that on the figures that I have given Stockholm loses a press attaché and Gothenburg loses 16 personnel to be replaced by two secretaries, Gothenburg being the area within which 65 per cent. of Sweden's population lives.
  388
  If Britain leaves the scene in this way, others will be only too ready to fill the vaccum. The German Democratic Republic already has a trade centre in Gothenburg, and, while the United States closed down its consulate during the Nixon era because of the disagreement over the handling of the Vietnam war, it soon found that it had to reopen it because of the adverse effect on its trade. Sweden is politically neutral, but Russia knows its value. Its consul-general's office had been described to me as rather like a department store.
  To have a second secretary who divides his time between fleet visits and other ceremonial functions trying to take over from 16 highly trained local bilinguists who have built up a multi-million pound trading connection with this country does not make sense. Ignoring the lack of consultation with the staff, and the ill-feeling that that has generated, this has been a short-sighted decision, contrary to the interests of both Britain and Sweden. The only beneficiaries will, I believe, be the Eastern bloc. There is no justification in logic, humanity or in commercial realism why our presence in Gothenburg has been virtually destroyed in the way that I have described. I urge my hon. Friend to take a fresh look to see whether he can do something before irreparable harm is done to our trading interests with Sweden.
  10.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am glad that we are having this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on his choice of subject and on the way in which he has deployed his case. I agree entirely with many of the points that he raised, particularly with what he said about the priority which commercial work should have in the Diplomatic Service at the present time.
  This debate gives me a welcome opportunity to state in context the economies which we have had to make in the Foreign Service. It is common ground that public spending in this country must be reined back. It is so much easier—and I do not say this as a reproach—to commend economies in general, and condemn economies in particular. It is the little drops in the ocean which, taken

  389
  together, amount to the necessary economies. Without a whole series of relatively small decisions by every Government Department, it would not be possible to achieve the economic objectives of the Government.
  We all know that economies bear hard on the people and services of this country. It is not possible to expect that the home services that our constituents enjoy should be cut back and that no contribution to the process should be made by the services for which the Foreign Office is responsible.
  We have had a lot of coming and going about the BBC External Services, and the impression has been created that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is cutting the services on its Vote, such as the BBC, but at the same time is living off the fat of the land, protecting itself and not making any economies in its establishment. My hon. Friend's case shows that that is not so.
  We have had to announce the closure of 15 consulates-general, and consulates. That is a painful business. There is an impression in some places that there are all kinds of spivs and parasites in Whitehall who do nothing, and it is only a matter of sacking them to realise our objectives. That is not so. The objectives of our economies can be achieved only by a whole series of painful measures—cutting services of undoubted use, which are rather nice, but which are not necessary.
  We have had to close our consulates-general in Rotterdam, Strasbourg, Winnipeg, Adelaide and other cities. These are cities with which Britain has had a close financial, trading and social relationship over many years. But these consulates have actually had to close.
  In a few days' time my hon. Friend will read the announcement by the Lord President of further economies in the manpower of the Civil Service, and then he will understand that we are undertaking to reduce staffs in some of the major embassies that he mentioned and in the Foreign Office at home. In this context of actually having to close a substantial number of consulates-general and consulates in major cities across the world, we had to look closely at the arrangements in Sweden.
  390
  The facts are as my hon. Friend described them. I do not quarrel with his statement of the facts. We decided not to close Gothenburg, but to retain it and reduce the numbers in the knowledge that Sweden is a very important market for us. It is our eighth largest market, and we are its best customer. Much of this trade—indeed most of it—is carried on without official services. One cannot measure the success of an export drive or our interest in a city like Gothenburg by the extent of the British official presence.
  The West Germans, who are one of our most effective competitors, maintain an enormously successful export drive without any of the effort financed by the West German taxpayers. They have a different system of export promotion, based on chambers of commerce. Therefore, the interest that we or our exporters take in any country or city cannot necessarily be measured by the amount of services financed by the taxpayer. Nevertheless, we believe that our official services have a part to play, otherwise we would not organise and finance them. We have considered carefully how this can best be done in the knowledge that some economies were required in Sweden.
  Before the reductions we had eight officers in Stockholm and 11 support staff. There were four officers in Gothenburg and four support staff, and one officer in Malmo with two support staff. Under the new arrangements Malmo will be closed and Gothenburg will have one Diplomatic Service officer and two support staff. This will save £30,000 at Malmo and £177,000 at Gothenburg. There will still be a consulate at Gothenburg. This is in contrast with what has happened in the other major cities I have mentioned. The consul will concentrate on commercial work.
  I had the welcome opportunity to go over this ground with the Lord Mayor of Gothenburg who was courteous enough to come to London to discuss the matter with me. I explained these points to him and he put forward, as others have done, the idea that if cuts were necessary they should be differently distributed in the interests of decentralisation. My hon. Friend made the point that Stockholm is not Sweden and that it would be sensible to post people out of the capital rather than concentrate our efforts there.

  391
  We looked at that suggestion carefully before coming to a decision and I have looked at it again in the light of the representations that have been made by several of my hon. Friends and by the Lord Mayor of Gothenburg. Substantial cuts were made in Stockholm last year, under the previous Administration, and we have to take that into account.
  We decided that where resources had to be carefully husbanded it was sensible to have them directed and controlled by the ambassador in Stockholm and to deploy them across the country as needed. They will not always be needed in the same place at the same time. This trend has developed in recent months. Our commercial staff, based on Stockholm, are not geographically specialised and do not think and work on the Stockholm scene only. They are functionally specialised and deal with commercial work right across Sweden.
  An example is the Volvo car and truck division in the Gothenburg area which has been visited nine times in the past two years by embassy commercial staff from Stockholm. That was the most sensible way of organising the visits. The Volvo Flygmotar has been visited by members of the Stockholm military staff three times this year because that was the most effective way of carrying out the visits and keeping close contacts.
  Today—and without any knowledge of the initiative of my hon. Friend in securing this debate—the first secretary in the commercial department from Stockholm was going to Gothenburg to discuss with the port authority the Swedish decision to return to coal as a fuel. That is a matter on which he has been working for a month. It was sensible that the specialist concerned should go to Gothenburg from Stockholm to discuss this particular commercial matter. The secretary is not concentrating on Stockholm but is available, under the direction of the ambassador, to go wherever in Sweden his skills are needed. That concept has grown recently because of our search for economies. The new consul in Gothenburg will be the new point of contact but the ambassador will be able to deploy the resources available to him as the need arises. The need will differ from time to time.
  392
  The reduction will lead to staff being retired. That is sad and I regret it. The staff have served us well and we have expressed thanks for all that they have done. Compensation will be in accord with good Swedish practice. We are working out the details.
  When the Lord Mayor called on me a fortnight ago I discussed these matters with him. Of course, he was not satisfied—nobody in his position would be. I have received many cogent letters expressing the same view as that of my hon. Friend. Of course people regret what is happening and are sceptical. They do not believe that the new arrangements will be as good as the old arrangements. I explained to the Lord Mayor why we could not change our decision. I asked him to give the new arrangements time to run and to let me know how they work out after what seems to him to be a reasonable time. I asked him to tell me how the new flexibility works out.
  I make the same suggestion to my hon. Friend and to those business men who are anxious about our effort in this part of Sweden. We have to make some contribution to the search for economies—although this one could be regarded as a drop in the ocean. I hope that we can set up the new system. We are prepared to examine the new system after it has been in operation for a time to see whether our resources are being deployed in the best way. Given the need for economy, it is sensible to try to base the new system on the principle of flexibility, see how it goes and adjust it if necessary after a reasonable time.
  The decision is sad. Nobody is happy to see the effort of Britain overseas representation diminished. On the whole the services which the Diplomatic Service provides for British exporters and British subjects generally are effective and respected. It is regretted when such links are curtailed. The policy is designed to revive the prosperity of this country. Of course, we all hope that with that revival we shall be able to continue with the full effort overseas which our interests require. I hope that we shall, after a period of curtailment and stability, be able to re-establish our presence in Sweden on the scale to which we are accustomed. However, that depends on the revival of the prosperity of our

  393
  country, which we have not yet achieved. That revival must depend substantially on a thorough search for economies in the public sector.
  I appeal to my hon. Friend to allow the new system in Sweden to run for a little, to keep in touch with it and to let us know after a period, with the benefit of his experience and his contacts, how he thinks that it is working. We shall
  394
  be doing the same through our system of inspectorates and our close contacts with our overseas posts. If there are defects that we can correct within our resources we shall do so. It is not possible to review or revise the decision that has been taken on Gothenburg.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC
  TUC
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
  MERSEYSIDE
  MERSEYSIDE
  BUILDING SOCIETIES ASSOCIATION
  BUILDING SOCIETIES ASSOCIATION
  MINISTERIAL BROADCAST
  MINISTERIAL BROADCAST
  ST. FERGUS (GAS TERMINALS)
  ST. FERGUS (GAS TERMINALS)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (DUBLIN)
  EUROPEAN COUNCIL (DUBLIN)
  EASINGTON
  EASINGTON
  OFFICIAL INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS)
  OFFICIAL INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS)
  HONG KONG
  HONG KONG
  MINISTER OF STATE, TREASURY
  MINISTER OF STATE, TREASURY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  GLENEAGLES AGREEMENT
  GLENEAGLES AGREEMENT
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
    Youth Organisations
    Youth Organisations
    Students
    Students
    Trades Union Congress
    Trades Union Congress
    Teachers in Medicine
    Teachers in Medicine
    University Teachers (Pay)
    University Teachers (Pay)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Borstal
  Borstal
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Rugby Match (Disruption)
  Rugby Match (Disruption)
  Iranian Nationals
  Iranian Nationals
  Vietnamese Boat People
  Vietnamese Boat People
  Prison Department
  Prison Department
  Detention Centres (Inmates)
  Detention Centres (Inmates)
  "Prison Medical Journal"
  "Prison Medical Journal"
  Fire Services (Merseyside)
  Fire Services (Merseyside)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Prisoners (Sedation)
  Prisoners (Sedation)
  Fire Services (Nottinghamshire)
  Fire Services (Nottinghamshire)
  Iran
  Iran
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  EMPLOYMENT
    East Midlands
    East Midlands
    Northern Region
    Northern Region
    Unemployed Persons
    Unemployed Persons
    Departmental Studies
    Departmental Studies
    Baking Industry (Night Work)
    Baking Industry (Night Work)
    Unemployed Adults
    Unemployed Adults
    Careers Service and Jobcentres
    Careers Service and Jobcentres
    Trade Union Legislation
    Trade Union Legislation
    Manpower Services Commission
    Manpower Services Commission
    Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
    Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
    Statistical Services
    Statistical Services
    Employment Protection Act
    Employment Protection Act
    Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
    Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
    Hunterston (Dock Scheme)
    Hunterston (Dock Scheme)
    Engineering Dispute
    Engineering Dispute
    Closed Shop Agreements
    Closed Shop Agreements
    Overtime Working and Night Work
    Overtime Working and Night Work
    Working Week
    Working Week
    Youth Unemployment
    Youth Unemployment
    Greater London Area
    Greater London Area
    Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Facilities)
    Mentally Handicapped Persons (Training Facilities)
    Voluntarily Unemployed Persons
    Voluntarily Unemployed Persons
    Industrial Relations
    Industrial Relations
    Electrical Equipment (Approval Service)
    Electrical Equipment (Approval Service)
    Rural Areas
    Rural Areas
    Trades Union Congress
    Trades Union Congress
    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Youth Opportunities Programme
    Job Release Scheme
    Job Release Scheme
    Standing Commission on Pay Comparability
    Standing Commission on Pay Comparability
    Employee Participation
    Employee Participation
    Secondary Picketing
    Secondary Picketing
    Scotland
    Scotland
    Trade Unions (Political Levy)
    Trade Unions (Political Levy)
    Preston
    Preston
    Technicians and Technical Engineers
    Technicians and Technical Engineers
    Special Temporary Employment Programme
    Special Temporary Employment Programme
    Health and Safety at Work
    Health and Safety at Work
    Disabled Persons
    Disabled Persons
    Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentres
    Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentres
    Training Programmes
    Training Programmes
    "Fit for Work" Campaign
    "Fit for Work" Campaign
    Pay Bargaining
    Pay Bargaining
    Computers and Microelectronics Industries
    Computers and Microelectronics Industries
    School Leavers
    School Leavers
    Health and Safety Executive
    Health and Safety Executive
    Professional and Executive Register
    Professional and Executive Register
    Pneumoconiosis
    Pneumoconiosis
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Kampuchea
  Kampuchea
  Overseas Development Adminstration
  Overseas Development Adminstration
  Southern Tanzania (Roadworks)
  Southern Tanzania (Roadworks)
  Aid Projects (Staffing)
  Aid Projects (Staffing)
DEFENCE
  Nuclear Explosions (USSR)
  Nuclear Explosions (USSR)
ENERGY
  British Gas Corporation
  British Gas Corporation
  Research
  Research
  Research
  Research
  Power Stations (Coal Costs)
  Power Stations (Coal Costs)
  Coal (Imports)
  Coal (Imports)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Pensions
  Members' Pensions
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE
  ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
  ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY
TRANSPORT
  School Transport
  School Transport
  M18 (A15 Ermine Street Link)
  M18 (A15 Ermine Street Link)
  Roads and Transport Budget
  Roads and Transport Budget
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Motoring Information (Broadcasts)
  Motoring Information (Broadcasts)
  Traffic Management (Plastic Cones)
  Traffic Management (Plastic Cones)
  Trunk Road Contracts
  Trunk Road Contracts
  Armitage Inquiry
  Armitage Inquiry
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Fish Stocks
  Fish Stocks
  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  FEOGA
  FEOGA
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
SCOTLAND
  Boatbuilding Firms
  Boatbuilding Firms
  Employment (Oban)
  Employment (Oban)
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Building Industry (Manpower)
  Building Industry (Manpower)
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Unemployment Forecasts
  Unemployment Forecasts
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Knitwear Industry
  Knitwear Industry
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
INDUSTRY
  Carpet Manufacturing Industry
  Carpet Manufacturing Industry
  A310 Airbus
  A310 Airbus
  Clothing (Material Content)
  Clothing (Material Content)
  Research
  Research
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Profitability and Productivity
  Profitability and Productivity
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
ENVIRONMENT
  Almshouses (Tenants' Charter)
  Almshouses (Tenants' Charter)
  Northumberland County Council
  Northumberland County Council
  Mortgage Repayments
  Mortgage Repayments
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Rent and Rate Allowances
  Rent and Rate Allowances
  Greater Manchester
  Greater Manchester
  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports
  Heathrow and Gatwick Airports
  Mortgages and Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mortgages and Housing Revenue Accounts
  Housing Action Areas (Report)
  Housing Action Areas (Report)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Fine Rooms, Somerset House
  Fine Rooms, Somerset House
  Houses, Building Costs (New Towns)
  Houses, Building Costs (New Towns)
  Laxton Village
  Laxton Village
WALES
  Employment Prospects
  Employment Prospects
  Locum Tenens
  Locum Tenens
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Road Traffic (Ruthin)
  Road Traffic (Ruthin)
  National Health Service (Structure)
  National Health Service (Structure)
  Geriatric Care
  Geriatric Care
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Land Bank
  Land Bank
  Housing Cost Limits
  Housing Cost Limits
  Agriculture (Profitability)
  Agriculture (Profitability)
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Housing Association Schemes
  Housing Association Schemes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Detoxification Centres
  Detoxification Centres
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester
  Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester
  Elastic Support Hose
  Elastic Support Hose
  White Hart Training Centre, Harrogate
  White Hart Training Centre, Harrogate
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Medical Practitioners (Emigration)
  Medical Practitioners (Emigration)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Fostering
  Fostering
  Organ Transplants
  Organ Transplants
  Departmental Staff (Powers of Entry)
  Departmental Staff (Powers of Entry)
  Vibration White Finger
  Vibration White Finger
  Welfare Milk and Vitamins
  Welfare Milk and Vitamins
  Benefits (Unemployed Persons)
  Benefits (Unemployed Persons)
TRADE
  Departmental Staffing Levels
  Departmental Staffing Levels
  Multiple Directorships
  Multiple Directorships
  Clothing (Imports)
  Clothing (Imports)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Knitwear
  Knitwear
  Furness Withy (Eurocanadian Holding)
  Furness Withy (Eurocanadian Holding)
  DC10 Aircraft
  DC10 Aircraft
  Air Safety
  Air Safety
  Aircraft (Accidents)
  Aircraft (Accidents)
  Protection of Trading Interests Bill
  Protection of Trading Interests Bill
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Taxation (Married Women)
  Personal Taxation (Married Women)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Tax Refunds
  Tax Refunds
  Adult Tax Allowance
  Adult Tax Allowance
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Diesel Oil
  Diesel Oil
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  European Community (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Research
  Research
  Profit Sharing Schemes
  Profit Sharing Schemes
  Authors (Taxation)
  Authors (Taxation)
  Income Tax Allowances
  Income Tax Allowances
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  The Arts
  The Arts
  Oil Companies (Taxation)
  Oil Companies (Taxation)
  Benefits in Kind (Cars)
  Benefits in Kind (Cars)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Short Brothers Ltd.
  Short Brothers Ltd.
  Twinbrook Estate
  Twinbrook Estate
  De Lorean Motor Cars Limited
  De Lorean Motor Cars Limited
  Government Assets (Sale)
  Government Assets (Sale)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter
The Viscount Hardinge—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord St. John of Bletso—Took the Oath.

HOUSING STANDARDS: INSULATION AND HEATING
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the delay in altering the building regulations for housing to take into account better standards of thermal insulation and control of heating is preventing their adoption in new houses, and that it would be extremely costly to make such improvements at a later date.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is at present considering the need for higher standards of insulation and control of heating for domestic properties.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he say why there has been such delay in this consideration and when his right honourable friend hopes to come to a conclusion? Can he assure us that there will be higher standards of insulation?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I was not aware there had been undue delay. Continual consultations on this matter take place within the Department with many advisory bodies. There are some 300 interested bodies which have to be consulted and which are
568
giving advice all the time. When the need is seen to be there my right honourable friend will make his intentions known.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord says when the need is there. Are the Government not aware that effective insulation is very important for the conservation programme in an energy crisis, on which all our future prosperity depends?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point completely. Perhaps when I used the word "need" it was badly phrased. It is when the need is seen to make it compulsory. Any builder can build to a higher standard at the moment. We do not want compulsorily to put more expense on builders. Sometimes having extra insulation can have other side effects. We just want to be sure that we are not going to order something to be done which could have side effects.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, is not the necessity to consult 300 bodies rather an excess of consultation? When will it end? Are they all contradicting each other?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must not tempt me in this way. They are giving us advice all the time, and my right honourable friend is in receipt of all this advice all the time. We have every intention of trying to conserve every bit of energy we can. But we in this country do not have the same climate as the rest of Europe; we have a much greater humidity problem than any other country in Europe and this makes us slightly exceptional.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, what possible side effects could there be from improving the standards of new construction as opposed to trying to upgrade levels of insulation in existing buildings, where the sort of problems the noble Viscount has mentioned could arise? Is there not something very incongruous about the way we are quite prepared to spend millions of pounds on developing nuclear energy in order to match supply and demand, but are not prepared to spend a tiny fraction of that amount in

569
achieving the same objective and greater comfort to house owners by improving the standards of insulation?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked what the side effects are. These are a very technical matter which I should not like to go into here. We obviously want to conserve energy. Builders and authorities are allowed, and are able, to build to a higher standard than the minimum. What noble Lords are asking for is that the Government should make a compulsory minimum standard without being absolutely convinced that everything involved is totally necessary. Let us be quite honest. Anyone can at this moment build to a higher standard if he wishes to.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say whether my interpretation of what he says is correct: that at the moment there is no immediate intention of doing anything about raising the standards of insulation for new houses? If that is the case, does he realise that a very large number of people—and I think I can say they are represented in this House—think that that is a simply shocking situation?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount has completely misinterpreted what I said. My initial Answer said that my right honourable friend is at present considering the need. Let me remind noble Lords that we have this year, in June, increased the non-domestic building minimum standards. I think it probably quite reasonable to assume that my right honourable friend might come to the same conclusion with regard to domestic dwellings. This is not a promise; it is just a surmise.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, are the Government not aware of the fact that there has been neglect not only of the insulation but of what one might call the standards of construction of buildings, which is just as important? I speak, if I may be allowed to, as one who has been much concerned with the building of a university, and we are always under constant pressure to downgrade the standards of original construction, with the result that the cost of the maintenance of the buildings is very dramatically increased. This is true of insulation, and it is just
570
as true of general standards of construction, which cannot really be separated from it. May I ask whether it is the Government's intention to continue, as a result of the present shortage of cash, to construct buildings which will cost an enormous amount to keep alive, operating and standing up in the future?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, obviously no Government want to see buildings put up that will immediately need a great deal of money spent on them. We want to have good buildings put up, just as the noble Lord's Government did, but obviously we want to do it at reasonable cost and we want the cost-effectiveness of the insulation to be seen to he there.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT FOR BREAD-MAKING
2.44 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the production and use of more homegrown wheat in bread-making in view of the development of United Kingdom cereal growing.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the production of bread-making wheat is encouraged by Community support arrangements which offer a premium to bread-making over feed wheats and by Government contributions to research and advisory services.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In view of the improved and harder type of wheat which can now be grown in this country, could he bring pressure to bear on the millers to import less foreign wheat? As my noble friend knows, we import a great deal of Canadian and American wheat, but could he bring pressure on our millers to use more British wheat for bread-making?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is a fact that the type of bread which we require in this country must have in it a certain proportion of North American hard wheat and therefore inevitably, if we are to continue with the type of bread that we have, that is bound to he included. However, over the years the proportion of home-grown hard wheats that has gone into bread has risen from about 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. of a loaf.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that some of us would be extremely glad if we did not continue to have the type of bread which we customarily have?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, of course, quite capable of choosing what bread she wants to buy.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question arising out of my noble friend's original Question and the noble Earl's first reply. Would it be wrong to assume that, if the Government were to provide the encouragement requested by my noble friend, it would result, with existing installations of machinery, in a larger proportion of bran of a higher quality being available in this country than that which arises from the imported wheat and the existing machinery employed in producing it?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am not certain whether I have correctly understood the drift of my noble friend's question. However, I would go along with him if he were to say that the type of bread which we have in this country requires some very complicated machinery to produce it.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is absolutely essential in the present economic climate that more and more food is grown at home, and that the quality of bread would be improved if British wheat were included? I ask the Government to give every possible attention—whether it is a question of growing in larger quantities or smaller quantities—to the fact that more food should be grown at home, because after all Britain needs the dough!
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that the Government are very concerned to ensure that as much food as possible is grown at home. To emphasise that point, he might like to know that imports of wheat into the United Kingdom have decreased from 3,979,000 tonnes in 1975–76, to 2,621,000 tonnes in 1978–79; and from the EEC the imports during those two dates have decreased from 2,738,000 tonnes to 871,000 tonnes. So, we are not doing so badly.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the varieties of brown bread now available are considerably greater than they were a few years ago?
Earl FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite right in saying that there are more varieties available and that the types of bread available show a greater range than they used to.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if the Government are so keen on growing as much food as possible at home why are they proposing, under the terms of the Local Government Bill, to allow local authorities to hand over allotment land to developers?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I have a fairly wide imagination, but I am bound to say that it is stretched to the limit in trying to see how the noble Lord's question has any relevance to the Question on the Order Paper.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames]: My Lords, I think that it should be agreed by the House that at this time even we cannot live by bread alone!

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY: CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT
2.49 p.m.
Lord GLENARTHUR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further steps they are taking to

573
improve the capability of the Territorial Army.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, the Government have already taken a major step towards improving the capability of the Territorial Army by putting into effect the main recommendations of the Shapland Report. These include the increase in bounties, which we are confident will significantly cut down the losses in trained manpower which the TA has experienced in recent years as well as providing an attractive incentive to potential recruits; and a number of further measures to improve training standards. In addition we have set in hand an examination of all TA equipment scales with a view to establishing the feasibility of making further improvements.
Lord GLENARTHUR: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I should like to press him a little further on the Shapland Report, particularly as regards the recommendation made in that report about improving public relations on behalf of the Territorial Army. Coupled with that, can he say whether the Government support the suggestion that they might encourage their own agencies, the nationalised industries and commerce and industry as a whole, to adopt a positive attitude towards recruitment into the Territorial Army?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is not so much a question of recruitment into the Territorial Army, as one of allowing time for people to take up their training obligations. However, there are some major employers, of whom the Civil Service is one, who give special leave for Territorial Army members, and that is something that we hope will commend itself to more employers. We are looking at what steps we can take to encourage employers to support the Territorial Army in this way, but we agree with the Shapland Report that it would be a mistake to introduce legislation on these lines.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find his reply far from satisfactory? Apart from some increase in the bounty—and that is a mere
574
pittance, and is hardly an encouragement for large numbers to join the Territorial Army—is he aware that it is quite impossible to assess the capability of the Territorial Army which, in view of the international situation, is becoming increasingly urgent every day? At present the numbers do not exceed 60,000, which is a mere bagatelle compared to our population and the number of young men and adults available.
Is the noble Lord also aware that we are far from satisfied about the lack of most modern equipment being made available to those who serve in the Territorial Army? Will the Government regard this matter as one of extreme urgency and realise that many of us, who, despite opposition, for many years have been advocating an increase in the Territorial Forces, believe that the time has come to provide something as an alternative, especially in view of the fact that there is conscription in every other European country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, although naturally I am sorry that he does not find my first Answer satisfactory. We have had a comparatively short time in which to do anything about what we have found, but we have acknowledged that there are some shortcomings in the Territorial Army equipment. Last June in this House I announced that we had begun to make enhancements in weapons at a cost of £1·5 million. We have set in hand a review of all Territorial Army equipment to see in what way it might be most cost-effectively enhanced.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as an honouary colonel in the Territorial Army unit, I should like to ask whether the noble Lord is aware that over two years ago some units were promised modern wireless sets? The present Government have now been in office for over six months and these shortcomings have still not been remedied. That is one example, but I can give the Minister many others.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the simplest answer that I can give the noble Lord is that wireless equipment is one of the areas

575
where we recognise that there are shortcomings.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, with regard to the original Question, is my noble friend satisfied that sufficient fuel is available to ensure that Territorial Army premises are reasonably heated during the winter months?—because in the coldest periods last year that certainly was not the case, greatly to the detriment of the training of the Territorial Army.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion; I was not aware of that fact. If he has a case about which he would care to let me know, I shall be glad to look into it. I suspect that it is more a question of money than of oil, but I should like to learn.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the fundamental question relating to the Territorial Army concerns its purpose? Earlier he said that his Government had been in office for only six months. The Conservative Government were in office from 1951 to 1964 and from 1970 to 1974, and during neither of those periods did they give the slightest indication of what they wanted to do. Do they want to use the Territorial Army as a source of re-enforcement to the Regular Army, or is it to be preserved in its entirety and used as Territorial Army units? Until they make up their mind about that, they will go on wasting time and money and they will also destroy the patriotism of those young men who give up their time for this purpose.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is being unduly gloomy. I suggest that he will have an opportunity to address this question in the debate that my noble friend has tabled for next week. We see two roles for the Territorial Army. One is home defence and the other is in support of our forces overseas.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how far below establishment is the present strength of the Territorial Army? I do not think it is many thousand. Secondly, is it
576
possible for the Territorial Army to be trained in some of the very modern, scientific weapons which are now available?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the second half of the noble Lord's question is rather easier to answer than the first. I do not think that information on his first question is in my brief and I shall have to write to him on the question of numbers. On training, we are satisfied that it is possible, and we are addressing ourselves to the problem of training the Territorial Army in the use of the equivalent weapons which are issued to the Regular Army. That is the basic policy. It is sometimes suggested that the Territorial Army should use inferior weapons, on a sort of second-class basis. That is not currently the policy which the Ministry of Defence would wish to pursue.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I personally do not find Government policy guilty or unsatisfactory? I put this simple question to him. Will the Government consider organising a campaign throughout the country in order to encourage existing members of the Territorial Army and to increase the forces in that capability?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I cannot imagine a better protagonist than the noble Lord to do exactly what he is suggesting, and I think it is an excellent idea.

TAX EVASION
2.57 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to deal with tax evasion and tax avoidance.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, these matters are under constant review.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that very informative reply, may I ask whether he

577
agrees that it would not be surprising for me to express disappointment at it?—particularly in view of the general concern among the great mass of tax payers at what they regard as an unfair and incorrect procedure at present. Has he any comments to make upon the statement attributed to the head of the Inland Revenue Department, that there is tax evasion on some £9 billion of income—7 per cent. of the gross domestic product—and that the tax revenue loss totals some £2 billion?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should be disappointed to hear that matters are under constant review. I should have thought that he would have been disappointed had he been told that the matter was not under constant review. With regard to the figures he quoted, they have been widely quoted without the qualifications which were given at the time they were quoted to the Estimates Committee. In commenting on certain estimates that had been made by other people, Sir William Pile said:
" The conclusion that my colleagues and I came to was that at that level it sounded a hit implausible, but that we thought it was not so implausible at 7½ per cent. of the gross domestic product ".
The words he used were:
" it was not so implausible ".
Of course, one of the problems with tax evasion is that it is necessarily carried out secretly or at best clandestinely. Consequently, it is impossible to produce any reliable estimate of the extent of tax evasion.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, would the Minister give an indication, and let us into the secret, of what this constant review has brought forth?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, may I give the noble and learned Lord some information of what the constant efforts have brought forth. Evasion is essentially a question of enforcement by the revenue boards. In the last three years, the total charge raised as a result of detected evasion by the Inland Revenue was as follows: in the year to the 31st October 1976 it was £22 million; in the year to 31st October 1977 it was £37 million; in
578
the year to 31st October 1978 the figure was £47 million. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord would join me in congratulating the Board of Inland Revenue and their staff on their successful efforts in dealing with tax evasion.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the House is indeed grateful to the noble Lord. Might it not have been more courteous if he had given us those figures at the beginning?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the answer very simply is that I was not asked for them. Incidentally, the figures are published. May I refer the noble Baroness to the 121st Report. Perhaps I ought to qualify that and say that the figures for the first two years I quoted are published in the 121st Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which is available in the Printed Paper Office. In order to give the latest figure to your Lordships, I had the figure for the year to 31st October 1978 brought out in order to bring the picture up to date.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, has my noble friend observed that in his Question the noble Lord opposite has bracketed tax evasion with tax avoidance? Will my noble friend make it clear that there is a great distinction between the one, which is unlawful, and the other which the courts have constantly ruled is wholly lawful? If my noble friend, prompted by the noble Lord opposite, is looking for examples of tax evasion, will he look at some of the practices of the printing unions in Fleet Street?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, there is indeed a clear distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance; a distinction which is well understood by most people. My reply dealt with both of them when I said that these matters were under constant review. The supplementary questions, of course, related to tax evasion, which is why I confined my reply to those matters.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how much revenue is overpaid and not refunded to taxpayers?
Lord COCKFIELD: That, my Lords, is a totally different matter. Overpayments do not normally arise as a result either of tax evasion or of tax avoidance.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance is very well known. Can it be described as this: the one is cleverer than the other?
Lord COCK FIELD: No, my Lords. The one is outside the law; the other is inside the law.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept my assurance that I understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance? Would he not agree that they are both immoral, and both disliked by the average taxpayer?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, when one comes to debate morality one is in a very difficult field indeed. One of the great problems with tax avoidance is that there is no unanimity of opinion as to what constitutes tax avoidance. If I may remind the noble Lord, there has been legislation against the Deed of Covenant in 1936, 1947 and 1964. Nevertheless, the Deed of Covenant is the main instrument used for charities in raising their funds.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, would the Government ask the chairman of the board designate, Sir Lawrence Airey, that one of his prime tasks in the forthcoming months and years should be to reduce the widespread tax avoidance that we all know exists? Further, would the noble Lord agree that, if there is to be an enthusiastic campaign against tax avoidance, or indeed evasion, the Revenue needs more staff and not fewer staff, as the Government seem to be thinking in relation to Whitehall cuts?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, tax avoidance is a matter for legislation. If the noble Lord was referring to tax evasion, the importance of dealing with tax evasion is well known to the chairman and the members of both Revenue boards.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would it not make it much easier to stop
580
tax evasion if income tax starting points were raised very substantially? Then the temptation to evade tax does not exist, because no tax is evaded. This would, therefore, not only cut down Revenue staff but avoid bringing large numbers of people into the criminal net.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the heavier the burden of taxation the greater is the temptation both to evade and to avoid the burden. I think, however, that it would be too optimistic to think that reductions in taxation would totally solve this problem, which has been with us for a very long time indeed.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House as to whether the views of the Board of Inland Revenue were sought prior to the Government's total abolition of exchange control? If their advice was sought, what was the advice? If their advice was not sought, why not?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, it is not customary for Ministers to answer questions of that nature. The effect of the abolition of exchange control on avoidance and evasion was considered by Ministers before they took the decisions which they did. The abolition of exchange control was essential from the point of view of the economic health of this country.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, concerning tax evasion, could the noble Lord tell us how much public money is recovered per member of staff engaged on this work, and how that compares with the amount of public money recovered by each member of staff engaged on work against social security abuses?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I doubt whether it is possible to provide figures of that kind. I shall certainly have a look at the matter to see whether figures can be obtained. Of course, a great deal of the work on tax evasion is part and parcel of the daily work of the staff of both Revenue departments, and it is very difficult to separate out one part of their work from another.
Lord LEONARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly be prepared to take some advice on the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance by going to the right reverend Prelates on this matter?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I think, with respect to the noble Lord, that I fully understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, would not the Government simplify their problems enormously if the legislation in the Finance Act were not so extraordinarily obscure? At the moment, the two most rapidly growing industries in the country seem to be the increase in accountants, who try to discover possibly how to evade or avoid the tax which is imposed by equally clever accountants trying, by more and more sophisticated techniques, to complicate the whole problem. It seems to me that this is a battle in which no one gains, and some of the ablest men in the country devote their time to it. Some of the results have been quite extraordinary. Perhaps 1 can illustrate very quickly.
Several noble Lords: No! Speech!
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, has the noble Lord heard of a case in which the House of Lords sat in its judicial capacity for four or five days debating the meaning of three words in the Act?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I think that that was more in the form of a statement than a question, and I have the feeling that the House would rather like to get on to the Shipbuilding Bill.

SHIPBUILDING BILL
3.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This very short Bill, one of the shortest on record, covers two important shipbuilding items. It provides for an increase in British Shipbuilders' statutory borrowing powers, and it widens the scope of the home credit scheme to include con-
582
versions of ships and mobile offshore platforms by United Kingdom owners in United Kingdom yards. Neither provision adds to the aid for the industry announced by the Government on 23rd July and the policy in relation to shipbuilding and British Shipbuilders remains as outlined at that time, and it is to provide a clear and fair framework for British Shipbuilders to perform a very difficult task in difficult conditions and gradually to move to return that industry to profitability.
This is, as I said, a small Bill, but it is useful none the less and I will go through the details and explain what part the provisions play in the Government's plans to help British Shipbuilders. With certain exceptions specified by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Act, the borrowing limit covers the amount which the corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries may borrow and any public dividend capital that may be voted to it. When British Shipbuilders became a fully fledged corporation in July 1977 its borrowing limit was set at £200 million with provision for the Secretary of State to increase it by order to £300 million. An order to this effect was made in July this year. Even then, it was already evident from British Shipbuilders' financial position that the £300 million limit would need to be increased again within a matter of months, and this is still so. Hence the first clause of the Bill. The proposal is to increase the limit to £500 million with powers for it to be raised by an affirmative order in the other place up to a maximum of £600 million. In present circumstances no one can be sure how long the new limits will suffice, but we may certainly hope they will last longer than those they replace.
British Shipbuilders was set up during a recession in the shipping market of unprecedented severity which has resulted in severe losses for British Shipbuilders. Shipbuilding industries all over the world have also made large losses. This year's cash limit of £250 million and loss limits of £100 million, after crediting Intervention Fund assistance, reflects the severity of the industry's difficulties and illustrates the need for the contraction plans of the corporation. Next year we expect improved results; we have set a loss limit of £90 million before crediting intervention fund assistance. It may be helpful if I were to refer back to the

583
figure I gave, that this year our loss limit has been £100 million after crediting intervention fund. The amount credited up to October was £35 million, so it is clear that the loss this year on a comparable basis to the £90 million I have just quoted for next year's plan will be in excess of £135 million. That represents a sizeable reduction on the rate of loss and the external financing limit has been set at £120 million.
These figures show that both the Government and British Shipbuilders are determined to reduce the corporation's losses and put it on the road towards viability. We have stated our policy of making public money available over the next two years while it adjusts its capacity and improves productivity. Raising the present borrowing limit as proposed in the Bill will allow the Government to finance British Shipbuilders in accordance with the policy which we announced on 23rd July. I repeat that it does not add any further assistance to that already outlined in that policy.
The second clause is intended to improve British yards' ability to compete with foreign repair yards which already enjoy similar credit facilities. The home credit scheme established by Section 10 of the Industry Act 1972 enables the Secretary of State to guarantee loans raised to finance the construction or completion of ships and mobile offshore installations in the United Kingdom for United Kingdom owners. It does not however at present cover finance for the conversion or alteration of ships or mobile installations by United Kingdom owners. The present proposal will fill that gap.
The guarantees will be limited to the finance for the work of alteration and will not cover finance for the purchase of the ship or installation to be altered. The minimum size of ship which is laid down in the EEC Fourth Directive will be 5,000 gross registered tonnes, although we shall be able to go down to 1,000 gross registered tonnes to match officially supported credit terms in instances outside the EEC where there is evidence that ships of that size are being supported. To qualify under the scheme, the conversion has to involve radical alteration to the hull, the cargo plan or the propulsion system.
584
Similar eligibility rules will apply to mobile offshore installations.
Guarantees will normally be up to 80 per cent. of the contract value over a period of five years from delivery. The interest rate in the home credit scheme is currently 7½, per cent. Although these are the normal terms, the possibility of extending credit to 8½ years is the maximum allowed under the EEC and OECD agreements and it is not excluded that for very large contracts of special importance we may feel it desirable to go to the limit. The conversions involved—for example, enlarging and re-engining ships to achieve improved fuel economy—can afford worthwhile opportunities not only for ship repairers but also for shipbuilders, engine builders and other related industries.
The House will recall that when we took office we found that the intervention fund had been allowed to lapse—it had lapsed in March of this year—and that British Shipbuilders had only qualified approval for their corporate plan, and that was over three months after sending it in. The previous Administration recognised that contraction was inevitable, but they could only bring themselves to consider these matters on a step-by-step basis. Our measures have given the corporation a framework of support and a basis for planning over two years.
Since then we have successfully negotiated the proposed new intervention fund of £120 million, which we announced in July, and this is now available to subsidise orders within limitsagreed with our partners in the EEC. We have also agreed wider limits on credit with our partners in OECD, and we have pursued the possibility of a worthwhile Community scrap-andbuild scheme. It has been disappointing to my right hounorable friend that the Council of Ministers were unable to reach a decision on this at their recent meeting, though I understand that further consideration is to be given to the proposals. For their part British Shipbuilders reached agreement at Blackpool with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on their strategy to reduce the industry to a little over 400,000 tons of capacity a year. We all recognise—and we congratulate the parties to the agreement—that this was not an easy agreement to reach.

585
There are some signs of a rally in the market now, but they have to be viewed in the context that orders for the industry over the past five years have been below the level required to sustain British Shipbuilders' preferred strategy, including the tonnage that I have just mentioned. In our view therefore British Shipbuilders will still find it difficult to sustain their strategy. Moreover, although prices in some areas have firmed up a little, in general they remain much too low.
British Shipbuilders, with the active co-operation of the unions, are making strenuous efforts to improve productivity. Joint monitoring committees have been set up, self-financing productivity schemes have been devised, and the corporation is running a very active publicity campaign in all its yards. As many noble Lords will know, it is never harder to improve industrial productivity than when orders are scarce and, consequently, when men are apprehensive. Yet nothing is more calculated to undermine future employment in the industry than levels of productivity below those achieved elsewhere.
British Shipbuilders still have a long way to go. They recognise the challenge they face, and will continue to face, from their overseas competitiors—both from the old-established industries and from those growing up in the newly-industrialised countries of Asia and South America. The Government have provided the industry with certainty in the framework of support that they can expect. The help which this Bill makes available is part of that framework.
Before concluding my introduction of the Second Reading of the Bill I think I should mention that up until October the tonnage for which orders have been firmly placed is 280,000, against the annual figure for the preferred plan (which I have spoken of) of a little over 400,000 tons. So the size of the task which is still before British Shipbuilders, despite an improvement in the order position, particularly in October, is clearly very formidable indeed. Nevertheless, on the basis of the points that I have outlined I commend the Bill to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a (Viscount Trenchard.)
3.24 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, it falls to me to thank the noble Viscount for explaining so clearly to us this small, but important, Bill. I think that any one of your Lordships who has been following the fortunes—or perhaps I should say the misfortunes—of our shipping industry through recent years would not be surprised that the Government have had to put some more money into the industry. The noble Viscount made the point that the Bill does not add to the aid offered by the Government. I did not completely follow his point; it does not add to the aid that the Government said they were going to give, but it does in fact add to the aid that would be available without the Bill. It is certainly no surprise that this is necessary, but whether it will be enough to carry through British Shipbuilders for two years remains to be seen. I am no financial expert, and clearly we in your Lordships' House cannot examine that matter in detail without having a great deal more information. I will accept it from the Government that they hope that it will do so, and no doubt they have chosen the figure accordingly.
I should like to touch for a moment on Clause 2. I think that this is a great improvement, and I believe that with the aid of this clause there should be very useful work for the shipyards. Your Lordships may remember that when we discussed pollution a great point was made that this would be a good time, while there is shortage of employment for tankers to go ahead with the modifications to tankers which will eventually be required under international agreements—the segregation of ballast tanks, and so on; and one would hope that there will be orders of that kind coming into the shipyards as a result of this clause enabling them to be supported by the Government.
As the noble Viscount said, this is a very short and concise Bill, but I think it is the normal custom in your Lordships' House to look at matters a little more widely than the wording of a Bill, and I was rather hoping that the noble Viscount would be able to say more about the future and how it appears to the Government. I quite recognise that British Shipbuilders are continuously updating their corporate plan, and there may be no exact moment

587
when the noble Viscount can tell us what it is; but at any rate he has assured us—and I am very glad to know this—that there is a forward plan and that that forward plan is being developed as we go along.
As the noble Viscount reminded us, there is a target at present of a little over 400,000 tons a year production, and the great problem is: how are we to achieve this? In common with all industries, the answer here is that the industry has to produce what the customer wants, at the right price, and in time. In recent years late delivery has certainly been one of the worst failings of our shipbuilding industry, and it must always be remembered that in this industry, as in most industries, time costs money; the longer it takes to build a ship, the heavier the burden of overheads that have to fall on that particular ship. So the management and the unions are faced with a real challenge today, as I think the noble Viscount outlined. It appears to me that one of the advantages of nationalisation should be the ability to compare the best performers in our shipyards with those that are not so good, to learn the lessons from that, and so encourage the adoption of best methods as widely as possible.
There is another advantage arising from nationalisation—for I do not deny that there may be advantages, though I believe that in most cases the disadvantages outweigh them—in that a single ownership with Government backing is better placed than would be a number of independent shipbuilders to negotiate agreements with other countries. I wonder whether the noble Viscount, when he winds up the debate, can tell us how we are getting on either with international agreements on the reduction in shipbuilding capacity, or with the scrap-and-build scheme which has been discussed in the European Economic Community—which, if it came to fruition, and provided the scheme is well devised, would I think undoubtedly help the shipbuilding industry without in fact damaging the shipping industry.
In conclusion, my Lords, perhaps I may turn to the vast human problems to which contraction of the industry inevitably gives rise. I sometimes wonder whether our present arrangements for dealing with the problems of unemployment can cope adequately with a major industry facing massive redundancies located mainly in a
588
few small areas. Rather the same position arises in the case of the steel industry. In fact, we might ask ourselves whether our present arrangements can cope adequately with the problems of unemployment on the scale we see around the country today; but perhaps that is a matter which we should not pursue this afternoon but leave for the debate which is being initiated tomorrow.
In this industry we have fairly substantial redundancy payments, but all that these do is help to bridge a gap; they do not close it. They are temporary palliatives; and the task before the industry—because I think it is a task for the industry rather than for the country—is to redeploy the redundant labour. This, I suggest, should be a major concern of the management and of the unions. It is not good enough for the management to say, "We are paying these men the redundancy payments which have been authorised by Parliament, and they are of no further concern to us". Many of these men have been in the industry for a long time, and I feel that the employer has a responsibility to go beyond that and to try in any way he can to help the redeployment of labour.
I should like to see established in the shipyards special units to give help to those who are made redundant—help as individuals. They should not he treated as a number of people who fall into some machine out of which they may or may not secure what they want, but as individuals with individual problems; and I cannot help feeling that it would be a help to them if those familiar with their own problems were there to advise them. I may very well hear the noble Viscount say, "Who is going to pay for this?". The conception I had in my mind was that these special units should be manned by people in the industry who would otherwise become redundant—people at both management level and at shop floor level, helped, of course, by the trade unions.
My Lords, such an arrangement certainly would not be 100 per cent. effective, but would it not help those who wanted to seek new employment to have their individual problems looked at and discussed by people they know already, people in their own business, rather than for them to have to go merely as numbers into an employment office register? This is not a suggestion that need apply solely

589
to the shipbuilding industry, I suppose; but in the situation in which that industry finds itself today, with the very large redundancies in view, I suggest that something of that kind would be a real contribution towards a solution of the problem.
3.34 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, the Minister of State, for introducing this Bill so clearly. It seems to me to be very urgent. It seems as though it is needed by Christmas, and I hope the House will give it a quick passage. Clause I certainly appears to be needed before Christmas, because British Shipbuilders are likely to exceed the previous limit of £300 million by January. Since the debates on this Bill were held in another place there has been a report in the Press—it appeared at the end of last week—that an estimate had been made of the losses in the current year, and that these were working out at about £4·5 million more than the target loss which had been set by the previous Government. I wonder whether when my noble friend replies he will make any comment on this, and on its effect on the financial part of the Bill, other than that it must make the Bill even more urgent.
I congratulate the Government on obtaining agreement with the EEC on a further intervention fund. I understand that this is to extend for at least two years; and I include in this the separate agreement for Harland and Wolff in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom shipbuilding industry should now have a clearer picture of where it stands for at least two years. It has been pointed out that the percentage of subsidy under the new arrangements will be somewhat less than that which was available under the previous arrangements, but I understand—and perhaps my noble friend will be able to confirm or correct this—that only about one-fifth of the £85 million which we knew was previously available was in fact taken up and spent. My noble friend mentioned the agreement within OECD on credit terms to be guaranteed by the Government. Provided that all the member nations stick to the rules, this is to be welcomed, too, but I would point out that fierce competition in
590
extending credit virtually amounts to the same as increasing subsidy, and as has been proved by experience in the past, this is not to the advantage of this country.
I also welcome the other function of this Bill, in Clause 2. Hitherto, United Kingdom yards have not been able to benefit from the guarantee by the Government, in our case the Export Credit Guarantee Department, with specially favourable terms, for the construction and conversion of vessels where they are owned by United Kingdom owners. The scheme applied to foreign vessels in United Kingdom yards. We were therefore at a disadvantage compared with our EEC competitors. It is right to provide the redress for this in the present Bill, which in my opinion has been overdue. The Bill should therefore provide a breathing space for the British industry, and reduce uncertainty. We are in the middle of a world recession, and there is great over-capacity internationally in this industry. But, as my noble friend mentioned, it is expected that there will be an upturn in about three or four years' time. People are even saying there is a small sign of it now.
My Lords, it has been one of my tasks in recent years to follow the fortunes of the shipbuilding industry. I believe we should remember those long periods when we in this country led the world in shipbuilding. Our industry has set the highest standards, and has enjoyed a very special reputation for skills and workmanship. There was the period when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was on Clydeside, in the years at the beginning of this century—and I am glad that he is to follow me in this debate. We certainly led the world at that time.
I was reminded of this, and of an earlier period, the day before yesterday, because on Sunday I made a visit to Bristol—a city which I know very little and have visited only about three times. I went there to see the progress which has been made on the restoration of the steamship Great Britain ", because I was on the committee which, 127 years after she was built by I. K. Brunel, brought her back from the Falkland islands to the dock in which she was built, where she now lies. I am glad to say that progress is going very well. Let us remember, my Lords, that the "Great Britain" was the largest ship in the world when she was launched in the

591
1840s; she was the first screw-driven ocean-going vessel; she was the first vessel with the principle of bulkheads—and I could go on listing the other things on which she was first. She also survived everything. She would not have survived a scrap-and-build programme, of course, but after about 30 years in passenger service, like the Cunard "Queens" of recent times, she turned to freight and finally she was beached and used as a hulk. She has survived 127 years. She is a monument to invention, vigour and enterprise, and I believe that we need those attributes again today.
Some reduction in our shipbuilding capacity is inevitable; it is necessary. The future success of our shipbuilders will depend on productivity and the ability to deliver on time. It is good news that the restructuring programme has been agreed between British Shipbuilders and the unions. I have not seen details of this; I do not know how much has been published of the actual proposals. It may be that they are still confidential. But perhaps my noble friend can give us more news today. But contraction of the shipbuilding industry is especially difficult to arrange. Closures and redundancies on any large scale cannot take place painlessly. There is so much work in the shipbuilding areas which is connected with the industry, for example, the smaller firms supplying components almost entirely to the shipbuilding industry and the ancillary industries which are based in the same areas. Alternative work for those who have to be laid off is not easy to find in those areas.
In the summer of 1978, we had before your Lordships' House the redundancy payments schemes for British Shipbuilders. We gave attention to those schemes and they passed through this House with our blessing. I ask my noble friend: Is it proposed that the redundancies should be carried out entirely by what is called natural wastage—voluntary retirement and absence of recruitment? Are they to be on that basis, or are there also to be compulsory retirements? We saw what looked to be favourable schemes for sums of money to be given to those who were to retire; but I know that the unions were very keen—understandably, for reasons that I have given—that the redundancies, if possible, should be on a voluntary basis.
592
I hope that your Lordships will recognise that I, myself, am one who understands the acute problems that there must be in shipbuilding areas if the workforce has to be drastically reduced. The main difficulties are with merchant shipbuilding and I presume that one of the matters to which British Shipbuilders have been turning their attention (necessarily with the assistance of the Government) is how much of the workforce can be moved to the naval shipbuilding programme. I have seen reports that some thousands are being so moved. Provided that the prospects for naval orders, both from the United Kingdom and from countries abroad, are good, that seems to be another way in which the reduction of the merchant shipbuilding workforce can be carried out effectively.
I would ask one question, which is a topical one, about what are known as protection vessels. I regard these as including not only the naval fishery protection vessels but the general protection vessels now that the concept of a 200-mile economic zone as well as a 200-mile fishery limit is one that has the acceptance of most of the world. There was a report in the Press yesterday that there is competition between a design called the "Osprey", of which one has been already commissioned and is in use in Denmark, and the British Shipbuilders' larger vessel designed for the same duties. I believe that we will need vessels of this kind. There have been fishery protection vessels besides those belonging to the Navy. A small fleet belonged to the Secretary of State for Scotland for years and carried out certain duties. There will be a need for more such vessels, I believe, because of the very much wider extent of waters which we will have to patrol for various reasons, including our offshore oil installations.
I now come to the scrap-and-build scheme which was referred to briefly. The EEC Commission's proposals were, I understand, considered by the Council of Ministers two weeks ago on 20th November. It appears that nothing was decided and, although what happens in those meetings is confidential, the impression was given that the scheme was too vague and that the Ministers sent it away asking for more specific proposals. I would support a scheme for scrap-andbuild—and I am glad that the Minister

593
of State for Industry in another place made it clear that he supported such a scheme—provided that it is not draconian and that it takes account of the fact that there could be a rather greater upturn in demand for ships in the mid-1980s than that now expected, as the extent of cycles in the past have shown.
I would urge everyone in the shipbuilding industry to espouse productivity. This is exceedingly difficult at a time like the present; but I urge them to shun the temptation to extend time over orders and spread the work, although it is natural to want to do this when there is a world shortage of orders. But it is very shortsighted and will damage the industry in the long run. The United Kingdom shipping industry is one of the largest, although it is getting smaller. Naturally, it has requirements for specialised vessels and it needs to be firm on delivery dates; but I am glad to say that the shipping industry, the ship owners of the United Kingdom, have been ordering a substantial proportion of their requirements from United Kingdom yards. It is in their interests to do so; it is in their interests that there should be a modern, competitive shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom to be able to continue the supply. It is also, I believe, in the interests of everyone in this country.
My Lords, where shipbuilding is concerned, we, as a country, should still be in the forefront in design, invention and, above all, application without delay. So I give this Bill a blessing and hope that it will go through your Lordships' House with no delay.
3.47 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, one would require to be an incurable optimist to believe that this Bill will save the British shipbuilding industry in the next two years, or even for a longer period, from disaster. When he began his speech the Minister informed us that this was a simple Bill. Undoubtedly, it is simple, excessively simple; but the subject is far from simple. It is complicated and replete with potential queries about whether the financial proposals are capable of bolstering up the industry for even a limited period. I do not regard the subject as in any way simple; it is highly complex. Moreover, it is closely associated with our
594
economic situation. Many questions should be asked.
If I am in any way dissatisfied with the Minister's opening speech, it is not because he has not stated the facts contained in the Bill. That did not take much time, in any case. It is because what we should be discussing, debating and investigating, is why the shipbuilding industry of the United Kingdom has declined so rapidly in the last 25 or 30 years. There must be a cause: why do we not discuss it? Are we afraid to discuss it? Will it offend any section of the shipbuilding industry if we venture to ask questions associated with the decline to which I have just referred? So far as I am concerned I have no inhibitions—none whatever—about this or any other matter. If there are problems, let us not run away from them. They are not solved in that way. By no means am I suggesting that problems can be solved by debating them. It depends on attitude. It depends on whether we have the courage to face the facts and whether we refrain from indulging in optimism about what might happen in the future.
I certainly am not very much concerned about the future; I am concerned about the present, and it is to that aspect that I venture to address myself. To begin with, I ask noble Lords to note that we are setting a target of 400,000 tons of British shipbuilding. There is not much difference between the total volume of our shipbuilding set by the target from the kind of tanker the Japanese could produce running to almost 300,000 tons. That is an illustration, a contrast. What are we aiming at? I am far from saying that there is nothing worthwhile in the Bill; Clause 2 is very much worthwhile, except that I am bound to say it is belated. How often under previous Governments has this matter been debated? How often have I personally, when I was chairman of the Labour Party's shipbuilding and shipping committee, raised this issue of why, when we provide credit to foreigners who wish to employ Britishers producing ships for them, we fail to provide British shipowners with similar credits. That has been raised over and over again.
A member of our Front Bench (he is not present and I shall not mention his name) who was responsible during a debate in another place when we were

595
discussing precisely this aspect of the problem refused on behalf of the Government of the day—I am sorry to say it was a Labour Government—to provide British shipbuilders with credits similar to those provided for foreigners. I never could understand the reason why they declined. Moreover, it must be taken into account that, as a matter of principle, there is nothing particularly obscene in a Government providing credits, financial grants or assistance of any kind in order to maintain the existence of an industry.
For many long years foreign countries have subsidised shipbuilding with sums far in excess of anything that we have ever attempted to provide or, it would seem, even thought of providing. All Governments have been to blame. I am bound to say—let the truth be told!—that it was a Conservative Government that provided the largest subsidy ever for a ship built in this country. I remember the late Ernest Marples, as Minister of Transport, who was responsible for shipbuilding, urging the Members of another place to agree to a credit of £3 million in order to build a Cunarder. There was a great deal of opposition; I am not so sure I was not one of those who opposed it at the time. I think it was because I thought that the Cunard Line had sufficient financial resources to undertake the task without Government assistance. That is only one illustration. The Japanese have subsidised their ships; the Germans have subsidised their ships; the Americans have always subsidised their ships—there would be no American shipbuilding without subsidies. They are still doing it.
I note that it has been suggested that the EEC have been giving this matter consideration. A scheme was placed before them which would apparently provide for a kind of consortium which would decide not to build too many ships, whether to rely on the capacity of a particular country, and would consider requirements, and so on. We are going to get very little out of the EEC in this respect. We can set it aside; the scheme put before them is dead; it was dead before it started. They are not going to come to our aid on shipbuilding—apparently, they are not going to come to our aid on other matters, but that is another story. We can come to that on some other occasion.
596
I am conscious as I speak that this is not a subject that requires oratory, imagery, flowery speeches—and certainly not optimism. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. He was inclined to be optimistic. He has been associated with this subject for a long time and I know that his heart is in it. He wants to see the British shipbuilding industry revived; I know that. However, with all the oratory of which he is capable and all the good wishes, it will not succeed.
The other day I happened to read the Daily Telegraph—I am sorry to give them a gratuitous advertisement; they never gave me one. I took note of what was said about British shipbuilding; and surely nobody would refute what the Daily Telegraph says, even if I myself occasionally have some objections. An article was headed: "Jobs warning by British Shipbuilders." The chief executive of the British Shipbuilders had said:
" We must get our costs down and deliver dead on time. No excuses. Guarantees to customers must be kept ".
He said that the alternative could be the loss of practically every job in merchant shipbuilding. He was supported by the managing director of finance, Mr. Hares. The article went on to say, in the context of the financial proposals to which the Minister had referred, that next year the losses must be held to £90 million inclusive of the subsidy fund. That is the target: to hold down the losses. It is not to make gains: gains are not in this matter at all—just losses. Mr. Hares is quoted as saying:
" This will be very difficult to achieve. We are in serious danger of not being able to live within the limits set by Government ".
Obviously there is not enough money. There will be losses and then a further decline. The chief executive went on to say this:
" The Government has given us two years to save this industry. Unless we can demonstrate real progress we will all sink together. My job will go, your job will go ".—
I presume he meant the jobs of the shipyard workers—
" Every merchant ship we build makes a loss. Warships are paid for by the taxpayer ".
He went on to say that an investigation into "fundamental things which damage our efficiency" had been made—I would ask your Lordships to give particular

597
attention to this—and had shown that costs could be cut rapidly. Unions had to help management make working practices more flexible. Absenteeism and poor time-keeping had to be reduced.
I hope to be forgiven for my preface. This is what I wanted to come to. This is fundamental, and I ask the question: why did the Minister not refer to this? Are we afraid to talk about it? Who is responsible? What is responsible for this decline?—a general decline throughout the whole world. There is one example I might touch upon—namely, the practice of British shipowners (and I am not indulging in any criticism but simply stating the facts) when a ship is 14, 15, 16 or 20 years old, of not scrapping a ship. They no longer modernise; it is hardly seaworthy but they sell it to the Greeks, sell it to the foreigners, who then carry on for many long years afterwards in competition with us. That is going on all the time. If we had scrapped many of these ships, instead of selling them to foreigners at low prices so that they could engage in competition with us, perhaps paying wages much lower than we give our people, it might have helped, even if we did not build more ships.
I come to the fundamental point: who is responsible? According to what I have just read, we have absenteeism. Who is responsible? Is it the workers? If they are responsible let us have the truth. Do not let us be afraid of it. I would say that to my old colleagues, some of them connected with the trade union movement: let us not be afraid of it. If the trade unions are responsible let us state the facts; let us investigate. If the workers are responsible for absenteeism, let us know all about it. Let us not have mere assertions of this kind, which may be quite justified. Let us have the facts.
Bad timekeeping is also mentioned. Who is responsible for that? Nothing is said about bad management. I do not say a word because I do not know anything about it, but it is just possible—I will put it no higher than that—that the management is not as efficient as it might be. Let us investigate. That is what we ought to be debating. It is not merely a question of dealing with losses likely to be sustained which will he covered by the
598
Government in due course. What has that got to do with the subject? We must find out what is the cause of the trouble and when we have diagnosed the complaint and have had a thorough investigation then let us try to find a solution either by co-operation or by some other means. Perhaps it may mean more finance, more imposition on the taxpayer or whatever it may he; but let us get the facts right. Let us find out who is to blame.
Who is to blame? The Minister said nothing about that—nothing at all. He never mentioned it, as though it did not matter. But we understand that it matters and in fact even the Telegraph understands that it matters. Those responsible for running and administering the industry believe that it does matter. They themselves do not suggest a remedy but a remedy has to be found, and I venture to say—and, with this I close—that it is no use having debates of this kind, roaming all over the place, unless we get down to the facts which are associated with our problems, and seek to resolve them. That is essential, and I should like to have an answer from the Minister. Is it the intention of the Government to try to inquire and find out the cause or are they so fully informed that no further investigation is necessary? So are we to see the decline go still further?
It is not only a question of jobs: as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly said—and he could easily have emphasised this with justice—it is a matter of prestige. We were a great maritime nation. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to what happened at the beginning of the century. I remember so well at that time that every Clyde shipyard was up the eyes in work and often refused to accept further offers from foreigners. They refused to consider tenders and so on. It was in that area in the North-East: Sunderland, Newcastle-on-Tyne and the Wear and all round there. That has all gone. It is slipping, slipping away from us all the time: no prestige, no jobs, no industry. And all we can provide is an assurance that if there are losses they will be met. "If there are losses! "—we know in our hearts there are going to be losses and that what we are proposing to provide in order to cover the losses is a mere bagatelle and will not solve the problem.
4.7 p.m.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to take part in this Second Reading debate and to thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for the explicit way in which he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill. As he said, it is a very short Bill and has a very limited application, but it is none the less an extremely important Bill as a link and as a rung in the ladder to get our shipbuilding industry back to viability. I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, had to say. In some respects I hope to follow some of his thoughts. Your Lordships will remember that we had a very full debate on shipping in June of this year. We saw the situation of the industry as a dismal and rather aifficult picture, and of course that has its implications on shipbuilding; but I do not think we need to cover much of the ground that came out in the June debate, because that can be read.
There are a few further points to make, and perhaps one or two points from the debate which I should like to re-emphasise, this evening; and I hope not to be very long. At some time world trade will recover, but it seems to me very important to make the point that it would be idle to pretend either that we in the United Kingdom or our fellow shipbuilders in Europe or elsewhere will ever get back to anything like the picture of shipping and shipbuilding that we were accustomed to in the past.
In saying that, I am not being critical of anyone. If I have any reservation about that remark, it would be merely this: that the situation being what it is and having developed as it has—and I want to say a little more about the development of the present situation—I regret that something was not done very much sooner about the way that Europe is now getting down to this difficult problem. I should have thought, with the information which was available a few years ago, that more could have been done to foresee the difficult situation that we have got into now. Be that as it may, we did not foresee it. Therefore steps are actively being taken. We cannot always make the right kind of forecasts, so we have to look at the situation as it is now.
600
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked the very important question: Why have we got into the situation that we are in now? I am going to suggest to your Lordships one or two reasons. They may be self-evident but I think that they need to be repeated if we are to obtain a clear picture of what is behind the Bill. The first and obvious factor which has upset the whole of the shipbuilding world, among other worlds, is the oil and energy situation, with its many facets.
In passing, I want to make this point. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, referred to the figure of 430,000 gross registered tonnes as the aim of British Shipbuilders today. He made the valid point that it is not very far off a single VLCC that Japan, may have been able to build. I would merely mention to your Lordships that it is not very much more than some of the very large VLCCs which we were building when I was chairman of Harland and Wolff. Then we were building 330,000-tonne tankers. I make that point because, owing to the oil situation, it is very unlikely that we shall want anything like so big a fleet. We have North Sea oil, and there are all sorts of other reasons why the need for these very large crude carriers is so much smaller and may or may not ever return.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would give way. Are we not getting a little confused over the tonnages which we are speaking about? These large tankers are 300,000 tonne deadweight carriers. The target of 430,000 is the gross registered tonnage, which would be quite different.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right. There is not all that much difference, but it gives the measure of the problem. So much for oil.
The next point I want to make relates to the development of the very fast oceangoing container ships. One of those ships replaces today seven, eight, nine or even, in some cases, 10 of the traditional cargo liners. Then there is the virtual disappearance of ocean-going passenger ships in favour of aircraft and the changing types and demands for naval vessels to be built in our shipyards.
Then there is a point which your Lord-ships may think is a little far-fetched,

601
although I do not think that it is; namely, the development by the Russians of their very large freight-carrying Trans-Siberian Railway which will do a great deal to obviate the use of ships between, say, this country and Japan—to say nothing of the developing countries and their determination, which one can very well understand, to have their own shipping and often their own shipbuilding yards. So there exist a large number of facts which are nobody's fault, but those facts are there.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked further: Is it the fault of the workers, or is it the fault of management? I would hesitate to answer that question. However, I should like to say that with a declining amount of trade it is very easy to see that morale in the yards is extremely difficult to maintain. This may have an effect. It may affect the enthusiasm either of workers or of management. These are a few considerations which seem to me to answer the question: Why have we reached this stage? I am sure that there are many other reasons which noble Lords can call to mind. However, it leaves us with a picture of considerable over-capacity, a picture which it is difficult to obtain a clear definition of and therefore a picture upon which it is difficult to base any long-term policy for shipbuilding. Having said that, there are certain factors which I regard as definite and to which we can cling.
At some stage there will clearly be a resurgence of world trade. At that stage, and maybe before, the number of laid-up ships—good, modern ships—will be largely absorbed. That will not, of course, help with the building of new ships. The present fleets will in due course call for replacement as they get older and become outdated, though it is important to mention—and I shall refer to this again in another context before I sit down—that the average age of the United Kingdom merchant fleet is only seven to eight years. It is a very modern fleet.
This has certain important repercussions. We in the United Kingdom, I take it for granted, will continue to need a thriving shipbuilding industry, albeit smaller than in the past. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, we are still among the leading shipbuilding nations in
602
Western Europe. We can still build as good ships as anybody else so long as—and I think that this is very important—we do not in all these difficult situations allow our skills to be lost to us and go elsewhere.
It is not merely a question of structural change which has to be considered—streamlining to reduce overheads. Nor is it a question of investment to modernise methods. Both of these are very important, but there are other equally important factors to be considered in relation to what has to be done. For instance, manning levels will have to be gone into very carefully. There will be other factors, too, all directed to greater productivity and lower cost. Obviously this must be a major task, but it is an essential task if we are to continue to exist in the world league as we have done in the past. However, I want to emphasise that it will take time.
When my noble friend introduced the Bill he referred to a step-by-step approach, and I agree entirely with him. It is significant to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, went back into history. Perhaps I may follow him. It is significant to recall that when Sir Reay Geddes and his committee reported on shipbuilding in 1966—that was Command Paper 2937 of 1966—he referred to average United Kingdom output of over 1 million gross tons a year for the five years 1960–65, and in fact for many years somewhere between 1.1 and 1.2 million gross tons a year has been our level of activity in our shipyards. The level of capacity that the United Kingdom industry is aiming at today is somewhere in excess of 500,000. That includes the 430,000 which relates only to British Shipbuilders. We must take that figure and look at it against our existing order book, and we shall find that our existing order book is a very long way away from even that low capacity at which we are aiming.
That raises two points in my mind. The first is that those figures, from 1 million to about half a million and then right away below that in our order books, are some measure of the difficulty experienced by the United Kingdom industry in competing in the world. The second point is a rather different one. I feel that that low figure is one which we should not be pressed by Europe to try to go below.

603
As I have tried to explain, we have already contracted considerably and, after all, if we take Japan, they have increased in the same period by about 35 per cent. There is no doubt in my mind that British shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff and other small private yards, are working hard to improve our competitive ability and I was glad that my noble friend Lord Trenchard was able to give some hope that their efforts to improve productivity are being successful, but it will be a long and continuing struggle. As others have said, there will be some human dislocation, some painful adjustments to be made, and for that reason alone it is essential that we should go on step by step. It is the time factor that makes the provisions of this Bill so important, together with the two year intervention fund arrangements which, as we have heard, were announced early in July.
I mentioned that I imagine, as I think has been said, that the performance in the yards will be very closely watched and monitored. I hope it will continue to show a steadily improving performance. But whether it does or not, or to the extent it does, it will be bound to determine what further measure of support Her Majesty's Government can reasonably then consider. Much will rest in the hands of industry itself, both management and trade unions; but on this, when reading the report of the debate in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill, I was pleased to see that when there was some suggestion that at the end of the two years there will be a deadline the Minister of State was at pains to kill any such idea, and I hope that when my noble friend replies he may be able to endorse that point. The two years does not give a deadline but is merely one step.
On the other hand one must regretfully agree with the Minister of State in the same debate—and I say "regretfully" because I have close and friendly associations with the great shipyard in Belfast, Harland and Wolffe, and one admires so much what all our shipyards are attempting to do. In passing perhaps I may say a rather more pleasant word. Only this morning that yard was able to launch a very important ship for British Rail and I am sure that it gave everyone working in the yard a boost; a ship launch is a great event in a shipyard. But I use the word "regretfully" because I agreed with the
604
Minister of State when he made a general point, and perhaps I may just quote from Hansard of another place. He said:
" We firmly believe that if one industry does not in the long run earn a real return on capital employed, support for it will represent a misallocation of resources at the expense of the rest of the economy and employment in other industries ".
That was a very important point but he went on to say that he was certain that both management and the unions were well aware that the future lay in their hands. I certainly hope, and indeed expect, that the more sinister implications of that statement will, so far as shipbuilding is concerned, never need to come into being.
Mention has been made of the extent to which British shipowners place orders with British shipbuilders. They are sometimes criticised for not giving enough support. My impression, however, is that British shipowners have a sense of loyalty to our own yards. They would like to do what they can, and in some cases it is often to their own practical advantage—ease of supervision during building, for instance —but we must remember that shipowners operate in a world market where competition is intense and they must clearly buy in the most competitive and, perhaps above all, the most reliable market.
In this connection, I have been studying a few rather interesting figures. At the 30th September—just two months ago—the order book for United Kingdom registration of new ships consisted as follows: 650,000 deadweight tonnes, which amounted to 39 ships, were to be built in the United Kingdom; 850,000 deadweight tonnes, that is 38 ships, were to be built abroad. That gives a balance in favour of shipyards overseas, but if we look at what has happened during the last two months we see that some six new ships for United Kingdom registration of 400,000 deadweight tonnes have been attracted to United Kingdom yards with —and this is the important point—the help of the invervention fund. While it is apparently true that during that period no overseas orders have yet come in, it seems to me to be an encouraging straw in the wind and it encourages me to feel strongly that the policy that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing as regards borrowing powers and so on is the right one.
With regard to Clause 2, I agree with other noble Lords that it puts right a very

605
curious anomaly and I do not think there is anything more I want to say about that. Obviously, when it comes to major conversions in our shipyards, our shipowners should have just the same facilities as regards credit as overseas shipowners.
Before I sit down, I had not intended to say very much about scrap-and-build schemes, but as both my noble friends and other noble Lords have said something about this I feel I must say a word. Superficially, of course, it has great attractions. We in this country are not without some experience of such a scheme. There was a scheme in the 1930s following the great depression when British shipowners had an enormous number of old tramps. They were slow, they were out of date, they could not compete with the new types of ships from overseas, and there was a scrap-and-build scheme. But the circumstances today are quite different. Again in the report to which referred, Sir Reay Geddes's report, he refers to scrap-and-build schemes, and he issues a caution as to the problem of bringing one into being which is fair to all concerned. Today, as I have already mentioned, our fleet is extremely modern, seven to eight years old, and I think before agreeing to any scheme we should be very careful—and I know the Secretary of State is aware of this because I read something he said in another place—to make certain that, whatever the scheme, which will cost money, those who stand to benefit the most should pay most. With a fairly modern fleet it could be that we should benefit least but still be expected to pay most. I think we want to be extremely careful in agreeing to any such scheme. Having said that, I welcome this Bill, and, like my noble friend, hope it will get a very rapid passage.
4.32 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I respond, somewhat briefly, to the introduction of the Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. It is much easier for me to be short because so very many valuable contributions to the debate have been made, by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, my noble friend Lord Shinwell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and it would be presumptuous
606
of me, and a waste of time, to repeat to the House many of the informed observations that they have made. We on this side of the House will be happy to facilitate the passage of this Bill with all possible speed. It may be truly termed, as indeed it was termed in the other place in the course of the Second Reading debate on 1st November, a non-controversial Bill, and of course we support it.
That does not mean, however, that we do not require to be informed on certain aspects of the Bill, and it does not mean that we would not like to be reassured on one or two of the matters that have been raised here, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, concerning the adequacy of the provision of the Bill, and other points that have been raised so forcefully by my noble friend Lord Shin-well. He referred to the same article in the Daily Telegraph as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had in mind when he referred to the possible inadequacy of the provision. I will not weary the House by reading the same portions of it to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell, referred but it is reported in the Daily Telegraph for Saturday, 1st December:
" A British shipbuilder said yesterday that it is overspending and is likely to run out of cash even though the Government recently raised its borrowing limit from £300 million to £500 million with provision for it to go to £600 million. Mr. Michael Casey, chief executive, said that the average cost of building a ship in Britain was 30 per cent. more than the price charged to the customer ".
This reveals what has been known for a long time, particularly by those expert noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, not merely a temporary position of the British shipbuilding industry which can be corrected within a finite period of time, but a chronic situation, in regard to which this Bill makes some contribution.
I share the hope voiced by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, that in two years' time the Government will not then hang a threat over the head of the British shipbuilding industry, as might conceivably be implied by a reading of the observations which were then made, and which have already been quoted. We have to face the fact that in this modern age certain industries in the older established manufacturing countries of the world are bound to go into a decline, for

607
a number of reasons that have been touched on by noble Lords. The free play of the forces of competition, to which I hope I may refer without offence to noble Lords opposite, which has so long been the basic tenet of the philosophy of the party opposite, means that this is bound to happen.
May I give the House, with your Lordships' permission, just one example. Over the past 10 years there has been a massive export of capital from the United States, from the United Kingdom, from Germany, into the construction of shipyards in Korea and in Brazil, where the labour costs, as indeed was pointed out by the Economist some 18 months ago, are about one-eighth of the labour costs in Europe. Quite clearly, those new shipyards, heavily financed, are bound to produce, bound to be able to produce, craft for the seas of the world at a price with which the older manufacturing countries such as ourselves cannot compete.
There is a question of principle to be resolved here. Are we to leave the whole industry to the free play of forces of competition, which are stacked against us from the beginning, or are we to endeavour to do what, if I may say so, Her Majesty's Government appear to be doing at the moment, although it appears to be half a U-turn, to be able to attack the whole problem rationally? And the fact of the matter is that in many of these industries indefinite governmental support will be required. We seem to have a horror in the United Kingdom about subsidising industries as though in doing so we are committing some mortal sin.
I turn to another topic altogether, but one which is closely aligned with this one. If, for example, because of its losses British Rail is subsidised to the tune of £250 million or £500 million, there is immediately an indignant outcry as though the whole sense of commercial morality, probity and so on has suddenly been violated and we ought to feel terrible about it. Yet, in Germany the railways are subsidised at the rate of £4,500 million a year, and the Germans are quite proud of it. Indeed, they run a very efficient railway system.
608
I am well aware that those arguments should not and must not leave either the management or those who work in the industries with any sense of complacency; they must not feel that precisely because there is the social obligation of the Government to keep the industries in proper running order, they can take advantage of that. However, if we we want to encourage those of our citizens who are engaged in the shipbuilding industry to behave with some degree of social morality, it is up to all of us, and the Government in particular, to create a social climate within which that degree of social responsibility can be felt and carried out by the people involved. It is no use on the one hand advocating the policies of the jungle with the weakest to the wall and the devil take the hindmost, and then asking the others to behave with a degree of social responsibility. Therefore, I and my noble friends on this side of the House would envisage the necessity for the continuation of this type of support over a period of years rather than for the limited period envisaged in the Bill.
The Government's stated objective has been to adjust capacity and to restore profitability. I think that that last point had better be held in abeyance for the time being because, due to the factors to which I have already referred, it will not be possible within the modern context to restore profitability to this industry, using any of the normal commercial standards which are used to define normal profitability. That is not on, and we should fool ourselves if we thought that it were possible.
As regards the adjustment to capacity, I sometimes think that we tend to regard the capacity of the industry as being the over-riding factor. We tend to take the view that, apart from the appearance of an upturn to which some noble Lords have referred with a degree of optimism, nothing can be done, or we assume that nothing can be done, to increase demand for the building of ships. That is not so. It may be extremely difficult in the broadest sense to regard—in a world in which the population is increasing at a logarithmic rate—with pessimism the eternal decline of international trade. That simply would not happen because if it were to occur within the modern context

609
it would not be possible for the Western world to control the wrath of the developing and poorer countries. It simply will not happen.
But, leaving that consideration aside, it is not generally realised that nearly 30 per cent. of ships at present on the high seas are already obsolete; that if, in fact, those ships were replaced or it were necessary for them to be replaced, the effective demand for shipping, not only in British shipyards but in European yards and other yards throughout the word, would be considerably increased. I would respectfully suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might give some consideration to that very important aspect of the matter because, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows through his long experience, the scandal of sub-standard ships on the seas of the world, largely sailing under flags of convenience, is one of the major evils of all sea traffic at present.
As regards that matter I am happy to say that the United Kingdom has a very good record indeed. Of the seven main conventions that have been agreed over the past 10 years, the United Kingdom has not only ratified the seven, but has enacted in its laws the means of maintaining those conventions and giving them the full application of law. I refer in particular to the Safety of Life at Sea Conventions and the other associated conventions. Our EEC partners, who very often refer to us as the awkward ones of Europe, have not been so good in ratifying those conventions, or indeed in enforcing them by passing the laws through their own Parliaments. France, for example, still has four to ratify and Eire has practically the whole seven—I believe that is is now six out of the seven. The same record goes throughout Europe, with Germany coming a close second to our own record.
The efforts of Her Majesty's Government in Europe to ensure that throughout the EEC the Safety of Life at Sea Conventions and the other appropriate regulations are applied, would immediately mean, if properly enforced, a demand for shipping to replace those ships that, under those laws, would no longer be admitted to any port in Europe. That would increase effective demand. Also, the practices of some insurances companies
610
in this respect encourage the retention on the seas of the world—with consequent risk to life, limb, cargo and so on—of ships that ought never to be on the seas at all. They do it because of the extra premium risk they are prepared to take and the owners are prepared to pay in order to sail on the sea ships that ought really to be in the scrapyards. Therefore, one hopes that among the other things that Her Majesty's Government may be considering, they will give their attention to that matter. If, for example, the ships on the seas of the world were required to pass the equivalent of the MOT test which we have for cars, there would probably be an increase in demand of roughly 10 per cent. for new ships in the world. That is not a factor that ought to be left out of account.
There is little for me to say on the contents of the Bill itself. I have touched only on those matters that have been suggested by my noble friend Lord Shinwell and by the contributions that have been made by other noble Lords. The Bill is a simple one. We welcome the improvements contained within it, particularly the extension of the intervention subsidy to conversions as well as to construction.
I am a little bothered about one remaining point which was touched upon not only by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale. I refer to the question of guarantees. The guarantee of ship construction—as indeed is the guarantee of ordinary construction projects throughout the world—is, I regret to say, one of the biggest rackets in the world. It is all very well for us to say that we will give the same or equivalent insurance, export credit guarantees and all the rest of it as other countries. In my experience Government departments—particularly the Department of Trade and Industry—are very naïve in this respect. I have one or two instances in mind, with which I shall not weary the House, but in one particular case I wrote to them saying that an insurance was required for some 15 years at X per cent., because, of course, the United States was providing exactly that facility. I received a prompt denial—that it was not the practice of the United States in any way to back anything which was out of the OECD norm. They can think again upon that, because whatever the various Government departments say in some

611
countries as to their practice for insurance, what eventuates in practice is a totally different matter.
Therefore, I hope—and I am sure that noble Lords who have had experience of this will agree with me—that the Government will try to be even more vigilant than they are disposed to be at the moment on questions of infringement of agreed rates of export credit guarantees and similar associated guarantees. If merely the word of other Governments is accepted, I do not think that that will be satisfactory. Experience has shown that the words of some overseas Governments cannot be accepted in this regard. We wish this Bill a fair wind and congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on the very clear, modest and non-controversial way in which he has introduced it. I hope that we may be able to help its passage further.
4.52 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, first I should like to thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to this debate. All the points that they have made will be very carefully studied. As I become a little less green, I am gradually learning that one cannot deal with all the points raised in a debate without being too long. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for supporting the Bill on behalf of the party opposite. Indeed, all speakers have wished the Bill the speediest possible passage. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned the urgency of the matter, so I am indeed grateful for the assurance that the Bill will be speeded on its way.
I do not have the time to include in my remarks the points made today on the shipping industry. Noble Lords may care to look back to the debate we had on the shipping industry earlier this year. I think they will find in that debate, for instance, that the Government's attitude was stated on the need for other countries to raise standards of shipping. However, although the connection between shipping and shipbuilding is present and obvious, at this juncture there simply is not time to go into all the points that have been mentioned in passing on shipping.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy
612
raised the very important human problem. First, if the plan for 400,000 tonnes and a bit more is achieved, the work force changes that are necessary to reach efficiency at that level of throughput involve, in very round figures, a reduction of probably just under 10,000 people, which leaves a force at the end of those redundancies of 20,000. The agreement which British Shipbuilders have made with their unions has been on the basis that those redundancies can be accommodated by a combination of naval construction and filling vacancies there, a fairly small contribution from other public sector orders, which have been mentioned by various speakers, and by voluntary, and not compulsory, redundancy. That is the belief of the management, and the union and management have accepted the plan on that basis. They plan to make those reductions over a two-year period.
Viscount SINION: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount one question. Am I to understand that the target figure of 420,000 tonnes, or whatever it is, is exclusive of Government orders?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, having read the figures many times, perhaps I could confirm that to the noble Viscount after the debate. At the moment I am of the belief that this does not include the construction of naval vessels. If I am wrong, I may have an opportunity to correct it, but I see that my adviser in the Box is nodding, so that may speed up the process.
We discussed the redundancy payments when we put through the provision for the financial side of redundancy. However, I entirely agree with noble Lords that redundancy and the payment of it is one thing, but the individual attention that those, in this case, volunteering for redundancy will receive is another. I can assure noble Lords, without being lengthy, that British Shipbuilders put a good deal of time into this and pay it much attention. I propose to send those noble Lords who raised this point a short note on the measures that are being taken. These dovetail with the efforts of the Manpower Services Commission and with our regional policy. and with the care and attention that new employers—and they are still too small in number—in these areas are giving to retraining and making welcome shipbuilders in totally different industries.

613
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the article which was published in the Daily Telegraph, which I confess I have not read, but nearly all of which has been read to me in the debate. Surprisingly enough, I do not seem able to get hold of a copy on my side of the House. Two facts from the article were mentioned. First, there was the suggestion that there was a £4.5 million greater loss than the target figures for this year. Secondly, some points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to which I shall return later.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way because I may be able to help him here.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that I can clear the matter up.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, my reference was to an article published in the Business News of The Times of 30th November.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am sorry, I must read the Press much more. The point at issue is that British Shipbuilders have recently assured my honourable friend and colleague the Minister of State, Mr. Butler, that they are on course to stay within their cash and loss limits for 1979–80. The next point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell was whether it was true that the previous spend before we got the intervention fund going again was only one-fifth of £85 million. Indeed, the sum that was spent was £15 million. To that extent we have already got the intervention fund support for this industry really under control, negotiated, and going at a faster and a slightly higher level than was the case before we came to power.
The scrap-and-build scheme has been raised and welcomed by several of us, but I took note with great interest of the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, mentioned in relation to the possible dangers of particular kinds of scrap-and-build schemes, bearing in mind that we have a much newer and more modern fleet than many other countries. That is an important point, coming as it does from someone of his great experience, and I shall pass it on to my right honourable friend.
614
May I come to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. Let me say straight away that I did not say that the subject was simple. Indeed, I said that British Shipbuilders faced a very difficult task. I hope that we have the courage to face the facts, as he says, but may I deal very quickly with some of the points that he raised. He asked why successive Governments had not given credit to British shipowners similar to that given to foreign shipowners rather than shipbuilders. There are a number of credit and guarantee schemes, as well as the direct subsidy, which we give to British shipbuilders. The British shipping industry is in a different position to the industries of other countries, in that it has been established on a worldwide basis for a very long while. As a result, it has placed its orders over a wider field of shipyards at home and abroad for a considerable number of years. It needs careful thought, as regards credit to shipowners whether a country in the economic condition that we are experiencing should spend any large proportion of its money in that direction, bearing in mind that quite a proportion of it is almost certain, on past trends, to end up working to the benefit of foreign yards.
In the time available, what I have to say is that, taking into account the losses which we are supporting, the intervention fund, the various credits and guarantees (of which some small extensions are the subject of this Bill), and being as vigilant, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as we can, I believe—and I believe that our British shipbuilding industry now believes—that they have a fair position. It is not an easy position, but a fair and a clear position in which they can try to put right the decline that has been going on for too long.
The quotations that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, gave from Mr. Casey, the chief executive of British Shipbuilders seem to me to be exactly in line with our statements. He spoke of serious dangers and of difficulties, as I understood it. But there is no doubt that both British Shipbuilders' management and British Shipbuilders' employees are set on the target which is in front of them. They have reached a very creditable agreement. I believe that the diagnosis which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, called for has largely been made. I believe that there are limits

615
to the degree that it is helpful to go into culpability, or to go into post-mortems. They are inclined not to bring the patient back to life. I believe that we now have a growing degree of realism on the part of both management and employees—of all working in shipbuilding—that we must get our industry competitive, and that the major part of that work needs to be done internally.
The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, contributed very helpfully to this debate in raising a whole succession of technical reasons as to why the world shipping fleet will in future not be of the same kind, and will probably be of a smaller tonnage. I am grateful to him for that contribution. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised the question of time: was the two years a deadline? As my right honourable friend in the other place so clearly said, no, it is not a deadline. A two-year programme in very uncertain circumstances is better than a one-year programme. It is an effort to try to give British Shipbuilding a clear framework in which to continue their improvement, which is planned, and the figures of that improvement I gave in my opening statement.
We shall have to review the situation at the end of that two-year period, and we shall have to see what progress has been made. But we do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, that the losses of British Shipbuilders cannot, in this world as he describes it and in the sense in which he raised it, be extinguished. We have not said that aid will be extinguished. There are substantial moves for the regressivity—it is a terrible word, but that is the word that is being used—of aid on an international basis. This is why we accepted a reduced limit on the intervention fund from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. We are being vigilant about the progress of that regression in other countries. But we have never said that in two years, or even any other number of years, aid, credit or guarantees will be eliminated. What we ask for is that on a fair trading opportunity basis which takes account of those things, losses of the company are extinguished after receiving aids, credits, guarantees, et cetera. This must happen because there
616
cannot be an indefinite bill for an industry over and above the provision of a fair trading opportunity. As my right honourable friend in the other place said, that can only weaken other sectors of the economy by denying them resources.
In conclusion, I want to strike a note of optimism. If you look at the figures of both world shipping tonnage and of shipbuilding, what you see is what I term an over-shoot. You see that the amount of shipping on the seas of the world has not really declined but the very fast rate of growth that was going on until a decade ago has slowed to a very small amount. What has clearly happened is that the world's shipbuilding industries have totally over-shot demand. This has of course, as my noble friend Lord Rochdale mentioned, been contributed to by new countries coming into shipbuilding for the first time. I do not take the view that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, took in relation to it being a matter for criticism that British capital among other capital from many other countries may have gone—I do not have the figures—into helping to construct a shipbuilding capacity in new countries. This will happen and I would much rather we took a share in helping those countries and being able to develop good trading relations with them.
The situation therefore is that we have lost a share of the market, mainly but not entirely because of new countries coming into the game, and because world shipbuilding over-shot demand. The overshoot will rectify itself. Then one sees that this year, and even in very recent months, high wage cost countries have been gaining tonnage. We have started to gain a bit of tonnage ourselves and Germany and Japan are gaining tonnage at the moment at a faster rate than us. I believe that, with the investment that has gone into our yards in recent times and with the will of all working in the industry to become competitive, we can take our share of the increased market which, as Lord Rochdale said, will turn upwards in the mid-eighties.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (VARIATION) SCHEME 1979
5.13 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to provide for continued financial assistance to the fishing industry. The scheme before us extends for a further year the existing arrangements for grants from Exchequer funds towards the cost of constructing new fishing vessels and improving existing ones. Since March 1975, the rate of grant payable has been 25 per cent. of the approved cost of the projects, and we propose no changes for the coming year.
The shape of any final settlement of the Common Fisheries Policy will have a bearing on the size and structure of our fishing industry in the future. The Government are considering what role Government assistance should then play in the adaptation of the fleet to future fishing opportunities. I am sure the House will agree that during this period, while the Government are developing their future policy on financial aid to the fishing industry, it would be wrong to end this scheme. A sudden cessation of the supply of funds could cause hardship to fishermen, and to the boat-building industry, whose investment plans are inevitably long-term and where consistency in Government policy is important. The scheme is of course of positive value to the industry in encouraging the modernisation of the fleet to reflect the needs of the future and ill allowing a limited amount of construction of new vessels.
At the present time, when the size of the fleet is already more than adequate, any incentive to invest must be subject to strict controls if imprudent investment is to be avoided. The two statutory bodies, the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, are required as part of this scheme to examine every grant application to ascertain its economic viability in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom industry as a whole. Emphasis is placed on the modernisation of existing vessels rather than the construction of new ones, which is limited in practice to the replacement of vessels lost
618
at sea. Expenditure under this scheme during the current financial year is expected to be about £7 million, and Parliamentary approval will be sought to maintain the same level of provision for 1980–81. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, having had the honour and pleasure of moving this order last year, it gives me a great deal of satisfaction to learn that the order is being renewed and extended and I thank the noble Earl for the clear way in which he explained it and for the gratifying fact that an additional £1 million is being added, because I believe the figure for the last period was £6 million. As we entirely agree with this, it would be wasting the time of the House to make over-long speeches; I simply say that I heartily approve of the order and wish it well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS, RE-RATING) ORDER 1979
5.16 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has completed the review of national insurance contributions which he is required to conduct each year under the Social Security Act 1975. The draft order now before your Lordships contains changes which he considers are necessary from next April. With your Lordships' permission, I will give the details of the changes, commencing with Class 1 contributions—that is, those payable by employed earners and their employers.
The rate of Class 1 contributions is to be increased by a quarter per cent for both employed earners and their employers. The proposed increase in the employer's contribution will however be partially offset by a reduction of 0.05 per cent in the employment protection element of the contribution which is

619
proposed in the draft Social Security (Contributions Rerating) (No. 2) Order 1979, which was laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 28th November 1979.
The lower and upper earnings limits on which employed earners and employers pay contributions are being raised from £19.50 and £135 a week to £23 and £165 a week respectively. Your Lordships will note that these limits are not specified in the draft order. They are in regulations which my right honourable friend has made and these regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure, but I mention them now for the sake of completeness. The proposed limits follow the requirement of Section 1 of the Social Security Pensions Act which provides that the lower earnings limit is to be approximately equal to the amount of the basic rate of retirement pension and the upper limit is to be between six and a half and seven and a half times that rate. As your Lordships will know, the basic rate of pension is now £23.30 a week; £165 a week is roughly seven times that rate.
For employees earning up to the current upper earnings limit of £135 a week, the effect of the proposals will be limited to the increase arising from the change of contribution rate and will be relatively small—varying from 4p to 36p a week where the employment is not contracted-out and from 13p to 43p a week where it is contracted out. The corresponding increase for employers will differ from that for the employees themselves by only a few pence a week. The increases for those with earnings above £135 a week will be higher because, in addition to the change in the rate, there will be the effect of the proposed upper earnings limit. The maximum increases—at earnings of £165 a week—will be £2.37 for the earner whose employment is not contracted out, and £1.69 for the one whose employment is contracted out. This does not mean that the higher earners are being discriminated against. Most employees pay additional contributions automatically as their earnings rise, but those with earnings at, or above, the upper limit do not. The increase in the upper limit from the start of the new tax year produces the corresponding increase in their liability.
Turning now to the self-employed, the draft order provides for the Class 2 contributions to be increased from £2.10 to £2.50 a week. No change is proposed in the rate of the Class 4 contribution, which remains at 5 per cent, but the range of profits or gains on which the contribution is levied is being raised. The order provides for a range of from £2,650 to £8,300 a year to replace the present range of £2,250 to £7,000 a year. The result of these changes is that for those with profits between £1,250 and £2,650 there will be an extra liability over the year of up to £21.20 because of the rise in the Class 2 flat rate. For those with profits between £2,650 and £7,000 there will be very little overall change because over this range of earnings the combined Class 2 and Class 4 contributions will still amount to about 5 per cent of earnings. For profits above the present upper limit of £7,000 the increase in liability will vary, rising to a maximum of £66.20 a year at the new upper limit of £8,300.
Finally, there are two remaining changes which the draft order makes. It raises the level of earnings below which a self-employed person may be exempted from liability for Class 2 contributions from £1,050 to £1,250 a year. It also raises the amount of the voluntary Class 3 contribution from £2 to £2·40.
Those, my Lords, are the proposed changes. They fall into two broad categories. Those changes to the flat rate contribution rates and to the earnings and profits limits are to enable them to keep pace with rises in the general level of earnings and with increases in benefit rates. Those to the percentage Class 1 contribution rates are necessary, as the Government Actuary's report accompanying the order makes clear, to ensure that income and expenditure of the National Insurance Fund remain broadly in balance in 1980–81. Pensioners and other beneficiaries have just received a substantial increase in their benefits, and this must be paid for. I do not need to emphasise the difficulties facing the economy next year, and this will put a burden on the social security system.
I now come to the conclusion of my remarks. I recognise that the increases in contributions which I have outlined will, like those which have preceded them in earlier years, be unwelcome. They are

621
however necessary to enable the National Insurance Scheme to continue to pay its way, while at the same time protecting pensions and other benefits against inflation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
5.24 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be as grateful as I am to the noble Lord the Minister for placing the order before us and explaining it. I do not want in any way to argue about the amounts of increase. I recognise that, with increased benefits and so on, it is necessary from time to time to increase contributions all the way round. However, what I am concerned about, and wish to call to the attention of your Lordships, is the report of the Government Actuary. He says that he has been instructed to assume for the benefit of the compilation of these matters that in 1980–81 there will be about 1,600,000 unemployed, and that does not include school-leavers. In fact, he is asked to assume that there will be in addition to that figure about 175,000 unemployed youngsters. It is perhaps the first time that the Government have acknowledged that there is going to be a very serious increase in unemployment; and I believe that we ought to remember what the Government Actuary says:
" A change of 100,000 in the average level of unemployment in 1980–81, with no change in the level for 1979–80, would alter the surplus by £175 million ".
That means that in 1980–81 for every increase in unemployment amounting to 100,000 it will cost about £175 million, so far as the National Insurance Fund is concerned. Of course, if unemployment fell, the position would benefit by that amount, but higher unemployment reduces the surplus, and if the Government Actuary has been instructed to assume that there is to be increased unemployment, this is more than just statistics; it means that there will be considerable misery and deprivation for people who are unable to find work. That is the main point that want to make.
With reference to the income of the National Insurance Fund, the Government Actuary says:
622
" The assumption on the total number unemployed shows an increase to a higher level than in recent experience and it is therefore unusually difficult to estimate the proportion of the total which will not be entitled to benefit from the National Insurance Fund …".
The Government Actuary goes on to say:
" Consequently the estimates of unemployment benefit expenditure and contribution income in 1980–81 in this report are subject to a greater degree of uncertainty than is normally the case ".
I believe that it behoves the Government to give a great deal of attention to this monetary policy that they are pursuing, which undoubtedly will lead to far greater unemployment. I say that because I think that sometimes those of us who do not have to face the problems of unemployment do not realise what it means to the individual concerned.
I do not want to say anything about the National Insurance Fund. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, may have something to say about it; he is much more familiar with that field than I am. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for introducing the order.
5.30 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, for his careful explanation of this order, and of the effect of the Social Security (Contributions) (Earnings Limits) Amendment Regulations 1979. The raising of the lower and upper limits, to which he referred, is of course the inevitable consequence of inflation, and we are becoming used to it as an annual exercise. I regret that it has been found necessary to increase the Class 1 primary and secondary contributions by 0·25 per cent. each, but I think it is clear from the report of the Government Actuary that this is due to the high level of unemployment which he has been instructed to assume, and that is another indication of the unhappy economic circumstances with which we are faced.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, explained that a Class 1 contributor on £135 per week will pay 36p per week more, but a Class 1 contributor on £165 per week—and the noble Lord explained this, too—will pay £2·37 per week more; so, though he is earning only £30 a week more, he pays £2·37 per more as against 36p more. So for him the increase is not 0.25 per cent. but 1·4

623
per cent., which is over four times the figure of 0·25. The actual increase for those earning more than £165 per week remains the same, but it becomes a lower per centage of income the higher the individual's income is; and I have suggested before that it would be better to have contributions paid at an appropriately lower rate on the whole of income, which would remove those anomalies.
My Lords, so far as the self-employed are concerned, those earning between the exemption limit—and, again, the noble Lord explained this—of £1,250 and the old lower limit of £2,250 will pay £21·20 per annum more, but those earning between the new lower limit of £2,650 and the old upper limit of £7,000 will pay that £21·20 more, the increase in the flat rate, but will pay £20 less in levy; so that they will pay only 80p per annum more, whereas the lowest earners will pay £21·20 per annum more. That anomaly arises because of the working of the combination of the flat rate and the levy for the self-employed. The Government feel it necessary to retain the flat rate in order to have a contribution record, but if they could move to a scheme, such as the tax credit scheme which we on these Benches have suggested, which did not require a contribution record, then they would no longer be obliged to have a flat rate contribution, and that anomaly would disappear.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, my attention is attracted by the high level of unemployment which is to be assumed, but I wonder whether sufficient allowance has been made for inflation in the assumptions given to the Government Actuary. My Lords, 14 per cent. over the next year might seem a trifle optimistic in view of our current experience. However, provided the rate of inflation does not rise too steeply, earnings-related contributions, coupled with adjustments in the upper and lower limits, ought to take care of inflation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, pointed out, unemployment is another matter, and 100,000 more unemployed means £175 million off the projected surplus in the Fund. I suppose that whether the Government succeed in holding the contribution rate at its new, slightly increased level will depend on what happens so far as unemployment is
624
concerned in the next year; but, bearing in mind the limitations of the present scheme to which I have referred, and in view of the levels of inflation and unemployment we are experiencing, I am content that the House should approve this order.
5.35 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their acceptance of this order. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that I know he is very well aware that it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to provide the Government Actuary with working assumptions as to the average number of those expected to be unemployed and the anticipated increase in average earnings during the following year. I join very sincerely with the noble Lord in the concern that he has expressed about the figure given for the number of unemployed assumed for 1980–81, and I feel sure that he and other noble Lords will join me in hoping that this figure will not be reached. I also agree with the noble Lord that the assumed increase of 14 per cent. for both earnings and prices is dangerously high, and assure him that Her Majesty's Government will adhere to policies designed to reduce this rate of increase wherever possible.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because he always gives us so much education on this subject, about which he knows such a very great deal.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRISON SERVICES: THE MAY REPORT
5.36 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their attitude to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom Prison Services (the May Report). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their attitude to the May Report on the Prison Services. The May Report has had, on the whole, a thoroughly bad reception from those qualified to judge. I cannot

625
speak, of course, for the Home Office. The noble Lord will he speaking for the official world, and, still more importantly, for the Government, later on. The dissapointment and, in many cases, the indignation of the Prison Service, whether governors or uniformed staff, are undoubted. It happens that during the last fortnight I have spent a considerable time in three of our major prisons. The comments about the May Report are not such that I would care to repeat to your Lordships, who have no taste, I believe, for strong language. I am not now referring to the prisoners, who have not yet had time to study the report, but I would not expect to find their remarks any more favourable.
Of course, the proposals on pay are regarded as utterly inadequate—a view I certainly share at a moment when the prison staff is, I believe, something like 25 per cent. under the strength required to eliminate excessive overtime. I have said in this House more than once before now that our Prison Service at all levels is seriously underpaid. The Guardian, in a leading article yesterday, said that the May Report had uncovered how well paid prison officers already are. The May Report also uncovered what the Guardian does not mention, at any rate in this article: that to obtain adequate remuneration prison officers have to work abnormally long hours of overtime, which everyone agrees is most unsatisfactory. I know myself, from prison officers, how damaging this can be to private lives. A crucial meeting is taking place today of the Prison Officers' Association. I shall say nothing more about pay at this moment for fear of making agreement less likely in a delicate situation.
But, my Lords, it is not only a question of pay. The May Committee seem to have failed totally (so it is felt, certainly throughout the Service) to appreciate the vision of a much more constructive and professional Prison Service—a vision which has for some time inspired the governor grades and the prison officers alike. There are certainly some helpful suggestions. Under the May proposals, the chairman of the Prison Board would be in a stronger position than at present in various ways, and that is certainly to be welcomed. But what the governors have been pressing for, for some time, is a professional head of their Service. On
626
that point, what do we find in the May Report? The chairman, we read,
" should be either a career civil servant "
as now, or
" an ex-governor, or someone from outside the Civil Service ",
which of course means precisely nothing. Lip service is paid at considerable length in the report to the idea of a more constructive role for prison officers, and of appropriate training, which the prison officers have demanded for quite a while, but one can read the report more than once without being much wiser as to how anything of this kind is likely to happen.
My Lords, it gives me no pleasure to criticise the report in this way. Nothing could have exceeded the courtesy and consideration shown me—and I know others had the same experience—by the chairman and his colleagues when I gave oral evidence for an hour and three quarters. My hopes were, perhaps, unduly raised. I thought that gentlemen so charming and so obviously intelligent would be bound to produce a good report. But I suffered from an illusion. I have already testified elsewhere that in the time available—I repeat, in the time available—the committee worked very hard and very fast. They have collected, arranged and published a mass of information which will for a long time he of great value to students of our penal system. But the time available was totally inadequate for the task assigned to them; their job was always impossible.
The May Committee was set up, as the House will recall, in November of last year in a state of near panic and with the haziest kind of mandate. It seemed to reflect the painful confusion of mind of those who established the committee. The Government were being faced with a dangerous confrontation with the prison staff. It would have been possible to set up a limited inquiry into pay and conditions and to have called for a report in a few months; but, for reasons not altogether clear to me, the terms of reference turned the inquiry into a general examination of most aspects of the whole prison system. Yet the Government went on urging them, having started in November, to produce their report by March. That date soon became ridiculous and it was extended. The committee have managed to complete their task within a year. The result was

627
bound to suffer accordingly. It was literally impossible for them, with all their many personal merits, to master their subject in the time or to arrive at a really independent and well-thought set of recommendations.
However, do not let me fail to give credit where credit is due. On the subject of the length of sentences, all that they have to say is valuable although not all of it is novel. They make some telling comparisons with Holland. Per head of population, we send three times as many people to prison as do the Dutch. Between 1964 and 1975, crimes in both countries roughly trebled. That is an awful thought in itself; but there was roughly a similar increase in crime. But the number of custodial sentences increased by only 50 per cent. in the Netherlands and here by 218 per cent.—by more than four times as much. If your Lordships take the view, as I do, that prison is a prima facie evil, which can be justified only if some positive benefit accrues either to the prisoner or to the community, it would seem that we have a lot to learn from Holland. The committee lay much emphasis, I am glad to notice, on a quotation from the interim report entitled The Length of Prison Sentences, published by the advisory council in May 1977. They quote the advisory council as saying:
" We have come unanimously to the conclusion that a large number of sentences are longer than they need be in the interests either of society or of the offencer ".
The May Committee themselves then continued:
" We have neither received nor have our inquiries disclosed any evidence that conflicts with this view. We are unanimous in emphatically endorsing it "—
that is, endorsing the view that a large number of sentences passed in this country today are longer than they need be. It remains the case, say the May Committee, that
" Dutch and Scandinavian experience demonstrates that civilised society can co-exist with significantly lower sentencing tariffs ".
I am sure that all sensible people and all of your Lordships can agree with them there. But I must pause to press one or two questions on the Minister, of which I have given him a little notice; it is less than 24 hours' notice and it may be that he is not yet ready with an answer today.
628
I hope, of course, that he will be. Do the Government agree with the May Committee about the need for reducing sentences? If so, what steps are they considering to achieve this purpose? Of course, we all recognise that individual sentences should not normally be tampered with by Government action. But total sentencing policy has frequently been affected by Governmental action, legislative or otherwise. If the Government are convinced that the sentences in this country ought to be substantially reduced, they would not be content, surely, to fold their hands and excuse themselves on the grounds of impotence. So I must ask the Minister whether he can tell us how the Government intend to promote the reduction of prison sentences.
It is when they come to the alternatives to prison—the crucial question of the day discussed so often in our debates here—that the committee show themselves at their weakest. They are well aware, from Home Office research, for example, that there is no reason to conclude that long sentences are any more of a deterrent than short ones. That was the conclusion of a quite careful Home Office study; that is to say, long sentences are now demonstrably no more effective than short ones in dissuading potential criminals from committing crimes. The committee also call attention to what they consider is the decline in the belief in the reformative powers of imprisonment. It is good news that scepticism on this point has now spread to official thinking. It is something that many noble Lords—some of whom are taking part in the debate this afternoon—have been stressing for a number of years. In a quarter of a century, I have never found a belief in the reformative value of imprisonment to be prevalent among people close to the scene, whether prison staff, social workers or prisoners. Very few of us, if we have ever had a friend or relative in trouble, have supposed that prison would be positively good for him. We have been aware for many years that prison, although it does not always do harm, is likely to do more harm than good to the individual in prison; and the longer the sentence, the more moral damage is likely to be done.
I myself have never found any intelligent person who seriously believes that a prisoner was likely to be a better person after 15 years in prison than after 10

629
years. We are all aware that suffering can ennoble people in unpredictable ways; or, rather, that the human spirit is capable of drawing from suffering unpredictable benefit. But that is no reason whatever for inflicting suffering on our fellow humans unless there is some overwhelming reason for doing so. In the case of prisons, the overwhelming reason has always been alleged to be the deterrent effect, but, as I mentioned just now, the deterrent effect of long sentences is more and more discredited—which leaves the imposition of the continued suffering with less and less excuse. For these and other reasons, including economic ones—although in my view those are subsidiary—the arguments for finding alternatives to imprisonment become more and more powerful. But here, I am afraid, the committee have more or less "chucked in their hand ".
The feature of the report which has aroused most attention is the demand that the capital expenditure on prison buildings should be doubled. It is true, to be fair, that they will spell out candidly enough the possible alternatives to prison in addition to the shorter sentences already mentioned; but the committee are depressingly pessimistic about what can be achieved by these means in the foreseeable future. For instance, they take a narrow view of the possibilities of liberalising the parole system and expanding the scale of community service orders. In regard to alternatives to imprisonment in general, the May Committee conclude:
" For the purposes of this inquiry, none of these means offer substantial relief ".
Therefore, on their argument, the prison population is going to go up and up; therefore, a much bigger prison programme, on their argument, is ineluctable and, indeed, of the utmost urgency if the present lamentable overcrowding is not going to get worse and worse. As on their gloomy assumptions as to what is feasible in the way of alternatives and as to what is the likely attitude of Governments, their train of reasoning makes sense. But penal reformers and serious people generally see no reason why we should lie down under these far too gloomy assumptions.
The case against the committee's philosophy can be put in various ways. No one has put it to me more simply than
630
Mr. Martin Wright, the much esteemed secretary of the Howard League. He writes to me:
" The main thing was that they haven't tackled head on the crucial problem that prisons are overcrowded with a lot of people who ought not to be there, therefore the solution must be to provide the sorts of places they ought to be in rather than prisons ".
Of course, I agree with the committee that much larger resources over a long period and even in a time of restriction ought to be devoted to penal expenditure. But, if indeed we can obtain larger resources from the Governments of the future, our first priority should be the attempts to improve career prospects in the prison service, including the governor grades, to pay them better and give them much more scope. Hand in hand with that, there should be a doubling of the probation service to make possible the supervision of delinquents outside prison. The committee seem to assume that the Probation Service has limits already fixed.
I do not say that we should not spend any more money on prisons if we are not allowed to use it for any other purpose. But the claims of men, not of buildings, should be first met. To quote Martin Wright again:
" Bigger cuts are possible by spending more on probation so that really substantial savings could be made on the planned prison building programme. Prison departments should be left with enough money to do up old prisons, but not to build new ones ".
The Home Office attitude, if one can judge from many debates in this House, is precisely the opposite, and it is the Home Office view which has prevailed with the May Committee. The committee make a gallant but, in my eyes, unsuccessful attempt to redefine the objectives of imprisonment. I am afraid that their formula would come to lay more stress on security, which is already over-done, and still less on trying to improve the character of prisoners. When I said that prison usually does more harm than good, I must not for a moment seem to belittle the devoted efforts of all those who work in prisons: governors, uniformed staff, probation officers, chaplains and others. Prisons may be likely to do harm; but prisons would do far more harm if all these men and women were less dedicated.
There are many sensible suggestions among the 170 conclusions of the report.

631
No doubt some of them will be mentioned by other speakers. There are also omissions, and no doubt they also will be touched on. There are some subjects which, however wide the terms of reference of the committee, they might fairly regard as outside their remit. For example, the far-reaching question of prisoner's communications with the outside world, and the still more far-reaching question of prisoners' rights in general must await another occasion.
For my part, I miss most of all a sense of the human tragedy of long-term prisoners under present conditions and with present prospects of parole—or the absence of it. The week before last I visited six life prisoners in Parkhurst Prison and since then I have visited others, male and female. No glimmer of hope was being held out to any of them by high authority. I thought of Christ's message in the parable of the sheep and the goats:
"I was in prison and you came to me; insomuch as you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to me ".
Christ did not say that he was just a petty thief or political dissident—rather unlucky to be in prison at all. He was representative in that parable of all prisoners, even of those who had committed the most awful crimes. Can anyone seriously suggest that we treat prisoners, especially long-term prisoners, even leaving out the theology, as though they were members of the same human race as ourselves? Those who decide their destiny, whether in passing the original sentence or in the decision to retain them indefinitely in prison, will argue that the interests of the community require the continuance of what can only be called prolonged mental torture. The same arguments for a long time were used in favour of hanging. They have been gradually discredited.
Whether or not I agree with the precise recommendations of the May Report, I feel that they have done a great service in one all-important respect—they have reminded us yet again that there is less and less social excuse for the long-drawn-out suffering that we inflict on many criminals. For much of it there is no intellectual or moral justification. If the May Report helps us understand this more clearly than in the past, it will take an honoured place in history.
5.56 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I promise to detain your Lordships for only a few minutes tonight, partly because I am preceded and followed by people who are much more knowledgeable on this matter than I am, and partly because I am interested to know the answer that we are going to get from the Minister. Very often people who ask Unstarred Questions are asking rhetorical questions, and are not really seeking an answer. On this occasion it is very important that we should be told if the Government are able at this stage to give us some indication of the action they propose to take on the basis of the May Committee Report. I do not share the noble Earl's very strong criticism of the work of the committee and indeed the report of the committee. I think that they were—as he acknowledges—circumscribed by their terms of reference in a way which has precluded them from tackling some of the basic questions which arise on the matter of imprisonment.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not criticising them so much because they had not dealt with a number of questions. What I said was that it was impossible for them to do this task in the time allotted.
Lord FOOT: I appreciate that. My Lords, I am sure the May Committee themselves and the chairman of the committee realise that they had been given a very difficult task in trying to cope with the problems in the time allowed, even with the extension of the time which was given.
The only matter about which I want to say a few words tonight is this. There are some good things in the May Report and, in particular, one of the things which I welcome is the proposal that we should rewrite Rule No. 1 of the Prison Rules. The old rule was a piece of sanctimonious hyprocrisy and held in general derision by both prison officers and prisoners alike. The Committee suggest that Rule No. 1 (which deals with the purpose of imprisonment) should be rewritten in this way:
"The purpose of the retention of convicted prisoners shall be to keep them in custody which is both secure and positive, and to that end the behaviour of all the responsible authorities and staff towards them shall be such as to:

633

(a) create an environment which can assist them to respond and contribute to society as positively as possible,

(b) preserve and promote their self-respect,

(c) minimise, to the degree of security necessary in each particular case, the harmful effects of their removal from normal life,

(d) prepare them for and assist them on discharge ".

I regard that as a sober and modest presentation of the best that imprisonment can do.
I quote also from the report when the Committee speak about the degrading nature of imprisonment for many people today. They write this:
" No prison routine is so sterile, degrading and harmful to the prisoner and exceptionally barren for the staff who have to operate it than one in which an inmate is locked in his cell for a substantial part of the day and only released perhaps for the statutory one hour's exercise ".
It is a sobering and sombre thought, is it not?, that that routine—so sterile, so degrading and harmful, in the committee's view—is the routine which prevails in the majority of prisons today and particularly, of course, in the local prisons. That is the routine; and it is the routine which is so condemned by this report. But while the report does contain, in my view, some valuable and admirable objectives they are all unrealisable, it seems to me, unless we can find an answer to the problem of prison population and the overcrowding in prisons. Everything depends and turns upon that.
This subject was considered at great length by the committee in their chapter 3 and in particular they gave consideration, although not very optimistically, as the noble Earl said, to the alternatives to prison which we have tried already and which we might try in the future. They came to the conclusion—a pretty gloomy one, but I think it was realistic—that the room for manoeuvre in this matter of alternatives to imprisionment is very limited. It is unrealistic to suppose that in some sort of way we are going to be able to cut down the rise in the population in the prisons simply by that means. That is not to say that the alternatives which have been devised and used in past years have not been very profitable. I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, told us about a year ago that the estimate of the Home Office was that if it were not for the
634
alternatives to prison which we have devised we would have a prison population today not of 42,000 but of something like 48,000. So I do not in any way want to underestimate what has been achieved towards keeping the prison population down by those methods. But I think the committee are right in saying there is not much further room to introduce alternatives to imprisonment.
I think the fundamental problem here, when everything has been said about shortening sentences and so on, and the reason why we have been baffled by it for so long, is that there is no correlation between the sentencing policy of the courts and the capacity of the prisons to cope with the people disposed of by the courts. That is the fundamental difficulty; and t will conclude, if I may, by quoting to your Lordships from a representation made to the May Committee by my party. I do not quote this in any partisan spirit, but am fortified in quoting it because in March last the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, saw fit to quote what the Liberal Party had said, and to commend it. With your Lordships' leave, I will just make two quotations from the representation they made to the committee. They said:
" We therefore reject totally the idea that the prison system can be considered in isolation from the methods by which people reach it and which determine how long they stay, since this merely reflects the illogical divorce between the courts and treatment of offenders ".
They went on in their proposals under the heading of "Structure" to say this—and these were the words which the noble and learned Lord quoted:
" The present illogical system which separates the policies that determine the number of prisoners and the periods of their imprisonment from those concerned with their housing and treatment must be ended. Responsibility for the prison service should be taken away from the Home Office and the prison department should form part of a new organisational structure which—

(i) allows the work of the courts (i.e. the Lord Chancellor's office) and the prison service to be closely integrated.

(ii) Provides a service career with opportunities for those working in prisons to reach the highest levels.

(iii) Is capable of laying down clear objectives for the prison service, whilst permitting maximum flexibility in the treatment of offenders in each prison.

(iv) Encourage full co-operation including interchange of staff, between those concerned with trial, treatment and aftercare of offenders ",

635
They went on to say this:
" There are several ways in which these objectives could be achieved including an independent Prison Commission and a new organisation covering prosecution, sentencing policy, the courts, treatment of offenders, the probation service and aftercare. Such reorganisation however raises the question of the future role and structure of the Home Office and ministerial responsibility for trial, treatment and aftercare of offenders. In view of this we recommend an urgent inquiry into this matter ".
Because of their terms of reference, the May Committee were prohibited from making an investigation of that kind, but that urgent inquiry which my party called for when it issued this document earlier this year remains to be done. Until we have tackled the question of getting some co-ordination between the operations of the courts and those of the prison service and prisons, I am afraid we are not going, to see the end of the many very serious problems which the May Committee have shown we now face.
6.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, the May Report is the first report of its kind for over 80 years. None of us, therefore, should be surprised that it was eagerly awaited by everybody concerned with the Prison Service. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that expectations were very high indeed, even by those who recognise that there could not be a worse time than the present for putting forward creative and far-reaching proposals likely to involve both hard cash here and now and long-term investment later.
While I am sure we must be grateful for a very detailed report produced remarkably quickly, particularly considering all the visits to institutions made by Mr. Justice May and his colleagues, I think it has to be said, however sadly, that the report seriously fails to challenge the attitudes and priorities of our society as a whole about the Prison Service. Let me say at once that the closing paragraph of the opening chapter includes what the committee itself calls the "hackneyed observation" that a great deal of a society's character can be seen in the way in which it runs its prisons. They go on to say that if we turn our back on our prisons we also turn our back on our society and our values; but is it not because we have all too often shown our concern
636
only when something has gone wrong, and because for far too long we have failed to invest enough to transform 19th century institutions into prisons that are acceptable in the 20th century. that today we are faced with so many difficulties simultaneously?
Whatever the Minister has to tell us of what the Government cannot do—and we all realise he will be obliged to do that so far as public expenditure is concerned—I hope very much that he will be able to assure us that, as a result of this inquiry, the Government are determined to see that there is a far greater openness about the Prison Service. It seems to me that so many of its problems arise from the separation of the whole of the prison community from the rest of society.
The boards of visitors have a very important role to play and I personally am glad that the committee propose an extension rather than a restriction of their functions. I wonder, however, whether the committee do not underestimate the importance of a board of visitors being seen by prison inmates as an entirely independent body. If boards are given formal responsibilities for the welfare of staff and for staff relationships, there will surely be the danger in disciplinary cases of prisoners asking, "Whose side are they on? The chairman and members of a well run board of visitors engender a good relationship with governors and prison officers by the manner in which they fulfil their regular inspections and by the way in which they conduct their adjudications, as well as by their personal links with them.
I would also most heartily support the committee's recommendation that boards of visitors should consider themselves to be not only independent outsiders for the local community, coming into a prison as overseers of the inmates' interests, but also informed insiders with a duty to increase their local community's knowledge and understanding of what goes on in prison. However, the committee does not make many suggestions as to how this can be done—ways in which the free society outside can be made more aware of and more conscious about what goes on inside.
It occurs to me that the chairman of a board of visitors could be required to

637
report regularly to the local magistrates and that there would much to be said for a board's annual report to the Home Secretary being edited for general publication locally. Indeed, a chairman who was well known locally and who had a sympathetic governor might well speak on local radio, or answer questions on the report at a Press conference called as a matter of routine and not because of a crisis. I can imagine some fairly sharp reactions to these suggestions. All I would say is that, if they are unwelcome, then surely it behoves those who find them so to suggest alternative ways in which boards can be encouraged to fulfil the recommendation of the committee that they should do more to involve their prison, its staff and its inmates, in the local community.
There is considerable evidence in the report about the urgent need to reduce the size of the prison population. Reference has already been made in the debate to this question, and we spoke about it at some length in the debate on 27th June, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. There is no doubt whatever that if the various reports which have been published in recent years had been implemented the number of people sentenced to imprisonment would already be very much smaller. I have a strong feeling that we have already passed the point where we are going to achieve this aim by persuasion. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to tell us about the attitude of the Government towards extending the parole system. Indeed, I would make so bold as to ask him whether the Government have considered parole being made automatic for all except those classed as dangerous, either because of the crime they have committed or because of their behaviour in prison. We have to face the fact that half of the prison population is not at present eligible for parole. This is one of the factors which keeps overcrowding at its present rate.
I do not see how the committee's very important recommendation with regard to altering Prison Rule I can possibly make sense if the large groups of petty criminals and inadequate but non-violent offenders, about which the report also talks at some length, continue to be held in custody. I am bound to say that, while the committee dismiss as out-of-date rhetoric the phrase
638
" the training and treatment of convicted prisoners ", I do not think they go far enough in explaining what they mean by "custody which is secure and yet positive ". I do not regard the word "training" as a sanctimonious word. In every walk of life outside prison I should have thought that there is an increased emphasis upon training, and retraining and in-service training.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what is the Government's attitude towards the proposed rewording of Prison Rule 1 and whether, even if the aim of training for life outside prison is muted, while custody may well be secure they do not think that it is much less likely to be positive. The committee say they do not think that the present poor showing on the industrial work front is unavoidable. I think there are many who would agree with that statement.
The committee go on to press for a development of the facilities for education in establishments and say that subject to certain considerations these should provide a full-time alternative to work. This is a very interesting part of the report. I am glad to see that a brief reference is made to the importance of developing the inmates' social skills and social conscience. This is surely something which should be part of the structured programme of prison education. It should not be left as some kind of extra-mural activity to be run out of hours by education officers and chaplains of all denominations, with the help of voluntary groups. I am confident that governors and staff in many prisons would welcome encouragement from the Home Office to explore this kind of thing in an adventurous way and to do it both at the intellectual and at the emotional learning levels. As Chapter 7 of the report suggests, this is surely another area in which there could be more of a two-way traffic between the prison and the local community as well as between different branches of the Prison Service.
As has already been said, this is an immensely long and full report, of great importance. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not asking today for the Government's detailed answers on all the matters which it raises, but he has asked Her Majesty's Government to define their attitude to the report. Speaking from these Benches, I hope so much that the

639
Minister's reply will be such as to evoke a response from your Lordships in every part of the House. I would dare to say that what some of us look for is the will and commitment to bring about improvement in a prison service, in a system which creaks and groans at many points.
This must involve political will, but I would hope so much that those of all political parties and of none would be equally committed and equally encouraged by the Government's attitude. However cautious or negative the Government have to be at the present time about adding to public expenditure, I hope they will accept that this is not the only aspect about which many of us are concerned today. We shall be greatly encouraged by a serious commitment to seek fewer and shorter custodial sentences and to improve probation and after-care services. We would he further encouraged if the attitude of the Government to the report makes it clear that they accept its call for a greater openness about the Prison Service, about independent inspections and, above all, about the need to foster a high quality of prison officers and to maintain their pride and their morale by every means possible.
The moral quality of a society is to be judged by the treatment it gives to its outsiders, to strangers within the gates and to those of its citizens who are on the margin. Prisons are on the margin of society, whether we like it or not. Society must act sympathetically and intelligently to bring them in closer—inmates and prison officers, governors and administrators alike—and, once in, they must not form a secret citadel divorced from all the rest of us. The great Bishop Westcott said:
" It is the office of the State to give effect to the will of the people, while it is the office of the Church to inspire the people to true ends ".
I would hope that your Lordships, in all parts of the House, from wherever they may find inspiration, will be united in wanting the Government to give effect to the will of all those people who sincerely and urgently desire that the prison service should be more worthy of our country.
6.23 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, my first task must be to thank my noble friend
640
Lord Longford for enabling us to consider this Question tonight. This is something of a formality, but I do not intend it to be a formality. Recently I have had occasion in public to suggest that we do not treat those public-spirited citizens who serve on Royal Commissions and committees as well as we should. It is work that takes up an enormous amount of time, and particularly of course if they are working under pressure to a time limit. For the chairman, who is usually expected to produce the first draft of the whole report himself, inevitably it becomes almost a full-time occupation. Of course, Royal Commissions have their own premises and staff, but departmental committees have to make do with whatever the department provides for them.
There was an interesting Question and Answer in the other place on Monday, 26th November, when Mr. Sheerman, who I think is the honourable Member for Huddersfield, East, asked the Question:
" how many reports of Royal Commissions were debated in the House between November 1964 and November in the current year "—
that is a period of 15 years—
" and what percentage this represents of the total number of Royal Commission reports published during that time ".
The Answer was:
" A total of 29 reports were published during this period, of which 11 (37·9 per cent, of the total) were debated ".—[Official Report, Commons col. 423.]
So, if any of your Lordships are asked to be chairman of a Royal Commission, as may well happen, you will be able to bear in mind that, apart from any other difficulties you may suffer, it will be two to one that your report will never be debated in the elected chamber at all.
It is precisely here that I think we have great advantages in this House, and one which I think is of advantage to the whole Parliament is that we can find the time if a Member of the House will take the trouble to put down a Question and insist on its being discussed. My noble friend Lord Longford, who is fleet of foot, as we know, has lost no time at all in enabling us to consider this important report at an early date. Your Lordships may remember that it was on the 31st January that he introduced the question of the crisis in the Prison Service. He introduced it because the prison governors had written

641
an open letter to the Home Secretary saying, "The total breakdown of the prison system is imminent "; and they added a reference to a deplorable lack of leadership from the Home Office. That obviously must have cost the prison governors a lot. I remember a time when some prison governors, including the chairman of the Prison Governors Association, signed a memorial in favour of the abolition of capital punishment and were told by the Home Office that if they did it again they would lose their pensions. Of course, all their communications otherwise with the Home Office come under the Official Secrets Act and for governors to write an open letter to the Home Secretary containing those sentiments must indeed have shown how strongly they felt about the appalling conditions which existed in the prisons.
We put forward then many suggestions. My noble friend Lord Longford suggested that there should be a Minister for prisons in the Cabinet although I could not myself see that that would be very effective. The Liberal Party had just published their report on the subject, suggesting taking the prisons away from the Home Office altogether. For that no doubt there was something to be said, but it seemed to me to go a little too far. I had a great deal of sympathy with the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who was emphatic that there should he a great deal more communication and cooperation between prison staff, police, probation officers and the courts. I myself proposed what the Howard League had suggested for a long time; namely, that there ought to he an independent inspectorate of prisons reporting directly to the Home Secretary.
Now we have the report. It is a long report, starting with an introduction and the history of prisons, prison populations, the objectives of imprisonment, resources, and then dealing with what clearly is the primary task because the cause of the threatened breakdown was that because of the high degree of overcrowding in the prisons, prison officers were going slow and as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, men were being kept nearly all day, except for exercise, in their cells and there was a resulting increase in tension between prison officers and prisoners. It is, of course, for that reason that the
642
May Report—and I seem to be the first Member of your Lordships' House who proposes not to attack the May Report, for reasons that I will explain—dealt at great length, first with the Home Office and a degree of maladministration by the Home Office, and the numerous reforms which they proposed, and then dealt with the governors and prison officers, their recruitment, their training, their pay and allowances; the continuous duty credits, industrial relations and working conditions.
I agree with the sentiment of a great deal of that which my noble friend Lord Longford expressed, but the reason I do not myself feel in a position to criticise the May Committee is simply this. First, so far as pay is concerned, I do not know whether the proposals are to pay them too little or too much—I suspect it is too little but I am in no position myself to form a view. They were appointed on 17th November to report by the end of March. That was obviously hopeless, and the period was then extended to the end of the summer—and here comes about the only question which I shall venture to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I am sure he will have no difficulty in answering it. It is this: May we know the date of the May Report? It is very unusual, in my experience of Royal Commission reports and departmental committee reports, that it has not got a date. I know it was published by the Home Office. Usually the date is on the same page as the signatures, but this report has no date. Could we please be told? We do not know at the moment—at any rate I do not know—how long they did take, because we do not know what was the date of their report.
They have arrived at 174 conclusions and recommendations, and disappointment has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Longford that they did not deal, or did not deal adequately, with a number of different matters. Here may I come to what I think are the good things in the report. First, they have recommended that there should be an independent inspectorate reporting directly to the Home Secretary, and in the same part of the report, at page 95, they deal with the excessive secrecy which has gone on for so long, and which has been insisted upon for so long by the Home Office, about

643
everything which goes on in a prison and the need to make things public. They said:
" We have no doubt both that the prison service would benefit from and that public sentiment requires that as many aspects of government, which includes the prison service, should be opened up to as wide an audience as possible ".
Therefore, in proposing an independent inspectorate reporting directly to the Home Secretary, they made it clear that his reports were to be published.
Secondly, they drew attention to the interim report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on the length of prison sentences and thought that that should be acted on. That is now getting old. So fas as I know, the Government have taken no step whatever so far to act on that report. I hope and believe that we shall be told by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether they do intend to do so and, if so, how soon.
They dealt particularly with the training of prison officers, which is something which the Howard League—which includes in its membership a number of prison officers—has been calling for for years. Under that heading alone there are some 15 detailed recommendations. They also call for a greater degree of co-operation between prisons and the local community. On that the right reverend Prelate has already made some observations. At page 158 of their report it says:
"… greater consideration than at present should be given to involving prison officers, on secondment, with a range of activities that take place outside penal establishments themselves, for example, pre-release hostels, bail hostels, day centres and day training centres, and all other types of establishment that are presently or may be in the future used in connection with noncustodial measures … there is scope for increasing the involvement of local volunteers and community groups outside in appropriate activities within establishments ".
They call for another extension of the role of officers:
}"… but it would also be a means of introducing a further degree of openness and public awareness into the running of penal establishments. That, as we have observed elsewhere, is something to which we attach importance ".
Thirdly, my Lords, I would welcome what has been said, so far as it went, on the prison population. At page 50 the report draws attention to those who are mentally disordered—and thanks to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord
644
Allen of Abbeydale, we have already, of course, discussed the Butler Report in full—and all those who ought to be moved out of prisons, as we have all been saying for a long time. It is not only the mentally disordered; it is the alcoholics, on which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will no doubt have observations to make, and the inadequate petty offenders and fine and maintenance defaulters. Here again, on Monday of last week there was an interesting Answer in the other place to a Question as to how many of those imprisoned were without previous convictions, how many had had one previous conviction, or two or three or four or five or more. The answers in each case were about 2,000, except those who had five or more, where the answer was 19,000. These are all the hopeless people, and what good it can possibly do to keep in prison people who are no danger to the community at all is, I must say, something I have never discovered.
My Lords, I had one grave disappointment and this was that the May Committee did not accept the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee; I still regard as quite incompatible the two functions which boards of guardians and visitors have performed. With regard to buildings, while I appreciate the criticism made by my noble friend Lord Longford, I think to some extent he may have misread the report, because they have made it quite clear that they consider that the first priority must be to deal with existing accommodation rather than with new accommodation. The first task must be to bring the state of our prisons into line with the United Nations minimum rule for prisoners, and in particular to end cell-sharing and to end not having, proper sanitary arrangements.
My Lords, when I said that I did not propose to criticise the committee all I had in mind was this. They were working under great pressure to deal with a crisis which was very largely a crisis of relations as between the Home Office organisation and governors and staff in prisons. They touched on a number of these matters. There were some fields in which they said they would like to have made recommendations but they simply had not had the time; and in other parts of their report, where they do deal, for example, with the classes of people who ought not to be in

645
prison at all, they were unable to work out detailed proposals because they simply had not the time. When one regards the time factor I think it is difficult to criticise the committee for not having done more than they did.
Finally, my Lords, may I point out that we are still in a state of crisis. The Prison Officers' Association are said to have given notice to end the overtime agreement, and all day today and all day tomorrow the Prison Officers' Association are meeting. I trust very much that they may feel able to exercise a considerable measure of patience and restraint, because the position is still a crisis position. Everything now really depends on people, including prison officers, keeping their cool, and on the Home Office acting with determination and with a considerable degree of speed to give effect to the most important of the recommendations which the May Committee made. We shall, therefore, all be listening closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has to tell us. He will not, I hope, say after all this time that the Government must have time for thought and consultation and so forth. We hope to hear from him that they are now going to act, and act with speed.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, Mr. Justice May must be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has pointed out the number of reports by Royal Commissions which are not debated, but, while we are all very grateful and acknowledge the work that the commission has done, many of us, as has been said by other noble Lords, are somewhat disappointed. However, we realise that the Commission was set up only on 17th November 1978, and it presented its report to Parliament in October 1979. It was given, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, somewhat narrow terms of reference. So, we pay tribute to it, realising its very great difficulties as regards both time and terms of reference, while at the same time having to admit how very disappointing we are with some areas of the report.
I shall base my speech on one prison as being the prototype of all prisons throughout this country. That one prison
646
is, of course, Oxford Prison as Oxford is the area from which I come and Oxford Prison is probably the most overcrowded prison in the United Kingdom. I wish to comment on four aspects and I realise that these points have previously been covered by other noble Lords. I wish to comment first on the recruitment of staff; secondly, on overcrowding; thirdly, on the very worrying numbers of custodial remand cases in prisons due to arrears of work in the criminal courts; and fourthly, on the Butler Committee Report.
I turn first to the question of the recruitment of staff. Like other noble Lords I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the meeting being held today by the Prison Officers' Association. Therefore, I shall say little. But, I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that the basic pay of a prison officer on first entering the Prison Service is £63 a week. A man out of work and with two children is subject to and receives £55 a week on supplementary benefit and insurance. He often, rightly or wrongly, gets other jobs, such as gardening which bring his pay up. Therefore, unless the prison officer when he first enters the Prison Service is going to work enormous overtime, the poverty trap will rear its ugly head yet again.
Many of the officers in Oxford prison are working between 18 and 30 hours' overtime. That cannot be right for the quality of their work or for their own personal lives or the lives of their families. We seek prison officers who have stability within themselves and within their family life and such men will not enter the Prison Service if they have to work such a large amount of overtime in order to earn a decent wage. I should like to make only one comment on that; namely, that it is the point of entry which is preventing many people from entering the Prison Service. We are losing many good men who would otherwise wish to work in this service.
I then come to the question of buildings and overcrowding. It is said by many that we should do away with and knock down many of our Victorian buildings. Many of the Victorian buildings, if they were not overcrowded, would be good buildings. They have a sense of solidity. In the case of Oxford Prison, it is well placed in the centre of the city, near the

647
railway station, near the bus station and easily reached by solicitors, probation officers and, most important of all, the relatives of the men. But Oxford Prison was built to take 137 men. In November 1979 crises proportions were reached when it contained 362 men—that, of course, means three to a cell. In fairness, I should say that the regional headquarters reduced the number by 20, to 342, by 3rd December, but even then most of the cells were occupied by three men.
I would submit that overcrowding leads to recidivism. A warder can get to know the men in the gallery he supervises if there are 30. He relates to the men personally; he accords to the men the dignity of a relationship; he is able to talk to them about their relatives, friends and girl friends and their private lives. Also, there is a dignity preserved with regard to the personal, private lives of the men. If there are 60 in the gallery, the uniformed stair relate, but they do not relate so well—they cannot do so, they have not the time. If there are 90 men in the gallery, as there are today in Oxford Prison and in many other prisons, there is no personal relationship between the uniformed staff and the prisoners whom they really wish to serve. Therefore, the plight of the prisoners is one where a hardening of attitude sets in, a feeling of unwantedness, a feeling of not being cared for simply because the staff cannot possibly give the time.
That overcrowding also affects the education programmes. Those programmes have been spoken of by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Where there is overcrowding it is impossible to have good educational programmes. Therefore, on discharge from prison the men have not been given the type of help that they might have been given in the areas of under achievement which most of them experience. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, talked about exercise. I know that in the prison in Oxford, in the centre of the city, with three men to a cell, the men have half an hour's exercise in the morning and half an hour's exercise in the evening and they fetch their food—otherwise, they are in the cells all day.
I turn to the question of custodial remand. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has, to some extent, shown the lack of link
648
between the courts and what the prisons have to offer. Of the 342 prisoners in Oxford Prison, 220 are unsentenced or on remand. There is one man who has been in prison on remand for 11 months, as the prosecution is even now not ready to take his case before the court. The number of untried prisoners remanded to Reading Crown Court is surely cause for deep concern. Despite the 1976 Bail Act, I think that I am right in saying that there has been an 80 per cent. increase in the number of prisoners on custodial remand. The arrears of work building up in the criminal courts seem to lead to these delays. I should like to mention—although it has been mentioned before and has been debated in your Lordships' House—the Butler Committee and the situation of mental patients who are not placed in mental hospitals as was recommended by the Butler Committee. There has been very little movement, I would submit, in that direction.
I turn to recommendations. There is no easy solution. There is no quick resolution, but there surely needs to be a sense of direction and boldness laid down by Parliament, instituted by the Home Office and possibly by the outside inspectors recommended in the report. First, I am surprised, sad and sorry that the May Committee did not consider, for instance, weekend detention. In paragraph 218 of' the Fifteenth Report of the Committee on Expenditure, weekend detention was recommended. I suggest that we look at Holland and New Zealand and that we might have a pilot scheme to show whether or not this could work. Speaking as a social worker who has had to work with families of men in prison and bearing in mind what we have heard today about the rate of unemployment, I know that no man wants to lose his job. If he does lose his job, it is an expense to the country because his wife and children must draw supplementary benefit.
Why, then, could we not have weekend detentions, say, for a year, with the man being at home during the week, working, keeping his family and maintaining contact with his family? I imagine that many noble Lords in this House go away for weekends. Therefore, it would not be so strange for those men to go for weekend detention. If they were offered either full-time prison or weekend detention, I know that they would chose the latter.

649
Secondly, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who sits on the Woolsack, I submit that we might look into the arrears of work in the criminal courts which delay court appearances. I realise that this might mean the appointment of more judges and the setting up of more courts. But could that he any more expensive than keeping 220 people in custodial care on remand?
I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Belstead will comment on the young offenders, many of whom are kept in prison. Were the young offenders to he taken out of the Prison Service and dealt with elsewhere, it would reduce the prison population to two to a cell. I shall not go into the non-custodial sentences, as I know that this will be covered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; nor shall I talk about the alcoholics, as I know that that problem will be covered by the noble Lord, Lord Soper.
On the question of maintenance and debt defaulters, in this country 2,564 people are in prison due to maintenance and debt defaulting. I should like to suggest that courts should consider attachment of earnings orders. I point out to my noble friend Lord Belstead that, when I was working as a social worker and people fell into arrears with their rent, it was cause for deep concern that families might he evicted, leaving the children and the mother homeless, and that we might have to accept the children into care. We used volunteers to visit a family every week on pay day in order to persuade them to pay their debts on a regular basis.
I have been asked by my noble friend Lady Vickers to ask my noble friend Lord Belstead whether particular thought has been given to help for the ethnic groups, many of whom cannot follow their religion, obtain the special food that they must eat, or, indeed, speak our language. On entering your Lordships' House today I asked an eminent Member of this House whether she was taking part in this debate. She said: "No, it has all been said before and nothing has been done". Perhaps it is cause for very deep concern that, in fact, more children in this country are in custodial care than in any of the countries of our EEC partners. We also have a high proportion of adult prisoners in custodial care, With my party's promise
650
of law and order in mind, like other noble Lords, I ask my noble friend what the Government propose to do.
6.55 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for reintroducing an issue which it seems your Lordships' House has been attracted to debate on a number of occasions recently, and on which I have ventured to speak on matters which are cogent to this particular issue. I must be careful to remember the biblical warning that one is not necessarily heard for one's "much speaking ". Nevertheless, I believe that this is an aspect of a crisis which goes far beyond the merely custodial or prison system or the Prison Service as such. I cannot conceal from myself, and I would not endeavour to conceal from this House, my belief that the prison system as such is irremediable. In as much as this report does not say so, I am consequentially disappointed. But that disappointment is considerably abated by the fact that, although it will take some time to replace the system, the best should be made of what can be done, if anything, to improve it.
What I have to say is largely interrogatory. I should like to know the Government's attitude to matters raised rather than solved, or of the attempt made to solve them, in this report. There is nothing that is more of an abomination than the overcrowding in prisons. Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to reiterate what I have said on previous occasions, that as a prison chaplain I regard the use of one small cell to accommodate two or three people to he an insufferable intrusion upon the privacy of an individual, whatever he has done, and a den of vice in so many aspects of his continuing relationship with others with whom he has no point of necessary contact, and in circumstances in which he happens to be the younger and the less adult he is probably inoculated against any remedial processes and encouraged to the very life of crime which, in the first instance, brought him into that prison. What do the Government have to say about the immediate need—whatever may be the cost of it—to enable a prisoner to serve his sentence in the privacy and decency which is still his right—not because he is

651
a good man but just because he is a human being? If there is any therapeutic treatment that can be offered to him, it must come within the framework of that privacy and that sense of human dignity.
What do the Government have to say about long sentences? I have repeatedly said in your Lordships' House that it is my conviction that any protracted sentence over six years in the same conditions is liable to destroy a moral dimension in those who suffer it. It does not mean that after six years a man should be let loose on the streets again, but it does mean that unless there is some kind of light at the end of that tunnel, we are performing an act, in the name of what we might call social justice, which is impermissible on moral and spiritual grounds.
However, I turn, if I may, as has already been indicated, to matters with which I am particularly concerned. The report makes a very strong case—and in this it is to be highly commended—for alternatives to the prison system and the Prison Service. It claims, for example, that therapy of any kind within the Prison Service should not be applied—even if it is attempted—to those who are mentally insufficient or disturbed. This is for the simplest of reasons. As a parson I am always looking for texts, and here is one on page 50 which is particularly apt. Here is a report. Prisons
" contain a lot of people in a small space against their will. There therefore has to be a rigid daily timetable of movement: unlocking, collecting food, exercise, and so on. The mentally disordered cannot cope with this routine or with prison discipline. As prisons are at the moment, a therapeutic environment can be provided for only a tiny minority of inmates ".
I am not sure even of that tiny minority.
If you are prepared to incarcerate, under the Mental Health Act (which makes it more difficult to do anything else about it), those who are mentally afflicted within the general framework of the Prison Service, then how can you expect an overworked and understaffed prison staffing to deal with the peculiarities and idiosyncracies of those who are less normal after they have been in prison than they were even before they entered it.
652
Let me turn to the problem of alcohol. I was vastly interested to see that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich—and I wish he was here to correct me if I read wrongly what he said—seemed somewhat surprised at the very large relationship between alcohol consumption and the criminal rate and the penal system in general. This is something to which I have been committed as a proposition for many years. I would invite your Lordships to consider what has been done, and what is now in process of being undone by the Government.
Under Circular 21/73 provision was made whereby the DHSS, through local authorities, could fund social endeavours, hostels, and so forth, to take people who are in danger of alcoholic consumption, who indeed are suffering from alcoholic diseases of one kind or another, out of the prison system altogether, as it is quite right and sensible to say that they should never be there. Now the Government are apparently considering, so far as I can understand—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can disabuse me of this—within the next few months withdrawing the subventions funding those local authorities. Eleven of those local authorities have already said that they can no longer sustain the voluntary organisations which can keep alcoholics out of prison, and give them a reasonable chance of rehabilitation. They have expressed the opinion that detoxification centres cannot so be funded.
It is no secret that we have made certain presentations to the DHSS. The last time that this question was raised in your Lordships' House the Minister, in reply, indicated the possibility of two years in which to reconsider this matter, and not so to impoverish such voluntary organisations within the next few months as to bring to an end the very process of keeping alcoholics out of prison, because they never should be there in the first place. I very much hope that we can have an affirmative answer on this particular issue. I would only add that I am the more convinced every day that if you could reduce the alcoholic content in the general crime rate, you would reduce the crime rate itself by something like 40 per cent.
I would finish on rather another theme, and you will acquit me of any professional

653
zeal in introducing, so to speak, an ecclesiastical commercial. The affairs of this day here were introduced with the prayer:
" Present us O Lord in all our doings with thy most gracious favour; and further us with thy continual help in all our works begun, continued, and ended in Thee ".
This document is a work. It begins with no reference whatsoever to religion. It continues with no single reference to religious matters, and it ends with no propositions that have a religious context. I find that peculiar. Indeed, I personally find it intolerable. I do not want merely to dilate on the fact that there seems to be an element of basic hypocrisy in praying like that and then proceeding as if the prayer does not mean anything. I agree that it would be unsuitable to prescribe certain forms of doctrine as therapeutic in prison services, though I am of the opinion—I hope I am wrong—that the Government are preparing to instil some kind of religious education into the short, sharp practice of sudden and quick sentences, about which we have heard in the last few weeks.
I am well aware, too, that very few of those who will be exposed to any religious education will be, so to speak, already in a kneeling posture at the communion rail and ready to be converted. I am also aware that, if the alliteration is not too apt, they are not in the pew, and therefore are not aware of the general substance of the faith to which we would endeavour to persuade them. But they are in the porch, as it were, and I would suggest to the Government, if I may, that quite apart from the particular religious education which specifies a particular form of doctrine, far more effective than the short, sharp sentence and the application of what is, after all, very much like violence, there is a profound need for a recognition today on the part of many young people, and older people, of the moral issues which are largely obscured and, in many cases, are not even mentioned. I do not think it is beyond the wit of those who can contrive, if you like, or can bring together, a general symposium that does not depend upon certain theological propositions but does depend on the main difference between what is right and what is wrong. That dimension seems to me in many cases to be lost.
654
The other day I submitted to a lie test, and was very gratified that I was a very bad liar. I took that to my comfort. Mind you, I am not going to say to your Lordships that I could not tell a lie, but I have an inbuilt tension as soon as I try to tell one. It is not particularly to my credit; it is the fact that I have been brought up in that kind of environment. I noticed that on this particular test actors and criminals had no such tension or, if they had, Mr. Nimmo concealed it with excellent expertise.
I think that this is not an inconsiderable point to make. I believe there is a real place, in the therapeutic treatment of the prison system, with all its inabilities and failures, for trying to represent that kind of moral discussion. I earnestly hope that the Government will be prepared to introduce, as part of the educative process which is indicated in this report, that kind of discussion, because I have a sneaking feeling that quite a number of those who are now in prison will be much more likely to respond to a free and fair discussion of moral issues than they are prepared to think that they will be the better for a short, sharp treatment on something like a barrack square.
Let me conclude in this way. I hope that the Government will answer the questions, or seek to answer the questions, which have been posed this evening. If the attempt is made to answer them, they will attract the admiration and the support of many who feel that, at the moment, nothing very much is being done, but so much ought to be done.
7.10 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, this is the second time in a matter of weeks that I have had the pleasure of following closely the noble Lord, Lord Soper, delivering an ecclesiastical commercial. The last time I recollect having appeared to disagree with him in your Lordships' Chamber, but I hope I made my peace with him outside the Chamber and I take this public opportunity of assuring him and your Lordships that I do not really dissent from the proposition he has put to the Government this evening.
I join with everyone in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us this early opportunity to debate the May

655
Committee's report. The fact that he has done so so soon after its publication should serve to impress on the Government the urgency of acting, at least on its more important recommendations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke about the institution of Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry. I too had that point to make, and I will make it briefly because he is right in saying that the institution of such commissions and committees has come in for a good deal of criticism, on the grounds of the amount of time they take, the cost to the taxpayer and the fact that after many months, perhaps years, of patient and thorough investigation, nothing or very little happens as a result of all their labours.
I speak, as no doubt other noble Lords could, with some feeling about this, having served on a Royal Commission recently and on a number of such committees. My point this evening is not to complain about this situation but to make the point that, despite the lack of public interest in the prisons, to which Mr. Justice May himself alludes, here is a report produced with the necessary speed to cope with what was well described by Lord Longford as a crisis, some of the observations of which and, I would say, the main tenor of which would be ignored only to the discredit of the Government—although they did not themselves set up this committee—and certainly against the public interest.
I propose to strike a more positive note than the noble Earl and some other speakers, and I am glad to join with the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in doing so, and I shall, I assure your Lordships, touch on only a few of the main areas in the report. I would say about those who criticise it that there are dangers in striking a general note of condemnation about a report of this importance in perhaps encouraging the Government to take little or no action on it; it is necessary to be positive. It is logical to start with administration and management. In mild disagreement with the noble Earl, I was personally glad to note the proposal that the chairman of the Prisons Board, as head of the service, should not necessarily be a civil servant; and equally, if not more importantly, that he should serve for at least five years, and preferably for seven years.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I was not complaining of anything except the way in which they made their proposal, which renders it completely meaningless. He should either be a civil servant or not, or an ex-governor. I was not criticising anything except the absurdity.
Lord HUNT: I shall be coming to that in a moment, my Lords. I intend no disrespect whatever to the very able deputy secretaries who have held this post for a number of years in the past, but I say that the lack of identity within the service and in the mind of the public at large of the head of the service and the limited term it has been held have, I think, been one of its main structural weaknesses. I was glad to note the prospect which is held out to prison governors to aspire to this summit, this peak of their profession, and I hope that future service chiefs will, as May has recommended, serve for a full seven years. Taking the noble Earl's point, surely the essential point is that the best person should be selected for the job regardless of where he comes from, and that he should serve for an adequate time.
At the level of the prisons, I like the references to a new management style and to leadership from the centre. A uniformed service is of course necessarily traditionally hierarchical, but I am convinced that under able management—and let there be no doubting the wealth of management skills among the governor grades in the Prison Service—the service could be democratised without detriment to essential discipline, and I take a side glance at the noble and gallant Field Marshal in the hope that he will support me in that thought.
I turn to the welfare and social problems of people serving sentences in prison. The probation and after care service has traditionally been charged with the social problems and the welfare needs of men and women in our prisons. It is not a popular role among probation officers, but it is accepted by those officers who serve inside that their training and skills cannot be dispensed with and that they form a bridge for supervision and care of prisoners after release. The involvement of prison officers in the welfare of prisoners which the report alludes to as a recognised secondary role of the prison officer has a lot to commend it. In fact it has

657
been going on informally for a very long time. But by making if official it can serve to generate collaboration—I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to this—and postulate an equal status between prison officers and probation officers. Even more to the point is that it enables a human relationship to be established and maintained between prison officers and inmates, that "humane containment" which is referred to in the report on which the very viability of life for everyone inside our prisons really depends. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to confirm that there will be no delay in developing the practice which has been proven by experiment in the five prisons.
I speak for myself, knowing that it is a contentious point and is not agreed by many social workers and probation officers, when I give my view that the report is right in making a further recommendation that prison officers should have the opportunity to serve on secondment outside prison. It has long been my belief that suitable officers could provide a continuum of fairly close supervision from prison into the community of certain difficult offenders who might otherwise place the community unfairly at risk.
I am quite purposely repeating what has been said by everyone in this debate in saying that the most important general point in the report is the weight it has given to the policy of reducing the prison population. So much has been said about this, not only this evening and not only in your Lordships' House but outside it and for so long—by the Advisory Council for Penal Reform in 1974, the House of Commons Select Committee on Expenditure in 1978, the National Association of Probation Officers, prison governors, criminologists, and every respectable independent body such as NAPO, working positively and responsibly for penal reform—that I will limit myself to enjoining on the Government once again the importance of heeding the words in this report. What is needed, what is overdue, is not more words, but action. Will the Minister forecast some steps within their power to bring progress in this critical matter of reducing the prison population?
The corollary of that main point in the report is of course the need to press ahead
658
with methods of alternative treatment in the community, for which the noble Baroness has billed me to say something, but I will say very little because of time. One has to mention only community service orders (referred to in the report), intermediate treatment (which, so far as I know, received no mention), detoxification centres (which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, mentioned), day centres for ex-offenders, day training centres, and probation orders. I was very disappointed in the rather pessimistic note struck by Mr. Justice May about the prospects of increasing probation orders. My own view is that they can usefully be combined with some of the other types of treatment that I have mentioned.
Quite recently I visited three of the four existing day training centres. Only last week I was down at Pontypridd, and I mention this only because I came back more convinced than ever that, expensive through they are, and selective though they have to be at the moment because there are only four of them in the country, I believe them to be potentially the most productive of all alternatives to imprisonment for difficult offenders, hardened to crime and inured to prison. in enabling them to come to terms with themselves and with the community.
I have spoken of alternatives to prison, but of course they are not alternatives in terms of this report and its recommendations. There has to be action both in the provision for the prisons and for non-custodial methods. As Mr. Justice May has pointed out, the main areas of his recommendations are a package and must be taken as a whole. Again, I hope that the Minister will assure the House not only that there will be further expenditure on the prisons, but that there will be no cut-back: indeed, on the contrary, that there will be the means for extension of non-custodial alternatives to prison.
There is a great deal else in the report. I think that most of the points have already been touched upon and I shall restrain myself from saying more. However, I should like to add a tailpiece. No one who is familiar with our more decrepit and disgraceful prisons would dispute the need to renovate and to replace at least some of them. But I had a touch of sadness about the committee's reference

659
to Dartmoor. I am well aware that my feelings will not be shared by the staff and inmates at Princetown Prison, Dartmoor, though when I was last there there was still something of a cachet about doing time on the "Moor ". I once made an interesting route up the wall of Dartmoor Prison. It was from the outside, and it will not be a popular route. The only point I want to make is that I venture to hope that when the time comes to dispose of this historic place, the Home Office will consider placing a plaque to mark that spot.
7.23 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, in adding to other tributes that have been paid to my noble friend Lord Longford for enabling us to debate this important matter, may I assure the House that at this late hour I have no intention, even if I were capable of doing so, of entering into the theological or philosophical concepts which arise from a discussion of prison reform and the prison crisis. I want to concentrate upon a few points that have already been dealt with by your Lordships in the course of the debate, and I want to try to make them short, interim points on short, interim measures to deal with the current crisis, as it has been so aptly described by my noble friend Lord Longford.
All of us will share in hopes and dreams that there will be found more alternative remedies than we have already thought of, be they the extension of community service orders, be they the extension of other alternatives to imprisonment. The fact is that at the moment the prison system is there, and therefore I want to direct my speech towards some short questions to the Minister arising from the present critical position and the measures that could he adopted fairly quickly in order to relieve an impossible situation which now exists.
First, may I deal with the question of the prison officer, and may I at once disclose an interest, in that I happen to be the senior partner of a firm of solicitors who have been legal advisers to the Prison Officers' Association for very many years. Quite apart from that, it has been mentioned that it would be a most undiplomatic moment—I think the noble and
660
learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that—at which to discuss the question of prison officers' pay. I do not want to do that. What I want to refer to, and ask the Minister about, is a reference in the report to something which can he done and which arises from the present conditions for prison officers. I refer to paragraph 10.15 on page 239 of the May report. I regard the matter as most important in view of the vital role that prison officers must play in our Prison Service—as one noble Lord after another has said tonight—in connection with both educational and welfare matters; and in the hope that they will take more than a custodial and a security role in the service.
I quote the report as follows:
" The increase in inmate numbers has also exacerbated already cramped conditions for staff, and we have seen for ourselves the difficult and unsuitable circumstances in which many work, often without the standard of recreational and canteen facilities enjoyed in other occupations. However soundly-based the civil service rules governing the provision of such facilities (and the department's interpretation of those rules), these factors have further convinced prison officers that management lacks any real interest in them as people and is unconcerned with the betterment of their working environment ".
There is then a reference to the Scottish Home and Health Department, which is a flattering one to it in regard to the way in which it has improved staff conditions. I shall omit that, and quote as follows:
" It is clear that an essential feature of good industrial relations in the prison service is that not only should management be as concerned for staff as inmates, but that it should be seen to be so ".
I ask the Minister if in his reply he can indicate whether improvements are being considered; what steps are being taken to deal with this very important matter regarding prison officers which has been raised by the report?
Reference has been made to the increase in the prison population. I should like to indicate the seriousness of it—not that anybody has any doubts about the position—and I shall quote from only one set of figures contained in the report, at page 31. Since 1947
" the average daily population has increased by nearly 24· times. The number of remand prisoners "—
a matter that was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in her most interesting contribution—
" has increased more than fourfold: this is partly the result of increases in reception but also partly

661
due to the increased average time these prisoners are held on remand ".
I therefore emphasise the point that the noble Baroness made in reference to the one prison that she knows so well—though I am sure that there are other prisons that have also had the benefit of her interest—but I should like, apart from the statistics that she quoted in regard to that one prison, to give your Lordships the overall picture as revealed by this report; namely, that the 1978 population of prisons of 41,796 included 5,631 remand prisoners—a proportion of one-eighth of the total population. While realising that it is not the reponsibility of the Minister who will graciously be replying to this debate to see that trials are speeded up and that remands are very considerably shortened—it is certainly not part of his responsibility, as I understand it, outside the magistrates' courts—may I plead with him that he, together with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, should, as was said earlier in this debate, consider it as a matter of prime importance that at least that part of the population of our prisons is decreased very considerably?
My Lords, I do not want to repeat things that have been said by other people, but I should like if I may to refer for a moment to that other element within our prison population which, if I may say so, is an absolute scandal—that is, the presence within the population in the prisons of the mentally disordered, to which reference has already been made. It has been said, and absolutely correctly, that this House dealt with the interim report, and indeed the final report, of the Butler Committee on Abnormal Offenders when there was a Motion before this House by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. My Lords, a firm recommendation was made in that interim report, as long ago as July 1974, that there should be set up regional secure units in the 14 health authorities that would be capable of accommodating, among others, disordered offenders in prison. It was interesting that, following upon our other debate, the Department of Health and Social Security, in giving evidence to this inquiry, said that there were at present plans to provide 1,000 places in what are now termed (in the usual way that we do these things) RSUs in programmes which were expected to be completed in 1985.
662
My Lords, the report also comments on the fact that there were very few regional health authorities which had set up interim units. May I ask the Minister how many such units have been set up? And, realising the problems that there are, both with planning permissions and with procuring the right staff, what is the policy of the Government in regard to carrying out the recommendations of the Butler interim report in 1974? How far are we going to get with those recommendations over the next year? Is there anything in the Government's plans over the next year to deal with what is a scandalous situation quite apart from its effect on the prison population and the disturbances caused in prisons as a result of these poor people being where obviously they ought not to be?
My Lords, there is plainly a part for the National Health Service to play in this. It has been said—it is quoted in the report—that the National Health Service has failed in its obligations in this regard. Has the Minister, from his or his right honourable friend's discussions with those responsible for the National Health Service, any constructive plans to offer in this connection?
7.35 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to be able to follow the most eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He speaks so eloquently on so many subjects that it is indeed a privilege to follow him this evening. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing the May Report to us, even at this late hour at which I am on my feet. I should also like to pay a very great tribute to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Justice May. I have the privilege of knowing him fairly well, as one of the reasons I am able to speak tonight—and I shall be only a very short time—is that I am, and have been for the last two years, a member of the Parole Board, apart from the fact that I have also been, for 25 years, a magistrate. I am inhibited tonight in speaking at all after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who was the first and very worthy chairman of the Parole Board, but it is in the context of my membership of the Parole Board and of the dossiers that I am able to read more or less fortnightly that I have gained some knowledge of the prisoners' views of problems

663
within the prisons, and can perhaps make a very short contribution to the debate on this very important report.
My Lords, as everybody will know, there are 117 prisons, including borstals and detention centres; but I think that what is important to our deliberations tonight is the fact that 40 per cent. of prisoners are sent to prison for terms of under six months. Perhaps it is that population that we should be turning our minds to this evening, because in Chapter Three it says:
"Every effort should be made to reduce the population in prisons".
I am sure we would all agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has suggested that alcoholism is a very big contributing factor to people being in prison. I should like to add the mentally disordered, to whom other people have alluded, and I would also add a third group, which has come through the dossiers I have read, and that is those who suffer from epilepsy. It is perhaps not quite so widely realised that epilepsy can lead to spasmodic violence, and violence is one of the causes of people being imprisoned almost (shall I say?) forthwith.
Bearing in mind these three conditions—mental disorder, epilepsy and alcoholism—I should like to suggest that it might be possible, before the magistrates send a prisoner to the Crown Court for sentence (or even, indeed, before they themselves send a prisoner to prison) they should be asked by the Home Office to have a medical report on the prisoner concerned. Of course, alcoholism and the treatment of it are not by any means as easy to deal with as the other two conditions, because as far as I know alcoholics are not always amenable to treatment. One reads in the dossiers of those who will join Alcoholics Anonymous with every good will in the world and with every good wish for their survival outside, but who, directly they get outside, even if it is part of their parole licence that they should not drink, are likely to go overboard and celebrate their coming out of prison with a drink, and it starts again.
Voluntary effort has been alluded to in the report, and I feel that this would he enormously helpful within the local confine of a prison. As I happen to know from my work in another sphere, there are so
664
many people of goodwill who, I am sure, would he prepared to help certainly the alcoholics in the problems that they have.
Although I am told on reliable authority that 40 per cent. are sentences of six months and less, that leaves 60 per cent. who are in prisons of all kinds—prisons which are run on very good lines and prisons (as we have heard tonight) which are antiquated, early Victorian and have nothing at all to commend them. These hardened prisoners, the hardened criminals, the recidivists, are sent to some of these prisons. As I have said so often in this House, as a magistrate I have always felt the public must be protected from people like armed robbers, arsonists and murderers; but I should like to allay the fear of anyone who thinks that people are not educated in prison. Of course, education cannot be undertaken in every prison; but it is possible. What is not possible is to persuade some of the prisoners that they need to be educated. It is not always possible even to persuade prisoners that they should be able to read and write.
I was interested to read, at least a year ago, of a probation officer who wrote:
" Snooks was glad to have been imprisoned, the reason being that it has afforded him educational opportunities and the encouragement to improve his knowledge which, sadly, he had never had outside. He has gained two City and Guilds certificates on the vocational training course in engineering; he is doing a correspondence course in navigation and is also studying photography ".
I know that prisoners also can study bricklaying, radio and television, painting and decorating, GCE courses (and can take examinations in that) and can also study at the Open University.
But we have a long way to go; and the people who are primarily responsible within our prison walls are, of course, the prison staff. Other noble Lords have warned us that we should not discuss the prison staff tonight; but I should like to say that I think that it was perhaps unfortunate that the May Report came out with a recommendation of a 6 per cent. increase. That does not give the true picture whereby, being civil servants, the prison staff start this year with a 22 per cent. increase, added to which there might be possibly a 6 per cent. one or perhaps even more.
I should like to pay my tribute to the prison staff for their dedication to the

665
people in their care. The staff themselves have almost doubled in the last 15 years and from my experience of them I have come to feel that prison staff are certainly born and not made. They have a sense of duty and loyalty. Their working conditions have been alluded to in the May Report. I am sure that the Government will do everything in their power to make their quarters up to date and their working conditions as good as it is possible for them to be. It was very interesting to me to read of the prison officers' desire to extend their roles with a wider range of duties. This seems to me to mean that they want to help their prisoners even more than they have done before. It cannot be easy to have strict discipline while at the same time being almost a friend, and perhaps even a welfare officer, to the prisoners within their wing. I should like to say how much those of us who have to deal with the various reports rely on the wing officer's report. The May Report is vitally important for the future of prisons, the staff and the inmates. Much needs to be done in the light of the report. Like other noble Lords, I await to hear from my noble friend Lord Belstead of what the Government have in mind.
7.44 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness in a number of things that she has said. I am particularly interested in epilepsy and crime. I think we do have a number of successes through education and I entirely agree with her about the dedication of many people within the prison officer service. But if I am going to get through the three points that I particularly want to make in reasonable time, I do not think I can follow the noble Baroness on those matters. I begin by saying that Sir John May said that he hoped that the report would stimulate the kind of public debate that we think desirable. Closed institutions, above all, require open, well-informed discussion. I had the honour to chair just such a discussion last Friday. It was organised by NACRO. of which I am proud to be president, and Sir John May, Mr. Dennis Trevelyan, head of the Prison Department, and Dr. Roy King, from University College North Wales, were the speakers. Mr. Trevelyan praised the report; while
666
Dr. King attacked it root and branch. On balance, I think that Dr. King had the better of the argument, but not by any means easily.
The report is constructive and sound in its condemnation of prison conditions, both of prisoners and of staff, and in its amazed recognition of the appalling treatment or remand prisoners are who caged up for a month and then, in many cases, found not guilty or fined; so they are more severely punished before the verdict than most short-term prisoners after the verdict. Nearly every noble Lord who has spoken referred to this point. It is probably the worst thing in our system. The report slips a bit in its attitude to what I think important: visits, letter censorship and the use of the telephone. But it is sound on work, on education, on the length of sentences, and, above all, on independent inspection which I think extremely important. It was not swayed by Home Office arguments to give up its point there.
Its description of the building needs of the Prison Service, I find convincing; although disputed by Dr. King. I am clear in my mind that, even if we are able to do what I believe we ought and could do—which is to reduce the prison population by 10,000 and the number of prisons to, say, 100—we should still need to spend large sums to bring the remaining buildings up to standard. Dr. King, I thought, was unfair in his accusation that the Home Office is only interested in pouring money into the estate; but I think the report failed to do justice to Dr. King's argument for the redistribution of population among existing prisons. This is my first and most important point. If I may follow his criticism in my own words, the first and most important problem in penal affairs is to stop sending people to prison who need not be sent there. This is something to which most noble Lords referred. Out of the latest figures from the Home Office research unit in the South of England, we learn that 30 per cent. of the offenders are petty offenders, 21 per cent. are mentally disturbed, and one-third of the 42,000 they believed to be divertible from prison. Obviously, there are enormous difficulties in doing this. My complaint about the May Report is that it was very weak on this side of it. The prerequisite for any prison planning must be the reduction of the

667
population in this way down to, say, 10,000 and 100 prisons, if and when necessary. I will say something later on about how this can be done—the clue to which, curiously enough, is at the bottom of one paragraph in this report.
The second point is to give more weight to maintaining family ties than to training. Imprisonment is a disaster in anyone's life but family visiting is its main mitigation. It is more important to confine men near their homes than to try to rehabilitate them, because you will not rehabilitate them if you take away the one link they have which really means something. This means reviewing the whole layout of prisons throughout the country. At the moment, training prisons are not overcrowded, some indeed are under-used, and conditions are good. Yet, local prisons are grossly overcrowded and the conditions are appalling, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made only too clear.
As training meets with a minimum visible success, there seems no reason to punish one lot of people by viciously bad conditions, while looking after another lot by good conditions which produce no important results. Without adopting the full King-Morgan plan of abolishing 21 training prisons in favour of better local ones, it must be right to effect some changes in this direction. I confess that I think that the report missed a major chance in not accepting some part of this recommendation.
I will not go into the argument about humane containment versus positive custody. Both conceptions are undefined and one cannot discuss them without clear and precise definitions. No doubt the average citizen in Thailand would consider humane containment to be given to the 50 or so men condemned to death whom I saw seven years ago contentedly playing cards in their fetters. But I do not think that we should quarrel about this. Clearly, every prison should meet a minimum standard of humane containment which the overcrowding, the lack of occupation, the long periods locked up and the sanitary arrangements in most local prisons do not meet. The report is strong on all these points.
Over and above this, surely there can he no doubt that facilities for individual
668
development of all kinds, of the kinds the noble Baroness has been speaking about—educational and recreational—should be freely available, and the admitted desire of staff to do more than just enforce custody should be encouraged. This does not justify the present distribution of good and bad conditions, if I may so put it, whereby the longer-term prisons are well treated and the shorter-term are badly treated. I most earnestly ask the Minister to study the King-Morgan evidence to the May Committee on this point. Some change of attitude, and hence some change of planning, is overdue here. The May Report took far too little notice of the new and original suggestions in that evidence.
May I turn now to the crucial point. No report on prisons can be anything but tinkering which does not at least attempt to deal with the main problem, on which we all agree, that there are far too many people in prison who should not be there. This is not the point that overcrowding is bad; it is the point that, if you do not need it, prison is bad. Home Secretary after Home Secretary has agreed with this. I and my colleagues, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, have been saying so for well over 20 years. Yet nothing happens. There are of course real difficulties: the public desire for crime to be punished cannot be ignored, nor can the judiciary's determination to maintain its freedom of action.
This brings me to the one really encouraging paragraph in the May Report, isolated among some particularly weak and hesitant paragraphs concerning action on parole, alternatives to prison and executive action generally. Paragraph 3.58, on page 56 of the report, has the following two sentences on flexible remission:
" In addition, of all the possibilities, it is schemes of flexible remission which are the most nakedly linked to prison population levels and, accordingly, the least reflective of what it was the court on individual merits thought appropriate. Such objections might be reduced, however, by devices like putting to Parliament in annual debate the decision on the appropriate remission rate for a 12 month period ".
The suggestion is put baldly—and it is not put baldly in the report—that Parliament should decide each year what size of the prison population was tolerable, and should reduce all sentences by the proportion necessary to produce that figure. Thus if the prison population is 42,000 and

669
it was thought desirable to reduce it by 10 per cent., an overall reduction in all the sentences of the necessary percentage would be enforced from a certain date. This could be done year by year, each time bringing the population down as required. The precise figure would not be difficult to calculate. The judiciary would behave as usual and would not know what reduction in their sentences would be imposed and so should have no temptation to increase their sentences to allow for it. The public would hardly notice it as sentences would remain stern and the speed at which Parliament decided to reduce the population should not of course be too fast. Meanwhile, the other things which we all think ought to be done like the alternatives, like the amnesties, like the parole, like the week-ends, could be worked out; and, in due course, they would be effective. There is not time to discuss this fully. But at last a serious suggestion has been made—however pipingly—in a major report which contains the seeds of a solution to our age-long prison problems. We could thus really approach our first target of reducing the population by 10,000 and closing anything over the hundred prisons, leaving a hundred to be properly reconditioned and maintained over a period.
My Lords, I am going to stop after I have made two small points. I cannot agree with the right reverend Prelate; I do agree with the noble and learned Lord about boards of visitors. I was chairman of a board of visitors for over 10 years and I think that it is totally wrong to try and combine getting the confidence of the inmate and the staff with adjudications. I do not think it is a starter. May I say one last thing: this report is not really very well written. I think it is a great pity that a report as important as this should violate so often the rules which we laid down the other night in our debate on the English language. My Lords, I should like to speak for hours but I will stop now.
7.57 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this is the first time that either House of Parliament has had the opportunity to debate the report of the May Committee
670
since its publication. This debate is of great value in assessing the recommendations of the report of Sir John May's committee because all your Lordships who have come to the House to speak today have a personal commitment and knowledge of the subject about which we have been talking. In addition to that, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has once again done a service to your Lordships' House by quickly raising the subject of the Prison Service. The reason I say this is because this debate reminds us of the vital importance of the prison system, an importance which is constantly stressed throughout the report. In some ways—and this has come clearly through this debate—the report paints a sombre picture of the prison system, pointing to overcrowding, problems of control and the physical decay of some prisons with the associated poor working conditions for staff. Yet, as the committee has forcefully pointed out, everything is by no means black. The Prison Service has in the past 10 years had to cope with all these problems and many more. But it has coped and, not only that, it has done a great deal to maintain civilised and humane régimes in the prisons.
I mean by that that the Prison Service has in the past 10 to 15 years carried through a really extraordinary modernisation and expansion of prison industries, positive developments in education—although I know that may of your Lordships would like to see further progress in this direction and the introduction of parole, and of course the service has meanwhile maintained control of an increasing number of dangerous prisoners.
The May Committee recognised these things and paid a justified tribute to the staffs of the Prison Service. It cannot be said too often—and I repeat it now—that the service has much of which it can be proud; but no one can read the report and no one could have listened to this debate without being able to understand the magnitude of the difficulties which undoubtedly face us. Nonetheless, I think one of the great advantages of the report is that it gives us a chance to do something about these difficulties.
Of course the committee has not provided us, and it did not claim to have done so, with a magic formula to solve all our

671
problems. I would suggest to the House that there is no such formula. It is going to take a great deal of hard work and goodwill on the part of all concerned. But May has given us an opportunity to work for a better future and I think it was very important that the committee should have reported as it did, after an enormous amount of hard work, in under a year. The report was made, I can say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on 28th September.
The noble Earl said in his speech that it should have been possible last year for the previous Government to set up a limited inquiry into pay and conditions. I must say that I do not accept that assertion. The May Committee argues convincingly that the deterioration of industrial relations in the Prison Service has been a symptom of more fundamental problems, and for that reason alone I think it was terribly important that the previous Government should have taken the view that the terms of reference should be wide.
The committee saw one of the first priorities as being to restore confidence and to improve morale and, to this end, proposed a major reorganisation of the Prison Department within the Home Office, designed to raise the standing of the Department and to enhance the unity and identity of the service. The Home Secretary has welcomed these objectives, and work is now proceeding on those recommendations as a matter of urgency. I realise that the noble Earl has taken a deep interest in this particular aspect of the Prison Service, and I should like to assure him, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that changes in management and organisation will result from our consideration of the report.
In this context, there is one decision which the Home Secretary is convinced it is now right to take. The noble Earl, I know, has previously argued that a weakness of the present structure of the Home Office is that the Director General of the Prison Service is not responsible or accountable for the conditions of service of his own staff. May takes the same view. Therefore it is clear to my right honourable friend that the functions now performed by the division in the Home Office Establishment Department
672
concerned with prison service grades should in future he exercised within the reorganised Prison Department.
As I have said, the other organisational proposals made by the committee on the structure of the Prisons Board, the regions and the inspectorate—a matter which I very much take to heart—about which noble Lords have spoken this evening, are under consideration. We are not committed to the May scheme; we are committed, after discussions with those involved, to trying to get matters right. I do assure your Lordships that it is not just a form of words when I say that we shall announce decisions on these matters, as soon as possible, having taken seriously into account what has been said by your Lordships in this House.
I would particularly draw attention to the report's conclusion: that the Prison Service cannot, any more than any other part of government, be insulated from the need to be accountable to Parliament and public. Thus it is that the report recommends the continuation of the Home Secretary's final responsibility for the service to Parliament. I must say I personally think that this is essential. I find it hard to be persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to whom I must say I listened with the very greatest interest, that in some way an independent commission would be able to adjust penal policy to prison capacity, attractive though that sounds. It occurs to me that such a policy would encroach upon the independence of the judiciary— an independence which after all is vital to our freedom—and I doubt whether a policy of that kind would he acceptable to Parliament and public.
Nonetheless, having said that, we were then brought back to this subject head-on by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who, by referring to the report, drew the attention of your Lordships to the practical importance, as he saw it, of the proposals for reduced or remitted sentences. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I would rather not try to answer him across the Floor of the House this evening but, if I feel I can add anything, I should prefer to write to him after the debate.
Also in connection with this area, may I say that I do understand that those

673
involved in the day-to-day problems of running so diverse and complex a service as the Prison Service may sometimes feel that their problems and their objectives are not sufficiently understood. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has gone further and laid the very great difficulties which have been faced by the service at the door of the Home Office. If he will forgive me, I believe this criticism is not fair, but I accept that what is needed on the part of all involved in the Prison Service is a greater understanding of each other's problems.
The May Committee has emphasised that ultimately the problems of the Prison Service are the responsibility of the service. I believe that means that leadership is needed by giving not just directions, but direction, to the tasks of the service—something which I understood the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to be saying to the House—and that a response is called for from members of staff at all levels, because together all members of the Prisons Service are facing very great problems indeed.
The May Committee were quite clear that the prison population is too large. My noble friend Lady Macleod reminded us in her speech that there are violent offenders who really can only be sent to prison. So, in the words of the committee,
" we shall have to support for the foreseeable future a substantial penal population ".
I agree with the tenor of what many speakers have said, that that does not absolve us from the obligation to continue to seek ways of reducing it. We accept unreservedly what the committee say in this respect. We do so with realism because, at a time when the proportionate use of imprisonment has declined over the last 25 years, the scope for creating further non-custodial alternatives may become the more limited. But there is, surely, hope. The committee endorsed the view that shorter sentences would be appropriate in many cases, and so added weight to what I believe, and what I have certainly taken away as being the feeling of this debate, is a growing body of opinion. Their recommendations on this matter were welcomed by my right honourable friend in another place and I know he is determined to try to make progress on this issue.
674
Similarly, the Government have welcomed the committee's firm recommendation that mentally disturbed offenders falling under the terms of the Mental Health Act should be transferred to hospital, where they belong. I agree that is where they belong. Although my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is continuing to press the health authorities to make proper provision for these offenders, we should recognise—and I would just inject this into the discussion—that the transfer of mentally disordered offenders would take only some 200 or 300 people out of the prison system. None the less, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and other speakers that it would bring a great deal of relief to the staff of prisons for whom such prisoners pose problems of control out of all proportion to their numbers, and that above all to do something in this respect would be right. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me the direct question: What is actually being done? The information I can give him this evening—and I should have to write to him to give him more—is that 11 out of the 14 regional health authorities have now submitted plans for the setting up of regional secure units.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, the noble Lord has been so gracious in dealing with the comments which I and others have made that I hesitate to interrupt him. However, I am wondering about the accuracy of his figures, only because I took the trouble—this is also referred to in the report—to see what were the figures given by the prison medical services on 31st December 1978 as to the content in the prison population of those who were mentally disturbed. I believe that this is reported in the Official Report of the Commons on 12th June 1979 at cols. 162 to 168. The figures are 519 such persons on that date, of whom 389 were sentenced.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I must admit that I have a feeling that the noble Lord is right. Having to reply to him immediately across the Floor of the House, certainly I am not going to contradict him and say that my figures are right and his are wrong. I wonder Whether the House would accept it from

675
me that in this matter I believe I may be mistaken and that in order to put it right, if I am wrong, I shall most certainly write to the noble Lord so that the figures are on record in that way.
Speaking of reducing the prison population, emphasis has also been placed by the May Committee as well as by your Lordships on the need to redirect more offenders away from prison and towards non-custodial penalties. All I would say on that this evening, because of the confines of time, is that the Government are committed to the development of non-custodial penalties, so far as possible, and that we are trying to show the honesty of our intentions by the support which we are giving to the work of the Probation Service.
Reducing numbers would go some way towards alleviating our immediate problems. As the committee have said, and said forcefully, one of our greatest problems is the condition of the prison estate. To quote the report, the worst prisons are very bad indeed. The right referend prelate the Bishop of Rochester and my noble friend Lady Faithfull provided the answer to this: that in the past, Governments have given too low a priority to the prison system in the allocation of resources. This is not a political point. In its way, this reflects society's view of prisons. The committee noted without much surprise that public interest in the penal system has been fitful. In these circumstances, it is understandable—although I know it is not excusable—that the prison system has been undercapitalised. But we now have a worthwhile capital programme designed to bring into operation one prison in each of the next five years.
I say openly to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that if we are to achieve the targets set by the May Committee—the elimination of enforced cell-sharing and the introduction of integral sanitation—we shall need more resources. In the present economic and financial climate, with many competing claims, this is not going to be easy, but the Government are committed to supporting and improving the prison system. We shall seek to ensure that prisons receive that share of our resources which fairly reflects their importance to our national life.
676
I reply, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who quoted paragraph 10.15 of the report: that what I am saying about the capital spending on prisons applies not only to the building programme recommended by the May Committee but also to their proposals for improvements in facilities and amenities for staff. It is sometimes forgotten—although the noble Lord very much reminded us this evening—by those with a legitimate interest in the welfare of prisoners that staff, too, have to spend much of their lives in and close to prisons. The May Committee quite rightly laid stress on the importance of providing properly for staff, and we shall be giving this issue the priority that it deserves.
Tackling these problems, if we can—the size of the prison population and the physical condition of the prison estate—will make it easier for us to ensure that we can maintain and improve the kind of constructive regime towards which we are always aiming. We no longer entertain the kind of exaggerated expectations relating to the rehabilitative value of imprisonment which were current even a short time ago. To that extent I meet the case which was put so powerfully by the noble Earl. However, as the committee said, that does not mean that we should be tempted to abandon all attempts to be positive and just fall back on what is sometimes called "humane containment".
To do everything that we should like would require fewer prisoners, better buildings and more staff. In this context, I am pleased to report that recruitment is improving. Moreover, the diversity of the prison system militates against general prescriptions. Positive custody will mean different things in overcrowded local prisons, or borstals, or dispersal prisons, or open prisons. Nevertheless—and this is my answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester about our attitude to the committee's rewording of Rule 1—the Government will heed the committee's injunction to redouble our efforts to ensure that every prisoner has at least the chance to use his or her time constructively, and that the staff have the opportunity to extend their role in a positive manner.
If your Lordships would forgive me for just a second, I should like to say this, because many of your Lordships have spoken personally. In the short time

677
that I have been working at the Home Office, I remember very well one evening reading the umpteenth parole case. In it, I suddenly realised that there was a report by one of those whom my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve called "wing prison officers" on a particular offender who was seeking parole. As I read that report I realised that, although the report was analytical and accurate, the officer could not conceal from the reader his genuine concern about the future of the prisoner about whom he was writing. I am bound to say to your Lordships that there is a lot of scope for increased welfare work, if I may put it broadly, by members of the Prison Service.
Before I come to the end of my remarks, may I turn to two points about which I was asked. In her speech, my noble friend Lady Faithfull gave details of the overcrowding at Oxford Prison. My noble friend may like to know that Reading Prison is about to take up the function of a local prison. This has been planned for some months. I had the opportunity to visit that prison some months ago and the staff at Reading were training at the time so that they would be ready to take up this new function. I very much hope that this move will be a real help towards alleviating the overcrowding at Oxford.
The other point I should like to take up is the one which was put to me by many of your Lordships, about the desirability of what the committee called "openness in the Prison Service". I think it is sometimes underestimated how much in recent years the prison system has been opened in some ways. For example, agreement was reached recently with the BBC on a major study of life in a prison—not dissimilar to that which was carried out for the Royal Navy some time ago. In addition to this, the new Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place will doubtless be interesting itself in the Prison Service. All that falls into this category, and I think it is desirable.
I am convinced that there is a great deal to gain from increasing public understanding of prisons. That is why we shall pay heed to the May Committee's suggestion for greater openness. The committee made a number of proposals as to how we might meet that objective: for example more positive public relations, a more open
678
management style, greater involvement of local communities—about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester made many interesting suggestions—non-executive directors, if I may put it that way, on the Prisons Board and a more independent inspectorate. We shall genuinely be looking at these points in the immediate future.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, may I presume to interrupt the Minister before he sits down because I asked a specific question about the funding under 21.73 of hostels dealing with alcoholics. The arrangement has been that such funding will end in March of next year. May I ask whether the Government will be prepared to reconsider that in the light of the very serious position it will raise in the next two years before we have opportunities, if the Government continue to press that point, of making alternative arrangements?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, since the noble Lord spoke I have been in touch with the Department of Health and Social Security, and the answer that I should like to give to the noble Lord is that this was indeed an option which the Department felt had to be considered. No decision has been taken and the terms of what the noble Lord has said are being drawn immediately to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
May I finally just turn to the question of industrial relations. The Committee argued, as I said when I began to speak, that the deterioration in industrial relations in the Prison Service was symptomatic of more fundamental problems of the kind which we have been discussing today. It also reflected changes in attitudes to industrial relations in society generally. If that analysis is correct—and I am sure it is—a lasting improvement in industrial relations can only be achieved by tackling those problems and by changes in the attitudes of all concerned. I like to think that the Government have shown an absolutely straightforward attitude on their part to the importance of pay, by my right honourable friend's immediate acceptance of all the committee's recommendations on pay and allowances. I accept that some in the service are disappointed by the size of the increment recommended

679
by the committee on the third stage of the general Civil Service pay settlement, but it would be a tragedy if concentration on questions of pay were allowed to blind us to the real chance we now have to create a better deal for the Prison Service.
I think perhaps there has grown up a certain cynicism about reports of this kind, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention in his speech. Committees are established (so the story goes) to buy time until a difficult but possibly temporary problem blows over. Reports which are unwelcome or uncomfortable are simply shelved or pigeonholed. I really do not think that either of those things applies in this case. In Opposition we welcomed the establishment of the May Committee, and in Government we have no intention of shelving the report. The Home Secretary is determined that we shall make progress on the basis of the report. The May Report is typical of the age in which we live: it is realistic, it eschews rhetoric, because rhetoric solves nothing; but if, as the right reverend Prelate says, this is not a Gladstone Report for the present day, what is it? In my view it has indicated the directions in which the Prison Service should go in two main ways: the recommendations on positive custody, Home Office organisation, the building programme, the prison population and many others are significant contributions to our thinking on future strategy.
But secondly, and potentially even more valuable, the report challenges all of us involved in the Prison Service to take the initiative in solving our problems. It challenges us to improve the quality of management at all levels; to increase public understanding of the prison system; to end the scandal of the physical conditions to which many of our prisons have sunk. In this sense, too, I do not think the committee would be unduly worried if we did not accept to the letter everything that they recommended. They did not claim a monopoly of wisdom, any more than do the Government. If I have read the report correctly it is more important to the committee that we get on with the job in hand—and that, my Lords, the Government intend to do.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  MMF TUFTED CARPETS AND POLYESTER YARN: IMPORTS
  MMF TUFTED CARPETS AND POLYESTER YARN: IMPORTS
  THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: FUNCTION
  THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: FUNCTION
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: COST
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: COST
  COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY: COST
  COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY: COST
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE: PRISON VISITS
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE: PRISON VISITS
  CARPET IN PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  CARPET IN PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  X-RAY EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRANTS: INFORMATION
  X-RAY EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRANTS: INFORMATION
  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT 1978: PROSECUTIONS
  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT 1978: PROSECUTIONS
  THE APOSTOLIC DELEGATION TO THE UK: DIPLOMATIC STATUS
  THE APOSTOLIC DELEGATION TO THE UK: DIPLOMATIC STATUS
  COLLABORATIVE WEAPON SYSTEMS
  COLLABORATIVE WEAPON SYSTEMS
  THE DUCHESS OF KENT'S MILITARY HOSPITAL, CATTERICK
  THE DUCHESS OF KENT'S MILITARY HOSPITAL, CATTERICK