Sitting of 17 July 1979

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

  SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  Bills to be considered upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    North-West
    Mr. Strawasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in Great Britain, and the North-West.
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he expects unemployment to increase or decrease in the North-West.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Jim Lester): At 14 June, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain and the North-West region were 1,281,102 and 200,701 respectively.
    Future levels of unemployment will depend upon a number of factors which cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. It is, therefore, not possible
    1276
    to give any reliable forecast of the position over the next 12 months.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the cuts in local authority spending which have been announced will certainly lead to the loss of 10,000 jobs in the North-West? Is he aware that any cuts in regional aid will place many thousands more jobs at risk? What estimate does he have of future unemployment in the North-West in the next year? What hope does he hold out to the 1,700 school leavers in my constituency and the 91,000 in the North-West as a whole who will be looking for jobs during the next month?
    Mr. Lester: The youth opportunities programme is being expanded. The policies of the previous Government increased unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency by 246 per cent. Clearly, the policies of this Government are changing the whole atmosphere. We want to create real jobs based on services which people want.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that deindustrialisation has taken place at a faster rate in the North-West than in any other region of the country? Does he realise that his Government's policies are only adding to that process, with a consequential leap in unemployment which will take place in the North-West in the next 12 months?
    Mr. Lester: As the hon. Member knows, I spent three days on Merseyside last week, during which time I visited his constituency. I was pleased to see that in his constituency, particularly, there were signs of useful industrial regeneration, some of which was being carried out without the aid of Government grants.
    Mr. Dan Jones: May we have a breakdown of the unemployment figures in North-East Lancashire, from Blackburn to Barnoldswick?
    Mr. Lester: I shall arrange for those figures to be given to the hon. Member if they are available.

    Young Persons
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his forecast of the number of young people who will be unemployed in the North-West,

    1277
    on Merseyside, in Kirkby and in Ormskirk at the end of 1979.
    Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend has no such forecast, nor is it the Government's practice to issue this kind of forecast.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the Minister really saying that he has not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Industry about the likely increase in unemployment in Ormskirk, which will result from the measures being announced today? Is that not a disgraceful admission which shows a cavalier and callous disregard for the future of young people in my constituency? Is it not also a sign of the Minister's own incompetence?
    Mr. Lester: It would help the hon. Member's constituency if, instead of making rather wild statements in the House, he actually obtained the co-operation of trade unionists in Kirkby to allow the local authority there to take its full part in the youth opportunities programme. It is not able to do so at present, and it cannot spend its budget.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not represent the North-West as much as he believes? Many hon. Members who represent North-West constituencies recall that under the Labour Government unemployment rose and every constituency in the area was affected.
    Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Under the previous Administration unemployment in the North-West rose by 40,000. The Government are taking the problem seriously. My right hon. Friend and I visited the area for three days, which was the longest ministerial visit that has been made under any Administration.
    Mr. Golding: Does the Minister recognise that the slashing of regional grants will add substantially to youth unemployment, not only in the North-West but elsewhere? The withdrawal of the special temporary employment programme for many towns will bring great hardship to the many young people who are unemployed in those towns.
    Mr. Lester: I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but the hon. Gentleman may find that some of
    1278
    the measures that he will refer to will help those areas of high unemployment.

    Enfield
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies for skilled men are currently notified to the Ponders End jobcentre.
    Mr. Jim Lester: The precise information is not available, but on 8 June there were 238 notified vacancies in the craft and similar occupations group remaining unfilled at the Enfield employment office, which serves the Ponders End area. That group does not necessarily include all skilled occupations.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a direct result of the previous Government's policies, which caused high taxation and a narrowing of wage differentials, there is a severe shortage of skilled workers in my constituency? Is he further aware that there is a great deal of support among skilled workers for the Government's trade union reforms?
    Mr. Lester: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is true, and the fact has been supported by many speeches from Labour Members, that the previous Administration's tax policies forced many skilled workers to take unskilled work because those jobs provided better rewards.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of skilled workers has been an endemic problem for the past 10 or 15 years? In the light of that, is it not stupid to cut back on the work of the Manpower Services Commission and to hamper its sensible reorganisation, which involves moving the headquarters to Sheffield?
    Mr. Lester: There has been a serious shortage of skilled workers for longer than the past 15 years and a great deal is being done to try to correct that mismatch. Part of that work is looking at and renewing our training methods which, clearly, are not satisfying the demand.

    Times Newspapers Limited
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with Lord

    1279
    Thomson of Fleet about the future of Times Newspapers Ltd.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I have had no discussions with Lord Thomson, but I am willing to meet all interested parties at any time.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-read the pledges given 13 years ago by Lord Thomson's father to the Monopolies Commission about putting the Thomson wealth behind The Times in the future? Now that there are rumours that Times Newspapers Limited may be sold to Rupert Murdoch or to somebody else, what action will the Minister take, using his statutory powers, if such a proposal is made?
    Mr. Prior: That is a hypothetical question. I believe that it would be better to allow negotiations to proceed, in the hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

    Jobcentres
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the work of the jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jim Lester: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is generally satisfied with the performance of jobcentres and he supports the plans of the Manpower Services Commission to modernise the employmnt service.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for that reply, but there have been rumours about the possible curtailment of jobcentres. Will the Minister take it from me that jobcentres perform useful functions by looking after the interests of small employers who do not have the resources of large employers to carry out that important work? Will he make sure that the Government stand firm on retaining the jobcentres?
    Mr. Lester: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have visited many jobcentres during the last few weeks. They do an excellent job and they work with good motivation.
    Mr. Madel: On the question of placing disabled people in work as a result of the research done by jobcentres, will my right hon. Friend say what has been done
    1280
    to assist with fares for disabled people travelling from rural areas to their jobs?
    Mr. Lester: I cannot answer that question directly, but I shall look into it and let my hon. Friend have a reply.
    Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend that jobcentres do useful jobs. Nevertheless, does he agree that in small rural areas and market towns to have a jobcentre and an employment centre within 200 or 300 yards of each other is a waste of manpower, resources, buildings and equipment?
    Mr. Lester: That would seem to be the case. If my hon. Friend will give me the details I shall look into the matter.

    TUC
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans next to meet members of the Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment problems.
    Mr. Prior: I keep in regular contact with members of the TUC and we discuss a wide range of issues, including unemployment.
    Mr. Hughes: Instead of attempting to restrict the hard-won rights of the trade unions, would it not be better to restrict the efforts of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) whose demented policies, such as withdrawing financial aid to the hard-pressed steel industry, together with major cuts in assistance to development areas, are likely to exacerbate the already serious unemployment problem?
    Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, instead of making those unfounded attacks upon my right hon. Friend, will take time off to help his constituents and the country to achieve full employment, which is what his Government failed singularly to do.
    Mr. Neubert: What explanation can my right hon. Friend give for the fact that at a time of high and increasing unemployment there are thousands of unfilled jobs throughout the country? In London, the Post Office is 2,000 short although the post service is notorious. What action will the Government take to get those people off unemployment benefit and into unfilled jobs?
    Mr. Prior: There is not a large enough gap between what people can earn in a job and what they can obtain by not working. By restoring differentials and decreasing the amount of tax that is paid and, perhaps, in the long run, by bringing short-term benefits within the tax net, a better balance will be achieved.
    Mr. Ashley: What special consideration is being given to the older unemployed worker who, especially in areas of high unemployment, is demoralised at the prospect of being unemployed for the rest of his life?
    Mr. Prior: That is a serious problem. The job release scheme that was introduced by the previous Government, and extended towards the end of their period of office, is being maintained. That will help the older unemployed person. Other than that, only a general improvement in the state of the economy will result in older unemployed persons obtaining jobs.
    Mr. Marlow: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) about the work-shy, will my right hon. Friend give consideration at some stage to the possibility of reducing unemployment benefit after a period of, say, six months to those who have been offered jobs and not accepted them although they could have done so?
    Mr. Prior: We should keep the matter in proportion—[HON. MEMBERS " Hear, hear ".] When Labour Members start to cheer that sort of remark they should remember the great indignation that is felt by those who work hard about those who do not bother to work at all. The Government are trying to see that more people are called in for reviews of their unemployment benefit where they have refused to take jobs, in the hope that that will encourage them to make more effort.
    Mr. Benn: Has the Secretary of State given consideration to the TUC argument about the flood of manufactured imports that are financed by our oil revenue that have led to a major balance of payments deficit, combined with the withdrawal of Government support for British industry? That withdrawal will accelerate de-industrialisation and ultimately prevent the country from earning its living or employing its people.
    Mr. Prior: Without accepting the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the House will remember that he was singularly unable to convince his own colleagues about his alternative strategy. Therefore, I do not know why he is trying to convince me.

    Statistics
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment.
    Mr. Prior: At 14 June, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 5·4 per cent.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister admit that well over 100,000 jobs will be destroyed as a direct result of the regional development cuts, redundancies in steel and shipbuilding, and the emasculation of the National Enterprise Board and Scottish Development Agency? Is it not about time that the Minister got off his knees and started to fight unemployment, instead of genuflecting to the insane doctrines of the mad monk, who initially did not even have the guts to come to this House and meet Members of Parliament face to face?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir, I do not admit any such thing. I believe that the hon. Gentleman could do his constituents more of a service if he debated these matters seriously rather than make the kind of Pavlovian noises that we just heard.
    Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in the Amble and Alnwick area of Northumberland is substantially above the national rate that he quoted and that this is not a special development area? Is there some process by which the Department can apprise the Development of Industry of unemployment black spots in order to get something done about the position?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir, I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend to see that regional policy takes into account the problems of unemployment. The present problem of regional policy is that it seems to have been designed more to suit by-elections held during the lifetime of the Labour Government than to solve the serious problems of unemployment.
    Dr. McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance to the House that he will not further increase unemployment by further reducing the job protection rights of employees beyond those already in the pipeline, and that he will neither reduce nor abolish the maternity leave provisions in the Employment Protection Act?
    Mr. Prior: On the last point, the hon. Lady should wait until we produce our proposals for changes in the Employment Protection Act. I should have thought that that legislation was recognised by many employers, and indeed trade unionists, to be one of the greatest deterrents to full employment.

    European Community (Ministerial Meeting)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his EEC colleagues; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: I expect to meet my EEC colleagues at the next Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs. This is planned for Tuesday 27 November 1979.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister tell the people over there that while the Common Market gravy train lumbers on, with its newest passengers on board today, the so-called MEPs, the Common Market policies on subjects such as steel, together with the Tory policies that are being carried out in this House, are resulting in the devastation of towns such as Shotton and Corby? Is it not a fact that a Tory Government are interested in job creation schemes for those in the Common Market and dole queues for British workers?
    Mr. Prior: The answer to that supplementary question is " Rubbish "
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend consider, when he next meets his Community colleagues, whether the time is ripe for some initiative on a Community-wide training scheme for young people, under which young people can travel within the Community to obtain experience, thus achieving common European standards of training?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. There is a small scheme which is now operated and which
    1284
    we should like to see expanded. There is also a need to see that our schemes for the training of young people and for helping the older unemployed fit more readily into the schemes which the EEC social fund will support. I believe that we can do a lot better than we have been doing in the last year or two, although we did very well before that.
    Mr. John Grant: In view of the enormous imbalance in the Community budget and its adverse effect on this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he attends the next Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs, to press for a bigger and better share of the European social fund? Will he bear in mind that the announcement that is to be made later today by the Secretary of State for Industry will make that kind of assistance even more desirable?
    Mr. Prior: I do not wish to say anything about my right hon. Friend's statement which will be made later today. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make that comment. We need to obtain more resources out of the social fund. This will mean changing to some extent some of our statistical evidence and also tailoring our policies more to suit the social fund. We must seek to achieve that end, and we shall do so.

    Microprocessors
    Mr. Buchanasked the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration is being given to the compiling of statistics related to unemployment arising out of developments in the use of microprocessing technology.
    Mr. Jim Lester: It would not be practicable to compile unemployment statistics to relate to particular causes of unemployment. The greater threat to employment is if United Kingdom industry fails to adapt to new technology, and I welcome the TUC's recognition of this in its report " Employment and Technology ".
    Mr. Buchan: In view of the statement that this would not be practicable, may I remind the Minister that this process is already undertaken in France? Is he aware that, taken together with the devastating Tory cuts in industry, the unemployment to which I refer in my original

    1285
    question is one of the most serious matters the nation faces? We are importing as much microtechnology as we are exporting, and the Government are showing appalling complacency.
    Mr. Lester: The Government are not complacent, because my Department set up a study group in microelectronics last July, the report of which we expect in the next two or three months.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Although the social problems inherent in any structural unemployment must always be taken seriously, may I ask the Minister to take every opportunity to emphasise the enormous potential which this device offers the human race for eliminating both intellectual and physical drudgery?
    Mr. Lester: I agree with my hon. Friend. We believe that British industry, by using its initiative, will be able to adapt better to this technology than will our competitors.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that against a background of policies that can lead only to a massive increase in unemployment the statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this morning, and his own modest support for the TUC's recent report on microelectronics, represent small steps in the right direction? Will he assure the House that the Government will not sabotage the Labour Government's announcement on this area? Will the Government put their weight behind efforts to modernise British industry in applying these developments to important industries, such as machine tools?
    Mr. Lester: I am pleased to give that assurance.

    Industrial Disputes (Finance)
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be discussing with the trades union leadership the financing of strikes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew):During the course of future discussions, but not immediately.
    Mr. Marlow: In view of the fact that my constituents, in common with many others, resent paying taxes to the families of strikers for strikes that will increase
    1286
    the prices that most people will have to pay, in view of the fact that the trade unions in this country are worth more than £300 million, in view of the fact that before the changes which the Labour Party introduced strikers' families did not starve, in view of the fact that power is money and that the more Government money the unions get the better able are irresponsible unions to sustain strikes, will my hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents and the House that as soon as it is proper to do so he will introduce measures to make sure that the trade unions have to finance their own strikes to a larger extent?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and of the early-day motion which was tabled in his name. Many people consider it only right that trade unions should bear a fair share of supporting the families of members on strike. We shall be discussing this matter with the TUC. For the moment, the discussions in which my right hon. Friend is engaged relate to even more important matters.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that the introduction of Draconian measures against wives and children of strikers can only deepen the terrible problems towards which the present Government are now moving? Does he also appreciate that it would be far more sensible to try to abolish the lousy conditions in many workshops to ensure that working people have a reasonable wage, instead of having to put up with measures which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has wanted all his life?
    Mr. Mayhew: Nobody is suggesting that the families of people on strike should receive less support. All that is being suggested is that the trade unions whose members initiate a strike should bear a fair share of the contributions.
    Mr. Dorrell: I recognise the undoubtedly strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but does the Minister accept that the Government need the co-operation of trade unions in ensuring support for a broad measure of their policies? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is more important to secure that co-operation than to seek

    1287
    agreement on the measures proposed by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Mayhew: The Government believe that all their proposals are sensible. By discussing these matters with all concerned we hope to achieve a wide measure of support.

    South Shields
    Dr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to stimulate employment in South Shields.
    Mr. Jim Lester: It is the Government's policy to stimulate the creation of new jobs by restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating the climate in which industry and commerce can flourish. South Shields continues to benefit from the full range of special employment and training measures, and from assistance under the Industry Act.
    Dr. Clark: I find myself perplexed at the answer. Bearing in mind that local government and shipbuilding are the two key employment areas in South Shields, can the Minister explain how the Government's plans to cut back public expenditure in local government and shipbuilding will help employment prospects in South Shields where almost one man in six is already without a job?
    Mr. Lester: It is difficult to comment on the specific question of local government in South Shields. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that shipbuilding is a national and European problem. There is no way one can protect shipbuilding when people do not require ships. What is important is that all the measures exist to try achieve a better base for industry in his constituency.

    TUC
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had on forthcoming legislation with the TUC.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has already had a number of informal discussions with the TUC and hopes to have further discussions shortly on the basis of the working papers which were published last week.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but is he
    1288
    aware that there is a great deal more support in the rank and file of the trade union movement for the Government's proposals than might appear from the pronouncements of leaders of unions affiliated to the TUC? What practical steps can my hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that the voice of the rank and file trade unionists who support these proposals is listened to?
    Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is correct in pointing to the wide degree of support among trade union members for these proposals. The measure of that support was seen in the result of the general election when millions of trade union members voted for the Conservative Party whose manifesto set out exactly the proposals which are the subject of the working papers.
    Mr. Maclennan: In view of the Government's hope that the trade unions will exercise restraint on wages in the forthcoming year, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what consultation the Government have had with the trade unions about the proposed abolition of the Price Commission in a Bill published last week?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am not able at this point to give a detailed answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him about the matter. It was made clear in our manifesto and in the election campaign that we did not support the Price Commission and that its days were very probably numbered.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that to get the right balance in these measures proposed for discuscussion with the TUC negotiations will need to take a substantial time? It would be wise to reach final decisions later rather than sooner.
    Mr. Mayhew: The Government are determined that there should be ample time for genuine and substantial consultations. I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make clear the status of these working papers? Are they Green Papers? Are they consultative documents? Are they White Papers? To what extent will they form the basis for genuine consultation rather than a mere willingness to listen by the Government with no

    1289
    change? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the contents of these working papers represent only a small part of the subjects under review by the Government, including maternity provisions, guaranteed pay, the appointment of worker safety representatives and the terms of reference of ACAS?
    Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the working papers are exactly what they say. They are working papers representing the Government's proposals for the implementation of measures set out in their election manifesto. They are genuine working papers and a basis for genuine discussions. As my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon, we shall also be bringing forward shortly proposals with regard to reform of the Employment Protection Act, especially those provisions which bear damagingly on employment.

    Statistics
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work at the most recent count.
    Mr. Prior: At 14 June, the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,281,102.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figure would have been exactly the same if the Labour Party had won the general election? Will he also confirm that an extra person joined the dole queue every three and a half minutes when the Labour Government were in office?
    Mr. Prior: I confirm the second part of what my hon. Friend says. On the first part of his question, I sometimes wonder whether the Budget and the arrival of a Conservative Government have not helped the figures rather than hindered them.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by how much that figure will increase following the written answer to be given later today to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) about the Government's proposals on Meriden?
    Mr. Prior: All I know is that, despite the frantic efforts by the Labour Party in government to save a number of jobs
    1290
    for a short period of time, the number of unemployed went inexorably upwards. That is a situation that we do not wish to see.

    Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for an inquiry into the activities of the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend appointed Mr. Andrew Leggatt QC on 7 June to inquire into
    " recent industrial relations development, including in particular union recruitment activities, in the artwork, advertising and associated industries; and to report ".
    I understand that Mr. Leggatt is now receiving evidence from interested parties, and is aiming to report by early autumn.
    Mr. Atkinson: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's reply, but does he accept that the activities of the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers have shown that our present labour laws allow trade unions to force employees to join by threatening their jobs? Will he undertake, as part of this inquiry, to receive evidence from management which is prevented from managing by the unions, which even determine the customers with whom management is allowed to deal?
    Mr. Mayhew: The question of the evidence to be received is a matter for Mr. Leggatt. It would not be right for the Government to intervene. I would expect, however, that evidence from the quarter suggested by my hon. Friend will certainly be given. On the first part of his question, it was the widespread unease about recruiting activities of the two unions concerned that led to the commitment to set up a similar inquiry to this.
    Mr. Cryer: Is this inquiry part of the general attack by the Conservative Government on the trade union movement? Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to meet representations from the trade union movement on proposed changes in the legislation set out in the consultation document? Is he prepared to assure the House that if the

    1291
    trade union movement makes strong representations against the Government's iniquitous proposals the Government will change their views?
    Mr. Mayhew: The Government have no reason to attack a movement that contains so many millions of their own supporters. If representations are made to the Government against any of the proposals, they will be carefully and genuinely considered. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these working papers contain no proposal that was not foreshadowed in the manifesto. There is a commitment to the broad strategy of the proposals. At the same time, there is a genuine willingness and anxiety to listen to what is said to us about them.

    Special Temporary Employment Programme
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of the special temporary employment programme.
    Mr. Jim Lester: I have received various representations from organisations and scheme sponsors.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Has not the special temporary employment programme always had a dubious validity? Would it not be better to concentrate resources on the training of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 in the hope that they would either then get jobs or, benefiting from the experience, take up some of the vacant places in our polytechnics?
    Mr. Lester: I believe that the programme has a valuable contribution to make. We have concentrated the programme in areas with deep-seated problems. It is interesting that only 44 per cent. of the cases last year came from the ranks of long-term unemployed. I intend to improve on that.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the special temporary employment programme was of inestimable value in North-East Lancashire? It had the support of employers; it had the support of the trade unions. It undoubtedly helped to bring down unemployment and create jobs in that area. Will the Minister consider that in the light of the general
    1292
    plan to diminish the programme in intermediate areas?
    Mr. Lester: I do not promise that I will look at that question. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the overall point that we are concentrating more places in areas where the need is greatest.
    Mr. Golding: It may be the case that effort is being concentrated where the need is greatest, but many areas, where the need is very great indeed, are being totally ignored. Young people over 19 in those areas will suffer very much in the coming winter as a result of the withdrawal of the special temporary employment programme.
    Mr. Lester: As the hon. Member knows, all the schemes are reviewed annually. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it will show in next year's review.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of males, females, boys and girls, respectively, registered as unemployed at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement on what action he is taking to find suitable jobs for these unemployed persons.
    Mr. Jim Lester: At 14 June, 887,211 males and 393,891 females were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. These figures include 74,731 male and 62,379 female school leavers under 18 years of age. The Manpower Services Commission helps to find suitable jobs for unemployed people by placing them directly into permanent employment through its advisory and placement services, by supporting—either directly or indirectly—a wide range of traning facilities and, together with my Department, by operating the special employment and training measures which provide worthwhile training, work experience and jobs which are concentrated in areas of greatest need.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government's policies as outlined in the Budget will provide more jobs in the future and therefore help his Department? What is the Department doing, in discussions

    1293
    with the Cabinet, to ensure that more jobs are provided in areas such as mine where the unemployment rate is 9 or 10 per cent.? That rate has been high for some time and is bound to rise unless the Government change their policies.
    Mr. Lester: I believe that our policies will provide more jobs. Certainly the Labour Government's policies did not do that. They doubled unemployment in five years.
    Dr. Hampson: Since many industries are still crying out for skilled labour, will my hon. Friend guarantee the role of the training advisers at the industrial training boards? Will he ensure that they continue to be recruited since they represent the cutting edge of the training programme? They are suffering cutbacks, while the Manpower Services Commission's staff are being protected.
    Mr. Lester: I shall examine that question.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When will unemployment reach 2 million?
    Mr. Lester: One does not make forecasts.
    Mr. Greville Janner: How many of the unemployed men are aged between 60 and 65?
    Mr. Lester: It is impossible to estimate the numbers while at the Dispatch Box. I shall give the hon. and learned Gentleman accurate figures later.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what role he envisages for the Manpower Services Commission in the next five years.
    Mr. Prior: When I met the Manpower Services Commissioners on 20 June I made it clear to them that I saw an important role for MSC in operating its important and continuing employment and training programmes.
    Mr. Hooley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the training, retraining and redeployment of workers is of cardinal importance for our future prosperity and effectiveness as an industrial nation? Does he also agree that the Manpower Services Commission will function more
    1294
    effectively if it is allowed to concentrate its work in the specially built building in Sheffield, which was designed for that purpose, rather than its staff being scattered around odd premises in London?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman forgets that there must be some real incentives and differentials if skilled people are to follow a skill. It is no good training many people for skills if they then do unskilled jobs. A review of dispersal policy has been taking place. Recently I met the unions involved. I have been examining carefully and sympathetically the views of those unions. An announcement will be made shortly.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has sufficient control over the activities and expenditure of the Manpower Services Commission?
    Mr. Prior: I do not think that I could ever he satisfied with that. However, I am very satisfied indeed with the work of the chairman of that Commission and of the Commissioners. There is always room for improvement in Government service and in organisations such as the MSC.
    Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he met the Society of Civil and Public Servants on 29 June to discuss MSC dispersal he said that he would press his Cabinet colleagues to complete the review quickly and that he would give it a decision before the end of July? Will he keep that promise?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Manpower Services Commission is performing the right role? Is he aware that while it is building jobcentres at vast expense in city centres, where the private sector could achieve the same purpose more effectively, it is reluctant to provide any form of employment service in isolated large housing estates such as that at Partington in my constituency, which it has totally ignored?
    Mr. Prior: Nobody should consider that a Government body, or an extra-Government body, is working perfectly. I think that there is room for improvement and perhaps a different emphasis from the Commission.

    1295
    Jobcentres always come under attack. In some respects that is justified. However, generally I believe that the Commission is carrying out its job efficiently. It is seeking to improve training, which is important, but it is not the whole answer.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Whitneyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to duties in this House I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Whitney: Will the Prime Minister confirm that she has had the opportunity of reading press reports of the decision by 1,300 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union to participate in a private health scheme offered by their employers? Does she agree that this is yet another indication of the widespread view that there should be greater freedom of choice to participate in health schemes and similar enterprises?
    The Prime Minister: I read the reports. I think that it is an excellent arrangement, and I hope that other branches will follow suit. The arrangement will bring great benefit to the members of that union and will also bring more money into the National Health Service.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: During her busy day, will the Prime Minister take time to read again the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech on 12 June, and in particular the moving and emotional part of it in which he said that he did not propose to increase the duty on paraffin because it was used primarily and domestically by pensioners? How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that speech with the action of the Secretary of State for Energy who, on 11 July, removed all price control from domestic paraffin? Is this the first and fastest U-turn of the present Administration?
    The Prime Minister: I am only too happy to read my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent speech again. The Sec-
    1296
    retary of State for Energy did not put a tax on paraffin. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a great shortage of paraffin in the shops. The choice was either to release price control or not to have paraffin at all.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Prime Minister find time to remind herself of the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto not to cut spending on the National Health Service? Will she reimburse the National Health Service for the extra burden of VAT on its purchases of equipment and supplies?
    The Prime Minister: We shall honour the commitment to maintain expenditure on the National Health Service in real terms. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to raise money to spend on these expensive health services. We chose to raise that money through indirect rather than direct tax.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend have time today, on behalf of the vast majority of trade union members whose views and aspirations she, above all in the country, represents, to suggest that trade unionists might spend some time this summer in Germany examining the standards of living of trade unionists in that country? Will she urge them to make comparisons between the standards of living there and here, to examine the role and activities of trade unions in Germany and to draw the necessary lessons? Perhaps my right hon. Friend might also be able to provide a little precious Government money to help them in that task.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: A trainee SS man.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that increasing numbers of trade unionists will make such visits. I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box that if we want a German standard of living we must have a German standard of work.
    Mr. Ennals: Has the Prime Minister, during the day, come to a decision on the Government's policy on the admission of more refugees from Vietnam, including

    1297
    some of those whom we hope will be picked up from the sea by the mercy ship? When will the House have a statement on the Government's policy in this respect?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the small petition that was handed in to me at No. 10 this morning by some of the children. We hope and expect that there will be a statement tomorrow.
    Mr. Adley: On the question of trade union membership, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that people outside the hierarchy of the TUC have an opportunity to express their views to the Government on the Government's proposals for trade union reform?
    The Prime Minister: Judging by the numbers of people who come to see me and my right hon. Friend, I believe that they have an opportunity to express their views. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the request that others as well as the TUC should have the chance to represent their views.
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Government's policies will divide the United Kingdom into two nations in a way unknown since Disraeli's day, and that the impending regional aid cuts will accentuate that trend? Is the country to be carved up, with the South-East of England being set against the rest?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's views for one moment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be making a statement shortly, and it would be better not to comment further until we have heard that statement.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to make a statement about immigration? Does she agree that one of the reasons why many people, particularly in the
    1298
    urban areas, voted Conservative at the last election was that they agreed with the detailed promises in the Tory Party's manifesto? Does she agree also that there should be an announcement about a change in the immigration rules before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
    The Prime Minister: We shall, of course, be implementing the promises that were made in the Conservative manifesto, but I cannot promise an announcement before the Summer Recess. I shall be frank with my hon. Friend. We do not plan to have an announcement on immigration before the recess.
    Mr. George: Will the Prime Minister have time to meet the chairman of the Tote to discuss with him the accusation that bets have been placed by a subsidiary of the Tote after the result of a race has been known, whether there is a secret laundering system for these late bets and how many punters have been swindled out of their rightful winnings? Will she arrange for a public inquiry to be held into the allegations of malpractice at the Tote?
    The Prime Minister: I am not very expert at betting. May I therefore pass the buck to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who may know a little more about it?
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to intervene to prevent the threatened closure of an important regional airline company, Air Kent? Is she aware that this successful company, which does not need public money, is endangered only because of minor administrative interdepartmental squabbles? Will she take the opportunity to remind officialdom that it is now a priority of Government policy to assist small businesses and private enterprise by cutting through red tape wherever possible?
    The Prime Minister: I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and a number of my other hon. Friends

    1299
    about this company and about the position that obtains at the airfield from which it operates. I understand that the problem is that it can operate successfully and profitably, but that it will not be allowed to do so unless there is an immigration officer on duty. If that is the case, it is one of which I am aware. I am looking into the matter personally in such a way that I hope it will not be necessary for my hon. Friend to repeat his question again before the House rises for the recess.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are saying that if so much damage has been done in two and a half months in terms of jobs, cuts and prices, what on earth will be Britain's position in four or five years if the right hon. Lady and her crew remain in office? Would it not be in the country's interest for her to give way to someone who is less of an extremist than she is?
    The Prime Minister: The damage in terms of jobs and increasing taxes was inflicted by the previous Government, who doubled unemployment, increased taxes and landed this country in the position where our growfth, compared with that of our competitors, was a disgrace. It is because of that Government's record that we are changing the whole strategy in a more positive direction.
    Mr. Renton: Has my right hon. Friend read the report in some of today's press that the TUC intends to oppose the Government's changes in industrial relations law on the ground that the proposals, with the banning of secondary picketing, might lead to an overall curtailment of the right to strike? Will she make it clear to the TUC that that is not the Government's intention and that, moreover, it is the wish of the Secretary of State for Employment to be open for consultation on the detail of these changes, if not on the principle?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put a consultative document to the TUC, but I must make it clear that we are pledged to bring in legislation against secondary picketing. Most people who remember what happened last winter will be fully behind that determination. The precise detail is a matter for consultation.

    CBI
    Mr. Strawasked the Prime Minister when she intends next to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry.
    The Prime Minister: No dates have yet been arranged.
    Mr. Straw: When the Prime Minister eventually meets the CBI, what reply will she give it to its letter—[HON. MEMBERS: " Reading."] Of course I am reading. It is the letter that the CBI wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry. What reply will she give to the CBI's letter which says that the CBI opposes any reduction in regional development grants? What does she think of friends like that who are so quick to desert her and her right hon. Friend in their hour of need?
    The Prime Minister: I take more notice of letters when they are written after a statement rather than before. The hon. Gentleman asked what reply I shall send. The CBI welcomed the Budget's provisions and is doing everything that it can to operate the Budget strategy, knowing that the successful manufacturing and commercial industries of this country have to supply the subsidies which so many people want.
    Mr. David Steel: How will the Prime Minister explain to the CBI or anybody else the discrepancy between the Conservative Party's election commitment to encourage the development of new industries in certain parts of the country and the downgrading of those areas from development area status, as will be announced this afternoon, and the fact that market interest rates have gone up to 16 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked his question as though the only way in which a small business can get started is with a Government subsidy. If that were so, this country would never have been a highly successful industrial nation.
    Mr. Alan Clark: If my right hon. Friend does not intend to authorise a statement about changes in the immigration rules until the winter, will not that lead to a possible beat-the-ban rush, given

    1301
    the long time that will elapse before the announcement is made, which will heighten the anxieties and possibly the disillusionment in the areas most affected?
    The Prime Minister: I can only reply that it is our intention to make a statement when we return after the recess.
    Mr. Leighton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are worried by the threats from non-parliamentary bodies to push her around? Is she further aware that I have just had a letter from the CBI stating that it expects her to take firm action on labour relations, and goes on to say that unless she does she will be very sharply pushed by that body?
    The Prime Minister: It will find it very difficult.
    Mr. Cryer: A moment ago the Prime Minister said that she welcomed letters after statements, not before. Does she mean that any consultations with the TUC are merely cosmetic, that she has entirely made up her mind to attack the trade union movement through legislation, and that, whatever the trade union movement says in making reasonable representations she will take no notice of it until the statement on the legislation is made?
    The Prime Minister: I have made up my mind to carry out the Conservative Party manifesto. The details are for consultation.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, and I know that you, Sir, are not responsible for answers from the Dispatch Box, but you will have heard the Leader of the House say distinctly, yesterday—since you were in the Chair at the time—that no more crucial statements would be made by written answer. Yet today, Mr. Speaker, via a written answer to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), the Government have made an announcement about Meriden which, in effect, will cause it to close and increase joblessness in the West Midlands. What protection do we on the Opposition Benches have when that sort of policy is pursued by the Secretary of State—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The way that the Government answer questions is not my responsibility.

REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL POLICY
The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on regional industrial policy.
The Government have completed their review of regional industrial policy and selective financial assistance in Great Britain within the context of their overall economic aims and the steps being taken to encourage national industrial vitality and prosperity. As the House knows, the Government seek to create conditions in which the whole country can prosper, including those areas with severe economic problems.
As part of our general framework for industry, we propose to continue with a strong—but more selective—regional industrial policy. We shall maintain the three-tier structure of the assisted areas—that is, special development areas, development areas and intermediate areas—as well as the existing instruments of regional industrial policy, but concentrating on those parts of the country with the most intractable problems of unemployment.
The assisted areas currently cover over 40 per cent. of the employed population. We propose over a transitional period of three years to reduce this to around 25 per cent., in order to focus on the remaining assisted areas more effectively, and to treat different parts of the country more consistently and fairly.
We propose immediately to upgrade a small number of areas to take account of their changed circumstances. A number of special development areas and development areas will be downgraded by one step for similar reasons, but these changes will not take effect until 1 August 1980. We propose that from 1 August 1982 a number of these areas should be further downgraded, but that of these those due to become non-assisted areas should be the subject of a special review before such descheduling takes final effect. In addition, we propose that a number of intermediate areas should become non-assisted areas in three years' time.
Full details of these proposed changes in assisted areas boundaries and gradings are given in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) and are available in the

1303
Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses.
We propose to maintain regional development grant at its present level of 22 per cent. in the special development areas, so that assistance will not be reduced in the areas of greatest need. In development areas we propose that the rate of grant should be reduced from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. on buildings, plant and machinery provided after 1 August 1980. We also propose that the 20 per cent. regional development grant on buildings provided in intermediate areas should be abolished from the same date. Finally, we propose to raise the minimum levels from £100 for plant and machinery and £1,000 for buildings to £500 and £5,000, respectively, in respect of expenditure defrayed on or from 18 July 1979.
Full details of the transitional arrangements are given in my written answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
Our objective is to maintain reasonable stability in the framework of regional investment incentives and to avoid abrupt changes.
In future, regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 will be provided in the assisted areas only where it is necessary to enable projects to go ahead.
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State referred to copies of a statement being available in the Vote Office. A number of hon. Members are waiting at the Vote Office, which claims no knowledge of the statement, and it is not available.
Sir K. Joseph: The copies are on the way to the Vote Office now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider suspending the sitting until the papers are available?
Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to the point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that I should have thought that it would be wiser to hear the statement and then to take any points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I can then take points of order, when we shall all be better informed.
Mr. John Silkin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. Members on both sides will not know how their constituents are affected.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing that I can do about this point of order until we have heard the statement. I shall then know.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are plenty of points of order being raised, but may I say that I honestly think that the House will be better served when it has heard the statement. There can then be points of order, and they will lose no validity by waiting the extra five minutes.
Mr. John Silkin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the written answer has not appeared in the Vote Office by the time the Secretary of State has completed his statement, will you then consider suspending the sitting?
Mr. Beith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty for hon. Members is that there are many—there were certainly many when I was there—at the Vote Office window who would like to catch your eye to ask a question on the Secretary of State's statement. They have been courteously informed by the right hon. Gentleman that he would refer to their constituencies, but they are not now in a position to know whether their constituents will be affected, and if they go out at the conclusion of the statement in order to find out, they will lose their opportunity to ask their questions. Is this not what lies behind the failure to deliver the papers to the Vote Office, and do not Back Benchers have a right to be protected?
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Leader of the House gave a clear undertaking that he would endeavour to have the answer to which the Secretary of State referred available in the Vote Office before the statement. Transparently, this has not happened, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a written answer that is not available to Members at the Vote Office.

1305
I submit, Mr. Speaker, first, that it is quite monstrous that the Government should try to override the House by replying on an important policy decision through the subterfuge of a written answer. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, may I submit that it is monstrous that the sitting should not stand suspended until we have the facts before us?
Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not reasonable to suggest that in these circumstances, in response to a fair number of hon. Members, you have the power to suspend the sitting to allow the papers to come forward and then allow the Secretary of State to continue? He has come to the House to give us information. May we have a chance to get it before we question him?
Mr. Speaker: It is possible that the Minister knows for how long the delay will continue—if there has been a delay. I want to help the House to get its business completed. I have had a request from the Opposition Front Bench to which I am prepared to give consideration after the statement.
Sir K. Joseph: I am very sorry that there has been any delay. It was because of the importance of putting into hon. Member's hands all the documents concerned so that they would know about their constituencies that it was orginally discussed that there should be a writteen answer followed by a debate. I am not one who tries to avoid discussion in the House. The documents are now available. The House will appreciate that there are 14 pages in the written answer and that there is a great deal to cover. I hope that I shall be allowed to continue with the statement.
Mr. Alan Williams: There are 14 pages annexed to the answer. That means, inevitably, that hon. Members will need considerable time to absorb their contents. They will need to absorb them in conjunction with the various policy changes that the right hon. Gentleman is outlining. Therefore, it becomes a farce to continue with the statement until we have the documents.
Sir K. Joseph: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It is precisely because
1306
there is so much to absorb that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is arranging for a debate next week, which was always intended after a statement of this importance.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that our objective is to maintain reasonable stability in the framework of regional investment incentives—
Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will obviously have an opportunity for thorough questioning and debate on this very question. We have been told so. A statement is being made and the House can act accordingly later. That is as I see it.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement does not mention areas but includes a series of definitions and percentages. None of this is meaningful unless we know the specific areas involved. Questioning will be meaningless unless we are aware of the areas concerned. Many requests have been made that you, Mr. Speaker, suspend the sitting for the dignity of the House as well as for the better furtherance of our business, and I reiterate those requests.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the dignity of the House will best be served now by hearing the statement.
Sir K. Joseph: In future, regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 will be provided in the assisted areas only where it is necessary to enable projects to go ahead. Particular attention will be paid to the provision of more productive and more secure jobs. I shall say something about the future of national selective assistance under section 8 of the Act in a moment.
We consider that factory building is a useful and relatively inexpensive instrument of regional industrial policy, and this will continue. We intend, however, to secure a greater element of self-financing.
We have also reviewed the operation of industrial development certificates in the light of our objective of reducing the burden of Government controls on industry. I am satisfied that the IDC procedure can still be useful in identifying large projects which are potentially

1307
mobile. I propose, however, to abolish IDCs in the intermediate areas and to raise the exemption limit to 50,000 sq. ft. in the non-assisted areas, including the South-East.
We estimate that these changes will by 1982–83 lead to total savings of £233 million in the expenditure of £609 million on regional development grants, regional selective assistance and factory building projected in the 1978 White Paper revalued at 1979 survey prices. Although expenditure on regional incentives will continue to be substantial, I must emphasise that regional differences will not be reduced simply by redistributing money from taxpayers; there needs also to be local enterprise and plenty of co-operation in making businesses competitive and profitable. Nothing will do more for the prosperity of a region than a reputation for effective work, high productivity and co-operation between work force and management.
Finally, I turn to our decisions on national selective assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972—which can, of course, be paid to enterprises in the assisted areas as well as in the non-assisted areas.
After consideration, the Secretary of State for Energy, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have decided to allow the energy conservation scheme and the two remaining sectoral schemes, for footwear and redmeat slaughterhouses, to run their course. All applications under these schemes and any outstanding applications under the other sectoral schemes that have already closed will be processed under existing criteria.
The selective investment scheme, for major investment projects, closed for applications on 30 June. All outstanding applications which have not yet been approved will be processed against the existing criteria but we shall interpret these criteria somewhat more stringently than in the past, so that marginal projects will in future not be assisted.
For the future, the Government will continue to provide assistance under section 8, but more selectively than hitherto. We shall continue to offer assistance to enable internationally mobile projects to locate in the United Kingdom; this is an area where other Governments are also
1308
very active. We intend also to support projects leading to very substantial improvements in performance, particularly in productivity, or projects which will result in the introduction of new products. In addition, every project will have to demonstrate that it will result in a substantial net contribution to United Kingdom output or will introduce a significant degree of innovation to the United Kingdom. Assistance will be given only for projects that would not go ahead as proposed without it, and will be negotiated as the minimum necessary to achieve this.
I am laying before the House the four orders required to introduce the changes in regional industrial policy, one dealing with regional development grants, one with assisted area boundaries and gradings, and two with industrial development certificates. The regional development grant order requires an affirmative resolution and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be announcing shortly the date for a debate next week at the conclusion of which this resolution will be moved.
Mr. John Silkin: Is not the truth of the matter that the whole of this long statement is concerned with only one thing, namely, cutting by £233 million? Is it not also true that this is payment deferred for the cut in the rate of tax and the tax rate threshold adjustment in the Budget, which cost £662 million, and that it will be the dole queues of Britain that will be paying for the relief to the rich?
I ask the Secretary of State some specific questions on downgrading. Incidentally, I like the touch of his referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and not as his hon. Friend. Having looked at the list and seen that Nelson and Colne is no longer an intermediate area, I understand why he said it.
Is it not true that the intermediate areas, to which so much destruction has been done, are the very areas that are vulnerable to importation? For example, footwear and textiles in Yorkshire and Lancashire are at risk. As for Humberside and the fishing industry, perhaps that goes hand in hand with his right hon. Friend's fisheries policy in Europe.
Secondly, is it true that over the past decade the Labour Government's regional

1309
policy created 300,000 new jobs and, it is estimated, cut unemployment by the same amount? What were the estimates of new jobs not being created and of old jobs not being filled that were given to him by his Department as a result of the changes he specified?
Finally, is not the sole effect of this statement and policy to remove from the assisted areas the safeguard they had with the IDCs and to send new factories into the prosperous areas of the South-East?
Sir K. Joseph: The Labour Party, when in government, reduced regional payments and regional subsidies by £280 million at two weeks' notice, equivalent to £300 million at today's prices. The reduction of borrowing and personal taxation which the Government have already set in hand, and for which this change provides part of the resources, is essential if we are to reduce unemployment.
I have not been given any figures about what is referred to as the reduction of jobs due to this package, as there is no evidence whatsoever that in net terms, taking the country as a whole, there is any change in the number of jobs. I grant that there is some displacement of investment as a result of regional incentives. The best figure that I have been able to get is that the average number of jobs transferred from the non-assisted areas to the asissted areas each year in the 1970s was of the order of 10,000 for the country as a whole. There is no figure to give the House about the reduction of jobs as a result of that.
Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that in the North of England his statement will be received with great dismay and that it appears to many of us that it is biased very much towards a part of the South of England and against the North of England? Some of us view that matter with grave concern. Will he tell us what his statement does for the encouragement of small businesses and small industries, which we have understood was one of the major planks of Government policy? Will he say what the reaction of the CBI is likely to be to this statement—or is he as unconcerned about its attitude as was the Prime Minister in her earlier statements at the Dispatch Box at Question Time this afternoon?
Sir K. Joseph: The present map is full of anomalies. There are many parts of the country receiving assistance from regional development money which have lower unemployment and better economic structures than many other areas that have not been receiving such assistance. It was about time that the Government altered the map to achieve more sensible relationships.
Secondly, small businesses are helped by the general economic and tax climate. My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget has been, and will be, a help to them. Thirdly, the CBI is naturally, as are all members of the Government and of the House, extremely concerned about cash flows in business and industry. We are intensely concerned about that matter. However, the House will recognise that the changes we propose are covered by a transitional period and do not come into effect for three years. It is not the regional policies on which the cash flow of industry mainly depends.
Sir William Elliott: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us appreciate that the overspread of available aid has not led to lower unemployment or greater national production? Will he accept from me my appreciation of his realisation that the special development areas, including the North-East of England, are in need of extra aid? Does he recognise that in the North-East of England there is a great shortage of skill and that there is a need for extra training facilities and for more co-operation between the trade unions, employers and the education system? Does he recognise that the North-East of England wishes to play its full part in that national economic recovery for which he so bravely strives?
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I hope the House will appreciate that the more widely spread is the assistance from the taxpayer, the less effective is the help to those areas that are in most need. The purpose of this policy is, precisely as my hon. Friend understands, to focus and concentrate the help from the taxpayer on those parts of the country that are in most need.
Mr. Molyneaux: In his opening words the Secretary of State referred to Great

1311
Britain. May we therefore assume that there will be an early statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ierland? May I assure the Secretary of State that he will have our support in steps and measures to ensure that incentives lead to the best possible long-term results?
Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend must answer that question for himself. There is no immediate statement in mind.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the matters concerning IDCs? Am I right in thinking that in the non-assisted areas it will be possible to have industrial development up to 50,000 sq. ft. without an industrial development certificate? If so, is he aware that many Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament representing London constituencies have been pressing for that for a long time? Is he also aware that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, would have had a much more prosperous constituency if that had been done many years ago?
Sir K. Joseph: The answer is " Yes " to both parts of my hon. Friend's question.
Dr. McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is now known as the cut-and-run man, tell us what he will do about the regional development boards, which give special assistance to medium-size, regionally based companies? Will he also explain why he has raised the minimum qualifying levels of assistance for plant and machinery in the regions? Will he say whether he is prepared to add to his criteria for future selective assistance the criterion of public accountability? Will he explain why the bias of regional aid will go towards big business and not small and medium business? Is that because he is afraid of facing big business as he is of facing the House?
Sir K. Joseph: I want to help the hon. Lady, but I do not recognise the expression " regional development boards ". Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain to me later what it is she wants me to answer, and I shall try to do that.
On the question of bias, I hope that the House will not misunderstand the raising of the threshold. To convert the
1312
£100 and £1,000, which are the threshold levels for plant and buildings, respectively, to current money levels, they would need to become £300 and £3,000 respectively. We raised them to £500 and £5,000 to allow some leeway. They are not prejudiced against small businesses. Large and medium as well as small businesses buy small items of plant and authorise small buildings.
Mr. Lee: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers to my questions. Does he agree that the Opposition seem totally obsessed with the belief that investment comes only from the public sector? Would he like to comment on the information that I obtained from the Stock Exchange today, namely, that since the Government came to power on 3 May no less than £420 million has been raised by public companies on the Stock Exchange for investment purposes by way of rights issues?
Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is abundantly right. Investment and expansion respond to the economic climate and not just to subsidies.
Mr. Dormand: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that everything he has said this afternoon—and, indeed, the bungling in failing to provide essential background information—will be regarded in the Northern region as so much camouflage to hide his doctrinaire theories about the non-interventionist society? Is he not aware of the immense success of the Labour Government's regional policy? Is he not also aware that what he has said today will lead only to a most serious deterioration in the area?
Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the inhabitants of the special development areas would regard Labour's regional policy as a great success. The taxpayer will still be finding very large sums of money for regional policy.
Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that most people who understand this problem will believe that the cost-effectiveness of Government money in creating new jobs is of the greatest importance? Does he appreciate that many areas, such as my own constituency, where there is 10 per cent. unemployment, have had no aid at all, and that the statement will be seen as being much fairer to the whole of the country? Will

1313
he make a statement—or have a Minister in his Department make a statement—about the ability to create new jobs in the areas so affected, by encouraging small industries and small businesses, and to stop certain of the present restrictions in labour legislation which discourage small businesses from taking on new employees?
Sir K. Joseph: It is our object to encourage the creation and expansion of existing business in every way that we can, including the removal of constraints.
Mr. Maclennan: If the Secretary of State proposes to look more favourably on internationally mobile industry, as he indicated, how will he avoid discriminating against domestic industry in the same field? Will he say why he has decided upon such an arbitrary reduction, from 40 per cent. to 25 per cent., in the assisted areas in three years' time? The sparsely populated parts of the country, which are large in area, might be very adversely affected by that decision.
Sir K. Joseph: It is an unavoidable fact that any help to a company, be it international or domestic, may be a prejudice to a home competitor. That is unavoidable in regional policy.
We did not choose a magic figure as a percentage of the population to which to reduce the proportion covered by regional incentives. We looked at a fair division between those areas which have structural economic difficulties, including unemployment, and those which are in a different order of difficulty, with much less difficult problems.
It is true—we recognise it—that there are some sparsely populated areas of the country where there are relatively large but absolutely small pockets of unemployment, and we have taken these into account.
Mr. Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend realise that while we shall want to study closely the details of the changes proposed this afternoon, we very much welcome the fact, first, that Scotland will now get a higher percentage of the development areas than it had under the Labour Government, secondly, that more help is to be given to the worst-hit areas in the West of Scotland, and, thirdly, that industry in Scotland will have time
1314
to adjust on this occasion, which it did not have under the last Government?
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all three points.
Mr. Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what advice he took and whom he consulted before embarking on the process of downgrading? For example, did he consult the Secretary of State for Wales before the special development area of Merthyr Tydfil was downgraded? Did he find out that the Hoover company in Merthyr, which employs a third of my working population, is in serious economic difficulties, and that already hundreds of job losses have to be faced, in addition to the fact that the company has had to postpone an extension upon which the whole of Ebbw Vale and the Heads of the Valleys area were depending for new jobs? Does he realise that he has now dashed all the hopes not merely of Merthyr but of the whole of the Heads of the Valleys by downgrading the area? What advice did he get on this issue from the Secretary of State for Wales?
Sir K. Joseph: What I have announced today is Government policy. I shall be glad to take up individual points when we come to the debate or, through my colleagues or myself, in discussions with individual Members.
Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend look at the machinery to enable smaller firms to take advantage of a regional development grant? Will he also look at the service industries, which will be bringing many of the new jobs of the future? Can those industries be given more help than in the past?
Sir K. Joseph: My answer is " Yes " to the first part of the question, and not so readily " Yes " to the second part of the question.
Mr. Mulley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that none of his proposals announced today, or those in the interim period, will have retrospective effect, so that people can go on with the projects already in hand? Secondly, will he, in the review, take account of the local enterprise that he commended to the House this afternoon? The city of Sheffield has attracted industry by its own efforts. Now the special status, on

1315
which its success has been based, is to be taken away from it.
Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be inaccurate in any way. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the written answer, which contains all the transitional arrangements. I want to be very careful in answering about dates. This information, again, is contained in the written answer. I cannot accept that the city of Sheffield has had successes only as a result of regional policy. The country as a whole has had patchy successes, and they do not relate to the impact of regional policy.
Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will faithfully pursue the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an absolute assurance that there will be no reduction whatever in the financial assistance to Northern Ireland and the inducements offered to industrialists to provide employment there?
Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend must put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend must not draw conclusions for Northern Ireland from the statement that I have made today about Great Britain.
Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the fact that Merseyside, in the main, has been retained as a special development area, this is a very black day for the British people? Does he accept that regional policy is virtually at an end because of the IDC policy? Is it not clear that areas such as Merseyside, with their high levels of unemployment, will be very seriously affected—despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that Merseyside will be helped—precisely by this policy? Does he accept that the policy needs to be changed, even at this late stage? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think again about the whole of his regional policy.
Sir K. Joseph: I shall listen to any argument that the hon. Gentleman puts to me.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parts of the
1316
country will welcome this news, in particular my constituency, which is surrrounded on three sides by intermediate areas, even though the unemployment in Lincoln is higher than the regional average? The phasing out of these anomalies will make it much easier for many places that have high unemployment to attract new employment.
Sir K. Joseph: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that there is a consequential effect of this announcement on the availability of any grants from the regional fund of the European Community, and that whichever area is downgraded as a consequence of this will no longer be eligible, under the knock-on effect, for any grant whatever from the regional fund of the European Community?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the central corridor of Durham will provide the way in which unemployment, both to the east and to the west, can be solved, and that to downgrade that central corridor does not help to reduce unemployment, either to the east or to the west, within five or six miles?
Sir K. Joseph: During the transitional period of three years, European money will be available to all the present assisted areas. As for what is to happen at the end of that time, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the renegotiation of at least part of the European regional fund, which is already imminent, to take into account any arguments that the hon. Gentleman may want to put.
Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we in the South-West fully agree that these matters should be looked into, particularly as intermediate areas have not been successful, whereas the full-status areas have? We in the South-West will give my right hon. Friend a fair wind on these proposals, but, if they do not work, will he bear in mind that we are not prepared to see further unemployment develop in the South-West, and will he then change his policy?
Sir K. Joseph: Unemployment does not rise and fall only in relation to regional policy. The House knows that. It responds to the general economic and tax

1317
climate, and to the activities and co-operation of individual British people.
Mr. Faulds: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the damage he caused to the National Health Service through a series of earlier inanities? Does he not realise that where older industries are declining and unemployment is therefore rising, as in Smethwick, and where no new industries are coming in, there is greater, not less, need for regional help? Has the right hon. Gentleman any conception of the damage that his ideological commitment will cause?
Sir K. Joseph: Today's statement does not flow from any ideological commitment; it flows from a desire to provide a more cost-effective and less costly regional policy.
Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend for making a start in doing away with the anomalies. Will he clarify the position in respect of tourist grants recently made available to intermediate areas if they lose that status and are downgraded?
Sir K. Joseph: Tourist grants are not affected.
Mr. Dan Jones: The statement made by the Minister will cause intense disappointment in my constituency of Burnley, not least among members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. In view of the fact that he said that he was prepared to have discussions with anybody, will he accept a delegation from Burnley, consisting of members of the town council, chamber of commerce and trade unions for precisely that discussion?
Sir K. Joseph: One or other of my hon. Friends or noble Friends or I would be glad to see the hon. Member and his constituents, but no effect is expected until 1982.
M.. Maxwell-Hyslop: I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the anomaly, persistent over so many years, whereby high unemployment in Torbay was completely ignored. Torbay is now given a fair status with other areas of similar unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend get rid of another anomaly, whereby the interpretation of area measurement for the IDC limit is now taken to include car parking space? In areas where local
1318
planning authorities insist that new projects can provide for car parking for their own employees, that space is included in the calculation, which has the effect of negating my right hon. Friend's proposals unless he gets rid of that interpretive anomaly.
Sir K. Joseph: As so often, I am learning from my hon. Friend. I will take up the point that he raised.
Several Hon Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the fact that this matter is to be debated next week and also that we have a very heavy programme later today, I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side.
Mr. Urwin: Does the Minister realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) was a lamentable failure because it devalued the importance of regional aid in the Northern region? The result of the last general election bears living testimony to the fact that masses of people in the Northern region fully supported the policies of the outgoing Labour Government. As the Minister's statement is aimed at reducing the global amount of money available for industrial aid to depressed and assisted areas, I suggest that if he wishes to be regarded as a Minister responsible for constructive policies, in that section which is headed " Work of Development Agencies " he should give urgent attention to the importance of setting up a development agency for the Northern region.
Sir K. Joseph: I note the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Trippier: I appreciate that unemployment in my constituency of Rossendale is fairly low, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that it is very dangerous to withdraw intermediate status from that area, which is so heavily dependent upon textiles and footwear?
Sir K. Joseph: I fully understand the point made by my hon. Friend. The Government of the day will watch the changing circumstances and take them into account.
Mr. McWilliam: Bearing in mind that there will be a debate on this subject next week, and also that there is nothing in the statement which tells us of that, will

1319
the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact criteria upon which he determined those areas that were to be reduced in status or lose status? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman made that decision purely on the basis of a determination to cut public expenditure, regardless of the social cost?
Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. We made a judgment—it necessarily had to be a judgment—on the relative economic health, employment level and prospects of the various areas of the country.
Mr. Thornton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Many on Merseyside, if not all Merseyside, will welcome the fact that its status has not been changed. Having determined this policy, will my right hon. Friend look at those outstanding applications for regional development grants in the Merseyside area with a view to expediting their approval?
Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of his replies have been based on investment in industry or on profits? Will he turn his mind to thinking about people for a change? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the reduction or concentration of the amount of aid will all be cancelled out by relaxation of IDCs? That is one of the most important factors in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he also reply, at this late stage of his questioning, to the question put from my Front Bench? Does he seriously say that he has not done any homework to see how many unemployed will be created by the reduction of £233 million in public expenditure?
Sir K. Joseph: First, very few IDCs have been refused in recent years. Secondly, the money that is saved is not abolished or destroyed; it remains in the economy, in taxpayers' pockets, and will be spent in the creation of jobs.
Mr. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of exemption limits for IDCs in the South-East will be welcome throughout the region, especially in Greater London? Is it not a fact that a malignant and malevolent effect of regional policy over the last 15 years has been the loss of 1 million jobs
1320
in London and the tripling of unemployment in many London boroughs? Does not the restoration of prosperity to London depend on the Government moving out of the area and leaving free enterprise to do its work?
Sir K. Joseph: The reduction of economic vitality in large parts of the Midlands and in London is no help to the North, Scotland or Wales. In fact, we need thriving industry and activity in as many parts of the country as possible if there is to be improvement in the regions.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the policy that he has announced today will damage the social fabric of much of the North of England? Can he give one iota of evidence that firms which did not go to areas such as the North-West with regional assistance will now go there without it? On a specific point, will he look very carefully at the question of grants to areas such as Earlham, which lost a steelworks and has now been downgraded, and tell the House whether it will continue to receive cheap loans from the European Coal and Steel Community? That is an extremely important point.
Sir K. Joseph: Firms did not rush to go to the North-West when there was exactly the present map. The announcement today will do no more and no less harm to the country than the withdrawal of an almost identical amount of money in 1976 by the Labour Government, when, at two weeks' notice, they withdrew regional employment premium.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the city of Birmingham that at long last the IDC limits have been changed? The relaxation to 50,000 Sq. ft. will enable industry to expand on its own without any further Government money. Will my right hon. Friend welcome with me what Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds has recently done in a development area, where it is going to that area for its own sake and has turned down the use of other people's money to do so? That is the way for this country's industry again to become prosperous—to go to a place because it believes that it is the best place to go to.
Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I repeat that nothing could do more to help the regions

1321
than a reputation in them, and in the country, that there can be found effective work forces co-operating with good management.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made a very complex statement, which does not seem to be understood, particularly by Conservatives and especially among those of his hon. Friends who have complimented him? Is he actually telling the House that he took the many and complex decisions that he did without first getting advice on the number of jobs that might be affected? Secondly, what will he say to that continual procession of Conservative Members of Parliament and representatives of Conservative-controlled local authorities who have been begging and pleading with Department of Industry Ministers to give them assisted area status because they felt that it was so important, in that it offered such a financial incentive? Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the total effect of all that he has announced today can mean nothing less than no hope at all for the regions and a massive drift of industry into the South-East?
Sir K. Joseph: I repeat that the best advice that I have been able to get is that during the 1970s there has been a net increase of 10,000 in jobs in the regions as a whole.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the 11 questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) (No. 2) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
1322
That the draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Nursing Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Lloyd's (General Business) Regulations 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft African Development Fund (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Second Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 1979 be referred to Standing Committee on Statutory Instrtuments, &c.
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrutments, &c.
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Weights and Measures (Solid Fuel) (Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. St. JohnStevas.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the private business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered at the conclusion of the business of Supply, and that the East Kilbride District Council Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply), the business of Supply may be anticipated by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House; and that Mr. Speaker shall, not later than Ten o'clock, put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. James Callaghan relating to Reducing public services for those who need them most and on the Motions in the names of Mr. Nigel Lawson and Mr. Robin F. Cook relating to Defence and Civil Estimates, 1979–80 (Outstanding Votes).—[Prime Minister.]

RETIREMENT
4.22 p.m.
Mr. Greville Banner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for voluntary retirement for men at the age of sixty; to forbid the forced retirement of men or women before the age of seventy; and for connected purposes.
There is no area of our law that is so devoid of logic or compassion than our rules on retirement. Hundreds of thousands of men are forced to remain at work when they are desperate for a decent and dignified retirement, while a multitude of younger people are desperate for the jobs that are occupied by those older people. Those who are happy to retire are forced to remain at work, others who wish to retire are not allowed to do so, and those who have no wish to retire are forced into unwanted idleness.
Women are permitted to retire when they are 60 and, indeed, often forced to do so when they would prefer to stay at work, while men who are often worn out through manual labour are forced to remain at work when they are so anxious to spend at least a limited time in the retirement to which they are entitled. As the number of people who are needed in employment in this country continues to shrink, as it is certain to do in an age of increased automation, so we are forcing people to remain at work who are only too willing to give up their places at work to those who are anxious to fill them.
This entire system is one that has grown up—a sort of creeping paralysis caused by Governments taking measures that may have been necessary at the time, making limited advances but creating a situation that is totally intolerable and one which, happily, is not matched in many other countries.
The object of the Bill is to remedy these anomalies by two simple steps: first, to provide for an equal voluntary retirement age for men and women, and, secondly, to require that there should be no forced retirement for either men or women before they reach the age of 70.
There is no logic in the present system. I well remember talking to a senior lady who used to be in this House and asking
1324
her how she could possibly justify the extraordinary difference between the way in which men and women are treated, and why in her view women should be allowed to retire at 60 while men must soldier on until they are 65. She replied with that logic for which she was so well known " Ah well, women live longer, don't they." After working that one out, we see that in her own way she had pointed to the ludicrous nature of a system which can only be justified, and which people only attempt to justify, on the ground of cost.
Of course, the cost of providing extra pensions for men aged between 60 and 65 would be great, but against that one must set off three factors. First, these people would be vacating jobs, most of which would be taken up by younger people who are at present on the dole and who in many cases are at present in receipt of supplementary benefit, as well as supporting a family, so that the entire household is being supported by the community when the breadwinner finds no place to work.
Secondly, there is the social cost of unemployment, particularly among the young, which one cannot interpret in terms of finance. There is that hardship, wretchedness and misery about which all of us know when we are in our constituencies and meet people young, middle-aged and in some cases in their late fifties or early sixties. They are people who want to work and who resent being regarded as scroungers by those who do not appreciate that jobs are not there to be found. They are people who are anxious to contribute and who hate idleness. Very often they are men who find themselves at home when their wives are objecting fiercely to their being underfoot. They are young people who come out of school and get into the habit of idleness when they want nothing other than to do a job that they will enjoy and in which they will be content. The financial cost will be far less than anyone has been able to estimate. No one really knows how much it will be, but if one sets the social cost alongside that the two together make these reforms very urgent.
Thirdly, no one is suggesting that a reform of this magnitude can be introduced overnight. All of us who support the Bill—and we come from both sides

1325
of the House—are asking for a commitment to logic and compassion and a commitment in principle to justice and the phasing in of a system that should have been introduced a long time ago. By introducing it in stages there will be some hope for those who are at present caught in this trap of illogical idiocy, which over a period of generations we in this House have created for them.
In a silicon chip revolutionary period in which the number of jobs is likely to sink still further, there will be fewer people employed and more will be seeking the jobs that exist. It is inevitable what will happen. There will be pressure for a shorter working week, for more leisure time and for people to have shorter working lives. There will also be pressure for the precious jobs to be occupied by those who need them most, and for those who do not wish to remain at work, because of their age or health, to be permitted in our decent society to retire when they are still well enough to do so. Those of us who have been involved in this campaign for years make no apologies to the House for continuing the pressure.
Only 18 months ago 1 million people signed a petition to the House asking for these changes. My colleague and friend the former hon. Member for Preston, North, Ron Atkins, and I received thousands of letters asking for the reform proposed in the Bill. People told us how much it would mean to them or how desperate their fathers or brothers were for retirement and how the system was destroying their lives.
We also received a number of letters—not many, but a significant number—from women asking why they should be forced to retire at 60 when they had no wish to do so. They asked why they should not be allowed to continue to contribute to the community when they were still young and why they should not be able to continue to earn the extra money that they desperately needed. Once again, the answer is that we have a system which
1326
is illogical, unfair and totally lacking in compassion.
We have in this area a guide and example from the United States—a rare and happy occurrence. We can learn from what they are doing because there is a law in operation in many parts of the United States that makes it an offence to force people into retirement before they reach the age of 70.
I believe that it is the wish of hon. Members in all parties who are connected with the Bill to ensure as far as we can not merely that those who wish to retire or need to retire are free to do so, but that those who are anxious and willing to remain at work should be entitled to do so.
We ask the House to commit itself not to immediate change but to the principle of justice in retirement practices, the principle of change and the principle of an overhaul of a system which is disastrous in its impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary families throughout the country. In those circumstances, and recognising the limitations of presenting a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, I ask the House to give leave for the Bill to he introduced.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mrs. Sheila Faith, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. John Sever, Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris and Mr. John Wilkinson.

RETIREMENT
Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to provide for voluntary retirement for men at the age of sixty; to forbid the forced retirement of men or women before the age of seventy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 November and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

SHOTTON STEELWORKS
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Monday 16 July under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
" the proposed closure of steel making at the BSC Shotton works ".
I come to praise Shotton, not to bury it. I declare an interest, because for a brief period I laboured underneath the blast furnace of Shotton steelworks. My father worked there for a long time and was a branch official of what is now known as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and my grandfather worked at Shotton for many years and had the great honour of having sold the first Daily Herald in Shotton steelworks.
I am glad to see in the Chamber not only the Secretary of State for Industry but the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). My mind is taken back to 1973, when I took a deputation to the right hon. Member for Sidcup, when he was Prime Minister, to stress that the proposed closure of Shotton by the then Tory Government was wrong.
I have been comparing and contrasting the treatment that I received then with the treatment that I have received in the past few days. I recollect that in 1972 the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House and had the courage to tell us what he was about—even though it was to include in his proposals the closure of steelmaking at Shotton.
I was later able to take a large number of my constituents to 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister and to debate the matter with him for one and a half hours. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman's patience, the way that he debated the issue, and how he and his colleagues bent over backwards to try to effect an easement of the situation for my constituents.
The treatment meted out to me and the steel workers over the past few days has been arrogant, offhand, evasive and totally unworthy of a Government. I guess, however, that it is, by now, totally typical of the present Government.
1328
The point at issue is that at least 6,300 jobs are to be lost. The work force of 10,800 reside in one sub-region and, by any estimate, 7,000 or more live in my constituency. That is a large concentration of steel workers. The only skill possessed by the great majority of steel workers is the great skill of making steel. Most of them left school at the age of 14, and for a generation they have been working making skilfully some of the best steel in the world.
Perhaps once a year a steel worker will save from injury, at least, another steel worker. That sort of working comradeship engenders for a whole community a feeling of brotherhood. There is a special feeling in any steel constituency, and that is certainly the case in my constituency. At my constituency Labour Party meetings the women of the meeting will leave at 8.30 p.m. in order to prepare sandwiches for the night workers on the shift that starts at 10 o'clock.
The worker-director at Shotton has four sons working in the steelworks. Perhaps the best way of illustrating the dependence of my area on steelmaking is to describe a frequent occurrence at night when the blast furnace is tapped. In certain climatic conditions, particularly when there is heavy cloud, the whole area for many miles around is suffused in a red glow when the furnace is tapped. A proud community lives in that area where the glow of hot metal is reflected on the skyline, and I believe that that community is at risk because of the Government's actions.
Central to the whole debate are the attitude, posture and policies of the Secretary of State for Industry. If there had not been a class war, I would look to the right hon. Gentleman to invent one. One of the images that I have of the right hon. Gentleman is that of an inventor. I think of him in Victoria Street, poring over his books and potions like some medieval alchemist casting his spells, earnestly seeking the transmutation of economic lead to economic gold and murmuring many times " entrepreneur ". Of course, this sorcerer's apprentice is the Prime Minister.
I am also beginning to see another image of the right hon. Gentleman. That image is of the back-street bruiser. With the Secretary of State for Wales holding

1329
his coat, he is mugging the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. He is pistol-whipping, knuckle-dusting and bother-booting Sir Charles Villiers. That violence is brought about by the necessity, according to the Government, for the break-even policy.
The Corporation has moved against Shotton because the Government have inflicted crude cash limits that are crippling it. If Shotton falls, after it will come Llanwern, Port Talbot and even Ravenscraig. Successively, the right hon. Gentleman's cash limits will bankrupt these plants. The current policy is stupid and deeply injurious to the social fabric of our steel communities. The Government have endorsed a policy that can destroy the British steel industry. It is crippled by imports, smothered by cash limits, supervised with the utmost severity, and it may well wither on the vine. The current policy is a monumental disaster. The only way to get the break-even policy to work is to close steel works over and over again. In that way we shall destroy the remaining steel industry in the United Kingdom.
That brings me to the pledge. The chairman of the British Steel Corporation said that the Shotton steelworks would be required for many years to come. I quote from the speech on 21 May of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry, who was quoting the pledge that was given.
" ' In view of our commercial objectives and of our proposals for the development of Port Talbot on the above basis, we have decided to remove any proposal or date for closure of iron and steel making at Shotton. This decision will not be reviewed during BSC's current five-year plan beginning in 1977. ' "—[Official Report, 21 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 700.]
In the Corporation's annual report for that year a whole page was given to the pledge on Shotton. That pledge should be reconstituted.
The rundown at Shotton is scheduled to take place over a period of less than two years. My ministerial experience tells me that 9,000 new jobs cannot be delivered to a stricken area in anything like two years, and I fear that those in my area who go on the dole will rot there for the rest of the decade. I urge the Government to think again.
Fortuitously I received from the Secretary of State for Wales a letter on 11
1330
July. Given the speculation that I sensed about the future of Shotton, I had the prudence to ask if he could tell me how many jobs were to come to my constituency—how many were in the pipeline and how many had been made. I got a truthtful answer that there were few. I have written down here " only 800 ". If we are to lose 6,300 jobs directly and perhaps several thousand more indirectly on the domino theory of dependence of main jobs, what sort of society will we have on Deeside in two or three years' time? Will unemployment rise to 20 per cent? Will masses of our young people either have to meddle away their time without a job locally or leave the area to make their fortune elsewhere? What will happen to the dozens upon dozens of local shops and small local jobbing builders? What social fabric will we have in three years' time if the Government insist that the decision go forward? Shotton in the 1980s must not become what Jarrow was in the 1930s.
Mr. David Alton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also consider the ripple effect that the closure of Shotton will have on not only Deeside but on Merseyside? It will have a disastrous effect on the Bidston dock. It will cause consequential unemployment problems to the people of Merseyside, who are also suffering at present.
Mr. Jones: If the Shotton rampart falls, the people in unemployment queues in North-West Wales—in Gwynedd—will be doomed to stay there until the year dot. There will be no hope of pushing new jobs to North-West Wales if the main objective is to find 9,000 jobs for Deeside in the decade ahead. A strong civic and political alliance with Merseyside was forged in the Shotton fight. I do not doubt that if the Shotton rampart falls, the Deeside area will become directly competitive with stricken Merseyside for jobs that are in short supply. The Government had better think again. Only half an hour ago they said that they would seek to get a better regional policy of aid for Merseyside.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the fight to maintain Shotton he received tremendous support from Merseyside Labour Members and the Merseyside

1331
Labour movement? All sections of the Labour movement have stood four-square with my hon. Friend in the battle, and we shall do so today, because the issue affects the people of Merseyside whom we represent.
Mr. Jones: The efforts of Labour Members in Merseyside, Liverpool and Greater Merseyside have been little short of heroic. Lord Sefton skilfully organised the civic alliance for us. With the help of Labour Members Shotton has been able to stay in the production ring for over half a decade. I do not doubt that in the months ahead, if the Shotton work force looks in the direction of Merseyside for help in its constitutional struggle against that unjust decision, Merseyside Labour Members will not be found wanting one whit.
I have not come here today to belabour the British Steel Corporation. World trading conditions are manifestly discouraging. OPEC has twice conspired to disrupt forecasts, but the Corporation has progressively modernised its productive capacity, almost exorcised the malicious ghosts of the old steel masters and at times in the 1970s delivered profits. It has had three chairmen in seven years, dealt with five Governments, contended with regional lobbies, recently found a strong pound a disincentive to export activities and suffered from the catastrophic importation of foreign steel through the flood of imported cars. I suspect that if pressed the Corporation would ruefully concede that if only the British car industry had had the same productive spurt since 1964 as the French, demand for sheet steel would have been 1 million tons higher today and the Shotton steelworks would have been going great guns.
Mine is in no way an attack on a nationalised industry. However, if I am permitted the ghost of an attack, may I direct it towards the Government Front Bench? The Secretary of State has played a most unsatisfactory part in all this. It is a long time since we have seen such a political image walking the Welsh stage. It has been a portrayal of feeble action, divided loyalties and pusillanimous policies. I rate the Secretary of State as unloved, unwanted and ineffectual. He is a survivor of Globtik,
1332
yet he is the proponent in our lovely land of the ugliest features of the market economy. The history of working people throughout Wales has been one of struggle and adversity, but the right hon. Gentleman weighs very heavily on our shoulders. In the name of God, he should go and free us of his baleful influences. The Secretary of State for Wales has not in any way defended the interests of the North Welsh people. He has surrendered the entitlement to work of thousands of my constituents and he has rendered the area hopelessly and pitifully vulnerable.
Mr. James Tinn: My hon. Friend has been more than generous in his references to the British Steel Corporation. Will he go a little further and recognise the dilemma of the Corporation and the industry? It has carried through a development programme which many of us said at the time was inadequate. But now the Corporation faces a catastrophic fall in world demand for steel which means that it must decide whether to put its modern plants in mothballs or to under-utilise them at high cost in order to maintain the older conventional plants which make our industry internationally uncompetitive.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has said it all better than I could say it. There speaks a friend of a great nationalised industry.
I complain to the Secretary of State for Industry about the shabby way in which we learnt of the Shotton decision. First, the steel workers were told that the chairman himself would tell them of their fate. There was no statement from Industry Ministers to the House, and certainly no letter was sent to me on that day to warn me of the impending statement by the BSC. The national joint planning committee last month was not told of any proposals for Shotton, even though that is a very high-powered employer-trade union committee. The TUC's national steel committee was given a statement by the BSC last Thursday—the very day of the decision—when it went to meet the Corporation. Therefore, it is true that there were no consultations at all. What has occurred has been a unilateral act against the spirit of understanding with the trade unions.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Who, in the hon. Member's opinion, should have had the first information about the decision? Should it have been the workers of Shotton, the national trade unions or this House?
Mr. Jones: I look forward to hearing the answer to that question from the Minister.
Trade unionists in my area believe that they have been bounced very cynically. They are very angry. On 12 July I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Industry. That letter was dated 10 July and it contained some details about Shotton steelmaking, but there was not a ghost of a mention about the imminent closure proposals. The Department of Industry has not played fair with the House or with the workers at Shotton.
I raise briefly a question about the plans to transport 1½ million tonnes of sheet steel from Scotland to Shotton when the steelmaking capacity at Shotton ceases. Can the Scottish plant at RavensCraig produce that amount of steel regularly for Shotton? The trade unionists have been given no sight of any figures about the cost of transporting that amount of sheet steel across Britain. They want to know who will pay for the new rolling stock that will be used to transport this sheet steel.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: My constituents in Motherwell who work at Ravenscraig will support my hon. Friend and his constituents in flatly opposing the closure of Shotton in the absence of any alternative employment. The capacity of Ravenscraig to produce is now being proved by the workers there. However, this is a part of the wider strategy in the tragedy of having failed to provide alternative employment in the steel areas. The Minister will find that all the steel workers are united against precipitate closures which maker it impossible to have alternative plans rolling in advance.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall study Hansard closely, and show his remarks to my constituents.
A large amount of sheet steel is to be produced in Scotland and transported to Shotton. It is said at Shotton that
1334
large-scale expenditure will be required to erect buildings to store such amounts of sheet metal. It is even said that the cost of storage will exceed the amount of money that would be needed for new investment to make the furnaces more modern and to prevent Shotton from closing.
The central point about the transportation of sheet steel over many hundreds of miles to Shotton is how regularly can this be delivered. Can it be delivered day in, day out, year in, year out? Can there be guarantees against industrial disputes in a steelworks, or on the British Rail system? If these guarantees cannot be given, this renders very vulnerable the 4,000 jobs at the finishing complex at Shotton. It is here that Government Ministers have been taken for a ride. They have not done their homework and they will find it extremely difficult to guarantee regular supplies to enable those 4,000 jobs to remain safe. It is widely believed in the constituency that it will be only a matter of time before those jobs are rubbed out.
I accuse the Secretary of State for Wales of dereliction of duty. I urge the reconstitution of the pledge given by the chairman of the Corporation. I believe that the Secretary of State should leave his office. I propose that the modest investment at Shotton which is needed to enable steelmaking to continue should be given. Shotton's role in the United Kingdom steel policy should be as a balancing plant, giving insurance cover against over-dependence upon too few, too vulnerable giant steelworks operating in Britain.
I give notice to the Government that the Shotton steelmen will oppose, oppose and oppose these offensive Government policies. They will fight, organise and lobby and they will do these things honourably, ably, persistently and constitutionally.
I believe that the free market policies will run for another 18 months only. I predict that the Secretaries of State for Defence, Employment, the Home Department, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will seek an audience with the Prime Minister and they will say " Either you go or the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) goes ". I believe that the Prime Minister will dump her

1335
Industry Minister. But will Shotton survive until then? If the pledge of the chairman of BSC is reconstituted it might survive.
Shotton desperately needs time to stay in production and to retain its steel-making capacity. The Tory Government are switching off the life-support system of my constituency. They are doing so directly because of their naive, simplistic and pathetic adherence to the ideological economic policies of the Secretary of State for Industry. I warn the House that Shotton is but the first victim of these foolish and wrongful policies. Steelworks, shipyards, aerospace factories, motor car and motor cycle factories had better beware.
Working people in Britain should know that they are being sought out for punishment by an ideologically crazed Government. Their punishment will be the dole. The Government believe in massive dole queues as an instrument of policy.
5.1 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I thought that it would help the House if I spoke briefly at this stage. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate.
My right hon. and hon. Friends understand entirely the sense of shock that must have been felt in Shotton at the decision of the British Steel Corporation. The people of Shotton have built up an excellent reputation as a work force over many years and I pay my respectful tribute to them. The House will be aware that when the Labour Government nationalised steel in the late 1960s they gave the management responsibility to the Corporation. Therefore, I have no power—and I do not suggest that if I had the power I would necessarily use it on this occasion, for reasons that I shall explain—under a Labour statute to veto a closure that is decided upon by the Corporation.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) made a speech that does credit to his heart, but it does not do much credit to the understanding—
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He knows that he does not have the actual power,
1336
but any Secretary of State has a great deal of influence and power, and he can bring in the chairman of BSC to discuss the matter with him. If the Cabinet wished, it could take a decision on the matter.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: It should sack the chairman.
Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is right. The Cabinet could take action against the chairman if he did not carry out its views. In 1974 the Labour Government took the decision to delay closures while the position was examined. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Governments can take such action if they have the desire to do so.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman confirms that I have no statutory power in the matter. It is true that Ministers can use influence, and the hon. Gentleman has made a point for me that I was to reach later in my speech. A Labour Minister called in the chairman of BSC in 1974 and imposed by influence and not by statutory power a delay in the decision about the Beswick plants.
The hon. Member for Flint, East made something of the promise by the chairman of the Corporation, a promise that was quoted by my Labour predecessor. That was a promise that Shotton would continue steel making at the heavy end for a period of five years. There is a precedent for such a promise in the promises that accompanied the delays in the closure of the Beswick plants. Those promises came about because of the influence of Labour Ministers, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has reminded the House. What happened to those promises? No doubt, every one was given with good intentions but every one was broken. Promises were made about Clyde Iron, Glengarnock, East Moors, Hartlepool and Shelton steelworks.
It may seem kind to delay closures, but when events, factors and market situations changed, even under the Labour Government the Corporation was allowed to go ahead and close those plants before the promised date. The promise given in connection with Shotton was part of a total programme including the rebuilding of Port Talbot. When the world market fell away, and that programme with it,

1337
the context changed. It is not for me to defend the chairman of the Corporation—he can defend himself. The hon. Member for Walton is underestimating events if he does not recognise the change in context of the circumstances that accompanied the pledge. However, there was a pledge, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has repeated that pledge in the House. The statement by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation acknowledged, in initiating the closure arrangements, that a pledge had been made.
Dr. Bray: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present action of BSC and a number of further actions that are likely to follow in the next few months are made inevitable by the financial target that he has statutorily set of reaching break even by March 1980? Most people in the Corporation believe that target to be totally unachievable, yet the attempt to achieve it will force all sorts of ill-considered actions upon the Corporation.
Sir K. Joseph: There was no break-even pledge to justify the closures of Clyde Iron, Glengarnock, East Moors, Hartlepool or Shelton, yet each one was closed before the date that was promised by the then chairman of the Corporation and the Minister in the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Eric G. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. He has been badly briefed on the matter. With regard to the steelworks to which he referred, there were negotiated closures on the basis of full consultation with the TUC steel committee and the local work force. That is the difference. The closures were not imposed in the way that we are now being told the closure of Shotton is being imposed. The right hon. Gentleman should not pick up pieces of paper from his Department without knowing the full facts of the case.
Sir K. Joseph: The practice that occurred in connection with those closures is being embarked upon now by the present chairman. The Government have not made a decision about Shotton, but the chairman has started from similar consultations with the aim of forcing such closure as occurred in the episodes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
1338
I am happy to accept responsibility where I have it. However, when I am told that it is only the break-even requirement that I have imposed upon the Corporation that is causing the present activity, I remind the House that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said in May 1978:
" The BSC must get its finances straight as quickly as is practicable. My hon. Friend will know that in the last financial year BSC, in common with many comparable steel companies overseas, lost money. It lost £440 million. Part of the Government's policy is that the financial objectives of the BSC should be to break even by the financial year 1979–80."—[Official Report, 22 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1105.]
The requirement that I am imposing is a little later than that imposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He imposed a break-even task for the year 1979–80. I am imposing it for the end of the year 1979–80. There is no change in that break-even requirement. I think that there is now more chance that it will be achieved, but the House must realise that, even if it is, it is only a break even on revenue account.
I have said that I am not prepared to ask the British taxpayer to finance losses from the end of this financial year. I have said to the House and the Corporation that we shall be asking the taxpayer to provide money towards the capital expenditure of the Corporation next year.
Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman made the crucial point that, whereas the previous target adopted by the Corporation and supported by the Secretary of State was a legitimate target, he has backed that target by a flat refusal to finance deficits after March 1980. It is that damaging situation that has put the Corporation's chairman in an impossible position. What is the chairman to do in March 1980?
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke of the Government's objective, not the Corporation's objective. He said that the Corporation should break even by the financial year 1979–80, which were my own words precisely. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his right hon. Friend did not mean what he said?
Mr. Varley: There is a great deal of difference between stating an objective

1339
as something that one should aim for and imposing a straitjacket. The right hon. Gentleman should address his comments to the pledge on Shotton given by the chairman of the BSC. It was said that the decision would not be reviewed by the Corporation during the current five-year plan. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he thinks that the Corporation should break that pledge. That is what we are complaining about.
Sir K. Joseph: As I have said, the pledge was made. The Corporation's chairman acknowledged that fact and included it in his announcement about his intention to start discussions about closure. The present Government had no association with that pledge. Indeed, the then Conservative Opposition, at the time when the Secretary of State for Industry announced the pledge, dissociated themselves from it. There was a pledge between the Corporation and the Shotton work force in respect of discussions on closure.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Flint, East did not sketch in the background. The steel industry, which is an important industry in terms of the welfare and prosperity of our country, has received from the taxpayer a sum of £3,000 million in the last few years in order to modernise itself. Everybody in the House welcomed the intention to modernise. The logic of modernisation is that when there is excess capacity it is not the modernised plant that is taken out. The hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) made the point effectively in an intervention. What is the BSC to do when there is world over-capacity? Does it expect the taxpayer to pay endlessly?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What is the taxpayer expected to do in that situation? I can only draw from experience in the coal industry, because many of the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman were applied to that industry. It was said that the coal could not be sold, that the industry was operating with ancient machinery, that production in many areas was low, that some pits should be closed and that the non-economic end should be cut. The things that are now being said about the steel industry were applied to the coal industry in the mid-1950s and throughout the
1340
1960s until about 1968. Some of us said in those days that the production of coal was not the same as the production of vegetables and that coal would not rot in people's back yards. We said that coal was a product that we were capable of producing and that before long the oil industry, with its powerful lobby, would take over in such a way that it would be able to demand prices that could not be sustained. That argument has been proved without doubt. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to judge by experience. If he needs to err, he should err on the side of caution. Experience in the coal industry makes that clear to all of us.
Sir K. Joseph: On that argument the British taxpayer would be asked to pay for surplus capacity in every one of our basic industries, even beyond the amount of money that is already paid to a number of them. I believe that the British taxpayer already feels overtaxed.
I am not competent or qualified to answer the detailed technical questions put to me about Ravenscraig. They are matters for the management of the Corporation. Ministers do not manage British Steel. There is a management designed for that purpose. However, I must put the larger issues before the House.
There are two points that I wish to make, and I ask the House to take them seriously. First, if British Steel does not become competitive, the steel industry will lose more and more of its domestic customers and will enter a loss-making spiral, with ever-increasing demands on broadly unsympathetic taxpayers. It is essential, in the interests of the jobs of the majority of those who work for British Steel, that the Corporation should become competitive in price, quality and delivery as soon as practicable. It may seem kind to preserve surplus capacity, but it is not kind to the vast majority of people who work for British Steel because, unless it is competitive, even more jobs will be in danger.
All is not as bad as the hon. Member for Flint, East sought to convey. The work force at Shotton has an excellent reputation. That force will be inherently attractive to employers seeking to locate business activities. The Government have power to take a limited range of useful actions. My right hon. Friend the

1341
if such happenings were due to some cos-Secretary of State for Wales, who has been in the Chamber since the hon. Member for Flint, East began his speech, has already spoken in the House of some of the actions that would be open to the Government in considering the regional grading of the area of Shotton and in encouraging and facilitating factory building. The reputation of the workers is their best hope.
Self-help is one of the best forms of help, but in what we hope will be the more active industrial vitality in the months and years ahead many employers should be looking for work forces with high reputations with which to embark on new activities. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will do a disservice to his constituents if he spreads too much gloom in the area of Shotton. However, I fully accept the sense of shock which the initiative of the Corporation may have caused in the area. I repeat that the excellent reputation of the workers concerned will stand them in best stead.
Mr. Robert Parry: The right hon. Gentleman says today in a written answer on industrial policy that Rhyl will be upgraded from intermediate status to development area status and that Wrexham is to be upgraded from development area status to special development area status. Is he not adopting double standards, and does he not appreciate that as the result of his proposals unemployment in North Wales and on Merseyside will be devastating?
Sir K. Joseph: The discussions about closure have only just been initiated. We have said that if closure occurs we shall consider upgrading the area concerned. That remains our position.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Bill Homewood: I am hardly likely, after my short time here, to match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). Nor have I the temerity to suggest that the Secretary of State for Industry should be dismissed. After all, he might be able to claim unfair dismissal because of the short space of time that he has occupied the post.
I have listened a number of times to Government spokesmen disclaiming re-
1342
sponsibility for industrial occurrences as mic control. It must be the extrapolation of the metaphysical with which the Leader of the House controls the business. No Government can disclaim responsibility for the threat to the Corby iron and steel works. Corby was not created by the free play of market forces under the aegis of Adam Smith's influence. I understand that the Secretary of State is a great admirer of that revered economic anarchist. I assure him that the ideas of the classic economists had little connection with the birth or growth of Corby.
In the early 1930s the iron and steel works, and most of the houses and amenities in the town were developed by the use of cheap Government loans, even in those days. What would £7 million be worth today? That led to a population increase from 1,000 in 1932 to 17,000 by the late 1940s, but such growth was not rapid enough to service either the national need for the product or the profit desire of the owners. In 1951 the Government intervened again to accord the area new town status.
I hear murmurs around me that Corby is not Shotton, but anyone who thinks that the two cases are separate in anything but their historical antecedents is not living in the same age as myself. Corby was created a new town with a difference, in that all the people induced to move to the place, and all its bricks and mortar, were designed to serve one purpose only—the continuance and the development of the iron, steel and tube works in the town.
Neither the Government nor the Opposition in this House can say that they have no responsibility for the tragedy that is now being mooted in the suggestion that the iron and steel works should be closed. Lord Keynes said that, in the long run, we are all dead. If, in the short term, the iron and steel works are closed, that can only be described as the rape of a town—in this case, incestuous rape in that the town is the child of the iron and steel industry and of Government.
The population of the town is now 52,000. It has an unemployment level that fluctuates between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. depending upon the time of year when statistics are taken.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must relate his remarks to Shotton. I believe that he is talking about another steel mill.
Mr. Homewood: I fear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in some difficulty over your remarks.
Mr. Eric Ogden: My hon. Friend should say Corby, like Shotton.
Mr. Homewood: I am advised that I should say Corby, with Shotton in brackets. I am sure that the situation in Corby is parallel to that in Shotton. The figures are almost identical. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East talked of the loss of 7,000 jobs. In Corby, the British Steel Corporation has supplied a definitive number of 5,500 within the iron and steel works. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East is also taking into consideration the multiplier in a one-industry town. This means a spinoff to the extent of 1,500 jobs, bringing the total to 7,000. Such a figure would mean, at its very least, an unemployment level of 25 per cent., and at its worst—most of us believe that it would be the worst—of 35 per cent.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituency has suffered, as Corby has, from being a one-industry community. Employers have been inhibited from moving into the area because of the higher level of earnings, owing to shift work and unlimited overtime, that steel workers enjoyed until a few years ago. Other industries were not competitive. In Corby as, I am sure, at Shotton, innumerable efforts, persistent and consistent, to attract new industry to the area have failed.
I do not know the statistics for Shotton, but in Corby, from 1967, when the vulnerability of the area was appreciated, probably for the first time, when the boom of the 1950s and the 1960s was dying away, and when people became aware of their circumstances, great efforts were made to diversify the industrial structure. Yet, 10 years later, we have finished up with fewer people in non-steel manufacturing trades than when we started.
I do not know what the situation is like in Shotton, but in Corby it is bad—
1344
very bad. There are many poor people. The number of children who receive free school meals is double the average for the rest of Northamptonshire. The infant mortality rate in 1976 was 50 per cent. higher than the average for England and Wales. As a result of the imbalance in the social structure created by there being only one industry in the area, educational attainment is lower than perhaps anywhere else in the country.
From what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East said, it seems that the people of Shotton have not gone into the economic case as closely as we have in Corby. The British Steel Corporation says that the closure of the Corby works would result in a £40 million cash saving for that Corporation. That figure is not dissimilar to the figure cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East.
The Corby figures have been examined by academics. They have discovered that they represent a gross overestimate of the savings involved. I am as suspicious of academics as I am of industrialists and politicians.
Mr. Ogden: I hope that my hon. Friend excludes from that suspicion his hon. Friends who are in the Chamber.
Mr. Homewood: At the moment I exclude only myself.
The academics say that the BSC has got its figures wrong to the extent of £34 million a year. The academics say that the saving will be £6 million against the BSC's estimate of £40 million.
Because of my suspicions of both sets of functionaries it is safer to drive straight down the middle. It seems that we are talking of a £20 million a year saving in economic activity. Of course, that sum does not include the social costs, any more than does the saving that applies to Shotton.
If I had been elected, as the Government have, on a platform of cutting public expenditure, I should examine carefully the BSC figures. I do not wish to advise the Government to their benefit, but I want to look after my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East. When the Government examine the figures they will find that the closure of the steelworks at Shotton and Corby will add to the public sector borrowing requirement.

1345
I do not believe that the Government are at one with the BSC. The Government believe that if they tell the BSC that they are no longer prepared to subsidise its immense financial loss, a priori they will save money. That is not necessarily a consequence of such action. It is possible that a reduction in subsidies to the smaller steelworks will lead to the Government having to take on board a social commitment that will outweigh the gain for the BSC. That is not good economic management.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member has made a great study of the figures. What percentage of the 5,000 men in Corby will want another job after they have drawn their redundancy pay? There are many long-serving men in the area. The hon. Member is not being fair to the House. He is trying to make a comparison with the situation in Wales. When I drive through Corby, I see a lot of new industry on the Rockingham Road estate.
Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This debate is supposed not to be about the British Steel Corporation and associated problems but about Shotton. Many hon. Members who live in that area want to take part in the debate, so the question put by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) should be ruled out of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A total of 21 hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate. Brief contributions would be helpful.
Mr. Homewood: I shall conclude my remarks quickly. The Corby plant is based upon indigenous iron ore. It uses domestic coal. The strip that is to replace it will be based on imported iron ore and 55 per cent. of the coal will have to be imported. In view of the balance of payments and the energy crisis, that is not good economic management.
I could have answered the question put to me by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). It was not burdonsome. Whatever he believes will happen, we are heading for confrontation with the trade unions if the Government try to close the works.
5.38 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Flint,
1346
East (Mr. Jones) on initiating today's debate. I am glad to be able to take part in it. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) would have taken part were he not condemned by his office to monastic silence.
I support the case put by the hon. Member for Flint, East, although I deplore the personal tone of some of his remarks. If I do not support him in all his arguments, he will pleased to know that I shall support him with my vote.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the hon. Member give way?
Sir A. Meyer: We must get on with the debate. I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Member for Flint, East will acknowledge the support that I have given him throughout his fight to maintain steel making at Shotton. I believe that the closure of Shotton steel making is a tragic mistake for the workers there and a dreadful mistake for Britain.
I believe that nationalisation has been disastrous for Shotton. If it had stayed in private hands the Summers family would long ago have re-equipped and diversified it and would have foreseen the kind of situation in which it finds itself today.
At this stage it serves no useful purpose to make party political points out of a tragedy. The Conservative Government are allowing the British Steel Corporation to close down Shotton steel making, a move that it has been itching to make for seven years. Can anyone really doubt, however, that the previous Government were on the point of allowing it to do so?
During the general election campaign I asserted—it was only a hunch—that permission for the BSC to close down steel making at Shotton was sitting on the Minister's desk. It was significant that at no point during the general election campaign was that assertion challenged. It passes belief for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) to claim that he did not know of my challenge. Was he not in communication with the hon. Member for Flint, East, who must read the newspapers in which my challenge was being published? If we are treating this issue as a whodunnit and looking for a guilty party, there, surely,

1347
was the dog that did not bark in the night.
Dr. John Cunningham: The hon. Member is being somewhat less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). The hon. Member should recall, since it was in his speech to the House on 21 May this year—it is at column 700 of Hansard—that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member the very denial that he now says was never given.
Sir A. Meyer: I recall that very well indeed, and I recall that the denial was made after the election, when there was no possibility of the Labour Party having to make good that denial. That is the whole point of my remarks.
While both Governments have been playing the game of pass the buck, the British Steel Corporation has consistently planned to sacrifice small works such as Shotton, however efficient they might be, to its ever-receding ideal of a large-scale internationally competitive British steel industry based on five major integrated producers. That strategy makes no room for medium-size producers like Shotton, even though Shotton is as near deep water as are Llanwem, Scunthorpe and Ravenscraig.
No account is taken in this strategy of Shotton's uniquely fine record of labour relations. There has been no major strike at Shotton, except those forced upon it by nationwide industrial action, for the past 50 years. Size was everything. The Japanese mirage beckoned invitingly over the horizon.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the hon. Member recall that some four hours ago he was to be heard on the radio strenuously supporting the intentions of the Secretary of State for Industry to remove development area and intermediate area status from, among others, my constituents? He was saying that strong measures of this kind were needed to teach the country a lesson. Is Shotton somehow different for the hon. Member? Does he apply one standard for Shotton and another for the rest of the country, or is the hon. Member just another typical Tory hypocrite?
Sir A. Meyer: The hon. Member must be responsible for his own remarks. He
1348
must not put remarks into my mouth. I said nothing about teaching the country a lesson—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Member did.
Sir A. Meyer: I certainly did not. I said that I welcomed my right hon. Friend's proposals because I thought they would bring more effective help to the areas that needed it most. I adhere to that view, and I shall be dealing with that point later in my speech.
Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) clarify one matter for the assistance of the House? Did he tell the electorate that his assertion that there was a letter on the Minister's desk was based on a hunch, as he has just told the House? Did he use the word " hunch "?
Sir A. Meyer: I certainly do not withdraw the word " hunch ". How could I possibly know what letters were on the Minister's desk—[Interruption.] I said that precisely in order to give—
Mr. John Morris: Is that the best that the hon. Gentleman can do?
Sir A. Meyer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously think that I employ spies within the offices of the various Departments? Of course not. There was every opportunity to deny my claim, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield waited until after the general election, when he had no further responsibility in the matter, before doing so.
In the expansionist climate of the early 1970s the concept of a large competitive British steel industry, based on the Japanese example, was perhaps permissible. In today's climate, however, of a protracted world trade recession and the growing competition of low-cost producers, there is no longer a case for a large-scale competitive British steel industry. The case for British Streel now is primarily a strategic one, that it is necessary to maintain a steel-making capacity in this country in contemplation of a possible national emergency such as a military or economic blockade. If the case is strategic, Shotton is obviously the best bet because it has proved itself more reliable than Port Talbot I lanwern or Ravenscraig.

1349
However, and this is where I turn to vain regrets, the option of keeping Shotton open as part of a plan for a strategic steel industry was foreclosed by the failure of the BSC to invest in the modernisation of Shotton's steel making equipment during the period of the reprieve and by the terrifying mounting losses of the British steel industry as a whole at a time when the need for cuts in Government expenditure became inevitable.
The British Steel Corporation cannot go on imposing its intolerable burden of losses on the rest of British industry without dragging the nation into bankruptcy. In the same way, the Shotton workers can be left in uncertainty no longer. The delay itself was becoming intensely damaging. The Government must therefore stop the haemorrhage.
What, then, are the consequences for Shotton? What future does it face if the steel making goes, and what is the future for North-East Clwyd when 10,000 jobs are to be removed at a stroke? How can Shotton's finishing lines, on which the remaining 4,000 jobs depend, be fed with coil? Is it to come from Ravenscraig, where the ore terminal at Hunterston, which is an essential element in the operation, still, after a year, has not handled an ounce of ore?
Is the coil to come from abroad? I say frankly that when we get to the appropriate point I shall argue most strongly that to enable the finishing lines at Shotton to operate profitably, coil from abroad must be brought in if necessary.
The BSC must be compelled to produce much more convincing figures than it ever produced when it was proposed in 1973 to feed Shotton's finishing lines with coil from Port Talbot. Those sums just did not add up, and nothing that we have been allowed to see—and we have been allowed to see very little in the way of costings for bringing the coil from Ravenscraig to Shotton—encourages the belief that the finishing lines at Shotton can be supplied more cheaply from Ravenscraig than from Shotton's own steel making equipment.
Dr. Bray: In his attack upon nationalisation and the strategy the hon. Gentleman does not seem to take account of the fact that the original proposal was
1350
put forward in the Benson plan, while the industry was still in private ownership, and that that set the pattern that has been followed by the British Steel Corporation since. As to the possibility of supply from Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be aware that Ravenscraig is already knocking 2 million tonnes a year, with new plant, and is in a position to go up to 3 million tonnes later this year. The actual detailed phasing of it, in conjunction of the relining of the third blast furnace, is a matter which the Corporation is looking into at the moment.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman would serve his constituents best if, instead of producing romantic visions of strategic justification of excessive capacity throughout the Corporation, he were to address himself to the human problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) did, and say where the jobs are to come from, concentrating attention on that.
Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my speech for me, and I am grateful also for his assurance of continuity of supply from Ravenscraig, which will, no doubt, be reassuring to the good workers at Shotton. But they will still want to be reassured on transport costs, and that reassurance, I think, is beyond the hon. Gentleman's power to give me now, for all his immense ability.
Even if we get watertight assurances from the British Steel Corporation that it can supply coil to Shotton at a cost that will enable the finishing lines to remain competitive, we shall need the further reassurance that there is to be established on Deeside a major user of the finished product from Shotton.
If we have the assurance of supply, and if we have the assurance of requirement for Shotton's finished product, this may go some way towards relieving the anxieties of those whose jobs at Shotton are, in theory, still safe. But in the question whether we get this big user or these big users into Deeside, much depnds on the regional industrial policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry today. As I said earlier, I warmly welcome the much more selective nature of the aid that he proposes to give, and I believe that this will have a remarkable effect in

1351
concentrating investment in the areas where it is most needed.
The record of the Conservative Party in this matter is better than that of the Labour Party, and it is certainly far more honest. Nevertheless, I shall vote against my own Ministers at the conclusion of the debate. I shall do so not to condemn them for bowing to the inevitable, though I express sorrow that a Conservative Government could not find some way of rewarding hard work and devotion to duty. Still less shall I be voting to express approval of the Labour Party, now in opposition, which has never shown the slightest disposition to reward hard work or devotion to duty and which has used Shotton to buy votes at election time while shamefully neglecting it between elections.
I shall be voting to express my dismay at the wrong decisions taken by Governments of both parties and, above all, my dismay at the conduct of the management of the British Steel Corporation, which has so readily sacrificed a fine works and a magnificent body of workers to others who were greedier and more vocal.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Smith: When the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) says that this decision has been a tragic mistake, I agree with him. It is a tragic mistake, and however slippery the Secretary of State for Industry may try to be on this matter, the decision will be seen for what it is. When the right hon. Gentleman was answering at the Dispatch Box today I got the impression that he was behaving rather like a slippery eel, saying that it was not really his decision, that it was the British Steel Corporation's decision, although, of course—this is what it came to—" I suppose that I could have stopped it, but I did not try to stop it; it is the Corporation's decision, not mine ", and so on.
However slippery the right hon. Gentleman may have attempted to be and thought he was at the Box today, I believe that the people of Flint will form their own view, whether it suits the right hon. Gentleman or not. They will see this as a decision taken as a consequence of Government policy, and there is nothing else for it. The right hon.
1352
Gentleman can blame the British Steel Corporation. Factually that may be true, but it is equally true in practice that if he had wanted to prevent this closure or, more important—I shall come back to this—delay the decision until other decisions had been taken, he could effectively have done that. He chose not to do so.
If I recall aright, the right hon. Gentleman said also—or perhaps it was one of his hon. Friends—that the taxpayer cannot continue to pay for surplus labour and surplus capacity. I submit that in practice the taxpayer pays for surplus capacity and for surplus labour. He may be paying for it out of another fund, or in some other way, but if in the area where the surplus arises there is no way of taking up that surplus by alternative industry, the taxpayer pays, even if he pays through such means as unemployment benefit, social security benefit, and so on.
The truth is that the taxpayer pays. That is the first point that I make. It is time that the present Government got the message that it is better to pay a man to work than it is to pay him not to work. They must recognise the consequences of developing unemployment through precipitate policies that are not thought out in the long term. They have been in office for only a few weeks, and they cannot at this stage have thought out their long-term strategy in this matter. If they create unemployment in the short term, before having worked out their long-term strategy, inevitably the taxpayer will pay. That is a serious reflection on the Government.
I visited Shotton steelworks some years ago. I agree entirely with the Secretary of State and others who have said that there is an excellent work force there. I pay tribute to the Shotton workers, but, with respect, it is not much good paying tribute to an excellent body of workers and saying, in effect, " You have all been great boys, you have not had any strikes, and you are really marvellous, but all the same you are sacked ".
We are told that it is not the Government's fault, that it is the British Steel Corporation's fault, that the Secretary of State has no power to intervene, and that that is the end of it—" You have all been great and, naturally, we shall arrange a system that gives you a large amount of

1353
compensation, adequately compensating you for the loss of your jobs ".
The Government must understand that financial compensation is no compensation for psychological deprivation. The Conservative Party apparently fails to understand the misery that mass unemployment brings to a community. We can compensate miners; we can compensate steel workers; we can compensate whoever we like with thousands of pounds per head, but unless we give a man's mind something to occupy it we in no way compensate that man for the loss of the opportunity to work.
I agree entirely with the strategic view that there is not a lot to be said in favour of bailing out lame-duck industries, but what matters is that we have to be satisfied that the lame duck cannot be made well again. I have never been satisfied that the situation at Shotton is such that the steelworks could not be made a competitive unit. I think that it was the hon. Member for Flint, West who said that the British Steel Corporation could not shut these works quickly enough.
I recall my limited experience and knowledge—I admit that it is limited—of the Shotton story. Over the years that I have come into contact with it I have always had the opinion that in the end the British Steel Corporation would ditch Shotton. I have never been confident that the Corporation really wanted to save it and make it a viable proposition. As I have never had that confidence, I cannot believe that real efforts have been made to invest in new machinery at Shotton, to ensure its competitiveness. If that investment had taken place, Shotton could have produced various types of steel and taken part in processes within the steel industry to ensure a continuity of work and a future as a profitable section of British industry in general and of the British Steel Corporation in particular.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair. Does he agree that a five-year delay, which took place under the previous Administration, is equally damaging in terms of loss of morale and loss of profitability by continuing to use antiquated open hearth furnaces?
Mr. Smith: I concede that there is something in what the Minister says but
1354
I do not concede his argument entirely. Much depends on what is done in five years. If closure is delayed for five years and nothing is done in the interim, so that closure becomes inevitable at the end of that period, that is disgraceful, shocking and indefensible. However, if in five years an attempt is made to ascertain whether the industry can be profitable, whether closure is inevitable, whether there is any other way of ensuring continuity, and, what is more important, if there is another way of preparing for closure so that when it takes place there is alternative employment for the thousands of men who are affected by it, delay is certainly defensible. Indeed, it is not merely defensible: it is an attractive proposition.
The Government's timing of the decision is indefensible. The announcement was made shortly before the drastic alteration of regional policies. Regional incentives have been removed. Incentives have been given to industry to encourage it to go to the South-East and to leave the North. Whatever the Government may say, I believe that that is the consequence of the policy that has been announced today. I believe that it is a deliberate policy. The lot who are now the Opposition had a policy of regional aid for all constituencies that were about to have a by-election. The Government are now introducing a policy of regional aid for all the regions that voted Conservative in the recent general election and those that are likely to do so at the next election.
The consequence of the Government's policy is disastrous for the North of England. It will do nothing to help areas of high unemployment. The announcement of the Government's policy is ill-timed because it has come when so many rumours, or threats, are circulating about what the Government will announce in the coming few days or few weeks. I accept that some of the rumours will be ill-founded. We do not know what the Government's programme will be for training and retraining in industry. We have learnt a little about their policy of attracting industry to certain areas but we do not know a great deal about their policies for the retention of industry and investment grants. We do not know what the olicies will be for other major industries. We do not know how many

1355
thousands will be put on the dole or not put on the dole as a consequence of Government policy still to be announced.
A closure has been announced in isolation and thousands are to be put on the dole in isolation. We are not able to weigh the social consequences and balance them against all the other policies that are threatened but not yet announced. For that reason apart from any others I consider the decision to be extremely ill-timed. I compliment the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) on obtaining the debate and enabling these matters to be put to the Government.
The Shotton closure is a tragedy. It is ill-timed and ill-conceived. The closure lies at the feet of the Government. For all those reasons my colleagues and I will be voting against the Government.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Peter Fry: The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), displayed his party's usual quality by saying that it does not want lame ducks and in the next breath suggesting that many lame ducks should continue hopping almost indefinitely.
I accept that the timing has been unfortunate. It is true that closures, whether at Shotton or Corby, can hardly be a shattering surprise to the House or to the respective work forces. It ill behoves the Labour Party, if it genuinely wanted to be honest and to fight the general election with clean hands, to wait until after the election before expressing itself on the steel industry. It should have said before the election that the steelworks would not be closed, but it did not do so. It waited until after the election.
Nearly all the steel workers in Shotton and Corby knew that the sword of closure was over them and their jobs during the election campaign. One of the results was that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) just about scraped home in a previously safe Labour seat. The steel workers knew that they would be deserted by a Labour Government even if one had been re-elected on May. Let us have no hypocrisy on either side of the House.
I accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale said about social consequences.
1356
The consequences are immense when a one-industry town suffers a cutback. I hope that I shall not have a detrimental effect on your good temper. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I try to draw an analogy from what must be happening in Shotton for what is happening in Northamptonshire.
We spend much of our time beating our breasts about how terrible are the consequences of closures and how more and more taxpayers' money must be used to maintain jobs. Far too little attention is being given to tackling the problems of towns that are wedded to one industry and face an appalling future.
Many of my constituents work or have businesses in Corby. It is not only the industry itself that collapses. Also involved are the many others who depend upon the industry and upon earning power within the town. They suffer as well. The House and the Government must consider the wider context. It is not enough to say that it is the decision of the British Steel Corporation, because it is a social tragedy of monumental proportions in a place such as Shotton or Corby. The consequences to the county ratepayers and the national taxpayers are considerable. I hope that the Government will take it on board that there are steps that they can take.
There are three specifics that may be related to the problem in North Wales. First, in many one-industry towns communications have tended not to keep pace with modern requirements. That is certainly true of Corby. If only successive Governments had realised that one of the requirements for industrial development is good communications and had gone ahead with building good approach roads, other industry might have been attracted.
Mr. Ogden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that North Wales and Merseyside have the best motorways, rail communications and immediate airports of any part of the United Kingdom? His comments may apply to Corby but they do not apply to North Wales.
Mr. Fry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My comments certainly apply to Corby. I accept that the answer to the problems of Shotton may lie in a different direction. My argument is valid in other areas where closures will be faced. Successive Governments have not

1357
set about improving communications. The issue as it affects Northamptonshire is still lying on the Minister's desk, as it remained on his predecessor's desk for many months.
Secondly, we have a competing set of development authorities. Nationalised industries and development corporations are in competition either to develop in one area or to attract jobs to an area in competition with other towns and areas. The Government cannot sit back and allow that wasteful competition. Peterborough, Milton Keynes and Northampton are all desperately competing to attract jobs and industry, and in the middle of the county there is a disaster area.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that it is important that the problems of Corby are fully explained in the House. However, there are hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who represent areas that surround Shotton and they have something to say about Shotton's problems. It seems that we have two debates taking place at the same time, one about Corby and the other about Shotton. I ask that those who are concerned about Shotton's problems be allowed to speak.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is about steel-making in Shotton and we must keep to that.
Mr. Fry: Subject to any further interruptions, I shall not delay the House much longer.
I was trying to say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that the solutions to these problems have not been properly exercised or investigated. The Government have a responsibility to see that in an area such as Shotton, or any other area to which jobs must be attracted, some kind of influence is brought to bear on the authorities. That is the Government's responsibility. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale.
It is strange that we should be debating this matter on a day when we heard the Secretary of State's statement. If there ever was a case for special assistance, it is in an area such as this, where a large number of jobs will be lost, almost all in one fell swoop.
I ask the Government to look at the case of Shotton or any similar town in
1358
which one industry has been virtually the sole employer—that is, where special assistance is needed much more than over a wider region—so that greater opportunity can be provided.
I shall not delay the House any further but shall give way to other hon. Members, including Members of the Opposition, who may address themselves to Shotton more precisely than I have done.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Tom Ellis: The history of the steel industry since the war has been a sorry and depressing tale, sometimes verging on the disastrous.
I was glad to hear the references made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the equal culpability of both parties. We have a lot to answer for in respect of the present position of the British steel industry.
The essential problem that is reflected in the issue of Shotton is the question of interventionism—the skills that are required and are manifestly not present in this whole range of governmental intervention. I should like to talk about that problem and Shotton.
I shall start with some history from 1972 onwards. Reference was made to the Secretary of State in 1972—the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—in relation to the problems of the British steel industry. They were well known. The Lope Donesch process had been invented previously. Technically other steel industries were way ahead of us. It was not a question that small was good or big is beautiful. The question was that with the LD technical set-up the 5 million tonner, the 10 million tonner or the 15 million tonner was the obvious suitable size for a steelworks. In our case, as we did not have large steelworks, the 5 million tonner was the correct one at which to aim.
The technical points were summed up in this way: in 1972 we knew that if the British steel industry produced flat out to its full capacity of 27 million tones we should have produced about 140 tonnes per man per year. We may haggle about the statistics, and whether we should include the work done by the lorry drivers. Many of our competitors were producing steel at 450 or 500 tonnes per man.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Does my hon. Friend agree that had the private owners in the past been a little more diligent in putting new investment into Shotton we might not have been in the present difficulty?
Mr. Ellis: I tried to be equally generous to both sides of the House with my blame. I do not want to become involved in an ideological argument about private industry or nationalisation. That is a sterile argument. It is about 70 years old. It has nothing to do with the contemporary problems that face us.
In 1972 the British steel industry was not in a competitive position. At the time I asked what markets we should require for the steel that we would produce with the labour force that we had if we produced it at the same efficiency as the best of our competitors. The answer was about 90 million tonnes. We knew that there was not the faintest hope of having a market for 90 million tonnes. That was the position. The job of a politician is to be a realist. It is our responsibility to be realists. If we know what the facts are, it is our job to speak out about them. We knew that in 1972.
As a consequence of the technical situation, the then Secretary of State decided to make available £3,000 million to the BSC to put its house in order and for modernisation. We handed over the money to the professional men and said " Get on with the job ". The answer of the BSC was threefold: 40,000 jobs, over the whole of Britain, over 10 years. That was the nub of the problem. As politicians we should be ashamed of ourselves that we were unable to tackle a fairly simple technical and social problem. We did not do that. We dilly-dallied. A number of events occurred which were reflected in the history of steel since 1947—nationalisation, denationalisation, comings and goings and lack of continuity.
In this case there was an election. The capriciousness of political interventionism was apparent, as there was a general election. The Government said " Hold on. We do not trust the BSC. We shall put in our man to look into the whole matter." I did not think a great deal of the BSC management—I am referring not to Sir Monty Finniston or the present chairman but to the professional, established management. I did not think that they were
1360
the world's greatest men in terms of imaginative foresight, but they were the professional people involved.
I have had some experience as a professional engineer I managed a coal mine for 13 years. I do not claim that I was the greatest colliery manager in the world. However, my pit is the last one still working in Wrexham, when technically it should have been the first to close. However, I must not get carried away. If a Member of Parliament had told me how to run my pit I should have said " If you want to run this pit you can have the job ". I smile when I hear that Select Committees send for people from various industries to ask them what is happening. I nearly tabled an early-day motion when the Serjeant at Arms sent his clerk to fetch Sir Charles Villiers. I thought that the Serjeant at Arms should have gone clothed in pantaloons, with his sword, and marched Sir Charles up Piccadilly so that the whole world could see how the House of Commons conducted itself at the tail end of the twentieth century.
When a technical issue is to be solved it ill behoves politicians to come in like bulls in china shops, even allowing for a certain amount of lack of ability on the part of management. The CIGS told Winston Churchill in the war, when he was meddling in the Middle East, that he should either trust his general or sack him. That is basically the position in which we are. We have the British Steel Corporation. It is the best British Steel Corporation that we have got. We must put up with it and make do with it.
On the technical point, the matter was clear. The lobbyists came to the House from East Moors, Ebbw Vale and Shotton. One thousand of my constituents worked at Shotton. I told the 200 people involved that their best bet was to accept the steelworks closure and use their political clout to insist on having alternative industries to redeploy people. That took place in 1973. People disagreed with me. They were entitled to do so. They rejected my advice. I gave it sincerely. I do not claim that it was necessarily the wisest advice, although I think that it was. My advice was rejected and the decision was made to fight for the retention of the steel-making capacity at Shotton. That decision having been

1361
made, I did not try to put a spanner in the works but helped wherever I could.
I am saying all this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one reason—to make clear to the Secretary of State that I am not speaking from a soap box. I am not simply shouting cheap slogans, or trying to make smart party political points; I am trying to speak as a reasonably intelligent man concerned for his constituents who are involved in this steelworks, which has such a desperate problem on its hands. I am trying my best to put forward a fair-minded and balanced point of view. I am speaking not from a party ideological angle but from the point of view of doing the best that is possible for the people of Shotton.
I turn now to the nub of the problem of interventionism. We cannot adequately undertake from Whitehall or from Westminster the microeconomic steering of industry. I have seen many examples, in many nationalised industries, of complete hashes being made by interventions on the part of completely misguided politicians—very often for the most cynical of party political reasons.
Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend says that we cannot undertake the microeconomic steering of industry from Westminster, but can we make a simple decision? Are we to close Shotton and set up an alternative industrial development estate, at a costs of umpteen million pounds, which will be in direct competition with the one that we already have on Merseyside? That is a practical issue, which we ought to be able to decide.
Mr. Ellis: I was coming to that point. I am sorry to have been so long in getting to it. I realise that we no longer live in the world of Adam Smith. Somewhere between the microeconomic and the macroeconomic aspects there is the need for Government intervention, and it is crucial to get the balance right.
I was a little upset by the questions and answers arising earlier today from the statement about regional aid. I should like to quote from a White Paper published in May 1975 on regional development incentives—Cmnd. 6058. It is pointed out that
"Had Scotland, Wales and Northern England secured 42 per cent. (their share of Great Britain employment in 1960)"—
1362
this is an interesting figure because we have just chopped down the figure from 42 per cent. to about 25 per cent.—
" of national employment growth during the 1960s, they would have experienced a growth of 270,000; in fact their employment fell by 100,000. Of the deficiency of 370,000, 180,000 was attributed to developments within the services sectors; 120,000 was attributable to the primary sector largely arising from the disproportionate dependence on coal mining; and only 70,000 to the manufacturing sector ".
That loss of 370,000 jobs in those three regions was matched, during that decade, by an increase in jobs of almost exactly the same number in the South-East and the Midlands. That was in the 1960s, when we were in a boom period. The Western world was experiencing a boom such as it had never previously experienced, and yet that is what happened—we lost 370,000 jobs.
In the light of this, one might ask how seriously we can take the regional policies of Governments. As I see it, the whole issue at Shotton hinges on the sincerity and the good faith of Governments, and the will, the insistence and the resolution of Governments to do something in order to solve the technical problems involved in putting the steel industry on its feet.
I have to admit that the Secertary of State is honest about the matter—or reasonably honest. He pretends to be concerned about making regional policy more effective. But the crucial factor in regional policy is the IDC, which has been muted and stultified for about 10 years. Unemployment reached 6 per cent. in the West Midlands, so we had to do away with the IDC. That was why I was so concerned about having a Welsh Assembly. It would have done much more for Shotton than a Select Committee of 11 people from this House who, presumably, are to try to analyse the Welsh division of the British Steel Corporation, the water works, and all the rest of it.
The Secretary of State is lacking in credibility because of his ideological commitment to the Adam Smith philosophy—the free market philosophy. He will be in that unfortunate position when—as I hope he will—he goes to speak to the workers of Shotton. I hope that he will not leave it to Sir Charles Villiers. While the Secretary of State is not entitled to run the British Steel Corporation, he is entitled, along with the Secretary of State for Wales, to shoulder responsibility for

1363
some of the consequences of the actions of the BSC in East Flint. When the Secretary of State goes to see the people at Shotton he will carry the burden of knowing they will be aware that he is not seriously committed ideologically to the concept of the Government doing something.
The big issue, as we know, is between Shotton and Port Talbot. What has happened at Port Talbot? Ford was brought to Port Talbot, at a time when there was already a shortage of craftsmen there. If there was ever to be a quid pro quo, with a new factory coming in to replace a works being closed, there was the opportunity at Shotton.
These are the issues as I see them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I suggest that the way ahead for the Government is to say " We shall allow Shotton to be closed only when we can guarantee that every one of the people employed in the works will be employed on alternative work in that locality." Until the Government can give that assurance, they should not for one minute contemplate allowing the BSC to go ahead with its plan to close the works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I make another appeal for brevity? If we have 18-minute speeches, very few hon. Members will be able to get into this important debate.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. Barry Porter: I represent a constituency which borders on North Wales. About 8 per cent. of the work force at Shotton resides in my constituency. I have a great interest in the problem, and I have been under great pressure, with telegrams and lobbies urging me to speak out for the workers of Shotton. I intend to do that, but not, perhaps, in the way that they would wish. I would not be true to myself, to my constituents or to the workers at Shotton if I pretended that there was any way in which I could support the long-term viability of Shotton as a steel-making plant. In that respect I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) said—and I am glad that he said it as long ago as 1973. I think that it was true in 1973 and that it is equally true today.
1364
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) said, because his reputation in the steel world is second to none. I am sorry to say that nothing that he said this afternoon will lead me to change my view. I listened hopefully to the deliberations of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and again I am sorry to say that I heard nothing new.
One matter that was lightly touched upon was the promise by Sir Charles Villiers in March 1977. Both Front Benches have been guilty this afternoon of brushing aside a promise made by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. It has been pointed out by the Government that various promises were made in the past and disregarded. I am sorry to say that there seems to be a consensus between the two Front Benches that circumstances change, that economic circumstances are different, and so on. Sir Charles Villiers did not make his promise subject to anything. He said that the open hearth furnaces would be kept in prime condition and the Shotton option would remain open until 1982. That was not qualified. He did not say " subject to Government persuasion ", or " subject to economic circumstances ". I am somewhat old-fashioned. I believe that promises of that nature that are freely entered into should be kept.
What has changed since 1977?—
Mr. Alec Jones: We have a Tory Government.
Mr. Butler: That was expected. I had thought better of the Labour Front Bench than to expect that sort of sedentary intervention.
We know that the previous Secretary of State said that there was a cash limit objective. The chairman of the BSC knew all about that. At that stage he did not indicate to anyone that he thought circumstances had changed and that those to whom he had made his promise had better look at the matter again. He did not say that at all.
Mr. Porter: I do not think much of the argument between the two Front Benches about whether a cash limit objective is significantly different from a cash limit that would be imposed. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches would have

1365
thought more carefully before indulging in semantics. We are talking about people's jobs and livelihoods.
Apart from the cash limit, or cash objective, what has changed since 1977? It was known then that there was a gross over-capacity in the steel industry. It was known then that at least 25,000 jobs had been lost between 1973 and the end of 1977. It was known then that capacity in most regions was about 70 to 73 per cent. compared with 90 per cent. in 1973. In 1977 it was known that there was increasing competition from Third world countries with low costs. It was known in 1977 that in Europe as a whole cutbacks in production were necessary, that the employment position would deteriorate and that steel making was operating at a huge loss of about £2,000 million. All that was known in 1977.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that against that background, and because of it, we had the Davignon proposals of October 1978. They were formulated to provide financial help for the modernisation of the steel industry and the assistance of redundant workers. Those proposals were approved, and rightly so, by the Council of Ministers in the following few months.
The British Steel Corporation knew all those things in 1977 when Sir Charles Villiers made his promise. I do not ask for a decision about Shotton to be put off. Discussion, argument, proposal and counter-proposal has gone on for far too long. Every nut and bolt has been examined and every alternative considered. The political and social consequences have been adequately and sensibly discussed.
It does not take a genius to see what is likely to happen not only in North Wales but in other areas such as Merseyside, the docks of Birkenhead and Wallasey and my constituency, because of the domino effect. All I ask for, having made it clear that I do not think that there is a viable future for Shotton as a steel-making plant, is that the time indicated by the BSC should at least be given. That was a pledge that should be honoured.
I believe, like the hon. Member for Wrexham, that the decision should have been taken years ago. I did not wish to make a speech of this nature this after-
1366
noon. It would have been easier, as a new Member, to have come here and asked for reconsideration of the position, more discussion, and so on. However, I believe that that would be dishonest. I am not, and never will be, prepared to back any proposal or move that will keep not only Shotton but any steel-producing plant in being if it is not viable in its own context or within the context of BSC as a whole. I do not think that, in the long run, that is in the interests of the people working in the steel industry.
The people whom we talk of this afternoon are not a drifting, transitory population. Most, if not all, have given the bulk of their working lives to this industry. Everything that I have heard from them during the course of the last few weeks indicates to me that they knew that the closure of Shotton was imminent. They are prepared to face it, provided that they are given some time.
This announcement is rather like an amputation without an anaesthetic. I ask my right hon. Friend to use the powers of persuasion which he concedes he has to attempt to persuade the British Steel Corporation to do us the honour of giving us a local anaesthetic so that we can re-adapt and improve, and think about what will happen. It is not just money, or a matter of redundancy payments; it is a question of changing the life of a community, and we need time for that.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The speech of the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) was a good example of how, when hon. Members live close to a problem, they are very much affected by such a closure as this. Regrettably, I can speak with ome authority on the subject of closures, because I seem to have made more speeches in the last few years on the subject than on any other. I have spoken on closures in one kind of industry or another throughout the whole of Merseyside.
The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port said that if a decision had to be made, it would have been better had it been made earlier. Of course, that is always the argument when talking about any factory that apparently becomes non-viable. That could have

1367
been the argument in respect of Rolls-Royce. It could have been said that there was a cash flow problem, that money was required for research and development, and that the loss was so great that Rolls-Royce should be closed. However, the answer was not to close Rolls-Royce but to look at the problem closely and deal with it. That is what was done. Rolls-Royce was brought into public ownership by a Conservative Government. The legislation was carried through in less than one day, with the support of the Labour Party.
I want to talk about Shotton in personal, human terms. I know the workers at Shotton as personal friends. I know the consequences that such a closure will have on those workers, their families, and youngsters in that area, who will grow up to face a lack of alternative employment if Shotton is closed. They cannot go to work in Merseyside, because there are more than enough unemployed in Merseyside. Merseyside cannot offer employment to these people.
In fact, many of the workers at Shotton are from Merseyside. If one listens to them speak, one discovers that they have good Liverpool accents, because they had to go to Shotton in order to get employment. Incidentally, that also answers the nonsense about Merseyside workers not being good workers, because the workers at Shotton have hardly ever had a dispute. Industrial relations have been absolutely marvellous for many years.
We must look at the people who are concerned in this problem and also at the social consequences. This is the difference in attitude between Labour Members and Conservative Members. Every closure that took place during the period of the last Government was a closure that tore at the heartstrings of all Labour Members, whether they were Front Benchers or Back Benchers. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Industry, every closure made me feel sick in my stomach, and made me quite ill, when I thought of the workers who were being thrown out on to the streets.
When we decided in 1974 that we would have another look at the steel situation, we did so because we were
1368
concerned about the workers and the small towns that would be affected. We were concerned about the prospects for the youth of such families and the social consequences of such closures. That is the issue which the right hon. Gentleman, with his philosophy, has totally ignored.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman—I said this to my own Government—that something that we in this House have never done is properly to get down to the question of alternative employment. That is one of the problems. Of course I accept that many old-fashioned industries that have outlived their usefulness must go, but any Government worth their salt should concern themselves not with leaving it to market forces but with intervening in order to create new employment opportunities for the work force and their families. That has been the argument between us.
In fact, when the question of steel was discussed, we set up groups to look into the problems of those areas to see what sort of alternative employment could be introduced. Ebbw Vale is a very good example of the type of activity that was carried out by the Labour Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting something of that kind? No. His attitude seems to be " Shotton must close. We cannot do anything about it. We must leave it to the BSC ". He may think that that is the end of the matter, but it is not and neither can it be.
The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port rightly said that it is not only the workers of Shotton who are affected. The Bidston docks will go out of existence, and that will affect other workers on Merseyside. Other minor companies will also be affected. The ramifications of this closure will be disastrous for an area that already has high levels of unemployment.
Mr. James A. Dunn: It starts with the men who man ships that go into the docks and the provisions of the shore establishments that unload. This closure will have a domino effect, which will gather momentum, and at the end of the day it will double the redundancy situation in docks, with other consequential ripples throughout the whole of the county. It will not only lead to redundancy; it will go much further

1369
and deeper. It highlights a situation about which we must remind ourselves—that a pledge was given and that that pledge has been broken.
Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend has put his argument very clearly, and has underlined the point that I was making.
What can we say in this situation? The only thing that we can do is to appeal to the Government to intervene and to ask the BSC to reconsider this closure and at the same time to begin working out alternative employment opportunities over a period of time. That is all that we can do.
Sir Keith Joseph: Both hon. Members forget that raising the money from the taxpayer to keep Shotton going would also have consequentials in lost jobs. They would not be identified jobs, but they would be lost jobs, which would also have a domino effect. What happens to Ravenscraig, and the employment that Scotland wants from Ravenscraig, if the heavy end of Shotton is kept going and there is less output from Ravenscraig? Neither hon. Member is taking into consideration all the implications of his argument.
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman always introduces his basic philosophical point of view. One could spend an entire afternoon discussing it. I hope that one day he will give me the opportunity of doing so. On one occasion, we were to have had a public debate, but for some reason that fell through. I would love to have such a debate, but obviously this is not the occasion. I would not be looked upon kindly by my hon. Friends if I persisted in an argument along those lines.
I still think that the right hon. Gentleman should listen to his hon. Friends the Members for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), and Bebington and Ellesmere Port, as well as to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). In such a debate we cannot discuss all the ramifications for the steel industry. We are talking about one community, which has a very serious problem. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think again. The hon. Member for Flint, West said that if only modernisation had taken place earlier these problems would not have arisen. I agree
1370
with him. Why did not the private enterprise people—Summers—during the 1960s carry out the modernisation that ought to have been undertaken? Had they done so, the situation today would have been different. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think again because of the social consequences for the workers in that area as well as for the whole of Merseyside and Deeside.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. John H. Osborn: I value the Secretary of State's intervention, because I should like to ask what would happen if Shotton were to stay. Who else would have to face the axe? Admittedly, I come from a different steel making area, but I have worked with Shotton and with the people that have been involved there.
I value the graphic description that we have had of blast furnaces, and steel furnaces, but, of course, open hearth furnaces are not necesarily the answer these days. I rather resent the use by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) of the emotive words " class war ", because many of us recognise that Great Britain has a problem. Indeed, Western Europe has a problem. One example of that problem is what is happening at Shotton.
Of course, there has been an attack on Government policy—not only over two months but over many years—and of the consequences of it. Perhaps the inheritance of 15 years of nationalisation is partly to blame. There has been a suggestion that Summers did not invest sufficiently at the other end of the business. But some leading trade names were developed which compete with Sheffield, because they developed coated steel of various types which compete with the rustless and stainless steels.
However, throughout this period we have had the growth of a mixed economy, so mixed that the corporate State accounts for about 60 per cent. of the gross national product. Therefore, our decision making has been rather mixed, with this mixed economy approach.
I came to this debate thinking entirely of Shotton. Corby has been mentioned, and we could mention Stanton and Staveley and Bilston. But the hard fact is that least year the steel industry cost us £443 million in losses, and £309 million

1371
since then. That has to be paid for mainly by the taxpayer, if not by increased borrowing powers, and, of course, the capital investment programme takes place alongside it.
A year ago, almost to this weekend, I attended a debate in the European Parliament on the Davignon plan and its operation in connection with the steel works at Metz. Their problem, to an extent, was similar to that of Shotton, but more similar to that of Corby. A week before the Euro-elections a " Panorama " television programme run by Charles Wheeler commented on the severity of the distaste of the system in France, and the demonstrations that had taken place in Paris.
I met the steel workers from Metz and they said, " Why cannot we use our indigenous ores? " That is another problem. The iron ores in Metz, as in Northampton, are low in iron content. In Metz they are over 30 per cent. and in Northampton they are somewhat lower. With the rising cost of energy, the idea of using low grade ores becomes increasingly prohibitive because of the energy costs that go into steel making.
I have had the privilege of visiting steelworks in India, South Africa, and the Soviet Union and on the Ruhr. I visited a new steel works on the Orinoco 10 years ago, and I hope to have the chance to do so again. It used cheap electric power, coal, and rich iron ore which, by flotation methods, was concentrated up to 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. iron content. Ten years ago, those people could not make or melt steel. My guess is that the competence of that works will make it one of those competing with the old-established industries of Britain and Europe.
I visited the Nippon steelworks in Japan several years ago. That plant had a capacity of 10 million tonnes with three blast furnaces. Two steelworks of that type would virtually match the full production that we are able to produce and sell in Britain. Productivity then, as is no doubt the case now, was possibly 10 to 15 times that of Britain. Looking at our problems and those of Italy, Germany and France, we see that Europe faces an excess capacity of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent., and that will
1372
hit us in Britain. The reaction at Shotton is the same type of reaction seen elsewhere in the Community.
I had hoped to attend tonight a parliamentary and scientific committee meeting being addressed by Mr. Michael Dowding, last year's president of the Metals Society. Last year he predicted that world demand for steel would rise to 1,500 million tonnes at the turn of the century against the 750 million tonnes of two years ago. Whether he will deal with that subject tonight I do not know.
We have to bear in mind the fact that iron ore, the raw material for our industries, comes from overseas. I suggested that the parliamentary and scientific committee should look at where the indigenous materials for our way of life come from, let alone considering the energy problem.
I welcome the fact that some hon. Members have asked " What do we do now? " They have pleaded that, if there is to be a closure—I welcome the fact that some hon. Members are willing to face up to the need for closure—it should be done slowly and new industry should be brought in.
What distresses me is that during the period when steel was being nationalised. I, with many other hon. Members, looked to the 1980s for outputs of 33 million tonnes to 38 million tonnes a year. The annual report of the BSC shows crude steel production at 17 million tonnes to 18 million tonnes a year.
We cannot castigate every chairman or managing director of the British Steel Corporation. The same is true of past chairmen, whether Lord Melchett or Sir Monty Finniston. The BSC has a responsibility to manage what we, the politicians, have given it. Goodness knows, I did not want any creation like the BSC. It is unmanageable, but until we decide to break it up or do something different with it we must wish the management godspeed and help them to face up to the problems.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate the difficulties facing the management of BSC, and at the same time meet the plea, " If there are to be closures, what else will there be for those people?" Once communities have become used to one industry, sudden change

1373
is intolerable, but gradual change can be accepted.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I have a personal and constituency interest in the debate. My constituency interest is that, if Shotton closes, my area of North Wales, the county of Gwynedd, will find it devastatingly hard to attract new work. It will be that much harder because of the announcement made to-day that the travel-to-work areas in Gwynedd are being downgraded. Caernarvon is to be downgraded from special development area to development area, the Conwy employment office from development to intermediate, Pwllheli special development area down to development area, Blaenau Ffestiniog down, Llanrwst down, Llangollen down, Denbigh down. All those are in the catchment area trying to compete with the Shotton area to obtain work, and they are to be downgraded at the very time when massive construction projects are also coming to an end.
That is not my only interest. Having worked in two industries that use steel I know the good name that the Shotton steelworks has in manufacturing industry. It has a good name for the quality of its steel and, perhaps even more important, for the keeping of delivery dates. Those are vital matters in the steel industry at Shotton. They are so important that, even today when there is a central ordering system working in British Steel, customers stipulate that they want Shotton steel delivered to their works.
We have not been shown, today why, if there are to be closures in the steel industry, it is Shotton that should close. Over the past five or six years there have been a number of reports on the steel industry. In 1974 a report from Clwyd county council called " Steel—the ten year development strategy " showed that at that time, granted at higher levels of steel demand, Shotton was not only run at a profit but that its return on capital was consistently higher than that of any other steel mills in Britain. In 1976 another document, " The overwhelming case for the retention of steel making at Shotton " showed that the cost of closing Shotton was considerably more than the cost of modernising it and keeping it
1374
going. To end steel making at Shotton would have cost £88 million, with a further cost of £148 million to create alternative work, giving a total of £236 million.
I know that much of the plant at Shotton is old and needs replacing. That was the case 20 years ago when I first visited the plant. We should have had investment then under private enterprise. There should also have been investment in the intervening period since then under the British Steel Corporation. It is no good the Government saying that it is a question only for the BSC. What the man in the street and the people in Shotton and Clwyd are asking is, who controls British Steel if Parliament and the Government do not? To whom is the BSC answerable? That is a fair question for the whole plethora of nationalised bodies.
There is the danger of a domino theory here. When losses have been attributed and the management of BSC have decided that by taking the axe to this one plant, losses can be cut down, we may well find in a matter of months or years that those losses remain, and the axe will come out to another plant and yet another plant, and so the whole structure goes down. I know how that can be done with product costing in manufacturing industry. The ending of one product leads to another product being closed down, and so to the end of the entire factory. In the matter that we are discussing that would mean the end of the entire steel industry.
I grant that in a position of world over-capacity, and in an industry of massive capital investment, a high utilisation factor is needed to break even. That is clearly so. The question must be faced, perhaps regrettably, whether we can continue importing some of the steels that we are importing at present. There may be a case for strategic or other reasons for having a capacity to manufacture ourselves, and I believe that to be so.
If Shotton closes, there will be not only 6,000 jobs lost in the area but a danger to the railway line that brings in the coal. We do not know how long the coking plant will continue. Certain promises have been made but I doubt if it will continue indefinitely. We also do not know how long the railway line from Wrexham to Birkenhead will continue. There is

1375
also the question how long the other end of the plant will last. Certain guarantees have been given that the coating end will continue, but on the figure of 15,000 tonnes there is no chance of it making a profit. In all probability that will face the axe in due course. The irony is that Shotton is facing closure when one of its major steel users, Hotpoint, has just announced that it is expanding a new plant in the county of Clwyd. There may be greater demand still for steel from Shotton.
The Government have given an undertaking in response to recommendation 27 in the White Paper of April 1978 that social cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken in such decisions, but apart from that we must consider the pure economic situation. In the most recent document, that came out last year, the case was put for investment in tandem furnaces for Shotton. That has not been dealt with in the debate. Those furnaces have proved viable in other countries at a relatively low investment cost of perhaps £50 million, and the output is around 160 tonnes an hour. That possibility will cost less than the massive cost of closing Shotton when no other jobs are available.
I am making a plea not cap in hand on social grounds but in hard economic terms. We have one of the best steel plants in the United Kingdom. Its quality is magnificent, it meets order dates, it can be converted to modern technology at relatively low cost, and we are scrapping it. In its place we shall have to pay £320 per month for the average worker with two childern. That is £25 million per year just for the direct workers. The ecenomic case warrants the Government asking the British Steel Corporation to think again. They should go through the figures and see whether the money can be used in a better way.
7.3 p.m.
Dr. John Cunningham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) on a classic defence of his constituency interests. He has carried on that defence successfully for most of the time he has been in this House, as a member of the Government and in opposition. His speech was powerful and moving. His
1376
successful defence of his constituency interests in Shotton may yet prove to be extended.
I was about to refer to the Secretary of State for Industry as a right hon. Gentleman with amazing reticence, but perhaps with the name Joseph I should say with amazing technicolour reticence. It has been exceedingly difficult to get him into the House. Over the past few days we have had press leaks. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East was then told by people in the media about the decision, the matter was raised on Standing Order No. 9, there followed a private notice question and finally there is this debate. It has been extraordinarily difficult to persuade the Secretary of State to come to the House and discuss the matter.
The Evening News last night contained the headline
" Maggie tells Joseph to face the music "
I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is now in the Chamber. It is strange that he has had to be persuaded almost against his will to come here. He did not volunteer a statement on the issue. He had to be told to come here to attend the first performance of his magnum opus—his lifetime's work on the market economy. I am sorry that in doing so he has taken the same view as in the election campaign, when we warned people in Shotton and elsewhere of the consequences of his becoming Secretary of State.
In spite of what he says, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that the Government have a choice in the matter. It is not good enough for him to say that it is a matter for the British Steel Corporation. The Government came to office saying that they were intent on redressing the balance between the House of Commons and the Executive, and they have made an extraordinarily bad start. In this and other matters they have damaged the credibility of Parliament in the eyes of workers outside and of hon. Members. It is doubly damaging that workers at Shotton and elsewhere have seen promises that have been reinforced in this House brutally swept aside. The right hon. Gentleman apparently sees nothing wrong in that. At a time of such difficulty, when workers in the steel industry and elsewhere are being asked to co-operate with the Government's policies, they cannot be expected

1377
to rely on anyone's word when they see such promises swept aside in a pitiless fashion.
There has been comment as to whether a commitment was given about Shotton. There is no doubt that it was given on 16 March by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation. He said in respect of his decision on Shotton:
" This decision will not be reviewed during BSC's current five-year plan beginning in 1977."
I am in a large measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) about that commitment. It was endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I find it strange that the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) who is renowned in the matter of Shotton for the way that he has changed his stance so many times, not only in this Chamber but in the Welsh Grand Committee, on the radio today and elsewhere, should challenge that. In the debate today he said he did not know whether the allegations that he made during the election were true. I quoted him from Hansard of 21 May 1979 the categorical denial by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. The hon. Gentleman frankly seemed to be doubting the integrity of that statement, and I find his conduct in the matter wholly deplorable.
Sir A. Meyer: I do not challenge the integrity of the remark. I merely draw attention to the fact that no such denial was made before the result of the general election.
Dr. Cunningham: What is so sad about this episode is that people's livelihoods are at stake, and on the merest whim they are manipulated like yo-yos because the Secretary of State for Industry claims to have no responsibility in the matter. Apparently he attempts to prevent the elected representatives from being given the opportunity to raise the matter in this House. The Secretary of State does not come out of the episode with a great deal of credit. This can only lead to massive disaffection among people, cynicism about this House, about politics generally and about Governments, particularly this one. That is what is so reprehensible about the conduct of the whole matter.
1378
The closure of Shotton is not just a matter for the British Steel Corporation. If that were so, why is the Corporation reneging on the commitments given by its chairman? This contradicts what the Secretary of State for Industry has asserted. Of course the Government have a responsibility. Their industrial and economic policies have affected the decision. The Secretary of State himself is the architect of that policy and it is disingenuous of him to claim that he has no responsibility. These events would not have occurred had a Labour Government been in office today.
Mr. David Hunt: I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman for giving way. Will he explain why, during the five years they were in office, his Government failed to support the introduction of tandem furnaces which would have given Shotton the viability it deserved?
Dr. Cunningham: I am not in a position to go into that matter in the time that is available to me now. I recognise exactly the position that existed when the last Labour Government were in power but the point is that the position would have been reviewed in 1982. No one has attempted to deny that. I say that Shotton would not have been closed in the manner and on the timescale proposed by the Corporation.
Something else strange is happening in the Shotton area. The county council—the Tory colleagues of hon. Members opposite—is questioning the philosophy behind the closure. The council was happy to support all the calls for cuts in public expenditure provided that those cuts did not effect expenditure in its area. This market force policy will cause trouble within the Conservative Party itself and we may yet see a similar turnaround to the one that occurred in 1972.
We call upon the Secretary of State to look at this matter again. It is very important that people in the industry should be able to rely on the pledges given to them and the commitments made in this House and elsewhere. Just as important, the future of a whole community is at stake. The Secretary of State for Industry smiles. If he does not believe me, I shall give him an example in my constituency. In a town called Millom the ironworks closed in 1968.

1379
These ironworks were a private sector company owned by the Cranley Group. The works went into liquidation and more than 30 per cent. of the work force went on the dole in circumstances similar to those at Shotton. Even now, 11 years later, that community has not recovered from those events. It is likely that the same thing will happen at Shotton if this decision stands.
If the decision must stand, we plead with the Government to look again at the timescale. I agree with points made by hon. Members on both sides that the timescale is too short to enable anything realistic to be done. This is especially so against a background of IDC control and regional policy effectiveness as well as against a background of cuts in the money made available for training and retraining in the budget of the Manpower Services Commission. In the light of these circumstances, how can the Government be optimistic about the chances of providing alternative employment in Shotton? It is not reasonable to suppose that they can.
We would like to see the creation of a special task force to look at these problems within a longer timescale. For the people of Shotton the situation has now come full circle. In 1972 a Tory Government proposed closure. Now, in 1979, the same situation obtains.
The Secretary of State is sometimes referred to in the shipyard and steel towns as " the angel of death ". On the Clyde, Wear, Tyne and Tees and in South Wales as well, there are shivers of apprehension at the attitude that the Secretary of State is adopting to Shotton. He is setting about creating two nations industrially and economically. We find his policies unacceptable and we shall express our disgust with them in the Division Lobbies tonight.
7.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): Thanks to your giving way to a request by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity today for a three-hour debate on the important matter of the future of Shotton. Many anxieties have, understandably, been expressed by hon. Members, on both sides, who have a real interest in steel making in their constituencies.
1380
We thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing two contributions from hon. Members who feel strongly about the position of Corby. Corby has a relevance to our debate because what is happening to Shotton today is exactly what happened to Corby. In February the British Steel Corporation proposed consultations with the work force and the local management of Corby, but did we have a debate then? No, we did not. On 12 July a statement was put out by the BSC about Shotton, and the hon. Member for Flint, East suggested that that was done behind closed doors. That allegation does not stand up. A message was sent to local unions, proposing consultations about the future of Shotton—exactly the same procedure as that followed at Corby.
A debate of this sort produces colourful language, and we should excuse the hon. Member for Flint, East on that account because his anxieties are very deep. On the other hand, I am not sure whether a debate of this sort excuses the suggestion that the intention of the Government is, or that the likely outcome of their policies would be, the total rundown of steel making in this country. That is an unnecessary scare and does not contribute to a sensible discussion of the problems.
The history of the matter is well known. Over the past decade the British Steel Corporation has been bringing itself up to date with massive investment in new plant. The consequence of that investment, after a number of closures under the previous Labour Government, is that Shotton has become the last remaining open-hearth steelworks in Britain. Those steelworks have a limited life, and under the Labour Government BSC concluded that new steel-making investment at Shotton was not justified. It became a question not of whether closure would take place but when.
I do not accept what the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said, that the closure would not have taken place under the Labour Government. It was the imminence of an election that postponed the decision, and if that election had gone the other way I believe that the decision would have been the same.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I was the Minister responsible

1381
for the steel industry prior to the election, and I should inform the hon. Gentleman that BSC came to the Labour Government to propose the closure of Shotton. We told the Corporation that it had made a pledge to which we would hold it and from which we would not allow it to depart. Therefore, there was no possible prospect that Shotton would close under the Labour Government in the way that it is now being allowed to close under this Government.
Mr. Butler: That was not made clear before the election and it is not clear from the letter sent by the chairman of BSC to Mr. Bill Sirs, general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation in January 1979. That letter was made public and a copy sent to the then Secretary of State, and it stated that if the recession continued in the steel industry and the commissioning of the new plant at Ravenscraig raised serious problems for the loading of the heavy end at Shotton
" Clearly the British Steel Corporation will have to consider how this situation develops in future ".
That is a clear indication of the thinking of the British Steel Corporation at that time.
Mr. Varley: During the period prior to the general election Sir Charles Villiers came and asked to proceed with the closure of Shotton. I told him categorically that he had made a pledge that the position would not be reviewed within the five-year period until 1982 and that the Labour Government expected him to hold to that pledge. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that fact?
Mr. Butler: That explanation conflicts with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) that have been quoted in the debate, when he said that the target for the British Steel Corporation was to break even during the current year. It is impossible to reconcile that, on the one hand, he had a target to which he wished to hold British Steel with, on the other, the fact that he was not prepared to authorise the action that might make that possible. We are left to conclude that the target was meaningless. That is typical of the financial management of the economy by the previous Administration.
1382
I should like to deal quickly with competitiveness. My right hon. Friend referred specifically to that in his closing remarks. If the steel industry does not become competitive, if it cannot make itself efficient, and it is not able to meet the requirements of industry in this country and overseas, jobs are at risk in the future.
The hon. Member for Flint, East referred to the flood of imports of cars. There may be many reasons why foreign cars are bought in this country but one factor is that the steel that is provided to British Leyland and other car manufacturers is not at the same price as that which is obtained overseas. I have visited several shipyards in the last few weeks, and I was told that steel can be bought at £20 per ton cheaper from overseas than from BSC. That is why it is essential that the industry should be able to compete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) referred to the productivity of our industry compared with the Japanese steel industry. He quoted some alarming figures when he said that our productivity was a much as one-tenth or even one-fifteenth of Japan's. If the Commission is used as a source of information on these matters, we discover that our productivity is estimated to be about one-half of Germany's
These matters should be put right. In the downside end of Shotton there is what is described as the premier coatings complex in Europe. Investment to the tune of £44 million has been made. That complex must be served with its raw material, its steel, at the best price. That should come not from old plant at Shotton but, principally, from Ravenscraig and one or two other steel mills.
The question of who is responsible, the Government or BSC, has been discussed. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned "the capriciousness of political intervention, and we thought that he was on our side. He nearly was—political intervention is capricious. We are determined that the managements of the nationalised industries shall manage their industries. There has been too much interference, and that is why we repeat that the decision is for the management of whatever corporation it may be.
Mr. Ogden Mr. Ogden rose—
Mr. Butler: I have no time—I was given too little time to deal with the matter. Not only do Conservative Ministers agree with that proposal, but the Labour Government's proposal on the reports of the Select Committee on nationalised industries of 1977–78 in recommendation 7 was:
" The Secretary of State should take into account the need for the maximum productive efficiency in the Corporation when he comes to review the future of iron and steelmaking at Shotton."
The Minister did not reply that he would deal with the matter, but he said:
"It will be for the Corporation to review the future of iron and steelmaking at Shotton."
Mr. Varley Mr. Varley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member who is addressing the House does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must sit down.
Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is quoting directly from a statement that I made. It is the tradition of the House that when a Minister quotes an hon. Member he should give way. The Labour Government was asking the BSC to hold to its pledge—not a Government pledge, but a BSC pledge.
Mr. Butler: I find it difficult to do other than read the statement again. It was the considered judgment of the previous Government in regard to the future of BSC that:
" It will be for the Corporation to review the future of iron and steelmaking at Shotton."
That is proof that the Labour Administration, whatever its representatives are saying now, believed that it was for the Corporation to make the commercial decisions about steel-making plants.
Anxieties have rightly been expressed about the social consequences of closure. More or less concurrently with the BSC statement on 12 July my noble Friend
the Minister of State put out a press release that the Government would actively consider what measures should be taken to help to create alternative employment in Shotton, if the closure went ahead. We have referred to the possibility of upgrading Shotton to a special development area. We shall examine that matter with care. We have referred to further factory building and a review of infrastructure priorities. We shall do all that we can to ease the consequences of closure, because the social responsibilities are those of the Government.
Reference has also been made to the special redundancy payments scheme. Of course money by itself is no recompense for the loss of jobs, but we believe that that scheme should be operated with its generous payments to try to help in the circumstances that exist. We differ from the Opposition in our approach to the creation of real jobs. Again and again the Labour Government showed that they were prepared to keep people in jobs which had become obsolete and to put taxpayers' money behind them.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said, that taxpayers' money must come from individual taxpayers or from other profitable industries. Every time that one puts money into an obsolete industry, an industry which otherwise would close, one is putting at risk jobs in profitable companies. That is what we have to understand. The present Government have already made their views—
Mr. John Evans Mr. John Evans (Newton) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:
The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 315.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

  PUBLIC SERVICES
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling the right hon. Gentleman to move the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition I want to explain to the House what will happen at 10 o'clock in the light of the business motion to which the House agreed earlier today. At 10 o'clock, if the debate on the Leader of the Opposition's motion is still in progress, I shall interrupt it and put the Question. When this has been disposed of, I shall call on the Financial Secretary formally to move his motion relating to the Defence and Civil estimates. As soon as he has done so, I shall call on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) to move the motion in his name, which I shall then put to the House in the form of a reduction to the sums set out in the Financial Secretary's motion. As soon as this has been disposed of, I shall put the main Question with, if necessary, a reduced sum. When this has been agreed to, I shall call upon the Financial Secretary to introduce the Appropriation Bill.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to approve the Revised and Summer Supplementary Estimates 1979–80 which contain reductions in the Vote to Health and Personal Services, Housing and other public services and will result in a reduction in the standard of provision of these services, especially to those members of the community who need them most, and so will increase the divisions in society.
  We have already heard today of the Government's reckless proposals for cuts in public expenditure affecting the regions, industry and employment. I now turn to a further list of public expenditure cuts which will attack the Welfare State and the social fabric of our society. We are today looking beyond the Supplementary Estimates which are before the House to the whole field of Government public expenditure cuts. In many instances, the proposals before us today are only the tip of the iceberg. As the Govern-
  1392
  ment's measures unfold, it will be seen that millions of people—men, women and children—in most need will be most affected.
  Why are we going through this exercise? It is for one reason and one reason only—that the Government are determined substantially to reduce taxation. The impact of much deeper cuts in public expenditure, together with the increase in VAT and 17½ per cent. inflation, will be felt throughout the country. The irony is that those who benefit most from tax reductions at the top end of the scale will do so at the expense of millions of people who will receive no benefit from the proposed tax reductions.
  I want to deal with proposals and decisions already taken by so-called responsible organisations in response to the Government's measures. I am sure that most hon. Members will have seen the recent statement by the Association of County Councils on 10 July headed " Revolutionary ideas on how local authorities can save money ". I shall itemise some of its recommendations. On school meals, the association recommends the removal of the statutory obligation to provide a school meal of given nutritional level, which means that individual local authorities would have the freedom to decide whether or not to provide such a service.
  On school milk, the association recommends the removal of the requirement to provide free milk for schoolchildren up to 7 years of age. It is also recommended that the provision of welfare services unded section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 should be made discretionary.
  On health liaison, the association recommends the removal of the statutory requirement for liaison bodies between local authorities and the National Health Service. On old people's homes, the recommendation is the removal of the prescription by the Government of pocket money allowances for old-age pensioners. Dealing with social workers, the association recommends the removal of the requirement for sick children's planning committees to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State plans for the provision of committee homes under the Children and Young Persons Act.

  1393
  The final paragraph of the association's statement is headed " Fire Precautions ". It states:
  " Postpone introduction of new regulations under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 affecting old people's homes. Postpone introduction of revised building regulations. Introduce powers to charge for fire certificates under the FP Act 1971; and for advice on fire precaution matters. Relax the present regulations governing fire precautions in listed buildings. Raise the hotel bed limit above which hotels are required to be subject to the fire precaution regulations."
  All we need to do is to give old people boxes of matches. The Government should take action.
  I turn to a more immediate matter. The Sussex county council had to consider the future of the Mabel Lister Home for the Elderly Blind in East Sussex. That closure was proposed as a means of cutting expenditure. I regret to say that the Sussex county council today decided to close this home for blind elderly people. I cannot express the contempt that I feel for that authority. Even Tory councillors in Brighton have been moved to express their anxiety about the proposal.
  I shall move closer to my home environment in Lancashire. Yesterday I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about cuts of £6·6 million on education and £1·25 million on social services by the Lancashire county council.
  The leader of the Labour group, Louise Ellman, has written to my hon. Friend. She says that those proposals put in jeopardy the 180-place extension to the Blackburn technical college. The savings will mean a direct reduction in the number of school teachers. She says that the school meals service will be at risk and that children may be prevented from starting school until they have turned five years of age. A 24-place children's home for the Roman Road area which was in the building programme is now at risk. She asks whether the concessionary passes scheme will be withdrawn.
  I turn to the problem of housing. If we had had a longer debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would have spoken. As my right hon. Friend has said in a note to me, some Tory councils propose to load most of the burden
  1394
  on council house rents. He gives Birmingham as an example. In order to save £4½ milion this year, 160,000 tenants must pay rent increases of up to £2 a week. Any budget advantage, therefore, will go overnight. Other councils will cut jobs to save money.
  In order to save £5 million in the next two years, Warwickshire will reduce employment by 950, including 200 teachers. Hampshire is freezing 1,000 jobs. In time that will lead to a deterioration in the education service, for example. Hereford and Worcester plan to save £2½ million this year by abandoning proper school meals and charging for the bussing of children.
  I turn to the question of the National Health Service. The increase in VAT will result in a reduction in real terms of 3 per cent. on National Health Service expenditure. Inevitably that will lead to the closure of wards.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Rubbish.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but what about the bone marrow transplant unit at Westminster hospital, which, we are told, is under the threat of closure because of the Government's proposals?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked the Secretary of State yesterday about the estimated effect on his Department's budget of the increase in VAT and the net increase in his Department's expenditure for the current year. The Secretray of State said that the Department's Vote would have to bear an additional cost of £45 million a year arising from the increased rates of VAT. There is to be no increase in the cash limits for that.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I said " Rubbish " when the right hon. Gentleman said that this was equivalent to a 3 per cent. cut. He has now quoted the figure that I gave to his hon. Friend—£35 million to £40 million. How does he estimate that that is anywhere near 3 per cent.?
  Mr. Orme: That is one aspect of the Government's cuts. I shall come to the others later. The sum of £45 million is substantial.
  Of course, there has already been widespread concern from many responsible

  1395
  people and organisations, and the personal social services council, a Government independent advisory body, has made known its fears on the proposed cuts in personal social services. Two paragraphs of its statement read:

  " (a) The personal social services are already under strain as a result of the growing needs of some client groups (notably, the more frail elderly people over 75 years of age). Any reduction in the scale of other services is likely to increase the need for social services support.

  (b) It may be an illusion that large savings can be made by cutting back on residential forms of care. But there will always be an inescapable need for residential care, and some groups in need of such care are even now unable to receive it for want of adequate facilities."

  This emphasises that in these types of areas one cannot make massive cuts without removing both amenities and facilities. We have seen already with what alacrity some Conservative-controlled authorities have run for the axe. Of course, during the coming autumn and winter, Labour authorities will be facing a terrible dilemma when they try to defend the vital services.
  One can understand the anger expressed by members of the Sheffield city council the other day, however impractical their suggestions. In a city such as Sheffield, which has spent a lifetime building a welfare structure that is second to none, it is a terrible experience to see it dashed to the ground.
  I should like to mention the area health authorities and the struggle that they will face because of the 17½ per cent. rate of inflation and the VAT increase.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On the question of Sheffield, the right hon. Gentleman must know that was the subject of a pure propaganda exercise. Both my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were told categorically by Councillor David Blunkett, a remarkable young man, who is chairman of the Sheffield social services committee, that nothing of the sort was going to happen.
  Mr. Orme: I do not know whether the Secretary of State saw the statement in The Guardian today from Councillor Blunkett, which was somewhat different from what the Secretary of State is saying. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the
  1396
  House tonight that Sheffield will be free of these pressures and cuts?
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I was appalled at what the Secretary of State said. The reality in Sheffield is that we are deeply worried about practically everything that the Tories are doing. Their assault on the services in any major city will afflict that city. I cannot agree about Councillor Blunkett. He is a valiant struggler. He is blind and he toils mightily for everyone who is dispossessed. I cannot believe what the Secretary of State said, and I take what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said as being correct.
  Mr. Orme: I wish to say a brief word about the area health authorities and the struggle that they will face in the coming months. Mr. Ray Batman, the Leeds area treasurer, has said that the increases will add £1 million to his city's allocation just to maintain services. He says that they are in serious trouble. I could give other examples from South Glamorgan, London and elsewhere. These are only some of the problems which will multiply as the Government's measures unfold.
  I want to draw attention particularly to the effect of the Government's measures on the disabled, and not least the disabled blind. I refer to the brutal closure of the home in Sussex and the possible amendment of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was the Minister responsible for the disabled in the previous Administration, is taking a keen interest in this matter. He will be discussing the matter at a later date.
  We have been told, not least today, that substantial tax cuts and the free run of market forces is the answer to the nation's problems. Dramatic cuts in taxation for the very rich do not, however, provide a health centre, an old people's home, a nursery school or housing for those in need. The people who will benefit from those tax cuts will not therefore be spending their money on providing these facilities in the inner city areas such as London, Manchester, Liverpool and Salford, when three-quarters of our population lives.

  1397
  Likewise, market forces will only denude both industrial and crucial social urban areas of our society. We have only to look at the United States, with all its wealth, where as yet a health service under which every person has the right to equal treatment has not been created. With all its affluence the United States has not eradicated its city problems, and did not prevent New York from going bankrupt for the lack of public expenditure.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that last sentence? Did he say that it went bankrupt for lack of public expenditure?
  Mr. Orme: Yes. The city of New York went to the central Administration for Government support because it could not pay the wages of its employees.
  Mr. Jenkin: It was overspending.
  Mr. Orme: I wish to refer here to an anecdotal remark—which I understand to be correct—by the Secretary of State for Industry, as he now is, when he gave evidence to the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. In his evidence he returned to his favourite philosophy about market forces. I understand that he was asked by the Commission what he meant by market forces, and how they would operate within the Health Service, and that the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would like to see a hospital with a number of empty beds competing with another hospital that also had empty beds. That is the philosophy of the madhouse. It does not provide more facilities.
  I come now to the Secretary of State. He cuts a pathetic figure today. For years I heard him extolling how he wanted the Health Service improved, compaigning on child benefits and putting pressure on the Government at that time for increased public expenditure. Yet what has happened? The Cabinet steamroller has run over him and his liberal image has been obliterated by the Government's policies. The right hon. Gentleman owes the House an explanation for his U-turn.
  How do we react to these proposals? The Labour Party will not stand idly by and watch the Welfare State be dismantled. We shall fight the proposals by every legitimate means at our disposal. My party has organised a campaign
  1398
  through the national executive for this autumn and winter. The TUC has done the same. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to throw their weight behind these campaigns.
  Mr. David Ennals: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the campaign will not just be a Labour Party campaign? Does he agree that people who thought that they would get something different from the Conservative Government will join this campaign? These are the people who genuinely believe in the Welfare State.
  Mr. Orme: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have to convince those who were kidded by the Government into voting Conservative because they thought they would get more money in their pockets to join us in this struggle. They will see around them hospitals with closing wards, the closure of old people's homes and an absence of education facilities for their children. All this will happen in the most vulnerable areas of our society. I hope, therefore, that the campaign and the argument that we will carry to the people will not be too late to protect some of the services in the Welfare State that we fought for a generation to create, which we shall now defend, and, I hope, eventually improve when we return to office.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I had the great privilege of sitting in the last Parliament but two, although it seems that that was only just over five years ago. On that occasion I had the privilege of taking over the constituency of the then Sir Edward Boyle. Unkind boundary commissioners conspired with ungrateful electors to unseat me some years ago, but I find myself now in an equally privileged position in representing the constituents of Chipping Barnet, and I feel doubly privileged in succeeding the late Mr. Reginald Maudling.
  This is not a maiden speech, and I suppose that I cannot call it a second maiden speech. I suppose that, to use the current Skylab jargon, this is a reentry attempt. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I pause to say on behalf of my constituents of all parties how

  1399
  much they appreciated the eulogies by hon. Members on both sides about my distinguished predecessor.
  Reggie Maudling represented the constituents of Barnet for almost 30 years. He held many of the great offices of State and I think that all who knew him, and certainly my constituents and myself, will always remember him with affection and respect.
  Perhaps I may begin on a harmonious note by saying what a great pleasure and privilege it is to follow the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I tried to follow his oratorical flights of fancy, which I fear I shall be unable to match. Instead I shall attempt to depict the way in which the majority—I believe the vast majority—of my constituents see the current position on public expenditure.
  In the last year of the previous Conservative Government total public expenditure, as defined by the Government's White Papers, was no less than £28,000 million, but in the five years following, up to the last year of the Labour Government, 1978–79, that figure rocketed to nearly £70,000 million, an increase in money terms of about 170 per cent. Of course, at constant prices, or in real terms, the figure was far less, but I calculate from the previous Government's White Paper published in January that the real increase in public expenditure was about 10 per cent.
  The truth is that our taxpayers and ratepayers have been asked over the past quinquennium to pay more and more for what they believe, rightly or wrongly, to have been less and less, and this in a period when there has been not only record inflation but record unemployment, record debt and, if I may say so, record disillusionment.
  There are many who feel that those rocketing figures cannot go on. I do not believe—I say this with the greatest sincerity that I can muster—that my constituents or the British people generally would object to paying higher taxes if they felt that the funds thus accummulated were alleviating some of the social problems which the country faces. If all the money spent had been reducing homelessness and getting rid of squatting, if the health services had improved and
  1400
  the queues for operations had shortened, few people would object to having to pay higher taxes.
  In fact, experience has been to the contrary, and taxpayers feel that they have been taken for a ride, not getting value for money. Although they do not believe that there is massive waste throughout every Government Department, they know that there is waste, that there is overmanning, and our public services, they believe, could be organised more efficiently. People have come to the view that if it be true that more and more money being allocated does not bring better services, a slight reduction in resources will not damage those services and, indeed, could improve them.
  That brings me to my second point. Although one listens to him with great respect, the impression created by the right hon. Member for Salford, West is that the Government are cutting public expenditure this year. In fact, they are increasing public expenditure. According to the Budget forecasts, the money being devoted to public expenditure this year is £11,000 million more than last year. I am taking the figure of estimated outturn in the latest Treasury forecast.
  Again, that is in money terms, but it is a 17 per cent. increase. The right hon. Gentleman talks of a 17 per cent. inflation rate, so it is not a massive cut. If anything, it is a very slight cut, and it may indeed be no cut at all. But in real terms, from the orginal pre-Budget forecast, it is a cut of 3 per cent. I think that it is £2½ billion out of the total of £78 billion.
  I mention those figures merely to show the scale of the cutback—not the cut-down—in the increase of Government expenditure. I accept those figures, and I do not believe that anyone can deduce from them that the Government are being stingy, that they are cutting back unnecessarily, and that they will hit the very people who most need help and cannot help themselves.
  Mr. Orme: In that case, why are local authorities, hospital authorities and all manner of others now having to take decisions on quite drastic cuts? Why are we threatened with teacher unemployment and why are homes being closed if there are no cuts?
  Mr. Chapman: I shall deal with that. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me. Of course, the decision to cut back the increase in public expenditure by 3 per cent.—in other words, so that it rises by only 17 per cent. rather than 20 per cent.—means that certain unpopular decisions have to be made. My party put these points fairly and squarely before the electorate. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] I believe that it did, and we are entitled to say that we are doing what we said we would do.
  Mr. Ennals: Can the hon. Gentleman produce the election addresses of any of his hon. Friends which said that they proposed to close old people's homes or to double VAT?
  Mr. Chapman: I cannot, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot, but even if we did not put that in our election addresses—I certainly did not—the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, for example, neither he nor his right hon. and hon. Friends, before they came to power in 1974, said that they would increase the rate of direct taxation.
  Mr. Ennals: We did.
  Mr. Chapman: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, if we are to start horse-trading in what we are all supposed to have said or not said, we shall not get very far. In all sincerity, I say that we laid on the table exactly the policies that we would adopt.
  But even assuming that there are to be sizeable cuts in public spending, this is not something peculiar to the present Conservative Government. It happened under the Labour Government. I do not doubt that when they came to power in February and October 1974 the Labour Government announced that they would increase public expenditure, but the truth is that in two successive years they reduced it. I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that the real cut in public spending by their Government in 1976–77 on 1975–76 was no less than 3 per cent.—about the same as we forecast cutting it this year—and in the following year, 1977–78 on 1976–77, it was over 4·8 per cent. So even if right hon. and hon. Members want to level the charge at us that we are cutting public expenditure, the right hon. Member for Salford, West should be reminded that this was some-
  1402
  thing which his own party and Government were responsible for when they were last in charge of our affairs.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about our health and social services, and he is known to have specialised in that area as a Minister in the Labour Government. My professions—not that I need to declare them—are perhaps almost as unpopular as the profession of politician. I was an architect and town planner. In fact, before I came into the House I defined my station in life as a non-practising architect, a would-be planner and a has-been politician.
  I have, however, taken a particular interest in housing. The Labour Government actually cut the rate of spending on housing in real terms when they were in power. I need only remind the Opposition that in the three years 1974–75 to 1977–78 there were reductions of 11 per cent., 1 per cent. and 10 per cent., respectively.
  The short point is that we intend to make what we believe to be modest cuts and modest reallocations of resources. We consider that we are entitled to do that because we have had a mandate from the majority of the electorate, or a majority of the electors under our present electoral system. We have been open about it. In our view, the making of the cuts which we propose in certain spheres does not mean that the quality of those services will in any way decline, and I do not believe that it will.
  The Opposition have raised emotions in this debate, and I do not complain about that, but the House and the nation are entitled to a less emotional, less distorted and more objective excursus on the public service expenditure figures. The overwhelming majority of my constituents and the majority of the British people will support the Government's economic policies and their economic strategy because they are fed up with the profligacy that has been taking place over the past five years. They want to see the Government showing some semblance of financial prudency.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. David Ennals: I am not certain whether the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman)—I think that we welcome him back to the House—was chiding the previous

  1403
  Labour Government for having greatly increased public expenditure or for having greatly reduced it.
  I shall concentrate on personal social services, especially on the problems of the aged. During the period of office of the Labour Government expenditure on personal social services increased in real terms by 30 per cent., an average of 6 per cent. a year. That meant for our steadily ageing population an extra 150,000 home helps, a 50 per cent. increase in meals on wheels—the vast majority for the elderly—20,000 more residential places for the elderly and 30,000 extra day care places. I accept that progress was too slow. No one on the Labour Benches who believes in public expenditure doubts that. However, every year we were moving forward.
  We now have a Government who are dedicated to cuts in public expenditure. Our fear is that even the modest progress achieved over the years of the Labour Government is now ended. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say when he replies. When I was Secretary of State I took a great deal of stick from the right hon. Gentleman over three years for not having spent more on this, that or the other or for not having done more in various directions and for not properly looking after various needs.
  Yesterday the president of the British Association of Social Workers said that if only half of this year's saving of £300 million were to be produced by social services, there would need to be a reduction of over one sixth in social service expenditure. He said that that would mean 10,000 children having to leave children's homes, 20,000 people having to leave local authority accommodation, 100,000 being deprived of home helps and more than 35,000 being deprived of anything up to three meals a week. We hope that the social service cuts will be only a small part of the total cuts, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has been quoting the views that have been advanced by the Association of County Councils, its spokesman being Mr. Owen Coutts, the chairman of the finance committee.
  It appears that Mr. Coutts is brimming with ideas that will lead to dramatic say-
  1404
  ings in our social services. He is a man of great experience. He was a leader of the Norfolk county council, which has about the lowest social service expenditure per head of the population of any county council. He stood as the Tory candidate for Norwich, South, and fortunately he did not manage to win. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) retained the seat.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West has referred to some of Mr. Coutts' bright proposals. I shall mention one or two others—for example, scrapping free school meals in infant schools, reducing the nutritional value of meals and ending the obligation to provide school meals, raising the school starting age from five years to six years and ending the obligation to provide free transport to schools for those living two or three miles away from schools.
  That is a plan for the destruction of social services as we have seen them, as we have fought for them and as we have created them. Apart from the ideas that I have mentioned, Mr. Coutts is still brimming with ideas, although he did not mention them in his election address. They include taking away the pocket money of the elderly in local authority old people's homes. Can anyone think of anything more disgraceful than that? That was not in his election address. The proposals that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 should no longer affect local authorities and that the appointment of safety representatives should no longer be mandatory similarly did not feature in his election address.
  Mr. Coutts also wants to take the guts out of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. As I have said, he brings to his task a wealth of experience and enthusiasm. He clearly enjoys the task that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have set the local authorities.
  It might have been thought that Mr. Coutts was the latest version of Count Dracula and that no one would take his ideas as more than a piece of macabre drama, until the chairman of the ACC, Mrs. Elizabeth Coker, said:
  " I am confident we shall get some of these through."
  I do not know who she thinks she will be fighting when she tries to get through some of these plans.

  1405
  When the present Secretary of State was in opposition and I was Secretary of State we both believed that there was an important role in social services for voluntary organisations. During my period as Secretary of State the Labour Government greatly increased the funds available to assist voluntary organisations. As I understand it, the voluntary organisations are not prepared to take over the role that local authorities will not be able to fulfil and provide social services on the cheap. Their task is to supplement statutory services. That was made clear to me at the annual meeting of Age Concern. As I attended that meeting I could not hear the Secretary of State at the volunteer centre. However, I understand that the point was made clear to him, too.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: When speaking at the volunteer centre I quoted the words once used by the right hon. Gentleman, which were reported in the Municipal Journal three years ago. At that time he addressed local authorities and he urged them to use volunteers because
  " pound for pound they are a better buy."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, in flat contradiction to what he has only recently told the House.
  Mr. Ennals: I have always made it clear that there is a special role for voluntary organisations in pioneering initiatives. Three years ago I was talking about the development of group homes for the mentally sick and the mentally handicapped. In that sphere there is a great role for voluntary organisations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not cut the funds available to voluntary organisations. There is a special role for voluntary organisations and volunteers and that is not to take the place of statutory services.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Will he withdraw the imputation that voluntary organisations provide a service on the cheap? Is it not a fact that in many instances they do the same job better, more efficiently and with a greater dedication?
  Mr. Ennals: I spent more time working in the voluntary organisations than being a Member of Parliament or a Minister. The voluntary organisations would not respond in an encouraging way to the
  1406
  Minister if they thought that they must fill a gap because the Government decided to cut statutory services. The voluntary organisations will make their position clear to the Secretary of State.
  The cuts in community care—if carried through as the Government clearly wish—will inevitably put increased burdens on the Health Service. Less residential and day care provision will make it more difficult for patients to be discharged from hospital. Cuts in personal social services will place an added burden on the Health Service authorities, which will not be able to discharge so many patients into the community. Those authorities are faced with heavy cuts. I have not seen the figure of £45 million that was given by the Minister. I am fascinated with his arithmetic. I shall table a question asking him to list the figures area by area and region by region.
  Recently I spent a good deal of time talking with those involved in the regions and areas. I find the figure of £45 million unimpressive in view of the VAT increase, other Government measures and the decision to stand by the cash limits that were set when inflation was expected to be far lower. I do not believe that the health authorities will find that £45 million is the correct figure. My calculation is that the figure will be roughly £100 million. In some regions there will be no growth; in others there will be cuts.
  Mr. Orme: The Minister mentioned £45 million. I recently spoke to the area health authority close to my constituency. I was told that the figure would be 3 per cent. on VAT and that with the other costs coming in this year there would be a reduction of about 7 per cent. Adding up the figures, that comes closer to the £100 million mentioned by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Ennals: Clearly, we must press those matters very hard. I have enough experience in the Health Service to know that the Secretary of State must be honest and fair with the area and regional authorities. Sometimes they must take the rap. If there are to be closures of hospital wards, or beds, the area and the regional authorities must implement the decisions. It ill behoves a responsible Secretary of State not to take responsibility on behalf of the Government

  1407
  and say that the Health Service authorities have been put into that position as a result of the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget.
  The Opposition made desperate attempts to exclude medical equipment from the VAT increase. We received no response. I hope that the Minister will be honest and say that the cuts will be made as a result of Government policy and that the country and the regional and area authorities may hear him speak on their behalf. I hope that there will be no complacency from him in recognising how many words he must swallow. In the first two or three months of his rule he will start a regime of cuts such as we never saw in the whole period of the Labour Government.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I joined the House of Commons a short while ago. I found that my motive for coming to Westminster was, according to Edmund Burke, that the only necessity for the triumph of evil was for good men to do nothing. I felt that I had to do something.
  The more I listen to speeches from members of the Opposition, the more I clearly realise the evils of Socialism. Perhaps the Socialists do not mean to be evil. However, in the past few weeks I have heard nothing but ridicule, sneers and unworthy words about matters on which they had the opportunity to act for so many years but did nothing.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) referred to old-age pensions. The Conservative Party has no need to feel ashamed at what it did for old-age pensioners. Airey Neave introduced pensions for the over-80s. The Conservative Party introduced the six-monthly revision of pensions. The Tories introduced the Christmas bonus. The Labour Government took it away and the Conservatives reintroduced it, under pressure.
  I do not feel able to sit and tolerate this sort of talk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Labour Benches. My views are probably very different from those of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I should like to see us stop the supply of free teeth, free glasses and free dental equipment. [Interruption.] I am
  1408
  talking about pensioners, and for pensioners they are more or less free. I should like to get rid of rent rebates, rate rebates, free television in some areas, and bus passes in other areas, because elderly people are forced to tell somebody all their business in order to qualify for the gravy train, as some people call it. I realise that many old-age pensioners need this sort of support, but most of them would like to be independent of all these handouts. They would like instead to have a jolly good pension and not have to tell somebody all their business in order to qualify for handouts. It is very sad that they are placed in this position, and I criticise all previous Governments for the way in which we are moving in this respect.
  I have been charged with the task of making an investigation into the cost of all this. It may not be quite as easy as it would seem from the way in which I put my argument to the House. I am sure that it would be costly to implement even with support from each side of the House, but it is worth considering, because we are getting to a state where we are destroying the character of the people of this country with measures of this sort.
  Mr. Orme: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about pensioners preferring to have a decent pension and wanting to get rid of the support services. When we were in office, we introduced the provision for the uprating of pensions in line with earnings or prices, whichever was the higher. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party which intends to change that system of uprating, so that instead of the pensioners sharing in increased prosperity, they will be tied to the cost of living. What does he say about that?
  Mr. Dickens: We made a pledge during the election campaign that we would not let the pensioners fall behind, and that is important. We shall see that through. Our vision for this country is to get productivity going again by having less taxation on companies and on persons. We want people to be able to work harder, get their bonuses and take their overtime payments, without having to pay such high taxation on them. Once the money is available, all sorts of things can be done. Labour Members are judging us on this very first Budget. I would say

  1409
  to them " Be patient, my friends." When we come to the next general election, our vision will be seen to be coming through and people will see that, though they may have wondered at first, we have got it right after all.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not believe for a moment that the Budget will result in the expected leap forward in bonus earnings and increased productivity, but, assuming it did, there would then be an increase in the earnings of those at work, and at that point the measure proposed by the Secretary of State would mean that pensioners would fall behind those at work. The more money people earned in factories, the more the pensioners would fall behind, because the link would have been destroyed.
  Mr. Dickens: That is typical of what I have to listen to from you fellows. There are so many possibilities open to us. We could increase the Christmas bonus. We could give the pensioners an immediate increase. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain our position to Labour Members when they ask me a question. We can do all sorts of thing, given the money with which to do them. At the moment we are trying to spend money in all sorts of directions without first earning that money. The whole thing is moving in the wrong direction.
  I return to my former argument about the removal of handouts to pensioners. I wanted to say to you that there are many bureaucrats in local government offices, sitting behind desks with telephones, lights, accommodation and the rest—also inflation-proof pensions—giving pensioners the handouts that they could have had in the first place. That is where I would get some of the money, by making cuts in that direction. It may seem stupid to say that, but I shall produce a document, make a case and test the House later on.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: If the hon. Member for Huddersfield West (Mr. Dickens) intends to persuade his party to take on the tax credit scheme which it seems to have abandoned, I am entirely with him. I suggest that that is where the hon. Gentleman should look. There is a full report on the working of
  1410
  a tax credit scheme, under which he could do away with the 42 means-tested benefits if he really went into the matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) recommences, may I just tell him that I am " you ", and that we are not chaps or fellows but hon. Members in this Chamber.
  Mr. Dickens: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Conservative Party stopped the supply of free school milk the reaction was " Thatcher the milk snatcher ". That was very unkind. What were we trying to do? We wanted to allow people to be responsible. The very hon. Members who are shouting at me now are those who would be prepared to drink 16 or 18 pints of beer at the weekend, but who would not buy their children half a pint of milk a day. That is the sort of society in which we live.
  I want to make a plea on behalf of invalids. Many hon. Members will know that the invalid tricycle or car system is now being run down and that invalids receive £10 a week. I understand that that amount will be increased to £12 in November, through the Motability scheme, to help invalids acquire their vehicles.
  Many hon. Members may not appreciate that at the age of 65 elderly people lose their vehicles and have to acquire a vehicle of their own, paying the full rate of VAT. They also have to pay for modifications, such as hand controls, and maintain the vehicles themselves. If I am incorrect, I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me when he replies to the debate. I make this special plea for invalids, particularly as the cost of petrol is rising rapidly.
  I think that I have kept the House for long enough. The House has been good spirited, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, very much indeed.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) has had to listen to so much evil in the few weeks that he has been with us. In response, I look forward with a sinking sense of depression to the fact that I

  1411
  may have to spend four or five years listening to speeches by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West.
  It really is not good enough for him to enter special pleas for hard-up, disabled sections of the community when he is buttressing and supporting a Government who have penalised those groups, and when he is speaking in support of a Secretary of State for Social Services who has proposed to smash the link between pensions and the standard of living. It is mere cant to make special references in the context of that general background.
  Having got that off my chest, I think that it would be churlish if I were to go any further. As late as last December, I was among those hon. Members who protested at the assumption that the House should be expected to accept and approve public expenditure without debate.
  I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having at least tabled a motion that at long last enables us to get back to the original function of a Supply day and to scrutinise the Estimates that are put before us before they are approved. I doubly congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends, because they have tabled a motion that enables us to focus on the most significant factor of the Supplementary Estimates, namely, the damage that will be done to the disabled and the sick in our community.
  It is particularly appropriate for myself that the House should be debating this matter tonight, because it was only today that the controlling Labour group on my regional council met and resolved that it would fight the proposed cuts in public expenditure that are advocated by the Conservatives. I hope that those Labour councillors succeed. I wish them every luck in their campaign to change the minds of Conservative Members. However, we must face the unpalatable truth that they may fail—that they may be obliged to carry through some of the painful decisions to which my right hon. Friends have referred, and that they as councillors, who in many cases have fought for decades to improve the social services in their area, may themselves
  1412
  have to preside over the dismantling of them.
  When we come to those decisions, it is not difficult to predict what projects will have to go. It will be those projects that come fresh to the budget, that require additional money and that have to fight with projects that are already established and funded.
  I should like to share with the House information about three such projects that are proposed in my constituency over the next nine to 18 months. The first is an adult training centre for the mentally handicapped. Last year, the regional council was fortunate in that it was able to acquire new modern premises that had fallen vacant, for reasons to which I shall return, and which it bought in order to turn into a training centre for the mentally handicapped. The money has been put in the budget for the end of this year, and for the next financial year, to convert that building and to start the work. If the council has to reduce its social work budget, that is one project that will almost certainly go.
  It is not as if the Government will say that there are enough places in the Lothians for mentally handicapped people to be trained. It is not as if they will say " There are too many places for the mentally handicapped in the Lothian region. That is why we must cut the number of places available." Indeed, it is impossible for them to say so, because guidelines are still extant from the Scottish Office to every social work authority, recommending the number of training places that they should have for the mentally handicapped. At present, the Lothian region is 50 per cent. below those guideline figures. If the Government had a streak of honesty in them, they would withdraw those guidelines now, because it is pure hypocrisy to leave those guidelines extant while one is cutting away the the money that local authorities need if they are to have a hope of meeting those guidelines.
  There is another dimension to this illustration. I mentioned that these new modern premises had fallen vacant. In fact, they were the social club of my local football supporters, which had gone bust. The only other bidder on the market for the premises was a consortium of other

  1413
  football supporters who wished to reopen the club under new management.
  The logic of the Conservative proposition is that the Lothian region should not have bid for those premises, and should not have taken on an inescapable commitment to expand public expenditure by converting that building. It should not have irresponsibly crowded out the private sector, and should have left those premises to be taken over by the consortium of football supporters to be retained as a social club.
  Here we come to the nub of the argument. The net result would be that instead of having an adult training centre for the mentally handicapped in my constituency, I would have yet another beer bar. I have nothing against beer bars—I have even been known to spend some time in them—but I can clearly see the social damage that is done by preventing a handicapped centre opening in my constituency. It beggars my comprehension how any hon. Member can see how, in some mystical, magical way, by leaving those premises in the private sector and retaining them as a social club, the Lothian region will be contributing towards the economic recovery of Great Britain.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman referred to hypocrisy and the fact that the Lothian region was 50 per cent. below the recommended guidelines for mentally handicapped training places. However, is it not a fact that that situation arose after a substantial period of Labour control of the Lothian region and five years of Labour Government?
  Mr. Cook: Lothian region took over from Edinburgh town council, and the first time—in about 200 years—that Edinburgh town council obtained a Labour social work authority was in 1974 when it passed on to Lothian region. That fact remains unpalatable to the Edinburgh Conservative Party.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), perhaps unfortunately, has been out of the House for the past five years. He may not be aware that some of the policies pursued by the previous Labour Government did not command the unanimous support of Labour Back Benchers. I accept that some Labour Members made criticisms, but the
  1414
  Lothian region had to operate within tight capital budgets.
  The fact remains that the council has purchased a building. If it does not receive money to staff the building, it will stand empty. I can think of nothing more criminal than that, despite a clear clamant need, we should let a building stand empty for lack of the resources to staff it and to bring it into use for the need for which it was originally acquired.
  I wish to refer more briefly to two other projects, both of which affect the elderly. I represent an inner city area and, like other hon. Members who represent such areas. I have a large number of elderly electors. More than one-quarter of them are over retirement age, and in some areas the proportion rises to more than one half. In response to that clear clamant need, Lothian region has, in its budget for this year, provided for an alarm system that would enable 200 of my elderly constituents to be connected to a mobile warden who could be summoned in an emergency.
  That essential service—a service that might save lives—is one of the projects that will almost certainly go if they are obliged to meet the guidelines sent out by the Scottish Office because it is a new project, which requires additional finance. It is not one of the established projects. They cannot be shut down in order to make way for it. The Scottish Office is providing for a cut of £15 million in social work expenditure in Scotland, and that is why the alarm system project will have to go. Similarly, another project that would have to go is the expanded provision, included in the budget, for another £1½ million expenditure on the home help service.
  I sometimes get the impression that Conservative Members are incapable of grasping that one of the reasons why public expenditure rises—and why it has to rise—is the sheer inescapable pressure of demographic change. Every year, there is another 1 per cent. of the population that is over 65 years of age. Every year, the proportion of the population that is over 75—those who are most in need—increases by more than 2 per cent. In other words, unless we increase the personal services to the elderly by more than 2 per cent. a year in real terms, we fall behind every year.

  1415
  That is why in my constituency there are already more people over 75 who are not receiving home helps than ever before. There are more people over 75 who have a home help on only two days instead of five days. That trend will accelerate as the number of those over 75 increases and the money available for home helps is cut back.
  It is not enough to urge, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West urged, that this is a necessary period of sacrifice in order to achieve growth and a spurt in economic activity, at the end of which we will be able to spend public money and increase public expenditure.
  It is not enough for two reasons. I see nothing in these cuts that leads me to believe that that increase in economic activity will take place. The one clear effect of the Budget, as admitted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that there will be a reduction in net economic activity in Britain. There will be a drop in economic output.
  It is not enough, for another reason that has been hinted at. It will be too late, three or four years from now, to open that centre for the mentally handicapped. Many children will have left school and missed that vital period in their late teens when they could have had the opportunity of training to play a constructive part in the community. It will be too late for my constituents who are over 75. Many of them will have died in three or four years' time. They may die alone, unable to summon help because of the cuts that will be forced on the social services.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is presenting an excellent case not only for elderly constituents in Edinburgh but for those who suffer from mental handicap. Will he address his mind to those areas of public expenditure where savings could be made so that the additional sums that he and I want to be spent on the elderly and mentally handicapped can be found from existing or reduced budgets?
  Mr. Cook: I am delighted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I was about to come to an area in which I should welcome cuts. I am not sure that the
  1416
  hon. Gentleman will agree, but that will relieve me of the embarrassment of having him in agreement with me.
  Mr. Winterton: I limit that agreement to social services.
  Mr. Cook: There is an area of public expenditure that has not been asked to make the sacrifices required of the elderly and mentally handicapped, and that is the Defence Vote. There is a motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my colleagues on that issue. The reason why we have tabled that motion is that the Treasury, while committing itself to expenditure cuts that will affect the sick, elderly and mentally handicapped, has committed itself to increasing expenditure on the Defence Vote. Even with the half-crazed economic logic of the Treasury, that contrast is not safe.
  We are told that public expenditure must be decreased because it is crowding out the private sector. Home helps and training places for the handicapped do not required skilled engineers, graduate physicists or sophisticated technological equipment. Arms procurement does. One of the reasons why we have so long campaigned to restrain arms procurement is precisely that it competes with other forms of investment in manufacturing industry. When confronted with the one form of public expenditure that may crowd out the private sector, the Government have acted by proposing a 3 per cent. increase. We have yet to see where that will appear and are therefore obliged to raise our motion against the Supply Estimates rather than the Supplementary Estimates, which have not yet been presented by the Ministry of Defence. I accept that that is unsatisfactory.
  It is important at an early stage in this Parliament that we have an opportunity to record our outrage at a proposal that will cut expenditure for the sick, weak and those who are unable to defend themselves whilst at the same time providing for increases in arms procurement. I hope that many hon. Members will take the opportunity to record their outrage in the Division Lobbies tonight.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will not mind if I say

  1417
  that there was much in his speech that was predictable. The most predictable part was the note that he struck on defence, and I shall return to that later.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman's speech is predictable as well.
  Mr. Onslow: I am glad to hear the mastermind second-guessing me. I had not intended to speak in the debate until I heard the speech of the previous Secretary of State, which was not wholly predictable. I am delighted to see that he is returning to the Chamber. To judge from what he said, he expected the House to take it from him that he had handed over or had shot from under him a National Health Service that was in perfect running order. I did not detect any note of self-criticism in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks or any recognition of the enormous burdens which built up in the Health Service during his tenure of office. I did not detect any note of modesty—
  Mr. Ennals: Tomorrow we shall have an opportunity to consider the Health Service because that is when the Royal Commission reports. The hon. Member surely realises that our Labour Government inherited a reorganisation which riddled the Health Service with the bureaucracy with which we have had to deal ever since.
  Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member had five years in which to deal with it, but he did not do so. That lack of responsibility is much of the cause of our troubles today. We do not need a Royal Commission to remind us that the chairman of my local area health authority was moved to write to the Secretary of State before the last election, and say that he could scarcely keep the Health Service going in his area because of lack of funds. We do not need the Royal Commission to tell us of the difficulties in recruiting nurses. These difficulties have become so acute that many wards cannot be staffed to adequate standards.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member must know that in the five years of the Labour Government there was an increase each year in the numbers of doctors and nurses, and over the whole period there was an increase in the number of patients dealt with in hospitals, in the community and in day care. Far too much propa-
  1418
  ganda has been given to the difficulties and weaknesses of the Health Service. It is time some was given to its achievements.
  Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member spends all his time trying to justify himself just as hard as he can. If he is right in what he says why is the Health Service in such a mess? Has some mysterious event occurred since 3 May to bring this about? Is the right hon. Member really saying that the NHS has actually improved during the past five years?
  Mr. Ennals: In many ways, yes.
  Mr. Onslow: The right hon. Member says that it has, in many ways. Let me tell him some ways in which it has not. I am sorry that the right hon. Member does not like what I am saying but I intend to make my speech. It is time there was an attack on the legacy of inefficiency, complacency and self-satisfaction that form the root of the problem that we face today.
  Let me give one example. There is a hospital serving my constituency which treats mentally handicapped people. For three years admissions to that hospital have been virtually controlled by a trade union. Does the right hon. Member think that is a good legacy? One of the reasons for this is that the hospital load has increased because the London boroughs, which are responsible for many of the patients, will not make the provision that would enable them to be released. That has been going on for five years. Meanwhile, there is case after case of acute family agony. The right hon. Member and his hon. Friends know all about this—I have been writing to them about it for years. This is an area in which action should have been taken long ago.
  In another hospital in my constituency the union relations are such that patients' relatives are deeply worried about the standard of care that is provided. That, too, has been building up for five years. This is the climate that has been created by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. The legacy that they have left us is one of very poor morale and they cannot disclaim responsibility for it. They must accept that this kind of problem must be put right. We must have a new motivation between the community

  1419
  and the Health Service. Teachers must encourage girls to take up nursing.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out the ills of the Health Service. Many of those which are due to the lack of money are true. However, do we assume that the Tory Party will rectify those ills and pour money into the Health Service?
  Mr. Onslow: Of course the hon. Gentleman always invites us to agree to something helpful like that. Is he suggesting that as a teacher he encouraged girls to go into nursing. Not a bit of it. His presence surely acted as a discouragement. If he or a community or a country live beyond their means there comes a point when there is no way out of it. That is the point and the cuts are a consequence of our inheritance of the policies of the previous Government. The coat has to be cut according to the cloth.
  Mr. Flannery: Hypocrisy.
  Mr. Onslow: That is not hypocrisy. The system must be brought back to serve the public and bureaucracy which perpetuates itself must be ended. That is the sort of bureaucracy which soaks up nurses who want to be nurses and turns them into administrators so that they cannot care for patients. Doctors were allowed to build up small empires—for example, the X-ray evaluation unit at Kings College Hospital on which about £500,000 was spent unnecessarily under the Labour Government. We want a Health Service that serves the public. We need to increase productivity, to get nurses on the wards and out of offices. The lawyers in the county councils should be made to understand that when they are dealing with voluntary bodies they should help them and not get in their way by inserting daft clauses in tenancy agreements to provide that the windows will be washed every two months when the aim is to set up a home for mentally-handicapped adults. There must be some vision about the matter. It may be necessary to cut some of the cherished projects of Labour Members like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), our teaching friend—to cut out some of the bad teaching.
  1420
  My words seem to be too strong for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who is leaving the Chamber.
  I should like to follow up the point about defence. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hear my plea. There are many types of national defence, not just the uniformed forces, the Armed Services and the police. There are protective entities upon which our society depends. One protection we need is against drug smuggling. I am anxious that the preventive side of the Customs and Excise service which protects the country from the danger of smuggled drugs should continue. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware what a burden smuggled drugs place on the services for which he is responsible and that it is in the interests of national defence that drug smuggling should be prosecuted most vigorously.
  I fear that the reaction of the unions within the Customs and Excise may be such that the Government will not be allowed to maintain as high a defence as is needed against smuggled drugs. For some doctrinaire reason the unions are insisting that cuts should be made across the board. I hope that the unions are suitably ashamed of themselves and I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress upon his colleagues in the Treasury and the Home Office the great importance that I am sure he attaches to ensuring that no flood of drugs comes into the country for the reasons that I have described.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: We have just been treated to an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He was going great guns until he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to tell the House whether the Tory Government proposed to rectify the deficiencies in hard cash. The hon. Gentleman did not rise to that occasion in the same eloquent way as he delivered the rest of his speech.
  It is all very well to use high-sounding generalisations about the need for vision and to call for a little humility from my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services, but the basic question relates to the amount of cash

  1421
  that the Government intend to allocate to those in need.
  Ministers make great play about keeping their manifesto commitments to cut public expenditure, but they are being highly and misleadingly selective. Some of their manifesto commitments are being flagrantly disregarded and some solemn promises are being irresponsibly broken by virtue of the Government's public expenditure policy.
  We are seeing a double-barrelled shotgun attack by the Government involving specific public expenditure cuts, some of which are disguised under the euphemism of " cash limits ". This attack is blasting the fragile hopes and inadequate living standards of the most vulnerable sections of our society. The Government are undermining provision for the mentally and physically handicapped. They are putting into reverse the powerful engine for progress, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and eroding the basic fabric of the Welfare State.
  It is, I suppose, inevitable that a Government seeking to placate wealthy supporters by allocating the largest tax concessions to the wealthiest will inject a new venom into the old concept of class war. Naturally, such a Government will disregard the plight of the underprivileged. What is harder to take—and this has happened—is the fact that Ministers constantly state that party politics should not be allowed to creep into the subject of disablement. I have always said that, and meant it, and that argument applies to members of the all-party group on disablement. In that group we have managed to maintain this admirable principle as well as to adumbrate it.
  Everything has now changed. Disabled people are directly and devastatingly affected by the Government's cuts, though I concede that some local authorities have not yet reached final decisions about-precisely where the cuts should fall. If we examine the problems that beset the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, we quickly conclude that the present provision is so threadbare, pathetic and inadequate that it constitutes a national scandal. I am referring to an unfashionable and unpopular section of our society. Apart from dedicated relatives and some professional workers, this is the unloved section of our society.
  1422
  Nowhere do society's crocodile tears apply more aptly than they do to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. Even the children are not excepted from this process. Mentally handicapped children are being denied the real concern of society. Over 5,000 mentally handicapped children are institutionalised in hospitals. They are children who should not be in hospital.
  These deplorable facts have been the subject of debates in this House on a number of occasions, and they have been detailed in Maureen Oswin's splendid book and in many reports. People concerned with the mentally handicapped know about them, but the House does not know as much as it should. There are hospitals for the mentally handicapped which have no paediatrician, no speech therapist and insufficent physiotherapists. These are the children who should be considered when we are talking about public expenditure cuts.
  An hon. Member for the Conservative Benches suggested that there should not be too much emotion in the debate. That is fine. Instead, we should have some facts. The facts about these children, which have been chronicled, are that they suffer from sore eyes, runny ears, chronic catarrh, skin diseases, bad teeth, chronic stomach upsets and worms. These are the kinds of diseases that one thinks of as affecting children in the nineteenth century, but there are children suffering from these diseases in hospitals today.
  I want to pay my tribute to the nurses and doctors in the good hospitals. There are, however, more than enough hospitals that are cause for deep public concern. Those children should not be in hospitals. They should be in the community, provided with care as well as treatment. As a result of the Government's action on public expenditure the pace of the exodus of children from old-fashioned and inadequate hospitals will be retarded. That is an unhappy word to describe an unhappy trend for mentally handicapped children.
  It is fair to make the point that if the situation is so serious, why did the Labour Government not solve it? The Labour Government did not resolve the problems, but it did inject and invest more public expenditure into hosptals. I attacked savagely the former Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon.

  1423
  Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on many occasions, but he fought for these children and for these people. More public expenditure was provided. What is now happening is the reversal of that process, possibly with the best of intentions. The aims are wrong. The methods are wrong. Mentally handicapped children will suffer. If children alone were affected, that would be a cause for deep concern, but the broad picture is even more disturbing.
  Despite the so-called mandatory duty placed on local authorities to provide mental health services, including aftercare, no fewer than 41 authorities make no residential provision for mentally handicapped children. Two authorities make no provision for mentally handicapped adults, 28 authorities make no provision for mentally ill adults and 21 authorities have no adult training centres. Seventy-seven authorities make no daycare provision for mentally handicapped adults. I make no apology for inflicting those vital figures on the House. They have been compiled by MIND from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
  The figures are important, boring though figures usually are. They are testimony to the indifference, the failure and the neglect of successive Governments and local authorities and public opinion generally. They illustrate the derision with which many local authorities regard their duties under the Mental Health Act 1959, and they underline the need for urgent reform of the law.
  Legal reform and compulsory enforcement of mandatory responsibilities are but empty shells without the financial stuffing of public expenditure. That is essential, and yet at a time when we should be injecting more financial resources into social services the Government insist on economies. That is a ruthless and unfeeling policy to pursue at this time.
  If the picture is so bleak for mentally handicapped and mentally ill people, we must also consider the plight of the physically handicapped. There is patchy and kaleidoscopic implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It is spotty and shifting as one local authority after another seeks to wriggle
  1424
  out of its mandatory responsibilities. The Secretary of State should repudiate the proposals put to him by the Association of County Councils for section 2 of that Act to be made not mandatory but discretionary. He should suggest to the Treasury and his Department that the Government should have second thoughts about their policy.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will allocate a set proportion of the rate support grant for mentally and physically handicapped people and for the old who are in need. I hope, too, that the Government will recognise that their respect for local government autonomy must be tempered by the knowledge that some local authorities seek to evade their responsibility to disabled people.
  I trust that there will emerge from this debate a clearer understanding of the magnitude of the problems experienced by mentally and physically disabled people and that there will be a new determination in the House to avoid imposing burdens on those who are already broken by their disabilities.
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: The House always listens with respect to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I hope that he will forgive me, but I must take to task some of his colleagues who made comments earlier in the debate.
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for not having heard his opening remarks, particularly as I intend to comment on what he said about the East Sussex county council.
  It is sad that in such debates in the House both sides tend to give the impression that only they care about elderly people, about handicapped people, about the National Health Service and about our system of looking after those who are not as fortunate as the majority.
  I believe that 100 per cent. of hon. Members genuinely care about people. They will express that care in different ways and show it in different ways. Not one of us would have had the temerity to stand for Parliament if he did not truly care about people and their problems.
  We do not give the best impression of the House and of our parliamentary

  1425
  system when we try to pretend that one side has a monopoly of caring, that one side has a monopoly of success and the other of failure. That is not true.
  The political parties represented in the debate tonight have made great achievements over hundreds of years and it would be wiser for us to concentrate more on the way in which they have co-operated to overcome problems facing the elderly, the sick and the handicapped rather than always emphasising the divisions and failures of our political opponents.
  I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Salford, West felt it necessary to select the East Sussex county council for attack when he dealt with the Mabel Lister home. On many occasions I have criticised the social services department of that county council. There have been a number of tragic cases in the county in the last few years. We shall never forget Maria Colwell who lived in my constituency or Stephen Menhenniet, and other tragic cases that have been directly related to the responsibilities of that social services department.
  However, the department has fine achievements to its credit. The Mabel Lister home is not in my constituency, but in Lewes. It is a home for the visually handicapped. It has been under-occupied for a considerable period. The intention and policy of the council is to integrate the visually handicapped into existing homes. A final decision has not yet been made about the future of the Mabel Lister home.
  Mr. Orme: I am reliably informed that the East Sussex county council at its full meeting today decided, on the recommendation of its social services department, to close the home. I secured that information from the Library which was in touch with the county council during its meeting this afternoon. I have a cutting from the local newspaper about the home. When the proposal to close it was made the director of social services said that he wanted rationalisation and perhaps to move people into other homes. But he also said that this was part of the cuts in public expenditure.
  Mr. Bowden: I have to tell the House that the right hon. Member for Salford, West is better informed than I am about the decision that was made by the county
  1426
  council today. I concede that point completely. There is, however, a strong argument for saying that where possible people with certain handicaps should be integrated into existing homes where those handicaps do not exist. The Mabel Lister home has been significantly under-occupied and under-used for a long time.
  When an attack is made upon a county council and its social services department it is essential for the House to get the full perspective. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have informed himself of these facts, but naturally he would not have used them during his speech. The East Sussex county council spends more per head of the population on social services than any other county council in England. Since 1974 its social services budget has increased, excluding provision for inflation, by 16·2 per cent. Not many county councils have been able to match that in the last five years.
  There has been a substantial increase in the number of home helps. The county council has concentrated on more domiciliary help, on assistance to people in their own homes. Surely, that is a trend to be encouraged and welcomed, and I hope that other county councils will follow it.
  The county council's social services department has pioneered some completely new schemes for home care, which is a major step forward. A large sum has been put aside to sponsor old people's homes run by voluntary organisations.
  Among those facts is evidence of no mean achievements by the county's social services department over the past four or five years, and it is my duty to remind the House that these achievements have been brought about despite the appalling way in which the county was treated by the Labour Government in relation to the rate support grant. When I look back at the cynical removal of resources and funds from East Sussex to other parts of the country, purely for political reasons, I sometimes feel a little bitter at the attacks from the right hon. Member for Salford, West and his hon. Friends.
  I regret that the former Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), is not now in the Chamber for I could not help feeling that his speech was a self-justification of his actions and record

  1427
  as Secretary of State. I wanted to remind him that some two years ago, when Secretary of State, he wrote to me admitting that the Brighton health district was not receiving its fair share of resources in relation to its problems, in relation to the large number of retired people living in Brighton. Of my 65,000 constituents more than one-third—23,000—are of retired age. Yet nothing happened during those two years, despite the right hon. Gentleman's written admission to me. Nothing was done to allocate additional resources to the Brighton area.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State will take a close look at that correspondence and ensure that Brighton health district receives its fair share in the years ahead.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the experience of Brighton and East Sussex is not unique and that many other areas which perhaps return Conservative county councillors and Conservative Members of Parliament suffered immensely under the Labour Government? For example, the hospital waiting list in Macclesfield increased by 63 per cent. during the last Prime Miniter's tenure of office. That shows what happens under a Labour Government.
  Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that information to the House. I have no doubt that during the last 12 months of the life of the Labour Government there was a deliberate intention to transfer resources from areas where they knew that they had no chance of gaining seats into areas where they believed that they could strengthen their political position and have a chance of holding on to certain seats at the general election.
  I turn now to a problem which, I believe, concerns every Member of Parliament. It certainly concerns the all-party parliamentary group on pensioners, of which I have the privilege to be one of the joint chairmen, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) being the other. I refer to heating for the elderly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) made the powerful point that it was important to move away from special concessions and
  1428
  allowances to the establishment of a decent living pension. I must tell him, however, that until that laudable objective is reached—may it come as soon as possible—we must still fight for certain specific concessions for the elderly, and no such concession, I believe, is more important than the heating concession.
  Our retired people could be facing a very difficult winter, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to undertake carefully to review the present fuel allowances system. They have not been operated fairly in the past as they have not included gas, solid fuel and paraffin.
  Those pensioners who use paraffin are among the poorest members of our society and the most determined never to get into debt. They prefer to buy paraffin on a hand-to-mouth basis rather than use an electric fire in the knowledge that they will receive electricity bills with which they cannot cope. There is a strong case for a complete review of fuel allowances for the elderly for heating in the coming winter. That was done for electricity and now we must consider other forms of heating.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have seen the early-day motion in my name about the reviews, changes in the allocation, and increasing of the retirement pension. At present, the retirement pension is based on the cost of living index and/or the wages index, whichever is the most advantageous to the pensioner. I hope that no action will be taken to change that. I must tell my right hon. Friend that if a Bill is brought forward to change that linkage, there will be Conservative Members who will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to support it. I ask him to think again extremely carefully.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a Liberal Member was not to be called to contribute to the debate. I have five minutes to make my contribution and I shall do my best to complete my speech. If I go too fast for the Hansard reporters, I apologise.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends view the cutbacks in the local authority and health services with considerable foreboding. There seems to be some doubt

  1429
  about the extent of the cuts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer used 1979 figures in his Budget speech, whereas the Supplementary Estimates, which we are supposed to be debating, are based on 1978 figures. Nevertheless, the effect of the cuts will be traumatic. It is clear from circular 21/79, which came from the Department of the Environment only last week, that £300 million is to be removed from the increase orders for the rate support grant. Apparently a further 3 per cent, reduction is promised for next year's estimates.
  As the Government already know only too well, the shire counties were left in a parlous state after the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), the former Secretary of State for the Environment, had done his worst last year. That argument was advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).
  I remind the Secretary of State that it was his colleague, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who divided the House on last year's settlement, and rightly so.
  Many counties have little if anything held in reserve. My own county has almost nothing in reserve. Inflation is spiralling upwards and the county is already in desperate straits. The inevitable results must be fewer teachers, larger classes, yet more postponement of necessary maintenance of property and the introduction of a series of niggling charges.
  Reference has been made to the Association of County Councils' paper. I totally reject the association's suggestions. I was horrified to read in The Daily Telegraph that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is reported to have said " not … enough ". God help us all. Nursery education is likely to be even more difficult to introduce or extend. That must come as a serious blow to young couples with families who are struggling to make ends meet and who both have to go out to work.
  The Isle of Wight local authority is faced with an almost impossible task. It is faced with a demand to reduce expenditure this year by up to £1½ million. That will mean about £700,000 being removed from the existing spending pro-
  1430
  gramme. I am talking about a small authority with a £20 million budget. Next year does not bear thinking about. It has an increasing school population and old-age population and it is doubly hit. With spiralling inflation and additional costs due to its severance by sea, the situation is a nightmare.
  Ratepayers in my constituency already pay 10p more in the pound for local government services compared with the ratepayer in the average shire county. There is talk on the Isle of Wight of closing down some of its existing nursery units, reducing heating in schools and charging for music lessons and the sitting of examinations. Road maintenance is already in an appalling state, and due to the hard winter it will be even worse. Concessionary fare schemes will be almost non-existent. We are even talking about closing at least one old people's home when we should be opening three more. There is talk of reducing bed places in mainland establishments and cutting out emergency duty cover.
  I understand that the Conservative Party put in its election manifesto a commitment that it would not cut health services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said so in his Budget speech. Apparently a three-month moratorium on new staffing has been imposed. Already the area health authorities are paying through the nose for cutbacks three years ago in nurses' training. They have to employ agency nurses. New wings in hospitals are standing idle. Meanwhile the pressure for acute bed places grows as there is nowhere for those geriatrics occupying them to go unless they are prepared to pay through the nose in private establishments, which are sprouting up everywhere like mushrooms. I hope that the Secretary of State will say what controls he proposes on the licensing of those establishments, about which we are very worried. Is this what a caring, compassionate society is all about? I do not think so. I reject utterly what is taking place.
  We have not talked much about housing. House prices and mortgage rates are spiralling. The public sector building programme is at an all-time low. The plight of those whose only hope of securing a roof over their heads depends upon local authorities and housing corporations will become even more desperate,

  1431
  especially if this ill-considered nation-wide compulsory sale of council houses is to be relentlessly pursued. There will be trouble in this area. I am sorry. I am afraid that it will be a matter of great consternation among the younger members of our society.
  I urge the Government to stop the rot, first by accepting full responsibility for the whole of the teachers' salary increases above the 5 per cent. already budgeted for by local authorities. The Government should do that for this year. They should also allow local authorities to introduce some form of site value tax on undeveloped land and encourage the raising of other taxes. They should permit schemes, including amalgamation, where sensible, which could lead to greater efficiency in administration. The Secretary of State has, sensibly, started to do that in the Health Service. Why not look at this matter in local government—or is the 1972 Act Holy Writ in Tory circles?
  I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will maintain the present rate support grant at 61 per cent. The regression analysis formula, which proved to be so unsound and penalised those counties that maintained tight controls on their spending programme, as many of them have, should be scrapped and a fairer system of distribution introduced. There is no time to lose if sanity and common sense are to prevail.
  9.43 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): This has been a short debate, but a very welcome one. It gives me the opportunity to make clear the Government's policy on the matters that we have been discussing. This was also a debate to which we had the pleasure of welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). I know that the House was grateful to him for what he said about his predecessor, the late Reggie Maudling.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) opened the debate in a speech that was long on emotion but remarkably short on facts—and even shorter on the remotest inkling that history did not actually begin on 3 May. The previous Government had a record over the past five years of which perhaps
  1432
  the right hon. Gentleman might have taken account. He was free with his criticisms of the effects of the spending cuts announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but he must know that even the most cursory examination of the record of the previous Government shows that they, too, on occasions, and only when they were forced, had to make unpalatable decisions and cuts. But their virtue is never long sustained.
  Back in 1976, under the influence of the International Monetary Fund, the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, said:
  " With regard to cutting public expenditure, it ought to be reduced over a period as a proportion of GDP."—[Official Report, 21 October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 1654.]
  If only the previous Government had had the guts to stick to that, the situation in which we found ourselves on coming into office would have been incomparably better than it was.
  In 1978 the Labour Government wrote in their public expenditure White Paper that they did not intend
  " to set up plans which go beyond what the economy can safely be assumed capable of sustaining ",
  yet we know that that is exactly what they did. Had they now found themselves responsible for the management of the nation's affairs, they would have had to face making cuts if they were to maintain any vestige of financial integrity. I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). But that did not prevent the Labour Party from campaigning in the last election and promising in its manifesto
  " a higher proportion of the nation's wealth to the Health Service and the Personal Social Services."
  There was not the slightest indication in the books we inherited that there was anything whatever available to make good that promise. It was a blantantly dishonest promise which some Labour Members knew they had no chance whatever of fulfilling.
  I call the attention of the House—in case anyone should doubt this—to an interesting observation by the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who was the member of the previous Cabinet in charge of public spending. I gave him notice that I was

  1433
  proposing to refer to him. He wrote a revealing article in The Guardian on 19 June, in which he quoted the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement:
  " We must make savings in public spending and roll back the boundaries of the public sector."
  What was the reaction of the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton to that? He went on to say:
  " If we don't want Sir Geoffrey's rolled-back boundaries to be permanent, we in the Labour Party will have to draw up our own. It would be as well to recognise now that some areas of public expenditure that have become almost an Ark of the Covenant of Socialism may have to be sacrificed for higher priorities."
  We did not hear much about that during the election.
  Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) in a moment. If one were to search any head of expenditure which the party faithful might expect to find enshrined in the ark of the covenant of Socialism, it would, would it not, be spending on the health and personal social services?
  Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He had obviously read the PESC review for the next four years, because he said that he would support the growth that we had provided. He will therefore understand that there was built-in growth for the National Health Service and the personal social services. That growth will not be found, as far as I can see—
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall be coming to the right hon. Gentleman's calculation about the personal social services in a moment. But one is driven to ask this question about the Labour Party manifesto: if the man in charge of spending knew that it was a dishonest prospectus, how on earth can the Labour Party have the brass to criticise us when we take over from it and now have to make the cuts which it knew were necessary? If the cuts were not to be made on health and the personal social services, where are these arks of the Socialist covenant that the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton knew would have to be cut?
  1434
  Of all this we have been told nothing. The House—and, indeed, the country—may be entitled to take the view that until the Labour Party comes clean and tells us what part of the ark of the covenant of Socialism would have to be sacrificed had it been elected, it is not entitled to criticise us for our cuts. Until it does so, debates such as the one that it has mounted today will remain simply exercises in organised hypocrisy.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman referred to what the previous Administration did. In very difficult economic circumstances, we maintained and expanded the services. We did not cut public expenditure to put the money into the pockets of the rich.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we inherited a Budget deficit and a borrowing need that was more than £2 billion higher than anything the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had disclosed to the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman was free in his attacks on our cuts in spending on the National Health Service. In listening to him, one would not have guessed that the revised Estimates on which this debate is being mounted include—as the Supplementary Estimates will—a substantial increase in spending on the National Health Service—increases to cover the substantial pay claims that we inherited from our predecessors.
  We inherited the claims and we also inherited, and adopted precisely, the arrangements made by our predecessors for financing them. They were that pay increases approved by the Government would be matched by a corresponding increase in cash limits to help authorities, subject to an offset of £21 million at 1979 prices which is the Health Service's contribution to the general squeeze on cash limits. That had been planned by our predecessors. Therefore, if the Opposition's attack is directed at the squeeze they are attacking what they themselves had planned to do.
  The Opposition go on to complain that spending on the Health Service will be cut by the general squeeze on cash limits. But the right hon. Member for Norwich, North confessed that he had made allowances for only 8·5 per cent. inflation and by the time he left office inflation was running at nearly 13 per cent. There

  1435
  was already a squeeze of 5 per cent. on the cash limits as a result of that, to which we have added a further £35 million to £40 million because of the increase in VAT. The simple fact is that of the total squeeze on the National Health Service—that is, on health authorities—of £90 million to £100 million, no less than 60 per cent. is attributable to decisions made and announced by the previous Government.
  Mr. Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the time the Labour Government went out of office and the Conservative Government came into office we had an inflation rate that was roughly 10 per cent.? Secondly, will he accept that his own estimates of an inflation rate of l7½ per cent. by November is largely due to decisions taken in the Budget by him and his right hon. Friends.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman's use of figures is so selective as to be meaningless. He told us that under his Government, spending on personal social services had been increased by an average of 6 per cent. per year. We heard him say that. How did he get that figure? He added in the last year of the last Conservative Government. If he had not added in that last year his figure would have been not 6 per cent. but 2 per cent., and in that 2 per cent. was a 58 per cent. cut in the capital spending on personal social services. So when I ask for advice on the figures, I will not turn to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North.
  As regards the Health Service, we know that the squeeze will hurt. I want to make that clear, because it is important that the public and the health authorities know where they stand. Some authorities will have a small real addition to their spending power compared with last year, though it will be much less than they had anticipated and they will have to trim back their planned development. Naturally, some health authorities—this applies especially to those in London—are faced with the need to make real cuts this year so as to remain within their cash limits.
  It is not for me or my Department to tell health authorities how or where to make savings. It is up to them, as res-
  1436
  ponsible authorities, to look at their priorities carefully and to make savings where they will do the least harm to patient care. I do not believe that it does any good for the House, or anyone else, to work themselves up into a frenzy because of press reports about the imminent slashing of essential acute services. The right hon. Member for Salford, West mentioned the bone marrow transplant unit at Westminster hospital. I do not believe, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believes, that that would be a sensible economy for the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster authority to make. I am quite confident that nothing of the sort will happen. There is a phrase for such scaremongering in the National Health Service, I have discovered. It is called " waving the shroud ". We have seen a good deal of waving of the shroud in the last few weeks.
  One thing that I want to make absolutely clear to those people who bear responsibility for running the health authorities is that there is no prospect whatever this year of the Government coming forward with extra cash. The cash limits have been announced and health authorities are asked to remain within them. The cash is just not there and it is vital that the authorities, and the public whom they serve, should know that it is not there.
  I hope that cuts will be made in a way that will not result in permanent closures, particularly of the much loved small hospitals which serve the community so well. Instead, posts which fall vacant could be left unfilled temporarily and temporary closures of wards may, in some places, be right. But I ask authorities to look first at headquarters staff and administrative services that do not contribute directly to the welfare of patients. It is for health authorities themselves to decide, and it is certainly not for me to tell them.
  Of course, some of the personal social services are bound to be affected by the cuts, but I do not intend to instruct local authorities as to how or where they should find savings. They are elected bodies answerable to their own electorates, and they can be trusted to pursue sensible priorities. The only guidance that we have given is to point to the priority that we wish to give to law and order. The Government have made it

  1437
  clear—I am happy to repeat it again tonight—that we regard those parts of the children's services concerned with the prevention and treatment of deliquency as having the same priority as law and order services. As for the rest, it is too soon to say what the effect will be. I have made it clear that I hope that local authorities will do their utmost to protect the services for the most vulnerable groups, such as the very old and frail, the seriously handicapped, the mentally disordered and the children most in need of care.
  I know that local authorities will do their best to make strenuous efforts to cut back on the costs of administration. I know, too, that they will seek to work as closely as possible with the voluntary sector—here I agree with much of what my predecessor said—and the self-help groups.
  Mr. Frank Haynes Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry, but I have only three minutes left.
  This is not the time to cut the financial help to the voluntary bodies and the self-help groups. I repeat the pledge that I have given outside—that the Government are maintaining the level of grants that they make to the voluntary sector. I hope that local authorities will feel it right to do the same in real terms.
  As I approach the end of the debate, I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). The Labour Party always seems to use occasions such as this to advance its claim to be the champion of the underprivileged. We have had plenty of examples of that today. We have learned to take all that with substantial handfuls of salt. We have recently been given ample evidence to justify our scepticism. The recent report of the Diamond commission on the distribution of income and wealth—a quango now happily consigned to the knacker's yard—which was one of the creations of the Labour Party, demonstrated that whereas under the last Conservative Government people of modest means increased their share of the nation's wealth, the opposite happened under the Labour Government.
  It is a remakable epitaph on the period of the government of the Labour Party that the Daily Mirror, rarely a paper to
  1438
  champion the interests of my right hon. and hon. Friends, should have summed up Labour's campaign to soak the rich by stating that:
  " two long periods of Socialist power put more into the pockets of the wealthy while the poor are even poorer."
  If one looks at the banana republics of the world, one will find precisely that—that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. That is what happens under Socialism in this country.
  Like most of my hon. Friends, I shall not be privileged to attend the next Labour Party conference. I do not know whether it will be the right hon. Member for Salford, West who will have to defend the Labour Government's record, but he will have some difficulty in wriggling out of that one.
  It has always been the same. Under Labour, the people suffer. Ever higher and higher burdens of taxation are no recipe for national prosperity. In the final resort, our ability to raise standards of living, and to pay for better public services, depends on our ability to generate the resources to pay for them. The Labour Party forfeited the confidence of the people for many reasons, one of which was its consistent inability to tailor its ambitions to spend to the willingness of the taxpayer to pay.
  This Government are determined to reverse the historic long-term decline of our nation and we are not afraid to take the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. We must restore incentives. We must cut direct taxes and we must curb the level of public spending to what can be sustained by the economy—
  It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion relating to reducing public services for those who need them most.
  Question put,
  That this House declines to approve the Revised and Summer Supplementary Estimates 1979–80 which contain reductions in the Vote to Health and Personal Services, Housing and other public services and will result in a reduction in the standard of provision of these services, especially to those members of the community who need them most, and so will increase the divisions in society.
  The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 317.

  Division No. 61]

  AYES

  [7.32 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Adams, Allen

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Allaun, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Alton, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Archer, Rt Han Peter

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashley, Jack

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ashton, Joe

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Campbell, Ian

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

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bradley, Tom

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parry, Robert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Pendry, Tom

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Penhaligon, David

  Cartwright, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Homewood, William

  Prescott, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Horam, John

  Race, Reg

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Radice, Giles

  Concannon Rt Hon J. D.

  Howells, Geraint

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Huckfield, Les

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Cook, Robin F.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cowans, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Cralgen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Hughes, Boy (Newport)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Robertson, George

  Cryer, Bob

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Cu liffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Roper, John

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Johnson, Waller (Derby South)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ross Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llane)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ryman, John

  Davies, E. Hudson (Caerpilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sever, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Kilroy-Silk Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

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

  Kinnock, Neil

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Lambie, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and POD)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dixon, Donald

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silverman, Julius

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Snape, Peter

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Soley, Clive

  Dubs, Alfred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stallary, A. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McElhone, Frank

  Stoddart, David

  Eadie, Alex

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Stott, Roger

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Strang, Gavin

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Straw, Jack

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  English, Michael

  McNally, Thomas

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  McWilliam, John

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Magee, Bryan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ewing, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tilley, John

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Torney, Tom

  Field, Frank

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Fitch, Alan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Watkins, David

  Ford, Ben

  Meacher, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Foster, Derek

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Welsh, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Klibride)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Whitlock, William

  Freud, Clement

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Ginsberg, David

  Morton, George

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Golding, John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Winnick, David

  Gourley, Harry

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Woodall, Alec

  Graham, Ted

  Newens, Stanley

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ogden, Eric

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wright, Miss Sheila

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Haynes, David

  Park, George

  Mr James Tinn.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Parker, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  1386

  1387

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Banks, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Madel, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Major, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marlow, Antony

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Best, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mates, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mather, Carol

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Blackburn, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Brinton, Timothy

  Grylls, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brittan, Leon

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Hannam, John

  Mudd, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murphy, Christopher

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Myles, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nelson, Anthony

  Buck, Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Newton, Tony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Burden, F. A.

  Heddle, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Butcher, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Osborn, John

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Channon, Paul

  Hooson, Tom

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Churchill, W.S.

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Clark, William (Croydon South)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Clegg, Walter

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Porter, George

  Cockeram, Eric

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Colvin, Michael

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cope, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Corrie, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Costain, A. P.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crouch, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Renton, Tim

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawson, Nigel

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Lee, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Eggar, Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Emery, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Loveridge, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Farr, John

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shersby, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Silvester, Fred

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  MacGregor, John

  Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mackay, John (Argyll)

  Speed, Keith

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Speller, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Spence, John

  1388

  1389

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Sproat, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

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

  Squire, Robin

  Trippier, David

  Wheeler, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Trotter, Neville

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Steen, Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Wickenden, Keith

  Stevens, Martin

  Viggers, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Waddington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Wakeham, John

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Stokes, John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stradling Thomas. J

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Walters, Dennis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Thompson, Donald

  Ward, John

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant an

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Anthony Berry

  Thornton, George

  Watson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Division No. 62

  AYES

  10.00 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Adams, Allen

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Allaun, Frank

  Ford, Ben

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Alton, David

  Forrester, John

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Foulkes, George

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ashton, Joe

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

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

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morton, George

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Beith, A. J.

  Ginsburg, David

  Newens, Stanley

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Golding, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ogden, Eric

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Bradley, Tom

  Hardy, Peter

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Park, George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parker, John

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Haynes, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pendry, Tom

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Penhaligon, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Home Robertson, John

  Race, Reg

  Campbell, Ian

  Homewood, William

  Radice, Giles

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hooley, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Cant, R. B.

  Horam, John

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howells, Geraint

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Cartwright, John

  Huckfield, Les

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Robertson, George

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Roper, John

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cowans, Harry

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Ryman, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Crowther, J. S.

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Sever, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Kerr, Russell

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Nell

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Snape, Peter

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

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  Soley, Clive

  Deakins, Eric

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dewar, Donald

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dlckson

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Dixon, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David

  Dobson, Frank

  McDonald, Dr. Oonagh

  Stott, Roger

  Dormand, Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Strang, Gavin

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Straw, Jack

  Dubs, Alfred

  McKelvey, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, kirkdale)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McMahon, Andrew

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Eadie, Alex

  McNally, Thomas

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  McWilliam, John

  Tilley, John

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Magee, Bryan

  Tinn, James

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  English, Michael

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

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Ewing, Harry

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

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Field, Frank

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncasfer)

  Fitch, Alan

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Watkins, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Meacher, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  1440

  1441

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Welsh, Michael

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Wright, Shella

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcllffe)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  White, James (Glasgow, pollok)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Winnick, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Whitlock, William

  Woodall, Alec

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Mr. John Evans.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dunlop, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Tony

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Eggar, Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knox, David

  Banks, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lang, Ian

  Bell, Ronald

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Farr, John

  Latham, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lawson, Nigel

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lee, John

  Best, Keith

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Blackburn, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fowler. Rt Hon Norman

  Loveridge, John

  Body, Richard

  Fox, Marcus

  Luce, Richard

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacGregor, John

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Bright, Graham

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Brinton, Tim

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Brittan, Leon

  Goodhart, Philip

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gorst, John

  Major, John

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Marlow, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Greenway, Harry

  Marten, Nell (Banbury)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Mates, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Mather, Carol

  Buck, Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Budgen, Nick

  Grist, Ian

  Mawby, Ray

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grylls, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Burden, F. A.

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Butcher, John

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

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mellor, David

  Cadbury, Joceiyn

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hannam, John

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Channon, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawksley, Warren

  Moate, Roger

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Morgan, Geraint

  Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

  Heddle, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Henderson, Barry

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Clegg, Walter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mudd, David

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Murphy, Christopher

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Myles, David

  Cope, John

  Hill, James

  Neale, Gerrard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Costain, A. P.

  Hooson, Tom

  Newton, Tony

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Osborn, John

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  1442

  1443

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trotter, Neville

  Pawsey, James

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  percival, Sir Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Silvester, Fred

  Viggers, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Sims, Roger

  Waddington, David

  Pollack, Alexander

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wakeham, John

  Porter, George

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon. Peter (Worcester)

  Frice, David (Eastleigh)

  Speller, Tony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Spence, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Waller, Gary

  Raison, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Walters, Dennis

  Rathbone, Tim

  Squire, Robin

  Ward, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stanley, John

  Watson, John

  Renton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, John (Maldstone)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stevens, Martin

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

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wheeler, John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Stokes, John

  Whitney, Raymond

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Rossl, Hugh

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Rost, Peter

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Donald

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Trippler, David

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  DEFENCE AND CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1979–80 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum not exceeding £31,112,689,100 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set
  out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 244, 266 and 280 of Session 1978–79 and Nos. 125 and 126 of this Session.—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Whereupon a motion was made, and suant to Order this day, That the sum be reduced by £2,324,943,000 in respect of Class I Vote 2.—[Mr. Cook.]:—
  The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 288.

  Division No 63.

  AYES

  10.15 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank

  Kaynes, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Alton, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Homewood, William

  Race, Reg

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Buchan, Norman

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Ryman, John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Leighton, Ronald

  Silverman, Julius

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Clark, David (South Shields)

  McDonald, Dr. Oonagh

  Soley, Clive

  Cook, Robin F.

  McKelvey, William

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cryer, Bob

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

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

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

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

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Tilley, John

  Dubs, Alfred

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

  Torney, Tom

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Welsh, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Meacher, Michael

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Winnick, David

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Wright, Shella

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Newens, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Foster, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Stan Thorne and

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Park, George

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Parker, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack "

  saker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Banks, Robert

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Beith, A. J.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Moate, Roger

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Gow, Ian

  Morgan, Geraint

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Best, Keith

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Greenway, Harry

  Mudd, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grieve, Percy

  Murphy, Christopher

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Myles, David

  Blackburn, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Blaker, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Newton, Tony

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Osborn, John

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Bright, Graham

  Hastings, Stephen

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Brinton, Tim

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Brittan, Leon

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pattie, John (Oxford)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pawsey, James

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  penhaligon, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Heddle, John

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Pollock, Alexander

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, George

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Hicks, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Buck, Antony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hill, James

  Prior, Rt Kon James

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Butcher, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hooson, Tom

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Renton, Tim

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howells, Geraint

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Channon, Paul

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossl, Hugh

  Colvin, Michael

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Rost, Peter

  Cope, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Costain, A. P.

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Critchley, Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Crouch, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Lawrence. Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lawson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Lee, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Silvester, Fred

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sims, Roger

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Speed, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

  Loveridge, John

  Speller, Tony

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luce, Richard

  Spence, John

  Eggar, Timothy

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Elliott, Sir William

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sproat, Iain

  Emery, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Squire, Robin

  Eyre, Reginald

  Macfarlane, Nell

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  MacGregor, John

  Stanley, John

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Steen, Anthony

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Stevens, Martin

  Farr, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Major, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mates, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Forman, Nigel

  Mather, Carol

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Fowler. Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Thompson, Donald

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawby, Ray

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford south)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mellor, David

  Trippler, David

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  1446

  1447

  Waddington, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Watson, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wakeham, John

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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Wheeler, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, Rt Hon. Peter (Worcester)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Whitney, Raymond

  Wall, Patrick

  Wickenden, Keith

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Waller, Gary

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Spencer le Marchant and

  Walters, Dennis

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  The original Question being put forthwith, pursuant to Order this day:—
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £31,112,689,100 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 244, 266 and 280 of Session 1978–79 and Nos. 125 and 126 of this Session.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the
  1448
  Exchequer, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Nigel Lawson.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)
  Mr. Nigel Lawson accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31 March 1980 to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

  EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.25 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I preface my remarks by indicating that notwithstanding the purport and purposes of this Bill, I have nothing but respect and admiration for the work of East Kilbride Development Corporation. The corporation, over the years, has done a sterling job of work for the people of East Kilbride in particular and for the people of Scotland in general.
  This Bill is a follow-up in Scotland to the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976, but is applicable only to one town, a Scottish new town, East Kilbride. It is a Private Bill, promoted by the district council. Its main object is to provide for the transfer to the district council of the housing and related assets of the East Kilbride Development Corporation.
  The district council has found it necessary to introduce a Private Bill because the 1976 Act applies only to England and Wales. The new towns originally were set up under the New Towns Act 1946 and that general legislation is still similar in Scotland.
  There are five new towns in Scotland—relatively few—and they are at varying stages of development. The Government of 1976 thought that it was premature to extend the general Act to Scotland since East Kilbride alone among the Scottish new towns had a development corporation which was coming to the end of its life.
  On the Second Reading of the 1976 Act the Minister for Planning and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), said that he regarded the Bill as a return to one of the great principles of the 1946 Act. He said:
  " For there was never any doubt in the minds of those who introduced that Act … that at the end of the day … its assets should go to the local authority … So it was understood from the beginning that the life of new town development corporations should have an end and that, in the fullness of time, the houses provided by them should be transferred to the local authority."
  1450
  There was no real opposition to the principle of the 1976 Act from the then Conservative Opposition. There was a Division on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), but it was because of a specific point, which has been overtaken by events, namely, that the Bill did not provide any right for new town tenants to purchase their homes.
  Nevertheless the hon. Member for Aylesbury said:
  " I support the principle behind the Bill … I believe that the first principle of the Bill is right. I do not believe that we should have permanently a clutch of Government-controlled towns which is essentially what new towns are. They should be normalised, with the normal provision for local government.… There may be difficulties, but I am confident that local government is capable of doing the job of running new towns, and in particular, new town housing. Local democracy rather than Government-appointed corporations is the right vehicle for that, and the Bill is a definite step in that direcion."
  During the same debate a view was expressed for the Liberal Party by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). He said:
  " My party greatly welcomes the Bill. Anything which returns control to democratically elected bodies is to be commended."—[Official Report, 23 March 1976; Vol. 908, cc. 212–257.]
  I have a letter written by Teddy Taylor, who then represented Glasgow, Cathcart. It indicated that Conservative Members in Scotland also supported the move towards the democratisation of housing in new towns.
  There seems to have been a unanimous opinion in 1976 that the principle of transferring the housing assets of new towns in England and Wales to the local housing authorities was right. That principle is still right. In Scotland the new towns are that much older, and East Kilbride has gone well beyond the stage when the housing asset should have been transferred to the district council as a logical step towards the development corporation being wound up.
  A natural impatience with this position has led East Kilbride district council to promote the Bill. Ministers have apparently said that they intend to look at the general position of new towns in Scotland and to consider the policy that they will adopt towards new towns that develop their target populations. However, of all the Scottish new towns only

  1451
  East Kilbride is near reaching its target population.
  As the 1976 Act refers to 15 years as being the starting point for the transfer, other new towns in Scotland are approaching the position that East Kilbride has been in for a considerable time.
  The ultimate destination of housing assets is surely the local authority, consisting as it does of the people who are elected to do the job. District councils are the local housing authorities in Scotland, and there can surely be no thought of transferring new town housing assets to non-democratically elected bodies or, worse still, setting up a new non-democratically elected body specifically for this purpose.
  In the debate in 1976 reservations were expressed about the extent of the public sector housing in new towns, and the proportion that it bore to the total housing stock. The point has always concerned the district council in East Kilbride and its predecessor, the East Kilbride town council. Both these bodies have adopted what I believe to be a reasonable outlook on the sale of municipal houses.
  It is felt in East Kilbride that 25 per cent. of the houses owned by the development corporation should be available for sale. The only reservation that the district council has expressed on the subject —and it is a reasonable one—is that these sales should be spread as evenly as possible throughout the town and should not be confined to specific areas, because that would almost create the kind of ghettoes that one finds in some of the larger English and Scottish cities.
  Anyone who visited the new town of East Kilbride could not fail to be impressed by the fact that there are no rundown areas, no slums, and no houses that give the appearance of being run down or neglected. It is an evenly developed town. If there has to be owner-occupation, the council wants to see it spread evenly.
  East Kilbride is not the only part of the district council's domain; there is also the landward district and the town of Strathaven, where 66 per cent. of the houses are privately owned. The district council in East Kilbride and in the landward area has a stock of about 1,700 houses. Almost 20,000 houses are under
  1452
  the control of the development corporation.
  I can assure the House that there will be no problem about the capacity of East Kilbride to administer efficiently and effectively, as well as democratically—which is the important point—the housing assets which it is felt should be transferred to it under the Bill.
  At present there are extremely close relations between the council and the development corporation in housing, with the housing manager of the corporation acting as one of the chief advisers to the council on the operation of the housing undertaking. There would be no problem at all if these assets were transferred.
  There would also be taken into the employment of the council all other sections of individuals working with the development corporation. Thus, apart from inheriting the highly experienced and efficient housing department of the development corporation, the district council would have its own team of officials who are concerned with all aspects of the district council's administration, including its present housing undertaking, all of whom are highly qualified and experienced. In fact, they are as highly qualified and experienced a body of local authority officials as are likely to be found working for any district council in Scotland.
  Before coming to East Kilbride, all the chief officials worked for large burghs or other authorities with substantial housing undertakings and responsibilities. So there can be no question of a reduction of the quality of administration when the transfer takes place.
  The council at present comprises all shades of political opinion. Over the years, since the burgh of East Kilbride was formed in 1963, the council has proved itself to be highly responsible as a local authority. If one visits East Kilbride, what one sees can readily be taken as a tribute to the present district council and the previous town council. In fact, East Kilbride is a highly desirable place in which to live.
  Not so long ago in local government terms, namely, in 1967, the former East Kilbride town council made a similar plea, and my hon. Friends will recall what then happened. The House, through

  1453
  a Private Bill, and exceptionally in Scotland, allowed East Kilbride to achieve large burgh status, and in that case also the town council, in the light of the development and evolution of the town, sought to take over additional responsibilities in the county of Lanark. If the Minister feels that this is not the way in which business should be conducted, I commend to him the situation that existed when the House conferred on East Kilbride large burgh status.
  At that time the town council was faced not with opposition to the principle but with questions of timing. Perhaps we shall be told the same tonight—that it is a question of timing. A Royal Commission had been set up to report on local government reorganisation in Scotland. Was it right to make the change in East Kilbride at that time? Would it not prejudice eventual reorganisation? Would it not be a waste of time at that juncture? In the event, Parliament thought otherwise and large burgh status was conferred upon East Kilbride.
  The town council had the additional functions in its charge from 1968 to 1975, a period of seven years, during which time, it is no exaggeration to say, gigantic strides were made in the new town in developing services that had fallen behind in the general development of the town.
  In drafting the Bill, the district council has closely followed the provisions of the 1976 Act. I shall not go through the clauses in detail, but I shall outline what they do. Clause 3 provides that a transfer scheme may be made providing for the transfer from the development corporation to the district council of its interest in any dwellings of the new town and any of its associated property, rights, liabilities and obligations; and it defines related assets. As well as housing these include other assets such as neighbourhood shopping centres but not industrial or major commercial centres.
  Clause 4 provides that within three months of the commencement of the Bill the development corporation and the council shall enter into consultation with the Secretary of State and with each other with a view to the transfer scheme being worked out.
  Clause 5 sets out the statutory ingredients of the transfer scheme. Clause 6 requires the development corporation and
  1454
  the district council to inform Strathclyde regional council of the land proposed to be transferred.
  Clause 7 provides that when an application for a transfer scheme is made to the Secretary of State he may, with the consent of the Treasury, approve the scheme with or without modifications, or he may reject it.
  Clause 8 provides that the transfer scheme, when approved, will provide a good title to the property without the necessity of conveyancing.
  Clause 9 contains provisions with respect to the nominating of tenants by the development corporation under a transfer scheme, and provides that the right shall be exercisable during a period between the date when the transferred dwellings are vested in the district council and the date when the Secretary of State makes an order for the winding up and dissolution of the development corporation. Clause 10 deals with financial arrangements.
  Clause 11 makes provision for the council to qualify for a grant if, as a result of the financial arrangements provided for in clause 10, a financial burden is placed on the council and the ratepayers.
  Clause 12 places a duty upon the development corporation to give notice to the occupiers of buildings and other land of the proposed transfer scheme and the likely effect of it upon them.
  Clause 13 provides for disputes and a mechanism should disputes arise. Clause 14 contains basic provisions for the protection of employees.
  The council has circulated a statement that sets out clearly the case for the Bill as it sees it. It explains by reference to target population and state of development that East Kilbride as a new town is nearing the stage when the winding up of the development corporation will in any event have to be considered. The council is not proposing that it be wound up now, but it feels that when it comes to the winding up there may be a number of difficult matters to consider, especially the destination of the industrial and major commercial assets and the redeployment of staff generally. If the difficulties, especially those concerning staff, are to be kept to a minimum, it will be necessary for some form of programme for steps towards the winding up to be

  1455
  planned and announced well in advance of a final winding up date.
  We must be realistic and appreciate that all development corporations, by their very nature, have a vested interest in prolonging their lives. That is not a factor to be taken lightly. If development corporations are given their own way, they will be content to go on in perpetuity. They must be given a final, firm target date and not merely a target population to which to work.
  If the Bill is given a Second Reading, there will be a necessary financial resolution relating to the clauses in italics. I hope that if the House expresses itself in favour of the Bill the Government will ensure that the resolution is moved. The financial effect is merely to assure ratepayers in East Kilbride of the normal housing subsidies in respect of the houses transferred.
  If a Private Bill of this sort receives a Second Reading, it still requires to go to a Select Committee of hon. Members where the case for it has to be established. As distinct from a Public Bill, the House is not committed, even in principle, to pass the Bill. However, the district council, as the promoter, is given a chance to state its case.
  The Bill is merely a continuation of the process of democratisation to which I think we are all committed. Nothing could be more in the mould of what we consider to be the democracy of our people than that they should control not only their political destinies but the assets that have been built up over a number of years by the ratepayers and taxpayers in general. It is a sine qua non of the democratic process that the elected representatives of our towns, districts and constituents should have controlling authority.
  There is no more blatant example—not wittingly, but certainly by implication —of that right of people being usurped than the continuation of a development corporation which is not democratically elected and answerable to the people. It is a quango. There is no question about it. I hope that it will be the last quango in East Kilbride.
  I do not think that I am asking too much when I state the case for the necessity for this transfer to happen first in
  1456
  East Kilbride. The corporation has been on the go for 33 years. It is no longer a baby or a teenager. It has moved from the era of post-war jazz into the new pop era. It is now a mature adult.
  10.51 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I wish to make a short intervention to indicate the Government's opposition to this Bill. I appreciate many of the points just made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I appreciate his very deep interest in this whole business, being the Member of Parliament for East Kilbride. I realise that this must have been quite a talking point in some circles, at least in the new town.
  I admire the East Kilbride development corporation. I admire the town and all that it has achieved over the years. I imply no disrespect or criticism of the district council.
  The Bill raises questions of importance not just to the new town of East Kilbride but in relation to all the Scottish new towns. That is one of the main reasons why I speak against the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  The Bill provides, in short, for the transfer of the housing assets of East Kilbride development corporation to East Kilbride district council before the completion of East Kilbride new town. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it purports to be based upon legislation applicable in England and Wales providing for such transfers between development corporations and local authorities, but in fact it goes somewhat further in restricting the Secretary of State's discretion to determine the timing of transfers.
  The policy objective itself was rejected by Scottish Ministers in the previous Administration. In the consultative document issued by the previous Administration entitled " The Scottish New Towns ", which was published in January 1975, they stated explicitly that
  " The Government do not see advantage in providing for the transfer of property to local authorities during the period of development of the new town save where this is agreed by the corporation and the local authorities to be in their mutual interest."
  I do not suggest that there is anything wrong with that. One significant factor that does arise is that the East Kilbride

  1457
  development corporation does not so agree.
  The reason given by the previous Administration therefore weighs with me, namely, that experience shows that the overriding need to promote growth in the Scottish interest can be pursued to good effect by a development corporation in full control of the assets it has created. East Kilbride new town is about 6,500 people short of its target population and will not be complete until at least six more years have passed. The Government believe that it is wrong to provide against the corporation's wishes for transfers of housing to the local authority during that period of continued development.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the Government will have to consider, therefore, the policy that they wish to adopt towards new towns where development to their target population has been completed. This is a matter to which we shall be turning our attention, but we need time in which to consider the issues fully and to reach conclusions.
  Given that no Scottish new town is likely to reach completion in under six years, there is no practical reason why we should be forced to hurried decisions.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: While accepting my hon. Friends' point may I take it that in considering these matters he is not precluding the possibility that there will not necessarily have to be a completed target population before some decisions of this kind may go ahead?
  Mr. Fletcher: Yes, of course, there are other factors to be taken into account, but it would seem, in our opinion, to be rather unwise to cut off the development—and the organisation that has created the development—just because of what might be termed a rush of impatience, when there is still a target to be completed and an important few years are left before the town has fully reached the target set for it.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Tory Party in this House a few months ago, when the deputation first came down from East Kilbride, gave enthusiastic support for its proposals? Why did the six years not weigh with it then—
  1458
  including, of course, the Front Bench of the Tory Opposition at that time?
  Mr. Fletcher: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman I did not take part myself. I did not know that the deputation was here. If some of my colleagues greeted the deputation warmly and enthusiastically, that is what I would expect Conservative Members to do to any delegation from Scotland. I would expect them to listen to its case sympathetically. I am sure that is what my hon. Friends did on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  In forming our policy towards the development and completion of new towns, we shall not necessarily be bound by provisions in existing Scottish legislation, introduced over 30 years ago when completion of a new town was no more than a distant prospect, or by decisions of the previous Administration legislated for England and Wales or announced as intentions for Scotland.
  East Kilbride district council's Private Bill assumes that the Government will be so bound and would, if it were to succeed in Parliament, pre-empt the consideration of policy which the Government wish to undertake.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I have been looking very hard to see where the hon. Gentleman gets the figure of at least six years. Will he indicate where it comes from? It is my information that East Kilbride will be substantially finished long before six years have passed. Indeed, even if the Bill were given a Second Reading and went through, it would probably be about three years before the assets were transferred, and that would be about hitting the time when East Kilbride would be substantially finished.
  Mr. Fletcher: As far as the corporation and the Department can estimate, the time before it reaches its target population will be six years, and not the three years to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But there are other considerations, for the Bill takes no account of the new dimension that has been introduced by this Government's insistence, which is central to their policies, that there must be a major shift from the public to the private sector in Great Britain.

  1459
  What is at issue now is not simply a matter of transfers within the public sector, as the Private Bill presupposes, but rather how best to achieve the Government's objective of transferring assets into private sector hands. We do not believe that this objective would be furthered in any way by transferring new town assets in an intermediate stage to other public sector agencies. On the contrary, such action could only introduce irrelevant delay.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Minister not accept that, irrespective of the argument about public ownership versus private ownership, what is publicly owned should be publicly accountable?
  Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to declare that it is the Government's policy to abolish quangos while the Minister is defending one of the biggest quangos in Scotland, under which the Prime Minister's placemen rather than democratically elected representatives decide matters such as housing policy, which affects many people in East Kilbride? Is it not time that patronage was replaced by a bit of democracy?
  Mr. Fletcher: If I am defending a quango, it is at least a profitable quango —though I suppose that that makes it even worse in the hon. Gentleman's eyes.
  It will be evident from what I have said that the issues arising on the policy to be adopted when a new town is completed are of general import and should be covered by general legislation, as has been the case hitherto.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to the Private Bill to make the town a large burgh, but that was specific to East Kilbride. Policy generally towards new towns will require general legislation, because new towns other than East Kilbride will be affected. We are speaking, after all, about assets worth, at a rough estimate, £400 million at East Kilbride and £1,000 million in the Scottish new towns generally. These issues, and such sums, are wholly unsuitable for private legislation as proposed by East Kilbride district council. To the extent that clauses of the Bill impose a charge on public funds, a financial resolution tabled by the Government is required. It is not our intention to take such action.
  1460
  For the reasons that I have given, the Government urge that the House does not approve the principle of the Bill. We undertake, however, to give early consideration to the policy that we shall wish to adopt towards completed new towns, including East Kilbride, and to make an announcement as soon as conclusions have been reached.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Bill, for a number of reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) described the new town as a baby blossoming into a child, an adolescent, and finally an adult. I can claim to be present at the foetal stage because I was involved in the initial planning of East Kilbride in 1947 and 1948 and I have therefore always had a paternal interest in its development.
  When representatives from East Kilbride came to the House in February last year I set out to them the view of the Scottish group of Labour Members that new town decisions should be made by the Scottish Assembly, which was proposed at that time. I said that we should wait and allow the Assembly to take the important decisions on the future of new towns generally and of East Kilbride in particular. I had great pleasure in doing that because the deputation was led by the Scottish National Party, which wanted to precipitate a decision before the Assembly, which it claimed to support, was in being.
  The Assembly is no longer under consideration and we therefore revert to the general democratic position that what is publicly owned or built should become democratically accountable as rapidly as possible.
  I wish to remind the Minister of what was said by the Opposition spokesman, Teddy Taylor, writing on behalf of the Conservative Party, in 1978. In a letter to the district council, he said:
  " Dear Mr. McNay,
  It was a very great pleasure to meet you and the members of the District Council in the House of Commons and I very much enjoyed our discussion."
  That was the point that the hon. Gentleman made when he said that Tory Members are always nice to people when

  1461
  they come and meet them. Teddy Taylor went on to say:
  " I have had a chat with colleagues and can give the assurance that in the event of your District Council promoting a Bill to transfer the housing assets to the District Council we would not oppose it in principle …assuming that it is in the normal form, following the usual precedents, I can give the assurance "—
  he is speaking not only officially but almost ex cathedra—
  " that such a measure would enjoy the support of Conservative MPs from Scotland. Yours sincerely, Teddy Taylor."
  Dr. M. S. Miller: He was a shadow not a substance.
  Mr. Buchan: Let us examine the position. We are not likely, over the next three or four years, to have an Assembly under this Government, and the proposition on that major decision affecting the planning of Scotland—with five new towns involved and one specifically—will not be handled by the Assembly. It therefore comes under the view and economic development concepts of the Tory Government.
  When the Under-Secretary says that there will be a six-year gap, I do not understand that unless it means that the Tory Party and the Tory Government in Scotland are not intending to develop house building. If the Under-Secretary is saying that it will take six years before the target is reached, that suggests a very small measure of support for the building of new houses in Scotland—and even that is not totally accurate.
  The East Kilbride development corporation does not at present have a single house under construction. The Government are waiting six years for the build-up of the population and the housing target figures, but in fact no houses are being built. The prediction is that even if that aspect were to be proceeded with, unlikely as that is under this Government because of the change in birth rate as well as the current fall-back in house building, it is possible that the population may fall by the early 1980s. If that is what we are waiting for in order to build up the target figure as against the position of either a standstill in house building or a fall back in population, we shall wait for ever—the Greek Kalends—before that position is reached. The Government are not being honest, and should give us better answers.
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not labour the point about the period of six years before the town reaches its target population. It is an important factor, but I hope that he will agree that a more important consideration is the fact that there is a general policy affecting all the Scottish new towns. Surely it is illogical to decide general policy in such a way that a Private Bill is put forward in respect of one new town, but the policy consideration to which I have referred will affect all the Scottish new towns.
  Mr. Buchan: We have been given no indication of such economic policy planning and potential decisions to bear that out. It certainly did not weigh with the Conservative Party when it was making promises to the East Kilbride council in February 1978.
  " I can give the assurance that such a measure would enjoy the support of the Conservative MPs from Scotland."
  There is nothing there about economic planning or the five new towns in existence. That, with respect, was the proposition that was put forward by the Labour group in this House, but we are now in opposition and therefore do not have the power.
  Given the lack of economic planning and the failure to establish an Assembly that could take the matter under its wing, the position is now clear. After 33 years, when we have reached if not the target figure but the optimum figure as far as can be predicted, the time has now come to put the houses under the democratic control of the elected representatives of the people in East Kilbride. That is plain, and should be supported. Unless the Government can come forward with a better reason than they have so far given I cannot see any reason for their opposition.
  What we are deciding tonight is whether the Bill should go before the appropriate Bill Committee in order that the case can be then made. No doubt the Government in their evidence will be bringing forward these great plans of theirs for economic planning in relation to the five towns, but they are preventing the opportunity to precipitate and crystallise these marvellous economic planning affairs. The Government have not put the case and the Bill should be supported.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. David Lambie: I support the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I represent the newest of our new towns in Scotland—Irvine—and I see this Bill as a precedent for other Scottish new towns. I do not think that we need to wait until the corporations have reached their population targets before we hand over housing assets to the democratically elected district council.
  I feel quite sorry for the Under-Secretary tonight. He has had to come here and do a political U-turn, putting forward policies in government that he did not accept while he was in opposition. He stated that he was not party to the deputation and the previous Conservative group which met East Kilbride district council. I accept that, but we cannot challenge the former Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, Mr. Edward Taylor, because he is not here. The Glasgow people found him out. He had too often given these categorical assurances, quite honestly and sincerely, on behalf of the Conservative Party when in opposition, but he had no desire to carry them out when in government. I see that the Scottish Whip—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James DouglasHamilton)—is here tonight. He was party to these negotiations. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? He was also party to the negotiations. Perhaps he is away celebrating the fact that every area in his constituency is now a special development area. Where is the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), who was also a member of that group and who gave assurances? It is strange that the only person who did not meet the deputation from East Kilbride was the Minister who is opposing the Bill tonight.
  I do not kid myself that if the Labour Party had won the general election a Labour Under-Secretary with responsibility for new towns would not have been at the Dispatch Box reading the same speech, written by the same civil servants. I believe that that would have been the policy of a Labour Government. But I say this to the bright, new young Tories who have come here for Scottish seats since the general election—[HON. MEMBERS: " Where are they? "]—Well at least I can see the hon. Member
  1464
  for Galloway (Mr. Lang). He fought me in the 1970 election, and I trained him so well that he is here now, having knocked out an SNP Member. Had a Labour Government won the election we would still have opposed their policy on this matter tonight. I appeal to the new Tory Members to oppose Tory policy tonight also and support the case that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride.
  In my new town the majority of the houses are controlled by the Cunninghame district council. Another sector of housing is controlled by the Scottish Special Housing Association. That is yet another quango of the worst type. It controls a large area of public sector housing in Irvine new town. We also have houses under the control of the Irvine development corporation. Thus, there are houses controlled by the democratically-elected Cunninghame district council and two other sectors of housing controlled by quangos.
  I do not mind the SSHA and the development corporation acting as building agencies. Let them build all the houses they want. But once those houses are built they should be handed over to the district councils, which have special responsibilities and statutory rights for housing.
  That is why I support East Kilbride district council's case. This is a precedent. If we can get this Bill through we can do the same for the other new towns and can thereby carry out not my policy alone but that of the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, which is clear that the SSHA should be a building authority but that once the houses are built they should be handed over to the local authorities to be factored and controlled. The same policy applies to the new town corporations.
  We go further still. We believe that the new town corporations, instead of being quangos appointed by the Secretary of State, should be merged into the local authorities, either the district or regional councils or both. That would give democratic control of those organisations.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Is it not a disgrace that the New Towns (Amendment) Act 1976 applies to England and Wales and provides exactly the same situation as

  1465
  we want to apply to Scotland but which the Government will not permit us to do?
  Mr. Lambie: I support the point of view that what is good for England and Wales should be good for Scotland—indeed, for Northern Ireland as well, because Northern Ireland also has a housing corporation that is not democratically controlled. Let us have a United Kingdom policy on this matter. Do not let us have one policy for England and Wales and another for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Mackay: If the hon. gentleman carries that argument further, it is equally wrong to put forward a Bill solely for East Kilbride and not for the other new towns.
  Mr. Lambie: I am sure that the East Kilbride district council would withdraw the Bill if we got an assurance that a Government Bill would be introduced to cover not only East Kilbride but the other new towns in Scotland. It would receive unanimous support not only from England, Wales and Scotland but, I am sure, from Northern Ireland.
  I support this Bill on general principle, but also because I object to having to spend so much of my time, as a Member for a new town, dealing with housing cases which should really be dealt with by the democratically elected district council. Instead of my being able to refer to their local councillors people with local housing cases, the local councillors have to refer them to me, saying " These are Government houses and it is your job as a Member of Parliament to look after them." I want to be able to tell the people who come to me " Go to your local councillors. Take it up with Cunninghame district council, and it will deal democratically with the policies and with the housing complaints."
  That is why I support my hon. Friend, and hope that we shall have the unanimous support of the bright young Tories who have come here since the general election. Let them for the first time live up to their promises and vote according to their consciences and not according to the dictates of a Tory Whip who, a year ago, gave assurances opposed to the principles of the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) is an old aristocrat, but tonight
  1466
  he is acting like that nouveau riche, the former Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, Mr. Taylor, who always represented the working class one day and the rich people the next.
  I hope that the Government will listen to my hon. Friend's pleas and support the Bill.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we clear our minds on certain issues of fact? First, what is the objection to at least allowing discussion of the issue? I understand that tonight we are deciding not the merits of the issue but one matter and one matter only—whether it should be properly discussed. It certainly is the opposite of open government not to allow it to be properly discussed in Committee upstairs. I quietly and gently ask the Under-Secretary at least to reconsider his decision from the following point of view.
  Surely there is enough meat here to have a sensible discussion upstairs. Then the Bill would return to the Floor of the House, and if after the discussion the Government stuck to their view I should have far more respect for it than if no discussion had been allowed.
  Secondly, my own locus in the matter, without which I would not have interfered, is that I represent one-third of the new town of Livingston. If East Kilbride is to be tied to the coat tails of Livingston. there will be no advance in relation to East Kilbride until the year 2000, because Livingston will not be completed for at least 20 years, and probably a good deal longer.
  Are we really saying that there should be no transfer in East Kilbride until all the Scottish new towns are completed? If so, we might as well say " Goodbye " to it for 20 years. Let the Government comment on that.
  Thirdly, I do not agree with the Conservatives, but from their point of view it may be that a development corporation rather than a district council is likely to give over assets into private hands. But if that is the argument, let us again come clean. Are the Government saying " In that case, we believe that assets should never be given over, because they are less likely to be given into private hands "? One cannot have this argument both ways; it is one or the other.

  1467
  If the idea of the policy is that new town houses should to as great an extent as possible be handed over into private hands, let this be said, and let the Government then say " We do not believe, on this account, in handing them over to district councils at all."
  I wish to offer the Government my experience as a constituency Member for Livingston. I think that that experience is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who represents two-thirds of the existing new town. We find that proportionately we receive infinitely more housing complaints about the new town corporation than the council.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has exactly the same experience. I hold no brief for West Lothian district council or Midlothian district council at the present time, but if councillors are under pressure, things tend to be done more urgently. Livingston corporation has many virtues. The way in which it allocates houses is not one of them. In Knightsbridge Four, unlike East Kilbride, there is something of a slump because the corporation has been tardy and lackadaisical about the letting of houses. There has been an endless number of empty houses. Vandalism has taken place, because houses have been left empty for weeks and months in a way that would never have happened in a council where councillors were under pressure at least to fill the houses.
  I am not persuaded that development corporations are the best people to handle the allocation of houses. I would add a personal postscript. In the 1960s, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister of Housing, who took a special interest in English new town housing. There was endless pressure for certain changes to take place in England. These changes have been granted. What my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) seeks is little different from what a number of the old traditional English new towns have achieved. Why should this step be denied to East Kilbride?
  I am not asking immediately, although it happens to be the policy of West Lothian constituency Labour Party, properly thought out by serious people, that
  1468
  assets should be handed over. I have no intention of damaging my hon. Friend's case. But we in Livingston are entitled to say that we look for a certain pioneering effort from East Kilbride to see how events work out and eventually to follow.
  Heaven help East Kilbride if it is tied to the coattails of Livingston, which takes a long time to reach its full objectives. I hope that an opportunity will be given for serious discussion of these matters upstairs. That is the only immediate issue tonight. To say that they should not be discussed is a travesty of open government.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I feel under no obligation tonight to defend the previous Government. I intend to enjoy the freedom that I now possess. It should be put on the record that East Kilbride is a very political council. Fortunately, it is changing from a Scottish National Party-controlled council and will undoubtedly be Labour-controlled after May next year. There are still, however, undertones of the SNP. But it is no wonder that the SNP did not do well, and will not do well, in Scotland when neither of its representatives has taken the trouble to attend this debate.
  An important point of principle is involved in the Bill. I have a strong feeling of disappointment in the performance of the Government in merely saying that they will give early consideration. I have made some queer Ministerial statements—
  Mr. Canavan: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Brown: All I would say to my hon Friend is that he should not overdo the idea of all district councils being democratic, because he will be needing our support tomorrow night. It is totally depressing that the Government cannot come clean on a general principle. There is no doubt in the minds of Members on the Opposition Benches that we shall ultimately want to transfer new town resources to the democratically elected local authorities. We know the reasons why the Government cannot come clean. They want to sell off every public asset that they think will bring a return. Is that not right?
  Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Of course.
  Mr. Brown: Then what is the difficulty? Why cannot the Minister say that they will not transfer these housing assets? The Government are not having a good week. When they have announced cuts in regional aid of £230 million, it is totally irresponsible for a Minister to promise only " early consideration " of a fundamental principle that we have discussed for years.
  England and Wales are different from Scotland. I have every respect for East Kilbride district council, but it wants to make the best case, and it is not too worried about accuracy in comparisons with England and Wales. It was the SNP on the council which produced this general argument.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend is not doing us justice.
  Mr. Brown: I shall support the Bill.
  Dr. Miller: I know, but does not my hon. Friend realise that I acknowledge that there was a difference? The implication of his remarks is that we should have the halfway house of a commission. Why do we need it in Scotland? It was established for England, and the situation has changed; we should benefit from that experience.
  Mr. Brown: I am not arguing for a commission; I am saying that the circumstances that led to the legislation are slightly different, and that the new towns in the two countries are different. I never looked on the English experience as a precedent for Scotland.
  Six years is not a long time in local government. The Government have been less than forthcoming about their intentions for East Kilbride. Of course this debate is about the sale of private assets. It might have been recognised that the key is the discretion that the Government give local authorities in selling houses. The previous Government had a target of 25 per cent. of houses for sale in new towns. I bet that the present Government will not accept that as a reasonable target.
  That is another reason why the Government are not coming clean They do not want to commit themselves to allowing this discretion in new towns, never mind in local authorities. They will have to bring forward those proposals in a few months. That is why they have reneged on another promise
  1470
  We all know Teddy Taylor. We know what he is. But not one of his friends is here tonight, except for the Minister and one silent Whip. No other Tory Member here tonight knows anything about him. Yet that is the promise that he gave on behalf of the Conservative Party in Scotland. This is our first opportunity to point out that all these broken promises will come home to roost. The Tory Party in Scotland has been discredited, and this is one more piece of evidence—
  Mr. Henderson Mr. Henderson rose—
  Mr. Brown: I do not even know who you are.
  Mr. Henderson: I do not know who you are, either.
  Mr. Brown: That is the hon. Gentleman's misfortune. Even since the general election, public opinion polls have shown a decline in Tory support in Scotland. After a performance such as tonight's, it is no wonder.
  Mr. Henderson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps I may put a point to him. It seems to me that one reason why the problems are not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests is that when his Government were in power they did not set in train the kind of thinking that was necessary to ensure an orderly transition from, as the hon. Gentleman rightly called it, an undemocratic system to control by the local authorities in the long term. I believe that this is something that has to be done, but I suspect that it was not put in train when the hon Gentleman was in office. It is something that ought to be done on a general basis for all the new towns.
  Mr. Brown: Actually, I had sat down, and I shall conclude by dealing with this matter.
  I did not want to bring in the devolution argument, but it was a tenable and justifiable proposition for the Government to say " This is a purely domestic housing matter that will be the responsibility of the Assembly in Scotland ". That was accepted in good faith in February of last year by the East Kilbride district council. The Tory Party does not have even that justification for pleading for

  1471
  delay. I repeat that I did not want to raise that argument, but again on that score the Conservative Party in Scotland is totally discredited.
  I hope that there will be support for the Bill. I would not press it, but in the light of the poor statement that we have had from the Government I do not think that we have any option but to vote on this matter tonight.
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: From a purely selfish point of view it would not be in the interests of those who come from Northern Ireland to prolong this debate, bearing in mind that there are four Northern Ireland orders, with a potential time of one and a half hours each, to follow this debate.
  I intervene briefly to support the Bill. First, I do not accept what the Minister said about the relevance of the completion date of the building of the new town of East Kilbride, because in Northern Ireland we had two almost similar corporations, one controlling the development of a city called Craigavon and the other controlling a smaller town called Antrim. The development commission in Craigavon was cut off and abolished when it was in full flight and had completed about half its allotted task. In the case of Antrim, not more than one-third of its target had been achieved when the commission was abolished. Unfortunately, the powers of those two quangoes were not returned, as they ought to have been, to local government, because by that time local government had itself been abolished. The powers were taken under the wing of the Department represented by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi).
  We sympathise very much with what our Scottish colleagues have said tonight.
  We welcome the growing realisation in the House of the plight into which we who come from Northern Ireland have been plunged and in which we have remained for five or six years. By the abolition of local government we have, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said, the monstrosity of a housing body about which the Minister will hear more next Monday night, and I invite hon. Members from every party to join us on that occasion, when we shall enlighten them a little further. I shall not trespass on the patience of the Chair by going into that tonight.
  We know just what hon. Members who represent new towns are enduring in the way of frustration and in not being able to bring to bear any influence to redress the grievances of their constituents, because constituents do not realise the fine boundary lines between the responsibilities of district councils and new town corporations and the functions of Members of Parliament. In the end the unfortunate Member gets the stick for the failures of all three elements.
  We have no wish to make any further comment, but we do not want to encourage the Government to allow our Scottish colleagues to endure the present position. For that reason, I take the liberty of advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill and the principle behind it.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certain specific questions were asked of the Minister to which he may wish to reply. In particular he may wish to comment on the request for an opportunity to discuss these issues.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 98.

  Division No. 64

  AYES

  11.40 p.m.

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamond, James

  Bradford, Rev. R.

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

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dubs, Alfred

  McNamara, Kevin

  Buchan, Norman

  Duffy, A.E. P.

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

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Dunlop, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eastham, Ken

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Molyneaux, James

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cowans, Harry

  Homewood, William

  Parry, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Howells, Geraint

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)

  Skinner, Dennis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Dr. M. S. Miller and

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. David Lambie.

  Ross, Win. (Londonderry)

  Strang, Gavin

  NOES

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Hannam, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Best, Keith

  Hawksley, Warren

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Heddle, John

  Rossi, Hugh

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Bright, Graham

  Hooson, Tom

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Brinton, Timothy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Sims, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Lang,Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Squire, Robin

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stevens, Martin

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cops, John

  Major, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mather, Carol

  Thorne, Neil (llford South)

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Trippier, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Waddlngton, David

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Wakeham, John

  Emery, Peter

  Myles, David

  Ward, John

  Faith, Mrs Sneila

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watson, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Newton, Tony

  Wheeler, John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Fox, Marcus

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Gorst, John

  Pawsey, James

  Gow, Ian

  Pollock, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Mr. Barry Henderson and

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Renton, Tim

  Mr. John Mackay.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next

  NORTHERN IRELAND (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)
  11.52 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
  That the draft Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.
  Most hon. Members will recall that at the close of the last Parliament approval was given to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Bill. During the passage of that Bill, assurances were given in both Houses that urgent consideration would be given to enacting similar legislation for Northern Ireland which would be made by Order in Council, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In bringing this order before the House tonight the Government accept that similar legislation should be enacted for Northern Ireland.
  If hon. Members wish to compare the order which we are now discussing with the corresponding Great Britain Act, they will see that its drafting is somewhat different, but I assure the House that the content is the same, namely to make provision for lump sum payments to certain sufferers of pneumoconiosis, pyssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma in Northern Ireland on a basis comparable to that which applies in Great Britain.
  In my briefing notes it is suggested that I might now take the House through each article of the order seriatim and explain its content. However, although the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Moly-neaux) is anxious that we spend one and a half hours on each of the orders coming before us tonight, I am not sure that that is necessarily the wish of each and every one of us, so if the House will permit me I shall draw attention to certain key provisions of the order. I shall do the same in respect of the other orders that we have to consider and perhaps make progress in that way.
  The main article—article 3—provides that those disabled by the industrial diseases to which I have referred may submit a claim for compensation to the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland. It further provides that where the Department is satisfied it shall pay to the claimant the prescribed sum.
  1476
  The article also specifies the conditions that must be fulfilled before payment may be made. The conditions, briefly, are that the claimant has been admitted to disablement benefit suffering from one of the diseases that I have mentioned; secondly, that there is no employer against whom a claim for damages may be made, and, thirdly, that he has not yet brought an action for damages or received a court settlement. The object of the order is to enable compensation to be paid where industrial diseases have been incurred and where there is absence of a court remedy.
  The order continues to deal with appeal on points of law, to enable the Department to reconsider the matter where there have been changes of circumstances and generally to provide for the protection of the claimant in an orderly and proper way.
  The sums of compensation to be paid are not mentioned in the order. Article 11 provides for the making of regulations and for the procedure to be adopted. Payment will be made by one lump sum. That will reflect, as a court order for damages, the degree of pain and suffering experienced by the claimant, the average rate of progression of the disease and elements of loss of earnings. It follows that the younger the claimant and the greater the disability the larger will be the amount of compensation subect to an intended maximum of £10,000.
  I suspect that few hon. Members will need reminding how distressing pneumoconiosis is. It occurs as a result of inhaling certain types of dust. It develops gradually and continues to do so after contact with the dust has ceased. There have been cases where the disease has appeared about 20 years after first contact with the dust.
  The predominant symptom of the advanced state of the disease is an extreme shortness of breath caused by lack of oxygen getting to the blood stream because of damage to lung tissues. That makes the slightest exertion, even gentle walking, a painful effort. In the worst cases sufferers are confined to bed and are kept alive only by drugs, oxygen and, frequently, devoted nursing by wives and other relatives.
  Although the disease is normally associated with occupations such as coal mining and slate quarrying, a similar disease

  1477
  —byssinosis—can affect textile workers from the inhalation of cotton or flax dust. The provisions of the order are very relevant to Northern Ireland, where a once prosperous textile industry has over the years been contracting.
  The situation in Northern Ireland is like that which applies to certain slate quarrying areas of Wales, where sufferers have been unable to seek compensation by suing the employer concerned because the employer is out of business. The indications are that there are about 30 persons in Northern Ireland who would stand to benefit from the provisions of the order.
  I am confident that the order, like the Great Britain Act, will receive the wholehearted support of the House. I know that hon. Members will wish to ensure that sufferers from these diseases, or their surviving dependants in Northern Ireland will be equally eligible for compensation as are sufferers elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I have no hesitation in recommending the order to the House.
  11.58 p.m.
  Mr. Brynmor John: Someone coming from my part of the world can be expected both to know about the pain and suffering that pneumoconiosis and associated diseases cause and to be sympathetic towards the sufferers.
  Although, for understandable reasons, the Government have not gone through the usual process of consultation, I give the order a wholehearted welcome on behalf of the Opposition. It seems to be a humanitarian gesture and one that will benefit perhaps 30 sufferers at this stage, although I ask the Minister to estimate whether there are others who may come forward at a later stage to make a claim. I suspect that there is not a great awareness of the provisions of this measure.
  The order is thoroughly worth while. The Great Britain scheme had all-party support and I hope that the order will likewise receive all-party support. I wish it well in the remaining few minutes of its passage.
  12 midnight
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: We on the Official Unionist Bench welcome this Northern Ireland order for the obvious reason that many
  1478
  people in Northern Ireland involved in the textile industry will benefit from its provisions.
  There are one or two questions that I should like to put to the Minister. He referred to the linen industry. I wonder whether there is any basis for the belief that those involved in the man-made fibre industry might also contract this disease. If so, it will mean that the order will have wide application in Northern Ireland, where approximately one-third of the textile industry of the United Kingdom is situated.
  It has been the custom to send some people who have applied for the pneumoconiosis payment to Scotland for a medical examination. I wonder what necessitates the examination there, and whether it is envisaged that future applicants will have to make that journey. There may be a simple reason for this. It might be good if the Minister explained why that has been the experience of at least some applicants.
  Although normally we should not look favourably upon the procedure adopted here—that of the absence of a draft order and the normal consultative period—all hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that this is a pressing matter. Certainly we should not be so churlish as to make this an opportunity to object to certain short cuts being taken in procedure, as long as they do not materially affect the composition of the Bill or the provisions in the order.
  12.2 a.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is somewhat ironical that there should be no representative of the remains of Plaid Cymru in the House tonight. After all this was the sop thrown to them amidst the last desperate efforts of the late Administration to retain some sort of a majority in this House. It was, so to speak, if not their lifeline, at any rate their pipeline. In this they were more fortunate than some of the rest of us in that very differently composed House of Commons: we have not yet got our pipeline, although we shall get it, whereas—to the general satisfaction—the Welshmen have their Pneumoconiosis, etc (Workers' Compensation) Act.
  The Minister of State handsomely made out the case that this was not a Welsh measure. It is not a measure for any one

  1479
  part of the United Kingdom. It is—and ought to be—a United Kingdom measure.
  We are told in the explanatory memorandum, which accompanied the draft order, that it was brought forward not by the accelerated procedure but with the omission of the " proposal stage " in order
  " to match as closely as possible the operative date for the Great Britain legislation."
  I should like to inquire a little more closely exactly how that comes about.
  The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act, which is a Great Britain Act, comes into force, according to section 10,
  " on the expiration of a period of three months beginning from the day on which it is passed."
  It was passed on 4 April so presumably it " came into force " on 4 July.
  In that case the hope of the Minister of State—which he expressed in a letter of 5 July, to my hon. Friends and myself and others—that it would come into force at the same time as in Great Britain, might appear not to be fulfilled. However, I am not sure that the date of " coming into force " is the operative date for the purposes of those who we all hope will benefit from this legislation; for we find in the Act that regulations have to be made—these were referred to by the Minister of State—prescribing, among other things, the form of application, and also the maximum sums and the gradation of sums that will be payable under the Act. So it appears that until those regulations have been made and approved—for I think they are subject to affirmative procedure under the Great Britain Act—the legislation will not in Great Britain, be in effect in the natural sense of the term. There must be the regulations, and those must have been approved, before claims can be admitted or sums can be paid out.
  There is to be a corresponding procedure for Northern Ireland, both as regards coming into operation and as regards the prescription of the particulars to which I have just referred. Article 1 of the order provides that the order is to
  " come into operation on such day or days as the Head of the Department may by order appoint."
  I fear that at this moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may be detecting a rather
  1480
  familiar trend in these observations, for I have to acquaint those who have not been through this mill so often before that that reference to the " Head of the Department " is entirely misleading. There is no such thing at the moment as " the Head of a Department " in the sense in which that appears in the order, because these orders, for reasons which can be examined at greater length on another occasion, apparently have to be drawn on the assumption that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which is no longer in force—and which its most devoted former admirers do not suppose will ever be in force again—were actually in force at the moment. They are drawn in terms of a non-existent constitution, never popular, which came to a sticky conclusion and is now in abeyance. Still, there is no doubt that regulations will be required—statutory rules, I imagine, and not subject to any parliamentary procedure at all—to implement the effect of the Act in Northern Ireland.
  I want to inquire just a little further—this has a wider application than the present order and is a matter of great importance, obviously, to those whom we represent in Northern Ireland—into this question of simultaneity; for I am sure everyone would agree that, if benefits are to be improved or payments are to be provided under legislation which is basically the same in both parts of the kingdom, they ought to be law simultaneously and to be effective simultaneously.
  This is a point which was brought out a few months ago by a report of an excellent official, who performs in Northern Ireland single-handed the function of the Scrutiny Committee on Statutory Instruments in Great Britain—the Examiner of Statutory Instruments. He drew attention to the fact that there was a hiccup between the making of regulations in Great Britain and the making of the corresponding regulations applying to Northern Ireland under the principle of parity.
  I hope that the resultant arrangements have been brought to the attention of the new Ministers; for I am sure that they would wish to ensure that they were implemented, and maybe this will be the first case in point for the practice of it. The locus classicus on the case is a letter from the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) dated 27 February

  1481
  1979, in which he announced—the letter is addressed to me, but it is a public document—the arrangements which were thenceforward to be made to ensure the simultaneous making of regulations in matters such as this on both sides of the Irish Sea.
  The Minister wrote:
  " With a view to ensuring that GB instruments and the corresponding NI rules can, wherever possible, be made on the same day "
  —that is what I hope the Minister of State can assure us will happen in this case—
  " arrangements have been made whereby, as soon as my Department "
  —that is, the Great Britain Department—
  " determine to draft an instrument, the draftsman and those who will be responsible for processing the instrument will ascertain the name and telephone number of the official in Belfast who is to be responsible for the correspanding NI rule. This will make it possible for the information required quickly, for example that the instrument has been signed, and as to any minor corrections made on the proof, to arrive at the point in Belfast where it is needed more rapidly than the post can carry or an official can travel "
  —that must be nearly the speed of light—
  " In addition, where time is of the essence and the alterations are too extensive or complex to be safely or conveniently imparted by telephone, we propose to make use of the Mufax facilities in the Northern Ireland office."
  I do not know whether the Minister of State has yet made the acquaintance of that facility. If he has done so, I hope that he will acquaint the House more particularly with the nature of that remarkable instrument, which transmits vital pieces of information even faster than an official can travel or a telephone can work —though that is, admittedly, sometimes not very fast either in Northern Ireland or between here and Northern Ireland. The Minister went on in his letter:
  " I hope that these new arrangements will achieve the result we all wish to see."
  That is something which I am sure we would all commend to the attention of the Minister of State.
  It took a good deal of trouble on the part of many people and a great deal of good will on the part of many officials and several Departments to arrive at the understanding and mechanism whereby in future we hope to have what should go without saying, namely, simultaneity of
  1482
  application of beneficial law on both sides of the Irish Sea.
  Obviously the sums and the conditions must be uniform throughout the kingdom. We hope to see them speedily in force and we hope to see them, not only in this case but in all similar subsequent cases, promptly and simultaneously authorised on both sides of the Irish Sea.
  12.14 a.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome the order. It is a humanitarian, worthy and necessary measure.
  I do not intend to join in the criticisms of other hon. Members from Northern Ireland. My question is, why has it taken so long for a measure of such merit to come before the House? As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, the credit for the order lies not with the present Government or their predecessors but with the hon. Members representing Plaid Cymru, who were given it as a sop to encourage them to save the life of the previous Government.
  I do not intend to take this opportunity to ask the right hon. Member for Down, South about the position of his group of hon. Members in relation to the sop of the previous Government that was taken up by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and the former Member for Belfast, North, Mr Carson.
  I wonder whether the pneumoconiosis order will help about 30 people in Northern Ireland. I fear that because of the large number of people involved in the cotton, woollen and linen textile industry many may not be aware that their illness is brought about through having worked years before in factories producing textiles. I hope that the Minister will do his best to make sure that people in Northern Ireland are given every opportunity of having their cases studied by the medical authorities and that every attempt is made to help them.
  I should like to take up the criticism of the right hon. Member for Down, South, that the order is drawn on the assumption that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 is still in force. That Act is in abeyance. He and his colleagues are all in favour of direct rule and total integration. They want all laws to apply throughout the United Kingdom —[HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."]—I

  1483
  can hear their echoes of " Hear, hear: However, when the previous Labour Government tried to bring a measure of justice to spouses in Northern Ireland whose marriages had come to end, they fought it bitterly. They did not want that Act to apply to Northern Ireland. They speak a great deal of rubbish, and their hypocrisy must be exposed.
  The Deptuy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. The hon. Member should return to the order.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I did not think that I had departed too far from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South. As his speech had not been interrupted. I thought I could follow his comments.
  The people of Northern Ireland would wish me to thank the Government for introducing the order. We want the reestablishment of a Stormont Parliament, and that opportunity must be kept alive. This is a worthy measure. I congratulate this Government and the previous one and also the Welsh national party on having originated it.
  12.18 a.m.
  Mr. Rossi: I thank the House for the general welcome that it has given to the useful and, I hope, helpful order. Having welcomed the order and congratulated the Government on bringing it forward, hon. Members proceeded to chide me. On the one hand, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) chided me for not bringing it forward quickly enough. On the other, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) chided me for not having gone through the usual proposal procedure, which would have delayed the matter ever further.
  Suffice it to say that when we took office we found that Northern Ireland sufferers of pneumoconiosis and their dependants did not enjoy the advantages of compensation under the legislation passed immediately before the election. We took the view that they should enjoy these benefits. We therefore took steps as quickly as we could, given the hiccups caused by the election and the demands on a parliamentary timetable, to bring the
  1484
  matter forward. For that reason, I hope that the House and Northern Ireland hon. Members will forgive us for not going through the ordinary proposal procedures.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister must have misunderstood or misheard me. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) expressed approval of the fact that the omission of a proposal stage had taken place.
  Mr. Rossi: Obviously I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was suggesting that it should have been brought forward in time to be enacted by 4 July. The right hon. Member then asked me whether I was aware of the workings of the Mufax simultaneous machine, which would have ensured this marvellous process. I have seen this machine in operation. I have seen it in Whitehall, spewing out a long stream of blotting paper of scarcely legible print, and I have been assured that simultaneously, the material was being fed into a similar machine in Belfast.
  The right hon. Member and the hon. Member for Down, North will forgive me if I do not become involved at this stage in the wider constitutional issues that have been raised. These are matters that the Government will have to consider carefully. The right hon. Gentleman raised matters of integration by implication in the way that he presented the defects that he sees in the present methods of bringing forward legislation affecting Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members feel that integration is not the right solution, and that there should be a form of devolved government. I am not going to be drawn on this issue while I am dealing with pneumoconiosis. Certainly in time the Government will have to form a view and discuss these very important matters with the House, but I do not think that tonight is the time to do so.
  I have been asked a number of detailed questions about the order. I mentioned 30 sufferers. That is the best estimate that we have been given by our advisers of the number known or likely to be suffering from this disease. We shall make known the operation of the order as soon as it is enacted. We shall give it as wide publicity as we can, and we hope that people who have been victims of this disease will come forward with their claims.

  1485
  I was asked whether there was an application to man-made fibres. I believe not, but I am not sure. I shall check and write to the hon. Member for Belfast, South, who raised the matter. Similarly, I shall check on questions of sending people to Scotland for medical tests. It may well be that we do not have the equipment or the medical expertise at present in Northern Ireland, and the nearest facilities are in Scotland.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the coming into effect of the Act in Britain, and the order in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm whether that is dependent on the making of the regulations to which he referred, prescribing the sums and the methods of making application, and so on?
  Mr. Rossi: The Great Britain order came into effect on 4 July. Obviously this order cannot come into effect on that date. It is subject to affirmative resolution and the moment this House approves the matter and it is dealt with in another place, it will come into effect. The regulations are subject to negative resolution, because they are governed by article 2 of the Interpretation Act 1954, which turns an affirmative procedure into negative procedure for this House. The affirmative procedure relates to the position that would exist were there an Assembly, which there is not.
  Mr. Powell: I apologise for pressing the point, but it may be a matter of importance to the people concerned. Have the corresponding regulations prescribing the sums, and so on, been made for Great Britain, and is it not the case that, although those regulations have been made on the one side and on the other, claims cannot be entertained and payments cannot be made?
  Mr. Rossi: I received one nod and two shakes of the head from the Box. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. Again, if I may, I will write to him about it.
  12.26 am.
  Mr. George Grant: I welcome this measure. I do not want to get involved in the controversies of politics in Northern Ireland, or, indeed, in the Welsh side of the story under the Labour Government, but having been a miner I have personal experience of the human suffering in the mining areas. In my opinion, my father died from pneumoconiosis, and I saw him die a terrible death. I therefore welcome this measure for what it means to the few people concerned in Northern Ireland.
  The National Union of Mineworkers was the first to bring such a measure forward. Previously, the matter had to go through the courts and the difficulty was in proving negligence on the part of the employer. Whilst pneumoconiosis can be proved only by X-ray, the most eminent people in the medical profession will be the first to admit that radiography is not a true and sincere test of the existence of pneumoconiosis. I therefore ask the Government to look favourably at the recent reports on the question of consideration of compensation for emphysema and bronchitis. I welcome this measure and am pleased to have been able to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Rossi: By leave of the House, I should like to convey to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) some information that has now come into my possession and which might be helpful to him. I am informed that the regulations under the Great Britain Act will be laid before the House in the autumn, and therefore we hope that our Mufax system will enable us in Northern Ireland to be in step with Great Britain, and the two things can then go forward together.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (INHERITANCE)
  12.28 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
  That the draft Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the following motion,
  That the draft Capital Transfer Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.
  Mr. Rossi: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The capital transfer tax order is a minor order, consequential upon the inheritance order.
  The inheritance order will change the law relating to claims on a person's property after death and will extend to Northern Ireland provisions similar in most respects to those contained in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The law on inheritance is at present contained in the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, as amended by the Family Provision Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
  Experience has demonstrated that the present law needs to be changed in a number of respects. There are, in particular, two important areas in which it is unsatisfactory. First, the existing legislation does not permit applications by a number of persons who might have been dependent on a deceased person prior to his death; for example, a son over 21 years of age receiving full-time education, or a person who, whilst not related to the deceased, was nevertheless maintained by him or her. Secondly, under the new Northern Ireland divorce law, the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, a spouse who obtains a divorce could, as things stand, be better off than one who survived his or her marriage partner and was not adequately provided for in that partner's will.
  In 1974, in its " Second Report on Family Property: Family Provision on
  1488
  Death ", the Law Commission recommended legislation for England and Wales to remedy these and other deficiencies, and as a result the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act was passed. This has apparently worked well in England and Wales. The order contains similar provisions for Northern Ireland but incorporates some additional points, a number of which result from the very helpful suggestions received by the Officer of Law Reform during the consultative period on the original proposal—for which we are most grateful—and others of which are designed to harmonise the new legislation with other related Northern Ireland enactments.
  The most important provisions of the order are contained in articles 2 and 3. They deal with the two areas of difficulty requiring correction, to which I have just referred. I hope that the House, again, will not ask me to go separately through all the remaining, generally highly technical legal articles. I should draw attention specifically to article 4, since it gives greater powers and more flexibility to the court in making orders when it is satisfied that reasonable provision has not been made for an applicant, and thus, in effect, altering the distribution of the deceased's estate from what would otherwise have taken place. The court may order periodic payments, lump-sum payments, the transfer of specific property to an applicant, the settlement of specific property for the benefit of an applicant, the purchase of property for an applicant and the variation of certain settlements for the benefit of an applicant.
  Article 5 sets out the matters that the court must take into account in deciding whether an applicant is entitled to an order and, if so, what type of order is appropriate. Amongst these are the present and future needs and resources of the applicant, the needs and resources of other persons who would be likely to be affected by the making of an order and, generally, any other relevant matter, including the conduct of the applicant.
  I turn now to the Capital Transfer Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1979. This minor consequential order, which will be made under section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, will ensure that the Finance Act 1974 will operate in relation to Northern Ireland court orders

  1489
  in the same way as it does in relation to court orders in England and Wales. Section 122 of the Finance Act 1976 ensures that the effect of a court order made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is followed for capital transfer tax purposes. Thus, for example, where the court orders that provision should be made out of the deceased's estate for his surviving spouse the effect of section 122 is that the capital transfer tax exemption applies.
  The inheritance order, we believe, will help to relieve hardship and injustice. I have pleasure in commending both orders to the House.
  12.35 a.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Minister of State has indicated, this order reproduces, in effect, for Northern Ireland the Act of 1975 in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman referred to there being some differences between the two. I shall mention one of those differences, but, broadly speaking, when one compares the order with the 1975 enactment, they are very similar and run on closely parallel lines, even to details of drafting.
  The 1975 Act carried further a process that had already been in operation of modifying the effect of the intestacy laws or the force of disposition by will so as to accord with a view to what was public policy as seen by the Legislature. The extent to which this legislation overrides the intentions of a testator is far-reaching. It would not be right for us to be unaware to what extent statute law now renders of no effect the wishes of the deceased as laid down in a testament. For example, under article 4(2), it is possible for a court order to provide for payments equal to the whole of the income of the net estate of the deceased, so that an order can divert the entire estate to different purposes from that which, either under the law of intestacy or under the will of the deceased, it would have been devoted.
  Again—I refer almost at random—article 14 says that the court, in deciding whether to make an order, has to take into account the intention of the testator in making dispositions which an order would override. It says that the court needs to be of the opinion
  " that, on a balance of probabilities the intention of the deceased (though not necessarily
  1490
  his sole intention) in making the disposition or contract was to prevent an order for financial provision being made under this Order or to reduce the amount of the provision which might otherwise be granted by an order thereunder."
  Those two examples illustrate the extent to which we are now using statutes to lay down what one might almost describe as the social obligation of testators and to set aside their wishes as expressed by their will and testament or alternatively to set aside what would otherwise be the destination of an estate under the intestacy law.
  I believe this supersession of testamentary disposition by public interest legislation accords with a change in social habits and reflects a modern, as opposed to an earlier point of view on the rights of property. This being so, Northern Ireland should be covered by the provisions of the 1975 Act for England and Wales. Scotland has a different system of law: we are talking in this instance of accommodation to England and Wales law, not to Great Britain law.
  Three-and-a-half years have passed in which relatives and widows in England and Wales have had the advantages which this House thought right to confer upon them by the 1975 legislation, while widows in identical circumstances in Northern Ireland have not. There is a considerable backlog which this order helps to clear, of legislation passed by this House in the earlier years of this decade which self-evidently should have been United Kingdom, or England, Wales and Northern Ireland legislation, but which was passed as England and Wales legislation and lacked a corresponding provision for Northern Ireland in the view, not unnaturally held in the flux of 1974 and 1975, that it was premature to foresee how the corresponding legislative provision should be made for Northern Ireland.
  However, now at last the Government have got around to using the machinery of Order in Council virtually to duplicate the England and Wales provisions and to apply them to Northern Ireland. So we are entitled to inquire whether anything has been learnt from the working of the 1975 Act in England and Wales which could be turned to advantage in the application of that legislation to Northern Ireland. In making that query I have very

  1491
  much in mind the Matrimonial Causes Order of 1978 which was referred to just now by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who was apparently under the impression that it had been opposed by my hon. Friends and myself.
  The fact, which should be on the record, is that we supported that order but that in the course of the proposal stage through which it passed we were able to persuade the Government to make a considerable number of improvements which brought it more closely into line with opinion in Northern Ireland on the matter of matrimonial law. So that was a case in point of the use of the " proposals procedure " in handling these draft orders. It was undoubtedly an instance where legislation for Northern Ireland was the better for the experience which had been gained of the working of the corresponding provisions in England and Wales and for the scrutiny to which the draft order was subjected before it came before this House.
  There is one respect—perhaps it is one of the points which the Minister of State had in mind—in which the Northern Ireland order differs from the 1978 Act. That is in the powers given to the county courts, which we very much welcome, to deal with cases in which the total sums involved are relatively small. At the time of the 1974 Act, the upper limit of the sum which could be fixed for that purpose as invoking the jurisdiction of the county courts was £5,000. Four years later, in the Northern Ireland order, the figure is £15,000, having accommodated itself, no doubt, to the inflation of the intervening years, and perhaps making some allowance for inflation in the years to come. So in that respect we have the advantage in Northern Ireland that the county courts, which are undoubtedly a convenient recourse for persons needing such orders, and will be widely used, I would imagine, in Northern Ireland in these circumstances, can operate over a wider field than at present they can do in England and Wales.
  The fact remains that it is far from ideal that in matters of this sort, where there is really a negligible difference in the existing law on both sides of the Irish Sea, legislation should take place in two parts, separated by a period of several years.
  1492
  I want to refer finally, as did the Minister of State, to the consequential order, the capital transfer tax order, which introduces a reference to this order into the modification of section 122 of the Finance Act 1976. The necessity of the capital transfer tax order is a reminder of the far-reaching consequences of the court orders that can be made under this legislation. Orders made under this legislation can divert the sums passing from an estate into an entirely different pattern from that which was contemplated in the will of the deceased.
  One effect of that different pattern, as this consequential order reminds us, is that the incidence of capital transfer tax could be completely altered, because the position as between the testator and the beneficiary for the purposes of capital transfer tax could well be quite different in the case envisaged by the testator from the result produced by the court order made under the main order before the House. I think that it would probably be helpful to those who may be involved in these matters if, in winding up the debate, or in any explanatory matter that accompanies this order, the Minister of State could arrange for reference to be made to the way in which these difficulties will work out in practice.
  One appreciates that the powers in the substantive order cannot be invoked after the lapse of six months, not from the decease but from the taking out of representation for the purposes of administration of the estate. That to some extent limits the confusion that could occur, but anyone who as a trustee or as an executor has had to deal with an estate where the application of the capital gains tax legislation is apparently of the most simple will readily imagine the difficulties that will arise if the provisions of the will are altered by court order—they can be altered by a series of successive orders—under the enactment which the House is considering.
  This is no small matter which is discovered by the minor consequential order which the Minister has brought forward. Those concerned with the administration of estates will have to face additional difficulties as a result of this relieving legislation; and if their way can be smoothed or assisted, it would be worth doing.
  12.48 a.m.
  Mr. Rossi: I think that I ought to make one point in answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in case a mistaken impression is taken outside the House.
  It would be wrong to present the order as nullifying wills and rendering them of no effect. That would be a bad and misleading impression to create. The court has power under this order to make alterations to the dispositions in a will where there has patently been some kind of injustice because somebody dependent for a long time upon the testator has been excluded, inadvertently or because of some perverse whim, from the protection that he should, in justice, have from the testator.
  This is not a novel proposition, not even for Northern Ireland, because the 1960 Act provided for maintenance for spouses who were excluded from testators' wills and the 1969 Act provided that lump sum payments could be made. This has been a feature of Northern Ireland law for some considerable time, and the main purpose of the order is to ensure that the spouse of a deceased person shall not be put in a worse position than the divorced wife of a deceased person under the matrimonial law because of the general provisions as to alimony, even after death, that can be made under the divorce laws.
  It is really an operation to tidy up and to extend the classes of dependants who would otherwise be excluded, because the law has shown itself not to be adequate to protect these people.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South asked about the experience in England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor is content with the operation of this legislation in England and Wales since 1975. We hope that there will be a similar happy experience in Northern Ireland.
  I must emphasise that simply because a claim is made it does not follow that an order will ensue to alter the effects of a will. The legislation gives the court a wide discretion to examine all the circumstances in which the will was made, the attitude of the testator, the relationship of the claimants, the life they lead together, and the conduct of the appli-
  1494
  cant—who may deserve to be excluded from the will. All those matters will be taken into account. We hope that a just and impartial decision will result. I hope that the order will be accepted.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South said that there could be unfortunate consequences involving capital transfer tax. Perhaps an original will is drawn up carefully by astute lawyers in order to minimise the effects of captial transfer tax. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the judges will be well seized of the point. My experience is that the judges are not anxious to deny beneficiaries or to advantage the Inland Revenue or the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the expense of beneficiaries.
  I hope that my words will be heard beyond the Chamber. I am confident that judges, when exercising their discretion, will bear in mind the interests of the people who benefit from a will or from the alterations made in a will.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister could have been understood to say that the tax effects of a proposed order would be one of the considerations taken into account by the court in deciding whether to make that order. I do not know whether he intended to say that, but it is an important statement.
  Mr. Rossi: In practice, I think that that is what happens. It is important. We shall try to draw attention to any difficulties that might arise. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That the draft Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament; be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Capital Transfer Tax (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22 March 1979 in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Rossi.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND (TATTOOING OF MINORS)
  12.53 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I beg to move,
  That the draft Tattooing of Minors (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.
  This short but useful order makes provision for Northern Ireland similar to that made for the rest of the United Kingdom by the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969, which prohibits the tattooing of persons under the age of 18. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will ask why it has taken so long for the order to be presented to the House. I can only say that I was not responsible for anything that happened before 7 May this year.
  This matter has a long history. There was an attempt by the former Assembly, in 1974 I think, to bring forward a provision of this kind. However, when the Assembly ceased to be that measure disappeared also.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps we can put the Minister's mind at rest. We are not complaining on this issue because we recognise that we have always suffered from not exactly jet lag but time lag in Northern Ireland, where the Stormont Parliament and Government rubber stamped and produced an almost identical measure year after year roughly 12 months after the corresponding Great Britain measure.
  Mr. Rossi: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comment. I hope that he will welcome the fact that after a lapse of about 10 years the Government have decided to bring forward a measure for Northern Ireland which may be of some help to people in the Province.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) initiated the revival of this forgotten measure in Northern Ireland by a question that he asked in July 1978 about what had happened to it. That started the processes that have resulted in the measure coming before the House this evening.
  The position in Northern Ireland is that there are no restrictions on the age at which a person may be tattooed. Many
  1496
  young people have had themselves tattooed and have lived to regret it. The obvious problem, for example, is of a social relationship in later life when a particular female name may be discovered by someone else.
  Also, there has been a tendency for sectarian or political slogans to be tattooed, and these can cause embarrassment when youngsters grow older. They could even put the personal safety of these young people at risk.
  It is not easy to have tattoos removed. The only effective method is by plastic surgery. The process is delicate and expensive, and can involve treatment spread over many weeks. Waiting lists for plastic surgery are long and the removal of tattoos has had to be restricted to essential cases; for example, where the tattoo involves a risk to the wearer or stops him from obtaining a job.
  During the three-year period ending 1978, 298 operations were performed in Northern Ireland for the removal of tattoos, 11 on persons under 15 and 26 on persons between the ages of 15 and 19. This is obviously an area in which prevention is better than cure. I believe that we have a duty to ensure that youngsters are not exposed to the difficulties that I have mentioned.
  Article 4 of the order contains two exceptions. First, a minor may be tattooed for medical reasons, by or under the direction of a medical practitioner, showing that he or she has a rare blood group or suffers from diabetes or some such matter that requires signalling in case of need. The second exception is that a person will not be guilty of an offence under the order if he tattoos a minor whom he reasonably believes to be 18 or over.
  I hope that the measure will prevent many from doing something which they may come to regret for the rest of their lives, and accordingly I commend it to the House.
  1 a.m.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: No one should misunderstand the importance of the order because of its brevity. As the Minister said, this is an important matter which has a direct bearing on the lives of a considerable number of young people in Northern Ireland.

  1497
  I thank the Minister for his kind comments about the way in which I initiated the issue, but I wish to take the opportunity to say that it was because of the encouragement given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), that one was moved to pursue the matter.
  Our gratitude should be extended to the Minister for seizing the opportunity to bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associaed with that word of gratitude.
  I feel that two areas of concern should be raised in this short debate. First, I think it right to rehearse something of the problem itself. When this legislation was introduced in Great Britain by the then Member for Sowerby, Mr. Max Madden, he was able to cite a number of instances where dermatologists in his area had to treat about 200 teenagers who had had tattoos put upon their person. Some of these young people had to have plastic surgery to have the marks removed lest their lives were to be affected from that point onward.
  The Minister has given us figures relating to Northern Ireland. The consultant dermatologist at the teaching hospital in Belfast, the Royal Victoria hospital, views as serious the problem of tattooing among teenagers, and it was in consultation with him that I raised the matter some months ago.
  The problem has two aspects. First, there are what I suppose one can call the epidermic considerations, that is, relating to the whole question of the marks which sometimes cannot be obliterated and in which, as the Minister suggested, certain associations and motives are sometimes linked with what is put upon the skin.
  Secondly—I was not aware of this until I spoke to the present Minister for Health —there is what one might call the endodermis consideration, that is the small and unkempt type of tatoo shop where one can contract serious disease in the course of having a tattoo put upon one's person. I understand from the Minister for Health, who is himself a physician, that some of the most serious antisocial diseases can ensue from the kind
  1498
  of operation that goes on in small and unkempt tattoo shops.
  The problem, therefore, is clear, and this measure will help to obviate it in the Province.
  I turn next to the question of penalties. Does the Minister of State feel that the method of summary conviction and the related fine of a sum not exceeding £400 is the best provision to adopt? There has been experience now for 10 years in the rest of the United Kingdom. Have substantial fines been applied to those who break the law in this respect? I understand that the profits from this practice are considerable. It would be interesting to know the level of fines current in this part of the United Kingdom. If they have been geared to the minimum rather than to the maximum of £400, there may be something to be said for stipulating a particular fine for a first offence and a higher amount for second and subsequent offences. I merely ask for clarification on penalties.
  I welcome the order and thank the Minister for introducing it. I assure him that any mild criticism, either in the course of this short debate or in any other, is not meant to be obstructive.
  1.5 a.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the Minister of State will not get a persecution complex over the timelag between Great Britain and Northern Ireland legislation. However, with this order we have a classic specimen of some of the unfortunate consequences of a considerable interval between virtually the same enactments in the two parts of the United Kingdom.
  In 1969 there was a maximum fine of £50 for the first offence and £100 for the second or subsequent. Now, 10 years later, we have in Northern Ireland a maximum fine of £400 for the first offence. So if a person tattoos a minor on this side of the Irish Sea it can cost him £50 the first time, whereas if he does that on the other side of the Irish Sea it can cost him £400 the first time. This is nonsense and should be recognised as such. It shows that legislation which inherently ought to apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, as this measure clearly should, ought so to apply from the outset. Whatever the machinery used, legislation

  1499
  should apply to the whole of the kingdom, if and so long as it is a United Kingdom.
  In 1969 that could not be done because the subject involved was a transferred subject. However, it can be done now. As the Minister of State will gradually learn, there are different modes, of varying complexity, for securing simultaneous legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. It should now be accepted that, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, we should in future, when we legislate on subjects that affect all parts of the United Kingdom, legislate in the same way and legislate simultaneously.
  1.7 a.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I, too, wish to welcome the order.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), by implication or directly, was critical of the former Stormont Government for introducing legislation about 12 months after similar legislation had been introduced in Great Britain. I find that surprising. It may be true, but I find that criticism surprising. There was little criticism from the Official Unionist Party of the Unionist Government at Stormont. Indeed, it was all for making differences in some areas of legislation.
  I am worried about one matter and I do not suppose that the Government will be able to do very much, apart from education. I am concerned about young people who tattoo themselves or their friends. I know of one instance where a young chap had a tattoo applied to his hand by means of a needle and Indian ink. That left a permanent mark on his hand. Something more might be done to educate young people about the dangers of applying tattoos.
  If something can be done to help young people to remove tattoos from their hands and arms, I hope that the Government will be prepared to help by making better provisions for the operations to take place, if necessary by providing finance so that the operations can be carried out as quickly ns possible.
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. Rossi: A number of questions have been raised. The first was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) on the penalties and the differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  The Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 provides a maximum fine of £50 for a first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence. Subject to correction, I believe that the Criminal Law Act 1977 had the effect of upgrading the penalties. It did so right the way through the whole of criminal law legislation to bring them in line with the modern or current value of money. In this order we reflect the present situation in Great Britain.
  There is a degree of flexibility in this sense. There are no separate higher or smaller penalties depending on first or second offences. The matter is left entirely to the discretion of the court with the much heavier maximum of £400.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that case, the Minister of State had better get after the legislation branch of the Northern Ireland Office, Dundonald House, Belfast BT4 for circulating an explanatory document that implies the opposite.
  Mr. Rossi: I shall look into that.
  Mr. Brynmor John: As the pilot of the Criminal Law Act 1977, I know that the Minister is right. All the £50 fines were uprated to a £400 maximum.
  Mr. Rossi: It is pleasing to feel that occasionally a Minister is a little in advance of, if not the law, at any rate his legal advisers. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that that is the legal position. If the memorandum is misleading, I shall look at it and make sure that it is issued in a correct form for the future.
  I do not know whether there are any other matters with which hon. Members wish me to deal. I believe that I covered the points of substance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Tattooing of Minors (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.

  SUNDAY MARKETS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]
  1.13 a.m.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I rise to speak on the matter of the control of Sunday markets. I make it clear immediately that I am opposed neither to the principle of Sunday markets nor that of Sunday trading. Sunday markets discharge a worthwhile job. That is underlined by the fact that many people visit them. They provide an obviously valuable service and a wide and cheap selection of goods, despite the fifth schedule to and section 47 of the Shops Act 1950. They provide an interesting day out and are a source of considerable amusement. However, the benefits are gained at a cost to the residents who live near the sites of Sunday markets, with the noise of the traffic and fumes, and at a cost to the environment. I refer to the damage caused by many thousands of people who visit those markets and the amount of litter that is deposited. It turns what should be a day of rest into a day of disturbance.
  At present, Sunday markets may be established without reference to the police, motoring organisations, residents or indeed to local authorities. Sunday markets are the unacceptable face of retailing. They operate effectively outside the law. They are subject to very little control and appear to have a uniquely privileged position. They do not pay rates and they appear to be unaffected by the legislation concerning health and safety at work. There are few planning regulations, if any, that apply, if Sunday markets are held fewer than 14 times per year. They require no permission from the Ministry of Transport. I also dare say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be interested in the amount of tax that he may not be getting, because I suspect that Sunday markets help to encourage the growth of the black economy.
  Sunday markets, then, can take advantage of the legally complicated division of responsibility that exists. That is a division of responsibility between the Department of the Environment, in regard to planning legislation, and the Home
  1502
  Office as it relates to Sunday trade and Sunday observance.
  Sunday markets require basically three circumstances only. They require a large population to provide adequate turnover and to ensure that there is an effective population using and taking advantage of the market. They require a good communications network, preferably supported by a motorway. They need a large. flat and reasonably open space.
  The thought that I put to this House is this: do marketeers and their customers have an overwhelming right to trade, irrespective of the damage to the environment and irrespective of nuisance to local people? I should like to quote from a letter from Wolvey parish council, addressed to my predecessor in this House. The letter is dated 22 March 1979. I had a copy since I am the county councillor for this division. The letter reads:
  The Councillors are very concerned "—
  that is the parish councillors—
  " by the apparent lack of sympathy towards those who suffer from Sunday markets. Stronger legislation is needed to prevent these markets being set up where they cause so much disturbance. The mud that they deposit on the roads is a great danger to road users. The parking on the grass verges and on the approach roads would cause a considerable delay to any emergency services which were needed in case of fire or accident in the villages. Whilst we appreciate that these markets are popular, they should be controlled more and sited away from residential areas. The noise of stallholders arriving at the site begins at about 6.30 a.m. "—
  that is on a Sunday morning—
  " and carries on until they pack up at night. The litter they leave behind is unsightly, to say the least."
  I have described the early start, the congested roads and the problem with noise and fumes. It is a fact that some of my constituents last year were almost prisoners within their own homes. The damage that occurs to their property, drives, fences, walls and hedges is considerable. I do not doubt that Sunday markets may be effectively outside the law, although effectively they are working well inside the green belt. Certainly I accept that Sunday markets are easy to organise. After all, all that is required is that the organiser reaches an arrangement with a land owner. All that is necessary is for the contact to be established with stallholders. Advertisements are then placed in the press and, bingo,

  1503
  we have instant business. Often the first that local residents know is when they read the advertisements, and those advertisements are very closely followed by the crowds.
  I believe that this Government, like the previous one, are of the opinion that there are adequate controls, but I submit that that is not the case. I should like to quote from a letter from the Department of the Environment, dated 13 November 1978, addressed to my predecessor.
  The letter said:
  " Sunday trading is restricted by the Shops Act 1950, and the adequacy of controls under that Act is a matter for the Home Office. Although the Government are aware of the problems which local authorities face … we are not yet convinced that in relation to Sunday trading the provisions of Part IV of the 1950 Act are inadequate, as a means of controlling breaches of this branch of the law."
  On the second issue, the letter said:
  " The position under planning legislation is that the holding of a market on not more than 14 days in any calendar year is permitted under Article 3 and Schedule 1 of the General Development Order 1977. However, a local planning authority may make a Direction under Article 4 of that Order which would have the effect for a subsequent year of removing the permitted development right, and so require application to be made for planning permission. For such a Direction to remain in force for more than 6 months, the Secretary of State's approval would be needed."
  It appears that there is a remedy, but the reality is different from the theory. My last quotation is from a letter to the Secretary of State for the Environment from Rugby borough council, dated 14 November 1978. The council said:
  " The Council has through its appropriate Committees explored all the means available to it to stop the market operating and has come to the conclusion that the powers given to local authorities to deal with such situations are totally inadequate. Local authorities must rely on anachronistic medieval charter rights, planning legislation which can be easily circumvented and which is slow to take effect and Sunday trading laws which were never intended to apply to this situation."
  I take up those two issues in the nub of my argument. I should like to examine the lack of control in planning legislation. Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 permits markets to operate without planning permission for 14 days in any calendar year, but since markets operate on only one day a week they are allowed to operate for three and a half months
  1504
  before a local authority can take action under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
  I am aware that the local planning authority can serve an enforcement notice earlier if an article 4 direction is in force or if there is sufficient evidence to show that the market is intended to be permanent and not temporary; in other words, if advertisements are placed in local newspapers indicating that the market will be on the site every Sunday. Needless to say, the marketeers ensure that that is not said.
  If an enforcement notice is served after the 14 weeks that a market has been on a site, an appeal may be lodged, and we know that that can take up to six months to be heard—during which time the market can continue to trade and cause nuisance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may advise me that a " stop " notice can be served, but local authorities are loth to invoke a " stop " notice because they are aware that if it is not upheld by the courts they may be liable for loss of profits, which could be a substantial amount.
  The market may move to another site, even to an adjoining field, and the whole circle commences again. For effectively another 14 weeks the market can operate without planning permission, necessitating the service of yet another enforcement notice. If the enforcement notice is upheld and a prosecution is successful for non-compliance, the penalty for a first offence is £400, which I suggest is a derisory amount when one takes into account that in a market of 200 stalls, the one with which I am familiar, the stallholders each pay £12 to the market organiser.
  For subsequent offences there is a £50a-day penalty. That is a paltry sum. From experience in my constituency, these fines do not deter offenders.
  The second leg of the suggestion concerns the Shops Act 1950. That Act does not in any way seek to make markets illegal and does not even mention Sunday markets. It prohibits the sale of certain goods on Sundays, which was its intention. It was not intended to stop the holding of markets. The Shops Act 1950 can be enforced by the prosecution of individual traders, the land owner and the market organisers for aiding and abetting

  1505
  or by making an application to the High Court for an injunction.
  To carry out those three specific acts basic fundamental evidence is necessary, and practical experience shows that it is difficult to obtain that. In the majority of cases stalls do not display the names and addresses of the holders. When approached the holders refuse to give their names. Stallholders will even go to the extent of covering up the licence plates and tax discs on their vehicles so that the council is not able to trace them, and the vehicle owner is not always the stall owner. Customers who attend Sunday markets will not always co-operate and provide their names and addresses. Without the names and addresses of the alleged offender, no summons can be issued. That is the reality of the situation.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of the difficulties that local authorities experience and perhaps come forward with positive suggestions—for example, simple licensing of Sunday markets, which could operate through the local authority.
  1.25 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I am grateful to my hon. Friend in his lonely position for raising the matter tonight. In his constituency I think that he has had more trouble than most in this respect. It is a matter of some controversy.
  I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it would be a mistake to attack the principle of market trading. There are many long-established markets which exist under Royal Charter or Acts of Parliament that go back hundreds of years. They provide a valuable outlet for enterprise and initiative, and in no way do I take my hon. Friend's strictures to be attacking such markets. They are popular with shoppers, and many establishments that are household names in this country started in that way.
  Although I talk about the acceptable face of these markets, there are operators who cause concern. There is no legal prohibition on new markets being formed. That is as it should be. It would be a sad day if that became yet one more of the rights of the individual to be taken away by well-meaning interference of legislators. Nevertheless, the law recognises that others have rights too
  1506
  and that the unregulated establishment of markets can interfere with these to an undesirable extent. In particular, they can provide what is seen by established traders as an unwelcome source of unfair competition. They can disrupt a locality, particularly if held in a rural area which cannot cope easily with the traffic, litter and sanitation problems. My hon. Friend has vividly described the problems that they can pose in the particular market to which he referred.
  There are, however, a number of controls which already exist to contain these problems. As far as my Department is concerned, the main control is through the planning system, and I shall return to this later. As for Sunday markets, the Shops Act 1950 regulates which goods may be traded on a Sunday. It has been said that the provisions of this Act are difficult to enforce. My hon. Friend spoke of disguising names and number plates. Responsibility for this legislation rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am informed, however, that it has been used successfully on a number of occasions. The prosecution of individual stallholders, if they can he identified and traced, may indeed be difficult and ineffective as a means of taking action against the market as a whole. But authorities have the alternative of applying to the High Court for an injunction directed against the organisers of such a market. This course, though expensive when it has to be resorted to, has proved both to be effective in particular instances and to have a wider deterrent effect.
  There are other controls which can be used to deal with some of the nuisances that temporary markets can cause in rural areas. The Highways Act, the Road Traffic Act and the Litter Act are all relevant here.
  Another restraint on temporary markets is the right that franchise markets have to protection from other markets which might be set up in their area. I have heard this referred to as an " anachronism ". While the right may indeed be old, it is nonetheless effective for that, and I understand that this was the basis for action that was successfully brought against a temporary market operation in my hon. Friend's constituency. I assume that this is now closed or that the people have moved on.

  1507
  I shall return now to the planning controls which are the responsibility of my Department and which have been criticised as inadequate in respect of temporary markets. The planning system is concerned with the use of land, and the holding of a temporary market on land which is usually used for other purposes counts as a change of use requiring planning permission. Under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977, however, permission is granted for the holding of a temporary market for not more than 14 days in any calendar year. This relates to markets on any day of the week, not just Sundays. This permission was reduced from the 28 days which was at one time allowed and which still applies for most other temporary users of land.
  It is sometimes thought that, under the terms of the general development order, people who set out to operate a regular Sunday market may do so for the first 14 days without needing to apply for planning permission. This is not so. The High Court has ruled that a market which is set up to operate on a permanent basis cannot take advantage of provisions relating to temporary uses. Enforcement action can therefore be taken from the start in such circumstances.
  In addition, the general development order allows a local planning authority to make a direction under article 4 withdrawing the permission that is otherwise automatically granted by the order. The effect of this would be that a planning application would be required for the use of land for a temporary market. Such a direction can be brought into force immediately and some local authorities have used these specifically to control the holding of Sunday markets.
  I am aware of the criticisms that have been made of this procedure. In particular, if the temporary use has already started, then the article 4 direction cannot come into effect until the following calendar year. In addition, the Secretary of State has to approve the direction if it is to remain in force longer than six months. Some local authorities have found in the past that such approval has not always been easy to obtain.
  We have to remember, however, that we are dealing with provisions that take away from people their statutory rights.
  1508
  The case therefore has to be considered very carefully and, like all difficult cases, there is much to be said on both sides.
  We have to bear in mind also, that the planning Acts are not convenient catchalls for every subject under the sun. Even when planning permission is required for a temporary market—either because the 14 days have been exhausted or because an article 4 direction is in force—this does not automatically rule out the holding of a market. The usual planning procedures will apply and applications must be considered on their merits and with regard to the planning considerations, and only the planning considerations. The planning system is concerned with the use of land and not with the regulation of competition for established traders or any other worthy, but non-planning considerations.
  There has also been criticism of the enforcement provisions to back up the controls that I have just outlined.
  Mr. Pawsey: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Fox: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with that.
  Where a market is held in breach of planning controls, the local planning authority can serve an enforcement notice on the owners and occupiers of the land. The effect of this is to require the breach of planning control to be remedied. This would require the offending use of land to cease pending the submission and determination of a planning application. In the event of an appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice, the notice is suspended until the appeal is determined. This may take some time, as my hon. Friend said.
  A more peremptory procedure is, however, available when necessary. This involves the use of a stop notice. It is served following an enforcement notice and can provide for a daily fine if the alleged breach of control continues after a further three days. Stop notices can be used if a temporary market breaches planning controls. This is a result of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1977, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith). Where these procedures have proved ineffective, some local authorities have successfully sought High Court injunctions to remedy the problem.

  1509
  In spite of what my hon. Friend said, and indeed in spite of what he quoted from his local council in Rugby—the letter was dated 4 November 1978, I believe—other courses are open to the local authority. From what I have said, I think it is clear that the law already provides considerable powers to regulate temporary markets. Nevertheless, I recognise the feelings, which my hon. Friend has expressed so ably, that these markets require further action. I know that at least one local authority has seen the need to take local powers to require prior notification of temporary markets. This enables it to decide, for example, whether to resort to an article 4 direction before the market has started.
  The local authority associations have now proposed to the Department that such a provision should be embodied in national legislation. This proposal is receiving our careful attention. We would have to be convinced, however, both that a national need existed to justify the legislation and that the proposal was an appropriate means of control. The last thing that I would wish to see would be yet another set of bureaucratic controls unless there was the strongest of justifications. I should also have to look very carefully at any proposals for a special licensing scheme for markets.
  1510-1750
  Measures that might go some way to meeting the criticisms that have been voiced of the planning enforcement procedures will be included in the forthcoming Local Government Planning and Land Bill. They were suggested by the Dobry report and have been discussed with local authority associations and others. They would help to strengthen the local authorities' powers to take enforcement action. These extra powers, if introduced, would relate generally to enforcement action under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
  Therefore, a wide range of controls already exist which are applicable to Sunday markets. Nevertheless, problems can arise in some localities, and we are looking at a number of proposals that have been put forward for dealing with them. I shall look at the inadequate penalties that my hon. Friend has mentioned and we will see what can be done in that respect. I am grateful to him for raising this subject, but I must say to him that I remain to be convinced that the introduction of further controls is necessarily the right way to deal with this matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.

  TUC
  TUC
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  ENFIELD
  ENFIELD
  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  MACCLESFIELD
  MACCLESFIELD
  WOLVERHAMPTON
  WOLVERHAMPTON
  PUBLIC HONOURS SYSTEM
  PUBLIC HONOURS SYSTEM
  WALES
  WALES
  GWENT
  GWENT
  NORTHERN REGION CBI
  NORTHERN REGION CBI
  SCOTTISH CBI AND SCOTTISH TUC
  SCOTTISH CBI AND SCOTTISH TUC
  GOSPORT
  GOSPORT
  SOCIAL SECURITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (ABUSE)
  SOCIAL SECURITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (ABUSE)
  ZAMBIA
  ZAMBIA
  CHILD BENEFIT
  CHILD BENEFIT
  EAST MIDLANDS
  EAST MIDLANDS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft
  Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft
  Somerset Wetlands
  Somerset Wetlands
  Orf
  Orf
  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft
  Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft
  Police (Pension Increases)
  Police (Pension Increases)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Affiliation Orders
  Affiliation Orders
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Domestic and Magistrates Courts
  Domestic and Magistrates Courts
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Horserace Totalisator Board
DEFENCE
  Skill Training
  Skill Training
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  Anthrax (Island of Gruinard)
  Anthrax (Island of Gruinard)
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES (LIVERPOOL)
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES (LIVERPOOL)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Industry and Commerce (Pre-university Experience)
  Industry and Commerce (Pre-university Experience)
  Departmental Grants and Loans
  Departmental Grants and Loans
  Gipsy Children
  Gipsy Children
  Special Schools
  Special Schools
  Co-education
  Co-education
  O-levels
  O-levels
  Teachers (Wolverhampton)
  Teachers (Wolverhampton)
  Selection at 13
  Selection at 13
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  School Meals
  School Meals
EMPLOYMENT
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Future Trends
  Future Trends
  School Leavers (Greater London)
  School Leavers (Greater London)
  Nottingham " Evening Post "
  Nottingham " Evening Post "
  Greater London
  Greater London
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Press Charter
  Press Charter
  Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Industries
  Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Industries
  TUC
  TUC
  Future Trends
  Future Trends
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Unfair Dismissal (Claims)
  Unfair Dismissal (Claims)
  Pay Policy
  Pay Policy
  Inner City Areas
  Inner City Areas
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Wages, Prices and Output
  Wages, Prices and Output
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  St. Helens College of Technology
  St. Helens College of Technology
  Manpower Committee (Isle of Wight)
  Manpower Committee (Isle of Wight)
  Job Creation (Walsall)
  Job Creation (Walsall)
  Trade Union Labour
  Trade Union Labour
  Microbiological Hazards
  Microbiological Hazards
  OUTSET Surveys
  OUTSET Surveys
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Oil Prices (Employment Effects)
  Oil Prices (Employment Effects)
  Employee Participation
  Employee Participation
  R. W. McConnachie v Danckarts Woodworking Machinery Limited
  R. W. McConnachie v Danckarts Woodworking Machinery Limited
  Industrial Training Boards (Grants)
  Industrial Training Boards (Grants)
  Occupational Cancers
  Occupational Cancers
ENVIRONMENT
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Homes Insulation Act
  Homes Insulation Act
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Tenants (Compensation)
  Tenants (Compensation)
  Rent Review
  Rent Review
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Cinema
  Cinema
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Baltic States
  Baltic States
  European Co-operation
  European Co-operation
  Council of Europe (Police)
  Council of Europe (Police)
  Rita Nightingale
  Rita Nightingale
  Banabans
  Banabans
  Rudolf Hess
  Rudolf Hess
  Hong Kong (Expropriation)
  Hong Kong (Expropriation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
TRADE
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Liquidations
SCOTLAND
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Water Mains (Wayleaves)
  Water Mains (Wayleaves)
  Rating Revaluation
  Rating Revaluation
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authority Manpower
  Murder
  Murder
  Expenditure Cuts
  Expenditure Cuts
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Heathrow (Customs)
  Heathrow (Customs)
  714 Certificates
  714 Certificates
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Mortgage Interest
  Mortgage Interest
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Personal Allowance
  Personal Allowance
  Direct Taxation
  Direct Taxation
  Capital Taxation
  Capital Taxation
  Thresholds
  Thresholds
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Tax Revenue
  Tax Revenue
ENERGY
  National Coal Board (Borrowing Powers)
  National Coal Board (Borrowing Powers)
  Coal Industry Act 1977
  Coal Industry Act 1977
  Deep Duffryn Colliery
  Deep Duffryn Colliery
  Gas
  Gas
TRANSPORT
  Rail Transport
  Rail Transport
  Rail and Freight Charges
  Rail and Freight Charges
  Road Fund Licence
  Road Fund Licence
  Southern Relief Road
  Southern Relief Road
INDUSTRY
  Triumph Motorcycles (Government Loan)
  Triumph Motorcycles (Government Loan)
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Post Offices (Closures)
  Post Offices (Closures)
  Industry Act 1972
  Industry Act 1972
CIVIL SERVICE
  No-Strike Agreement
  No-Strike Agreement
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Banabans
  Banabans
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  College of Speech Therapists
  College of Speech Therapists
  National Insurance Sickness Claims
  National Insurance Sickness Claims
  Cancer and Related Diseases
  Cancer and Related Diseases
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Cancer Registration Scheme
  National Cancer Registration Scheme
  General Medical Council (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  General Medical Council (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Creaton Hospital
  Creaton Hospital
  Medical Certificates
  Medical Certificates
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Fazakerly Hospital, Liverpool
  Fazakerly Hospital, Liverpool
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Pharmacies (Closure)
  Pharmacies (Closure)
  Appointments to Official Bodies
  Appointments to Official Bodies

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

LORD STEWART OF FULHAM
The Right Honourable Robert Michael Maitland Stewart, CH, having been created Baron Stewart of Fulham, of Fulham in Greater London—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Stewart of Alvechurch and the Lord Peart.

LORD UNDERHILL
Henry Reginall Underhill, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Under-hill, of Leyton in Greater London—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe and the Lord Murray of Gravesend.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie—Took the Oath.
The Lord Barnard—Took the Oath.
The Lord Wheatley—Took the Oath.

OVERSEAS AID AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
2.44 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will increase the proportion of overseas aid which is applied to projects in rural areas; and what role they envisage for co-operatives in achieving sound rural development in developing countries.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while we do not regard it as realistic to set overall targets for particular sectors, the Government accept the need for assisting rural development, in accordance with our wish to direct aid to the people most in need. It is for individual developing countries to decide on the appropriate institutional framework for development, and where this includes co-operatives we shall continue to assist them within the limits of our resources.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether there are not two major aspects of co-operative societies which make them particularly appropriate as instruments for rural development? First, are they not particularly suitable for the small-scale labour intensive and locally controlled projects which are so much needed in the rural areas of developing countries? Secondly, since it is an important principle of co-operatives that their control is democratic, on the principle of one member one vote, are co-operative societies not an important training ground for the conduct of democratic government?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think both those points are very true. We shall certainly bear them very much in mind when deciding our priorities.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will pay special attention to this proposal: Is it not a fact that a great deal of our grants to these countries goes to an élite, through Governments, and never gets to the poorer sections of the community? Is it not possible to make it a condition of these grants that they should go to the great majority of rural workers and their very successful co-operatives?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we certainly hope that our aid does not go to the élite only, as the noble Lord suggests, and we will certainly bear the other points very much in mind.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is possible to treat co-operatives as non-governmental organisations within the meaning of that word in the Commission?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think that is necessarily the case. The noble Lord is generating certain fears in my mind with that expression, I must say, but I think he has a point.

CRUDE OIL IMPORTS IN MAY 1979
2.47 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the value and tonnage of crude oil imports in May 1979
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Department of Energy's preliminary estimate is that about 4·7 million tonnes of crude oil were imported in May, with a landed value of about 560 million dollars.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, may I ask two supplementary questions. First of all, are those figures consistent with the claim that we are getting the full premium on North Sea oil? Secondly, 4·7 million tonnes means that more than half of our requirements are still imported.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am not sure that the second part of the supplementary was a question, but certainly as world prices have increased we are getting very good value for our superior grade of North Sea oil. The differential value between imports and exports is now standing at a little over 40p a barrel.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that it is necessary to export some of our premium oil because it is unsuited to our needs in this country, which have to be met by importing?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, it is a pleasure to agree from this Box with my noble friend.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree that what is done with our oil depends entirely upon
1274
the strange peculiarities of the distillation processes of international companies and is not a matter of national policy? Is it not surprising that we in this country put ourselves entirely in the hands of the seven sisters?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. This country has a very strong interest in the flexibility of the distillation processes, and that is why we keep a close eye on them.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the seven sisters now have a gigantic ugly sister in the shape of BNOC, which conducts many of our export operations?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I was undertaking a personal and interior wager as to whether BNOC would come into this question.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that we are really being saved entirely by the intervention of our own innovation—BNOC—not international innovation? Is it not true that if we did not have BNOC we should be entirely at the mercy of international combines?
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl …
Several noble Lords: Answer!
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord was asking for information. He was stating a point of view about the British National Oil Corporation.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I make a comment? I was asking for information and I continue to ask for information. The information for which I am asking is whether the noble Earl is in a position to tell the House what is decided by the Department of Energy.
The Earl of GOWRIE: No, not at present, my Lords. However, the moment that I am in such a position I shall of course honour my obligations to do so.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, arising out of what my noble friend has said, will the noble Earl confirm that the

1275
Government will keep the BNOC in being and continue to exercise control over our North Sea oil and not allow it just to be exploited by the multinational oil companies, although I appreciate the work that they do?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I have been very concerned not to weary the House with the answer that I always have to give when the BNOC is raised—namely, that this matter is under review. It is under review and the moment that review is completed it will be my job and my honour to let the House know what has been decided.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in stating the value of this oil to Britain, he can explain it in terms of pounds sterling in addition to explaining it in dollars?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that there are at present many nations throughout the world who would prefer that oil transactions took place in sterling rather than dollars. Nevertheless the dollar is, as it were, the trade currency in the oil business.

OIL RESERVES OF THE FORTIES FIELD
2.53 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the latest estimate of the tonnage of the reserves of the Forties Field.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the operators' estimate of recoverable reserves from the Forties Field are given in the 1979 report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy—commonly known as the Brown Book. I have recently placed a copy in the Library of the House. Taking production from the Field to the end of May 1979 into account, the recoverable reserve remaining is estimated at 176·5 million tonnes.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that those figures mean that the value of a share in BP is between £15 and £20 according to this country—that is, anything between 50 and 100 per cent. above the quoted price on the Stock Exchange? Will he note that we should not sell at such depreciated prices?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of the point which the noble Lord has in mind. However, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor said at the time of his Budget pronouncement, it would, of course, be for him to make the decision when any sales were made; and I am sure that he would be very sensitive as regards the timing of any decision that he made.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm to the House whether or not it is true that the figure given for the remaining recoverable reserves of the Forties Field is about 75 per cent. of what there was when it was first found?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is right, but I really need notice of the matter and might have to give confirmation after doing some research.

HOTEL BILLS AND VAT
2.55 p.m.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider exempting the hotel industry from the new VAT increase in order to encourage foreign exchange.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): No, my Lords, VAT is a broad-based tax on consumer expenditure, and reliefs can only be justified on the most stringent criteria. It would not be appropriate to exclude the hotel industry from the VAT increase announced in the Budget.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that hotel prices in London now exceed those of other capital cities, even during the off-season? Would he not review the VAT rate, since this industry is a large money earner?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the important contribution made by the hotel industry in common with other industries which produce invisible earnings. But, in the Government's view, it is unlikely that the increase in the rate of VAT on hotel accommodation would, of itself, deter many potential overseas visitors, whether they come on business or on holiday, given the many factors which people take into account when planning a visit abroad.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me why hotels should be relieved from VAT when housewives have to pay the increased rate of VAT on everything that they buy? The increase will create terrible trade union difficulties during the winter of this year.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, as the Government do not propose to relieve the hotel industry from VAT, the noble Lord's question does not arise.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, have the Government lost their heads completely? Why are they not a little rational and pragmatic about this question for a change? Do they realise what the effect of an increase in VAT means to the tourist industry, upon which we rely because of the decline in our manufacturing exports? Do they realise that now and again people need to go on holiday? Is it not asking too much of these people to pay not only the very high cost of accommodation, which no one would deny—it is not everyone who can afford it—but also the increase in VAT?
In view of the dispute between the Prime Minister and Sir Keith Joseph about another matter, is it not time that Maggie looked into this matter herself and displayed the common sense which is attributable to her?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for recognising the common sense which actuates the Government in all their policies. Far be it from me not to recognise a compliment paid by a noble Lord opposite. We have looked very carefully at the question of the importance of the hotel industry in relation to foreign earnings; the Government realise how important it is. They do not regard the VAT increase as a crucial factor here. However, perhaps the noble Lord would also care to take into account the fact that if relief from tax is given on one item of expenditure, the cost of the relief must be recouped elsewhere.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether there is any one industry which would not be well served by the removal of VAT? Is he aware that when the Spanish Netherlands rebelled against Spain they won the universal sympathy of Europe?—for they were rebelling against a 10 per cent. tax on trade transactions, which was clearly intolerable for a trading community.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for the information which he has given us. All taxes are unpopular and everybody paying them would be only too glad to be relieved from them. The Government's policy is, in the long run, directed to curb the level of Government expenditure and thereby to reduce, we hope, the level of taxation.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, has it occurred to the noble Lord that whereas the housewife does not pay VAT on food, the tourist does? Will he consider whether or not it is possible to relieve the food element in the hotel bill, covering bed and breakfast and so forth, from VAT?
Lord COCKFIELD: No, my Lords, it is not only the tourist who has to pay VAT on the food element in a hotel bill; the resident of this country also does. In fact, we are holding the scales fairly between the residents and the I visitors.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, I should like to ask the Government one more question. If we exclude the tourist industry during the summer, during which time the hotels are all fully booked, during the winter they go through a difficult period. Would it not encourage those foreigners who visit this country anyway to come during the off-season period if we lowered the VAT rate during that time?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am sure that the hotel industry itself will take every step it can to attract visitors during the off-season. However, in the Government's view this does not itself constitute a case for giving relief from VAT.

REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL POLICY
3 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Trenchard will repeat a Statement being made in another place on regional industrial policy and selective assistance.

CHILD CARE BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the care of children by local authorities or voluntary organisations and certain other enactments relating to the care of children. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to foster children as they have effect in England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION BILL
3.1 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, having been printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47.
Lord DENHAM Lord DENHAM rose to move, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Second Reading of the Education Bill to be taken this day. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. In moving this Motion I should like to say that I had very much hoped that it would not be necessary to move suspension of the Standing Order so as to take First and Second Reading of the Education Bill on the same day. Developments in another place have meant that the Bill did not leave the House of Commons until yesterday instead of last week as originally expected.
However, notice of the intention to take Second Reading today has been on the Order Paper for 10 days, since 5th July, which is the usual notice for a Second Reading debate. A number of your Lordships have indicated an intention to speak, and I therefore felt that it would be for the convenience of the House not to alter the arrangements at short notice, particularly in view of the printing difficulties.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Second Reading of the Education Bill to be taken this day.—(Lord Denham.)
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining why Standing Order 43 should be dispensed with, and we understand the procedural necessity. But I must tell the noble Lord that on these Benches, and I think

1281
in all parts of the House, there is a real feeling of outrage that so important a Bill as this should be pushed through Parliament with such unseemly haste.
This Bill is not being taken in the usual summer rush with the Session ending in July. Her Majesty's Government look forward—and we hope, mistakenly—to a long period in office with a sizable majority in another place. Your Lordships should have been allowed adequate time for proper consideration of so important a Bill. Education is a matter which affects almost every family in the country, and any Government, one would have thought, would hesitate before bringing politics into education.
I am sorry to have to say this, but I thought that the House would like to know how the arrangements came to be made. When the timetable for the Bill was first put forward we learned that the Government proposeed to take it all in one week, with just one day for Committee and all the remaining stages. On behalf of the House we made very strong representations to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, that it was quite wrong that the revising Chamber consisting, as it does, of many Peers with great expertise, knowledge, and experience of education should not be allowed to consider the Bill with due care.
The only concession we were able to wring from the Government was that we could have one separate Committee day. Since the Bill has only today arrived from another place there will be practically no time to consider appropriate amendments for the Committee stage on Thursday. Of course the House will not want to put all the blame on the noble Lord, Lord Denham. The responsibility lies with his Government. I am sorry to say it, but your Lordships' House, and I am sure the country, will know and disapprove of the cavalier manner in which the whole matter has been treated.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I would not like to shelter behind my right honourable friends and my noble friends. As Chief Whip in this House, I must of course accept the responsibility. But I am, of course, very sorry indeed that this has been done. There are, I would submit, mitigating circumstances to the extent that we had a general election on 3rd May,
1282
and therefore the House met a week later, and there has been a very short time before the Summer Recess.
This is a one clause Bill. I appreciate the depth of feeling which noble Lords opposite have about the content of this Bill, but it is a one clause Bill, which I think I should like to put down for the record. It also implements an election Manifesto, and this Government intend to act on the policies which won us the election. It is necessary to make the position with regard to comprehensivisation clear before a new school year begins. It is, therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government essential that the Bill reaches Royal Assent before the Recess in order that this particular Manifesto commitment should be honoured. I do not of course expect noble Lords opposite to feel the same about this particular commitment as we do, but I should like to assure your Lordships that no discourtesy to the House was intended, and to apologise for the inconvenience caused by this rush to noble Lords in all parts of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROSS AND CROMARTY (COASTAL WATERS POLLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DER WENT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Jurisdiction of sheriff court in proceedings relating to trusts]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 5:
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 7, line 18, leave out second ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 7, line 30, leave out ("the")
Page 7, line 32, leave out from ("contract") to end of line 10 on page 8 and insert ("—

(i) where the truster, or any of the trusters, was at the date of the coming into operation of the trust domiciled in a sheriffdom, a sheriff court of that sheriffdom or

(ii) where sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph does not apply, or where the applicant does not possess sufficient information to enable him to determine which sheriff court, if any, would by virtue of that sub-paragraph be an appropriate sheriff court, the sheriff court at Edinburgh;

(b) in the case of a marriage contract—

(i) where either spouse is, or was when he died, domiciled in a sheriffdom, a sheriff court of that sheriffdom; or

(ii) where sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph does not apply, or where the applicant does not possess sufficient information to enable him to determine which sheriff court, if any, would by virtue of that sub-paragraph be an appropriate sheriff court, the sheriff court at Edinburgh.")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. It may be convenient if I move Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 inclusive en bloc because they are basically and primarily drafting amendments and they all relate to the same clause. Unless any noble Lord objects, I shall pursue that course. The first four amendments make it clear that it is possible for there to be more than one sheriff court to be an appropriate court for the proceedings referred to in Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921. The main amendment is the fifth amendment, which provides a new form of words for the definition of "appropriate sheriff court" which paragraph (d) of the clause inserts in the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921. The definition as presently set out in the Bill contains certain ambiguities and does not meet every circumstance. It is clearly desirable that these matters should be resolved, and an attempt has also been made to simplify the provision and to
1284
achieve a greater degree of internal consistency in the Bill as a whole.
Lord HUGHES: The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was good enough to send me some information about the amendments which the Government were proposing to the Bill, all of which are of a drafting nature. A few minutes ago the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip was pointing out that one of the Government's Manifesto commitments was to achieve economies, and I must say that I would regard it as part of the duty of an Opposition to help the Government to achieve any economies where the benefit of the economy was going to be greater than the harm which is done. I would not say that all the economies which the Government are apparently contemplating would fall into that category, but one which I have no hesitation in agreeing to is that I should be helpful in any way I can, and in so far as this Bill is concerned, it is, to say the very least, that it is possible to cut down the printing costs. Even if I wanted to be terribly political, I would find it difficult to get up an argument about substituting the word "and" for the word "the", which is perhaps one of the more important of the amendments being put forward.
In pursuit of helping the Government in their economies, I suggest that the next time they bring forward a Bill like this they might be rather more careful in its drafting so that they do not need to go to so much expense in the Committee stage. The noble Earl will not take that as a personal criticism because I know he did not draft the Bill. As a matter of fact, I am not altogether certain that the present Government had anything to do with drafting the Bill; it may have been an inheritance. I wanted to make it perfectly clear that I have no objection to Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 being taken en bloc, nor do I have any objection to any of the other amendments, so I do not intend to say any more on the Bill.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that expression of support. My name is on the back of the Bill and if any blame is to be taken, I quite cheerfully take it on my shoulders. I am equally conscious that the noble Lord has kindly said that he wishes to see economies of printing,

1285
and no doubt that also applies to economies of breath, so I shall sit down without any more ado.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power of sheriff to appoint judicial factor]:
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment consequential on the drafting amendments made to Clause 9. It makes it clear that it is possible for more than one sheriff court to be an appropriate court for the presentation of a petition for the appointment of a judicial factor.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 42, after ("than") insert ("a").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment to correct the omission of the word "a" from the end of line 42 on page 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Power of judges to act as arbiters]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("Civil Service Department") and insert ("Treasury").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. The appropriate department to give consent to the amount of the fees to be charged for the services of a senator of the College of Justice is the Treasury and not the Civil Service Department.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 13, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: This clause, to which I extend a welcome, enables a senator of the College of Justice to be appointed as an arbiter, and that is a wholly welcome development; we have extremely good judges in Scotland who are able thus to accept appointment as an arbiter. I wonder whether the Minister of State could briefly outline the kind of thinking that instructed this clause and whether or not he is led by that same thinking to the conclusion that we might well be advised to use our same senators of the College of Justice to deal with some planning inquiries, particularly planning inquiries of great national importance, in Scotland.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As the noble and learned Lord well knows, I am in the wrong country here. All I can do is to take counsel on the matter, if I may be permitted to use the phrase, and thereafter write to him, and if he disagrees with what has been proposed, no doubt he can take it up at a later stage in the Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like the noble Earl to understand that I have great admiration for the judicial qualities of the senators of the College of Justice, and I feel it is rather unfortunate that they, who spend much of their professional careers at the Bar acquiring expertise in planning matters, find themselves on the Court of Session bench dealing with matters of lesser importance. It may be that we should somehow encourage these same judges to be involved, as has happened once or twice in England, in some of the more important planning inquiries. I add that in order to make it clear to the noble Earl that I make no criticism of the Bill, but merely wish to make the point that I think we are not using our judicial talent in Scotland as well as we might.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for those remarks. There is one sitting among us who will be well seized of what is behind the noble and learned Lord's remarks, and I will consider the matter.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 20, leave out lines 19 to 21.
Page 21, line 3, at end insert—

("1979 c. 2.

The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

Section 175(2).")

The noble Earl said: These are drafting amendments. The words in Section 2(1) of the 1952 Act repealed in the schedule to this Bill were, in fact, repealed by the Customs and Excise (Management) Act 1979 and re-enacted in Section 175(2) of that Act. These amendments repeal that subsection.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
3.20 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.20 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.]

EDUCATION BILL
3.30 p.m.
Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with pursuant to Resolution:
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, before moving that this Bill be now read a second time, I should like to express my apologies to the House. I can assure your Lordships that absolutely no discourtesy was intended. I came over early, as I thought—because I am somebody who likes to get to things in good time—only to find that I had mistimed it. I hope the House will accept my apologies on this occasion.
This is a short but important Bill, and it gives me pleasure to move its
1288
Second Reading today. I am well aware that its contents have been debated many times, both here and in another place; but that does not make this debate any less important. My only regret is that my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden is not in your Lordships' House today, for this Second Reading debate provides an opportunity to pay tribute to his Education Act of 1944. This must surely stand as one of the most remarkable pieces of legislation of our century. Although it has had a number of amendments, its structure remains the same; and the great changes that we have had in education have been achieved within that structure, which allowed for the evolutionary development of education while maintaining the important balance between central and local government, and county and voluntary schools.
The Act also laid down a number of general principles, one of the most important being that education for each child was to be according to his "age, aptitude and ability". But, to achieve this, the Act does not refer to particular types of school organisation. This afternoon we are here to discuss the responsible exercise of powers and duties by local education authorities. We are not here to discuss the relative merits, or otherwise, of any particular system of education, which will vary according to local circumstances. The great majority of pupils now attend comprehensive schools, and this will remain the pattern for the future. We have every confidence that, in deciding upon the pattern of provision in their areas, local education authorities will continue to act responsibly and responsively in the interests of all the children in their areas—and I stress this, my Lords, because we would not want anyone to doubt our commitment to this. In doing so, they will take account both of the need to improve educational opportunities and of the wishes of local electors. Our concern is the existence of their right to exercise such choice, free from the direction of central Government.
The Government believe that local people are the best judges of the right system of education in their area. We say this, first, on grounds of principle. The education service is a partnership in which responsibilities are assigned to both central Government and local auth-

1289
orities, and the 1976 Act upset this delicate balance. We do not consider that it is right that central Government should force change on an area where there is no local will for that change to take place. We do not consider that authorities should be compelled to remove good schools, both grammar and secondary modern, if local people are not convinced that the change is for the better. On purely practical grounds, establishing new kinds of schools, with inadequate time for planning, can place severe strains on staff and pupils, and cannot do the comprehensive cause any good.
Many authorities have decided not to have any selective schools. That is their right. Others may wish to continue with reorganisation. That, too, is their right. But some may wish to retain selection, if only in some areas, and we believe that this is also their right. I can understand that parents would wish to see an end to selection where the choice was between good grammar schools and bad secondary modern schools. But is this still a choice? Surely the choice is more likely to he between good schools of various kinds which meet the needs of parents and pupils and have their support, The Government do not believe in the destruction of good schools simply to satisfy a principle.
The Conservative Party has always been in favour of a variety of types of school and freedom of choice in education. In 1958 we published a White Paper entitled Secondary Education for All: A New Drive, which, among other matters, outlined the grounds for the establishment of comprehensive schools by those authorities which wished to do so. Indeed, my own authority, the City of Oxford, was one of the authorities to consider such schools and by 1968 we had agreed to adopt a middle school pattern for the City—a pattern made possible by legislation passed by a Conservative Government in 1964. Many noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hail-sham and my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lord Boyle, will recall this measure and the encouragement given to local education authorities during the late 1950s and early 1960s to experiment with patterns of educational provision. It is ironic indeed to think that, without the experience gained from these types of school, the Education Act 1976, which was
1290
founded on that experience, would never have been introduced.
Today, therefore, we have before us a Bill to enable this freedom to continue. No more, but no less. It has only one aim: to restore to local authorities the freedom they had before the passage of the 1976 Education Act to determine for themselves the best pattern of secondary provision for their own area. It does not seek to put the clock back or to reintroduce selection in those areas where it has already been abolished. Nor does it prevent those authorities who wish to do so from continuing to reorganise their secondary schools. It simply restores the status quo as laid down in the 1944 Education Act.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 repeals Sections 1 to 3 of the Education Act 1976. These deal with the requirement laid on local education authorities to have regard to the comprehensive principle in their provision for secondary education, and to submit proposals, if so required by the Secretary of State, for reorganisation on those lines. The clause also contains transitory provisions rel ting to proposals submitted in response to those requirements and which had either been approved or are awaiting decision following the expiry of the two-month period for objections. I shall outline each subsection in detail.
Subsection (1) repeals Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1976 Act. There will accordingly be no legal duty on local education authorities to have regard to the comprehensive principle in the exercise of their functions relating to secondary education. The Secretary of State will be unable to place requirements on authorities, or the managers or governors of voluntary schools, to submit reorganisation proposals. Nor will he be empowered to direct that proposals submitted under compulsion under the 1976 Act be treated as if submitted voluntarily for the purposes of Section 13 of the 1944 Act. As stated in subsection (2), the remaining subsections of the Bill are concerned with proposals submitted in accordance with the requirements of the previous Secretary of State, which had been found satisfactory and which the authority and voluntary bodies concerned had been directed to treat as though they had been

1291
submitted under Section 13 of the 1944 Act. In effect, this means two categories of proposal: those which the Secretary of State had approved under Section 13 and those where public notice had been given under that section but no decision has been taken.
Subsection (3) provides that, where proposals had been approved under Section 13 (4) of the 1944 Act, the Secretary of State may revoke the approval on the application of a local education authority or managers or governors of a voluntary school who had submitted the original proposal. Without this subsection it would not he possible to relieve any authority or governing body of their duty to implement the approved proposals—proposals which had been submitted under duress. Subsection (4) provides that, where public notice of proposals has been given by a local education authority or voluntary school governors but no decision has been taken on them by the Secretary of State, these bodies may elect that their respective proposals should continue to be treated as though they had been submitted voluntarily under Section 13. For such an election to be valid, it has to be made by the local education authority or governors, as the case might be, in writing before 31st December 1979. Where no election is made, the particular proposal will automatically lapse. Clause 2 covers the customary provisions relating to the citation, construction and extent of the Bill.
Our policy of removing compulsion to reorganise has been described as a threat to comprehensive schools and one which will serve only to increase educational inequality. I reject this absolutely. Local education authorities are concerned with the educational well-being of all their children. It is for them to decide whether the educational interests of their children are best served by changing their existing pattern or leaving the schools as they are. This decision will no longer be subject to central direction. It will be a matter for local consultation and, I hope, local consensus. Consensus is at the heart of educational change. Where there is consensus, change can take place in harmony and in an atmosphere of constructive co-operation.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for not being in the House when the noble Baroness opened her speech. That was due to the furtive manner in which we were disbanded. May I ask the noble Baroness, when she uses that word "consensus" whether she is aware that in Section 2 of the Bill—and I have just been looking at it in comparison with the 1976 Acts—a governor of a school by application to the Secretary of State, can revoke the entire organisation of the local education authority. Here we have a revolutionary bit of power given into the hands of governors. If the noble Baroness knows how governors are appointed in county council areas—
Several noble Lords: Order, Order!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the noble Baroness was kind enough to give way. I am not impinging on her courtesy; but noble Lords are impinging on mine. That is the point. Noble Lords have ruined the speech of the noble Baroness by their crude interruptions.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it seems quite clear we are not going to get any consensus on the Bill this afternoon. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, the point about subsection (2) of the clause is that the governors of voluntary schools have always had the right to determine their own policies. What we are doing in this Bill is to return that right to them. We are not altering the situation as it was under the 1944 Act.
In the past we have been fortunate in having been able to secure change in this spirit. The 1976 Act was out of step with this spirit. It attempted to compel in an area where compulsion does not work because it destroys the essential consensus on which change must be based. Grammar schools have been providing for a diminishing proportion of secondary pupils and in many areas they are recruiting from a far wider geographical area than hitherto. I do not believe that they are a threat to comprehensive schools. My Lords, what we are aiming to do is to restore to local authorities the freedom they had before the 1976 Act to decide for themselves the variety of provision they should make for all their pupils.

1293
All the administrative actions we have taken and our legislative proposals form part of a coherent and liberating policy for secondary education. Local authorities will be able to promote the best educational policies for their areas without the unnecessary fetters of central Government directives. This Bill is a fundamental part of our policy and one which we believe commands a wide measure of support. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Young.)

REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL POLICY
3.45 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPART-M ENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have completed their review of regional industrial policy and selective financial assistance in Great Britain within the context of their overall economic aims and the steps being taken to encourage national industrial vitality and prosperity. As the House knows, the Government seek to create conditions in which the whole country can prosper, including those areas with severe economic problems.
"As part of our general framework for industry, we propose to continue with a strong, but more selective, regional industrial policy. We shall maintain the three-tier structure of the Assisted Areas (AAs)—that is, Special Development Areas, Development Areas and Intermediate Areas—as well as the existing instruments of regional industrial policy, but concentrating on those parts of the country with the most intractable problems of unemployment.
"The Assisted Areas currently cover over 40 per cent. of the employed population. We propose over a transitional period of three years to reduce this to around 25 per cent. in order to focus on the remaining AAs more
1294
effectively, and to treat different parts of the country more consistently and fairly. We propose immediately to upgrade a small number of areas to take account of their changed circumstances. A number of Special Development Areas (SDAs) and Development Areas (DAs) will be downgraded by one step for similar reasons but these changes will not take effect until 1st August 1980. From 1st August 1982 we propose that a number of these areas should be further downgraded, but that of these those due to become non-Assisted Areas (non-AAs) should be the subject of a special review before such de-scheduling takes final effect. In addition, we propose that a number of Intermediate Areas (IAs) should become non-Assisted Areas in three years' time. Full details of these proposed changes in Assisted Areas boundaries and gradings are given in my Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses.
"We propose to maintain Regional Development Grant (RDG) at its present level of 22 per cent. in the Special Development Areas, so that assistance will not be reduced in the areas of greatest need. In Development Areas we propose that the rate of grant should be reduced from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. on buildings, plant and machinery provided after 1st August 1980. We also propose that the 20 per cent. RDG on buildings provided in Intermediate Areas should be abolished from the same date. Finally, we propose to raise the minimum levels from £100 for plant and machinery and £1,000 for buildings to £500 and £5,000 respectively, in respect of expenditure defrayed on or from 18th July 1979.
"Full details of the transitional arrangements are given in my Written Answer to the honourable Member for Nelson and Colne.
"Our objective is to maintain reasonable stability in the framework of regional investment incentives and to avoid abrupt changes.
"In future regional selective assistance under Section 7 of the 1972 Industry Act

1295
will be provided in the AAs only where it is necessary to enable projects to go ahead. Particular attention will be paid to the provision of more productive and more secure jobs. I will say something about the future of national selective assistance under Section 8 of the Act in a moment.
"We consider that factory building is a useful and relatively inexpensive instrument of regional industrial policy and this will continue. We intend however to secure a greater element of self-financing.
"We have also reviewed the operation of Industrial Development Certificates (IDCs) in the light of our objective of reducing the burden of Government controls on industry. I am satisfied that the IDC procedure can still be useful in identifying large projects which are potentially mobile. I propose however to abolish IDCs in the IAs and to raise the exemption limit to 50,000 square feet in the non-AAs including the South East.
"We estimate that these changes will by 1982–83 lead to total savings of £233 million in the expenditure of £609 million on RDGs, regional selective assistance and factory building projected in the 1978 White Paper revalued at 1979 survey prices. Although expenditure on regional incentives will continue to be substantial, I must emphasise that regional differences will not be reduced simply by redistributing money from taxpayers: there needs also to be local enterprise and plenty of co-operation in making businesses competitive and profitable. Nothing will do more for the prosperity of a region than a reputation for effective work, high productivity and co-operation between workforce and management.
"Finally, I turn to our decisions on national selective assistance under Section 8 of the 1972 Industry Act—which can of course be paid to enterprises in the AAs as well as in the non-AAs.
"After consideration the Secretary of State for Energy, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have decided to allow the Energy Conservation Scheme and the two remaining sectoral schemes, for Footwear and Redmeat Slaughterhouses, to
1296
run their course. All applications under these schemes and any outstanding applications under the other sectoral schemes that have already closed will be processed under existing criteria.
"The Selective Investment Scheme, for major investment projects, closed for applications on 30th June. All outstanding applications which have not yet been approved will be processed against the existing criteria, but we shall interpret these criteria somewhat more stringently than in the past, so that marginal projects will in future not be assisted.
"For the future, the Government will continue to provide assistance under Section 8, but more selectively than hitherto. We shall continue to offer assistance to enable internationally mobile projects to locate in the United Kingdom: this is an area where other governments are also very active. We intend also to support projects leading to very substantial improvements in performance, particularly in productivity, or projects which will result in the introduction of new products. In addition, every project will have demonstrated that it will result in a substantial net contribution to United Kingdom output or will introduce a significant degree of innovation to the United Kingdom. Assistance will only be given for projects that would not go ahead as proposed without it, and will be negotiated as the minimum necessary to achieve this.
"I am laying before the House the four orders required to introduce the changes in Regional Industrial Policy, one dealing with RDG, one with AA boundaries and gradings and two with IDCs. The RDG order requires an Affirmative Resolution and my right honourable friend the Leader of the House will be announcing shortly the date for a debate next week at the conclusion of which this Resolution will be moved."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement. I am authorised to say that noble Lords will have an opportunity to debate the Government's proposals next week when they consider the Affirmative Resolution to vary the rate of regional development grant in development areas.
3.56 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating this Statement, and also thank him very much for telling us about the opportunity which we will have to debate the matter at greater length next week. No doubt the noble Viscount is as pleased as noble Lords in all parts of the House that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry's "U" turn yesterday has given us an opportunity to hear this Statement, and indeed gives the Minister responsible for what little is left of regional aid policy to announce the gutting of his responsibilities in person. The Statement is a long and complicated one, particularly the Written Answer which unfortunately only arrived in the Library in your Lordships' House while the noble Viscount was on his feet. I have no doubt that everyone will want to study it with care.
The detailed Written Answer reveals a massive downgrading of areas all over the country; in particular, clearly there will be catastrophic effects on areas like Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-West. And not only that: all these areas will find themselves being downgraded to intermediate area status, only a shadow of their former selves with, for example, the loss of regional development grant. I was particularly surprised to see in the Statement the likely effect that there will be on small firms, on which noble Lords opposite are always so keen on placing emphasis. They will now find life five times more difficult. I imagine that that will be the only effect of raising the minimum levels of RDGs on plant, machinery and buildings by 500 per cent.
Turning, if I may, briefly to Section 8, as far as I can see from the Statement—and may I ask the noble Viscount to confirm this—there is absolutely no change of principle in the way that Section 8 assistance is going to be employed, as incidentally, again so far as I can see, there is absolutely no change in principle proposed in the practice of regional selective assistance under Section 7. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can explain to your Lordships why the Statement appears to give a rather opposite impression.
Our regional policy up to today has been the envy of the world. In the
1298
decade from the mid-60s to the mid-70s, 300,000 jobs were created and probably another similar number—another 300,000 jobs—saved because of expenditure on regional aid. In this Statement it says that expenditure will be cut by a third, and maybe the noble Viscount could confirm that that means that in the next 10 years 100,000 jobs will not be created which otherwise would have been, and 100,000 jobs will be lost in the areas of this country where unemployment is highest. If the noble Viscount does not agree with that estimate, could he tell us what estimate, if any, was provided by his advisers when these policies were being considered?
Finally, the Statement talks about the need for plenty of co-operation. I should like to ask the noble Viscount how the Government propose to get it with a policy that flies in the face of all the advice which the noble Viscount has been given by both the trade unions and the CBI in recent days and, incidentally, from both sides of your Lordships' House in all the debates that we had have when this has been touched on since the election.
3.58 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for having repeated this Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, we are glad it has taken the form of an oral rather than a written Statement so that we are in a position to ask at least some general questions. We realise, of course, that the Government are permitted to make substantial reductions in their overrall subventions to industry in one form or another, But there is clearly room for marked differences of opinion as to the extent and the timing of action to be taken in various ways.
The Statement has to be seen in the context of other Statements which we understand are to be made in the next week or so concerning such matters as the future of the National Enterprise Board, the shipbuilding industry and maybe other employment subsidies. The effect of these taken together is surely going to be to increase unemployment, at least in the short term, in areas which certainly will not be confined to Merseyside the North-East, Glasgow and so on.

1299
It will hit pretty hard places like Wales and Scotland and parts of Northern England from where I come.
One therefore asks the general question: Is this the time to be making cuts in regional aid of as much as £233 million out of a total of some £600 million over a period as short as three years? Would it not have been wiser to adopt a more gradualist approach—not simply to limit this agreement, which was a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but to give the Government themselves time to see what effect their policies have on profitability, and particularly in order to maintain that degree of stability which would enable large-scale manufacturing industry to continue to plan with confidence investment programmes over periods up to 10 or 15 years ahead, as now has to be the case?
There are two other specific questions I should like to ask the noble Viscount, and I shall quite understand if he is not in a position to reply to them immediately. One is really to support an observation already made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but perhaps to sharpen it up a bit. How do the Government reconcile the raising of the minimum qualifying values of £100 for plant and £1,000 for buildings to figures as high as £500 and £5,000 respectively with their declared objective—which we on these Benches certainly have for long advocated—of encouraging the establishment and development of small businesses? Has any attempt been made to quantify the effect of these changes on the setting up of such enterprises and, if so, with what result?
The second specific question is this: What criteria do the Government propose to adopt in identifying, for purposes of potential support, those projects referred to in the Statement which may lead to substantial improvements in productivity on the one hand, or to the introduction of new projects on the other?
4 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is to be a debate, I will try to be as brief as I can in replying to the many points that have been raised. First, I should like just to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was extremely conscious, as we all
1300
are in Government, of the parliamentary programme which has to be got through before the recess. In his mind there was never any intention of denying a debate: it was purely a question of how to announce a long and rather complicated notice.
The second point I should like to deal with concerns small businesses, which was raised by both noble Lords. The first thought that comes to mind when you raise thresholds is: is it going to affect small businesses? As is known, in my Department we have a Minister who is specially responsible for small businesses. In point of fact, a study of small projects reveals that as many of them come from big businesses, and virtually pro rata as from small businesses, this is not a system whereby the business is graded but one whereby the project is graded. If we apply inflation since 1972 to the minimum level, we account for two-thirds of the upgrading. The other one-third we have looked at very closely and, against the combination of administration costs and who will be affected, we have concluded that it will not affect small businesses adversely. That is something we can return to in the debate.
On the question of Section 8, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested that we had not changed anything. I think that when he reads the Statement carefully, and certainly when we have the debate next week, he will see that we have changed the criteria on which Section 8 has been administered and we have tightened them up quite considerably, particularly in terms of projects of major value to the economy as a whole. In addition to seeing how projects relate to the net wealth and the GDP of the United Kingdom, we will make an assessment of whether the project will go ahead without grant, which really has not been a major part of the criteria hitherto. Certainly, I am perfectly prepared to debate that aspect at length and in detail when we come to the debate.
On jobs created, the noble Lord gave many statistics and I will return to this in the debate; but there is considerable argument about the net result of the regional programme that has been in operation since 1972, both in the net addition of jobs regionally and—what is far more difficult to assess but far more important with high national unemployment—the net addition to the national

1301
number of jobs. Your Lordships may also have noticed that there is some evidence of a greater failure rate developing in relation to businesses started in the regions than started elsewhere. These matters I shall be glad to elaborate on during the debate.
Unemployment will get worse. I think all I want to say at this stage—and again we can return to it—is that unemployment has been getting worse, and getting very much worse, so that unless, on a national basis, we get an upturn and a recovery from industrial decline then it is no good talking about regional policy or any other policy. Therefore, this Statement is couched in the framework of our national policy, which is mentioned in the Statement and which was epitomised in the Budget and in other steps proposed, both at present and for consideration in the future.
We must make this policy cost-effective. In the situation of the country as it is today, we, cannot possibly continue with areas of waste and non-cost-effective policies; and when you consider the percentage of the population that over history has come to be regarded as belonging to the Assisted Areas, and when you consider further that nearly two-thirds of the travel-to-work areas of the country now have assisted status, I think you will he able to see—and certainly when we return to the matter in debate—that this situation had to be sorted out and that it had to be made fair and rational.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked: is this the time? I am aware that I am not going to be able to deal with one of his points but I will deal with this particular one. I hope that your Lordships will read very carefully the transitional arrangements, because the main part of this retraction of aid, so far as it affects industry, does not become effective until 1981–82 or 1982–83—those are the years when the cash flow of industry in the regions will be affected by the amounts concerned. We are quite clear about that and we are clear about the many problems that industry is currently facing in relation to a strong pound and high interest rates. However, I would ask your Lordships to consider very carefully before the debate the timing of these moves and the over-riding need, in our present national circumstances, to make sure that our policies are cost-effective.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I will not ask the Minister to make another speech, in view of the fact that he is obviously going to open the debate next week, but may I inform him that I personally think he and the Government are right. Is he aware that there was a very famous song from Gilbert and Sullivan:
When everybody's somebody
Then no-one's anybody "—
and this was happening rapidly to the assisted areas?
I should like to ask the Minister two further questions, neither of which need a long answer but both of which I should like to have fully answered next week. Having personally been rather heavily involved in regional policies some 15 to 18 years ago, I am doubtful—if I understood the Statement correctly, and it is a little difficult to do that when you have not read it beforehand—whether it is right to give London exemption up to 50,000 square feet for IDCs. In my day I believe it was 4,000. Fifty thousand seems to be a pretty big factory to build in the London area, where employment is already very good, when there are so many other areas that need employment. My second question is: Would he consider very carefully in the selection—if "selection" is the right word—of suitable industries from overseas, to choose those which are likely to be most useful to our developing industry, and give them very high selective help to bring here the companies that we really want?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his endorsement, with which he started his question. In relation to the IDCs, it might be worth my mentioning that over several years now, under the previous Administration—and I am in no way criticising—over 1,000 applications have been received every year and the refusals, in the end, have been under 10. That was the highest figure, and there were fives and sixes in recent years. So that you have an enormous administrative system for very little. It is against an analysis of that system that we have concluded that we should keep control only of the really big projects in areas where employment is still—and there are not so many areas—relatively full. In regard to inward investment, the sentiments which my noble

1303
friend expressed are part of the reasons why we are toughening the criteria in regard to selective assistance.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount told us that the review is now completed. Is he aware that he spoke far more about the financial saving that the review will produce, than he did about the jobs that will be lost? Would he say whether, in the course of that review, the Government made any estimate of the total job losses which will result from it? Further, is he aware, when he speaks about the intermediate areas, that one of the lessons we learned was that when you have an intermediate area on the fringe of a development area and the intermediate area then disappears, they are in a far worse position than any area which is within 100 miles of a development area? That is because nobody will go into an area on the fringe of a development area where no assistance is given, while a development area is only a few miles further on. Will the noble Viscount therefore tell us, in view of the £200 million less and the fact that inflation will erode that which is left for development purposes, what are the levels of unemployment that he can see forthcoming in the next two or three years?
Viscount TRENCHARD: Yes, my Lords, We have looked very carefully at the job losses and I do not think, when the noble Lord reads the Statement, that he will feel that we overweighted the emphasis on savings. I have set that against the absolute need of national economics and the recovery of British industry nationally. We have never pretended that the steps in the Budget did not cost something. We believe that they will be effective, and that a regional policy can be effective only within an effective national policy. So far as job losses are concerned, we have looked at this long and deep. We have read the papers and works and surveys of people, within and without the Government, and I will certainly return to this subject in the debate. I think it is highly arguable as to what the net gain has, in fact, been. There are some very depressing statistics and very depressing situations where jobs are still being lost, mainly in the extremely difficult areas where we are
1304
maintaining the SDAs, where they are being lost faster than they are being created. So far as the noble Lord's point about fringes is concerned, the more areas you have the more fringes you have.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, he has now avoided answering a simple and direct question twice, having made the Statement. My noble friend asked him and I ask him, if an estimate was made of the numbers of jobs that will be lost as a result of this package of measures, what figure was given to the noble Viscount by his advisers? He has told us that his advisers gave him a figure. Would he kindly tell the House what figure was given?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, we of course examined the effect of this policy within the national policy, and we believe that we shall turn around the industrial decline—
Lord MELCHETT: What figure?
Viscount TRENCHARD:—and the rising unemployment that we have inherited, and turn it into an upward movement. How do you estimate forward one part of a major policy, when you inherit the situation that we have inherited? I will return to this subject in the debate.
Lord MOYNE: May I ask a more friendly question? Are the Government bearing in mind the effect on national recovery of the minimum lending rate of 14 per cent.?
Viscount TRENCHARD: Yes, my Lords, and I do not think anybody in this country or anywhere else would like that rate to last any longer than is necessary. I shall not go into the reasons again, which have been expressed in your Lordships' House by my noble friends in economic debates, as to why we found it necessary to do that.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to think again? Surely he can give us a figure for the unemployment which will be created. After all, we are to have savings of £233 million in expenditure of £609

1305
million. This is a big slice. Surely the noble Viscount can give us more details. Why is he so cagey? The new term "reduction of aid" means what?—severe cuts in aid, of course. We shall look forward to this debate and will criticise the Government's policy strongly, because I believe and I know that the country believes—and indeed the CBI believes—that aid should not be cut down in many of our regions. This will create more unemployment.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I will say briefly, once again, that we do not anticipate that these changes of policy will have anything other, taken together, than a beneficial effect on employment, and that includes the regional element in it. I must remind the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that when the previous Administration cut the regional employment premium in 1976–77, they cut it by £218 million—over 30 per cent. of the current expenditure on regional industrial policy. What notice did they give?—two weeks' notice. An announcement on 15th December 1976 took affect on 2nd January 1977. Did they give us an estimate of the number of jobs that would be lost by that much greater measure at no notice, at the drop of a hat? No, they did not. We are putting in an orderly and effective reform to save waste and have a much more cost-effective regional programme.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not prefer to do rather better than the previous Government have done, and improve upon the performance to which he has just objected? Might I make life easier for him? It is obviously very difficult for him to give these estimates of a wide-ranging nature, but since he is dealing out yet another heavy blow at the construction industry, albeit an indirect one, could he tell us what is the employment effect on construction, which must be easier to do than tell us the whole story?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think I will return to the detail of industries, on which I have some statistics, when we come to the debate. Of course we intend to improve on the record of the last Government and a mixture of a one-year to three-year transition period, during which a lot of other policies will come to fruition, will be a very large help.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: My Lords, will the noble Viscount take into consideration the effect upon regional aid arising from our membership of the EEC? Noble Lords on this side of the Chamber fought hard in the European Parliament for our fair share of regional aid from the EEC, and one of the chairmen—a Member of another place—was congratulated on the amount of money which came to the United Kingdom from the regional fund. May I remind the noble Viscount that Italy and the United Kingdom are the greatest beneficiaries from the regional fund of the EEC? But so far as I understand it, the money spent on regional aid by the EEC has to be matched by the Member States' Governments. Does it mean that if Her Majesty's Government decide to cut back on regional aid, it will mean a lessening of the amount which we shall get from the EEC regional fund?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, after a visit to Brussels last week and, in addition, continuous negotiations between officials and the officials of the Commission, I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no risk whatsoever in the next two years of our losing our share of the EEC regional or social funds. Furthermore, I found in Brussels that the Commissioner responsible for regional policy is also adopting a policy of concentration. He believes that it will be beneficial to concentrate aid in areas of real need. So there appears to be, in the longer term, a convergence of view. We do not believe that there will be any shortage of projects in the next two years to prevent us from taking up our full whack.

EDUCATION BILL
4.21 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, it is 14 years since Circular 10/65 signalled a countrywide change from the selective to the comprehensive principle in education. I had not expected to have to fight this old battle again. We are leaping into the past. The present Bill has been called in another place, nasty, brutish, short and a number of other Hobbesian names. I shall not use any such epithets. They are not my style,

1307
passionately as I feel on this subject, and they are not perhaps suitable for your Lordships' House.
I merely say that this Bill is unnecessary, irrelevant and totally inappropriate to the needs of education and of the country in the 1980s. To bring such a Bill forward, taking up the time of Members, Officers of both Houses, officials in the DES, LEAs and members of LEAs seems to me to show a great lack of proportion when economy, we are told, is the order of the day and when educational authorities up and down the country are grappling with such really pressing problems as the education and training of our 16 to 19-year-olds, an age group where there is much alarming and horrifying unemployment, and the crisis of falling rolls.
The Bill that was brought forward by the last Government and which fell at the Dissolution was attempting to deal with just those matters, and a certain amount of agreement was being reached by all parties. That Bill also dealt with the constitution of governing bodies and the representation of parents and teachers, giving effect to some of the recommendations of the Taylor Report. It is odd that in the debates in both Houses on the 1976 Act, there were constant references by the Conservatives to the lack of mention of parents in the Bill—see Dr. Rhodes Boyson, col. 1313, 4th February 1976. We can now see the hypocrisy of those references, for there is no mention of parents in this Bill, despite what appeared in the Tory Manifesto.
The abolition in Clause 1 of the present Bill of the duty to give effect to the comprehensive principle seems ridiculous when every authority in the country, bar Kingston, has comprehensive schools, and most authorities a very high proportion of them. With 85 per cent. of the children in the country in comprehensive schools, there can be no turning back of the tide. Mr. Carlisle's school does not seem to have taught him about King Canute. I thought that the Secretary of State's speech at Second Reading was very inadequate. He said what he was repealing but he gave no guidance about what his beliefs were and what his policy was to be. There were a few mutterings over parental choice, but we all know what that means in the selective system—choice for a very few. Guidance and
1308
policy is what one expects from the national head of state education.
There should indeed be a delicate balance between central and local government and it is valuable to keep that balance, but we need a framework of national policy within which to work. This does not mean uniformity. One only has to go into any two comprehensive schools in the same town to find that out. What we now have is a vacuum, with no leadership from the Secretary of State. We are back to where the present Prime Minister brought us with the publication of Circular 10/70, after she discovered that she could not just cancel Circular 10/65 by ex cathedra statements to the Press. She had announced that grammar schools were a good thing, but her party's Manifesto promised—I quote, and noble Lords should listen to this:
"… to take into account the general acceptance that 11 is too early to make a final decision which might affect a child's whole future".
That ruled out any dictatorial solution. Therefore the point which she selected to stress was that LEAs could go their own way. Indeed, they were invited to relinquish plans for comprehensive reorganisation. Do noble Lords see any resemblance to what is happening now?
The Times Educational Supplement of 3rd July 1970 noted
"… a sharp break in the continuity of educational policy and the negative nature of the operation".
The TES went on:
"What she"—
Mrs. Thatcher—
"advances is not a policy, and, as a substitute for a positive line, the slogan leave the decision to the LEAs' can only be described as dishonest".
The TES remembered Boyle with regret, as also I quote:
"… those embarrassing scenes each year at the Tory conference when there was a baying for his blood. Boyle baiting replaced the ritual debates on hanging and beating as the occasion for backwoodsmen to let off steam".
Well! Evidently, said the TES,
"Mrs. Thatcher is unlikely to care much for the balance of educational opinion which has been steadily moving towards agreement on comprehensive education".
But the consensus is not dependent on the incumbent of Curzon Street. If it is soundly based, the view that secondary education must be unified will prevail, and Mrs. Thatcher will find herself isolated. The article ends by saying that,

1309
"What is needed is a policy for secondary education which can be explained and defended, something more substantial than muddled thoughts on co-existence and parental choice … which means recognising that continuity is a necessary virtue in educational policy making".
But now Tory history repeats itself. The Secretary of State was positively evasive when he was asked by Mr. Christopher Price in the Second Reading debate whether he would use his powers under Section 13, as the present Prime Minister did when she was Secretary of State. She managed to incense a number of Conservative controlled authorities by turning down plans which had been carefully prepared after much consultation with the DES as well as with local people. For example, Barnet submitted a scheme—its third effort—in 1970, and after long delays—delays were a means to frustrate LEAs' supposed freedom—had it turned down in July 1971.
Three annual conferences of the AEC, in 1971, 1972 and 1973, passed resolutions protesting against the Secretary of State's high-handed actions. I quote that of 1972:
"While recognising that the Secretary of State must have regard to educational considerations in general, local needs and wishes in particular and the wise use of resources when considering schemes for the reorganisation of secondary education, this Association believes that each LEA has the right to organise secondary education in its area on comprehensive lines and that any such scheme proposed by an LEA should not be modified by the Secretary of State so as to interfere with this concept".
The other resolution of 1973 said that:
"This association strongly supports the principle of comprehensive education and is concerned that the continuance of selective systems in many areas of the country is resulting in inequality of opportunity, social divisiveness, inadequate facilities for ROSLA and wastage of resources".
I ask the Minister whether she and the Secretary of State are going to use those same high-handed methods. After all that happened in those four years, 1970 to 1974, is it surprising that the incoming Labour Government felt that an Act had to be passed to make clear what the overall policy was? In defence of those operating the 1976 Act, I must say that where authorities were facing genuine difficulties over numbers, population change, buildings, et cetera, the Department did not hurry to enforce compliance.
With the increasing mobility of people in this country it is even more essential
1310
than it was to have a national education policy and that is what Section 1 of the 1976 Act provided. People are changing jobs much more and moving from county to county; it would be quite intolerable for a boy or a girl who had been to a good comprehensive school to move to an area where grammar and secondary modern schools existed side by side and to be placed in a secondary modern school where opportunities must inevitably be much fewer, as would be likely if the grammar school was full. When the Minister replies to the debate, can she make clear what guidance will be given to LEAs about such a situation and what is the Government's policy of transfer at 12 or 13 if that imperfect predictor, the 11-plus, has made mistakes, as inevitably it will? Can we hear something on that?
The question of the curriculum was raised several times during the Committee Stage in another place and it is appropriate to mention it here when speaking of transfers. It is important that there should be consultation between neighbouring schools about the syllabus if there is a likelihood of children transferring, but I was a little apprehensive when Dr. Rhodes Boyson talked about core curriculum in Committee. From the way he spoke, I had a suspicion that there would be some rigid instructions issued from the centre. We do not want to move to the Continental system, as in Germany or France, where the Minister is alleged to be able to look at his watch at a given hour and to say " Now all over the country they are studying such and such a book ". I hope we shall also hear the Minister's views on this aspect of the curriculum.
I should now like to return to the question of falling rolls, which I mentioned earlier. This creates a major problem for every authority in the country because even if—rarely—the population is rising in some parts of the area, in others the reverse is happening. If there are to he grammar schools retained and grammar schools are to be filled up, as one expects they will be, the numbers in the secondary modern schools will go down, opportunities will be less, the subjects which can be studied will be fewer and inevitably the pupil-teacher ratio will get worse as a result of the cuts that have been ordered.

1311
I do not believe that, as the Minister said in her opening speech, the choice will always be between good schools of various types. I should like to hear what she thinks about falling rolls and what will happen when the grammar and secondary modern schools are there together. Children in those schools may well get a raw deal. There will inevitably be a lowering of the academic quality of the intake. I do not trust the grammar schools not to poach. I have heard a grammar school head saying that he would be very happy to take greater numbers from the secondary modern schools in the town at the end of their second year and he hoped for 25 per cent. of assisted places if that scheme came in. He had no thought for the other two schools, with hardly a bright child left to stimulate the rest, or for the morale of the staff at those schools which have a large proportion of their brighter children snatched away after two years. What has the Minister to say on falling rolls? We are told that a Bill is to be brought forward next year but that will not be through in time particularly if, as is rumoured, there is to be a recess on into November. To me this is a very urgent matter. LEAs need now the authority to declare a planned operating capacity for their schools and even more will they need it if this Bill is passed.
No doubt many noble Lords will have read, or at least heard of, a recent much discussed piece of research Fifteen Thousand Hours by Professor Michael Rutter. Professor Rutter and his team sought to discover the reasons why 12 schools in inner London with very similar catchment areas showed such different results or "outcomes", as he called them. Three years were spent on this research. The schools differed markedly in behaviour and attainments, in the regularity of attendance, the proportion staying on until after 16, the success in examinations, the delinquency rates. The results were not as would have been expected from the histories and records of the children when admitted to the schools and the differences were not due to physical factors, such as the size of school, age of buildings, split sites, the space available. The outcomes were influenced by factors outside the teachers' immediate control, although that was very
1312
important. The academic balance in intakes to the schools was particularly important and more important than the social mix. Examination successes tended to be better in schools with a substantial nucleus of children of at least average ability, and delinquency rates were higher in those with a heavy preponderance of the least able. This effect of balance in the intake was most marked with respect to delinquency. The importance of the academic mix is what I want to emphasise. By keeping grammar schools, we are depriving the other schools of just those children who provide a stimulus to the rest and the party that calls itself the party of law and order should note the findings on delinquency.
I was interested to see in last Saturday's edition of Education that Mr. Carlisle had agreed to the DES spending £100,000 on a five year follow-up study to the Rutter Report, so presumably he accepts and respects the findings to date. Would that they affected his policy! Instead of abstracting some of the most gifted children we should surely be spending time and money on seeing how best to help all the gifted children within the comprehensive schools and making sure that we are doing the best for them and stretching them. This in turn will stimulate all children in the schools.
Today in the Guardian there is an article on another piece of research by Joan Freeman on gifted children. I shall quote briefly from that:
"The evidence provided by this research does not support the stereotype of the unhappy gifted child who has to be kept apart from other children and given special education for his or her own good. Very highly gifted children from normal homes were seen to be happy and doing well at their local schools".
I shall now say a word on finance. I know that the Speaker's ruling in another place was that there were no financial implications to this Bill and of course I accept that so far as this Bill is concerned, but one knows only too well the cost in the time of officers, members and officials in preparing schemes of reorganisation. Furthermore in a great many cases staff must have been appointed for September 1979 by the end of May, or even earlier in the case of heads. Presumably they will have to be paid the salaries for those jobs even if plans are revoked. I have heard that some teachers in Tameside have been

1313
paid for as long as three years for jobs that they are not doing and I grudge these wasted resources in start times. The Bill is wasteful in other ways. Why should authorities who have made proposals and published notices and who want to go ahead have to go to the trouble of electing so to do and writing to the Secretary of State?
I should like to ask two questions on Clause 1(3). Are authorities to be allowed to revoke, however far plans have gone ahead and when appointments have been made, and are authorities to be allowed to unscramble plans which have already been put into operation? I gathered from what the Minister said in her opening speech that there will be no going back, but I should like to hear that confirmed, as already we are hearing of action by the Conservative members of the Education Committee of the London Borough of Bexley, suggesting that they may, against the wishes, apparently, of the head, the teachers, parents and governors, try to dismantle the one all-ability school at Erith and go back to separate grammar and secondary modern schools. I also want to ask whether the words "managers and governors concerned" in that Clause refer only to the managers and governors of voluntary schools. The notes on clauses says "voluntary schools" but it does not seem to me to be clear in the Bill.
What is so deplorable about this Bill is the uncertainty that it will cause. Those LEAs who are hesitating or moving towards revocation may well have different councils and councillors next May who may wish to reorganise, and there will be a reversal. It is significant that the two Bolton constituencies where there have been strong grammar school lobbies returned two Labour Members at the last election. How appalling it is that children's education and teachers' jobs can be messed about in this way. We want stability.
We have been moving, and are bound to move, towards a fully comprehensive system. The other served in the past, to provide as it was designed to do, the professional classes, the civil servants and the colonial adminstrators, but what the nation is now short of is a different category of citizen. What we are all saying, over and over again, is that we want more skilled men and women,
1314
more engineers, more and better managers, more technicians, yet those who moan loudest at our lack of them do not seem to make the connection that the shortage is due to a fault in our educational system. This Bill shows in those who are bringing it forward a blind ingorance of both the needs of society today and the educational needs of a country that has to live by its wits and its creative powers in industry and business, and has to live in the 20th and not the 19th century.
I am sure we all know enlightened Conservatives who have helped to pioneer the change to comprehensive education in their counties, and I simply do not understand how they can stomach this Bill. In trying to hang on to the grammar schools, which of course we all admit have done a good job in the past, the Government are looking backward and not forward. This Bill will make selection at 11 no longer illegal. By bringing it in the Government are showing a callous and wicked disregard of all those children who, by that iniquitous discredited exam, the 11-plus, are doomed to a feeling of failure and an inadequate secondary education where there will most certainly not he equality of opportunity for every child.
4.41 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, we are discussing this Bill this afternoon under some little difficulty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, mentioned on the Business Motion. The Bill came to us only a few hours ago, and up to the time this debate started no Hansard was available to report the final discussions in another place yesterday. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, did her best to enlighten us, and I am sure we are all very grateful to her. Her best, is she will allow me to say so, is always pretty good; she was clear, she was charming. Was she convincing? Unfortunately, she did not convince me. I still do not quite understand what is the hurry about this Bill, why we are being pushed to deal with it so rapidly. But I hope that when she comes to sum up she will be able to reply to that point. Of course, we do not want uncertainty to last too long, but it is important to get these things right and I would have thought that we should have given more time to examine

1315
not just the Bill in itself, which is fairly simple, but its implications.
The noble Baroness indicated that this Bill was fulfilling a Manifesto pledge. I feel bound to say on that that I do not think the Government can claim they got a mandate for this Bill. If there is a difference of opinion between those who favour selective and those who favour non-selective types of education, she will find that the parties that prefer non-selective types actually polled more votes than the party that prefers selective education. So if there is a mandate it is a very thin one.
I tried to look at the Bill from outside, because I am not an educationalist at all, to find out what the object was; and I put it down as to give freedom to local education authorities to choose the pattern of secondary education in their areas. The noble Baroness made the point that it was not so much giving them freedom as restoring the freedom which they had before, and she seemed to imply that that in itself was an argument for doing it. But I suggest to your Lordships that that begs the question as to whether what we were doing before was right, and I would have thought that the experience had shown that that arrangement was not really working properly.
Of course, the idea of whether it is giving or restoring freedom to the local authorities is superficially attractive to many Liberals, as indeed it is to me superficially attractive. But I would make a few short points about that particular issue. To us, devolution of decision-making down the line has to be considered as part of an overall programme, and I find no evidence that this Bill is more than a one-off operation designed, if I have interpreted it correctly, to let off the hook certain local education authorities who believe in a selective system. There is no evidence I see that this is part of a general devolution programme.
Moreover, the type of devolution we recommend involves first the establishment of democractically elected authorities in regions, regions which will be larger than the existing counties. I emphasise "democratically elected" because I take that
1316
to mean that they are elected on some method or other so as to produce in the council chamber a balance of political feeling that reflects the balance of opinion in the region. I am going out of my way not to refer to proportional representation, but that is what I mean. I think this is very important, and to our mind it is a prerequisite of that kind of devolution. So I would regard it as altogether premature to devolve little bits of decision-making, and in some cases, as in this case, on major issues, to the existing local authorities.
Then, again, when we have reached the hoped-for position where regional authorities are established, Parliament will have to consider over what range they should have powers and responsibilities. In the field of education, I looked at the 1944 Act, which governs us today, and it imposes upon the Secretary of State the duty of controlling and directing the development of secondary education, and upon local education authorities the duty of preparing plans. I interpret this as meaning that the Secretary of State—subject, of course, as he is, to parliamentary control—decides policy, and the local education authorities carry it out in whatever way they think best having regard to their individual circumstances.
Even when we reach the stage at which we have these regional authorities established I do not feel that the overall policy on secondary education is something that should be dealt with regionally rather than nationally. I think I am here echoing something the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. On such an important matter as this we must surely have a national policy. Nobody would suggest that the local authorities should have the right, for instance, to alter the school-leaving age. But the pattern of secondary education is just as important.
So it seems to me that if the Secretary of State wishes to repeal Section 1 of the 1976 Act and wipe out the commitment to non-selective secondary education he ought to put something in its place; otherwise, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, local education authorities preparing their schemes will be preparing plans in a vacuum—perhaps not quite a vacuum, for the Secretary of State has certainly broadly hinted that he favours

1317
the selective system. Indeed, if I understand the Bill correctly, it provides that even if a non-selective proposal has been approved, and presumably plans are in hand to implement it, this approval can be revoked. Consider what confusion that will ensure. And who are the victims?— the children.
I think it is tragic that the argument between the merits and demerits of selective and non-selective secondary education—and there are merits and demerits on both sides; I recognise that—has become part of the two-party conflict. This means that with every change of Government there is a change of attitude, if not direction. I am not quite clear whether under the Bill change of political control in local education authorities will also produce a similar see-saw effect. We in the Liberal Party are firmly in favour of steady progress towards non-selective secondary education. So we find ourselves on this issue in alliance with noble Lords on our left and against this Bill.
But I hope we are not so prejudiced as to reject out of hand the possibility of finding some compromise which might take this issue out of party politics for 20 years or so. Then Parliament, the local education authorities, the teachers, the school governors and managers, with the active help of parents, could all get on with the very urgent tasks of improving what we already have. Let them all concentrate their attention on the children whose chances in life can be so vitally affected by the decisions they make Perhaps when after the Recess we get the larger educational Bill we are promised we shall find an opportunity to pursue this idea.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I entered another place in 1945. I spent 25 years there and I have now spent 9 years in your Lordships' House. In all those years this mean little Bill is the most reactionary that I have ever seen. I do not think that it was improved this afternoon by the manner in which it was introduced. We have from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a hurried and theoretical explanation. I found it extremely difficult to appreciate that she was talking about the education
1318
of children and their future. We never heard a word about children. We never heard anything about the effect on children or teachers. The noble Baroness gave the impression that this was just a minor technical Bill and not a Bill about different schools and comprehensive education. However, my Lords, it is.
The 1976 Act of Parliament speeded up comprehensive education, whereas this Bill is designed to slow it down. Furthermore, the Bill will mean that in many local areas throughout the country old battles will be re-opened and the whole issue will be fought once again. Mention has been made, particularly by my noble friend Lord Simon, of the fact that we should take comprehensive education out of politics. I am very sorry indeed that the organisation of secondary education has become a political matter because I have always regarded it as an educational matter.
Before I entered Parliament I was deputy head of a large secondary modern school. I was at that time also a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. I think that I can claim, without being immodest, that in those early days I brought to the notice of the Policy Committee of the National Executive of the Labour Party the injustices that were being done to children by separation at the age of 11 into two types of schools. I did not regard it as a political decision—indeed, I have never done so. My views have always been based on my experience as a teacher. We all know, especially in small towns, the divisive effect of separation into two types of schools: on the one hand, those who in the past have passed the examination for the grammar school and have been able to stay at school until 18 and perhaps go on to college or university; and on the other hand, those who fail and who go to the secondary modern schools and who ,in the past, left school at 15 and went straight into industry.
Separate schools divide the community, and in many instances they have divided families. I well remember twin girls in my school, one of whom was very bright and would have passed any examination, and the other, who was just average. As to the one who was bright, the parents decided that they would give up her chances because they did not want the two girls

1319
to be educated in separate schools. I think that today the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill never thought of those human factors—she just talked about a technical Bill. I am not saying that every-one will go to school until the age of 18 and then go to university. However, everyone should have a fair chance and should not consider themselves to be a failure at the age of 11.
In another place the Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr. Carlisle, said that 83 per cent. of all children in the secondary stage are now in comprehensive schools. Throughout the 1960s there was a certain consensus between the parties, although they did not entirely agree. There was still an argument about the speed with which we should proceed with comprehensive education, but I thought that everyone accepted the principle that we should go towards a system of comprehensive education in this country.
During the 1960s many local education authorities prepared to change from selection at 11. Let me stress that they were not only Labour areas. I was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science from 1967 to 1970, and I was being pressed as much by Conservative education authorities and by those who called themselves independent education authorities, as by Labour authorities, to give them the wherewithal and the building facilities to get ahead with comprehensive education. In his place as a Minister I see on the Front Bench opposite the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who was the leader of the Conservative group in the constituency which I represented in Parliament. I am sure that he will remember that when the Conservatives were in power his Conservative education chairman came to me with a deputation to see whether we could give more resources so that comprehensive education could be speeded up in Leeds. I thought that we had a consensus of opinion. However, it all changed in 1970.
Your Lordships may ask why it changed in 1970. It changed in 1970 because Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was appointed Secretary of State for Education. She had scarcely been in the Department a few hours before she decided to withdraw Circular 1065 which the late Mr. Anthony Crossland had issued. That
1320
circular did not compel local education authorities to go comprehensive: it merely encouraged them to do so. However, as soon as she arrived there she scrapped that circular. Her reasoning was very simple—namely, that she (Mrs. Thatcher) had been educated in a grammar school and she (Mrs. Thatcher) had done well. Therefore we must preserve that system.
However, I was educated at a grammar school and so were many of my noble friends. I do not think that noble Lords on the Government Benches and Government Members in another place can teach us, on these Benches, anything about grammar schools, because we were educated in them. However, many on the Government side in both Houses have rarely seen the inside of a State grammar school because they were educated at other establishments—not comprehensives, but I admit they were run on comprehensive lines.
Grammar schools have done very good work in the past; but let us remember that on average only 20 per cent. of the children in our country went to grammar schools, and 80 per cent. went to secondary modern schools. In some areas the percentage was more pronounced than that. Those of us who went to grammar schools were the lucky 20 per cent. While the present Government wish to retain those advantages for 20 per cent. of the pupils of secondary age, we want to extend those advantages to all, including the 80 per cent., and that is what the whole issue is about.
The whole aim of comprehensive schools is to make available to all the opportunities enjoyed by the few. Not every child is of equal ability, but we can give them equality of opportunity. Indeed, I think that the present comprehensive schools give a greater range of opportunity which was not available in the small grammar schools of the past. Let us not forget that, until comparatively recent times, the grammar schools catered for the average child as well as for the bright child, and it is only in recent years that fees were abolished in the old grammar schools. I remember that in the school that I attended we used to have a house-craft class which was mostly for paying pupils who could not attain the standard of those who had passed the "scholarship" as we called it at that time.

1321
We are now told that this Bill is about choice for local authorities. We have heard the argument that comprehensive education is right for some areas but not for others. That I just cannot understand. What is it that is so distinctive about a few areas in the country, which makes it right still to continue separation at the age of 11 while other areas do not? I can see why in some areas, for practical and geographical reasons, it is better to have a middle school rather than an 11-to-18 school. I can see why in some areas it is better to have 11-to-16 schools with sixth-form colleges, and I agree that these matters are best left for local solution. However, I simply cannot understand why it is better to have an 11-plus exam and segregation at the age of 11 in some areas and not in others.
It is said that it is a matter in which parents could have a say. I want parents to have a say in the education of their children. But very often the parents are asked the wrong question. They are asked: Which kind of school would you like your child to go to—a secondary modern school, a comprehensive school or a grammar school? When the parents are asked in that way I know that many will answer, a grammar school ". However, with the 11-plus the choice is not in the hands of the parents. The question ought to be: Do you as parents want a system where one in five children go to a grammar school and the remaining four out of five go to a secondary modern school? That is the question which should be asked.
I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, again speak about comprehensive schools running in the same areas as grammar schools. That is absolute nonsense. Apart from creaming off, surely it is wasteful of teachers and equipment, particularly at sixth-form level, to have two schools in the same area with sixth-forms, and with highly-qualified teachers. That is just a nonsense and always has been.
I now turn to the point about local choice. The Government say that the only reason they introduced the Bill is because they think that local authorities should choose what they do in their own areas. However, this comes very strange from a Government which very shortly
1322
will introduce a Bill to compel local councils to sell their houses, whether or not they want to and without consideration of their waiting lists. Of course, the Government will say that that is quite different.
But I agree that the whole question of ministerial powers and local authority powers in education needs examining. There are many actions which are taken by the Government which ought to be left to the local authorities. I have pored over maps—and I can see quite a few people here who used to be at the Department of Education and Science—of areas and towns which I have never visited in order to see whether or not it is right for a particular child to go to this school or to a school a mile down the road, because parents have the right to appeal to the Minister. I believe that this is a matter which should be left at local level. If we think that the local authority is not the body to deal with it, we should have some kind of local tribunal.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Simon from the Liberal Benches that some things must be decided on a national basis. He has instanced what I was about to instance; namely, the school-leaving age. We do not say to local authorities: "Please yourself, whether you have a school-leaving age of 14, 15 or 16 ". That is laid down nationally. I believe that selection at the age of 11 is such an important principle that it should be decided nationally. There are also the practical difficulties involved when people move house, moving from one area to another. Within this principle there is great scope for variety to suit the local area.
We shall be discussing the details of the Bill later in the week when we come to the Committee stage but, like my noble friend Lady David, I am a little unsure about the meaning of some of the subsections. They will cause confusion in the local area. It means that some of the schemes, which have already been agreed at local level, will be passed back again. I have before me a report from the Yorkshire Post dated Saturday, 23rd June, headed "Tory chief backs all-in go-ahead ". It reads:
"A Conservative council chief said yesterday that North Yorkshire should press ahead with its plans for comprehensive education at York—despite the Tory Government's moves to save grammar schools. Councillor John Clout, the leader of York City Council, said that local

1323
parents were opposed to the 11-plus and that the battle for all-in schools should not go back to square one".
There is a lot more, which I shall not read which is rather damning to the Conservative Government. But at the end it says:
"The county's assistant solicitor … said that the change of Government has made the original timetable impracticable.
Almost £1 million has been deleted from North Yorkshire's education building programme ….
He told a meeting of the Education Committee that the programme has been cut from £2·8 million to £1·9 million".
That would mean that York could not go ahead with comprehensive education in 1981, as they had planned.
In conclusion, I believe that although this Government have been in office only a matter of a few weeks, as usual they have acted before they have thought. The noble Baroness said, in introducing the Bill, that it was mooted in the Manifesto. So it was. But I am sure that when everybody voted in May, they did not vote with this principally in mind. I admit that in some areas they did. I believe that Tameside voted with this in mind. But what happened in Tameside? In Tameside there was a very good result indeed at the parliamentary election, but the Conservatives were thrown out at the local elections. So although this Bill was included in the Manifesto, it does not seem to have done much good in the borough of Tameside. This is more than a technical Bill. It is more than just local choice. I believe that this is a declaration by the Government that they do not really believe in comprehensive education and that they want to put back the clock.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young is speaking twice in this debate and, according to custom, she used her first speech to introduce the Bill which, I must say, I find rather more simple than some noble Lords opposite. However, of course, behind the Bill lies the question of the present state of comprehensive education, how we should judge it and what we should do about it. Therefore, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, with whom I have had many conversations and debates on education
1324
over many years, during a large part of which we certainly had the consensus which I regret so much is not present any more. I have never listened to the noble Baroness speaking on education without having great sympathy with what she said, and I have learned a good deal. I am bound to tell her that I think there is another side to the question whether comprehensive deserves to be—and this is where politics come in—100 per cent. It was not the Conservative Party who introduced the 100 per cent. principle into the reorganisation of our schools—it was not in the 1944 Act. The Labour Party, for reasons that appeared quite good to them, wanted this. That was the time when politics entered into this subject.
Comprehensive schools have been in existence for a long time—I should have thought enough time for us to make a fair and reasonable judgment of what their contribution has been. I think one ought to compare comprehensive schools today to oysters. Oysters when they are good are very good. They are unbeatable. But when oysters are bad, they are not only bad they are positively dangerous. That really is a fair description of the comprehensive schools today. Some of them are truly excellent—and I have visited a number myself—and some, and this is what we have to recognise, are doing worse by their children than any secondary schools we have ever known.
Several noble Lords: No!
Viscount ECCLES: I am sorry, but this is true. Of course the party opposite will not agree. It was said the other day in another place that the gap in standard between the best and the worst comprehensive schools was not a little, but much wider than the gap between grammar schools and secondary moderns. I have done my best to check that. Unfortunately, it is only too true. When the noble Baroness, Lady David, talks about a child moving from one area to another, and moving from a comprehensive school and then having to go to a secondary modern, I think with her experience she must know that there are many secondary moderns which are giving a far better education to their children than a good number of comprehensives.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? I certainly believe that there are some very good secondary modern schools, but I do not believe that there is nearly so much opportunity in a secondary modern as in a fully comprehensive school in the number of subjects you can do, such as languages, sciences, and crafts.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I am going to come to the range of subjects in comprehensive schools a little later in my speech. I should like to take your Lordships back to the beginning of comprehensive schools. When I went to the Ministry of Education in 1954 it was already clear that the tripartite system which was laid down in the 1944 Act was not going to be carried out. Fresh ideas about secondary education were needed. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, will remember, I welcome a substantial experiment in comprehensive schools. We hoped to get the best of both worlds, the educational and the social, by establishing comprehensives where the local people wanted them and where no grammar school had to be destroyed—schools that were large enough to contain within them a sixth form equivalent to that in a good grammar school. The whole range of ability and aptitude would be gathered under one roof, and the able children would have all the options available in a grammar school. The eleven-plus could be abolished with substantial advantages to children from all kinds of backgrounds.
I have to tell your Lordships that I was attracted to this comprehensive experiment, but from the beginning I asked my advisers this question: Do you think that the local authorities can find the head teachers and deputy heads with the exceptional capacity required to manage schools of 1,500 or more pupils? Will not the administration differ in kind as well as in degree from anything we have ever tried before? My advisers could not answer that question because no one had had enough experience of maintained schools of this size.
Nevertheless, with my blessing a number of local authorities set up comprehensive schools and some excellent head teachers were appointed. But, as your Lordships know, Kidbrookes and Dame Molly
1326
Greens do not grow on every bush. This was exactly what I had feared would happen. The nature of the experiment was such that it ought to have been explored step by step. But when the Labour Party got into power they, and the local authorities who wanted to go comprehensive, were in such a hurry that they brushed aside the problems of size.
Then fortune did not favour the comprehensive experiment, and this for two reasons. First, the number of young teachers coming out of the training colleges increased so fast that the age composition of the staffs in many schools was thrown out of balance. As a result, turnover in staff became disastrously rapid. I think I am right in saying that the rate of turn-over was very much greater in the new comprehensives than it was in either the grammar schools or the secondary moderns. Then, perhaps more serious still, during the period when the larger schools were being established—and I am thinking especially of those in inner cities—the moral fabric of our society was deteriorating. The statutory leaving age was going to be raised to 16; a number of children were resenting more and more their last year; they were more difficult to control; they got out of hand earlier; there were also racial problems, and problems of weak teaching and weak discipline.
No one on either side of this House, or of another place, anticipated the extent of these difficulties. They took us all by surprise. Unfortunately, inquiries into what was happening were resisted far too long. But the public got to know by direct experience, and the media, with their usual relish, reported the trouble spots. Then Mr. Callaghan became Prime Minister. He was impressed by the anxiety and fears of parents. He made that speech which we all remember.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way a moment? May I just ask the noble Viscount about the advice that was given to him by his advisers when he was Minister of State in the Department? Was it right advice?
Viscount ECCLES: I am sorry; did the noble Lord ask whether the advice was right?
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Yes. Was the advice right?
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, they could not give me advice on whether we could find the number of head teachers, but it turned out that my fears were justified. You cannot otherwise explain the enormous staff difficulties in many of the big comprehensives in the cities.
To return to Mr. Callaghan—and I say all credit to him—he started the debate on standards. I never thought that much would come out of that debate because there were a great many people not particularly interested in it. But that does not matter. What does matter is that the problems are still there, and they are difficult to solve. This Bill will do good in a few areas, but we must look beyond it and ask what should now be done to help the general run of comprehensives.
We must start from the facts. We now know that, apart from the shining exceptions, the majority of comprehensives pose this dilemma; either you have a school large enough to contain within it a grammar school sixth form, in which case the size, especially in big cities, makes that school unmanageable; or you have a school small enough to be manageable, in which case the sixth form cannot offer the options which children should have in their own interest and in the interests of the nation.
My amendments to the 1976 Act, which the Government rejected without reasoned argument, were based on the recognition of that dilemma. Section 1 of that Act abolished selection on grounds of ability, except for music, dancing and handicapped children. The result was inevitable. Grammar school sixth forms, which were going to be botched up with secondary moderns, were weakened, and in some cases very severely weakened, and parents saw their children deprived of the kind of education they wanted for them.
I am not talking without the book. A recent survey of the comprehensives in London shows how serious the consequences have been. Barely half the children in the London comprehensives can study to A-level French, mathematics or any technical subject. If noble Lords want the details, they were given in
1328
another place on Second Reading and I will not trouble the House with them now. It is no good the supporters of comprehensives saying that when children reach the sixth form they can attend classes in another comprehensive where the subject in which they are interested is being taught by graduate teachers. To study these subjects to A-level and beyond, almost every clever child needs graduate teaching all the way up his or her grammar school.
My amendments to the 1976 Act would have given local authorities discretion within the comprehensive system—I emphasise that; within the comprehensive system—to select on grounds of ability for a subject like mathematics, and possibly others, and that discretion was as necessary to children as it is in the interests of the nation, which so badly needs the skills founded on a subject like mathematics.
For a very long time we have had in this country two systems of education, the maintained and the fee-paying. In the '50s we hoped to raise the standards in the maintained schools to the level where parents would find it unnecessary on educational grounds to pay fees at an independent school. Of course, if they wanted a boarding school that was another matter. We succeeded in the primary schools but we failed in the secondary schools. The bridges which we tried to build between the two systems were neither broad enough nor strong enough, and now the Labour Party has destroyed the bridge offered by the direct grant schools, and the 1976 Act continued the process of division between the systems. I ventured to tell your Lordships at the time that that Act would inevitably lead to a boom in independent schools, and that is exactly what has happened.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Viscount said we had failed to bring the non-fee paying schools up to the level of the fee-paying schools, but that is a wide generalisation. It is certainly true in some cases but it is certainly not true in others. I have two grandchildren at a fee-paying school and two grandchildren at a comprehensive school. I also have some grandchildren whose parents cannot decide which to do because they do not

1329
think the fee-paying schools in their area are any good. The noble Viscount has oversimplified the matter very much.
Viscount ECCLES: I understand what the noble Lord is saying, my Lords, and of course one of the difficulties about a debate on education is that one can pick out a good school here and a bad school there of every variety. We tried very hard to raise, let us say, the chances of getting into a university—I must produce some sort of measure for one school against another—and it has been much improved, but we have never got it far enough. If we had, we should not have Oxford and Cambridge now, as a deliberate policy, giving places to children from comprehensive schools who have one less A level than those who come from independent schools. That is a most extraordinary thing to happen. I was saying that the 1976 Act was divisive, and the part played by education in creating divisions in our society has been enlarged and sharpened—and by whom? The answer is, by the Labour Party, which so often accuses us of perpetuating class division.
I come to the excellent suggestions of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. We must stop this political ping-pong with secondary education. When the Labour Party are in power, the 100 per cent. comprehensive principle is put on the Statute Book; I cannot think of anything more political than that. Then, when we are in power, variety in secondary schools is restored. It will not do. This instability is not fair to either children or teachers. Now we have a new Government and we have a Prime Minister who was Secretary of State for Education and Science, and, as we on this side know well, Mrs. Thatcher has a great interest in children and cares a great deal about education.
I wonder: could we start again? Could my party, because we are in power, take the initiative and invite the Labour and Liberal Parties to work out with us and with the Churches and local authorities a new Act of Parliament to overcome the very grave difficulties which now face our secondary schools, principally because the comprehensive experiment has been hurried at such a rate? That Act could
1330
also clear up some other sections in the 1944 Act which need revision. I believe that if we put the interests of the children first we could recapture the spirit of co-operation which animated my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and the late Lord Chuter-Ede.
I took part in that Act; I took part in every Committee stage in another place. My Lords, you would not recognise education today compared with what it was then, with everybody putting the interests of the children first. I do not believe there is any other way but a new Act based on a consensus by which we can restore stability and hope of constructive progress on behalf of the children, their parents and the teachers.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am enjoying this debate. I wish at the outset to comment on some of the previous speeches. I enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lady David and agreed with everything she said. I also enjoyed the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I disagreed with him on only one point, and that was when he said we could not be political on education. If education is going to be, has to be, a national matter, it cannot help but be political in a democratic society.
There is little left for me to say after the speech of my noble friend Lady Bacon. As for the remarks of the Viscount, Lord Eccles, I can only tell him that there are good schools of every kind. When my husband was alive we went round every kind of school and we found good and bad schools at every tier—public, secondary modern, comprehensiive, and so on. The whole of our education has to be upgraded, and our schools have to have more help and more finance.
My immediate reaction to this Bill is like that of my noble friend Lady David; namely, that it is unnecessary and harmful from beginning to end. Education is the last area to which we should cause unnecessary upheaval and difficulties with every change of Government. This can only damage the State sector of education at a time when it could be improved in many and various ways, and so give our children a better chance in life. The Conservatives always talk about choice;

1331
I wonder whether noble Lords have noticed that it is always said to be a matter of choice. Yet very often it is choice without chance for most of our children. All that this Education Bill does is help the private and direct grant schools, taking out for them insurance policies (so to speak) and even going so far as to propose the seduction of the clever children from comprehensive schools, stealing them for the private and direct grant systems. This is an absolute scandal.
This kind of action will sow the seeds of resentment among other less privileged parents and pupils in Britain. These measures will result in a generation full of bitterness and envy. After all, my Lords, the latest figures which I have read in Where, the education magazine for parents, show that by January 1978 comprehensive secondary schools in England and Wales were attended by 83 per cent. of our children. Today my noble friend Lady David said that 85 per cent. of our children were now in comprehensive education.
Why are the Tory Government now proposing to set it all back—back to the time of selection? How can anyone deny that this turning back of the clock and the disruption that will follow, for no good reason, is unnecessary? Other changes could be made. There are many changes and improvements that we could make in all our different types of schools. We could have better teacher training; that would go a long way towards improving our schools. There is also the scandal of the shortage of books. Here we are, an advanced Western country, with a shortage of books in our schools. It is unbelievable; it is a scandal. What about the wholesale sacking of teachers? The mind boggles over the number of teachers who are to lose their jobs because of this Bill. We could get rid of oversized classes, and get an advantage from the falling birthrate by having smaller classes.
The naked Tory philosophy of excellence for the few, with protection of élitism, can only breed class divisions. Perhaps this is the most dangerous situation in this scientific, technological age when it is necessary to educate as many of our children as we can. To babble about choice when, as I have said, there is no chance for under-privileged children is
1332
just hypocrisy. Educational standards cannot be raised by expenditure cuts. This is really an Alice in Wonderland situation. It is lunacy to say—and it has been said; I have read it—that educational standards can be raised by making expenditure cuts.
The General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, Mr. David Hart, said that his association regarded the local government expenditure cuts as,
"the most damaging attack on educational standards by any Government since the Second World War".
Mr. Hart has not only spoken; he has sent letters to the parents telling them just what the expenditure cuts will mean. Three cheers for Mr. David Hart! He has really done a marvellous job. This move of his is really an inspiration, because many parents do not know exactly the difference between all the schools. As I have said, thousands of teachers are to lose their jobs. How profligate can a Tory Government be?
When Mrs. Thatcher became the first woman Prime Minister in the West I could not help feeling pleased. But since then every move from her and her Cabinet has filled me with the gloomiest forebodings. I say this not only because she is so Right-wing, but also because her guru is Sir Keith Joseph—a fact which compounds my worst fears. Many Conservatives regard equality as a dirty word, and Sir Keith Joseph, during the election campaign, blamed what he called the egalitarianism of the Labour Government for all our troubles, all our economic difficulties and ills. Yet he must have noticed that the struggle for equality is going on all over the world, not only in Britain. So finally may I respectfully point out that equality is an eight letter word, not a four letter word as Sir Keith Joseph regards it.
5.38 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, when I came to your Lordships' House this morning in order to look at the Bill I intended to make a speech of very considerable length—and I might do so yet. My concern was that I believe that we have reached a point of time in relation to the education service when there are vital problems which must be faced and resolved. I do not believe that the Bill

1333
makes any contribution to their solution. Indeed, I think that it may well aggravate the difficulties. My real theme is, a plague on both your Houses. Unless, my Lords, you cease to make education the plaything of party politicians, there is no hope for the education service.
I go back 34 years, when I first became secretary to the Association of Education Committees, at the beginning of the operation of the 1944 Act. I believe profoundly in the principle to which the Bill gives expression; namely, the rightness of a local education authority determining how to organise its schools, believing—as I did then, and as I know now—in the principle of distribution of power in the education service. For the better part of 20 years that worked very successfully. As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, reminded us, there was a substantial period of time when there was no party political argument, when there was a consensus opinion, and when the local authorities had continuity and stability in the organisation of their schools. It is true that they varied in their approach.
I believe that period was the most successful in the development of the education service in the whole of the history of England: roughly, 1945 to the middle 1960s—1964–65. Indeed, our problems have arisen from our own success. The secondary modern schools which were established were so successful that they built up a substantial pressure for more places in grammar schools in order to do justice to the thousands of children in secondary modern schools who were successfully passing school certificate and subsequently O-level examinations. So the selection which had operated at the level of, roughtly, 15 per cent., one in six, moved to one in five, to 20 per cent., to one in four, to 25 per cent., and in some areas to one in three, to over 30 per cent. Nobody could defend selection at that level. This was the genuine division of the sheep and the goats.
Therefore, the pressure in support of comprehensive education greatly increased. That pressure started the conflict between the two major political parties. I remember it well—a colleague of mine moving, at a Conservative Conference in Scarborough, a resolution in support of the tripartite system; and
1334
then a resolution at the Labour Party Conference, within a matter of weeks, in support of the comprehensive system. The tragedy of this situation was that, from that point of time, for the next 10 years there was no continuity and no stability in our secondary schools system. Every change of party political control at local authority level meant a reorganisation. I recall one of my most distinguished colleagues retiring at the earliest possible date, having prepared five reorganisation schemes in nine years, none of which was really carried into effect.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, would my noble and very good friend allow me to interrupt him? I have been following him very well, and agreeing with most of what he said, but it is not true, except of a very few local authorities, that the situation changed when there was either a new Labour or Conservative local authority. As I said in my speech, in the period about which he is speaking there were many Conservative and Independent local authorities anxious to press ahead with comprehensive schools.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I do not dissent from that, but it is equally true that there were areas where every change of party political control, which very often happened every two years, meant a new scheme for the reorganisation of their secondary schools. Have a look at the record of Birmingham, and you will find the answer.
The effect was a simple one, my Lords. Education had become the plaything of party politicians. This was the reality. Consensus had ceased. I accept that in the 1976 Bill the Labour Party were making a genuine attempt to create national unity, in the sense of saying that there is a national pattern. But in fact we had failed to analyse the essential problems of the comprehensive school—problems to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred earlier. As I see them, there are really three. First of all, I think, long since, consensus opinion rejects the very large school, for the reasons which the noble Viscount gave. That being so, we must accept that it is neither educationally viable nor economically viable to maintain sixth-forms in comprehensive schools of reasonable size. I think that is now almost a matter of agreement. It raises

1335
the problem of the education and training of the 16 to 19 year-old groups, to which I hope to return in a few moments.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give way for one moment? Is he generalising when he makes that statement, or is he localising it?
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I am not quite sure I understand the noble Lord, but, then, he knows that I never have really understood him, even when he was my president. I am stating a simple fact: that the average size of a sixth form in a comprehensive school of reasonable size—and I go up as far as 1,000—is neither educationally viable nor economically viable. It requires a staffing ratio of probably about one to four or five if you are going to cover the necessary range of subjects, and that is a very expensive process. That being so, we must look at that as a problem.
But there are other problems, Again, interestingly enough, there is complete party political agreement on the fact that those who have limited ability require special arrangements for their education. There is no problem; there is complete party political agreement that those who are handicapped require special educational provision. There is even party political agreement that those who have special talents, if they happen to be in music and movement, require special educational treatment. But there is not agreement that, just as the bottom 2 or 3 per cent. in the range of ability need special educational provison, so do the top 2 or 3 per cent. in the range of ability. This is where the problem has lain. This is the cause of this Bill.
I gather we are going to have another Bill, probably in the autumn, offering national scholarships to try to meet this problem of the top 2 or 3 per cent. of ability. I think it is only fair to tell the Government in advance that I shall be even more opposed to that Bill than I am to this one. I am appalled at the idea of admitting publicly that the national system of education is incapable of educating our most able children. Nor would I expect the independent schools to find it acceptable, for the obvious reason that a change of Government could mean that
1336
the whole scheme would be scrapped and they could be left carrying the burden—a burden that they could not reasonably carry. But there is a further reason. I gather from the Secretary of State's recent statement that he hopes to have 90 independent schools that would co-operate. My Lords, if he can find 90 independent schools that are capable of fully stretching the top 2 per cent. of ability, he is a better man than I am. There may be nine but there certainly are not 90.
Therefore, surely we come back to a relatively simple proposition. On all sides of the House we have had expressions of the desire to find consensus opinion. The noble Viscount has said what I tried to write 10 years ago in a little book entitled Towards the New Education Act: that we had reached the point of time when we needed a new Act on which we could find agreement at national level, leaving local authorities to operate within a framework which was agreed. May I venture to suggest the fundamental provisions of such an Act? I do not think there is a problem in the primary stage. I think we must re-define secondary education as from 11 to 16. I think we must prescribe that, in general, it will be based on comprehensive organisation, but that it will be a duty of a local education authority to make special provision for the handicapped children and for the bottom 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. in the range ability. Equally, it will be a duty of a local education authority to provide for those who have special talents and for the top 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. in the range of ability.
I would then expect the Act to provide a new stage in the educational system—what I call the tertiary stage—from 16 to 19. For, let us face it, this is the biggest educational problem of the day. It is not a matter of sixth form education as we have known it in the past. We need a new conception of the education and training from 16 to 19; certainly, for some, full-time academic preparation for entry to university but, for others, full-time education in technical and commercial subjects leading to industry and commerce and, for others, sandwich courses leading to qualifications of a technical nature or craft courses to lead to qualifications of the City and Guilds.
The children that we are dealing with are going to spend most of their lives in

1337
the next century, not in this one. They have to be prepared to hold jobs in a highly technological society. This seems to me to require a new stage defined as the tertiary stage, with regulations peculiar to that age group, the 16 to 19-year-olds; and, frankly, in my judgment, provided in tertiary colleges which maintain the principle of the comprehensive school but which offer a full range of courses—and which would he not merely educationally advantageous but would be very much more economic. I have been to visit some of those which have already been established and, coming back to the noble Viscount's point, I believe that you can then compete at 18-plus for entry to university with the independent sector—
Viscount ECCLES: Which you cannot now.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I would agree. This seems to me to be not an unreasonable proposition. What am I asking? I am asking the present Government to accept the general principle of comprehensive education. I am asking the Opposition to accept the logic, the reasonableness, of providing specially for the top 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of ability, just as they provide for the bottom 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of ability. This is not an unreasonable thing to suggest. Let us not under-rate it! The special needs of the top 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. are no less difficult than those of the bottom 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., and are no less important to the welfare of the nation. Nor is this a new idea. Russia does it; China does it; almost every country that has had long enough experience of the comprehensive system has come to this conclusion.
My Lords, I am most grateful to you for bearing with me for so long. I would plead with the Government—not about this Bill; let it go through! It does not matter—to go away now and to do as the noble Viscount has suggested: get together at national level with the main political parties and find a compromise that all can accept in the interests of the children of this country and, in the long term, in the interests of the future of this nation.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I before the noble Lord sits down may I
1338
ask whether he would clarify a point? I agree with everything that he has said, but I do not understand why he refers to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, as being on his side. I am not against the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles; but I do not understand what he is saying about that.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, there were two points with which I found myself in full agreement with him. One was that there had been a period when he and I had occasion to work together when there was consensus opinion at national level, and this led to a very real success in the development of schools. There is another point that he made with which I would agree. He said that we had reached a stage where we desparately needed a new Education Act which could embody consensus of opinion.
5.55 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, it has been fascinating to listen to speeches by speakers of eminence in the educational world—the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. It has been fascinating to find that the final summary of the noble Viscount's speech was the constructive sentence: we should try to take party politics out of the question of education. Those of us who have devoted our lives in extra-mural work and in working in all types of education believe that our children should not be Aunt Sallies for political parties when they happen to be in power for a brief period of five years. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my own party in so far as in its period of power it tried to do all the constructive things that have just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I also want to pay tribute to the Butler Act. That was one of the monuments to the Conservative Party in the period of the war. We were offering our children all kinds of possibilities. I came into this Government in 1945 and we tried to implement the 1943 Act—
Baroness BACON: It was a Coalition.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, as my noble friend has said the Butler Act was from the Coalition.

1339
But I wish to take up the distortion of statistics which the noble Viscount fell for, although I do not want to delay the House. Professor Michael Rutter was quoted by my noble friend on the Front Bench and the research team for the Institute of Psychiatry monitored the development of 1,400 children in a six-mile tenement block development for 15,000 hours of work. They found that there was no doubt that it exploded the myth that schools do not matter and also the myth that comprehensive education was the Aunt Sally of the educational world. Further on, the Ministers of Education give in Answers the information that when looking at the Welwyn and Hatfield comprehensive system in the 1968 to 1975 period, it showed that the number of O-level passes increased under the comprehensive system by 95 per cent. against the increase of about 24 per cent. in similar age groups in other places. I could go by that; but if we start quoting things in support of our arguments on each side of the House, we know that this could become just a cheap political debate.
The fact is that there are balances and imbalances throughout the entire educational system. Those of us who deal with children—and this is much the most important thing about this Bill—must ask what this does to our children and to the child who is going to work with the silicon chip in the next century. What does this Bill do? Does it increase unemployment among the teaching profession when 50,000 are now looking for jobs? Why ruminate about the lack of fully-qualified people to teach mathematics when there has not been the encouragement and the opportunity for mathematicians to get the education that some of them desire? I have had plenty of experience of that. I lived with a mathematician for a long time.
I want to take another point. The sixth form college found the answer to the comprehensive school. Nobody was expecting to find in the comprehensive system a sixth form at each school. But, as in Stoke-on-Trent, for instance, we established the sixth form college for the 16 to 18-year-olds; and that system has proved to be most popular. In 1965, the concept of the sixth form college was a new and untried concept. Circular 10/65 stated that only a limited number of I experiments would be sanctioned. Now,
1340
however, sixth form colleges are a well-known and established feature of the comprehensive system. Let me leave it at that, my Lords.
Is it the intention of this Conservative Government to destroy the sixth form colleges with a comprehensive system? Are they going to destroy the scores of sixth form colleges that now have masters and mistresses with the ability to teach the advanced subjects that lead on to higher levels of university education? If this is so, it is a Samsonian policy of manufacture: tearing down the temples altogether. Looking at this Bill, it is no good pretending that we are giving too much power to some people in local authorities and governors of schools. I come from a rural area and have lived in city areas. In some of the rural areas of Britain the governors are not appointed on any basis of true consensus at all; they are appointed by the party that is in power and often they show their prejudices in education. They cannot control their own kids but tell teachers with classes of 40 and 50 children how they should control them.
One of the disgraces of British education is the size of the modern class. We have been talking about it since the 1914 war. I think these matters ought to be looked at. Let us look at some of these myths, the myth of the golden age of our Empire, power and great education. If anybody wants to read a famous book about this he should read Metropolitan Man and find out that in the 1910s one in three people in London were laid out on a workhouse slab. That was the poverty of Great Imperial Britain. What about education? In the Boer War only one in three people could read, One in three of the troops was illiterate. In 1925 the British Army was so concerned with illiteracy that it produced a book to teach troops to read. The Ministry of Education published this official document. The educational system was rotten to the core. It was a system that believed the children and the ordinary people were there to obey their betters.
The 1939 War Office—and some of us had to help here—were confronted with illiteracy again. Almost one in five people were unable to write a simple letter. Their reading age was below 10. That

1341
was the British educational system when Germany was leaping ahead. Today, under this Bill, it seems we are harking back to that condition in society again. The spin-off of comprehensive education is something bigger than just literacy or numeracy. It has to do with art, science, languages and music, not the narrow thing: "Can you count to look after my engines?" "Can you read my instruction on a tachograph?"
The comprehensive educational system tried to build something spiritual and moral in our children. To do that they need the necessary buildings and smaller classes, which those who were lucky enough to get to Eton or Harrow had. I like the people who have had that kind of education telling us how we can run our ordinary classrooms in the old-fashioned councils. That system of education should—it is not quite possible—be available to almost all.
Our schooling system really is the scaffolding upon which we have to develop, construct and involve the abilities of our children for the benefit of society as a whole. A suggestion has come from the Opposition Benches and the Cross Benches that there ought to be a getting together to see that in the next 20 years or so we do not muck about with the educational system but spike down something that would be constructive for all. The foundation of a social, moral and intellectual step forward, we believe, was something in the Education Act 1976, which gave power to require local authorities and voluntary school governors of England and Wales, who had not already done so, to abolish selection at 11-plus.
Are the Conservatives in Britain asking for the 11-plus examination to come back again?—this terrible, soul destroying thing for our children. We have not heard about this. That is the wickedest way of all of dividing children who have different rates of development—trying to separate the sheep from the goats by some kind of examination. The statutory basis of our system was the 1944 Act. Before that, as I said, the only elementary education ended at the age of 14, except for the under-privileged.
When I was a lad in a Welsh school near mining and agriculture I could have passed a marvellous examination at 12
1342
years of age called the labour certificate. Do your Lordships know what would have happened to Harold Davies, as he then was? If I had passed this marvellous examination I would be a man: I could wear a belt; I could wear what we call "Yorks" and work on the coal face. I could go behind the old man shovelling up the muck, because at 12 I had proved myself so clever that I need not stay in school until I was 14—one of the wickedest pieces of selection in the history of Britain. Is there any noble Lord here who knew of that? That was one of our systems—the labour certificate—in some of our old schools. They wanted young labour, and in the mining and farming areas many a lad rued the day that he passed his 12-plus examination.
The legal basis for a system in which all children, regardless of their parents' social and financial status, would have access to schools and provide a variety of instruction as may be desirable is one of the great things that the Education Act of 1944 stood for. We really hoped that that would be our aim. It was Butler who introduced it, but it is a sad day today that it is his party that is now moving backwards in the field of education.
When the war was at its height, Britain was being scourged by Hitlerism. Every man, woman, boy and girl was appealed to, with promises of the great future after we had won the war. This week in my study I dug out a little pamphlet called Educational Reconstruction, Cmnd. Paper 6458, setting out promises to the children of Britain when we had won the war. There were going to be opportunities; schools were going to be opened. The children were going to be fed; they were going to be looked after; they would have the equipment. What happened to it? Now the school milk and school meals are being cut and there is a vicious Conservative scythe going through fields that should yield fruit so far as children are concerned. My Lords, look it up. It was that White Paper. I call it a glyptic. Do you know what a glyptic is?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: No.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I will tell you, my Lords: it is a carving on ivory or on a gem. That was a glyptic carved out of war-time euphoria and Tory

1343
promises. Those promises were in the Butler Act and it is left to this lady Prime Minister to destroy it.
It was old Cobbett in 1807 who denounced the proposed education schemes as indoctrination of the poor with the principles of submission. That is the trouble, once you teach a lad to read, you never know what he is going to read next. They started him on the Bible. That led of course to the broad-mindedness that William Cobbett wanted to see. But then we come to the Jeremiads:
"Education should not be left to the caprice or negligence of parents, to chance, or confined to the children of wealthy parents.
"It is a shame, a scandal to civilised society, that part only of the citizenry should be sent to colleges and universities to learn to cheat the rest of their liberties".
That was a wicked saying, said at one time by somebody who looked on education as a privilege, just to create an imbalance between the rich and the poor. Education, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equaliser of mankind and of all conditions of men. It is the balance-wheel of our social machinery and without it you get the "yobboism" that you see around the world today—the cheap music and the rather vicious forms of art that are pushed out on the television.
The question is: is all this going to be reversed by the right honourable lady who is Prime Minister? Are her henchmen to roam through the corridors of power like predatory Teutonic fifth-century tribes, ululating malicious hostility to works of constructive education that have been there before? There were ululations from a noble Lord opposite when I happened to interrupt the Minister today. I was interrupted by the noble Lord when the noble Baroness was courteous enough to give way. They get hot under the collar because they realise—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Let me finish the sentence—it is a compound, complex sentence. The trouble is that they are hiding their heads in shame. Look how empty the Benches are. They are really upset about this Bill the Prime Minister has brought in. The noble Viscount wants to interrupt me—with pleasure: now I will sit down.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I have enjoyed every minute of the noble Lord's speech, but I hope he will remember who it was who destroyed the grammar schools that have produced some of the greatest Labour and national leaders this country has ever had. I also hope he will remember that even under a Labour Government there was still a unit in the British Army where it was necessary to teach people to read and write. That was going on under a Labour Government: I am not sure whether it is still going on. So it is not all black and white. Surely grammar schools and comprehensives can go on together?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the noble Viscount is reiterating what I said at the beginning of my speech: you have to look at both sides. I was one of those who taught those who had to teach others to read. That was during the war when for a long time they were looking for people capable of explaining the alphabet to some noble officers—well, they ask for it! I do not like being interrupted but I enjoy it sometimes. After all these reports had come in to the House, we were told in 1964 in the Queen's Speech:
"My Ministers will enlarge educational opportunities".
I think it is time we stopped this shadow-boxing and got down to making Britain great again. I made a similar statement the other night when we were talking about children in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I would say to all sides of the House: it is time we stopped shadow-boxing about education and got down to giving that education, no matter how poor we may feel. It has been the custom of Welsh parents and the custom of the Scots, although we were a poor people, to struggle to give basically good education, university education; and I want to see that spirit imbued into the people of Britain again. We can never be great if we have a dowdy educational system. For God's sake! I would say to the Conservatives: stop this shooting down of some of the good things that have been done by the party that was in power before: let us get together and build an education system of which we can be proud. Let us scrap this Bill and get together on educating our children.
6.14 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, we have listened to some very remarkable speeches this afternoon, including the latest one by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I have listened with a very proper respect to a number of your Lordships who know a great deal more about this subject than I do, because you have been professionally or politically directly involved with secondary and other ranges of education. Therefore it behoves me, certainly at this stage of the debate when all, or nearly all, that could be said has been said, to be extremely brief. Indeed I shall be brief; but I have seen from a different perspective than has been put forward this afternoon quite enough of the ill effects of early segregation in the very sensitive period of a young person's life that is covered by secondary schooling to be quite certain where I stand in regard to this Bill. I am strongly opposed to it and it seems to me that I must say so.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that it is within the policy of the present Government and it is left to the discretion of local authorities to make the decision whether or not to retain or, where they have gone already, to restore, selective schooling after the age of eleven, and whether or not to reintroduce the procedures—with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I would call them the "discredited procedures "—for making selection to grammar schools or relegation to so-called modern schools at the tender age of 11, and making that selection not on the intrinsic merit or the quality of our young people but simply on the basis of an intelligence test. This is, of course, an open invitation to Conservative-controlled authorities to take yet another kick—we heard of "swiping the ping-pong ball" from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, "shadow-boxing" from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and I would call it "taking another kick "—at the political football of education and put the clock back on progress.
Your Lordships may doubt, on listening to some of what has been said today, whether there has been progress. I would be the first to admit that in regard to comprehensive education it as been halting and very imperfect progress, but it has been progress in a most necessary direction—that is, in bringing all children
1346
between 11 and 16 under the same roof, in the same complex and on the same campus, sharing a whole range of activities that they can share without needing to have a lower or higher IQ, rubbing shoulders with each other, totally regardless of the social status of their parents, maybe being streamed progressively according to their abilities and having—mention has been made of this this afternoon—where appropriate the outlet of sixth form colleges, which surely provide the answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, of the danger of making comprehensive schools too large.
Comprehensive schooling has made strides in blending and uniting the young generation. This Bill, in passing the buck to local authorities, will in my view accentuate the existing patchwork of greater or lesser opportunities in education, not only according to the area of the country in which children happen to be living but according to the political complexion of the local authority. That is wrong. I regard this Bill as socially retrogressive because, by relegating to a lower status those schools which will have once again, in those authorities who choose to put them there, the task of catering for lower academic attainment—and not only that, but for those children who are slower learners—it will widen the gaps in our society. It will do nothing to advance the notion of "one nation ", which incoming Prime Ministers are wont to declare as their aim when they arrive at the door of No. 10 Downing Street.
The best hope—in my view, the only hope—of uniting a community both racially and communally—and who of your Lordships who have followed the events in Northern Ireland would not agree that that is basic to the need there?—as well as socially, regardless of the status and influence of their parents, is to bring its future citizens together in a common place of learning at the secondary stage. This maxim applies especially to the question of fee-paying education, but that matter is outside the scope of this Bill So to the extent that the Bill, when and where enacted and acted upon, is adopted by local authorities, it will be a divisive influence in inducing a sense of rejection and failure among those children who are put into the secondary modern range of schools. It will do nothing to reduce, and may well do something to increase,

1347
the very serious problem of juvenile delinquency and I therefore consider it to be a socially dangerous step. My Lords, I intend to vote against the Bill.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hunt, with whose views about comprehensive schools I find find myself in complete agreement. This Education Bill reflects the determination of the Conservative Government to deprive thousands of young people of education beyond the age of 15 or 16. It is true, as has said in this House, and as has also been said by Dr. Boyson in another place, that if certain areas wish to retain their comprehensive schools they may do so. If certain areas wish to change to comprehensive education they may do so. But the main purpose of the Bill is to establish a selective system of education, in which the brightest children of secondary school age will be educated in grammar schools, while the rest will attend schools staffed and equipped for pupils who are assumed to lack academic ability, and who are not expected to remain at school beyond the age of 15 or 16.
This system of education is based on the assumption that an accurate assessment of the educational potential of young people can be made at the age of 11, and that a large proportion of pupils who fail the 11-plus examination are, and should be treated as, second-class junior citizens. Speaking both as a former WEA tutor and as the present chairman of the governors of a comprehensive school, I am convinced that this argument is fallacious and misleading. Among students I have known have been some who obtained a university honours degree in middle-age, having left school at the age of 14 or 15, and there have been many others who, had they been given the opportunities and encouragement in their school days, could have obtained professional qualifications.
As a school governor, I know that the examination achievements of young people depend no less upon the encouragement and help that they receive at home and at school, than upon their own innate ability. An examination at 11-plus, whose purpose is to cream off the brightest children from the rest, must inevitably
1348
have a depressing effect upon the 80 or 90 per cent. of the pupils who fail the test. In effect, adults are saying to these pupils: "You are second-class citizens, and as adults you will be expected to fulfil this role." Inevitably, this kind of approach to young people has an adverse effect upon their behaviour. Young people, no less than adults, require a purpose in life. If, for example, they believe that they have the ability to pass O-and A-level exams, and that it will pay them to do so, they will do the work required. If, on the other hand, they are given the impression that they will probably fail the exams, and that anyway they have little to gain from them, then they may play truant from school, or work off their discontent by anti-social behaviour or by more violent means.
May I say that, while I am wholly opposed to an educational system based on the assumption that at the age of 11 an accurate assessment can be made of the intellectual ability of young people and of their future contribution to society, I know that in every new intake of young people into a comprehensive school there may be one who is a budding Charlotte Bronte, or an Isaac Newton or a Henry Moore, and that it is in the interests of mankind that their talents should be recognised and developed. But the biographies of British geniuses do not suggest that they would have been frustrated had they been educated in a modern comprehensive school.
It is true that not all comprehensive schools can provide a full range of A-level subjects for their sixth form, and Dr. Rhodes Boyson referred recently in another place to inner London schools in which only half could provide tuition in A-level pure maths; and in only two-thirds of the schools could students take French at A-level. My experience of this field is that this problem, which I know does arise, can be partially, if not completely, solved by co-operation between two schools and I do not think it is one about which we need be greatly concerned. May I say, in conclusion, that I wholly agree with my noble friend Lady Bacon, that this is a most reactionary Bill and I find it difficult to believe that the Conservative Party can support it in this day and age.
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, there was a headmaster of a grammar

1349
school who was a pillar of the establishment in the part of the world where he taught. He was a member of the church, and I think he was even a member of the local golf club. He had only one failing as a good Christian, is that he had an intense hatred for the headmaster of the local secondary modern school which was just down the road. He had nothing good at all to say about that man. It happened that one day the head of the secondary modern school died. He had a chronic ulcer brought on by the difficulties of teaching the type of pupils that he had in his school, although the head of the grammar school was heard to remark, in a rather unchristian and uncharitable way, that he thought it might have been brought on by an excess of drinking beer in the local pub, and by certain relationships which he had had not only with young female members of his staff, but even—the headmaster of the grammar school said in an aside—with some of his older female pupils.
This caused the headmaster of the grammar school enormous pleasure. He thought: The rest of my life is going to be marvellous. I have got rid of my enemy."But two weeks later he died. He had a heart attack, while he was trying to explain to his governors why he had not had a single Oxbridge pass in three years at his centre of academic excellence. So he went up to Heaven and he was going up to the pearly gates when, suddenly, through the railings, who should he see but the headmaster of the secondary school. A look of horror came over his face, as he realised that for the rest of eternity he would have to share with his enemy. So he rang the bell and summoned St. Peter out. He asked St. Peter: "What is happening? What is that chap doing up here?". St. Peter replied, "Have you not heard? We have gone comprehensive up here!"
I have had two experiences of going comprehensive and all that it means, with the public meetings, the meetings with staff, with governors of the school and the discussions. The first was in the halcyon days of the old North Riding. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, nodding. It was one of those wonderful independent councils which could be spelled with both a big and a small "c". We went comprehensive some years ago,
1350
and I must refute suggestions made by the Party opposite that politics are brought in by the Conservative Party, because certainly there was no pressure on us either to go or not to go comprehensive. So we went, and I found it a most rewarding and pleasant experience going around to these meetings. Obviously, there were some objectors. Some people did not like the idea in principle. Some did not like the details. But, on the whole, they were willing to listen. They were reasonable and we achieved our object.
I was involved again after local government reorganisation in the new county of North Yorkshire, under the present legislation, and I was concerned with those parts of the county which were not reorganised on comprehensive lines. That was not a pleasant or a rewarding experience, especially in areas such as Ripon and Skipton where there was, and is, a huge majority in favour of retaining the existing system of secondary education. During this latter performance, I was never convinced that the comprehensive pattern of education was not the right one for all of those areas, and I still feel that the comprehensive education system should be adopted in this country. Equally, I was absolutely sure that to impose a system like this by force was utterly wrong. It is quite fair to go forward. One can reason, argue, coax and persuade. We should, by all means, try to persuade people to see the logic of the comprehensive idea, but we should not bully and force them into it when there is strong and overwhelming local feeling against it. Surely the local education authority, with their sound knowledge of local conditions, must be allowed to do what they think is best in their area and use their judgment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, made much of the fact that a leading Conservative councillor in York had said that he thought that York should go comprehensive. That is an absolutely excellent statement. Everybody has been saying this afternoon that we ought to keep education out of politics. It is excellent that a Conservative councillor has got up and said that he thinks that we in York ought to go comprehensive. In time, the schools which will not be reorganised may come to appreciate what they are missing. When they come round

1351
to what I believe to be this sensible point of view, then, with support from their local education authorities, they may amicably opt for comprehensive status. If, however, they are forced, against local public opinion, to go comprehensive, there will be continuing and an appalling atmosphere. I do not think it is very difficult to imagine that:, under the existing legislation, a school could be made to go comprehensive but that the head teacher, or the governors, or even the local education authority would make sure that it did not work. Surely it is much better to let them go comprehensive by themselves. That is why, despite the fact that I am very much in favour of the comprehensive principle, I support this Bill. I do not believe in force, and certainly I do not believe in the use of force in this context.
I have enjoyed very much several of the speeches which have been made this afternoon, although quite honestly, I found that one or two were irrelevant. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, referred to private and direct grant schools. I have read the Bill, but I cannot find any mention in it of private and direct grant schools. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has left the Chamber because I wished to tell him that I enjoyed listening to his speech. I always appreciate what he has to say. By all means let us have a new Education Act. That is a splendid idea, but it does not have a great deal of bearing on the subject which we have been discussing this afternoon. I enjoyed also listening to the speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. He is a splendid teacher. He has taught my daughter once or twice in your Lordships' guest room, and she has always enjoyed being taught by him.
This is a very simple Bill. It restores an option, a choice to local education authorities. I think that is where it should be put. Although I support comprehensive education, again I say that I also support wholeheartedly this Bill.
6.32 p.m.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, two former Conservative Prime Ministers have used the theme of "one nation". I take the view that this Bill is
1352
completely contrary to that Tory so-called philosophy. I believe that it is quite dogmatic and quite doctrinaire. In fact, the Bill is more dogmatic and more doctrinaire than anything which the Tory Party can frighten the British public with as to what the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party might be saying. However, we should not be too harsh on the Conservative Party because, at bottom, they do not understand education. In fact, the right honourable Mark Carlisle ought to be renamed "Secretary of State for Non-Education". Apart from what they are trying to do in this Bill, the number of cuts which are being made in educational services is, again, quite doctrinaire and quite dogmatic, but they are in line with Tory philosophy.
I say that the Tory Government do not understand education because we have the most Right-Wing public school Cabinet that we have ever had this century. I did not say that. Peregrine Worsthorne said that, and he is absolutely right. In this House we have three members of that Cabinet, all of them Old Etonians. And the majority of the Cabinet consists of public schoolboys who are mainly Old Etonians. How can we expect them to understand the problems of parents in ordinary areas—whether they are working-class areas in the worst parts of our inner cities or whether they are the people of Gravesend—when we are speaking about education and selection? But this is in line with Tory thinking in most policy areas.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is no longer in the Chamber because I wanted to say something about his point concerning what happened in our schools and in our society during the 1950s and the 1960s. I should have liked to remind the noble Viscount—and I hope that he will read Hansard—that this was the period when we had "never had it so good". This was the period, from 1951 to 1964, which saw the introduction of commercial television and the philosophy of not just standing on one's own two feet but treading on other people's. It is no good Conservative politicians harking back and saying that this is all part of the problem because, if they want to examine it, history will show, so far as that is concerned, that this was one of the worst periods in British history.

1353
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, spoke earlier about what will happen to industry and regional aid, but he did not tell us how many people will be unemployed. At a time when we in this country are facing the possibility of even more severe unemployment, we ought to be looking at the question of widening the educational horizons of our young people. We ought to be spending more money on education. One of the problems is that many of the children who are educated in our schools are pushed out into the world without jobs, and they are not capable of handling the problem. This means that they create further problems for society. We ought to be spending more, not less, on education.
I suppose that I ought to declare an interest. I have two children, both of whom are at comprehensive schools, by my choice. They are in the area known as Thames-side—not Tameside which has caused certain difficulties and which I hope will cause further difficulties for this Government who have spoken so inadequately about choice. However, in the Thames-side area, which embraces the area that I used to represent and which is my home at the present time, there has been intransigence on the part of the Kent Education Committee.
Tory spokesmen, particularly in the House of Commons, have said, "The people decided at the General Election that they wanted our policies and they have said that they want every policy", as though each policy they have picked up they have an absolute mandate for. I would suggest that in the period between 1964 and 1970 the people of Gravesend, Dartford, Rochester and Chatham gave the Labour Government a mandate for the introduction of comprehensive education in that area, but the Kent Education Committee, because of their intransigence, refused to accept that mandate. Since the mid-sixties, and during the recent period of Labour Government, the Kent Education Committee fought tooth and nail against the introduction in that area of fully comprehensive education.
Therefore, in Thames-side we have a botched up scheme. Children go to what are now known as high schools at the age
1354
of 11, and at the age of 13 they are selected, not by examination but by recommendation, either to stay on at the high school or to proceed to an upper school. The situation, therefore, is that in very many cases, children are wasted for two years, or their education is interrupted because there is possibly another process to be gone through of changing schools.
I never understand what the Conservative Party mean by "choice". What choice is given to the 75 per cent. of children who do not go on to the upper schools? When we speak about choice and the 11-plus examination, what choice do 75 per cent. of our children have who do not go to grammar schools, which take only 25 per cent. of the school population. They have the choice of the limited education, and yet we are continually being told that this is the people's choice. It is not at all.
However, to come back to the Thames-side system, where selection has been replaced and a quarter go on to the upper schools, the problems have become acute, and naturally the National Union of Teachers in my area are concerned about what is happening and feel that children in that area are being severely disadvantaged. In 1967 the scheme was introduced under pressure—and if we want to talk about choice, my noble friend Lady David mentioned Circular 10/65 which the late Anthony Crosland introduced in 1965. That gave choice because within what they were asking local authorities to do to change education there were something like six possible choices of a comprehensive system that could be adopted by the area. That was giving local authorities the opportunity to look at the education system.
I believe that in Gravesend particularly we have serious problems. But the three comprehensive schools in Gravesend, where we have the two-tier system with the 11 to 13, making virtually a three-tier system, the comprehensives are oversubscribed. People are queueing up to try to get into that part of the educational system in that area which has gone comprehensive. I believe that there will be serious difficulties educationally in the area if we do not phase out the present inadequate system.
It will be a period for this Government and for the people of this country where

1355
we are, with the Government's attitude towards education, towards social services and towards employment, in a worsening situation. But I think the worst of it all is what is happening in education, because that is where our future lies. We are talking continually about the new processes, the computerisation of our society, the micro-electronic systems with silicon chips; yet in fact with a Bill of this nature we are prepared to say that we are going backwards.
I am not convinced, as much as the Conservative Front Bench in this House, and no doubt in the other House, are saying, "Well of course, nobody wants to go back to selection at the age of 11. Nobody wants to go back to the 11-plus". I do not believe that. I believe that there will be some backwoodsman in Tory local authorities who will be anxious to go back to the 11-plus, to the selective system of education in this country. Otherwise, why provide for it? Why introduce a Bill of this nature at all; or, if you are introducing a Bill, why not frame it in such a way that selection at 11 could not be reintroduced?
I believe it is possible that we may get some authorities doing this and claiming, as the Conservatives claim at the present time, that they have an electoral mandate. I believe that, with our limited resources in so many ways the need for a better educational system, and the strengthening and encouragement of those local authorities, both Conservative and Labour, who have gone comprehensive, would be better served by the Government withdrawing this Bill.
6.44 p.m.
Viscount HAMPDEN: My Lords, having listened to most of the speeches this afternoon and, when not listening, reading that excellent book Who's Who, I have discovered that all the noble Lords who have spoken before me in the debate have a far wider and longer experience in education than I have, and it is therefore with some trepidation that I enter the debate at this stage. One point encourages me to do so, which is that I have had first-hand experience over the last two years of the effect of a rigid education policy, as put forward by the last Government, on a London school. For the last
1356
14 years I have been a governor of a south London school called Emanuel, and those of your Lordships who are not immediately lulled to sleep by the motion of a British Rail train will have seen the school just south of Clapham Junction railway station. For many years it has as a grammar school served the population of south London—Wandsworth, Putney, Battersea, Clapham—and, as one would expect, it is a grammar school with an excellent educational record, looking after poorer boys. It is also ranked as one of the top rowing schools. It has won many cups at regattas, culminating two years ago with the entire crew being selected to represent this country in the Junior World Olympics at Montreal, which I think is a fine achievement for a grammar school without the resources of a big public school.
Unfortunately, the Labour-dominated ILEA were determined that Emanuel, however successful, was not to be allowed to retain its independent status within the system. They put forward a number of plans for merging the school with other local neighbourhood schools, none of which was acceptable either to the governors, the parents or the staff. It is interesting to note that one of the leading opponents of any of the ILEA schemes was the senior master of the common room, himself an admitted socialist, who appeared and argued forcefully on television against the ILEA proposals. Some of your Lordships may have seen him. However, the governors are not anti-comprehensive school. Emanuel is part of the Westminster School Foundation, one of whose other schools is the City of Westminster School, not 400 yards from here, and the governors have agreed that that school should become comprehensive. There is no feeling against comprehensive schools, and that is why I slightly take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, who said that she opposed the idea that a comprehensive school was good in one area and bad in another. I think it is wrong to believe that there should be a universal formula for all areas.
However, when the plans of the ILEA came to no good it withdrew its support from the school and Emanuel is now an independent fee-paying school. It is flourishing and doing well, but it is not carrying out the policy for which it was founded, which was to look after poor

1357
boys. We are hoping for bursaries and, as chairman of the bursary appeals, I look into the applications for bursaries and see what sacrifices parents are making in South London in order to try to give their boys good education. We are hoping to be helped by the Government by means of the assisted places scheme, which I believe is coming on later. My Lords, all I hope is that this Bill will go through and that other schools will not be faced with the ordeal with which we were faced at Emanuel during the last two or three years.
6.48 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not had what might be called over-whelming support for her Bill. I suppose the last speaker, who declared himself to be in favour of comprehensive schools in general, came about as near as any speaker has been. We know that the noble Viscount has always been in favour of comprehensive schools and of making them better, and a severe but interesting critic of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, put forward some propositions for a new Bill and if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will accept the one he put to her, I will accept the one he put to me. What he suggested to her was that the Conservative Party must accept the comprehensive principle; what he suggested to me was that the Labour Party must accept that the top two or three talents should have special treatment. I would accept that on the ground that we could discuss at what stage. This has not been mentioned so far, but if it were done at 16 or 17, going to a separate sixth form school, my own view is that it would be perfectly all right. I think the noble Lady will find it difficult to accept what he asked of her but both he and the noble Viscount and three or four of the speakers on my own side of the House have said that we ought to take education out of politics.
It is perfectly clear that education ought not to be in politics, as a party political football, but when I am confronted with a Bill of this kind, which is Party political and only Party political, it is asking rather a lot of the last speaker on the Opposition side not to be mildly political.
1358
What has in fact happened is that all the speakers on my side really have said the same thing in rather different ways. We are all going to say the same because we all think the same, and I am going to say it too. I think it is so important that it should be said, that there should be a record of why people in the Labour Party believe what they do believe in this particular case, that I think your Lordship must forgive me if some of the things I say have been repeated, possibly in better words, by my colleagues behind me.
My Lords, we believe that there is only one way of achieving parental choice of any significance in schools, and that is by raising the standards of the maintained schools until they are all so good that no parent can grumble at sending her child to school B because school A is already full up. This is a point which, in a sense, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made, though he said we have not got there, and of course I know that. This being so, we have worked very gradually towards this end for 15 years, with occasional sporadic help from the Tory Party and much hindrance, and we have succeeded in providing comprehensive education for 83 per cent. of our children.
The schools are not all equally good; this, of course, we know. And we know that social conditions, which again the noble Viscount referred to, which need radical improvement, are an integral part of the problem. In fact, if I may criticise what the noble Viscount said in criticism of comprehensive schools, the criticism is of social conditions rather than of teaching ability, of social conditions rather than the provision of facilities, though some of the facilities are very bad. I have been to a comprehensive school in London which has an 80 per cent. immigrant population, which is booming and doing extremely well, having done very badly for about 7 years. This happens in all schools. You get something going wrong; you get a good man in who puts it right. There is no generality to be made from this. We are clear that the way to move towards making these schools equally good involves finally ending the argument which we have been talking about all the afternoon and using gradual and gentle persuasion, backed in the end by compulsion, to bring into the line the last 17 per cent. That was

1359
the purpose of the first section of the 1976 Act, which this Bill intends to repeal.
Why do we do this on this side? Why do we think like this? Compulsion is a most unattractive weapon. Is it really necessary to go so far? Well, we believe there is no other way, because the very existence of schools peopled through selection on grounds of ability undermines the possibility of improvement in the comprehensive or secondary school alongside. Every one of my colleagues has made this point. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, made the point that at a certain stage when the percentage became too big this was an inevitable conflict. It is not very difficult to understand, and, in my opinion there is not a single head of a comprehensive school who does not believe it to be true. If the noble Baroness knows any, I should be glad to write to them. If there are several schools in the same neighbourhood and the top 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of children are creamed off after an examination and sent to one, while the remaining 80 or 90 per cent. go to the others, it does not take much intelligence to understand that the academic results of the selected school will be better than the others, and that ambitious parents will urge their children to work especially hard to get in; worse, these children, so urged, who fail may be scarred for life by the disappointment and sense of failure. Yet at a later age some of them may turn out to be very much brighter than those who passed.
I do not think there are many people today who want to bring back selection at 11-plus. Certainly the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Belstead, with whom I argued for what seemed like several years over the 1976 Bill, which we turned into an Act, never suggested that this should be done. I do not think the noble Baroness would suggest this. I think it is possible that her Leader, the right honourable lady the Prime Minister, might suggest that it should be done. I think possibly the honourable gentleman the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary might think so. But their views are not echoed, I think, in ordinary Conservative thinking.
Most Tories assert that they are not in any way against comprehensive education. They agree that in good conditions it can be as good as the best grammar schools
1360
and that they certainly do not wish to re-introduce selection as a standard routine. This, I believe, is the general Conservative view. If I am wrong, the noble Baroness will correct me. In other words, implicitly, rather than explicitly, they admit that the continuance of some selective schools must have an adverse affect on the other non-selective schools in the area.
How is it that, believing, as most of them do, that comprehensive education is good and fair, they can deliberately take action to make it more difficult for it to succeed? The reason is due to almost complete confusion, based on the word "freedom". When I was young we used to laugh about the Tory use of the word "freedom"—freedom for both rich and poor to sleep on doorsteps, we used to say. This freedom is something like that. It is freedom for the 10 or 20 per cent. of parents whose children can do well in the exam to send them to the best school, while 80 per cent. have no freedom of choice at all except between schools which they know to be less good than they would be but for the grammar school round the corner.
The difficulty from our point of view in this whole argument is that some of the grammar schools were, and are, very good indeed, and it is always grievous to modify something which is in itself good. But in a very large number of cases this has been done willingly and successfully, and excellent and effective comprehensives have resulted.
The ugly truth is this. Any parent worth his salt will try to get the best for his child; that is human nature and in no way objectionable. It is a well-known fact that children from better educated homes learn faster, though they may not be more intelligent than children of less well educated parents. This means that there is a strong class interest in preserving the selective system, because in that way your child will get a better education even though everybody else's will get a worse one. It is quite legitimate that the parents should feel like this, but it is the job of Government to look after all its citizens and not to favour only the better educated. Yet that is exactly what this Bill is trying to do.
I have restated our case in rather a long-winded way, but it is important

1361
to put on record why we on this side regard this Bill with such repugnance. It is a ruthless attempt to back-pedal. I remember Evelyn Waugh once complaining that the Tory Government had not put the clock hack one minute. Well, he could not complain about this one.
The Government have not made the only excuse which could justify their action, which would be that they think the system of selection by ability to be fairer and better than the comprehensive system. They have not made this excuse—to their credit, be it said—because they know it is not true. No, they have settled for diminishing standards for 80 per cent. in favour of higher standards for 20 per cent. and this is entirely due to the fierce pressures from the middle class families concerned. It is no good saying that all the Bill does is to remove compulsion and let the thing evolve gradually.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and his colleague the honourable gentleman, Mr. Van Straubenzee, who spoke on Second Reading in the other place, are both convinced that the comprehensive system is right for now and right for the future. I wish their colleagues would listen to them. They do not; that is the trouble, I suppose they managed to vote for this Bill on the grounds that the system would gradually take over anywhere and there was no point in making too much fuss about it. But I think that it is much more serious than that. Although a very large number of children are being happily educated in comprehensive schools to the satisfaction of their Conservative parents and under the direction of Tory councils, yet there is a powerful and ruthless element of Tories who are totally anti-comprehensive and who want to start unpicking the careful structure which has been so painstakingly built up. The passing of the Bill will produce instability and uncertainty throughout the whole educational system.
To take such doctrinaire action, which must have a lowering effect on educational standards for the bulk of the children of this country, is bad enough. However, it is being done at a time when the Government are cutting the rate support grant by the huge figure which varies from £300 million announced by the Chancellor to £360 million announced by the right honourable gentleman Mr. Heseltine,
1362
plus another £460 million in the current year, which comes to about £800 million I do not know what the right figure is but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us; it is certainly not less than £300 million—and when one considers that 70 per cent. of the rate support grant goes to education the cuts cannot but be terrible. The headmasters, to whom my noble friend Lady Gaitskell referred earlier, have already made their protest and instructed their members to write to parents warning them what to expect: reduction in nursery schools, in art and music teaching, in sport; less of almost everything. The final cynicism is hardly credible—in spite of these cuts, the Government are allocating £50 million to £60 million of what is left to pay for places at fee-paying schools.
I suppose that we shall have an opportunity to discuss these cuts later on when the details are announced and I shall not develop them now. But to cut public expenditure, however much one may disagree with how it is done, is one thing. To contribute to the inevitable lowering of standards which such cuts cannot but impose by a doctrinaire measure like this Bill is even worse.
I must quote my last words on the Bill three years ago after long and heated debates. I said that two-thirds or three-quarters of the teaching staff in this country teach in comprehensive schools. I went on to say that nearly all of them are dedicated to the work that they are doing, think that they are doing it in the right way and want help to go on doing it. That Bill gave them some help. Its repeal will pull the carpet from under their feet. It is a retrograde step of the most disagreeable kind. Impotent though we are in this House we shall, nevertheless, muster a strong vote of bitter protest when we come to the Committee stage and I look forward to the support of my noble friends behind me in making that as difficult as we possibly can.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, whatever may be said about education, we have certainly had a variety of opinions expressed in the course of our debate this afternoon. A number of noble Lords have said and have asked whether we cannot take education out of politics. I

1363
am one of those who would, in fact, welcome that. I made the most moderate opening statements but, from what they have said, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, have decided to raise a spectre about this Bill. They have certainly frightened themselves and those sitting behind them and I do not know quite what effect they have had on us. But, as it is a spectre which is really of their own making, I do not think that we need take quite as seriously as they do all the statements that they have made.
For the truth of the matter, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, is that the Bill does not put the clock back. It is not intended to put us back anywhere at all except to what was allowable under the 1944 Education Act. Noble Lords need not take it from me or from my colleagues, but they should take it from a noble Lord who is regarded by everybody as an education expert; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. He may not have agreed with everything that I had to say, but he was the one who said that there had been a consensus in education until the late 1960s. That is true, and for most of the period when I was a member of a local education committee there was a consensus on education.
As regards the disagreement that has arisen, one of the major issues was the 1976 Act which, for the first time, forced local authorities into a certain form of education. All that this Bill will do is to put it back as it was previously.
I was deeply disappointed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had to say. After all, he, above all, must believe in selection of some sort or he would not, presumably, have picked such an excellent mountaineering team to go with him up Everest. But, whether or not he believes in selection, he must believe in selection at some point in people's lives. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, says that that is a silly statement. However, I understand from people who know about sporting activities that excellence is picked out very early. Often children in schools are selected at a very early stage to do well in sporting activities, and I do not regret it. I congratulate them for doing it. All I am saying is that we accept at various stages the principle of selection.
1364
However, it is said that this is a Bill that would put the clock back and divide society. What in fact we are suggesting is that local authorities, local people, should have the right to choose the sort of education that they want for their children, which is asking that local government should work as it has in the traditional sense. I was very interested in the important point that my noble friend Lord Swinton made about the authorities in which he is working and about which he is so knowledgeable. Of course, comprehensive schemes do work well. They work very well where people really believe in them and want to have them. However, they do not work so well when they are forced on people who do not want to have them. That is what the 1976 Act did.
Lord DONA LDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I should like to make a small intervention. Is that really true? Has the noble Baroness any evidence? It is certainly what one might expect, but I have never heard of a single case of a comprehensive which has rather unwillingly accepted a scheme and then works badly because of it. There may be such cases, but I have never heard of one.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I believe that the best comprehensives in this country—and I absolutely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said about the ones to which he referred—have worked very well because everybody has completely believed in them and has wanted to make them work well. I believe them to be good schools and I would not wish them to change. However, I do not think that that is the case with all comprehensive schools, and I think that if we are trying to force reluctant authorities to undergo these comprehensive schemes—
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot get away with this. She made a statement about a bad comprehensive system being forced on to people and then, when she is challenged by my noble friend, she does not answer the question. It really is unfair.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Gravesend, wants to take me up on a point he might at least get the facts right about what I was asked and what I replied because I do not think that he did so in the statement that he has just made. The point that I was making—and if he considers the matter I think that he will agree with me—is that if one wishes to have a successful enterprise of any sort one must have the willing co-operation of those who are to work in it. One will have a much better enterprise if those people are willing than if they are unwilling.
I believe that some of the authorities that do not wish to go comprehensive will not make the best of what they have if they are forced to do so. That is the point that I am making. If, at a later date, they wish to go comprehensive, there is nothing in the Bill to stop them doing so and they will do so willingly. And because, over a long period of time, this has been possible it has worked well and authorities have gone comprehensive as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said in his most thoughtful speech. In fact most authorities have gone comprehensive. Many have been Conservative controlled authorities and many, of course, have been Labour controlled authorities. However, they have gone comprehensive by their own choice and many of them are very successful indeed.
I would not want anyone to assume that I do not think that comprehensive schools can be successful. But there is a difference between areas. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, laughs, and says that I am just going to support comprehensive schools. But there is a great deal of difference between a country area which has no long-established grammar schools and inner cities which have had very distinguished grammar schools with excellent records, as my noble friend Lord Hampden pointed out; and which have done excellent service to the community which they have served and which, in fact, will be destroyed. We cannot say that what will take their place will equal what has gone. Therefore, the situation is different.
It is because we believe that there are differences—differences in history, in area
1366
and in the characters of schools—that we simply say that the local people should have the right to decide what it is they will do, and should not be forced. I was surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady David—who, after all, has herself had such a distinguished career in local government—should suggest that the Secretary of State for Education should take greater powers to tell local authorities what to do in education. I sometimes think that I should quite like to tell local authorities what to do.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I said that we wanted a framework of national policy, and that we needed a balance between central and local government.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Baroness say that because, of course, we want a balance between central and local government. Nobody is arguing that each local authority should decide at what age children should go to school or at what age they should leave school. But there is plenty of room for discussion of one of the points which the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have raised, which is the whole issue of the content of education. I hope that on our later Education Bill we shall have an opportunity to look at what I regard as one of the most important issues in education, which is the content. After all, it is what goes on in the school, not what sort of a school it is, that is the mos important question before us.
I have been asked a number of detailed questions, to which I should like to try to reply. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether local authorities can revoke under Clause 1(3), irrespective of the stage of preparation that has been reached in reorganisation. The answer is that they can. The point is that the stage has been reached under duress. The noble Baroness also asked whether Clause 1(3) enables a local education authority to unscramble an existing scheme. The answer to that is, no: the Bill relates only to proposals not yet implemented. Any change as to an existing scheme requires Section 13 notices, as, of course, is laid down.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, as a new scheme?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, yes. Any intention to alter an existing educational scheme would require the local authority to go through all the Section 13 procedures. The noble Baroness also asked the meaning of "managers" and "governors" in the Bill. In this sense the meaning of managers and governors of voluntary schools is made clear by Clause 1(2). Lastly, any proposal made under Section 13 for comprehensive reorganisation, or any proposal to reintroduce selection will be considered by the Secretary of State on educational grounds and the wise use of resources, the attitudes of both parents and teachers and the expressed views of local people. Full account will be taken of objections received. These arc, of course, exactly the criteria that have been used by Ministers ever since the Education Act 1944.
Briefly, I should also like to say a few words about a core curriculum. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State is at present considering a summary of replies received from local education authorities in response to Circular 14/77 in order to decide the most appropriate form of consultations—I would certainly expect these to involve local authorities, teachers and the Schools Council, as well as other bodies—before we consider exactly what proposals we would make in the light of the information that we have.
On the question of transfer arrangements, these have always been matters for local education authorities in consultation with the schools in the area. Local education authorities have many years of experience, and I do not accept that they are in need of central guidance on this point. A number of noble Lords raised the point of and the difficulties arising from falling school rolls. I accept that falling rolls present great problems and difficulties for local education authorities. The key is probably the size of the school which enables educational opportunities to be preserved without an unacceptable rise in the unit cost.
Local education authorities will reach different conclusions according to their particular circumstances. This may involve joining two or more schools or closing schools in order to preserve units
1368
of an educationally viable size; or local education authorities may decide to limit the admission of pupils so as to avoid a school being full and another one next to it nearly empty, for there is nothing more destructive to good education than a school dying on its feet. The noble Baroness may be glad to know that it is for this reason that the Government plan to include in the second Education Bill legislation to enable local authorities to operate admission limits. The details are yet to be worked out.
I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I do not believe that the Bill will do what noble Lords opposite have suggested. I believe that it gives us a chance to keep all those parts of the education system on which we all agree and which are good. It takes us back to a consensus situation in which it is possible to have these different types of educational systems running, one authority next to another. No authority will be made to change against its will, but if it so wishes, every authority is free to change. Having accepted that that is the principle of the Bill—no more, no less—I hope that we may look to an educational consensus in which we take note of the really important matters.
As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, it is true that people have been dissatisfied with the education system and it was for that reason that the great debate on education was opened. This is a serious matter. Education is far too serious for us not to get the very best for all our children. The real question which we should be debating is the content of education, leaving the local authorities to consider the form of organisation in which it should be carried out.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (PAY AND PENSIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

AIR NAVIGATION (NOISE CERTIFICATION) ORDER 1979
7.17 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak now to both the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1979, laid before the House on 20th June, and the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Second Amendment) Order 1979, laid before the House on 22nd May, subsequently moving the latter only formally. The third Motion standing in my name, dealing with Lloyds (General Business) Regulations 1979, is an entirely different matter to which I shall speak separately.
The first order is intended to replace the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1970, as amended. It carries forward most of the provisions of the old order, but widens the scope of aircraft noise certification. Rather than prepare a further amending order, it seemed preferable to begin again with an entirely new and comprehensive order. Noble Lords may recall that a very similar order was considered by this House during the last Parliament. However, that version was not approved in the other place before the recent election, and in the interval opportunity has been taken to amend Article 6(1) following the undertaking to review its provisions given at that time by the then Government.
The purpose of the 1970 order was to give effect in the United Kingdom to noise emission standards to which Members of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) had agreed in 1969. These standards applied initially to new types of heavier subsonic jet aeroplanes, but were later extended by ICAO to new production of older types of such jets; and effect was given in due course in the United Kingdom to this extension of the original ICAO standards.
Since the original ICAO standards were introduced here by the 1970 order, ICAO has adopted new and more stringent standards for new (post October 1977)
1370
types of heavier subsonic jet aeroplanes, and introduced other changes including standards for propeller driven aeroplanes. The United Kingdom now needs to give effect to all these new standards and to extend, following an earlier ICAO decision, the applicability of the original subsonic jet standards to smaller subsonic jet aeroplanes. It is these new standards which the draft order before us will bring into effect; at the same time the order will give effect to the requirements of the EEC draft Directive on Limitation of Noise Emission from subsonic Aircraft—which was given support in the other place on 19th June.
The ICAO standards are set at levels which have been shown to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable for the class of aeroplane to which they apply. The aviation industry in the United Kingdom has for some time known of these latest ICAO standards which were published in detail in July of last year, and of the United Kingdom's commitment to introduce them.
This order, like the 1970 order, is drafted very broadly to bring within its scope whole categories of aircraft, while at the same time making provision for exemptions by the Civil Aviation Authority after consultation with the Secretary of State. It is the order and the associated CAA exemptions document which together give the detailed and desired effect. It is proposed that exemptions should in general be given to categories of aeroplane for which there are no ICAO standards. But exemptions will not, in general, be given to non noise-certificated light propeller driven aeroplanes (other than home built aeroplanes) first entered on the United Kingdom register from 1st January 1980; nor to non-certificated subsonic jets on the United Kingdom register after 1st January 1986. These important steps are consistent with ICAO policy on restricting non-certificated sub-sonic jets and with the recommendations of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC); although, in some respects, the United Kingdom restrictions are more stringent than the minimum of the ECAC recommendations.
Aircraft noise constitutes a formidable problem around the United Kingdom, and indeed other, major airports, although noise certification standards already

1371
applied should ensure a continuing improvement in the noise climate around most airports throughout the next decade. However, the Government are well aware of, and understand, the feelings of people living near airports and are concerned to continue to seek further achievement in reduction of noise at source, by pressing ahead with improved standards. Introduction of these new standards demonstrates the importance attached to reducing aircraft noise, while at the same time recognising the legitimate rights of users, operators and manufacturers.
These new standards strike a balance between these conflicting interests; and they will contribute to a significant reduction in noise at most airports in the future. Noise certification has already contributed to a marked reduction in the noise climate around our airports, and at Heathrow about 34 per cent. of all movements are by the newer noise certificated jets, compared with about 28 per cent. one year ago, and 19 per cent, two years ago. I hope that the House will approve this order.
I come now to the second order, which also affects air transport, but there the similarity ends. It deals only with non-international carriage and changes only the way in which the limits of the carrier's liability are expressed. The provisions of the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague—which apply to the international carriage by air of persons, baggage and cargo—are given effect in this country by the Carriage by Air Act 1961. Article 4 of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 applies the provisions of Warsaw/Hague—with certain exceptions, adaptations and modifications—to non-international carriage and to the carriage of mail or postal packages. The 1967 order limits the carrier's liability in respect of the death of, or injury to, a passenger to the sum of 875,000 gold francs (3⅓ times as much as the limit in international carriage).
The amendment order would substitute 58,000 special drawing rights for this gold franc limit and make equivalent substitutions in the case of baggage and cargo. This amendment is desirable because, under the amended articles of the Inter-
1372
national Monetary Fund, there is no longer an official link between sterling and gold. Two protocols to the Warsaw Convention, which were adopted at Montreal in 1975, substitute amounts in special drawing rights for amounts in gold francs; and the Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979 gives effect to Protocol No. 2. That change in our domestic law will be brought into force when Protocol No. 2 has been ratified by the 30 States needed to bring it into operation. There is, however, no need to wait until then before making a change in respect of non-international carriage.
The advantage in making a change now is that we can apply to non-international carriage the new procedure for converting into sterling the sum specified in the order. At present the sterling equivalent is specified by order and a new order is made from time to time as the value of sterling fluctuates. The current Sterling Equivalents Order was made in January 1978. A new order was made on 29th June and comes into effect on 1st August. By reference to the average value of sterling in May of this year, it specifies £35,860 as the equivalent of 875,000 francs. Under the amended Application of Provisions Order, the Treasury will certify the current value, using the IMF daily rate. This will ensure an accurate and up-to-date result in place of the out-of-date approximation used at present.
Your Lordships approved the first draft of the order when it was laid before the last Parliament, and I hope you will approve this one also. I now beg to move the first order standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June, be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne).
7.28 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House may I thank the noble Lord for explaining in detail the contents of these two orders. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to read in Hansard tomorrow the details of what the noble Lord said. I think noble Lords will have been particularly interested and pleased to hear that 34 per cent. of aircraft movements at Heathrow comply with the new orders.

1373
Obviously arrangements are in hand for the level of compliance to increase continually during the next few years. I am sure that those who reside near Heathrow airport will be pleased to know that in fact noise levels are likely to decrease in the future. With those remarks may I thank the noble Lord for explaining the orders.
7.29 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, with regard to the noise certification order it is not so much the Second Report of the Joint Committee in this Session which is of interest but rather the Fifteenth Report of the Joint Committee in the last Session, because at that time the order which came before the Joint Committee was merely an enabling order which only said that the Authority may issue a noise certificate even although the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements. It seemed to the Joint Committee that it was impossible to envisage circumstances in which the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements demanded of him, and yet the Authority would still be justified in withholding a certificate.
The Joint Committee expressed their disquiet about this. The Joint Committee, therefore, are gratified to find now that the order which comes before us is not merely enabling, it is mandatory. It says that if the application fulfils the requirements, the Authority shall issue a certificate. This seems the only just course to adopt and I am pleased that this change has been made between the last order and this one.
7.30 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for the helpful observations they made. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is right that a slight but none the less important change was effected between the last order in the last Parliament and this one. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the reduction in noise around airports. Under this regulation and the associated ones, non-noise certificated aircraft were not admitted on to the British register from 1st October last year, and will not be permitted to operate—I am referring to British registered aircraft—after 1st January 1986, so certainly there will be a
1374
steady improvement in the noise climate around our airports between now and then. I am obliged to both noble Lords for their helpful observations and I hope that your Lordships will now approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARRIAGE BY AIR ACTS (APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May, be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LLOYD'S (GENERAL BUSINESS) REGULATIONS 1979
7.32 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE rose to move, That the draft Regulations, laid before the House on 12th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I fear I cannot deal with this order quite so shortly as we have dealt with the last two. It is a very technical and important matter and affects a good many people, so I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I deal with it in rather more detail.
These regulations are the fourth in a series giving effect to the EEC non-life Directive, or, to give it its full title, the European Communities First Council Directive on the Co-ordination of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions Relating to the Taking-up and Pursuit of the Business of Direct Insurance other than Life Assurance. The Directive was adopted in July 1973. It dealt with general insurance business, not life assurance business, and introduced a large measure of harmonisation into the supervision of insurance by the Governments of Member States.
To set the present reulations in context, your Lordships may find it helpful to be reminded of the other regulations already made to implement the Directive. The

1375
first of these, the Insurance Companies (Classes of General Business) Regulations 1977, modified the Insurance Companies Act 1974 by introducing new classes of general insurance business in line with those contained in the Directive in place of the classification contained in Section 1 of the Act. Those regulations came into operation on 1st January 1978. The change they brought about was almost entirely technical, with no direct effect on the operations of existing companies or Lloyd's.
The Insurance Companies (Authorisation and Accounts: General Business) Regulations 1978, which came into operation on 31st July 1978, dealt with authorisation to carry on general business and with related matters. The Insurance Companies (Solvency: General Business) Regulations 1977, which I shall be referring to as "the solvency regulations", are the most relevant to today's business. They introduced modifications to the solvency requirements contained in the Insurance Companies Act 1974. They apply to insurance companies only. They do not apply to Lloyd's.
The solvency margin requirements in the Directive do, however, have to be applied to Lloyd's, and that is the purpose of the regulations we are considering today. They apply to the general business of Lloyd's as a whole the same solvency requirements as now apply to the general business of most insurance companies with their head office in the United Kingdom. In the extremely unlikely event of Lloyd's as a whole not meeting those requirements, the regulations also enable the Secretary of State to intervene in broadly the same way that he may in the affairs of an insurance company that does not meet these requirements. Your Lordships may find it helpful if I go through the regulations with some care, though Regulations 1 and 2 are conventional and I do not think call for any detailed explanation. If, however, noble Lords raise any points on them or on any other aspects of those regulations, I hope to be able to answer them when I reply.
Regulation 3 is the heart of the matter. It applies to Lloyd's requirements analogous to those imposed by the solvency regulations on British insurance companies. Before explaining the regulation, it may be helpful to your Lordships
1376
if I summarise the principal features of the solvency regulations as they apply to British insurance companies. The regulations require each British insurance company to maintain a margin of solvency, that is to say an excess of assets over liabilities, not less than the greater of two sums. The first sum is calculated from the company's recent world-wide premium income, the second from its recent worldwide claims payments. If a company fails to maintain this solvency margin, the Secretary of State must require it to submit for his approval a plan for the restoration of a sound financial position. If the company's position deteriorates further so that its solvency margin falls below one-third of the minimum I have referred to, the Secretary of State must require the company to submit for his approval a short-term financial scheme. If the company fails to submit an acceptable plan or scheme, the Secretary of State is entitled to exercise his powers of intervention in Sections 29 to 37 of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 in order to protect the position of policyholders. These powers include requiring the company to maintain assets in trust, to limit its premium income, to cease carrying on certain types of business, or—in extreme cases—to cease accepting business.
The Directive requires Lloyd's to maintain a solvency margin on the same basis as an insurance company. This is not entirely straightforward, since the insurance business at Lloyd's is conducted by individuals, each of whom must meet his liabilities from his personal assets. Although Lloyd's maintains central funds from which to meet the insurance liabilities of any member who defaults, it is not an insurer, and strictly has no need to meet the liabilities of defaulting members. We therefore had to decide which assets should be taken into account when calculating Lloyd's solvency margin. Our conclusion is that Lloyd's should be permitted to take account of the net personal assets of its individual members—that is, their real assets disregarding their insurance liabilities—and the net assets of Lloyd's itself. Its solvency margin comprises the difference between the total of these assets and the insurance liabilities of individual members; individual members are not required to maintain individual solvency margins, although the rules of Lloyd's require that

1377
they should have minimum personal fortunes and make deposits at Lloyd's.
Lloyd's will, let me emphasise, have no difficulty in meeting the solvency margin imposed by these regulations. Lloyd's net premium income in 1977 was £1,600 million. If this were adjusted in accordance with the arrangements in paragraph 2 of the schedule, Lloyd's notional gross income would have been of the order of £1,900 million and its required solvency margin about £150 million. Lloyd's have sent us figures which show that the Corporation and the members of Lloyd's held assets valued at over £700 million in addition to those required to meet their insurance liabilities. On this basis, it is clear that Lloyd's possessed a solvency margin almost five times greater than will be required under these regulations.
The second feature peculiar to Lloyd's is the basis of calculation of its premium income. Whereas the calculation for companies is based on gross premium income, the Directive and this regulation recognise that Lloyd's brokers deduct their commission before passing the premium to the underwriter. Lloyd's premium income is therefore generally given and indeed generally known only net of broker's commission. To restore comparability with the requirements for insurance companies, Lloyd's total net annual premium income is therefore for the purpose of the calculation of the solvency margin to be scaled up by a flat-rate percentage. This scaling-up factor is to be fixed by the Secretary of State, and will reflect the most recent data on commissions paid. This dispensation is provided for in the Directive and implemented in the schedule to these regulations.
I should now like to move on to Regulation 4. It is most unlikely that Lloyd's would ever fail to meet the solvency critiera, but the Directive requires that a supervisory authority should have the power to intervene if necessary. Regulation 4 therefore gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene in the affairs of Lloyd's as a whole if it should ever fail to meet the solvency requirements under these regulations or the obligations under Section 74 of the Insurance Companies Act 1974. Section 74 deals with the annual deposits by Lloyd's of a statement of all its business.
The intervention powers are prescribed in Part 2 of the Act. They have so far applied to insurance companies only. Within the framework of Sections 73 and 74 of the Act, Lloyd's has been essentially self-regulating. I must emphasise that we have no expectation of using these powers of intervention in relation to the members of Lloyd's together.
I have already taken up some time in introducing and explaining the regulations. They enable this unique British institution to be accommodated satisfactorily within a Community system of insurance supervision without diminishing in any way Lloyd's ability to continue to carry on business in its established way. The regulations have been accepted by the Committee of Lloyd's, and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 12th June, be approved—(Lord Trefgarne.)
7.41 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sure that the House will again be very grateful to the noble Lord—this time for explaining the draft regulations and for telling us about the new margins of solvency required at Lloyd's. Judging from the noble Lord's explanation, the proposed solvency margins seem to be very reasonable indeed. I feel that the fact that as from 1st August Lloyd's has to comply with these regulations can only help to underwrite the worldwide reputation of Lloyd's as an institution. Furthermore, people who deal with Lloyd's will know that Lloyd's is having to comply with these new regulations and that will give them added faith in the institution. I believe that, particularly in view of reported large claims against Lloyd's in recent times, this proposal will be beneficial to the institution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HYPNOTISM BILL [Hi.]
7.43 p.m.
The EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have often heard it acclaimed that this House has, through its

1379
diverse membership, the capacity to field an expert on any subject, however complex, specialised, or obtuse. If I were asked to test that claim by a choice of any subject, I think that high on my list would be hypnotism. I am told that to learn to become a hypnotist in its very basic form can take as little as four minutes, but that apparently simple, single skill unlocks doors on the control of another person's mind which in itself unleashes ethical and medical arguments that have raged almost continually for the past 25 years.
Is it a skill, a science—as the medical profession claim—which in the wrong hands could inadvertently prove exceedingly dangerous and against which the public should have some form of protection, or is it a skill, as many lay hypnotists claim, that has never been proved, and will not be proved, dangerous to the public? That is an argument that is not new to either Parliament or the Government. Parliament faced a very similar argument in 1952 when it came down in favour of the medical world. I refer to the Hypnotism Act; and the principal purpose of this small Bill before your Lordships tonight is to extend a little the provisions of that Act.
Without wearying the House at this late hour, I should like to recall that hypnotism goes back a very long way in history. It was a subject which successfully baffled, intrigued, mystified, and confused generations as to its value or chicanery. If one looks back to the early records, one sees that ancient civilisations used it as a means of healing, usually in religious settings. But perhaps in medical terms it first came to prominence when Anton Mesmer, a leading Austrian physician of his day, began publicly to use it as a therapeutic aid in the mid-18th century. He was very swiftly denounced and ridiculed by his member profession, even to the point of hostility. But the development of hypnosis continued over the next 100 years through such names as Charcot, Bernheim, James Braid and, of course, Sigmund Freud. It developed, and through it emerged the growth of what is now modern psychotherapy.
I think it is true to say that in the last 30 years Britain has seen a substantial advancement in and acceptance of hypnotism in the medical world as a serious therapeutic aid to medicine. It has arisen partly, first, by a committee that was
1380
formed in the early 1950s by the British Medical Association to examine the value of medical use of hypnosis; secondly, by the Hypnotism Act 1952; and thirdly—and by no means least—by the formation by the Royal Society of Medicine of a branch society known as the British Society of Medical and Dental Hypnosis. It is this new society, which I think was formed two years ago, which not only set the seal of approval for the medical use of hypnosis, but also encourages wider training of hypnosis in medical schools; and I am told that currently about 150 doctors and dentists are being so trained each year.
One could say that in Britain today there are three categories of hypnotists. There is obviously the medical category in which doctors, dentists and psychiatrists use a wide applicaton of hypnosis—in birth delivery, in extraction of teeth, and even, I am told, in operations. But much more prevalent is the treatment of the common anxiety-related problems, such as hypertension, migraine and nervous asthma, and there is also the treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts.
Then there are those who use hypnosis and are known as lay hypnotherapists, and sometimes they advertise, to the annoyance of the Law Society, as medical hypnotherapists. But they have no medical background, no society, no code of conduct; nor have they passed an examination. However, they advertise their service which deals with anti-smoking and slimming, as well as drug addiction and other anxiety-related problems. I am told that there are about 1,500 lay hypnotherapists operating in Britain, and that there are being set up what are known as suggestive relaxation conditioning centres—which is a rather long phrase for hypnotism—which claim that 60 per cent. of their cases are successful.
Many of these lay hypnotists are experienced people, even though they are not medically trained. They face a problem which is parallel with that which estate agents faced in Parliament last year, because anyone can call himself a lay hypnotherapist; and I was glad to see this week that there is likely to be formed a voluntary association of lay hypnotherapists, which could undoubtedly enhance the movement in the eyes of the public.

1381
Then there is the third, and much the smallest, group of hypnotists; namely, the stage hypnotists. I am told that there are about 15 active stage hypnotists in this country. Some of them have been practising for many years—25 or 30 years, I have heard—and clearly are very experienced. In one case of which I was told a stage hypnotist had handled a total of 100,000 people on the stage with no repercussions and no post-hypnotic problems. But here again, there is no code of conduct, no training is sought, and anyone from the very experienced to the totally inexperienced can apply to perform.
The Bill before your Lordships seeks principally to amend the 1952 Hypnotism Act. That Act was the first recognition by Parliament that the public should have some form of protection against stage performances in theatres, and that protection was in the form of a licensing procedure through the local authorities. The Act defined hypnosis on the stage as a process which produces induced sleep or trance in a person and increases the susceptibility of that person's mind to suggestion or direction. That is a precis of the wording of the 1952 Act. The Act further went on to include provisions for a licensing procedure for all theatres and places of public entertainment, and it imposed fines for a failure to obtain a licence. It banned those under 21 years of age from taking part as volunteers on the stage. This, of course, has now been reduced to 18 years of age. It gave power to the police to enter premises if they had reasonable cause to suspect the contravention of the Act; and it specifically exempted exhibitions for scientific and charitable purposes. It also exempted, I would say by default, the licensing of clubs.
My Lords, the principal purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to seek the inclusion of the licensing of club performances. It also contains other provisions concerning advertisements and the sale of records and tapes capable of producing hypnotism, to which I should like to refer briefly later. In trying to persuade my noble friend and the House of the very good case for this Bill, perhaps the most direct question one could ask rhetorically is: What is the scale of need for extending the licensing to clubs? The answer would, I believe, be twofold:
1382
first, that the majority of stage performances that are now carried out are in fact carried out in clubs and not in theatres; and, secondly, that the need remains the same as Parliament recognised in 1952. And why should the public be granted a degree of protection in theatres, but not the same protection in clubs? Is it not inconsistent?
The second question I should like to pose, again rhetorically, is: What is the evidence in support of this need? The Bill is supported by all the major medical bodies in Britain—the Royal Society of Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association. It is a formidable list, and I hope that there has been some communication between these bodies and my noble friend's department to demonstrate what has occurred. If not, I would suggest to my noble friend that I should endeavour to obtain information, which almost certainly can describe each case only very generally, as obviously each case will be confidential.
My Lords, the basic worry as regards stage hypnosis as far as the medical world is concerned, as I understand it, is that the stage hypnotist has no prior knowledge of the medical history of the volunteer, and if that volunteer happens to be anxious by nature he could become more anxious, or if he is depressed he could become more depressed. So, in the view of the medical world, it is vital that the stage hypnotist should know and should have a prior knowledge of the medical history of volunteers. There is also worry that post-therapy is not often completed, and that an induced suggestive state is only half removed. Other evidence for the need, I think, could be obtained by reference to the Journal of Mental and Nervous Diseases, which is a medical record of these sort of cases.
There is, of course, a sizeable file of Press cuttings, some of which record the degrading spectacle of volunteers quacking like ducks after performances, and other, more serious cases, but on none of them would I rest my case tonight, through lack of verification. However, I should like to draw the attention of both the House and my noble friend to one case that was quoted in a letter read out by a

1383
Member of Parliament in another place in 1972. It described the case of a young girl who had volunteered to go on the stage and had subsequently suffered acute mental distress, and who, despite treatment, had not recovered even after three years. Perhaps that is the case which emphasises the support of the medical profession.
My Lords, I think it is fair to ask: How is the licensing procedure under the 1952 Act working? If there is a weakness in my case of support for the Bill tonight, or my argument, it would in fact be the current licensing procedure. This is something which I hope we could examine at the Committee stage of the Bill, if it is granted a Second Reading. It seems odd that theatres are licensed rather than the performer; and one has heard criticism that there is very little prior consultation between the licensing authority and the experts, checking up on the experience of the performer, or indeed discussing the matter with medical opinion. It seems that the licensing policy up and down the country is patchy and fragmented, and in certain areas, like the GLC, they simply have a "No" policy, whoever the stage performer is, whatever the conditions and however great the demand. I hope we can examine that at the Committee stage.
Clause 2 of the Bill includes a prohibition on advertising except where authorised exhibitions have been licensed. It also seeks to prohibit the sale of records inducing hypnotism. This clause was originally drafted because it seemed somewhat offensive to witness advertisements guaranteeing the cure of smoking addiction, and slimming, when it was known that the hypnotist had had very little experience. It has been pointed out to me that Clause 2 as drafted would inadvertently limit established lay hypnotherapists from conducting their business. As this was not the intention, perhaps I could advise the House at this stage that if the Bill reaches Committee I shall wish to examine this clause again to meet this worry.
My Lords, hypnotism is not a subject I would normally commend for introducing yet further legislation, but tonight I do so because this small, modest Bill seeks only to complete what Parliament saw fit to do 27 years ago. The Bill seeks, not
1384
to ban stage hypnotism, not to spoil an entertainment which to many is highly popular, not to take away the livelihoods of stage hypnotists, but simply to add a safeguard which the whole of responsible medical bodies support; and none of us who accept this strong medical advice would wish to wait for a tragic case to occur before introducing some form of control. My Lords, I commend this Bill, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
7.58 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have listened with very considerable interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said with regard to this Bill which he is introducing, because I want to say at the very outset that I hope the House will be able to persuade him to withdraw it. I think there are very grave reservations as to whether people should be allowed to act as hypnotists at public-gatherings. This is precisely what the 1952 Act permits them to do, and, if I may say so, I think the present Bill does little more, if anything, than extend to clubs the provisions of the Hypnotism Act 1952 and increase the maximum fine for those found guilty of an offence from £50 to £500. I would suggest, unless the noble Earl can advise me that I am wrong, that his present Bill does little apart from adding those two things to the 1952 Act.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, would it help the noble Lord if I were to answer that point now? In fact, the Bill goes a long way towards controlling stage hypnotism. It does not seek to ban—which I understand is what the noble Lord would like to see happen, not only in clubs but also in the theatre—which is something that I would not support; but at the moment stage hypnotism acts almost always take place in clubs. It is this form of control that this Bill is seeking to provide for.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. As I understand it, the 1952 Act controls demonstrations of hypnotism at places licensed for public entertainment. Where the local authority has the power to grant

1385
licences for the regulation of public dancing singing, music and public entertainment, the 1952 Act included power to attach conditions regulating or prohibiting the exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism. So that the decision rests entirely with the local authorities. I am wondering how many local authorities since 1952 have refused to allow hypnotists to perform. I have not been able to find any such case, and therefore it means that it rests entirely with the local authority. And I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that the local authority is in a position to make a judgment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but I think the noble Lord said that he had found no local authority which had exercised its power to prohibit a stage performance of hypnotism. If he were to ask the GLC, he would find that they have a general rule—I do not remember its number; but I spoke with them yesterday—that, as a matter of policy, does not allow stage hypnotism in theatres, except for charity performances.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what I am getting at is that the onus is entirely on them; they can do so if they wish. While a local authority may decide that they will not allow a hypnotist to perform under certain circumstances and certain conditions, all over the country hypnotists do in fact give exhibitions. The noble Earl is going to include clubs, but from the fact that clubs are to be included, it does not necessarily follow that hypnotists will be prevented from giving performances. It only means that the hypnotist, whoever he is, must get authority from the local authority to put on his performance.
I was reading an article, which I am sure the noble Earl has seen, in yesterday's Guardian which drew attention to the fact that there are something like 150 commercial hypnotists. That article, went on to refer to one particular man:—
"… of usually impeccable self-control who wandered round his home town begging policemen: ' Help me! Somebody has stolen my belly button'."
They give other instances of where the police have had to get the hypnotist to come along to try to release persons from the particular control under which they had been placed.
1386
Hypnotism is like a good many things, like psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy, which are all right in the hands of people who know exactly what they are doing. The only people who know what they are doing are people who have been very carefully selected to do it and who have undergone skilled and expert training in the hands of those who are able to help them to become hypnotists. I know that the noble Earl has the best intentions and he wants to control this; but I am saying that we must do more than control it. We must make it impossible for people with no competence at all (other than the fact that they can hypnotise people) to do this unless they know exactly what they are doing.
One of the real problems that I want to mention is this. I have no medical competence at all or qualifications; but I believe it is medically desirable that any would-be hypnotist should have a fairly accurate and detailed knowledge of his subject's medical history. There is no doctor or consultant in this country who would dream of putting a person under hypnosis without knowing at least the medical facts of the individual. There can be depressives, psychotics and others with mental and psychiatric problems. I accept that they can be helped by hypnosis, but I think it highly dangerous that there should be on the Statute Book any Act which would enable an incompetent body like a local authority to exercise this kind of control. Perhaps I ought quickly to qualify that by saying that I mean "incompetent" in the sense that they are not in a position to judge whether people whom they have never seen, are never likely to see and who are likely to attend these performances, should be invited to place themselves under hypnosis. I think we ought to be careful to see that people who practice this kind of hypnotism have a fairly wide and accurate knowledge of their subject's medical record.
The noble Earl asked: "Is it a skill?" I do not know whether it is a skill or not. I know that certain people in the community can do it. What I say is that it can cause, does cause and has caused, considerable havoc in a large number of cases. I want to join with the noble Earl in trying to do something to control this situation. There are a number of what I believe are called "cowboys" in this particular field. They ought to be stopped.

1387
I am not in favour of the local authority having the power to say that a certain person, for the purposes of entertainment, should give a performance of hypnosis.
I should like to see the noble Earl withdraw this Bill. I wish that we could withdraw the 1952 Act as well, but we cannot do that. I should like to see him withdraw this Bill, in the hope that he could persuade his noble friend on the Front Bench that some sort of inquiry should be undertaken into the whole question of hypnotism. The noble Earl rightly pointed out that there is a fairly reliable, competent body made up of a number of medical concerns. I think that there ought to be some kind of inquiry as to whether hypnotism should be completely controlled in the same way as are some professions which are supplementary to medicine. They can be counted on one hand. Although there are a large number of other bodies who want to become professions supplementary to medicine, for various reasons (many of them good) they are not accepted. I think that we have reached the stage where this matter needs to be looked into.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to say that if asked to do so, he would see whether his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to set up a committee and it is not for me to suggest its composition—to inquire into this subject, in the hope that it can be done very quickly. I also hope that, meanwhile, the noble Earl will feel that perhaps this is not the right time to pursue the matter.
8.10 p.m.
Lord MILVERTON: My Lords, may I say that I heartily agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. From the angle of my church, the Church of England, I am sure we agree with what he has said: one is playing with something which could be dangerous fire as well as something which could be very good. What he said was very sound.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, may I add a brief word to what has been said by other noble Lords. I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I have listened carefully to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble
1388
Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I have a good deal of sympathy with the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who, as I understand it, thinks that hypnotism for entertainment purposes should be banned or at any rate very strictly controlled. I am inclined to think that he is right in saying that.
However, at the same time, I cannot see why in the meantime we cannot have this Bill, which is at least extending the degree of control beyond the present level and making control a little more effective than it now is. So I should be inclined to support the point of view of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, while supporting also the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I hope that in passing this Bill—if that is what happens—we would not be ending the matter but beginning it and going further if he would like to do so.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I also would venture to support the plea for restraint in this matter. To the best of my knowledge, hypnotism has a certain very narrow field of usefulness in certain carefully selected cases, provided that it is undertaken by a fully qualified medical man. Preferably, hypnotism as a means of therapy should be conducted in absolute privacy; the only exception one might allow for is where it is used as a demonstration for medical students to prove its efficacy or otherwise as a method of therapeutics. In America, hypnotism is very widely practised by skilled registered medical practitioners in a narrow field of child hypnotism, where one has a patient who is resistant to ordinary and orthodox treatment but is susceptible and is receptive to what one still regards as a relatively unorthodox form of therapy.
Here, one ought to proceed with the utmost caution. Hypnotism has a very limited field of usefulness; but to prostitute a recognised method of therapy by qualified medical men into a form of public entertainment ought, to my mind, to be anathema to any wise, sensible, thinking person. That is why I believe that here one ought to proceed with the utmost caution. I venture to reinforce the plea so strongly put forward by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell that this matter requires careful investigation. It needs further inquiry—even research—before

1389
any form of legislation is attempted, and I too support his plea that at this stage it would be wise to withdraw this Bill.
8.14 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I intervene at this point in the debate in order to explain the Government's attitude to the Bill and to give your Lordships an indication of those issues arising from the Bill which seem to call for particular attention. At this point, I think that it would be for your Lordships' benefit, to say that there are, as your Lordships may or may not be aware, two identical Bills before Parliament at the present time. In another place a Bill has been introduced in similar terms. The Bill before us now—if we were to proceed with it—would assume that there would be a parallel process going on—should it go on—in another place.
Before I go further, I should like to say in response to Lord Wells-Pestell's request to set up a committee that I shall naturally bear his remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but I can do no more than that and can give no assurance whatsoever at this stage as to whether a committee would or would not be set up as a result.
The Government can well understand the concern felt by those who use hypnotism as a therapeutic instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Segal, referred to this as a doctor, and your Lordships were particularly glad to have his advice in this matter. The consequences which may follow from its use in other ways by people who have not the same medical or other professional qualifications, and who are not bound by the same professional code are something which we should ponder upon.
It was this concern which led to the passing of the Hypnotism Act 1952 and, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said, the British Society of Medical and Dental Hypnotists has for some years been expressing the view that the system of control established by that Act needs to be strengthened. Whether a need for amending legislation has been established is a question on which the final decision rests with your Lordships and with Members in another place. In considering this question, we are bound to take account of the opinion held by those who are
1390
experts in this particular field. But we are in no way bound to follow the views of the experts or those who claim to be experts. Our duty is to exercise our judgment, and to bring to bear our own expertise as legislators, which includes an awareness that legislation is not necessarily the best remedy for all human ills.
I think that the first question which the House needs to consider is the scale of the problems which are said to arise from the present state of the law and which enactment of this Bill would solve. I am afraid that it is on this basic point that the Government find themselves at variance with the views put forward by my noble friend, Lord Kinnoull. The British Society of Medical and Dental Hypnotists has brought to the notice of successive Governments a number of reports of harm alleged to have resulted from particular performances in which hypnotism was used as a form of entertainment. We have carefully considered this material, but our conclusion is that these incidents are insufficient either in number or seriousness to justify a change in the present law. And I have also to tell your Lordships that there is no other information available to the Home Office, the Scottish Office or the Department of Health and Social Security which indicates that problems exist on a scale that justifies amending legislation.
There are two distinct areas in which the Bill now before the House seeks to extend the law. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull explained this in some detail. I hope in repeating the views of the Government simply to underline what has been stated already, if perhaps to give greater emphasis here or there. First, the Bill would amend the Hypnotism Act 1952 so as to strengthen the controls which the Act provides over the use of hypnosis in the field of entertainment. It is important to remember that the 1952 Act confined its attention to performances of hypnotism in places of public entertainment—that is to say, places to which the public are admitted whether on payment or otherwise. That Act accordingly built to a large extent on a system of licensing controls over public entertainment which were well established. What this Bill now seeks to do in Clause 1 and in the Schedule is to effect a significant extension of the

1391
scope of the Act of 1952 by bringing clubs of all kinds within the controls exercised under the Act either by local authorities or licensing justices. In particular, it would be made an offence to give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism by any living person in any club without permission of the controlling authority. In addition, the police would have a right of entry—and I stress this point—into clubs where there was reasonable cause to suspect a possible contravention of the Act.
I suggest that your Lordships should give very serious consideration to the question whether these additional powers are necessary. As I have already indicated, the Government's view is that the need for them has not been proved. Before we further extend the reach of the law, and the scope for control by public authorities, into an activity which involves no element of force or fraud so far as the Bill is concerned, we ought to require evidence of harm or abuse which is serious and widespread. Here, in parenthesis, I should say that any committee of inquiry would indeed investigate any evidence which could be adduced in this field. I welcome the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, should your Lordships think fit to support him in his proposal. It seems to me very significant that neither the police nor the local authorities, who are responsible for enforcing the existing law, appear to have received any substantial volume of complaints indicating that the law is defective.
At this point, I turn to what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said. He suggested that the law, if not defective, was insufficient in its scope. The view of chief officers of police and local authorities who have been approached by the Home Office on this matter is this: it is not necessarily so far assumed that a case has been made out. The conferment of additional powers will necessarily make demands upon their limited resources of finance and manpower, and I am sure that in reaching a decision about this Bill the House will think long and hard as to whether it is right to impose any further burden on the police or local authorities.
The second area in which the Bill would introduce new controls is in the publication of advertisements and in the issue of
1392
records relating to hypnotism. Clause 2 makes it an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to £500, to take part either in the publication of any advertisement relating to hypnotism or in respect of any person as a hypnotist or in the issue to the public of any record capable of inducing hypnotism. "Record" is defined in Clause 2(5) by reference to the Copyright Act 1926 as—and I quote:
"any disc, tape or other device in which sound is embodied".
I understand that what the sponsors of the Bill have in mind is not music of a kind which induces a drowsy or trancelike state, so much as records containing spoken words which purport to provide some sort of do-it-yourself hypnotism course. Again I would suggest to your Lordships that the evidence of abuse which has so far been presented is not strong enough to justify the extension of the criminal law. For our part, the Government have seen no evidence of any substantial dangers resulting from advertisements or from the sale of records capable of inducing hypnotism.
In concluding, I should like to make it clear that the Government's mind is in no way closed on this subject and that the responsible departments are willing to consider any fresh evidence advanced in support of a change in the law and to seek the views of the licensing authorities as to whether new controls are required. For the present, however, we are not satisfied that there is a need for further legislation to protect the public from the misuse of hypnotism, and I would advise your Lordships not to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether we can crystallise this. Is he saying that the Government are of the opinion that the problem is not so serious as to require additional legislation?—because, if so, then I think we support the noble Earl.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, from my last statement I hope it was clear—certainly we intended to make it clear—that the Government's mind is not closed on this. In other words, the Bill which is before your Lordships we believe to be unsatisfactory and insufficient in the

1393
areas to which it directs attention. We believe that a further examination of this subject, rather than legislation, is required at this present time.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to thank every speaker who has taken an interest in this short Second Reading debate. It is an example of a Private Member's Bill coming on very late. I should have insisted on my right to take it at an earlier stage, because it would have been fairer to the House in judging whether or not this Bill should receive a Second Reading.
It was very interesting to sec that those who did take part seemed to be arguing against me on opposite sides, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was right in saying that he is not on the same side as the Government. He wants to ban the subject and therefore thinks that the Bill is insufficient. What my noble friend is saying, with respect to him, is that there is insufficient evidence even to extend the present legislation.
I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the point that the British medical body—that is all the societies—regard this Bill as important because it will at least regulate where stage hypnotism acts are now being performed. I should like to make that clear, because I may not have explained that sufficiently clearly when I spoke earlier. At the present time, if we simply do nothing we shall be back at square one and all the performances can carry on in the clubs, with the inherent danger continuing, as the noble Lord recognises.
I hope the House will not find it disagreeable if I say that I am in favour of taking the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, which is that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and examined in Committee, because there are areas of the Bill which should be examined, particularly with regard to licensing. I think that some good could come out of that. If we let the subject drop, it will go back into the wastepaper basket and will not reappear for some years. I therefore beg to move that this Bill should receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIOXIN AND SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS: HAZARDS
8.29 p.m.
Lord HALE Lord HALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now reconsider their attitude to the increasing danger in the use and manufacture of synthetic chemicals with especial reference to dioxin. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It arises out of a Question which appeared a week or two ago on the Order Paper, when we were asking only about dioxin in its role as a pesticide. Your Lordships will see that the Question today has been widened quite considerably because the question of its role as a pesticide arose directly out of the recent and much publicised decision of the American Environmental Agency on this matter—as I understand it, in not banning its use but in view of the evidence obtained from Oregon in issuing an order which they call a "rebuttable presumption"—which means that anyone who has been brought under question or is using matter brought under question should reply within a limited period, saying that they were using every method of safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, could not have been more helpful or more courteous, and he at once handed me a copy of the report of the Pesticides Advisory Committee. That is an independent committee of experts that comes down from time to time to consider this matter, and I was tremendously impressed by its report. Once more, for the eighth time, it was summoned by the Minister to consider certain problems which have been raised and, as I understand it, it will shortly be reassembling to consider the full report of the American environmental agency and the evidence that has been produced. I would draw its attention to a rather strange article in the Guardian, which appeared after the Question was put down and two days before it was due to be answered.
It is not for me—it would not be appropriate or sensible—in 15 minutes to try to deal with the Pesticides Committee's report. As I said, it is an excellent report by an admirable committee. They have clearly taken each question seriously. They are some of the experts of whom one takes notice on occasions, though I much

1395
approved of what was said in a previous debate about the attention that one should pay to experts. They have put forward a series of propositions which are very impressive.
On the question of the Birmingham material, experiments have been conducted. Everybody knows of the whole tortuous history of dioxin. It is the most amazing substance and it produces the most conflicting results, in respect of which there are explosions when there appears to be no special cause for explosions, and in respect of which no simulated explosion can be produced when those investigating deliberately try to find the reasons and are prepared to take that risk. The committee point out that the use in this country has now been reduced from about 40 tons a year to a total of, I think, about three, of which only one is in forestry and two separate tons, roughly, are spread over herbicides and special activities. They point out that they themselves have reduced the dioxin content in forestry use—in this connection, they liken it to brushwood killers—which is now important for reasons which I may mention quite briefly.
They are dealing only with the impure dioxin which is produced virtually accidentally, but with some regularity, in the process of manufacture of the brushwood killers, and they draw a distinction between that and the dioxin used in Vietnam or at Seveso. This is difficult to do because, according to the experts, there are 60 different kinds of dioxin—on the basis of Professor Kekule's elaborate system of monkeys performing acrobatics while he was travelling on a bus from Clapham to Islington, or possibly from Islington to Clapham. This wonderful and fanciful system names, and purports to name, something like 4 million chemicals, supplemented by his dream at Ghent when he saw snakes embracing one another in the most curious and suspicious attitude, which produced benzine rings. All this is rather reminiscent of recent books on the atom.
No one can hestiate to say that the committee do full justice to the extraordinary position of dioxin. They themselves refer to it as perhaps the most dangerous poison known. What they say is, "We have not only prescribed in
1396
these brushwood killers an absolutely minimum dose of impure dioxin, but after a time we reduced it by one-tenth to what is now just about the lowest angstrom unit "—I must not use the word "percentage", because I am talking in terms of one in 10 million or possibly one in 100 million, although one in 10 million is the present limit—" and we have reduced it to such a low point that when the Government chemist investigates pesticides there any many in which he detects no trace."That does not prove that there is no trace, but at least it proves that whatever trace there may be is well below the limit and is perfectly safe. This I have found in other of these complicated chemicals.
I have tried for the benefit of other persons who are with us not to go too far into polysyllabic chemical names, and I hope to continue to do so. So that it is an excellent and admirable report, and it is a credit to the British system. It shows that ample precautions are taken, so far as precautions are taken, and it says that you are safe, provided that the rules and regulations are all carried out. Indeed, possibly I would go further and say that so many precautions are taken that it would require somebody of great ability, or great lack of discretion or care, to do anything with these which is not a matter of customary practice.
It is strange that the article in the Guardian—to which I do not attribute, with respect to them, too much importance—was produced to show what happened in mid-Wales. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones is here, for I am not at my best when it comes to Welsh geography, or the Welsh language or pronunciation. There is a photograph of two distinguished local men making their way down a 45-yard shaft to find a series of drums and kilns, all of which are photographed and listed. Apparently they are relics of some of the operations carried on by the Forestry Commission in that area.
During the summer, the lady whose husband went down that shaft had a miscarriage. Her husband is a man of high repute and of considerable local knowledge. I sent that information to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and I think that he may have in mind the question of some further inquiry. As I say, I do not attribute any great gravity to the fact that

1397
a number of people are prepared to say that these tins contained noxious material and did not appear to have been cleaned. The tins had been left there in a damaged condition; they were somewhat noxious when they were approached and they were capable of giving alarm. What is serious about this matter is the local response. When these people went to their local officers and officials, they were told that the whole matter was being investigated by the Forestry Commission and that everything was perfectly all right—that of course no mistake of any kind could take place.
Where do we get to from there? We get to the point that we are importing what is described as the most dangerous poison in the world and that we are placing it in the hands of people who say, "We are not going to respond to public opinion" or, "We are not going to answer" or, "We are not going to reply" or, "We are not going to give any assurance that steps have been taken". What is more, we are told that this is an area where the public walk freely. Blackberries were growing in that area and people were eating the blackberries. Probably they did not come to any harm; I am not saying that they did. However, the Forestry Commission workers refused to consider the suggestion that a little notice should be exhibited indicating that spraying had taken place. Of course, all this may not be true. It is very ungenerous of me to say this. I say only that it is perhaps a fortuitous example of the fact that if one is dealing with such a poison—and what a poison!—one ought to take care.
I have already taken up a great deal of time on this matter. I said that I would turn to Vietnam, but it seems to me that Vietnam has been fully dealt with, in so far as it can be dealt with. It is no longer contested that much stronger poison was being used in Vietnam, that it was spread over a very considerable area of Vietnam and that it was on evidence that came forward as to the tetragenicity of dioxin that the U.S. people—including ex-President Nixon—resolved not to continue with its use. And its use was gradually diminished. I must say one word about the question of tetragenicity, which recalls thalidomide. All that we know about dioxin, which is uncontroverted, is that any number of experiments show that it is
1398
tetragenetic in animals and that it can produce results which involve the possibility of miscarriages, or the birth of monsters.
I was also going to say a word about the experiences at Bolsover. We are told that in the manufacture of dioxin there has been a series of 15 varied explosions. The first, in the United States of America, in 1949, at Monsanto, resulted in the incapacity of workers. The second was at BASF in Germany. There, a rather different explosion had similar results. Most of these incidents received little or no publicity and were suppressed. When the National Coal Board established a branch known as Coalite and Chemical Limited and when a four-storey modern factory was built near Bolsover, it was admirably provided with all possible equipment and with special cooling apparatus.
What often happens in the manufacture of 2,4,5 — T is an exothermic explosion. The normal operating temperature can go up safely to about 170 degrees, but if it passes beyond 200 degrees it can shoot up to about 400 degrees. At Bolsover they had a factory which complied with every possible condition and which made every provision which could be made. They carried on happily for three years, from 1965 until 1968. Then, at midnight on one occasion, there was an exothermic explosion. Indeed, Dr. May, who has recorded it in a wonderful and honest account, says that probably it was a double explosion. The exothermic explosion took place and the first major casualty was the superintending chemist—not because of poison—but because this explosion broke down walls and masonry and he was injured by the fall. A supplemental chemical explosion involving the heat of an overhead lamp applied to the fumes that were coming out, provided the rather special difference.
My Lords, I must proceed with very great speed indeed. The Coalite premises closed down for a time, it was carefully examined, workers were treated. The characteristic of dioxin is almost invariably chloracne, the siting of spots and sometimes of cysts which cover the body, not wholly dissimilar ill their appearance (except that they are much more unpleasant looking) to the ordinary appearance of the disease of pimples

1399
which trouble young men. Chloracne often responds to treatment but on other occasions it is almost impossible to treat and, if treatment does not succeed, it can be followed by some of the gravest diseases, resulting in death.
Although the actual four-storey factory building of Coalite was not greatly damaged, they removed much of the machinery and dumped it in a safe place 45 metres below ground. They continued very successfully in a new factory, although they discovered one extremely significant thing: when, having cured all the sufferers, they brought in people who had had no apparent contact at all with dioxin, those people began to suffer, and, as new people were brought in, it was decided that there was no process of decontamination which succeeded. Dr. May reports that, because of this, he got in touch with one of his customers in West Germany who had had the same trouble—that was the BASF explosion, from which, again, there had been fantastic results.
So I will come for a moment or two to Seveso in Milan, where Hoffman La Roche had a factory. Actually Hoffman have a subsidiary company in Switzerland known as Givaudan, which is a substantial company. Givaudan decided to establish a plant in the Icmesa company's rather old factory just north of Milan, in an area massed with people, where an open drain runs into the River Seveso, which passes through and under Milan and which floods most of Milan twice a year—an area through which an autostrada passes to the North, Sevesa being not far from the lovely country of the Lakes.
It was on 10th July 1976, which was a Saturday, at six o'clock in the morning an empty factory where the process of manufacture had been interrupted for the weekend, that, quite suddenly, a mass of gas or vapour came through the vent in the roof and began to make its way over one of the large overcrowded towns of the north of Italy. The noble Lord of course has the report, (which I understand has been translated) from the Government of Italy. All the medical evidence shows that the dioxin remains, that the risks have not been reduced and that Hoffman La Roche are now paying
1400
up to five million Swiss francs in temporary damages pending further litigation. A prosecution has been launched.
I will only say that this is a very grave matter. It is a matter which really must be looked at and, although in this country we have taken every precaution, this stuff is not necessary. It is a convenient method of destroying forests or brushwood or heather, but there are others. It is very nice to have something 20,000 times as strong as sodium cyanide but there are other preparations and therefore I venture to ask the noble Lord whether the Government will consider the documents that have been filed, whether he will make inquiries about the facts stated in the Guardian and whether he will bear in mind that the case for importing deadly poisons about which we still know little and the effects of which cannot be contained unless constantly watched is not made out. We do not do it and that may be the reply, but, so long as we are importing the product, we are taking, part in something in which a duty to the people should be paramount.
8.58 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I want to hold your Lordships' attention for a few minutes on a subject which is of very great importance; namely, the question of the production of chemicals. I know that to most people organic chemistry is extremely complicated and difficult. In fact, it is quite as easy as the Pools; I think that most people, if they put their minds to it, could win just as easily as they could on the Pools. Of course, I admit that normally one loses on the Pools; but, still, there is a chance of winning.
The point is that it is merely a matter of putting a certain number of things together. The only trouble is that one never knows what the answer is. If one takes this matter of dioxin, which is a very grave and serious matter, I have created a model here simply by taking a piece of paper and folding it roughly into a hexagonal shape. That is one of the basic shapes of organic chemistry. There is a material called trichlorophenol. "Tri" simply comes from the classics. as does "chloro" and "phenol". If we take a shape, such as I am illustrating, and put a chlorine atom at the first

1401
point, another at the second point and another at the third, and a hydroxin group here, we have trichlorophenol, which is a very good herbicide and is used regularly as a herbicide. The only trouble is this, that if you think of chlorine and hydroxina rather as two claws of a crab, and then you think of another crab coming up towards it, unfortunately the two crabs clamp together and they form dioxin. Dioxin is just like that; and whereas trichlorophenol is a very useful herbicide, dioxin is a very dangerous lethal substance. Unfortunately—and as a chemist I have to admit this—there is always one chance in a million, when you try to make that and two of them come together, that you get this highly lethal substance.
That is our real problem, that we always have a risk whenever we conduct any process in the chemical industry. It may be a very small risk, one chance in a million. And when we talk about risks, after all, the risks in nuclear energy are, on the whole, no greater than the risks which occur all the time in the chemical industry. People get themselves wildly excited about the possibility of nuclear energy creating something devastating. We are running the same risks every day of the week in every chemical industry of the country, and I speak as a chemist. It is really quite nonsensical to talk about what is going to happen unless we look carefully at all the possibilities. I think it is extremely important in every industry that we look with great care at all the possible risks that may exist. I think that is vital.
We should never have had any progress at all if we had taken no risks. Risk is part of the lot of humanity. Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward, and indeed we have got to remember that. We have to bear that in mind. That does not mean that we ignore risks. What it means is that we take every possible care to ensure that such risks are not going to be a deficit. In this case I think that it has been proved, as my noble friend Lord Hale has emphasised, that the dioxin risk is a very grave and serious one, and because of this it is essential that in everything we do in manufacture, of trichlorophenol for example, we take every precaution to minimise the risk.
1402
When I say "minimise" I do not mean that we make the risk disappear. There is no conceivable way of making any risk disappear. I think it is time that the country realised and humanity realised that we cannot conduct any sort of scientific work at all without risk. I have worked in laboratories all my life. I have had explosions in my own laboratory. I have done stupid things in my own laboratory. Many of the people working with me have done stupid things. What we are trying to do is to ensure that we minimise the risk and maximise the advantage of progress. Without that we shall get nowhere at all.
At the present time we ought to be very careful about our consideration of the whole attitude towards progress. Either we progress or we do not. I am absolutely convinced that a lot of the opposition to a great deal of what is done is based on the fact of ignorance, that people do not understand what the consequences are of not taking a risk. I think we have to be very careful about this. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to tell us the attitude of the Government on this. Of course, the Government are not omnipotent. I am not asking him to say that they are going to lay down absolute laws for this, that or the other. I am not so foolish, I hope, as to suggest that. What I would ask is this: Are we seriously going to look at all the processes that we carry out, whether they be chemical processes, whether they be nuclear processes or whatever they may be? And are we going to be certain that not only are we considering the technical process, but we are also taking very close account of all the human dangers that can arise?—and they can arise in all sorts of ways. I do not not want to say any more. I would merely like to leave that for the noble Lord to answer.
9.7 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for the very short course in chemistry which he has given us tonight. I was intrigued by his remarks. He made some rather reassuring remarks that I am sure my noble friend Lord Hale will not find readily acceptable. But I should say in all common fairness to my noble friend Lord Hale that nobody doubts in any

1403
way the deep sincerity and anxiety that he has on this and similar questions. I share his concern at the increasing use and availability to the general public of chemicals for pest control, herbicides and similar uses. Not all people read the small print on packages or sprays and by sheer ignorance or carelessness can cause damage to their own health and to others, in some cases even death.
In these matters we face a dilemma. In under-developed countries such chemicals expertly used can increase food production and eliminate disease. On the other hand, we can find the environment at home seriously affected by crop spraying and other uses of chemical preparations—for example, I understand that Europe's butterfly population is seriously threatened.
My noble friend's Question specifically refers to the control and use of dioxin which has no known commercial use, but it may be formed in trace quantities, as has already been explained, as an unwanted by-product during the manufacture of trichlorophenol. I understand that we do not manufacture that chemical in Britain. In fact, I answered a Question raised by my noble friend Lord Hale way back in 1977 on this issue. However, we do import what is needed into the United Kingdom for the manufacture of herbicides and antiseptics. As has been stated, our only factory was closed some time ago. That factory was, of course, at Bolsover.
The disaster at Seveso arose during manufacture, and my noble friend has outlined the terrible results. It is still a matter for international concern and still calls for action. Quite recently an explosion occurred in the United States in almost similar circumstances, with serious effects on health and environment. Other explosions have occurred in various parts of the world, happening mainly during manufacture.
No chemical product, however beneficial, should be put into manufacture or distribution until the most stringent safety precautions have been tested and proved beyond doubt, complete with the strictest possible international control. Such international control is not easy. Not all nations have the same standard of health
1404
and safety precautions and regulations as Britain has. Relaxing safety measures for an increased profit margin in this area is criminal, but it happens in some areas, let us face it.
Finally, in view of the increasing use of synthetic chemicals, to which I have already referred, I would strongly support my noble friend in asking the Government to reconsider the whole question, and I should like to put forward a suggestion. Incidentally, so far as possible I do not use chemicals in my garden. I prefer to use natural compost. I suggest that in the same way as warnings are put on cigarette packets—as I well know, as one who has not broken the habit—similar warnings could be placed on packages of chemicals which are openly displayed for use in the garden, in the countryside and elsewhere, because anyone can buy those chemicals.
We have now reached the stage when relying on people to read small print is not enough. At the manufacturing stage there must be the strictest possible control and rigorous checks on safety measures. I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that the chances of an explosion might be minimal in the general sense of the overall production. But I am not so much concerned with that as with the effect of chemicals now so commonly in use in spraying to get rid, for example, of the present greenfly menace. Some chemicals can cause people harm but others are completely harmless. The country needs guidance, and I hope that the Government will take note of what I have said about putting visible warnings on packages of chemicals so readily displayed in our shops.
9.14 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for an admirably brief speech. The House will also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for bringing to your Lordships' attention this particularly important subject which has given us the opportunity of a debate, even at this hour. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I extend my remarks in what will be quite a lengthy, but I hope not overlong, statement.
As the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, are so fresh in

1405
our minds, I think it would be for the benefit of the House if I were to reply, first, to his first and second inquiries about the labelling of packages because I believe that this is significant. I wish no discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, in so doing, but it would be valuable to mention this. The packages of chemicals imported into this country containing dioxin are marketed under the trade name of Silvapron T and Silvex. Each package has the words: "Safety Precaution" written on it, and in bold letters the words "Keep out of the reach of children". These may not be the only precautions suggested, and had I had the opportunity of further advance notice on this, I should have been only too happy to look into the subject for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. If he wishes to advance this problem further at this stage in the Session, I suggest that a Question for Written Answer may reveal the state of the law in regard to the labelling of these particular products.
I turn to the central issue of the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. As I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this opportunity to discuss the matter. I have listened with great interest both to his speech and to all the other interventions which have been made. Clearly, this is a subject of great public concern. I hope that this is a useful opportunity on which to put the Government's view.
The noble Lord, Lord Hale, in his Question mentions what he sees as an increasing danger posed by synthetic chemicals such as dioxin. Of course, in the compass of this short debate we could not deal in detail with the very large number of synthetic chemicals which number upwards of 50,000 different products which are now manufactured on a commercial scale in the developed world. But at the outset I ought to make a number of detailed points about dioxin simply as a matter of clarification and in view of the terms of the noble Lord's Question.
First, in using the term "dioxin", we must be clear that we are talking of one particular highly toxic chemical known to scientists as 2,3,7,8 - TCDD. This is the chemical which was released at Seveso, to which several noble Lords have referred, after an industrial explosion. There are other chemicals in the same
1406
group which are also known collectively as dioxins, but they are much less toxic and have not led to any concern. The dioxin about which we are talking is, however, a very toxic chemical indeed, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred to this.
Secondly, your Lordships are no doubt aware that this dioxin is not a chemical which has any known application for the benefit of man or animals. Indeed, it is not deliberately manufactured anywhere at all. However, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, dioxin comes into existence during the manufacture of another chemical used as an intermediate in the chemical industry. This chemical is properly known as 2,4,5 - trichlorophenol and the dioxin thus becomes a contaminant within it. In turn, the trichlorophenol becomes the raw material from which certain very useful products are manufactured, notably the pesticide, 2,4,5 - T, referred to earlier, and the antiseptic which is very well known, called hexachlorophane. If dioxin is present in this raw material, it enters into these products as a contaminant.
The third point of clarification is to make clear that trichlorophenol is not now manufactured in the United Kingdom. In other words, the process which results in the formation of dioxin as a contaminant does not take place here, and could not therefore be a source of risk to our people through explosion or other industrial accident. Up to 1976 the product was manufactured at Bolsover in Derbyshire; the noble Lord, Lord Hale, referred to Coalite Limited as the manufacturer. But in that year the company concerned voluntarily ceased to manufacture. I understand that, even before it was closed down, the manufacturing process included a number of special design features intended to avoid the possibility of an accident such as actually occurred at Seveso.
Thus—and this is my fourth point—the only risk that could arise from dioxin in the United Kingdom would be through its presence as a contaminant in a limited number of products available on the United Kingdom market. The Government control the use of all the products concerned antiseptics and similar products containing hexachlorophane are controlled

1407
under medicines and other legislation, and the pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. Under these arrangements, the dioxin contaminant is controlled at a very low level, and provisions exist to monitor the position and to ensure that these low levels are not exceeded. So long as this is the case, the products concerned are safe to use because not enough dioxin is present to cause any harm. This is an illustration of the well-known principle that "the dose makes the poison".
To sum up the points of detail I wish to make at the outset, the dioxin we are talking about is an unintended contaminant, at very low and controlled levels, in certain products on the United Kingdom market; but the process which gives rise to it does not now take place here.
Concerning 2,4,5 - T, concern about dioxin has risen principally from its presence as a contaminant in the pesticide 2,4,5 - T. This is a useful herbicide, with a main application in forestry, and it has been on the market in this country for over 20 years, though usage has been decreasing during that period. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, specifically referred to the declining usage of this particular product. It is very effective against nettles and woody weeds like brambles—and I think all gardeners will recognise the value of herbicides—and, because it is selective, it destroys weeds without harming nearby grassland. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate how useful a quality this is. As I have said, the herbicide is cleared under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme; and this clearance has been reviewed on no fewer than eight occasions.
There has in the recent past been increasing controversy about this herbicide, particularly in the light of the incident at Seveso and the use of the so-called "Agent Orange" by US forces in Vietnam. I hope that noble Lords see it as an advantage of the United Kingdom approach to these sensitive issues that we examine the scientific facts and do not—without hard evidence of risk—ban products which have attracted controversy. I hope that if the United Kingdom Government have taken a stand on a foundation of scientific fact it will not result in the charge of our being careless, or ignorant, of any risk to
1408
the health of our citizens from the use of 2,4,5 - T.
The scientific objectivity at which successive Governments have aimed is epitomised in the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which has only recently made public its report on 2, 4, 5,-T. This report, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, was published I think in March 1979 and is a document publicly available. It is one which has commended itself to a large number of outside bodies, and is in fact in the Library in your Lordships' House.
The committee which produced this document consists of an independent group of experts in the relevant scientific disciplines under the chairmanship of the well-known Professor Kilpatrick, Dean of Medicine at Leicester University. Over 20 years or more successive Administrations have looked to this committee for objective advice based on the highest of scientific standards. I am sure that in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hale, mentioned in his Starred Question a similar matter to which I replied earlier this month, and referred specially to this committee, it is a matter of public knowledge in your Lordships' House.
It would be foolhardy for any Government ever to abandon the terra firma of scientific fact and launch out into the uncertain sea of prejudice, half-truth and rumour, and I commend to the House the report of the Advisory Committee. After reviewing evidence from this country and abroad, the committee has concluded that the use of 2,4,5 - T can safely continue, even where it is contaminated with dioxin, so long as the level of the contamination is set at a low and controlled level. The committee gives specific attention to possible risks from the burning of weed treated with the herbicide, and concludes that there is no cause for anxiety from this quarter.
I think it would be useful at this point to quote from the report, because it is a valuable one. I wish to refer to the degradability factor which is contained in paragraph 13. I hope I shall not weary your Lordships by reading this extract and I do so because it is a matter of great public concern:
"Degradability: Although TCDD is relatively immobile within the soil, and under laboratory

1409
conditions has a half life of about a year, recent scientific work has demonstrated that, when a product containing it is sprayed on to leaf and soil surfaces, most or all of the TCDD disappears within 24 hours as a result of being broken down by light (26·5). It is also possible that some bacterial breakdown occurs (paragraph 26). TCDD was not detected in range land and rice fields exposed annually to 2,4, - T sprays".
The report goes on to say in paragraph 14:
"The Advisory Committee has evaluated the above evidence on the acute and chronic toxicity of TCDD, and whilst accepting that it is certainly one of the most toxic chemicals known, the Committee sees no reason to vary its judgment, first reached in 1970 and subsequently re-examined, that the use of brush killers containing 2,4,5 - T contaminated wtih TCDD can continue without risk, subject to the observance of a maximum allowable level of TCDD in the trichlorophenol used for its manufacture (see Annex C for information on the manufacture and formulation of 2,4,5 - T herbicides)".
I commend that document to your Lordships and to a very much wider public. It is a document to which Lord Hale referred, commented on and whose authors he complimented, recommending a much wider reading, and I feel that much good will be done by expanding our knowledge in this very difficult field. There is evidence that this useful report has been read by those who have earlier been concerned about this subject. Too often it is the scare story and the threat of disaster which is the stuff of headlines. I am glad to note that the thorough exposition of the scientific facts has not passed unremarked and that at least one newspaper has told its readers of these reassuring conclusions.
Since the committee's report was prepared, further material has become available from the United States purporting to show that there might be some link between the rate of miscarriages in women and the use of 2,4,5—T. As a consequence, the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington has banned most, but not all, uses of the pesticides. I believe it would be valuable at this point to mention a comment by the Department of Health of Wellington, New Zealand, on the conclusions reached in the United States. We are in a very international field here and nothing but good is served by publicity of what various national bodies reach as their conclusions. It is interesting to see what the New Zealand Department of Health says, in commenting upon the reports made in Oregon, in the
1410
United States of America, known as Alsea II.
These are the conclusions of the Department of Health in New Zealand:
"It is apparent from the foregoing that the report Alsea II is grossly inadequate from a number of points of view, although this critique does not claim to have dealt with them all. Because the authors of Alsea II have failed to consider and discount other more likely causes of the differences and correlations they obtained, it is felt that no weight whatsoever can be given to their conclusions".
Experts differ around the globe. Very prominent experts in the World Health Organisation have thought deeply about this subject and have published their comments. In turn their comments have been considered by many national bodies, with equally expert opinion, around the globe, and not all of them are of one mind. Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington has banned most, but not all, of these pesticides; and it is a view taken by one Government. The results of the review by the Advisory Committee will be available soon, and noble Lords may think it significant that the authorities referred to in New Zealand, and indeed in Australia (which I have not quoted in detail) have already said publicly that they do not regard the new material as providing a scientific basis for any further restriction on use.
Unless and until we in the United Kingdom receive further advice from the Advisory Committee, the Government will continue to accept their recommendation confirmed earlier this year that 2,4,5 - T can safely be used in the recommended way for the recommended purposes. We further take confidence from the fact that a number of other Governments, both in Europe and further afield, share our view and have continued to permit the use of this product.
I should like to refer to particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. He referred to a very important article which appeared in the Guardian on 18th June this year regarding tins in a mine shaft in Gwynedd. I can assure your Lordships that the preliminary investigation showed that the tins contained only rusty water and were otherwise empty. Further investigation has taken place to discover whether there was any particle of contaminant, and I am assured that this is the present stage that the investigations have reached.

1411
The noble Lord also referred to Dr. May's report on the explosion at Bolsover in 1976. I do not know whether the noble Lord wished the Government to comment on Dr. May's report. However, the noble Lord made very complimentary comments on the veracity of the whole report.
The noble Lord's final point concerned imported poisons. I have already, in my remarks in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to the products currently in use, and I suggested that we would look further into the question of the labelling of containers, whether imported or otherwise, should this be desired in any future Question, whether for written Answer or in the form of a starred Question.
Finally, I come to a question posed by a number of noble Lords; and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has left the Chamber. The question was: Are we going to look at human dangers? Naturally it is of acute public and prime concern to this Government, and indeed to any Government, that we should look at these dangers, and it is for that very purpose that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides was set up.

  HOME OFFICE BAIL CIRCULAR: MEDICAL RECOMMENDATION
  HOME OFFICE BAIL CIRCULAR: MEDICAL RECOMMENDATION
  PRISONS: VISITS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  PRISONS: VISITS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
  MOTOR CYCLISTS AND BLOOD GROUP DISPLAY
  MOTOR CYCLISTS AND BLOOD GROUP DISPLAY
  LEAD: DHSS WORKING PARTY REPORT
  LEAD: DHSS WORKING PARTY REPORT
  HOMOEOPATHY AND THE NHS
  HOMOEOPATHY AND THE NHS
  OGADEN AND UNHCR: REFUGEE PROGRAMMES
  OGADEN AND UNHCR: REFUGEE PROGRAMMES
  KIDNAPPERS AND PAYMENTS OF RANSOM
  KIDNAPPERS AND PAYMENTS OF RANSOM
  COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT
  COMPENSATION AGREEMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT