Sitting of 6 August 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that yesterday, together with other right hon. and hon. Members, I attended upon Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to deliver the House's message of congratulation on her eightieth birthday. I have received the following answer from Her Majesty, signed by her own hand:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for your messages of congratulations on my 80th birthday and I am deeply touched by the very kind sentiments that you have expressed.
Eight decades is certainly a considerable span. During this time a great deal of history has unfolded and in many ways our lives have been transformed. New discoveries, new inventions, new outlooks continually challenge the established order. But I am happy to feel that there is one constant factor: the good sense, loyalty and patriotism of the people of our land.
During the war The King and I, on our visits round the country, were sustained and inspired by the steadfastness, courage and compassion shown by our people. It is encouraging to find today that in our schools and universities and among the younger generation these same qualities live on.
I feel deeply grateful to have been given the opportunity to serve our beloved country in some small way and through the years, in peace and in war, I have been always helped and uplifted by the love of my family, the loyalty and understanding of our people, and by my faith in Almighty God.
Once again, may I thank you all from my heart for your very kind messages on my birthday.
ELIZABETH R"

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered Tomorrow.

  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the level of local services in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My right hon. Friend discussed with the convention on 20 June the need to bring the level of current expenditure in 1980–81 back to the level assumed in the rate support grant settlement, and gave notice of the need for further reductions in 1980–81. My right hon. Friend has also concluded that he must ask authorities to plan to reduce expenditure in 1981–82 to a level 2 per cent. below the volume assumed in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Under-Secretary accept that there will be a great deal of anxiety about the further reductions in public spending because of the rapidly mounting levels of unemployment? Would it not be sensible to take a more flexible view, given the damage that has been done because of the ever-increasing number of people who have been thrown out of work? Will the hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that there will not be new legislative powers to inhibit

    495
    the freedom of local authorities to increase the level of public services by the use of rates?
    Mr. Rifkind: The taking of further legislative powers will depend upon the attitude of local authorities towards a reasonable level of expenditure. If local authorities abide by the figures proposed for 1981–82, it will mean that they will spend more in real terms than they did in 1977–78. That must be taken into
    account.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that costly experience shows that there is little, if any, connection between the level of local services and manning levels? Does he agree that the appalling statistics of empire building announced yesterday by the Lothian region offer, not hope to the people of that region, but more misery for the wretched ratepayers?
    Mr. Rifkind: One realises that my hon. Friend is correct when one recollects that during the previous Labour Government manpower levels in local authorities in Scotland were reduced dramatically without any noticeable effect on the services to the Scottish public.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister take note of the fact that we are utterly opposed to any further cuts in local authority expenditure, whether direct, as announced today, or in the shabby, dishonest way in which the rate support grant has been manipulated by completely phoney and unrealistic cash limits?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has still to explain to the House and the country why dramatic cuts in local authority spending announced by him were acceptable, but those proposed by the present Government are unacceptable.

    Health Services (Expenditure)
    Dr. M. S. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from Lanarkshire health board a list of services which will have to be curtailed as a result of Government cuts.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): No, Sir.
    Dr. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Do I take it that there will be no cuts in the services provided, and that that will apply to ear,
    496
    nose and throat, gynaecology, midwifery, maternity and geriatric services, and all services which the Lanarkshire health board provides for the people of East Kilbride and the area? I take it that there will be no raffles or prize draws to pay for the salaries of nurses.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I have not, nor has my Department, had any request from Lanarkshire health board for, or any suggestion about, any cuts that it intends to make to the services for which it is responsible. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question concerns a different matter.

    Aid to Industry
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals and organisations have made representations to him concerning the payment of financial assistance to industry; and whether he is satisfied with the organisation of the present system of paying grants.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My right hon. Friend has had no representations concerning the payment of financial assistance under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that some confusion and uncertainty are caused by the fact that regional development grants are the responsibility of the Department of Industry, while other financial assistance is the responsibility of the Scottish Economic Planning Department? Will he have discussions with the Department of Industry to improve co-ordination?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am not sure that that is so. There may be some confusion in the minds of some hon. Members, but I think that industry in Scotland is fully acquainted with the position, in that the regional development grant office, which comes under the Department of Industry, as my hon. Friend suggests, is virtually next door to the industrial development office, which handles section 7 assistance.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that I have just received a letter

    497
    from a major employer in my constituency which suggests that the guidance that the Government are giving to the Scottish Development Agency will adversely affect that employer's planned expansion of a factory in my constituency, contrary to the agreements in principle that have been arrived at with the SDA? Will the Minister come clean about what is happening in inhibiting industrial development by the Government's policies?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am unaware of that case. The SDA is free to exercise its discretion on matters of this kind throughout Scotland. It is not being inhibited by the Scottish Office in this respect.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that a more positive way of the Government giving aid to industry is for Government Departments to place orders with Scottish firms? I have in mind one in particular, the Jetstream order. We should like to see a decision on that fairly soon.
    Mr. Fletcher: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Government are most anxious to encourage their own Departments and nationalised industries to buy British. In this respect, I hope that my hon. Friend's sentiments will soon become reality.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Minister recognise the value of incentives to industry in many parts of Scotland? What representations has he made to the Secretary of State for Industry about the withdrawal of development area status from many regions of Scotland, in particular the Lothians and the Borders?
    Mr. Fletcher: Representations about regional development policy are made direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who deals with them.

    Hampden Park
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Hampden Park Ltd. since his statement on the future of Hampden Park; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of Hampden Park Ltd. at the company's request on 7 July, following the announcement of the Government's decision to withdraw their financial support of the scheme to modernise the Hampden Park stadium. The company's representatives expressed their disappointment at this decision and requested that the Government should meet in full the expenditure which has been incurred on the project to date. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to give further consideration to this request on receipt of a detailed statement of the costs involved.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the financial commitments of that company are due almost entirely to the fact that two weeks before the withdrawal of his money he gave an assurance that the money would be forthcoming? Contracts were signed on that basis. Will he assure the House and the company that he will meet that debt in full? Is he aware that if he does not do so there could be severe financial hardship for one of the oldest football clubs in Britain?
    Mr. Fletcher: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's comment is incorrect. In the two weeks that elapsed certain liabilities may have been incurred, but they were nothing like the total amount that is now being questioned. We are sympathetic to the problem that has been raised for Queen's Park football club and to the requests that have been made for the Government to meet their share of the liabilities, but we require a detailed statement before any decision can be made. When that has been examined, the Government will meet their proper responsibilities.
    Mr. John MacKay: If Hampden Park Ltd. comes back to my hon. Friend rattling its begging bowl, will he consider sending it along to Ibrox Stadium, where Rangers football club has modernised that stadium without coming to the taxpayer with a begging bowl?
    Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the football authorities.

    Health Services (Expenditure)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from health boards about

    499
    the effect which strict adherence to their 1980–81 financial allocations will have on the level of National Health Service provision; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of cash limits on the National Health Service in Scotland.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: At their request, the Secretary of State and I met the chairmen of health boards on 25 July. They indicated that at least some boards would have to make savings in order to comply with the cash limits for this year. My right hon. Friend said that these limits could not be increased and accepted that in some areas savings would have to be made. We are satisfied that essential services to patients can be maintained and that there is scope for worthwhile savings that will not affect services to patients.
    Mr. Strang: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "essential services"? Do he and his right hon. Friend now accept, following that meeting, that the only way in which certain health boards can stay within these financial allocations is by seriously cutting the level of staffing in the Health Service in Scotland and by reducing sharply the level of health care in many areas of that Service?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I am satisfied that no responsible health board in Scotland will have to cut essential services. With regard to the meeting with Lothian MPs and our meeting with the health board chairmen, whilst I accept that in the share formula Lothian is second from the bottom, with only a 0–7 per cent. increase in real growth, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the health boards that are responsible for the increase in staff by the Lothian region of 3,520 in one year, or for an increase in rates of 40 per cent. The fact that the Lothian health board may be having to curtail recruitment might not be unconnected with the fact that Lothian regional council has taken on over 3,000 more employees.
    Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Scottish questions, but it seems to me to be an important point of principle that if a Minister is able to quote from a newspaper
    500
    when answering a question, a Member asking a supplementary question should be able to do the same.
    Mr. Speaker: The ruling has been given many times. Ministers are free to quote. The rest of the House is not free to do so.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the real level of spending on the Health Service in Scotland is not to be cut, will he now face the reality that no amount of phoney arithmetic can conceal the fact that there will be real and savage cuts in the level of Health Service provision in many areas, and particularly in the area of the Lothian health board? Will he now apologise to the House and to the people of Scotland for having sought to conceal that information from them?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I shall not apologise, because I have nothing for which to apologise.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Shame!
    Mr. Fairgrieve: It is not the Government's fault that Lothian region decided to raise its rates—
    Mr. Home Robertson: It is.
    Mr. Fairgrieve:—by 40 per cent. As I have said, essential services to patients will not be affected. In Scotland we have made provision for a 1·1 per cent. average real growth in the Health Service—
    Mr. Home Robertson: Rubbish.
    Mr. Fairgrieve:—and there is only one thing that can interfere with that—inflation. The Government's No. 1 priority is to bring down the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to emphasise to the people of Scotland that there is no need to cut any essential medical services? What there is need to cut is the number of administrators in the Health Service, which, incredibly, rose last year.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: My hon. Friend is right. The Clegg Commission suggested possible savings in 1979–80 of £400,000—a gross amount of £1 million in a full year. We put back this amount in the present figures for 1980–81 without asking health boards to take note of it. This sum is, therefore, also available.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware—he must be so—that his defence is a pretty puny one which merely amounts to shouting "It wasn't me"? Since he is seeking to argue that there will be no effect or impact on the Lothian health service, and that cuts can be made that will have no effect on that service, will he say what cuts should be made and how these will affect the Health Service?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I do not think it was a puny defence. It was a puny attack.
    Mr. Peter Fraser: Will my hon. Friend, in making restrictions on financial allocations to health boards, seek to make the distinction which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking in relation to local authorities, and make a distinction between health boards that are wasting money and those that are using it properly in promoting the correct services within the National Health Service?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. It is difficult for us to interfere because when we appoint health boards and their chairmen and members we trust them to decide on the proper use of their rescources. It is for them to decide how to look after those for whom they are responsible. It is not the wish of my right hon. Friend and myself to interfere.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister say whether services to patients will be cut?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Essential services to patients will not—
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I could have said "No", but. I was trying to be fair. Essential services to patients will not be cut. There may be some cut in services at the periphery in certain areas.
    Mr. Millan: Will the Minister say what are essential and what are not essential services?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: These are matters for clinical decisions by health boards.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his latest
    502
    proposals for the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, fisheries Ministers have been considering carefully the case put to us recently by the fishing organisations about the economic state of the industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the statement which is shortly to be made on the conclusions that we have reached.
    Mr. Grimond: How much longer will we have to wait? Even with guillotines, we understand that Parliament is to rise on Friday. It is urgent for the industry to know soon. What steps have the Government taken to limit imports which are having a disastrous effect on the market?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It was hoped that a statement could be made yesterday, but as hon. Members know, events Intervened. It is hoped that a statement can be made during the course of debates later today. On the question of imports, the right hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that we have managed to take a lot of action in the EEC to raise reference prices and to improve protection against undue imports from that source.
    Mr. Pollock: Will my right hon. Friend accept that had it not been for the wrecking tactics of the Opposition yesterday we would have details of that aid package? Does not the Opposition's action indicate scant regard for the true interests of Scottish fishermen, which will not go unnoticed?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that Scottish fishermen will deplore the fact that it was not possible to make this information available as soon as it ought to have been available.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is widely reported in every newspaper in the country that the Government intend to make £15 million available to the industry? Why can the press be told these matters, but the House of Commons cannot be told? Why does the Secretary of State hide behind bogus points of procedure? There

    503
    will be great anger in the fishing industry, over the fact the £15 millon is so puny in relation to what the industry demands and needs to survive.
    Mr. Younger: I have seen all sorts of reports in the newspapers. Most of them, in various degrees, are inaccurate. No statement on the matter has been put out by my Ministry or by any other Government Department. The statement will be made to the House in the proper way. The fact that it has not been made earlier is the fault of the Opposition.
    Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any money generously made available to the fishing industry will be allocated carefully to ensure maximum benefit for the whole industry?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have taken great care to work out methods of giving any extra aid that may be announced. That will be made clear by my hon. Friend when he makes the statement.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side. Mr. George Foulkes.
    Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is stated in the newspapers this morning that £10 million is to be given to the fishing industry, and since the Government were apparently prepared to make a statement yesterday, why cannot the statement be made during Scottish questions today?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order to me.
    Mr. Strang: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his Minister of State refuses to meet the Clyde fishermen to discuss this issue? Ssince about 40 per cent. of United Kingdom fishing is done in Scottish waters, would it not be more appropriate for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the statement, and not wait for the Minister of State to make it?
    504
    Could it not be made now instead of some time later tonight?
    Mr. Younger: I meet the chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association frequently. He is in close contact with me. All fisheries Ministers work in concert on these matters, and it is for us to decide which Minister makes the statement.
    Mr. Sproat: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the £15 million, or whatever the sum is, will be welcomed by the fishing industry in Scotland, but that this is only a measure to keep the industry ticking over? Does he accept that it is important to negotiate a common fisheries policy, with particular emphasis on proper access and quotas, so that the industry can thrive without subsidies?
    Mr. Younger: So far as press speculation is concerned, that is exactly what it is—just speculation. I agree with my hon. Friend that by far the most important issue for the fishing industry is a successful negotiation of the common fisheries policy. All of us are putting everything that we can into getting the right answer.

    Economic Policy (Employment)
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Economic Planning Department to make a study of the employment consequences of the Government's economic policy.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I already keep a close watch on developments in the Scottish economy. The Government's economic policies are designed to reduce inflation which is the main cause of loss of competitiveness and jobs in Scottish industry.
    Mr. Hogg: Given that the Minister and his right hon. Friend keep a close watch on these matters, can he say what the rate of unemployment will be in Scotland by Christmas? What steps are being taken to alleviate unemployment, particularly among young people?
    Mr. Fletcher: It is recognised by the Government that unemployment is still rising, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers do not try to forecast the

    505
    size of unemployment at any time ahead. Neither party in power has tried to do that. The hon. Gentleman asked about young people. The MSC has already stepped up considerably the youth opportunities programme in Scotland. It has been announced that the Government are considering what further steps might be taken for school leavers and other young unemployed to help to ease the present problem.
    Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend arrange for his Department to consider the employment effects of the ruthless use of monopoly trade union power and the work of spendthrift local authorities?
    Mr. Fletcher: There is no doubt that over recent years the ruthless misuse of trade union power has caused a great deal of unemployment.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister con-skier that advice should be given to the unemployed to solve their problems by leaving Scotland?
    Mr. Fletcher: That advice was not given by anyone in this Government, because the developments taking place in Scotland are not simply encouraging young people to seek jobs in various parts of Scotland—it is common knowledge that some parts of Scotland are more prosperous than others—but are encouraging new jobs and new industries to come to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in the year to February 1980 between 15,000 and 20,000 new jobs were created in existing manufacturing units in Scotland, and that several thousand new jobs were created in new companies.
    Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that one does not need to ask the SEPD to carry out a study of the employment effects of the previous Government, because the record speaks for itself? Not only did they more than double unemployment in their five years in office, but they so weakened jobs that many more have been lost since. Will my hon. Friend encourage his colleagues to persist with their policies, which we believe will create lasting jobs for the future?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Even the most pessimistic economic commentator
    506
    does not suggest today that we shall come anywhere near the record on unemployment of the previous Government, who doubled the figures during their five years in office.

    Unemployed Persons (Strathclyde Region)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest level of unemployment in the Strathclyde region; and by what percentage it has increased since the same date in 1979.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On 10 July 1980, 140,859 people were registered as unemployed in Strathclyde region, an increase of 28·5 per cent. over the July 1979 figure.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is not the Minister ashamed of himself in revealing those figures to the House? For a change, will he stop blaming the trade unions, take his finger out, get cracking and do something about unemployment? Will he also, for a change, start talking to the industrialists about an expansion policy? Will the Government change their policy? If they cannot, will the hon. Gentleman resign?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to know the steps that the Government have taken to try to overcome the problems of unemployment that we inherited from the previous Government. In West Central Scotland the special development area has been expanded, and regional policy generally has been sharpened to help such areas. In the enterprise zone announced for Clydebank a great new experiment in job creation is being carried out in Strathclyde, and in the new towns, which have been greatly supported by the present Government, 7 per cent. more funds in real terms have been made available this year for industrial development compared with the previous year. In the Glasgow Eastern area renewal project, the Scottish Development Agency has built more than 70 factories, and there are 50 more factories in this year's programme. There is major progress in Glengarnock and there is the St. Enoch's project, involving £40 million and 1,500 new jobs. That is action on unemployment.
    Mr. Speaker: It is more than action on unemployment; answers, like questions, should be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make 10 substantive points in reply to one substantive question?
    Mr. Speaker: I have just dealt with that matter.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions asked for free collective bargaining, and that in free collective bargaining excessive wage claims are bound to result in fewer jobs in the end?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right. The Government and the trade unions are very much in agreement on that central part of trade union policy.
    May I say about the last answer, that I am sorry that we are doing so much about unemployment that it upsets Labour hon. Members.
    Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that, although he mentioned successes in the Garnock valley, the unemployment rate there is now 25 per cent? Is he further aware that in the Cunninghame district in my own area within Strathclyde the unemployment rate is 16.6 per cent? When will he do something to obtain an extra order for ships for Ailsa shipyard, Troon, and to make sure that the Jetstream project order is signed immediately for British Aerospace at Prestwick?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that if I had further extended the list of Government action more points of order would have been raised by Labour hon. Members. We are taking action about Glengarnock and all the other matters to try to improve employment prospects for the Scottish people.

    Forestry
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of forestry in Scotland have been felled to make way for (a) housing and (b) road building so far in 1980.
    Mr. Rifkind: I regret that this information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that forestry and the allied paper and board industry are important to the economy of Scotland? Will he bear that in mind when any planning matters come before his Department? Will his Department review the situation relating to the paper and board industry, particularly the unfair competition that it faces at present?
    Mr. Rifkind: I take the points that my hon. Friend has made. He will be pleased to know that the Forestry Commission considers that relatively small areas of land will have been affected by developments of the kind indicated in his original question.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hugh Robertson. I am sorry; I meant Mr. Hugh Brown.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have suspected for the past year, Mr. Speaker, that you have forgotten my name.
    Now that there is recognition of the importance of forestry in the economy of Scotland, will a consultative document be issued, and will all the interested parties—unions as well as the private forestry interests, which do not want any further selling off of public assets—be consulted?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friends are engaged in a review of forestry policy, and they will make a statement on that policy when they have concluded the review.
    Mr. Pollock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to a prosperous long-term future for the forestry industry, and that when the statement is made it will confirm the Government's support for the industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can confirm that.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Who gave the Minister the information that on such an important matter the information required was too costly to procure?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that collecting statistics of this kind involves considerable manpower. Over the years—not simply in recent weeks—successive Governments

    509
    have not considered it appropriate to devote that amount of manpower to collecting the statistics.

    Robroyston Hospital
    Mr. Milanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received Professor Halliday's report on the arrangements under which Robroyston hospital and its surrounding land were sold; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Marlinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the report of Professor Halliday concerning the sale of Robroyston hospital.
    Mr. Younger: I have received the report, and copies have been placed in the Library. The report confirms that the initial purchasers of the land made a considerable profit out of the transaction, realised very soon after the purchase, and for this reason the transaction has attracted criticism. It confirms that the sale of the land at Robroyston was carried out regularly in accordance with the prescribed procedures, and that the responsible officials performed their respective duties conscientiously and with care. It finds that the relevant decisions of the regional and district councils on the planning applications made to them were made with care and a due sense of responsibility. The report criticises the dispersal of responsibility for conducting sales of property occupied for Health Service purposes and makes recommendations for changes in procedure. I shall give these careful consideration.
    I should like to thank Professor Halliday, and Mr. Ryden who assisted him, for the thoroughness and expedition with which they have completed this most useful review.
    Mr. Millan: I am glad that Professor Halliday found that there were no improprieties and that the recognised procedures were carried out, but will the right hon. Gentleman take note that I believe very strongly that those procedures need amendment now? In particular, proper formal application should be made to planning authorities about the planning position, because the excessive profit in this case was made because there were changes later in the views of the regional council and the
    510
    district council about the planning for the particular areas of the land concerned. We must make every effort—I accept that this case happened under my administration—to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
    Mr. Younger: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall consult colleagues to see how we can implement the recommendations in the report.
    Mr. Martin: Will the Secretary of State ensure in future that no land is handed over or sold to a company that has been created only a matter of weeks before the application is made? Will he also ensure that any company involved in a transaction does not acquire a further number of companies so that it can evade the development land tax? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that the farmland that is now in the ownership of the company at Robroyston is not developed, as it is first class farmland and is the only green belt that we have in the Springburn area?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I know his close interest in the matter. The matters raised in the first part of his question will have to be looked into with regard to the recommendations in the report. The hon. Gentleman's second point I think, is, primarily a matter for the planning authorities involved, but I shall look into it.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Professor Halliday's report has vindicated the purchasers of the land, who were the subject of a vicious attack but who, although they made an excellent profit, did an honourable deal with the authority concerned?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no suggestion in the report that anything dishonourable was clone by the purchaser or anyone else.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that when this matter was raised some months ago at Scottish question time his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) made a disgraceful, scandalous and filthy attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)? Will the Secretary of State repudiate that

    511
    attack and ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his statement?
    Mr. Younger: I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates somewhat. That was a normal exchange in the House.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward special measures to alleviate mass unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government already operate a number of special measures to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment, particularly amongst the young. The youth opportunities programme has been substantially expanded this year and we are considering with the Manpower Services Commission what more can be done to help the unemployed. Ultimately, employment prospects depend on the restoration of competitiveness and the return to a soundly-based economy. That is what our policies are designed to achieve.
    Mr. Brown: It is clear that the Government have no answer to the unemployment problem. They are deliberately destroying real jobs. That reflects their class views, and there is no doubt that the situation will get a lot worse. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are ready to face the consequences during the winter? I can tell the Government that the trade union movement will not accept—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has been here long enough to know how to ask a question rather than put a point of view.
    Mr. Fletcher: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are having to face the consequences of the actions of the Labour Party during their five years in office.
    Mr. Ancram: With regard to youth and school leaver unemployment, will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures being considered by the Government will not be like those of the previous Government, who merely created artificial jobs for political face-saving reasons? Will my hon. Friend confirm also that the Government will create real job opportunities and real work experience for these youngsters, who are Scotland's future?
    Mr. Fletcher: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are anxious that the youth opportunities programme should include as many training and apprenticeship schemes as possible.
    Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister tell us how many new permanent jobs he personally has managed to see created in Scotland since the Government came to office 15 months ago?
    Mr. Fletcher: I have already indicated that during the past year in excess of 20,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland.
    Mr. John MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that NALGO, which is among the trade unions so beloved of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), is still hell bent on making people unemployed because they will not join a trade union?
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir, and the Government deplore such undemocratic action on the part of trade unionists and some Labour Members.
    Mr. Millan: The MSC in Scotland has said that it cannot cope with the increasing unemployment without additional funds. May we have a guarantee that those funds will be forthcoming?
    Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already given that.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what latest discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry regarding low fish prices and other factors contributing to the current crisis in the fishing industry.
    Mr. George Younger: The industry's representatives amplified the case which they had presented on the economic state of the industry at a meeting with Ministers on 3 July.
    Mr. Sproat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quayside prices today are still very depressed? Is it not deeply worrying that 10 years ago we were importing about 15 per cent. of our fish, but that today we are importing almost 75 per cent? What further measures is my right hon. Friend considering to stop foreign countries, particularly our EEC partners,

    513
    from dumping cheap foreign imported fish in this country?
    Mr. Younger: That has been one of the main problems of the industry this year, but, as my hon. Friend knows, we cannot act unilaterally. We have, however, persuaded the Community to increase reference prices for imports of frozen fish from third countries. Community tariffs on cod, haddock and hake have also been returned to the full rate, due largely to our actions. These measures should help the industry significantly.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that any announcement that he may make later today about the level of Government aid to the industry will be judged by the demand of the industry for help of at least £35 million? If the response falls short of that the Government will be seen to have failed in their duty.
    Mr. Younger: I am happy that the Government should be judged on the contents of the package when it is announced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen with interest to the announcement.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that we all await with considerable interest the statement to be made later today, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is essential that the withdrawal and reference prices of the EEC are substantially increased at the quayside? Unless those prices are increased the fishing industry cannot possibly hope to survive.
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the difficulties. My hon. Friend has seen me about them on many occasions. These are the matters that we have taken into account in working out the help that we can give the industry.
    Mr. Strang: With regard to earlier statements on this matter, is the Secretary of State aware that when I contacted the office of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday morning I was informed that no statement was to be made yesterday afternoon on the question of aid to the fishing industry? It is therefore untrue to suggest that a ministerial statement on this matter could not be made because of the actions of the Opposition. Is the Secretary of State further aware that when £3 million of aid was announced there was a proper
    514
    ministerial statement? If the intention is to make the announcement during the debate on the EEC, that will be wholly unacceptable.
    Mr. Younger: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was told by telephone. He knows that there was business that might have been discussed last night, but that that discussion was prevented by the Opposition. That is the point that I make.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it is within your discretion to rule on the way in which the Secretary of State is grossly misleading the House. In the Aberdeen Evening Express last night the front page was devoted—if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, I shall raise this matter at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be fairer to the hon. Member's colleagues if he waited until after Question Time. However, the matter did not sound as though it had anything to do with me.

    Communications (Interception)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were undertaken for illegal telephone interception in 1979, and to the most recent practicable date in 1980.
    Mr. Younger: Statistics on any such prosecutions are not kept separately from those relating to other prosecutions under the Post Office Acts or Wireless Telegraphy Acts. I understand from the Crown Office, however, that there is no record of any prosecutions for illegal telephone interception in 1979 or in 1980.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State aware that at Craigowl Hill, near Dundee, the Post Office microwave tower is being used to collect information that is being fed into the Menwith Hill operation, which is run by the National Security Agency of the United States? Is he aware also that there is no authority to do that? The Post Office Act 1969 does not allow foreign agencies to intercept international or national telephone calls. Does that not mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland is conniving at illegal activity that is being carried out, at least, in part, in an area of the country for which he is responsible?
    Mr. Younger: I do not know the basis for the hon. Gentleman's statement, which contains pure speculation. The statement is unsupported by any form of proof. I cannot add more information to that contained in the White Paper that has been laid before the House.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: The White Paper referred to British people being involved in such activity. However, it has been admitted by the CIA that it has been involved. Will the Minister look at this matter in the context of foreign agents? There is a vast difference between activity of this kind undertaken by foreign agents and that undertaken by British people. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should object to any foreign agent—whether American, Russian, or even Iranian—carrying out such activities?
    Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will inform either myself or the Home Secretary, according to which country is concerned, if he has information of any foreign agency breaking the law in this country.

    Handicapped Persons (Warnock Report)
    Mr. Peter Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his further consideration of the report of the Warnock committee on the educational needs of handicapped children and young people; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: I have published today a White Paper containing proposals for a new approach to individual educational needs on the lines recommended by the Warnock committee. My right hon. Friends have also published today their proposals for England and Wales. Copies of the White Papers have been laid before the House. I intend to embody my proposals in legislation at the first convenient opportunity.
    Mr. Fraser: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for working so assiduously on this matter as to be able to answer my question today, but may I ask him to what extent it differs from the English proposal? What, particularly, is the role given to parents in the assessment of their children's needs.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are no differences of substance between the proposals for
    516
    Scotland and those for England and Wales, and the main principles—that is to say, abolition of categories of handicap and concentration on children's needs—are the same. The differences between the two arise mainly from our differing education systems and traditions and from different existing statutory provisions. We envisage that parents will have similar rights, whether they have handicapped or other children, as regards the school to which they will go.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and I introduced private legislation relating to the mentally handicap. ped? Is he also aware that there is a feeling in Scotland that financial resources are not being fairly allocated to the mentally handicapped? Does he agree that at this time of economic recession the mentally handicapped will be more disadvantaged than others? Will he try to do something immediately for the mentally handicapped, other than what has been said in the worthwhile announcement relating to the Warnock report.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know of his longstanding interest in this matter. I hope that the proposals in the White Paper will meet with his approval. I look forward to discussing them with him if he wishes. All these matters are subject to the overriding need for finance, and I shall ensure that the needs of handicapped children are given their proper priority.

    Store Sheep
    Mr. Mylesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the prospects for the sale of store sheep in Scotland this autumn.
    Mr. Younger: Producers have a good lamb crop to market, and the level of the fat sheep guarantee was increased in April by 11 per cent. The new Community sheep regime will give a further substantial increase in market support, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear to the House earlier this week. In their understandable concern to get a

    517
    firm date for implementation of the regime, producers should not lose sight of the terms of the regime which offers major long-term benefits. Meantime, I would urge them to market lambs normally.
    Mr. Myles: As the June census figures, which have just been published, show a net percentage increase in lamb numbers in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend take every possible step to create confidence in the autumn store sales?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As there is now the prospect of a sheepmeat regime that should help farmers, I hope that there will be an increase in confidence in the sales.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the sales are already under way and therefore any announcement is already too late? I have received letters from farmers in my own constituency, and from farmers in the Secretary of State's constituency, stating that they no longer have confidence in the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Younger: Plenty of letters on these matters come in all the time from sheep farmers and other farmers. The important thing is to remember the interests of those whom we are supposed to represent. They are interested in having a market in which they can be confident and in a sheepmeat regime that will help them.

    Oil-related Industry (Tayside)
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase Tayside's share of oil-related industry.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government are very conscious of the need for further industrial growth in Tayside and will ensure that any oil-related or other companies which might be attracted to the area are made fully aware of its advantages and of the assistance available.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is great disappointment on Tayside at the decision of BNOC not to base any of its operations on Tayside? In addition, the announcement by Conoco during the past fortnight that it is also running down has brought considerable despair to that part
    518
    of Scotland, which has not benefited from the North Sea as the other northern areas have.
    Mr. Fletcher: I agree that there has been disappointment over the commercial decisions of those organisations. It is essential that prospective industrial investors should not be confused by a proliferation of authorities. The regional and district authorities must work together, regardless of party, to attract industry to Tayside.

    Electricity Supplies (Colonsay)
    Mr. John MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking steps to assist the provision of electricity supplies in the Island of Colonsay.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has indicated its intention to include the provision of a public electricity supply to the island in its future uneconomic rural development programme, which is currently being planned to follow the completion of its present programme in 1981. The board has informed me that, provided a survey shows that a submarine cable is feasible, and provided that the future uneconomic rural development programme attracts support from the European regional development fund, it would hope to connect the island to the mainland grid by submarine cable before the end of 1983.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my hon. Friend realise that that news will be welcome to my constituents on Colonsay, who are without a proper electricity supply? In the interim, can he give them any hope of an abatement of the high charges that they face for the electricity that they use?
    Mr. Fletcher: The Highlands and Islands Development Board has agreed to provide a temporary subsidy to the Colonsay community electricity association, which will have the effect of substantially reducing the price of electricity to domestic consumers on the island.
    Mr. Maclennan: Welcome though that answer is, can the Minister say what steps he proposes to take, in the light of the Secretary of State's announcement to support the differential charging of

    519
    islanders, to remove this anomaly and ensure that all highlanders and islanders pay the same tariff for electricity, in the light of the recommendations of the Consumer Council?
    Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I very much regret the board's decision in relation to diesel charges. However, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that in this affair my right hon. Friend has no powers to give a direction to the board.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the proposals of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation for further financial assistance for the Scottish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
    Mr. Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the leaders of the Scottish fishing industry have made effective and responsible proposals to the Government, which are worthy of a better response from the House than the sort of fractious filibustering yesterday, which put off the making of a statement on this matter?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the great strengths during the controversy over the fishing industry in recent years has been all-party support for the fishermen's case. I should like to keep it that way.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House here and now how much aid will be made available to the fishing industry? Or has the Minister of Agriculture not yet told the Secretary of State how much aid will be given to the industry?
    Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to obtain that information—which he should be—he should have persuaded his hon. Friends not to behave so foolishly yesterday.
    Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend refute the ridiculous allegations by Ian
    520
    Grigor in The Scotsman about the inadequate representations to the Government of the fishing industry?
    Mr. Younger: I noticed that article, and I was surprised at the suggestion that there was inadequate representation. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has done a magnificent job in making its case known to all those who are negotiating it within the European Community.

  ILLEGITIMACY
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Law Commission's report on illegitimacy.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply on behalf of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Hon. Members: Where is he?
  Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unprecedented for a Minister not to be available to answer questions? Are we not entitled to an explanation? Where is the Solicitor-General for Scotland?
  Mr. Rifkind: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. and learned Friend is in Scotland, engaged in duties connected with his Department.
  Mr. Millan: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. That is unacceptable. The first duty of a Minister is to this House, and if questions are put down to the Solicitor-General for Scotland he ought to be here to answer them. We do not want the hon. Gentleman as a substitute.
  Mr. Rifkind: The Scottish Law Corn-mission has not published any report on illegitimacy, but it intends to prepare a memorandum for consultation purposes on the legal issues connected with illegitimacy. Matters are, however, still at an early stage because of the demands made on the commission's resources by its other commitments. It is, therefore, not possible to forecast when the commission's memorandum will be ready for publication.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for sending the information to me. I received it this morning. Is he aware that the Law Commission in England has produced a special report on this problem? In view of that, and the fact that on this matter Scottish law is different from English law, will he undertake to ask the Law Commission in Scotland to consider producing a separate report on this problem?
  Mr. Rifkind: At this stage the English Law Commission has produced only a working paper. It has yet to produce any final recommendations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable for any reform on this aspect of the law to be proceeded with in a joint manner north and south of the border.
  Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. Friend agree that an unfortunate habit has developed among certain sections of the press who describe certain illegitimate children as "love children", thereby causing great offence to many married couples in Scotland, whose children are surely much more appropriately the product of love?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised a fair point. He will appreciate that Government policy can do little to remedy that problem, but no doubt those who report these matters in that way will have heard his comments.
  Mr. Dewar: Further to the point of order that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be extremely untidy to pursue that point of order now. Did the hon. Gentleman want to ask a supplementary question?
  Mr. Dewar: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: Statement—the Leader of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I always take points of order after statements.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be unwise to change procedure when we are accustomed to points of order being taken after statements. [Interruption.] Order. I have no doubt that there will be points of order after this statement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am requesting hon. Gentlemen to wait until after the statement. I shall then take points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I have asked hon. Members to wait until after the statement before raising points of order.
Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. I requested him to wait until after the statement before raising a point of order. Many right hon. and hon. Members have had to wait until after statements to raise points of order. Therefore, I do not see why I should treat one hon. Member differently from another.
Mr. Milan: I am asking—
Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Noise does not influence me. After my request to the House, it is common courtesy—[Interruption.] Order. I shall call the right hon. Gentleman immediately after the statement. It is common courtesy that my request should be harkened.
Mr. Milan: With respect, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As always, I shall take points of order after the statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Order. There is no need for such excitement at this stage. Points of order can be taken immediately after the statement.
Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

523
[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I hav asked the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat, and I hope—[Interruption.] Order. Our procedures will be spoilt if we do not follow the general custom. [Interruption.] Order. I have called upon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement, and according to Our—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. Hon. Members cannot stop another hon. Member from speaking simply by shouting "No". That is not the procedure in this House.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I announced today's business—
Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement, and I intend that to be the process.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I announced today's business yesterday—[Interruption]—but as there was a certain amount of noise at the time not all hon. Members may have heard what I said. It may be for the convenience of the House if I make a fuller statement now.
The business for today is as follows:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill, to the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Bill and to the Health Services Bill.
Motions on the horticulture and agriculture grant orders, and on the Capital Grant (Variation) Orders.
Motion on Commission documents on fisheries.
Motions on the British Aerospace (Borrowing Powers) (Increase of Limit) Order and on the Financial Limits National Enterprise Board and the Secretary of State) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
The Business for Thursday will be as announced last week, namely:
Debate on procedure.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
524
On Friday 8 August, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment until Monday 27 October.
Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.
Mr. Foot: First, the business that the right hon. Gentleman has announced for today, particularly in the light of events in the House over the last 24 hours, is an absurdity and an outrage to the House. It is quite impossible for business of this nature to be pushed through on the basis that the Government previously proposed. That is why we urged the right hon. Gentleman to take account of what we said last night. It would have been better if he had waited; then he would have been able to make his statement to the House on a better basis.
If any hon. Member looks through the business on the Order Paper today he will see that it is impossible for the Government to force through that business on the basis on which the Government have presented it. If the Government were to attempt to push it through on that basis it would be an outrage to the proceedings of the House of Commons. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government understand that that is the Opposition's view on the matter.
I understand also that there have been discussions in order to try to secure changes on the proposals that have been made to the House on the Housing Bill. There would also be some connected implications for the Scottish legislation, which it is also proposed to discuss. Therefore, I hope that a statement will be made, presumably by the Secretary of State for the Environment, either now or a little later in the proceedings. That will also give some time for the discussion.
We are proposing a method by which the Government may be enabled to escape from the situation that they have created. Many hon. Members were not present on Monday night, but the Government were warned of all the difficulties then—before we started these discussions. If the Government had been prepared to take account of our warnings on Monday, many of these difficulties could have been avoided. I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared to look afresh at the extent of the business

525
that he has proposed for today and to try to postpone some of that business until tomorrow. That would be the sensible course to take.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment will be prepared, after further discussions if they wish, to make a statement that will enable us to proceed with some of that business. On the basis on which the Government have so far proceeded, it would be intolerable for the dignity and proper conduct of the House of Commons for this business to proceed.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The heavy business programme today has been created by the direct action of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Opposition were perfectly entitled, as they did—and I have never questioned this—to use parliamentary procedures to extend the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill so that it went into the next day's business.
Mr. Cryer: What about what happened in 1977?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, it has been done before. I am not saying that there is not a right to do that. I accept that there is a right to do that. But the right hon. Gentleman must accept the natural consequences of his actions. If the Opposition choose to use those procedures they will end up with an overcrowded timetable, which is not desirable in the interests of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say and I have had my say. [AN HON. MEMBER:] "Sit down."] No; I have one other point to make.
I turn to the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is vital that, apart from the Government and the Opposition exercising their legitimate rights, which I accept absolutely, we should proceed with these matters in accordance with the dignity and traditions of the House. If there is a possibility of some accommodation being reached on these matters, through the usual channels—an accommodation that will satisfy the parties involved and will be in accordance with the dignity of the House—I shall certainly support it.
Mr. Foot: I certainly hope that the House will be able to proceed. I still
526
think, and I believe that anyone who looks at the matter objectively will see, that the full programme proposed by the Government for transaction today is intolerable. Anyone who looks at it in the light of the proper conduct of the House of Commons, to which the right hon. Gentleman appealed, will see that it is impossible for the House to carry through all that business. Some of that business could, without any disturbance or addition to the Government's difficulties, be postponed until tomorrow. I have no doubt that we can have discussions about that and reach a perfectly reasonable result. But it would mean that the amount of business today would have to be curtailed from what is proposed.
I think that much the best course would be to let the discussions proceed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions will be proceeding. I hope, at least, that they will be proceeding, and that a statement will be made at a very early date. Of course, we shall have to judge whether we think that statement is satisfactory. Such a statement will be the natural consequence of the action that was taken by the House of Commons. That statement was not offered to us before. We think that it will be offered now. We hope that it will be offered in proper terms. If so, I believe that it will assist the House of Commons to do its business.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those helpful contributions. I entirely agree that an agreement that respects the rights of the Government and the Opposition—I fully accept that the Opposition have rights in the House—is desirable. Such a statement will be in accordance with the dignity of the House and with the maxim, which I think is respected by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government are entitled to get their business through the House.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask a supplementary question—
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you confirm that in the last few moments the Leader of the House has made two incorrect statements? First,

527
he said that the proposed business for Friday was the Adjournment of the House. I thought that that had been decided by the House, and was no longer a proposal.
Secondly, is it not correct that there is a Standing Order of the House that prohibits the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill being taken on the same day as the Committee and remaining stages? Is it not correct that the extension that permitted yesterday's events was a Government motion to adjust that Standing Order for reasons which, frankly, I do not understand?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard the statements from both Front Benches. Briefly, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point of order, there will be the customary motion on the Order Paper on Friday "That the House, at its rising this day", and so on. There must be a motion for the Adjournment.
Secondly, I hope that we are not going back over what happened yesterday.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Leader of the House said and the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) in response to some kind of mumbo-jumbo that has been taking place, would it not be in accordance with the decorum and dignity of the House, which has so often been trundled out by the Leader of the House, for you to suspend the sitting so that those of us who want to know what is taking place between the various spokesmen may know precisely what is likely to take place when the sitting resumes?
Mr. David Steel: I should like to ask the Leader of the House two questions on the business. First, what has happened to the fisheries statement? Because of what happened during Scottish questions, I think that we are entitled to ask this question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Secretary of State for Scotland implied that there was to have been a statement on fisheries yesterday? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that no such notice was given to Opposition parties in the normal
528
Will he come clean on what happened? When are we to get the statement?
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman is a believer in a bicameral legislature, if the discussions between the usual channels involve some acceptance of the policy changes and improvements made in the other place to the Housing Bill, does he not think it unwise to proceed further with the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill and to leave it unimproved if some improvements to the Housing Bill are accepted?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the statement that I have just made there is provision for a debate on fisheries. In this situation that may be the most convenient position for any statement to be made. I shall certainly look into that.
As for giving undertakings about the making of a statement, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, the situation is somewhat fluid. I cannot give an undertaking that a statement will be made at any particular time, but I certainly take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said.
On the Housing Bill, it is vital that Scotland and England should be treated equally in these matters. Therefore, it is right that the interests of Scotland should be taken into account on an equal basis with the interests of England.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection, if not that of the Leader of the House, that there was some controversy during Scottish questions about whether a statement on aid to the fishing industry had or had not been made yesterday. In response to questions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that any reports in today's press about money for the industry were purely speculative and that no statement had been made. In the Aberdeen Evening Express of last night which I received this morning, there was not only a full statement on the amount of money that was to be made available to the industry but comments by members of the fishing industry on what the response to that sum should be.
Mr. Dewar: Leaks.
Mr. Hughes: In the stop press of the Aberdeen Evening Express there were a couple of lines—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The issue might be important, but whether it is a point of order is another matter. Will the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) inform me of that on which he wants me to rule? That is the only issue with which I can deal.
Mr. Hughes: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking so long to lead up to the matter. Unless I explain the background—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must submit his point of order, otherwise we shall have to move on.
Mr. Hughes: If I merely put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the procedures of the House and the rights of Back Benchers are being abused, you might be tempted to rule that that is not a matter for you. It is in order to put the point of order to you properly, Mr. Speaker, that I am trying to explain how the matter arose.
Mr. Speaker: I can deal only with straight points of order when the rules of the House are in danger. If the hon. Gentleman will come to that point, I will hear him out, but he must come to it.
Mr. Hughes: I was about to utter my last sentence on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that the Aberdeen Evening Express, in its stop press, carried two short lines that told readers that the statement had been withdrawn. Surely you can rule, Mr. Speaker, following a point of order, that a Secretary of State cannot say to the House that no statement has been issued and that reports are purely speculative when clearly statements have been issued. It is unfair and an abuse of the procedures of the House that statements should be withdrawn in the certain knowledge that questions were on the Order Paper—namely, in Scottish questions—dealing with the fishing industry in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard sufficient to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the content of Ministers' replies.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall be asked to rule on genuine points of order.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Skinner: You have not answered my other one, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did not have a point of order on which I could rule.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order on which I could rule. The content of Ministers' replies, whether they make statements, and the relationships of statements to that which appears in the press, are not matters that come within my responsiblity.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has made a Business Statement and has suggested that negotiations will proceed through the usual channels. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you adjourned the House because you thought at the time that that was the best solution. May I suggest that that is a possible solution that you should consider now?
If the Leader of the House persists with his Business Statement while negotiations are taking place, in effect the Opposition's position is being pre-empted as the business is progressing. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious when he says that there should be some compromise in conformity with the dignity of the House. It is only fair, bearing in mind all the differing points of view in the House, including those of the Government but especially those of the Opposition, that the House should adjourn, in view of the difficult background. The matter is entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to adjourn the House for 20 minutes or half an hour.
Mr. Speaker: I have no intention of adjourning the House.
Mr. Beith rose—
Mr. Millan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had written notice of a point of order from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). However. I shall

531
take first the point of order of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
Mr. Milan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about treating Scotland and England on all fours when proceeding with the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there are considerable technical difficulties, given the stage that we have reached with the Bill. May I have an assurance, in line with the promise that he has made, that further consideration of the Bill will not take place today and that it will be deferred if it is not possible to treat Scotland and England on all fours?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give an undertaking in those terms. If an agreement in principle is reached that Scotland and England should be treated equally in this matter, how that is done becomes a matter of technicalities. If there is the agreement in principle, the technicalities question is secondary.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am right in saying that you are responsible for the Votes and Proceedings that we receive each day. The Leader of the House made a statement in which, inadvertently, he made a false statement. He said that he made a statement yesterday. He did not. Those who were present yesterday will know that at 2.32 pm the Government moved, That this House do now adjourn. That proposal was carried with acclamation. No one shouted "No". Although I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to suggest that he did not put the Question, the fact is that the House adjourned at 2.32 because there was no voice heard against the Government's proposal.
On reading the Votes and Proceedings and the press—the information has been given conveniently to the press—I find that the House adjourned at nine minutes to 3 o'clock. Nineteen minutes elapsed between 2.32 and nine minutes to 3 o'clock. I have never known—I have not been here very long but I have been here long enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I have never known an occupant of the Chair to wait 19 minutes to put
532
the Question when there has not been any opposition.
You came into the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, without knowledge of that which had taken place previously. Of course I know that the Chair is never wrong. I know that the Chair cannot be wrong. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you were wrong. However, you did not know what had happened. You came into the Chamber after 2.32, Mr. Speaker, and you took the chair. You called the Leader of the House and his shadow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) —I am not sure in which order they were called—but, with respect, the House was not sitting.
You were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. You could not call the Leader of the House or my right hon. Friend because the Question had been put and agreed to. I know that it is convenient that the Government give the time that the House rises to the press and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for that. However, it is carried in the press today that the House adjourned at nine minutes to 3 o'clock. It is wrong to put that in the Votes and Proceedings, because anyone with ears, who was there at the time, knows that we adjourned at 2.32 pm.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most senior hon. Members. He has been here for a very long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] He follows the ordinary courtesies. He gave me notice this morning that he would seek to draw my attention to the point that he has raised.
The sequence of events is not quite as the hon. Gentleman described them. As soon as the Government Whip had moved the Adjournment of the House the Deputy Speaker proposed the Question in the usual manner. However, he did not take the voices. The fact that some hon. Members may have shouted "Aye" does not mean that the House was adjourned.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a great issue. I am being polite to the hon. Gentleman. The House was not adjourned until I adjourned it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter arises from the Scottish fisheries question, upon which I hope you can help the House. Ministers and other Conservative Members have given the impression that there was an intention to make a statement yesterday about fisheries, and that the making of that statement was prevented by the action of the Opposition parties. It would help us, Mr. Speaker, if you would confirm the firm impression that I have, namely, that no such notice was given, either to you or to your office. Will you also confirm that neither a Minister nor the Leader of the House took any of the usual steps to inform you that a statement was to be made? From my knowledge of the situation, I believe that no such steps were taken. However, it would help, Mr. Speaker, if you made clear to hon. Members and to those outside that, rightly or wrongly, there was no specific intention to make a fisheries statement yesterday and that such a statement was not prevented by the events that followed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kinnock: I do not wish to be critical, but I wondered, Mr. Speaker, whether we might still ask the Leader of the House supplementary questions.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It would be more orderly if hon. Members were to stop raising points of order and we were to return to questions on the Business Statement, which I am prepared to allow for a while.
Mr. Kinnock rose—
Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise that I have not answered the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Normally I am informed of statements. I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to involve me in the argument that is going on between the two sides of the House. I should much prefer to be out of it.
Mr. Beith: Perhaps the Leader of the House will absolve you, Mr. Speaker, from any such unpleasant obligation by
534
indicating clearly whether he or any other Minister gave you notice of an intention to make a statement on fisheries.
Mr. Kinnock: Did any Minister give the Leader of the House any information yesterday that might have led him to believe that a statement would be made on education, or on fisheries? Why is there is no provision in the Business Statement for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement on two matters of pressing importance, namely, the Government's response to the arbitration award for teachers and their continued prevarication on the important subject of a salary settlement for university teachers?
Yesterday, it seemed that the Secretary of State was anxious to make a statement. Since he is not taking the opportunity to make a statement today, are we to believe that that anxiety has evaporated? Perhaps the Leader of the House will inform me that I am wrong, and that he is going to make a statement later. In the absence of any statements, will we have to rely, as we did last week in terms of the abolition of the Clegg Commission, on planted written questions in order to ensure that important Government statements and policy announcements are made?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the desirability of reaching some reasonable accord. In the limited time available, unless some accord is reached it will be extremely difficult to fit in the various statements. If a reasonable agreement can be reached I shall do my best to ensure that statements are made on these important issues—which I do not distinguish between—namely, fisheries and education.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I Order. I hope that hon. Members will not continue to raise points of order. I know that some hon. Members wish to ask questions about the Business Statement, and I propose to allow that for a little while. However, I have had notice of 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall make a statement about them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Barry Jones: I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) ask the Leader of the House a

535
question. May we ask the Leader of the House whether, his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously asking a business question. He has not raised a point of order, or a matter on which I can rule. Hon. Members know that they cannot address a question to a Minister by rising and saying "On a point of order". Hon. Members must be more orderly than that.
Mr. Straw: Will the Leader of the House reply to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? They asked whether any Minister had given notice yesterday that he wished to make a statement on education, fisheries or any other issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the cause of the present chaos in relation to the business of the House is the Government's desire to force through the Housing Bill and to trample on the wishes of the House of Lords—which the right hon. Gentleman holds dear even if we do not. There is no particular reason why the Bill should be enacted this side of the summer recess, apart from the Secretary of State's desire to upstage the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party conference.
Will the Leader of the House spell out—because it has never been spelled out—the compelling reasons for enacting the Bill, and who would be at risk if it were not enacted before the Summer Recess? Why did the right hon. Gentleman say on 24 July that it was no bad thing for the House of Lords to amend the Housing Bill in five respects? The Government immediately tabled amendments rejecting each Lords amendment.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have no recollection of applications being made for statements. There is a simple reason for putting the Housing Bill on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. It will mean that tenants will have the right—as quickly as possible—to buy their own houses. Although the Opposition may have scored the occasional procedural point during this debate, the right for people to buy their own homes
536
is at stake. It is that that the Opposition are delaying. With reference to the upstaging, I do not know whom my right hon. Friend may or may not upstage, as long as he does not upstage me.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow business to questions run until 4.15 pm.
Mr. Kilfedder: Will we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before the House rises on Friday about the proposed public expenditure cuts of £92 million and the grave unemployment that exists in the Province because of the Government's action?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise that. I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) had the opportunity to raise the vital question of the future of the Province in the debate on the Adjournment motion for Summer Recess.
Mr. Hardy: May I refer the Leader of the House to the agriculture motions on the Order Paper? Is he aware that there is a great deal of criticism about them—perhaps not in the House but certainly in the country—and that all conservation organisations and the National Farmers Union are extremely critical of them? At what time does he expect us to consider the motions? He has referred to the rights of the Opposition and the Government in this House but does he recognise that sensible and responsible organisations throughout the country are entitled to expect us to consider matters of this kind seriously and at a reasonable hour? They do not expect the Government to get the motions through at the tail end of parliamentary exhaustion. Will he discuss through the usual channels the desirability of their being deferred for consideration until after the Summer Recess?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There are four motions involved, and it is the intention that they should be taken two at a time. That will involve a debate of one and a half hours each. It is quite normal for motions of this kind to be taken after the end of the main business.
Mr. Grimond: Is it not obvious that the business of the House is in chaos

537
because the Government have attempted to cram far too much business through the House, even in this extended Session? We know that there are many statements that the Government wish to make, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will apologise for saying that he was prevented from making a statement when obviously he was not prevented at all. We understand that these matters are to be considered, but it is not only the Opposition but Back Benchers who have rights in this House. There are many Back Benchers who wish to say something. We understand that there will be discussions. Can the Leader of the House tell us when he expects the discussions to finish and when he will come to the House again to make a further statement to enable us to treat the business of the House with the dignity about which everyone is so keen?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that we are in a state of chaos. The Opposition may be in a state of chaos, but that is another matter. There appears to be a little local difficulty and I hope that it can be resolved by reasonable conversations through the usual channels. If it is possible, I always prefer to settle these strongly felt disputes on a rational basis. I am well aware of the rights of Bank Benchers. The Leader of the House has a duty to get Government business through—everyone accepts that—but throughout this year I have done my best to ensure that Back Benchers enjoy their full rights.
Mr. Fitt: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today used a planted question to make a statement of major financial importance to Northern Ireland, indicating a transfer of resources from education, health and social services, and a cutback in public expenditure in the Province? Will he indicate to the Secretary of State that before the Summer Recess he should make a statement in the House so that he can be subjected to question and answer and so that the people of Northern Ireland will know that he must not use this type of procedure to put forward his points of view?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Written questions are an accepted procedure of the House. It is not as if they were a way of undermining our procedures. There are recognised
538
uses for the written answer procedure. We use it when it is not possible to fit in an oral statement. Throughout this year I have sought to accommodate hon. Members and Ministers with as many oral statements as possible.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the cat has been let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and that the crucial point is that the Housing Bill should reach the statute book as soon as possible? In that way Labour and Conservative supporters in all constituencies will have the same opportunity of owning their own homes as that shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I quite agree. I repeat that behind all the procedural manoeuvrings is the question of the right of council house tenants to buy their own homes.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before 12 o'clock this morning—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am making a statement.
Before 12 o'clock this morning, I received notice of 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. I believe that we are getting very close to an abuse of the Standing Order. I propose to ask hon. Members to confine their applications strictly to explaining why the matter that they wish to raise is urgent, specific and important. I believe that hon. Members should be able to do that within the space of three minutes each, and I hope that they will co-operate with me accordingly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 9—[Interruption.] Order. I have just said that I am dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 9. I am not taking points of order at this stage.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is always very helpful and I know that he wants to be helpful now, but he

539
must realise that I must now move to applications under Standing Order No. 9. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] That is what I intend to do.
Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking points of order now.
Mr. Lewis: Then you will have to remove me, Mr. Speaker. You will have to suspend me, because I wish to raise a genuine point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has a legitimate point of order; he always has. However, I have asked him to allow me to move on because I do not intend to take further points of order at this stage.
Mr. Lewis: I am not raising a point of order, I am asking a question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question?
Mr. William Hamilton: You cannot do that.
Mr. Speaker: I can do it, and I am going to do it. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) wishes to ask me a question.
Mr. Lewis: I am much obliged Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask a legitimate question about procedure. It is not a point of order because you will not take a point of order. There have been discussions through the usual channels and these are continuing. How can we Back Benchers ask you whether you will agree to a manuscript amendment? We have not had the chance to see the Notice Paper. We have not had the chance to discuss anything at all. How can Back Benchers exercise their democratic rights if the Leader of the House will not hear us and you, Mr. Speaker, will not take points of order and we are not allowed to make suggestions?
Will you accept manuscript amendments, Mr. Speaker? If not, I shall walk out. I shall ask you to suspend me because there is no point in my being here if I am not allowed my democratic rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I ask you in a sincere manner because I think it is right—[Interruption.] If you want me to be suspended, then you will have to do it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that the last thing that I want to do is to suspend him.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House requires its Speaker to exercise discretion. I have to hear 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9. It is not unreasonable to move on to them.
Mr. Lewis: Will you answer my question?
Hon. Members: We want to ask questions, too.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lewis: Will you accept manuscript amendments?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lewis: Will you accept them?
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the noise, I shall suspend the Sitting for 10 minutes.
Sitting suspended at 4.21 pm.
4.31 pm
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: I have often said that a brief adjournment is useful. This adjournment was useful for me because it reminded me that I had told the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) that I take points of order after statements.
Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have given an undertaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) that you will take his point of order. We shall come to that later. In the light of the difficulties that we have encountered, I suggest that the past 10 minutes were not sufficient to deal with the matter. One or two of my hon. Friends suggested that the House should be suspended while the matter was considered. You have already suspended the House for a few minutes, and I realise that that is not a normal occurrence. I am not suggesting that suspending the House is a normal procedure in any sense. But I believe that if you, Mr. Speaker,

541
are willing to suspend the House for half an hour, that might provide the best opportunity to obtain a proper means by which the House can proceed in an orderly manner. We have already had one suspension, and if we do not follow my suggestion we may find ourselves in further difficulty. I suggest that the House should be suspended until 5 pm or 5.15 pm. By that means we should be able to find a method by which we could proceed. I think that the House will find that that is the most reasonable way to move forward. It would be fair to Back Bench Members who have a paramount interest in the matter.
Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you have heard my point of order you may understand why I was anxious to raise it earlier. I was told by the Secretary of State for Scotland's office today that, although he could not make a normal statement about the colleges of education in Scotland, he intended to answer a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Have you received any indication or request from the Secretary of State that he wished to make a statement on that important matter at the end of Question Time? If not, and if he now makes such a request—and I hope that he will—will he be allowed to make that important statement at the end of the business that we are presently discussing?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My office contacted the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) this morning and offered to request that question No. 23 should be answered at the end of Question Time. That offer was turned down flat, and I did no more about it.
Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot allow that remark to pass without comment. If the Secretary of State wishes to contact me in future, perhaps he will arrange to do so at the appropriate level. I made it clear to his office that I wanted him to make an oral statement today. He still has an opportunity to make one, and I hope that he will do so now.
Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Leader of the House aware that as recently—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a question of whether I am aware of whatever point the hon. Gentleman is making.
Mr. Foulkes: Is it in order for the Scottish Information Office, as recently as this morning, to reply to inquiries from the press by saying that a statement would be made by the Secretary of State this afternoon about the colleges of education in Scotland, and then for no statement to be made?
Mr. Speaker: That is not within my domain.
Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are losing further time. We are discussing a matter about which considerable feelings have been raised in all parts of the House. If we are to find a reasonable way to proceed, and because we have lost a little more time, I suggest that the House be suspended until 5.30 pm. I am seeking to secure a position in which the House may sensibly proceed with its business. It would greatly assist the possibility of reaching a sensible agreement, which I believe is available, if the House were suspended. I hope that the Leader of the House will support my proposition.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have already said, I agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) that it is desirable to reach a reasonable agreement on these matters. Since you, Mr. Speaker, have said that there are 13 applications under Standing Order No. 9, would it not be reasonable to proceed with a discussion on those, while other discussions take place?
Mr. Speaker: It appears that I may now call applications under Standing Order No. 9, which will take a considerable time. Those concerned in other discussions may thereupon be involved in them.
Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit my suggestion to you once again. I understand the desire of the House to proceed. I understand the difficulties. I understand

543
your reticence in wishing to refrain, if possible, from suspending the proceedings of the House. I understand that that is not a normal procedure. However, I seriously suggest that if we are to deal with the matter in a sensible manner my proposal is the most likely way to achieve that. I do not believe that a series of applications under Standing Order No. 9 is the best way to proceed.
There is another difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 on another matter. He has a right to do so. We have given notice on that matter previously. However, he is also concerned in the discussions on another matter. I earnestly suggest that the best way for the House to proceed would be to suspend until 5.30 p.m. I ask you to consider that proposition.
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 18 July, when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, placed the appropriation accounts for Northern Ireland before the House, he gave an assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would make a statement about public expenditure cuts amounting to about £92 million. On that occasion I described the appropriation order as a fiction because we were asked to approve something that the Government were abandoning. The Secretary of State should have made a statement. I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether he would make a statement, but he said that there was no need to do so. I subsequently discovered that the Secretary of State had made a statement about the public expenditure cuts attached to an answer—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is not my responsibility if a statement has not been made. I can rule only on matters that fall within my responsibility.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), he made a suggestion which might suit the two Front Benches but I am more concerned with the Back Benchers, who will not be involved in any discussions. Eventually, we shall have to come to a guillotine motion. However
544
we were to have had five and a half hours, I think, to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 116. At the present rate, it looks as though it will be 9 p.m. before we even reach them. Unless Back Benchers have the chance to move manuscript amendments to the proposed guillotine motion, we shall have no time at all to discuss any of these amendments. This is a very important matter.
Therefore, if you, Mr. Speaker, cannot agree to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale for an adjournment, may I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to accept an adjournment so that we can get together to discuss this matter? I suggest that we are entitled to have the five and a half hours for the first group of amendments—the Government's proposal—one and a half hours for the second group of amendments, and another one and a half hours for the next group, irrespective of when we start. Unless we are given that time, we shall not be able to put up sufficient arguments.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman submits a manuscript amendment, I shall give it the utmost consideration; but I say that without giving any guarantee at this stage, because no Speaker could be expected to give one.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the will of the House is that we should move on. [Interruption.] Order. It is quite clear that there is unanimity.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will see from the Order Paper that my name is at the head of those of a group of hon. Members who have put a block on the Eastbourne Harbour Bill. Two of those hon. Members, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) have written to the promoters, at their offer to discuss the matter of the Bill. We would not wish in any way to prejudge a meeting. The fact that the Bill is on the Order Paper and has been announced by the Leader of the House as being taken preempts the rights of Back Benchers to be able to discuss private business in the traditional way of the House of Commons.

545
Therefore, it seems to me that this is a factor which ought to enter into the views of the Leader of the House when the discussions are taking place through the usual channels. This is an entirely new factor which no one has mentioned so far, and it seems to me that the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) should he allowed to proceed—that is, that the sitting should be suspended for three-quarters of an hour so that the rights of six Back Benchers, at least, can be taken into account in adjusting the business.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chairman of Ways and Means gave notice that the private business was to proceed at 7 o'clock this evening. Notice had been given to the House in advance.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Perhaps it would go some way to meet the point made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—although, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely within your discretion and it is your decision—if, in order to facilitate the discussions, we adjourned for a half an hour.
Mr. Speaker: The sitting is suspended until 5.15 pm.
Sitting suspended at 4.45 pm.
5.15 pm
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: With permission, Mr. Speaker, following discussions through the usual channels I would like to make a Business Statement.
The business for today will now be as follows:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill;
Opposed private business;
British Aerospace Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) and Financial Limits (National Enterprise Board and Secretary of State) Orders.
The business for tomorrow will be:
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill and the Health Services Bill;
Agriculture and horticulture Orders;
Motion on Common fisheries policy.
546
I am very happy that an amicable agreement has been reached on these matters.
Mr. Foot: I thank the Leader of the House for rearranging the business. I certainly think that that will greatly assist the House, because I believe, as I previously indicated, that the business for today was impossible for the House to deal with.
In the matter of the Housing Bill I suggest that the best way to proceed is for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement before we proceed to the guillotine motion. That would be the most agreeable way for the House to deal with the matter. If the Secretary of State is prepared to make a statement at that stage, I believe that the House will be able to embark upon the Housing Bill with a clear understanding of what the Government are proposing.
I hope that the proposal made by the Leader of the House and my proposal dealing with the way in which we should approach the Housing Bill will be satisfactory to the House. As a result of these discussions I hope that we shall be able to overcome some of the difficulties with which the House had to contend earlier today.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall pass his suggestion on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I understand, is amenable to the suggestion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps hon. Members will now agree to our making progress on the Standing Order.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I entitled to ask a question on the Business Statement?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will realise that all this will have an effect on the House in the small hours of the morning.
Mr. English: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Has the Leader of the House just told us that the two Front Benches, as a result of a carve-up between them, have abolished the procedure debate, in which

547
Back Benchers on both sides of the Chamber were endeavouring to reform our procedure, with, I may say, the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the procedure debate has been postponed to the overspill period. However, it has not been postponed further than that. The procedure debate, together with the Government resolutions that have been tabled, will be taken in the first week after we return from the recess.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House recognise that this agreement has been made without the consent or knowledge of Back-Bench Members and that they will not be bound by it?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the limited time available, it has not been possible to consult all Back-Bench Members on this matter. Some Back-Bench Members have been consulted. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is in the best interests of the House, both Front and Back Benches. This is not a conspiracy of the Front Benches against the rights of Back Benchers.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Leader of the House urge on the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in the interests of his own reputation, he should take the opportunity tomorrow to make a statement on Scottish colleges of education? Will there also be a statement on how the Government intend to put Scotland on all fours with England in housing legislation?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass on those requests to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the Leader of the House aware that, if the Government are prepared to be considerate regarding the legitimate aspirations of the Opposition about opposing the Housing Bill, some of us will be willing to co-operate in the agreement made between the Front Benches?
Therefore, I am willing to withdraw my application to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous gesture.
548
I hope that it will be followed by 12 other hon. Members.
Mr. Fitt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you on a point of order whether this can be taken as a question to the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be a lot easier if the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to the Leader of the House. He is likely to get a more intelligent reply.
Mr. Fitt: I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to question No. 20 on 10 July by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. BruceGardyne) relating to the De Lorean car factory in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was given an undertaking by the Minister of State that before the Summer Recess an answer would be given to that question. That answer was given today and I have absolutely no quarrel with it. But in that answer there is a statement of Government policy on financial arrangements in Northern Ireland.
Tied in with the answer relating to De Lorean there is a statement that there is to be a £10 million cutback on education, a £10 million cutback on health and social services and £10 million to be added to what are known as protective services in Northern Ireland. Does the Leader of the House regard it as fair to the people of Northern Ireland that a statement of such magnitude should be issued in that way without Northern Ireland Members having an opportunity to question the Secretary of State on the implications? Will he, even at this eleventh hour before the recess, arrange for the Secretary of State to be given an opportunity to express his opinion on the matter in the House?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take seriously the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is top for questions tomorrow, so, within the rules of order, there will no doubt be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the three hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the so-called bargain

549
which has been struck between certain Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House is not very good, even though it may contain the dropping of those 200,000 elderly persons' dwellings which could eventually be sold to property speculators under the terms of the Housing Bill?
Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) would sell them his house.
Mr. Skinner: How does that bargain square with the fact that a few hours ago on the radio the Leader of the House, long before he made any statement to the House of Commons today, implied that he did not expect the Housing Bill to be on the statute book before the Tory Party conference but that it would, I think his words were, have to wait another three months? To that extent, would it not have been better if the Housing Bill had been dropped from the business today instead of having it paraded in front of the Tory Party conference in October?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that what I stated was rather different from what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Skinner: I heard it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No doubt the hon. Gentleman heard it, but I said it. In so far as I can recollect from one moment to another on such a day what I have said, what I said on that occasion was that I hoped that it would be available. But, whether I hoped that it would or would not, it seems now that it will be.
Mr. Cryer: Would it not have been better for all concerned if the private business set down for consideration after the Housing Bill had been deferred to the spillover period so that some of us could have a meeting with the promoters of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, as has been indicated?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member
550
for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not adequate when savage cuts are being made in Northern Ireland expenditure without a statement and when money is being allocated to the De Lorean car company which some of us think is nothing more than a gigantic rip-off?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. That matter should be pursued with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at Northern Ireland question time.
I should have no objection to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman about the disposal of private business, but it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. He decides where private business should fall; and it is important that his independence be respected.
Mr. Craigen: Why did not the Government think fit to make a proper statement on the future of colleges of education in Scotland as they are proposing to close two of those colleges—Hamilton and Callendar Park—and have done by way of a sneaky written answer to me this afternoon after a great deal of arm-twisting of the Scottish Office to get the reply.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It has been difficult in these circumstances to fit in all the oral statements which I should like. There has been a statement on this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why in the circumstances it was made in that manner.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I inform the House that there are now eight applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall be grateful if there is any reduction in that number.
Mr. Straw: In view of the major concessions which have been forced out of the Government this afternoon, notwithstanding that they have a majority of 70 over Labour Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my application.

SIR JAMES FARMER NORTON (SALFORD)
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today that the Salford engineering firm of Sir James Farmer Norton has been placed in the hands of the receiver and is to be offered for sale."
In recent years that firm has been much reduced. There are now 320 workers employed at that factory, many of them personal friends of mine, and they are mostly highly skilled.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the three points that I mentioned earlier: urgency, the specific nature, and the importance of the matter.
Mr. Allaun: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The importance is that many of these skilled men, who are in danger of dismissal, will not return and will be lost to the industry for ever. That would be a tremendous loss to the country as a whole.
This morning I spoke to the AUEW representative for the area, who told me that every morning he is frightened to look at his post because a new announcement of a closure takes place every day. The whole city is being denuded of employment.
Normally, when a liquidator takes over there is a subsequent closure and all those concerned are made redundant. That is what might happen in this case. This is a textile engineering firm, and there is little chance of its being taken over as a running concern because the Government, through their high interest rates, have made the pound overvalued, and the company cannot sell its products. The firm produces textile machinery, and if it falls—along with others on the danger list—the industry will virtually collapse. Therefore, this is a subject that deserves precedence over all other issues today.
Mr. Speaker: I listened with care and interest to the hon. Gentleman, who asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss the matter of the Salford
552
engineering firm Sir James Farmer Norton, which is now in the hands of a receiver and which is for sale. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SUPPLEMENTARY RATE SUPPORT GRANT)
Mr. Hattersley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which falls wholly within ministerial responsibilities and which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the duty of the Government to publish immediately the criteria against which they will judge whether local authorities are to be penalised by a reduction in their supplementary rate support grant."
This is a matter of complexity, but it is also a matter of considerable democratic importance. A number of local authorities are about to be punished for what the Government call over-spending. Yet the rules that define that offence have not been made available to local authorities. Therefore, at the moment it is impossible for them to know how they can avoid those penalties. The Opposition believe that it is urgently necessary for local authorities to be provided with that information.
The Secretary of State has already announced that he will withhold grants from 20 authorities, and he has described guidelines under which and within which every local authority could be penalised. The guidelines cover 241 authorities out of a possible total of 450, and there is no way in which those authorities can know how they can avoid the penalties and how they can receive the full amount of rate support grant to which they are entitled.
Responding to your wish that there be the briefest of discussions, Mr. Speaker, I shall describe neither the uncertainties of local authorities which put them under the most deplorable and intolerable conditions nor how the Secretary of State may use his discretion in a way that I would describe as arbitrary and possibly capricious. I simply repeat that at this moment local authorities cannot be told and do not know how they can avoid penalties with which they have been threatened by the Secretary of State.

553
To the Opposition it seems an elementary item of justice that the rules governing the conduct of local authorities, the breaking of which results in punishment, and the observance of which results in absolution, should be published in time for local authorities to respond to the Secretary of State's threats in the knowledge of the penalties and offences.
On many occasions this week the Opposition have pressed the Government to make clear those rules. The information necessary to do so is now at their disposal as local authorities made new returns for spending available to the Department by Friday last week. We asked the Government to make clear those rules at Question Time and during the debate on the Summer Adjournment. It is an elementary item of justice that the offence should be publicly defined. That will only happen if the House debates the matter at the first possible moment.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely
"the duty of the Government to publish immediately the criteria against which they will judge whether a local authority is to be penal-issued by a reduction in its supplementary rate support grant."
I listened with great care and anxiety to the right hon. Gentleman, who has undoubtedly raised an important matter. But, as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors that are set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. As I said, I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

CARIBBEAN (HURRICANE ALLEN)
Mr. John Fraser: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which falls wholly within ministerial responsibilities and which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the question of British aid to the Caribbean in the aftermath of Hurricane Allen."
This hurricane is one of unprecedented force and has affected islands such as St. Kitts, St. Lucia, Dominica, Barbados and Jamaica—islands in which our constituents' relatives live. I note from the evening papers today that there are thousands of British holidaymakers on those islands whose whereabouts and welfare are not at present known. This is a tragedy that is close to people in this country. There have been deaths, and there are reports of extensive damage. This matter is important, both to those islands and to people in this country, and it should receive urgent consideration.
There is a second reason why the matter requires urgent consideration. Those islands have been badly hit by oil prices, they rely heavily on crops such as sugar and bananas, and the damage caused by a hurricane has a far greater effect than it would have in an industrialised country.
There is a final reason why the matter should be given urgent consideration. The Government have been negotiating with Jamaica about a loan to that country, but they have postponed the negotiations because of the Government's view of Jamaica's economy and because of the difference of opinion between Jamaica and the International Monetary Fund. In the light of what has happened yesterday and today, I believe that this matter warrants urgent consideration by the House.
Elections are due to be held in Jamaica in the autumn, and it is possible that high winds in Jamaica and elsewhere could have not only physical repercussions, but political repercussions also. It would be wrong to withhold aid, and we should have an opportunity to discuss the matter. Consideration can be given under Standing Order No. 9 to the administrative responsibilities of Ministers, and consideration should be given to whether there is any other possibility of Parliament discussing the matter urgently.

555
Clearly, between now and Friday there is no possibility of hat arising.
Urgent aid should be given to Jamaica and to the other islands that are affected. This is a matter for urgent consideration, particularly in view of political developments, and on that basis I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"British aid to the Caribbean in the aftermath of Hurricane Allen."
The House will have been disturbed by the hon. Gentleman's description of the grievous conditions in the Caribbean. However, the House knows that I am directed to take into account not only the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened with anxious care, as did the House, to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

TRIDENT NUCLEAR MISSILE
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of Her Majesty's Government to spend £5 billion on a Trident nuclear missile."
The matter is undoubtedly specific in the sense that the Government have definitely made the decision and have specifically said that the cost will be £5 billion spread over five years—not £4.9 billion, not £51 billion, but £5 billion exactly. It will probably be twice that figure before we get the thing. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, you might argue that it is not specific.
556
The matter is certainly important. Its importance cannot be exaggerated. At a time when the Government are actively engaged in slashing expenditure on all the social services—on housing, health, education, school meals and home helps—when they are set to rob the old-age pensioners this coming November of about £100 million by deferring the payment of their pensions increase for a fortnight, when council house building is to be virtually drawn to a halt, and when total national output is on the slide, it is the height of folly and irresponsibility for the Government to commit themselves unequivocally, irrevocably and come what may to this extravagant nonsense. The outcome of a referendum would support the views that we are advancing.
The House and the electorate have been kept in the dark about these matters. The Tory Party's claim that it believes in open government is shown by this exercise to be the nonsense that it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if I granted his application. He must address himself to the three issues that are set out in the order.
Mr. Hamilton: I am about to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I have established the importance of the subject and the sense of urgency. The issue has never been debated on a full day in the House in Government time or in Opposition time. The decision was made without the knowledge or consent of some members of the Cabinet. It is almost the most important subject that the House can debate this century.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of Her Majesty's Government to spend £5 billion on a Trident nuclear missile."
I listened with care and concern to the hon. Gentleman's argument. As he knows and as the House knows, I have to take into account all the factors set out in the order. I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the

557
provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

VANUATU
Mr. Christopher Price: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation in Vanuatu, formerly the New Hebrides."
This is a serious application. It concerns a subject that I have now been raising in the House for well over a year. The situation in Vanuatu is now more serious than it has ever been. It is important, because the House was misled on 24 July by the Minister of State when he said:
"British and French troops, acting together, carried out an operation to restore the authority of legitimate Government on the island of Santo, thus putting an end to the eight-week rebellion. The operation appears so far to have been a complete success."—[Official Report, 24 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 801.]
We know that the operation was almost a complete failure and that the Royal Marines have taken no action of any sort to preserve the integrity of the newly independent country of Vanuatu. It is especially urgent in view of the news this week that there has been a landing of a large quantity of automatic weapons on the island, almost certainly by American interests, in league with the French residents on Vanuatu and with Jimmy Stevens, that are intent on disrupting the territorial integrity of Vanuatu. The matter is particularly urgent because the British soldiers who are stationed on the island failed completely to prevent this disruption of this newly independent Commonwealth country.
It is important that we have a debate on this matter, because there is a real danger that the military conflict that is about to grow on the island of Santo will be one between British and French soldiers. The French are there to protect their citizens, many of whom are actively backing the rebel regime, and the Royal Marines are there to protect the integrity of the new Commonwealth country of Vanuatu. There is a real danger that the conflict will worsen.
558
It is for those reasons that I beg leave to have a debate on the issue, so that the Minister may tell us what the present situation is and give us an assurance that the British troops will remain there as long as the French troops to carry out our obligations to this newly independent Commonwealth country that desperately needs our help.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation in Vanuatu, formerly the New Hebrides."
I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I have to rule that his application does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

WINDSCALE (RADIOACTIVE LEAKAGE)
Mr. Cryer: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the report of the Health and Safety Executive on the leakage of radioactive liquid into the ground of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Wind-scale, 15 March 1979."
The matter is important, because health and safety matters are rarely debated in the House. They are of great importance, because many more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action and industrial action. However, the Government have wasted many hours of parliamentary time with legislation on industrial injury.
The matter is urgent, because the House should debate the issues that are raised in the report on the procedures, methods and lack of safety that led to radioactive contamination of a level that would have killed anyone who had been placed in the soil that was contaminated.
The matter is urgent, because we have a Government who are hell-bent on embarking on a programme of 10 fast-breeder reactors with a Nuclear Installations Inspectorate that is below strength

559
because of Government cuts in health and safety expenditure as well as other expenditure.
The matter is important and urgent, because we want to ensure that we do not have, through laxity or failure to meet standards, a Three-Mile Island incident in Britain. It behoves Parliament to ensure that the report does not, like many other health and safety reports, merely gather dust without any debate.
Parliament would seem to be prepared to debate such urgent and important matters only when a grave accident occurs, with consequent loss of life and limb. Radioactivity is a serious issue. The House should discuss it, so that suitable publicity can be given and remedial action can be taken. In particular, the Health and Safety Executive appears to be so complacent that no prosecutions are being undertaken.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the report of the Health and Safety Executive on the leakage of radioactive liquid into the ground of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Wind-scale, 1 March 1979."
As the House knows, I do not decide whether these matters are discussed. I merely decide whether they are to be discussed tonight or tomorrow night. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and the whole House is aware of that. However, I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION v. GRANADA TELEVISION
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) wish to make the same application as I rejected two or three days ago?
Mr. Greville Janner: I do, Mr. Speaker, because there have been a series of new events.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing
560
Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the danger to the freedom of the press due to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the British Steel Corporation v. Granada."
The matter is urgent, because it has been reported today that Granada cannot comply with the ruling that the House of Lords gave last week. It cannot name the British Steel Corporation employee who leaked BSC's confidential documents.
Since your previous ruling, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that the Law Commission's report—which had been expected by the end of the year—will have to be reconsidered. Indeed, the report may not appear until later. In addition, since your ruling, the Attorney-General has stated that the House of Lords will not give reasons for its sad judgment until the next Session. In the meantime the vacation court will sit. The journalists involved, those who employ them, and other journalists, are at grave risk.
The matter is both urgent and important. I had no hesitation about renewing my application under Standing Order No. 9. If we were to have a debate the House could emphasise to the British Steel Corporation that, despite the judgment of the House of Lords, the matter should not be pressed further and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is advancing the argument that he would advance if I were to grant him the Adjournment.
Mr. Janner: I shall conclude immediately. The matter is urgent, because the court that sits during the vacation will have to consider what to do with any application. In addition, it is important that the House should have an opportunity to express its views to the court. I hope that all hon. Members agree that courts should act as though legislation were pending and should treat journalists as being unable to comply with such a ruling in private matters.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would ask leave to move the

561
Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the danger to the freedom of the press due to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of the British Steel Corporation v. Granada."
I listened with concern to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

  MOTOR CYCLE CRASH HELMETS (SECULAR PRINCIPLES OBJECTION)
  Sir Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Ivan Lawrence, presented a Bill to exempt certain persons having objections of principle to compulsion in the matter of wearing motor cycle crash helmets from the provisions of section 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 265.]
  Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has just witnessed a novel use of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would be desirable to refer such a flatter to the new Committee on procedure, once it has been set up?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to argue about that. I do not refer matters to the Committee on procedure. It is usually the House that refers such matters to it.

HOUSING LEGISLATION (ELDERLY PERSONS' HOMES)
Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood from the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment would make a statement on the progress that he hopes to make and on the changes that he will make to the Housing Bill. It would be convenient to have that statement now.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be aware that Lords amendments
562
to the Housing Bill are tabled for consideration later today. They will significantly widen the exclusions from the right to buy. Not only will sheltered properties be excluded; in addition, those properties designed or specially adapted for old people will be excluded.
The Government have considered the amendments and have decided to widen the exclusions so that genuine elderly persons' accommodation is excluded. We shall accordingly invite the House—with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House—to consider a manuscript amendment to that effect.
Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Most of us wish to make progress. It would help if the Secretary of State were to state clearly and categorically that the Government will no longer pursue the sale of those properties that are specifically designed for the use of, and occupation by, the elderly. Will he confirm that the will of the House of Lords is to be endorsed, on the Government's advice?
Secondly, will he confirm the statement made by the Leader of the House, namely, that that which applies in England should apply to Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will apply to Scotland? Will he also confirm that a suitable measure will be brought forward to ensure that this substantial concession applies to Scotland as well as to England?
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the views of their Lordships. I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's second question first. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised me to say, as regards the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill, that he will facilitate legislation to make a change along the lines that I have announced, at the earliest convenient moment.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is standing. He is not saying anything. Does he wish to raise a point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to comment on this very important statement. Concessions have been wrung out of the Government at a very late

563
stage in the Session. I believe that those concessions could well have been improved upon. I hope that the Tory Government—especially Tarzan himself—understands that the House has ways and means of trying to extract such concessions. It is possible to do that without a parliamentary majority. The events of the past 24 hours demonstrate that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Cabinet understand that if the next Session lasts its full course, similar ventures may take place in order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has strayed far from the original point of order.
Mr. Heseltine: I warmly support the concept that the rule of law and supremacy of Parliament should be supreme in this country. I am sure that the House will have welcomed the hon. Gentleman's clarification of his position.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of my colleagues, I wish to make clear that as chairman of the Back-bench Labour Party environment group I was consulted about this arrangement as were as many other hon. Members as possible in the time. May I ask the Secretary of State through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he will make any concession in relation to houses in rural areas? The Select Committee on the environment wrote to him—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That subject can wait until the debate has commenced. We should not go too far now.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I thank the Minister, and more particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends, for forcing this concession out of the Government? No doubt they would also thank the Back Benchers who gave such able support.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Secretary of State very warmly for this concession, which will mean a great deal to a number of councils, including that of Lancaster.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Berwick and East
564
Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and then I shall call the Minister.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has just made a statement on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that a similar amendment will be inserted in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. Will he confirm that "the earliest possible opportunity" will be tomorrow, and not a later date?
Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not technically possible to amend the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill. There is no opportunity to do so within the broad rules of order. However, it would be the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek the earliest opportunity to introduce separate legislation for this purpose. I ask the House to understand that this is the only constitutional way in which we can proceed.
Mr. Straw: Since the Secretary of State for Scotland has a discretion as to when parts of the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Bill will come into force, will the Secretary of State for the Environment, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, give an undertaking that the "right to buy" provision in Scotland will not come into force until such date as any amending legislation is through the House?
Mr. Heseltine: Obviously, I cannot anticipate the debate that my right hon. Friend will conduct at a later time. I ask the House to pursue these matters with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that the only way in which the Scottish legislation can be amended is by a new instrument, but I think that the House would agree that it would be wholly unreasonable if the Government promised to prohibit, or at least not enforce, the sale of old people's dwellings in Scotland as soon as they had legislative time, but then allowed these dwellings to be sold in large numbers throughout the summer. We need an assurance that the Government's intention will be honoured in the spirit and the letter and that the Secretary of State will not give any authority for the sale of

565
property which will not be compulsorily sold when the new Bill is brought to the House.
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot help the right hon. Member completely but I can help him to the extent that neither of the two Bills dealing with housing and the right to buy comes into effect in the summer. They will not come into effect until two months after they have been enacted.

HOUSING BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
6.2 pm
Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Stanley, to move the allocation of time motion.
Mr. William Hamilton rose—
Mr. Speaker: If this is a point of order, it will come out of the time for the allocation of time debate.
Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to express a view on the Scottish matter. A Government Minister from Scotland is sitting on the Front Bench and it is quite intolerable for the Secretary of State for the Environment to speak on behalf of the Scots when they have a Minister here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member may be able to make that point in the debate that will follow. It is not a point of order on which I can rule. It is possible for the hon. Member to raise it on the motion.
Mr. Hamilton: I was simply asking whether the Scottish Office had applied to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement to this effect, instead of delegating it to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have called the Minister and you have said that points of order will come out of the time for the guillotine motion, which will take one hour. The Minister rose at 6.2 p.m. The Order Paper today on page 5396—No. 2 Order of the Day—states:
"HOUSING BILL [Allotted Day]: Consideration of Lords Amendments."
Just above the sentence in bold type it says:
"If the Motion (Housing Bill (Allocation of Time)) is agreed to:—At the conclusion of the Proceedings of the Housing Bill …"
then we shall have the proceedings on the Eastbourne Harbour Docks Bill. Does that mean that if the motion is not agreed to by 7 pm—and the Minister rose with only 58 minutes to go—at 7 pm opposed Private Business must be taken? Surely this sentence cannot be put into operation,

567
because the motion will not be agreed by 7 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: According to our Standing Orders, Private Business is taken at the end of the Bill which is subject to the guillotine motion. I believe that that is made clear on the Order Paper—that it will come at the end of the discussion on the Bill.
Mr. Rooker: That is my understanding from the front page of the Order Paper, but that seems to contradict the statement that the guillotine motion must be agreed to before 7 pm. If it is agreed to by 7 o'clock the Private Business is put back till the end of the day. The word "if" is there. If it were not, I would not be raising this point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The original order covers it. It is very long but I shall read it. Paragraph 8 says:
"Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings."
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon Members realise that they are taking time out of the debate on this motion. We have started the debate on the timetable motion.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for further clarification. It seems to me that if we have agreed a motion for a guillotine, Private Business is not taken at 7 o'clock but at the end of the business that is covered by the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised a different question. If 7 o'clock arrives and at that stage we have not agreed the motion for the guillotine, we then have no motion for a guillotine, so what is there in the Standing Orders to prevent the business set down for 7 o'clock being called then?
Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in suggesting that today cannot be an allotted day within the guillotine motion of 16 April until it has been so allotted by the House? That cannot be so until the House has decided the guillotine motion.
Mr. Speaker: It is an allotted day. It is on the Order Paper. That is the answer to both hon. Gentlemen.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of the House [16th April] be supplemented as follows:—
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords Amendments

Time for Conclusion

Nos. 1 to 116

9 p.m.

Nos. 117 to 145

10.30 p.m.

Nos. 146 to 251

midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after 10 o'clock.
3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

569

(iii)put forthwith with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve Questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House
570
under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion—[Mr. Stanley.]
6.7 pm
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): The Housing Bill that we have been considering for more than six months is perhaps as far-reaching and as comprehensive a housing measure as has come before the House in the post-war period. On this side of the House we look forward to its early enactment. I do not think that anyone can reasonably deny that the Bill has been debated at great length—both in the House and in another place.
A total of 167 hours was spent debating the Bill in this House before it went to another place. Of that time, 139 hours were spent in Committee, covering 46 Committee sittings spanning over three months. In another place there has been further detailed consideration of the Bill over a period of another 58½ hours. To date, therefore, both Houses have spent a total of 225½ hours discussing the Bill.
I do not believe that there are any substantive provisions that have not already been discussed at some length. Indeed, there are some provisions that may have been debated as many as seven times—on Second Reading, Committee and Report in this House, and then on Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading debate with amendments in another place.
The Opposition may no doubt refer to the number of Lords amendments for consideration by this House. The numerical total is 251, but it would be highly misleading to do what the Opposition may be tempted to do, namely, to argue against this motion by reference to the number of amendments passed in another place. Of the 251, a considerable number, 143 in all, are of a minor, technical or drafting nature.
The remaining 108 amendments can be said to relate to substantive issues, but that total includes all the consequential or drafting amendments relating to those issues. The majority of the substantive amendments have, in fact, been made to meet the points put

571
by hon. Members on both sides of the House and also to meet points put by bodies outside the House.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am interested to learn of the reports that have been discussed. The Minister will recall that on a number of occasions the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and myself have raised the issue of houses in multiple occupation. We were given to understand that a survey was being carried out in conjunction with local authorities and the Department and that a report would be produced outlining some of the conditions, such as fire precautions. On a number of occasions, both in the Chamber and in written answers, the Minister said that that report would be made available before the end of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Can he tell me where I can obtain a copy of that report, so that even at this late stage I can consider it and be in a position to discuss it on the relevant part of the Bill? If it is not available, when will it be?
Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman refers to exactly what I said he will see that it was to the effect that it was our intention to try to make that report available before the proceedings on the legislation was concluded. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows probably as well as any hon. Member, some extremely difficult and complex issues are involved. As I think he is also aware, as a result of representations that he and some of my hon. Friends have made, we have made significant progress on the legislation governing houses in multiple occupation.
We have moved amendments to meet points made by a great variety of outside bodies—the local authority associations, the Building Societies Association, the Law Society, the Federation of Private Residents Associations and the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, among others.
The Opposition may try to make the point that it does not say too much for the Bill as originally drafted that we had to take so much account of representations made by outside bodies. However, if the right hon. Member for Birmingham,
572
Sparkbrook, (Mr. Hattersley) in particular seeks to make that point, I put it to him that had he been more responsive to the representations made by people both inside and outside the House, some of the legislation for which he was responsible would have been mightily improved.
We have introduced amendments to meet in whole, or at least in part, points made by many Members on both sides, in both Houses. We have met some of the points made by the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on matters relating to hostels. We have also brought forward amendments to meet an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) on successor children, under the right to buy.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) made an important point relating to rental purchase. Points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) on rural areas.
Mr. Gerald KaufmanAs it seems possible that we shall not reach a debate on those amendments, I should like to register my appreciation, on behalf of my constituents and a large number of victims of these people in the North of England, for the amendments that the Government have tabled. They do not cover the whole problem but they represent a valuable safeguard for those affected. I would not like the Bill to proceed without registering my thanks to the Minister for what he has done.
Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge the fact that, had it not been for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman raised that problem in regard to his own constituency, it would not have been drawn to our attention in the way that it was. Therefore, the fact that we have brought these amendments forward relates directly to the action that he took on behalf of his constituents.
We have also brought forward important amendments that were asked for by the right hon. Member for Ardwick and

573
my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on the application of the two-thirds rateable value rule under the Rent Act. Points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), Chelsea (Mr. Scott), Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and Fulham (Mr Stevens) on service charges. Points were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), together with Lord Banks in another place, on option mortgages for the elderly, where we have made an amendment which I believe commands widespread support on both sides of the House. Another amendment was moved in another place by Lord Greenwood and Lord Selkirk on home ownership for Service men. That shows that throughout this legislation we have endeavoured to make a reasoned and sensible response to sound cases for amending the Bill.
That means that the House now faces a considerable number of amendments that have been brought forward from another place. If the Opposition want to argue against the motion on the grounds that there are too many amendments, my reply must be that the Government could have taken up quite a different stance. They could have closed their ears to all the representations that have been made and paid not one jot or tittle of attention to them. In that event, the Housing Bill would have returned to this House with far fewer amendments than 251. Indeed, it might have come back with precisely five amendments, namely, the five on which the Government were defeated in another place.
Had that occurred, and had the Government brought the Bill back with precisely five amendments to it, I have a pretty good idea what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would have said. I am certain that he would have castigated the Government for not bringing forward enough amendments. He would have said that it was outrageous that the Government had not accepted more of the amendments that were tabled in another place. I am sure that if there were only five Lords amendments on the Amendment Paper he would still oppose the motion on the ground that the Opposition
574
needed more time to persuade us to accept more amendments.
Mr. Jack Straw: The Minister should not stretch that point too far. Surely the truth is that the vast majority of amendments have been tabled by the Government in order to amend their poor drafting.
Mr. Stanley: I recall several amendments designed to deal with drafting errors in the previous Government's housing legislation, which they had lost sight of. In any event, a considerable number of the amendments that have been brought forward are in response to points made on both sides in both Houses.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I accept that there have been drafting errors in previous legislation. Does the Minister accept that the majority of errors that have occurred have resulted from the introduction in the Lords of amendments at a late stage—the Rent Act 1974 was a supreme example—which were not properly examined by the House? Does he agree that we should learn the lesson from our past mistakes and ensure that, in future, rather than coming back to the House with a 42-page Bill to be debated in six hours, we should refer Lords amendments back to a Committee so that they can be properly discussed?
Mr. Stanley: I do not want to trespass onto questions of procedure. However, I believe that the course of the Bill underlines the Government's position and their attitude towards the other House, which is certainly not the position that has been adopted by the Labour Party.
If the Opposition wish to argue that a large number of these amendments are, in fact, controversial, that is hardly borne out by the proceedings that have taken place in another place. Of the 246 Government amendments that were tabled in another place, the number against which the Opposition divided was exactly zero. That does not suggest that we are bringing forward a large number of controversial amendments. I accept that not every amendment is entirely free from controversy, and there are the five amendments to which the Government have tabled motions to disagree. One of those—the one to extend option mortgage arrangements to annuities bought by the

575
elderly—is purely a technical disagreement to enable us to rectify the drafting of an amendment that we have already made clear we are accepting. We are left, therefore, with just the four right-to-buy amendments, with which we disagree. We shall table a further amendment to one of them in lieu.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I have no doubt that the Minister regards have no doubt that the Minister regards the concession that has been made this afternoon as tremendously important. I do not. It involves 200,000 houses out of a total of 6 million. I wanted the whole Bill to be postponed for three months. The Minister and his hon. Friends, one of whom appeared on television last night, said that that would deny tenants the right to buy. That is misrepresentation. What is really happening is that councils are being compelled to sell even if they do not want to. That puts a different emphasis on the situation.
Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has been following our proceeding closely. The only interpretation of the legislation is that we are doing that which we promised—to give a legal right to buy to 6 million council tenants.
Each of the four right-to-buy amendments has been debated extensively already. We have endeavoured to arrange the timetable motion to give the House the opportunity to debate these subjects today. However, in Committee and on Report, in both Houses, apart from the time spent in the Second Reading debates, the issue of dwellings for the elderly has been debated for three and a quarter hours, the rural areas for seven and three quarter hours, the option provisions for five hours, and the Secretary of State's intervention powers for five and a half hours. The four right-to-buy amendments have been debated extensively already in both Houses. In the circumstances, the timetable motion, with the extension to midnight, provides reasonable time for the consideration of Lords amendments.
Whatever view is taken in the House, I am sure that the thousands of tenants who are anxiously waiting for the right to buy their homes will agree that the time provided is ample.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there has been considerable anxiety in the past few days about this matter? I spent most of the morning answering telephone calls from constituents who are deeply anxious and who will be most relieved if and when the House chooses to approve the guillotine motion.
Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his view is shared by many thousands of council tenants. I am sure that it will be shared by the many hundreds of Birmingham tenants who were in the process of buying their homes, only to be stopped last May. I am sure that it will be the view of the hundreds of Manchester tenants who were in the process of buying their homes when they were stopped by a change in control in 1971 and had to fight their way through the courts for eight years. Such tenants, and thousands like them, have been waiting for the Bill for 15 months with increasing impatience. I hope that the House will agree that they should not have to wait any longer.
6.24 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: It would be ungracious of me not to respond to the concern expressed for the tenants of Birmingham by the Minister. If he visited the Spark-brook division and the great housing estates at Foxholes and Acocks Green, he would obtain a clear picture of what the tenants think of the Government in general. I should be delighted to take him round the estates while he discusses these matters with the tenants.
I am in a benevolent mood, matters having turned out as they have, and I shall give the Minister credit since he wrote his speech before the Government made their major concession of which he seemed to be unaware. When we debated the timetable motion on the Report stage I said that I was not attracted to the normal rituals of guillotine debates. That is still my view. However, today's debate, by any standards, cannot be called a normal guillotine debate. The facts and figures speak for themselves.
The House of Lords spent eight days considering and amending the Bill. Initially, the Government offered the

577
House of Commons eight hours to consider what it took the Lords eight days to consider. In fact, the period will be substantially shorter. No reasonable person will argue that eight hours or less is adequate time to decide whether their Lordships were right in the considerations which took them eight full days.
In the House of Lords 255 amendments were carried. The Minister said that the figure was 251 because he did not separate amendments with the same number but with different letters. I understand that that was a genuine error and I forgive him. Two new schedules and 11 new clauses were passed. Even allowing for the full day which it is charitable to assume that the Government felt would be devoted to these matters, we would have been allowed two minutes' discussion per amendment in the House of Commons.
Hon. Members will argue that that is a bogus time because amendments and new clauses are grouped together. The provisional selection offered the House 79 separate debates which, had the debate today begun at 3.30, would have given us six minutes per group of amendments. It would not have given us time to vote on each group, nor to debate each group. The Government would have hardly had time to describe each group.
I hope that the Minister and the Leader of the House have learnt one or two lessons in the last couple of days. They must realise that it is not for them to tell the House what is an important issue and what is not. Perhaps 243 amendments would be judged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to be of no great significance. However, that is for the House to decide. It is an unacceptable use of the Government's power for them to decide that certain amendments are unimportant and to decree that the House should not have the opportunity to make its own judgment and have its own discussions. That is for the House of Commons to decide. It has not been allowed that proper courtesy and right.
Why are we in the present position? Part of the reason is the Government's incompetence, although the Minister tried to pass over that with a blandness which is new to him. It is no good his saying that the Government could have
578
rejected every amendment made in the House of Lords. If the Bill had come here unamended, large parts of it would have been unworkable. I suppose that the Government, hell-bent on getting the Bill through, might have been sufficiently wrongheaded to turn down the corrective amendments which they moved themselves. Many of the amendments are necessary because of the Government's incompetence.
That incompetence was demonstrated dramatically by the Minister of State last Wednesday. The Minister of State is not the type of performer that we expect to stop the show, but he managed to stop the House of Lords for half an hour a week ago by making an announcement which has been gainsaid by the Government. It was typical and indicative of the incompetence with which the Bill has been pursued.
The Bill was debated in the House of Commons Standing Committee for 136 hours or 46 sittings. Yet it was so deficient, and remains so deficient, that literally dozens of technical amendments had to be moved in the House of Lords. It may be that most are no more than corrections of errors that a competent Government would have discovered earlier. However, I repeat that it is for this House to decide whether they are matters of substance. It is a denial of our right not to be given time to make that judgment.
Why are we being required to dispose in an afternoon and evening of what it took their Lordships eight days to deal with? The answer is in three parts. I want to explain why the Government have forced themselves into a humiliating position over the past three days and why a major concession has been granted at the last minute, much to my pleasure, but in a way that does the Government no credit and reveals that the Leader of the House is the most incompetent man to occupy that office for a long time.
One reason is the strange and dangerous psychology of the Prime Minister, who is never prepared to be seen to change her mind, especially when she is wrong. Time after time the Government are required to plough off the straight furrow, irrespective of whether they are proceeding in a manner that will do

579
them, the Commons and the country great damage. However, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis): when Labour Back Bench Members demonstrated that they would not have it, the Prime Minister at least saw sense on one issue.
The second reason why we have been rushed along in this wholly unacceptable way is the arrogance of the Leader of the House. Over this, as over so many other matters, he has not behaved as a Leader of the House, protecting our rights to debate issues in the proper way. He has behaved as a functionary of the Conservative Party. I warn him, and I hope that his hon. Friend will draw my warning to his attention, that the more he pursues the narrow party line while occupying the great office that he does, the more he is bound to face more difficulties of the sort that he encountered on Monday and today. When he starts behaving like a Leader of the House, we shall make more progress.
It is not only the Prime Minister's obduracy or the incompetence and arrogance of the Leader of the House that has led to the House being rushed. The third reason is the ambition of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Smiling in that simpering way that he has, the Leader of the House said that the Bill would now be passed in time for the Conservative Party conference. Pressure is being put on us in order that the customary ovation for the Secretary of State can be enhanced by his announcement that the Housing Bill has passed into law. That is why Conservative Members will have only six days in which to prepare to shoot whatever they shoot on 12 August. That is why holidays have been abandoned, pairs have been broken, yesterday's business was lost and we shall stay up late tonight. It is in order to further the most carefully contrived and long-winded ovation that even the Conservative Party has ever known.
I leave the Government with this thought. Having obtained a major concession, we look forward to voting against those Government propositions to which we take the strongest objection in principle.
580
We shall go through the evening and the night sustained by the thought that we are voting for principles. Conservative Members will be voting for the Secretary of State's ambition. I wish them well with it.
6.33 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have two important points to make. First, the Shadow spokesman has accused others of attributes that many would attach to him. He accuses my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of not changing her mind. He is not willing to change his mind so that ordinary working people can have the chance to buy their homes. About 30 per cent. of my constituents will not have the opportunity to buy homes unless the Bill becomes law. The local authority, allegedly representing ordinary people, considers that they should not have that chance. They are told that they should look for homes on the private market, which in most cases would mean leaving the constituency. Over the past 25 years the average rate of owner-occupation has doubled, but that is not true in my constituency, where a great many homes are owned by the local authority. Unless the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) believes that those people must always be council tenants, whatever the general pattern of owner-occupation, he should change his mind.
Mr. Frank Allaun: If the hon. Gentleman wants ordinary working people in his constituency to buy their houses, why does he not tell them that there is plenty of private housing available? They should buy those houses instead of buying property that is desperately needed by people who cannot afford to buy houses, even with the aid of a mortgage.
Mr. Bottomley: I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with my constituency, but it contains many empty public sector houses because of the difficulty experienced by one local authority in managing so many homes. As a result there is more friction than if there was ordinary marketing.
The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of arrogance. However, the right hon. Gentleman is arrogant to suggest that

581
people who want the chance to own their homes should not have it. I own my home, or at least that part of it which is not owned by the building society, and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman owns his. Many people have not had the opportunity to buy a flat or small house to begin with and to move as they changed jobs. We are not here to represent only those who own their homes. We should try to make it possible for more people, especially young people, to own homes. We should give those who moved into a council house when they first got married the opportunity to own homes.
The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of ambition. We all have ambitions. My ambition is not to become Secretary of State for the Environment in a Labour Government or leader of the Labour Party. It is that more people should have the opportunity to own homes. The right hon. Gentleman and his party fail to understand the ambitions of those they represent. If he believes that so many people want to buy their homes, why does he not give them a chance to do so? Alternatively, if he believes that only a few would take advantage of the opportunity, why does he oppose the proposals?
Mr. Allen McKay: Has the hon. Gentleman considered cases where Labour-controlled local authorities went to the electorate on not selling houses, because they did not consider that there was a need, and were returned with an overwhelming majority?
Mr. Bottomley: I believe that there is a tendency for local authority elections to be influenced by the party in power. Over the past 20 years there have been massive swings in local elections away from the party in power. It is misleading to claim that a single item of policy makes an enormous difference. In my constituency many people who would normally vote Labour have made it plain that they want the chance to buy their homes.
If Labour Members think that because people, by chance, could not get their own homes when they were young and managed to get a council house, they should be left in servitude to the local authority, not sharing in the distribution
582
of wealth that has been argued for by many Labour Members and not being as mobile as those who own their own homes, they have got things the wrong way round.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency which is similar to my own. When his constituents say that they want to buy their own homes, does he explain to them that the easiest way for them to do that would be for the Government to give them a large deposit, to reduce interest rates, so that buyers could afford mortgages, reduce inflation—instead of doubling it—sand reduce VAT, so that purchasers would have more money in their pockets to pay for a mortgage? Those actions would help all his constituents to buy their homes, but the Government have done the reverse of all those actions.
Mr. Bottomley: My constituents cannot all buy their houses while 30 per cent. of properties remain in the ownership of the local authority.
Some Labour Members argue that only the more desirable council homes will be purchased.
Mr. Frank Allaun: That is correct.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has got it wrong. Many people do not manage to get a council house or choose to buy small flats that may be in worse condition than those owned by local authorities. Most of those people do not continue to live in their inexpensive or less desirable flat or house, but do it up—which helps to regenerate run-down areas—and it represents their first rung on the housing ladder. They have mobility and they have had the opportunity to put their money into what matters to them rather than into other areas of expenditure.
Many council tenants of what appear to be less desirable flats and houses would be well advised to buy those properties. If the council homes are as undesirable as many Labour Members suggest, what sort of housing system have we had that has condemned so many to live in sub-standard housing? Secondly, can we not learn from what has happened in many parts of the country where ordinary working people have

583
had the opportunity of doing up their homes, have enjoyed living there and, because of the value that they have added to the properties, have been able to sell at a better price?
Mr. George Grant: The hon. Gentleman may think that he is presenting a reasonable case, but he is missing the point of the argument. If the Bill goes through and meets all the requirement that he is asking for, and council houses are sold—and, because of high mortgage rates, houses are being taken off the market—what will happen to the multitude who cannot afford to buy their own homes? There will be no council houses for them.
Mr. Bottomley: If I were to answer that intervention, I would go back over all the arguments that we have had previously. The arguments that I am putting forward have not been put forward in this way before.
Mr. Vivian Bendall: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we have given security of tenure to council tenants, they can stay in their homes for the rest of their lives, so the properties would not become vacant anyway?
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made the point which I thought had been made often enough for me not to offer it to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant).
I am prepared to stay here right through the night and, if necessary, to come back next week, because I regard the extension of home ownership to council tenants as one of the most important aspects of policy, towards which there ought to be a bipartisan approach. Only Labour Members' ambition, arrogance and refusal to change their minds have stopped the proposal going through in that way as an important part of social legislation. It is as important as the Education Acts and the introduction of old-age pensions, and it will be as important as the increase in child benefits which I hope we shall see in the future.
6.45 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley is said to be one of the
584
leading wets in the Tory Party. Having listened to his speech, I feel as though I have walked through a lukewarm shower. It is not convincing for the hon. Gentleman to bleed his heart for ordinary working people when he has walked through the Lobbies with his hon. Friends in support of policies that are making hundreds of thousands of ordinary people unemployed so that they have no chance of buying their home, whether they live in private rented accommodation or council housing.
The Bill is not only irrelevant to the housing needs of the nation but is supremely damaging to them. It is so damaging that not even this Government could convince another place, which has an overwhelming number of their own supporters, on certain major aspects. Not once or twice but five times the Government were defeated because of defections among their own supporters.
It is astonishing that the Government, who, we have been told, are so attached to another place, should have acted in such an arrogant way towards the institution which they hold so venerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will recall that it was not long ago that the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he was Opposition spokesman on aircraft and shipbuilding, was beating the Labour Party over the head for daring to disagree with another place. He said:
"The Government cannot have it both ways. They either believe in the reforming ability of a second Chamber as they presumably intended in their Parliamentary Act 1949, or they do not. They cannot have a reforming second Chamber and then criticise it when it scrutinises legislation from this House."—[Official Report, 8 November 1976; Vol. 919 c. 99.]
The Secretary of State not only criticised another place when it started to scrutinise his legislation; he slapped it in the face.
The Leader of the House, who has conducted our proceedings with such skill in the past week, said during the election campaign:
"A unicameral legislature constitutes a giant step towards tyranny, yet it is precisely this which is proposed by the Labour Party."
One of the good things to come out of this fiasco is that the Government have turned their noses up at another place and hastened its abolition. Let us be clear

585
that the victory achieved today is partly a victory for Labour and cross-bench Peers—to whom I give credit—but mainly a victory for the Opposition in this place. It would not have been possible but for the log jam of business that the Government created and the tactics of the Opposition in forcing the Government to concede. Anyone who doubts that should look at the Amendment Paper and note that time and again the Secretary of State is asking this House to disagree with Lords amendments. The Government have had to stand on their heads because of pressure from the House.
The second reason why this is a humiliating day for the Government is that time and again in Committee they rejected our pleas on the need to amend the Bill in order to prevent tens of thousands of dwellings used for old people from being sold on the private market and no longer being available for old people. The result would have been to force those old people into NHS hospitals, many of them old workhouses, or to put additional pressure on social service homes.
We argued with the Government time and again, but they turned us down. They turned down the arguments in another place, but, because of the chaos that they have produced and the pressure that they were under, they have had to eat their words, stand on their head and accept what they have spent five months objecting to.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon Friend agree that it is the utmost hypocrisy for Conservative Members to claim that they are trying to establish the right of tenants to buy their homes? If that is the principle involved, why is it that all attempts to persuade the Government to extend it to private tenants have been refused? We can only reach the conclusion that it is a vendetta against the rented public sector. It has nothing to do with the rights of owner-occupation.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are only too delighted to sell public assets on the cheap, while carefully defending the rights of private property owners.
More time should be made available to debate the matter, not only because of the items on the Order Paper, but
586
because there are many important matters relating to shorthold tenancy that should be discussed. In Committee we asked the Government why the survey of empty houses in England had not been produced. Question after question was turned down with the promise that, at some stage, the survey commissioned in 1977 would be produced. That has finally happened. I am not surprised that the Minister sat on it for so long. It explodes the idea that there are vast numbers of empty properties waiting to come on to the market when shorthold comes into force. It states that the numbers of empty properties have been consistently overestimated, and that the number of empty properties empty because of the Rent Acts is, at the maximum, 41,000. If shorthold does not work, it will not be because of the Labour Party's promise to repeal the legislation, but because the property is not available.
On 15 January the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) described the Secretary of State for the Environment as the gauleiter of housing.
Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is always selective in his quotations. He should have continued the quotation by reminding the House that I said that the next gauleiter might be a commissar.
Mr. Straw: That is right. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. He said that it was all very well for the Secretary of State to set himself up as the gauleiter of housing but that the next gauleiter might be a commissar. That worried the hon. Gentleman, and he refused to vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. The Secretary of State is destroying basic principles of constitutional relationship between the local authorities and the Government. Labour Secretaries of State may be tempted to use the powers which the present Secretary of State has taken unto himself for other purposes. I do not think that that temptation will come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley, who will be the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. He is a man of the utmost principle. But it is conceivable that others with fewer scruples about the needs of local government will occupy that seat, even from the Labour Benches, and that those powers will be used.

587
Nothing in the course of the proceedings on the Housing Bill during the past seven sorry months has undermined the hon. Member for Buckingham's description of the Secretary of State as a gauleiter—for gauleiter he is and gauleiter he has been. He has jackbooted his way through the housing needs of the nation. He has jackbooted his way not only through the House of Lords but through the House of Commons.
6.55 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on his success in eliciting from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) his description of the Secretary of State. Whenever we repeated that description in Committee we drew rebukes as though it was our invention. I am glad that the original author has acknowledged his paternity of that remark.
In its election manifesto last year the Conservative Party gave prominence to a section headed "The Supremacy of Parliament". It stated:
"the traditional role of our legislature has suffered badly from the growth of government over the last quarter of a century.
"We will see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions, and we will seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive."
Of all the many broken pledges in that manifesto, none has been more cynically betrayed than that.
Let us consider the extraordinary progress of the Housing Bill through Parliament. It was introduced last December, seven months after the election. When it first appeared in the Vote Office it consisted of 129 clauses and 20 schedules, covering 142 pages—a modest measure costing £3.50. The Secretary of State and the Minister clearly felt that it was far too modest: if they were to make their names as legistlators, they would have to do better than that.
In Committee they increased the number of clauses from 129 to 136, the number of schedules from 20 to 22, and the number of pages from 142 to 156. They raised the price from £3.50 to £4.50. For the Ministers the Bill had become not simply an embryonic statute, but a way of life. On Report the Government added another eight clauses, two
588
schedules and 11 pages, and they raised the price to £5.
In a moment of rapture they realised that they need not stop there. It dawned on them that we have a bicameral legislature, and that the Bill's transit to the House of Lords opened up a whole new world. With a whoop of glee they added a further six clauses and one schedule at the Lords Committee stage, and another four clauses and one schedule on Report there. The original 129 clauses had multiplied to 154, and the 20 schedules to 26. At the last count, with final returns not yet available, the length of the Bill had increased by 27 per cent. and its price by 43 per cent.—higher even than the rate of inflation under this Government.
That does not take amendments into account. Last week I tabled a question to the Minister asking how many Government amendments had been made to the Bill. He went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that I received his answer, even to the extent of sending it to my flat in Manchester. I am grateful to him for taking that trouble, but his answer was that he did not really know. He said:
"There is no easy way of providing the analysis nor, to avoid disproportionate cost, has a detailed check of the analysis been made."
The Minister has tabled so many amendments that he has lost count of them. His estimate—and it was only an estimate—was that 159 amendments were tabled in Committee, and 100 on Report. In addition, 99 were tabled in Committee in another place, 87 on Report, and 48 on Third Reading, making a grand total of 493 Government amendments in addition to the extra clauses and schedules.
The Ministers have amendments in the way that dogs have fleas. Their slogan is "If it moves, amend it". Today the House is having to pay the price of their legislative incontinence. We are being asked to absorb, deal with and, in some cases, dispose of or reject 255 amendments in a few hours. There was to be another new clause, but its has been withdrawn.
I draw attention to the fact that the Leader of the House has not troubled to be present during the debate. He and the Secretary of State are turning this House into a mincing machine. They are making a mockery of the parliamentary

589
process. Yet it was they, in their manifesto, who promised that they would
"see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions"
and that they would
"seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive."
Four years ago in this Chamber the Secretary of State, sitting in the position which I have been occupying with my right hon. Friends today, achieved notoriety by rising, seizing the Mace and brandishing it. Today he is degrading it more than he did on that night, because he is dragging it into the mire by asking Parliament to deal with 255 amendments, in 79 groups, in this minimal time—an average of five minutes per group of amendments, provided that there are no Divisions.
The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State and his colleagues are treating Parliament with contempt. Their puppet majority will provide their guillotine in a minute's time, but their majority will not eradicate the stain of what they have done to the reputation of parliamentary government. When a Labour Government return to office, we shall repeal the unacceptable parts of this Bill.

Division No. 446]

AYES

[7.02 pm

Adley, Robert

Budgen, Nick

Farr, John

Aitken, Jonathan

Bulmer, Esmond

Fell, Anthony

Alexander, Richard

Butcher, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Ancram, Michael

Butler, Hon Adam

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Channon, Paul

Fox, Marcus

Banks, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Fry, Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Cockeram, Eric

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Best, Keith

Colvin, Michael

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cope, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Corrie, John

Goodhart, Philip

Biggs-Davison, John

Costain, Sir Albert

Goodhew, Victor

Blackburn, John

Cranborne, Viscount

Goodlad, Alastair

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Critchley, Julian

Gorst, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Crouch, David

Gow, Ian

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bowden, Andrew

Dickens, Geoffrey

Gray, Hamish

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dorrell, Stephen

Grieve, Percy

Bright, Graham

Dover, Denshore

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Brinton, Tim

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Grylis, Michael

Brittan, Leon

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Durant, Tony

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

Brooke, Hon Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Brotherton, Michael

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Haselhurst, Alan

Browne, John (Winchester)

Elliott, Sir William

Hastings, Stephen

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Emery, Peter

Hawkins, Paul

Bryan, Sir Paul

Eyre, Reginald

Hawksley, Warren

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Fairgrieve, Russell

Hayhoe, Barney

Buck, Antony

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Heddle, John

We shall vote on the motion.
7.1 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was an ornament of the Labour Government who passed five major guillotine motions in one day. I believe that today we have heard from him one of the most arrant pieces of nonsense that the House has heard for a long time.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made his contribution to the debate, because the House will now know what many of us had to listen to—with his charm, courtesy and jokes—for some 46 Committee sittings. I hope that the House will have the benefit, during the remaining few hours, of hearing some more contributions, but I suggest—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question, pursuant to the Resolution of the House [16 April].
Question put accordingly:
The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 173.

Henderson, Barry

Mellor, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br hills)

Hicks, Robert

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Shersby, Michael

Hill, James

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Silvester, Fred

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Miscampbell, Norman

Sims, Roger

Hooson, Tom

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

Hordern, Peter

Moate, Roger

Speed, Keith

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Monro, Hector

Speller, Tony

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Montgomery, Fergus

Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Moore, John

Sproat, Iain

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Squire, Robin

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Stainton, Keith

Jessel, Toby

Mudd, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Murphy, Christopher

Stanley, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Myles, David

Steen, Anthony

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Neale, Gerrard

Stevens, Martin

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Needham, Richard

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Kershaw, Anthony

Nelson, Anthony

Stokes, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Neubert, Michael

Strading Thomas J.

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Newton, Tony

Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Normanton, Tom

Tebbit, Norman

Knox, David

Onslow, Cranley

Temple-Morris, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Lang, Ian

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Thompson, Donald

Latham, Michael

Parris, Matthew

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Lawrence, Ivan

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thornton, Malcolm

Lawson, Nigel

Patten, John (Oxford)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Lee, John

Pattie, Geoffrey

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Pawsey, James

Trippier, David

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Percival, Sir Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Pink, R. Bonner

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Pollock, Alexander

Viggers, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Porter, Barry

Waddington, David

Luce, Richard

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wakeham, John

Lyell, Nicholas

Price, Sir David

Waldegrave, Hon William

McCrindle, Robert

Proctor, K. Harvey

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Macfarlane, Neil

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

MacGregor, John

Raison, Timothy

Waller, Gary

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Rathbone, Tim

Watson, John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wheeler, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

McQuarrie, Albert

Ridsdale, Julian

Whitney, Raymond

Madel, David

Riffkind, Malcolm

Wickenden, Keith

Major, John

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wilkinson, John

Marland, Paul

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Marlow, Tony

Rost, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wolfson, Mark

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mates, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

TELLERS FOK THE AYES:

Mawby, Ray

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Mayhew, Patrick

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Cryer, Bob

Forrester, John

Alton, David

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Foster, Derek

Anderson, Donald

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Foulkes, George

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Davidson, Arthur

Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

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

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

Freud, Clement

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Deakins, Eric

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Beith, A. J.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

George, Bruce

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dewar, Donald

Gourlay, Harry

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dixon, Donald

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Bidwell, Sydney

Dobson, Frank

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Dormand, Jack

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Hardy, Peter

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Dubs, Alfred

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

Haynes, Frank

Campbell, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Eastham, Ken

Heffer, Eric S.

Cant, R. B.

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

Cartwright, John

English, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Homewood, William

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Evans, John (Newton)

Horam, John

Cohen, Stanley

Faulds, Andrew

Howells, Geraint

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Field, Frank

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Janner, Hon Greville

Crowther, J. S.

Ford, Ben

Johnson, James (Hull West)

592

593

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Molyneaux, James

Soley, Clive

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Spearing, Nigel

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Spriggs, Leslie

Kerr, Russell

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stallard, A. W.

Kilfedder, James A.

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Steel, Rt Hon David

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Palmer, Arthur

Straw, Jack

Kinnock, Neil

Park, George

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Lamborn, Harry

Parker, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Lamond, James

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham North west)

Penhaligon, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Tilley, John

Litherland, Robert

Prescott, John

Tinn, James

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Race, Reg

Torney, Tom

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Radice, Giles

Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Varley, R Hon Ecir Q.

McDonald, or Oonagh

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Maclennan, Robert

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

McNally, Thomas

Rooker, J. W.

Walking, David

McNamara, Kevin

Roper, John

Welsh, Michael

McTaggart, Robert

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

McWilliam, John

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Whitehead, Phillip

Magee, Bryan

Sandelson, Neville

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Marks, Kenneth

Sever, John

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Sheerman, Barry

Winnick, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester south)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Woodall, Alec

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

Short, Mrs Renée

Woolmer, Kenneth

Maxton, John

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Maynard, Miss Joan

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Silverman, Julius

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mikardo, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. James Hamilton and

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Snape, Peter

Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House [16 April] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords Amendments

Time for Conclusion

Nos. 1 to 116

9 p.m.

Nos. 117 to 145

10.30 p.m.

Nos. 146 to 251

midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after 10 o'clock.
3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

594

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question

595
on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve Questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) In this paragraph `the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2)Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3)A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4)Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5)No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6)If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion of Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  HOUSING BILL [ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords amendments considered.
  HOUSING BILL [ALLOTTED DAY]
    Clause 2

      EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT TO BUY
      Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
      "or
      (c) has at no time received a grant under section 119(3) of the 1957 Act, section 29, 31, 32 or 33 of the 1974 Act or under any enactment mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to that Act."
      7.15 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The object of the amendment is to exclude from the right to buy housing associations that have never received public subsidy. The great majority of associations in this position are charities which have provided their housing from private donations rather than from public funds. They are already excluded from the right to buy by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(a). There are, however, a handful of associations which are not charities and which have not received public subsidy. It has been put to us that such associations can scarcely be described as being in the public sector. We accept that view and this amendment therefore excludes them from the right to buy, although the associations concerned, as charities, will still be enabled to sell.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate the Minister on getting his tongue round that phraseology. I believe that he will find increasing difficulty as the night goes on. No one will think any the worse of him if he sounds as though he is lisping. It is difficult. I thank him for the concession. We regard this as important. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), as the Minister will recall, was particularly concerned about it. We are pleased that the amendment is being made and accepted by the Government.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 3

      MEANING OF "HOUSE ", "FLAT", "DWELLING-HOUSE" AND "RELEVANT TIME"
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 8, leave out "Part of this Act" and insert "Chapter".
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this amendment we may take the following Lords amendments:
      Nos. 50 to 53, 57 to 63, 141, 142, 142A, 232 and 233.
      Mr. Stanley: These amendments set out the provisions for commencement of the various parts of the Bill. Their result will be that the right-to-buy provisiions in chapter I of Part I will come into operation eight weeks after Royal Assent. The tenants' charter provisions of chapter II will also come into force eight weeks after Royal Assent unless it proves practicable to get the necessary regulations laid more quickly, in which case they will be brought in without waiting for the expiry of eight weeks.
      Part V amending part V of the Housing Act 1957 and part VI which introduces the new housing subsidy system will come into operation on enactment of the Bill. The following provisions will also come into effect on enactment—the improvement for sale scheme for local authorities in clause 103, the vesting powers of local authorities on mortgage default in clauses 107 and 108, clause 114 which provides for an increase in the Housing Corporation borrowing limit, the provisions giving housing associations the power to sell whether outright or by shared ownership and also to improve for sale, and also provisions laying down accounting requirements and providing for the establishment of grant redemption funds for registered housing associations in clauses 116 to 121, 123, and 124.
      The lifting of the existing restriction on working balances held in the housing revenue account and other matters related to housing accounts in clauses 127 and 128 will also be brought into effect on enactment, as will new clause H, introduced
      598
      in another place to restrict local authorities' powers to make certain disposals, and clauses 130 to 132, which include the provisions to exclude shared ownership tenancies from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
      In addition, the interpretive clauses 124 and 139, the regulation and order making provisions of clause 140, subsection (2) of clause 141 and clauses 142 to 144 will all have effect from enhancement.
      The remaining provisions of parts VII, VIII, and IX, covering amongst other items improvement and repair grants, service charges and the new provisions relating to houses in multiple occupation, will be brought into force by appointed day order. So also will those dealing with the new shorthold and assured tenancies and other provisions relating to the Rent Acts, part II.
      The new rights for public and private sector tenants to make improvements with their landlords' consent—part III—and the amendments relating to jurisdiction and procedure in part IV are all provisions that depend upon the making of regulations or orders or the restriction on form of notices and so on, where it is desirable that those affected should first be able to obtain copies of the Act. The appointed day procedure is clearly the appropriate procedure to use in those circumstances.
      Mr. Kaufman: I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some idea when he intends the new shorthold tenures to commence. I put down a question about the matter and he was not then able to clarify the position. It would be of help to many people to know that.
      Secondly, I welcome the Government's decision to bring forward the security of tenure for local authority tenants in so far as that is administratively possible—as I understand is their intention—with eight weeks from Royal Assent being the latest possible day but it being permitted within the Bill for that to be earlier. Although I understand the difficulties, it would be of assistance to many local authorities if at this stage, with the Bill approaching Royal Assent so soon, the Minister could give some idea whether he believes it will be possible to bring about the security of tenure before the end of the eight-week period and, if so, how much before.

      599
      I should like to take this opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman to reiterate as emphatically as he can, and if possible to give it somewhat more fully than the Under-Secretary was able to do in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, the commitment with regard to the wish of Wandsworth borough council to sell certain properties. In that debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) drew attention to the pernicious fact that the authority was seeking to evade the provisions of the Bill—a Conservative authority seeking to circumvent a Conservative Government's measure—by selling off those properties before the security of tenure bestowed upon the tenants would prevent that sale. It seems to us, as I am sure it would to all fair-minded people, that it would be entirely wrong for those properties to be sold in anticipation of, and in spite of, a statute that will come into effect within a few weeks.
      We very much welcome the Under-Secretary's commitment that while the matter is being examined the Secretary of State's consent for disposal of the properties is being withheld. It would be of great assistance to the House and to the people of Wandsworth if the Minister said that that consent would not be given before the security of tenure provisions came into force, so that the will of Parliament, which on this issue is a united will, cannot be thwarted by a hasty and furtive act by a local authority. I very much hope that the Minister will be kind enough to give us that commitment.
      Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman asked me first about the date of coming into effect of the shorthold provisions. It is the Government's wish to bring all the provisions of the Bill, including that one, into effect as rapidly as possible. For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in view of the secondary legislation involved in some parts of the private rented sector, it is administratively easiest to make the bulk of the provisions to do with that sector commence on the same date. I cannot say today when we shall be able to make an appointed day order, but we hope by October-November to have all the salient provisions of the Bill in operation.
      600
      The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about one of the effects of the amendments being to give us the flexibility to bring into effect the tenants' charter provisions, and in particular the security of tenure provision to which he specificially referred, earlier than the maximum period of eight weeks. I emphasise that it is a maximum period. Because of the need to carry out a considerable volume of administrative work so that that chapter of the Bill can be brought in properly by local authorities, I cannot say whether we shall be able to improve on the eight-week time scale. Certainly, if we took the view that for policy reasons it was important to do that, we should make every effort to bring that date forward.
      On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point about Wandsworth, I cannot add to, and I do not wish to subtract from, what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in the debate earlier this week.
      Mr. Kaufman: May I put to the Minister again a point that I think is important? He will want to think about it, and I appreciate that he may well not be able to give me an instantaneous reply.
      It would be deplorable if, with security of tenure for tenants coming no later than 2 October and possibly sooner, a short gap before the bringing into force of that provision enabled a local authority to act in clear defiance of what the Act will state when that part of it is brought into operation. Therefore, now that the Under-Secretary has said, and the Minister has reinforced his statement, that consent for disposal is being withheld while the matter is being looked at—a very proper response and one that I welcome—I very much hope that the Minister will not give his consent. I hope that it will continue to be withheld until the security of tenure provisions come into operation, so that those tenants, like all other tenants, will be able to profit from them and will not have their security taken from them what might well be a matter of days before that security would have been given.
      I do not ask the Minister for a response now, but I shall be grateful if he will consider the matter and write to me and to my right hon. Friend the

      601
      Member for Battersea, North, who is the Member for the constituency involved.
      Mr. Stanley: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be glad, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, to look into the details of the case and to write to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 6

      PURCHASE PRICE
      Lords amendment: No. 2A, in page 5, line 30, at end insert:
      "subject to paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act)"
      7.30 pm
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 150.
      Mr. Finsberg: These are fairly straightforward amendments which allow flats in the same block which are sold under the right-to-buy provision to have leases which end on the same day. The main amendment, as I think will be clear to the House, is to schedule 2. That provides that, once one flat in a block has been leased under the provisions of the Bill for a term of 125 years or more, any subsequent lease of another flat in the block under the right-to-buy provision may terminate at the same time as the lease on the first flat.
      That would apply whether the first flat had been sold under the right to buy, or voluntarily under the powers in part V of the Bill. It is right to say that this was a matter that was discussed in Committee. We have had representations from a wide variety of bodies, including the Association of District Councils, the London Boroughs Association, the Law Society, the GLC, the Housing Centre Trust, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. I am glad to say that on further reflection we were able to advise another place to accept this amendment. The amendments, therefore, to clauses 6 and 15 are consequential. They deal with assumptions for valuing of the flat and the landlord's duty to complete.
      Mr. Kaufman: We are, of course, opposed to these forced sales but since, for a short period before repeal of this Bill, these forced sales will take place, we welcome the good sense of the Government in this tidying-up operation.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      DISCOUNT
      Lords amendment: No. 2B, in page 6, line 27, leave out from "to" to second "the" and insert:
      "the following provisions of this section"
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2C, 3 to 7, 11, and 17.
      Mr. Finsberg: As you observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a series of amendments and I should like to speak first to amendments 2B and 2C. The Bill provides for a tenant to receive discount in respect of a spouse's secure tenancies provided that the tenant and the spouse are living togther when the notice is served.
      But if, for example, a widow has taken over the tenancy on the death of her husband and wishes to exercise the right to buy, the rule as it exists would have meant that she could not rely upon any of her dead husband's entitlement to discount. These amendments would allow her to do that, provided that she became a secure tenant on the death of her husband and the two partners were living together at the time.
      This ensures that the discount she receives is no less than her husband would have been entitled to had he lived. This provision, I need hardly add, applies to widowers as well as to widows.
      The remaining amendment to clause 7 mirrors a similar provision in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill. In broad principle it provides that a person who exercises the right to buy in England and Wales under the Housing Bill after spending time as a tenant in Scotland or Northern Ireland will be able to claim discount in respect of those periods

      603
      tenancy provided that the tenancies correspond to one of the categories of tenancy in England or Wales for which discount may be claimed.
      That ensures, as I feel sure the House would wish, that discount entitlement does not simply vanish if a secure tenant moves across the border in either direction. The new clause meets a commitment given to the House on Report. One of the Members who raised this issue was my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier).
      It applies in cases where a child becomes the secure tenant of a dwelling whose preceding secure tenant was one of his or her parents. It would allow landlords the discretion to grant such a tenant credit towards the right to buy under clause 1(3), or discount under clause 7, or both. That would be on the basis of time that he had spent since the age of 16 occupying as his only, or principal, homes dwellings of which the parent was a secure tenant.
      Amendment No. 11 provides that if the maximum discount to be prescribed under clause 7(4) has affected the price that the tenant must pay for his home, he must be told about it in the notice which the landlord serves on him under clause 10 setting out the purchase price and other matters. The tenant will, obviously, need this information to make sense of the price that this landlord was quoting.
      These are all modest provisions designed to ensure that secure tenants receive a fair deal in all circumstances under the discount provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. D. A. Trippier: I take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction for being so sympathetic to the appeal that I made when I spoke on Report.
      That resulted in their Lordships moving the amendment to clause 14 which is now before the House. The amendment will be welcomed by thousands of potential home owners who will benefit from the provisions detailed in this clause. It will ensure that the children of deceased parents who would, previously, have lost the discount entitlement carried by their parents and to which they had contributed by paying the rent or part of it
      604
      have that entitlement protected with the permission of their local authority.
      I am pleased that the wording of the amendment to subsection (2) makes it clear that the child of the original tenant can qualify for the discount entitlement in the eyes of the local authority only if he or she has occupied the council house in question as his, or her, only, or principal, home. In other words, the child must have lived with the parent or parents who were the secure tenants. I was searching for that wording in my original speech on this matter.
      Since speaking to my amendment on Report I have received numerous inquiries from tenants affected by this provision in my own constituency. As a result of national publicity at the time I received an enormous correspondence from all over the country. I am entirely satisfied that the provisions detailed in this amendment will meet the criteria which I tried to lay before the House on a previous occasion.
      I thank my hon. Friend for keeping his word and for honouring the obligation he accepted on Report and for introducing this amendment in another place.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am glad that we have been able to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend. I shall convey his thanks to my hon. Friend, who may have heard what he had to say.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2C and 3 to 7 agreed to.

    Clause 8

      REPAYMENT OF DISCOUNT ON EARLY DISPOSAL OF FREEHOLD OR LEASE
      Lords amendment: No. 8 in page 8, line 18, leave out from "by" to "for" in line 19 and insert:
      "a body specified in subsection (4A) below"
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9, 100, 101, 102, 118 and 119.
      Mr. Finsberg: These are technical amendments and, as the House knows.

      605
      we wish to encourage those who purchase houses from local authorities, or housing associations, to get the mortgages they need as far as possible from private sector lenders. In this way we seek to derive the maximum benefit to the public purse from the sale of council houses.
      These amendments give first priority to the mortgages of certain other lenders besides local authorities, the Housing Corporation and building societies for whom the Bill already provides priority of mortgage. These other lenders are insurance companies, trustee savings banks and banks as identified for the purposes of the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Act 1978.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 9 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 31, at end insert:
      "and for the purposes of this section the grant of an option enabling a person to call for a disposal falling within subsection (3) above shall be treated as such a disposal."
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 39, 97, 103 and 104.
      Mr. Stanley: These amendments follow an undertaking that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) on Report, when he said that he would consider further the possible loophole in the provision in clause 8 for the repayment of discount where a purchaser under the right to buy resells within the five years. There was the possibility that the liability to repay discount in these circumstances might be avoided by granting a subsequent purchaser an option to buy rather than conveying the dwelling house to him straightforwardly during the five-year period. Because the grant of the option would not count as a disposal, there would be no liability to repay discount at that stage, and when the sale finally took place the five years would be up.
      These amendments deal with this possible loophole and a similar one which could exist on the 10-year rural area
      606
      pre-emption safeguard under clause 18. They also cover the parallel case of discount sharing or a rural area safeguard imposed on a voluntary sales scheme under part V.
      Mr. Kaufman: I acknowledge the Minister's concession. But I draw attention to the absence of the Liberal Party from the debate. The Liberal Party in my constituency, and no doubt in other constituencies, pretends that it has the interests of tenants and all other householders at heart, but that is a bogus act deceiving people. The Liberal Party is a propaganda party which is not interested in serious debate. I hope that it will be noted, as I shall make it known in Manchester, that when the Minister was responding to one of the rare Liberal amendments, the entire Liberal Party was absent from this place and it has so far not shown itself interested in one of the most important Bills to go through Parliament since the general election.
      I acknowledge the Minister's concession, but I take this opportunity of exposing the Liberal Party's fraudulent and bogus claims to be interested in this legislation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

    Clause 10

      NOTICE OF PURCHASE PRICE AND RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 10, line 8, after "12" insert "and section 15(3A)"
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 14, 19 to 22 and 24 to 26.
      Mr. Stanley: These amendments revise the provision in the Bill for a tenant whose mortgage entitlement is insufficient to enable him to exercise his right to buy at once and to be able to deposit £100 with his landlord and have the option to defer completion for two years.
      These amendments enable the tenant to claim his right to defer completion of

      607
      his purchase by depositing £100 with his landlord without having to wait for a completion notice. That was the previous structure of the Bill. The purchaser will be warned of the right to deferred completion when he receives notice of the purchase price under clause 10. That is provided for in amendment No. 12. The notice of mortgage entitlement under clause 12 will also advise him of his right to deferred completion and enclose a form for claiming it, as provided in amendment No. 14.
      Where appropriate, the tenant will be able to claim deferred completion within three months of the landlord's notice under clause 12(4), which informs the tenant of the landlord's calculation of his mortgage entitlement, or within a longer period if the landlord or county court considers that there are reasonable grounds for extending the period.
      The amendments also cover the requirement in deferred completion for the tenant to complete his purchase within two years of the service of his notice claiming to exercise the right to buy. Amendment No. 25 provides that, where a tenant has indicated his willingness to proceed with the sale by requiring the landlord to reassess his mortgage entitlement within two years but the sale has not been completed within that period, the landlord may, where there are reasonable grounds for doing so, extend the period for completion at the original price.
      This may be desirable where, for instance, there had been some delay over processing the revised mortgage application. If there are reasonable grounds for the landlord to act in such a way, but he fails to do so, the county court may extend the period by order.
      Amendment No. 20 incorporates an Opposition amendment to clause 15. It makes it entirely clear that the right to defer completion is open only to those tenants whose mortgage entitlement is insufficient to enable them to buy outright.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Kaufman: I should have wished to oppose vigorously this group of amendments had it not been for two matters. The first was the Minister's last sentence, in which he made it clear that one of the amendments was acceptable to the
      608
      Opposition. Therefore, it would be somewhat inconsistent to oppose a group that included an amendment that I support, and inconsistency is alien to my nature.
      Secondly, we wish to concentrate the debate on the £100 option on amendment No. 23. Since we are proceeding under the guillotine, I do not wish to take up more time on that matter. However, we do not like the way that the Government seem in some circumstances to be extending this option even beyond the two-year period and in certain circumstances giving the court the right to do so.
      We shall not vote against the amendment, but I make it clear that that is due to the shortage of time.
      Question put and agreed to

    Clause 12

      CLAIM TO A MORTGAGE
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 11, line 32, at end insert:
      "and (c) the provisions which, in the opinion of the Landlord or Housing Corporation, should be contained in the deed by which the mortgage is to be affected."
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a procedural amendment. Its effect is simply to require the local authority, when notifying the purchaser of the amount it considers may be left outstanding on mortgage and the way in which this amount has been arrived at, also to notify him of the provisions which it proposes should be included in the mortgage. The Housing Corporation is to be under a similar obligation when advancing money to housing associations.
      By "provisions" I refer, of course, to such matters as the rate of interest and the period of repayment. It is obviously important for the purchaser to have this information at an early stage. The amendment will achieve that and will be in the interests of those exercising their right to buy.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

    Clause 13

      CHANGE OF SECURE TENANT AFTER NOTICE CLAIMING RIGHT TO BUY OR RIGHT TO A MORTGAGE.
      Lords amendment: No. 15. in page 11, line 38, leave out:
      "or the right to a mortgage"
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 16.
      Mr. Stanley: These are procedural amendments to clause 13, which governs what happens when there is a change of secure tenant after the service of a notice claiming the right to buy.
      When the change of tenancy takes place, the landlord may already have served on the former tenant a notice under clause 10 telling him the price to which he is entitled and, among other things, about his right to a mortgage. The former tenant may even have served a notice under clause 12 claiming the right to a mortgage. The size of the mortgage to which the new tenant is entitled will depend on his own circumstances, and not the former tenant's.
      Amendment No. 16 therefore provides that, where a notice has already been served under clause 10, a new form is to be sent to the new tenant for him to give details of his own financial circumstances if he wishes to exercise his right to a mortgage. The new tnenant would then have the normal three months to fill in and return the form.
      Amendment No. 15 deletes words rendered unnecessary by amendment No. 16.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 agreed to.

    Clause 15

      COMPLETION
      Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 13, line 39, after "price" insert
      "that price to be determined by adding half the difference between the value of the dwelling-house at the time of completion of the transaction and the value at the time the notice exercising the right to buy was served."
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The whole purpose of the option provisions of the Bill is to give a tenant who is not able to afford to buy outright immediately the opportunity of saving for a two-year period while the price of his house or flat remains fixed. Yet the intention of this amenedment is not that the price should remain fixed during the option period but that it should go up by half of the increase in the value of the house between the time that the tenant applies to buy and the time that he actually completes the purchase.
      We made it clear at the election that the price would be fixed during the option period. Our objective is to help council tenants to buy, and that means keeping the price fixed so that tenants know exactly how much they have to save during the option period.
      Unless the price is fixed, tenants will simply not know how much they will have to save. They will be at the mercy of whatever happens to be the rate of increase in house prices during the option period and, as the House knows, that can vary greatly from year to year.
      A tenant, and perhaps other members of his family buying with him, could, for instance, save furiously for the two-year period and accumulate perhaps an extra £200 to £300. But, if this amendment were accepted, they would not know whether they had saved enough until the house was valued again at completion. If they even found themselves, say, £500 short because of the rise of house prices, the family would reasonably feel that they had had a thoroughly raw deal, having saved hard and then found themselves short.
      This amendment is yet another reflection of the fact that the Labour Party wants to stop as many tenants as possible from being able to buy their homes. Our objective is quite the reverse, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: This is one amendment on which the Opposition strongly disagree with the Government. The vote in the other place was 90 to 86 in favour of the amendment. The amendment was moved by Baroness David—a Conservative—which should make Conservative Members in this House

      611
      hesitate before they pursue the point. An enormous bonanza is given to purchasers—up to 50 per cent. discount on the price of the house if they have lived in it for 20 years, plus up to 20 per cent. or more if this clause is included in the Bill. A discount of 70 per cent. is a giveaway, and clearly the buyer's gain is the community's loss.
      Baroness David said that the objective of her amendment was:
      "to prevent quite such a big present being handed to the prospective purchaser at the expense of the local authority ratepayers and taxpayers "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol 412, c. 65.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman is quoting the words of a Minister in the other place, he will have to find another method of communicating his message to this House.
      Mr. Allaun: I was quoting the words of Baroness David, who is not a Minister.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must use some other words to express the same message to this House.
      Mr. Allaun: I have made a mistake, and I cannot put it right, but that is what Baroness David said. She said that it was a tremendous gift at the expense of the local authority, the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
      I repeat that the purchaser's gain is the community's loss. We cannot give such a vast handout without someone having to pay for it—and it is the rest of the community who will have to pay. Under this amendment a further two years' bonus will be given to the purchaser.
      Every year house prices rise and, according to the Nationwide Building Society, with which many hon. Members are familiar, in the two-year period from 1977 to 1979 house prices rose by 63.7 per cent.—31.8 per cent. per annum. Admittedly, that was a period of high inflation, but there have been other periods of high inflation. Purchasers will be able to buy their houses at the price that was payable two years previously. In addition to the discount of up to 50 per cent., they will receive a discount of up to 20 per cent.
      I and my hon. Friends maintain that if options are allowed the house should be purchased at the existing market price.
      612
      We are giving away a lot in allowing a discount of up to 50 per cent. The proposal from the Lords is a generous compromise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) nods assent. The price should not be one penny less than the market price.
      Governments are not bound by acts of previous Governments, but I can envisage, on the eve of the next general election, queues of people forming to pay the £100 option of this sort. That would mean that for the first two years of their existence a Labour Government would be forced to compel councils to sell houses which neither the council nor the Government wished to sell. That is monstrous, and it is in conflict with the principle that I have stated.
      If the sale of the house had been completed, it would be wrong for a Labour Government to interfere. However, if the sale of the house had not been completed, a Labour Government should pay back the £100 deposit or the option payment plus interest. That would be fair to all concerned.
      Lord Bellwin's brief reply to the debate on this amendment was worthless, depreciatory and hardly worth making. He said:
      "it is harder to save up when the price against which you are saving is in fact increasing as you save,"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol. 412, c. 66.]
      That was really all that he did say. Everything else is increasing in price. Are people to be protected because the price of potatoes increases, so that they may buy potatoes at their price two years earlier? Clearly, that is ridiculous. Why should one item be under the Government's protection? It is because the Government are so desperate to sell council houses. For the reasons that I have stated, I and many of my hon. Friends are completely opposed to the Bill.
      8 pm
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I endorse the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). I draw to the attention of the House the finding of the Environment Committee on the sale of council houses. It appears in the Committee's report on the implications of the

      613
      public expenditure White Paper. It states:
      "Your Committee estimates that an average of between five and 10 houses will need to be sold in order to build one replacement."
      For that reason the Committee considered it extremely important that the volume of sales should be limited as effectively as possible.
      If sales are to be effected at a price which is subject to 20 per cent. per annum inflation in house prices, we are discussing a price that will be 40 per cent. below the market price, without taking into account the discount. The pressure on local authorities to replace the houses that are lost to meet the housing need will be greatly intensified.
      There was a strong thread running through the evidence that the Select Committee received from local authorities of all political complexions—namely, that the option provisions are causing them great anxiety. They feel that it will be extremely difficult to ascertain to what extent a secure tenant claiming to exercise the right to buy genuinely fails to meet the financial qualifications and is thus able to claim the option provision.
      The scope for abuse is enormous. It will be very much to the advantage of anyone to seek to use the option provision rather than to purchase at the price that applies when he gives his notice. The option provision is a bad one and the Lords amendment, which limits the damage that will be caused by it, deserves the support of the House.
      Mr. Don Dixon: There is no doubt that anyone with average common sense will rush along to put down his £100. It is a pity that the Government do not treat private assets as they treat public assets. Their aim is to boost the sale of council houses. That policy does not produce one additional housing unit.
      I was chairman of a housing committee for a considerable time. I am still the committee's vice-chairman. The authority has been selling council houses for almost three years. It has 37,400 council houses and it has sold about 300. The 300 are all semi-detached houses on the best parts of the estates.
      If someone lives in a council house, he has secure tenure. The house is his in any event. Anyone who knows anything
      614
      about public housing knows that allocations and transfers are decided mainly by relets. There is an average reletting of between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. Most new building is slum clearance. A total council house stock of 37,400 leads to 1,000 relets a year. If council houses are sold, tenants do not apply for reallocation.
      What happens if the price of a house decreases? Consett, Corby and other towns are being murdered. Houses in those areas may decrease in value in two years' time. Will the Government say that that price will not apply and there will be a revaluation? Will they acknowledge that Government policy has murdered the town, that no one is living there and that houses have become readily available?
      The other place did not go far enough. The Government's policy is nonsensical. Their aim is to persuade tenants to rush to deposit their £100 and to give a boost to the section of the Tory manifesto on the sale of council houses. The provision is nonsensical and I hope that it is rejected.
      Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) escorted me round some of the housing in his constituency a short while ago. I was able to see for myself the difficulties in his area. I had explained to me the situation that he has described to the House. He has spoken with great experience of local government housing. That is the most authoritative experience, from which the House can benefit.
      I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), the chairman of the Environment Committee, on his Committee's report. His Committee produced an outstanding report a few days ago. It indicts the Secretary of State on a number of issues. It draws attention to facts that otherwise would not have been elucidated. My hon. Friend and his Committee have done a service to the House by providing us with those facts and by giving the Secretary of State a case to which he will not easily find a credible response.
      In moving disagreement with the Lords amendment the Minister made a most amazing claim. He said that when another place decided to insert the

      615
      amendment it was an example of the hostility of the Labour Party to home ownership. I live and learn every day, but that is the first news that I have had that there is a Labour majority in another place and that the Labour Party is able to impose its will upon that place.
      My noble Friends who campaigned against the Bill and who won a significant number of victories by their dedication and hard work could not have won one victory if they had not been joined by members of other parties and by those of no party. They could not have won if the Conservative Party had been able to muster its full strength in another place. Such is the disillusionment with the Bill in another place that my noble Friends were able to obtain a majority for their amendments. That did not happen because we have a majority in that place. If we had, some of the accidents that took place in the previous Parliament might not have taken place.
      I express my agreement with all my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate. It is undoubtedly one of the nastiest aspects of the compulsory sale of council houses. I refer to the £100 option. It is nothing less than a rip-off of public assets. The Government are forcing up the cost of so many items such as fuel, telephone bills and railway fares, and this is the one price that they have decided to freeze. They are in favour of the free market on every other issue.
      The £100 option with a frozen price is especially offensive to private house buyers, who are finding it especially difficult to buy because of the high mortgage interest rate that has been brought about by the Government's economic policies. House price inflation is still very high. The rate has been falling because of the lack of buyers caused by the high mortgage interest rate, but, it is still very high. Other purchasers have to accept it.
      The Minister tried to draw tears from us by painting a picture of council house tenants wishing to buy and being at the mercy of house price increases. Thousands of people in humble circumstances who are not council tenants wish to buy houses. They are at the mercy of increased house prices. The Government are responsible for those price increases,
      616
      yet they can offer them nothing. Such people have been priced out of home ownership. In addition, they must pay their rates and taxes and contribute to a rip-off that will benefit a small and privileged minority.
      Private home owners have to accept house price inflation. Yesterday, figures were published showing that only 628,000 new mortgages are expected this year, compared with 715,000 last year. That is a reduction of 12 per cent. Such people get no help from the Government. A small minority will have its privilege paid for by everybody else. The £100 option is an offence to the taxpayers and ratepayers who must pay for it.
      If I have a criticism of the noble Lords who carried the amendment against the Government's wishes, it is that the amendment is over-generous. It still gives the beneficiary of the £100 option a large gift at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers. Those taxpayers and ratepayers will pay interest on the building of such houses while the purchaser is given the option to buy. The purchaser will not suffer fully from house price inflation. In addition, the discount will eat up some of the price increase.
      If the amendment is accepted, the purchaser on the £100 option will have to share some of the burden of inflation with his benefactors, mainly the taxpayers and ratepayers. It redresses the balance to some extent. That is why we believe that the amendment should be accepted.
      Mr. Stanley: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) referred to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment in the other place. He described her as a Conservative peer. I note that Dod's Parliamentary Companion describes her as a Labour Life Baroness. I am delighted to know that there has been yet another convert to the Tory Party. No doubt there are many more to come.
      The hon. Member for Salford. East made a significant statement in his capacity as a member of the national executive of the Labour Party. He made clear that his view—and I assume that his view represents that of the national executive—was that, if there were a

      617
      change of Government, the Labour Party would not honour options that were still running. Although he accepted that if an option had been completed it would have to be honoured, he made clear that the Labour Party would not regard itself as bound by options that were running when a change of Government took place. I am sure that that will not be forgotten.
      The hon. Member for Salford, East and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) made similar points. They suggested that there should be continuing price inflation during the option period. That would effectively nullify the effect of the option. The purpose of the option is to enable those who cannot buy immediately to save up during that time and to accumulate the difference between their maximum mortgage capacity and the price of the house. Inevitably, the price of the house will be somewhat higher. However, if the price escalates all the time that will defeat the purpose of the option. There would then be no point in having an option provision.
      We want to give those council tenants who want to buy their homes every possible opportunity to do so. Inevitably, a considerable number will wish to exercise the right to buy for the first time. Although they may not be able to afford the full purchase price, they might have a maximum mortgage capacity equal to 70 or 90 per cent. of the purchase price. Over a two-year period, those tenants would have a reasonable opportunity to increase their earnings and savings, and would then be able to buy their houses.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister intend to introduce a similar provision to assist the young people who come to my surgery every week? They do not have the advantage of being council house tenants and they are desperate either for a council house or to buy a house. House prices are increasing faster and faster. They are trying to save money in order to buy a house, but as they have no house at all, they have no opportunity of buying the house in which they live.
      Mr. Stanley: In accordance with the logic of his argument, the hon. Gentleman should urge the considerable number of predominantly Labour-controlled London authorities which have empty
      618
      property in poor condition to sell it under the new powers, particularly those relating to improvements being made for sale. Those authorities will then be able to meet some of that demand.
      Mr. Frank Allaun: The Minister will find out that option holders cannot buy a house at present. How will he ascertain that means? Will everybody who puts down £100 be given a means test? How will he discover that a person does not have enough money to buy the house on the spot?
      Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the relevant clause, he will note that that will be automatically ascertained. The tenant will apply to the local authority in the normal way to exercise his right to a mortgage. The local authority will immediately see whether his maximum mortgage capacity is in excess of or below the price of the house that it has valued. Therefore, such knowledge will be in the hands of the local authority in the normal way.
      Mr. James Hill: If a local authority is opposed to selling council houses, it could make things very difficult. It could increase local authority mortgage interest charges to a level that is above the norm.
      Mr. Stanley: There is a provision establishing a ceiling on a local authority's mortgage interest rate. In addition, the Bill also provides for an independent means of valuing the house if the tenant and landlord cannot agree. The tenant has that protection.
      The amendment carried in the other place would substantially nullify the purpose of the option, namely, to enable council tenants who cannot buy immediately to save up and to buy at a fixed price over a two-year period.
      Mr. Dixon: What does the Minister suggest local authorities, which have planned maintenance and modernisation programmes, should do if someone puts down a £100 option? Does he suggest that local authorities should take those houses out of such programmes? If they do not, an authority might add to the value of the house after it had been assessed. My local authority has a planned manitenance programme on pointing, reguttering, bathroom furniture,

      619
      and so on. Does the Minister suggest that my authority should take such houses out of the programme? If it does not do so, it is likely to fall foul of the legislation by adding to the value of the house.
      Mr. Stanley: Ultimately, that will be for the decision of local authorities. There are provisions in the legislation under which secondary legislation will deal with improvements as regards the cost floor and for valuation purposes. It is essential for the efficacy of the option that the price should remain fixed for a two-year period. I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:
      The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 159.
      See Division 447
      in column 1079
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 14, line 17, at end insert:
      "and, if there is then a subtenancy, section 139 of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall apply as on a merger or surrender."
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a minor technical amendment. Clause 15(9) provides that a purchaser's secure tenancy shall come to an end on the completion of his purchase under the right to buy. The amendment is designed to protect the position of any sub-tenancies which he might have granted before then. It provides for that by applying section 139 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 16

      CONVEYANCE OF FREEHOLD AND GRANT OF LEASE
      Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 14, line 21, at end insert:
      "and Part IV of that Schedule applies in relation to certain charges."
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 152.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendments are technical. They make the necessary provision for cases where a dwelling house in respect of which a tenant is exercising his right to buy is subject to an existing mortgage, rent or other charge. They are designed to reflect the practice in the private sector as far as possible.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 18

      DWELLING-HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS AND AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY, ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 14, line 44, at beginning insert:
      "the local authority with the consent of"
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The effect of the amendment is to allow local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to designate the additional rural areas under clause 18(1).
      Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that last night on television the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) made statements about the amendment. He is not present in the Chamber. Is not that an abuse of the House? What protection does the House have if hon. Members make statements on television but are not present when the issue is debated?
      Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Finsberg: That remark belongs in fort Ardwick. The amendment deals
      622
      with areas besides national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in which the special rural safeguards apply.
      Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that arising out of last night's programme on television there is considerable concern in national park areas about the statement by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth? Will the Minister please confirm that it will not be illegal to sell council houses within national parks?
      Mr. Finsberg: I did not have the spare time that Labour Members had to watch the programme. As I did not have the pleasure of seeing it, I cannot comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) is alleged to have said. However, I tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is not illegal. I should have seen the programme, as my hon. Friend was participating.
      As the Bill stood when it left this House, it was the Secretary of State who was to make the order. We made it clear that the Secretary of State would listen to what local authorities had to say on such designations.
      I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee:
      "I give him a clear assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that we regard the matter not just as one of consultation between the local authorities and the Secretary of State but as a matter for initiative by the local authorities. We have no pre-conceived view about areas that are suitable for rural designation. We regard the initiative as lying with local authorities and it is for them to take a view as to the relevance of the clause to their circumstances. I am sure that they will put forward proposals to the Secretary of State if they feel they should have designations in their areas. We regard the involvement of the Local authorities as integral with the operation of the locality covenant, in the new way that is described here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 February 1980; c. 406.]
      We stand by that.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am delighted to hear that the Minister stands by that. However, as the courts are precluded from looking at Hansard, does he accept that it would be appropriate for that undertaking to be embodied in the Bill? The Lords amendment gives effect to that.
      Mr. Finsberg: I anticipated that that might be said, and I shall come to the point in a moment.
      In trying to convert an undertaking into a statutory duty, the amendment risks causing confusion without achieving valuable practical effect. The local authority would now make the order to designate the rural area under clause 18(1), but the Secretary of State would still have the job of designating the regions from which future purchasers must come where there was a locality covenant. The Secretary of State would also still have to give or withhold his consent under clause 18(4) to the imposition of the alternative safeguards of a 10-year pre-emption condition. Out of necessity, the arrangements under clause 18 are already complicated. Surely the subdivision of duties between the Secretary of State and the local authority provides an additional complication that is unnecessary.
      There are further objections to the amendment. If the orders were made by a local authority and not by the Secretary of State, they would not come under the scrutiny of Parliament.
      Mr. Jack Straw: That was exactly the point made by Lord Bellwin, but I fail to understand it. If the Secretary of State's consent is required, the exercise of that consent will properly be the subject of scrutiny by this House.
      Mr. Finsberg: That is almost the next point that I was coming to. Not only does the absence of scrutiny seem constitutionally undesirable. It would also mean that there would be no way of finding out whether orders had been made, such as would be provided by the relevant statutory instrument if the Secretary of State made the order.
      I suggest that the amendment would lead to administrative inconvenience and inefficiency. I ask the House to consider what the effect would be on a tenant of the inconvenience and inefficiency. It would enable a local authority to delay the exercise of the right to buy by saying that it was considering whether to make an order, and, when it had done so, approaching the Secretary of State for his consent. In our view, that would get the right to buy off to a thoroughly slow start in many areas. No doubt that
      624
      thought has occurred to some Labour Members who support the amendment, but it is not an argument that commends itself to me or to my hon. Friends. Therefore, I urge the House to disagree with the amendment.
      Let me repeat, so that it is on the record once more, that any considered recommendation by a local authority for the designation of an additional rural area under clause 18(1) will receive my right hon. Friend's careful investigation and consideration.
      Mr. Straw: I listened with care to the Under-Secretary, as usual, but I found him less convincing than usual. He failed to give a proper answer to the question that I asked. One of the arguments that the Government have used—at length—in another place is that to provide that the initiative should rest with a local authority would be to ensure that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions made by the Secretary of State in exercising his consent. That is simple nonsense.
      Mr. Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Government have made precisely that provision in their amendment dealing with old people's dwellings? It is on the initiative of the local authority, the Secretary of State is required to give consent and there is no parliamentary scrutiny.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing that analogy to my attention, but I hope that he will agree that, in fact, there will be every opportunity for scrutiny, because any decision that a Minister makes is subject to scrutiny by the House through written and oral questions and through the normal processes of debate.
      The Under-Secretary is also wrong to allege that we should not be able to find out how the Secretary of State had exercised his consent. I hope and assume that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the Government would refuse to answer questions about whether, and in what circumstances, the Secretary of State had decided to exercise his consent. Those objections of the Under-Secretary are worthless and should be treated as such.
      Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Labour Opposition have fought, often

      625
      with the support of Conservative local authorities, to say that local authorities and local people know most about defending the housing needs of their areas. The Government have wished to provide a uniform scheme irrespective of local circumstances and whether, for example, council houses that are desperately needed in rural areas could be snapped up as second homes and removed from the market of working people.
      Bit by bit, the Government have conceded some changes and improvements to give some protection to those living in council houses in rural areas and those in need of such houses, but they have refused to accord local authorities the responsibility, that they deserve, for deciding whether they should be treated as rural areas. It is our view that the initiative must rest with the local authorities.
      The Under-Secretary said that if that happened it would ensure that the right to buy got off to a thoroughly slow start which was what most Labour Members wanted. Occasionally, the hon. Gentleman gets at the truth and it is true that we wish the sale of council houses to get off to a slow start. However, that is not our intention in putting forward this proposal. Neither, in response to the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major), will it be the effect. Although the designation of a rural area is on the initiative of a local authority, it depends for its consent and its operation upon the Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State, for the foreseeable future, will exercise that discretion, and he will no doubt do so swiftly and exercise it in those areas where he is convinced that the local authority is justified.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. John Major: Is it not a fact that the local authority could take a considerable time before deciding to designate the area and indicating that it has such a designation in mind? That, in itself, could cause considerable delay.
      Mr. Straw: A local authority could do the same now. It could indicate that it intended to apply to the Secretary of State for an order. As long as the local authority has not applied, and no order has been given, under the present provisions, and provided that the local authority has made no order under the clauses
      626
      proposed in another place, that would in no way affect the rights of individuals wishing to buy their council houses. The Minister's suggestion that the right to buy would be seriously undermined by the amendment is nonsense. It would enhance the right of local authorities. They have the information, and they know when to take the initiative. I support the amendment.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: As the House will be aware, the Environment Committee has taken evidence on the financial and social consequences of selling local authority houses. Among that evidence were representations from a number of rural authorities, including oral evidence from the South Lakeland district council and the Allerdale district council. As a consequence of their evidence the Committee instructed me to write to the Secretary of State to draw attention to the anxieties felt by a large number of rural areas about the prospect of the loss of the few council houses in villages—not necessarily in areas of national parks or outstanding natural beauty, but in agricultural villages where the council houses are occupied by key workers. They are at risk of being compulsorily sold with the consequence that within a few years the houses will be taken over as second homes.
      I accept that since the time when I, on the instructions of the Committee, communicated with the Secretary of State amendments have been introduced which improve the position for those areas that have been designated. Subject to the Lords amendments, the defect in the Bill as it stands is that there are large parts of the country where a local authority may feel, rightly and essentially, that if it loses the few houses upon which the key workers depend, a village will die. I am sure that Conservative Members will know even better than Opposition Members the extent to which a village can suddenly be transformed from a place with real life to a place which is a source of commuters or a base for holiday homes. I urge the Minister and Conservative Members to seek to protect the viability of rural communities by maintaining the Lords amendment as it stands.
      The Minister will be aware that, in a question which was answered in

      627
      Hansard on 30 July, c. 741, I asked which local authorities had made representations to the Secretary of State about the provisions of the Housing Bill for rural areas. The Minister listed 12 authorities which had made representations about the dangers to rural areas. I draw his attention to the fact that only one of those 12 authorities was a Labour-controlled authority. The remainder were Conservative, independent or non-party authorities, and they made the greater part of the case in urging him to have second thoughts about this measure.
      The Minister must know what harm this Bill can cause in an area in which those on whom the rural economy depends are liable to find that they no longer have the opportunity to be housed by the local authority. I am glad that the Government have accepted that they should not make changes in the provisions of the Rent (Agriculture) Act. But, if they lose local authority houses, how will they fulfil their obligations? How will they sustain the life of rural areas if they allow these few houses to be sold?
      It is the local authorities in those areas that know, far better than the Minister or anyone in Whitehall can know, the extent to which the few houses in a particular locality are essential to the economy and to the society of that locality. It is for them to make the representations.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has demolished the Under-Secretary's point about Parliament not having the opportunity to exercise control over this. Let the local authority make the representations. Under the amendment, the Minister has the power to say "No, this is a nonsense."
      Mr. Hill: Does it not exacerbate the difficulty when local authorities are so reluctant to give any planning consent, even for tied cottages on farms? It is extremely difficult these days to get any planning consent in the sort of areas about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman is raising a point which no doubt he can raise on another occasion. It is not directly relevant. Local authorities said
      628
      to the Select Committee "We must not lose these houses. They are irreplaceable, because we cannot get the planning consent to enable us to build more houses." That is a valid point.
      There is no need for the Government to use their majority to crush this amendment on this minor proposal for a degree of local government autonomy. The Government have been crushing local government democracy with measures such as the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and this Bill. This opportunity for local authorities to take the initiative to propose is something which should be enacted in the statute. We have had the undertaking from the Secretary of State in Committee, which the Minister has repeated. As I pointed out in an intervention, an undertaking in Committee is in no way enforceable. The courts will not look at that. They will look at the words in the statute. I urge the House to ensure that these words remain in the statute.
      Mr. Kaufman: Without being contentious, I should like to draw attention to the fact that a Member of this House took part in a television debate on this matter last night, apparently misinforming the public about the content of the Bill, and has not seen fit to be present when the House of Commons is debating it. I regard that as an abuse of the House. It is Parliament where these matters are debated. If an hon. Member is to discuss a piece of legislation which is being debated in this House the next day, apparently inaccurately representing, in any case, what the legislation contains, I should have thought it incumbent on the hon. Member at least to do the House the courtesy of attending the debate on the matter on which he has been lecturing us on television.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I even made the point of speaking to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) prior to this debate. I did not know that this matter was to be raised. However, as the Minister will be aware, there are many people in the national parks, nationally, who are very anxious about the clauses which would require them to sell property in the event of the tenants applying under the right to buy.

      629
      As a result of the programme last night, whatever the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth said, it has been construed from his statement that in the national parks people do not have the right to buy their homes. Indeed, the local authorities were today celebrating their belief that this right to buy did not exist. I think that it is incumbent on the Minister in this debate to make clear nationally what the law is, and to take into account the position of local authorities which not only own properties within a national park but whose national parks are surrounded by other rural areas which are just as exciting for potential second home owners—indeed, great parts of my constituency—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.
      Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) feels passionately on this issue and has worked hard to correct the situation in his constituency. It is hard on him, when he has a constituency that is particulary affected, that his constituents, who are very concerned about the matter, should be misinformed by an hon. Member who does not understand the Bill, who does not speak for the Government and who does not bother to turn up in the Chamber when the issue is debated.
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to address myself to the merits—
      Mr. Tony Durant rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: I should like to address myself to the merits of this important matter. If the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) wishes to vindicate himself, he has the opportunity to be present here to do so, and he does not require the protection of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth knew that the matter was being debated. It is down in the amendment book and on the Order Paper.
      Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to give notice that, after the shadow spokesman has concluded, I would like to speak on behalf
      630
      of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle).
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is so gallant. I admire him for his efforts on this issue.
      As my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the amendment have said, and as I hope a number of Conservative Members will also agree, this is a modest amendment. It is not an amendment that will do what television viewers were apparently told last night. It will not end the compulsory sale of council houses in this area.
      The amendment is so modest that I find it impossible to understand why the Government are so determined to smother it. Strong arguments have been advanced far beyond the limits of the Labour Party for the exclusion of rural areas altogether from the compulsory sale of council houses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has pointed out, great damage can be inflicted on the balance in such communities if high proportions of a small housing stock are being sold off.
      The amendment does not go anything like so wide as the kind of exclusion that we have achieved for old people's dwellings. The amendment accepts the principle and content of clause 18 as it stands. We regard clause 18, even with its improvements, as unsatisfactory, but we are not seeking to have that clause rejected. All the amendment does is to say "Do not leave it to the Secretary of State to decide what is a rural area." After all, the Secretary of State, any Secretary of State—I am not making a personal reflection on the right hon. Gentleman—cannot know the whole country intimately. Lord Bellwin, for the Government, admitted in the Lords that he did not know what areas, or even what kind of areas, the Secretary of State is going to designate as rural areas. We have not had that clarification.
      We are saying that the local authorities, which do know the areas intimately, should have the initiative in designating those areas. We are not asking that the local authorities be given the last word. We are not asking even that they have a deciding word, because the Secretary of State will have to give his consent if a local authority seeks to designate

      631
      itself as a rural area. It would not be possible, for example, in my constituency, for the Manchester city council to seek to evade the provision by designating Ardwick Green of Victoria Park as a rural area.
      9 pm
      The answer to my hon. Friend for Mitcham and Morden which my hon. Friend has quoted shows that a considerable number of local authorities, often Conservative-controlled, are very worried about the impact of the Bill, even with clause 18, on rural areas. Lord Hylton, a person of Conservative antecedents, said:
      "it is entirely consistent with Conservative principles that there should be this initiative in the hands of the local authority, who know the area and who are elected to represent it." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1980; Vol. 412, c.76.]
      I am not a connoisseur of Conservative principles, but the Secretary of State is supposed to be. This small amendment would alleviate the concern of rural areas. I cannot imagine why the Government will not accept it. I trust that they will.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now required to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:
      The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 171.
      See Division 448
      in column 1081
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I am now required to designate any amendments involving privilege. There is only one such amendment, namely, No. 110.
      Next, I put the Question on each motion to be moved by a Minister to disagree with the Lords amendment.

    Clause 22

      SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO INTERVENE
      Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 18, line 1, after "so" insert
      "and of his reasons for doing so"
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the
      632
      Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 171.
      See Division 449
      in column 1085
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 110 agreed to. [Special Entry].
      Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 39, 41 to 109, and 111 to 116 agreed to.
      Mr. John Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this brief point of order. I understand that during my absence elsewhere in the House about 10 minutes ago, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), in seeking to persuade the House to carry Lords amendment No. 29, made a certain implication about a contribution that I made to a BBC 2 television programme last night. I should like to place in the official record the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not give me notice that he would raise this matter. On a point of personal clarification, I should like to say that in that programme I was replying to what I considered to be an outrageous misrepresentation of the interpretation of the Bill—[Interruption.]—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. If any hon. Member has been criticised, I normally let both sides make a brief explanation of their innocence.

    New Clause F

      HOUSING SUBSIDIES
      Lords Amendment: No. 117, after clause 109, in page 78, line 23, at end insert—
      "F.—(1) The provisions of section 24(1)(B) of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect where a person borrows, or two or more persons borrow jointly, from a qualifying lender on the security of a freehold or leasehold estate of the borrower, or of one or more of the borrowers (including an estate held jointly or in common by the borrower, or one or more of the borrowers and one or more other persons) in land in Great Britain, and the following conditions are satisfied:—

      (a) that the loan is or was made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine tenths of the proceeds of the loan are or were applied to the purchase by the person

      633
      or persons to whom it was made of an Annuity ending with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons (in this section referred to as "the Annuitants") who include the person or persons to whom the loan is made;

      (b) that at the time the loan is made the person to whom it is made or each of the Annuitants had attained the age of 65 years; and

      (c) that the person or persons to whom the loan is made or each of the Annuitants uses the land on which it is secured as his only residence.

      (2) The borrower or borrowers may by notice in writing to the lender in such form as the Ministry may direct (in this section referred to as an "Option Mortgage") elect that the loan shall be subsidised in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 and the Option Notice shall be treated for all purposes as if it were an Option Notice made under the provisions of section 24 of the said Act."
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      The amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof tabled by the Secretary of State for the Environment:
      'Subsidised loans—further application of Part II of 1967 Act
      (1) In relation to a loan which satisfies the two conditions stated in subsections (2) and (3) below Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect as if the loan were for or in connection with one or more of the purposes specified in section 24(1)(b) of that Act.
      (2) The first condition is that the loan—

      (a) is made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine-tenths of the proceeds of the loan are applied to the purchase by the person or persons to whom it is made of an annuity—

      (i) ending, if the loan is made to one person, with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include that person, and

      (ii) ending, if the loan is made to more than one person, with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include the persons to whom the loan is made; or

      (b) was made under such a scheme before the commencement of this section.

      (3) The second condition is that each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) above has attained the age of sixty-five years at the time the loan is made (or) if the loan was made before the commencement of this section, had attained that age at the time the loan was made).'.
      Government consequential amendment in page 94, line 25, after '109', insert 'to'.
      Mr. Stanley: I announced on 29 July in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) that the Government accepted the principle of the new clause agreed to in another place. In the light of the argument advanced during the proceedings both on this Bill and on the Social Security Bill the Government have decided that the option mortgage scheme should be extended to provide additional income to elderly non-taxpaying owner-occupiers who buy an annuity on the security of their home. This will help them to remain longer in their homes, which is the wish of the great majority of them.
      The amendment that was carried in another place is incompatible with the statutory framework of the option mortgage scheme. The Government amendment is essentially a technical measure that will further the intention of the Lords amendment.
      The consequential amendment ensures that the provision applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. I believe that the alteration to the option mortgage scheme will be widely welcomed among the considerable number of low-income owner-occupiers who are seeking to supplement their income so that they may remain in the homes that they own.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: Like so many in this place and in another place, I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for accepting this proposition. However, it has been said that the date on which it can come into force after the Bill has received Royal Assent may be in question. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will tell the House when we may expect this provision to be effective after the Bill has become law.
      Mr. Stanley: I am not able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) a precise answer now. There are a number of quite complicated technical arrangements that need to be made before this facet of the scheme can be extended. I assure him that we want to bring it into operation as rapidly as possible and that we shall work to that end.
      Mr. Ted Graham: We have reached a stage where we wonder

      635
      into which precise category the Government's attitude may be placed. Is it to be placed in the "half a loaf" category or the "discretion is the better part of valour" category? There is no doubt that the Government's attitude in accepting gracefully that which was moved in another place is a substantial change in the attitude that was evinced by their spokesman in another place on more than one occasion. The Government having advanced their argument time after time and subsequently having made a substantial U-turn, we are entitled to a debate and an explanation.
      First, we are entitled to say that the amendment that was moved in another place had the support of all the Benches in that place. There was support from the Liberal Benches. I pay tribute to the part played by Lord Banks to support that formidable trio of Ladies Vickers, Faithfull and Phillips. The support that came in another place had all-party support and that must be acknowledged.
      It must also be acknowledged that the Government's acceptance of the principle that is enshrined in their amendment in lieu thereof is a major tribute to the tenacity of two responsible and respectable organisations—namely, Help the Aged and Age Concern. They were tenacious in their attempts to obtain equity in other legislation for the group of elderly citizens that we are discussing. They have been persistent. They will be delighted with the result of their efforts.
      9.30 pm
      We are entitled to remind the House and those affected by the Bill of the present position, and of the effect of the changes. An elderly person who owns his own home, and who has an inadequate income, can supplement his income by raising a mortgage in order to purchase an annuity. From that annuity, he pays interest on the mortgage. The balance of the annuity provides the extra income. It is right that those who pay tax should enjoy tax relief on mortgage interest, thus making the arrangements much more attractive to them than to non-taxpayers. When the Minister acknowledged the amendment from the other place he failed to mention not only that it had been carried but that it had been carried by a substantial majority, in
      636
      House of Lords terms. There were 114 votes in favour of the amendment and 85 votes against. Those who read the proceedings of the other place will know that the figure of 85 represents the type of support that the Government had during most of the proceedings. The figure of 114 was made up of Lords from both sides and by those who sit on the Cross Benches.
      The Lords amendment and the Government amendment seek to extend to non-taxpayers the option mortgage arrangements that are available to the non-taxpayer, who raises a mortgage to buy his house. The benefit of paying a lower, Government-subsidised rate of interest on a mortgage should be extended to those elderly people who do not pay tax. In the same way, elderly taxpayers get a tax benefit. I was delighted to note the success of Lord Banks. During the debate in the House of Lords, he successfully quoted the words of Lord Carr. All hon. Members are aware that he was an eminent and respected hon. Member. He was once Home Secretary, and a leading member of the Conservative Party. He expressed support for the principles contained in the amendment. The Minister's friends in the other place advanced arguments that have now been reversed. They repeatedly advanced the argument that no general principle stated that tax relief for taxpayers should be matched by subsidies for non-taxpayers. The Government have clearly made a concession to that argument.
      The argument was also advanced that option mortgages are designed to encourage home ownership. The amendment would have been a new departure. The Minister appears to have accepted that new departures should be welcomed and that there is nothing wrong in redressing a clear injustice. It was also said that if the amendment were accepted, the effect would be more attractive to non-taxpayers. It was said that taxpayers' money would be used to subsidise a special group. The philosophy of the Conservative Party is to encourage and sustain home ownership. Secondly, the Conservative Party has a special place in its philosophy for looking after the elderly. Thirdly, the Conservative Party continually seeks to maintain its interest in equity. Those three principles were

      637
      thrown overboard by the Conservative spokesman in the House of Lords during resistance to the amendment.
      The other argument which has now been accepted by the Government is that of cost. A Government spokesman in the other place said that if the amendment that the Government are now moving were accepted, it could cost any-think up to £10 million. Of course, the mover of the successful amendment claimed that at most the amendment might cost £2½ million. It was estabblished quite clearly in the other place that there was likely to be a greater burden on the taxpayer by not assisting elderly non-taxpayers—that is if the concession were not made. We all know that in many instances if the elderly were denied the opportunity of continuing to own their own homes—
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I am a little worried about my hon. Friend's remarks. If he accepts the principle that the subsidy given to taxpayers should now be given to non-taxpayers, will he go further and say that the same subsidy should be given to those elderly constituents of mine who do not own their own homes and who do not have the ability to do so? Are we supporting the principle of the subsidy all the way along the line?
      Mr. Graham: With respect, the argument here relates to those who own their own homes or who wish to own their own homes and who are elderly. At present those who are not elderly have the opportunity, whatever their circumstances, of taking advantage of the option mortgage. The principle now enshrined in the amendment, and previously resisted by the Government, is that the benefit of the option mortgage, open at present to those who are not elderly, should be extended to the elderly who are non-taxpayers and for whom the option mortgage is the best arrangement. I am grateful to the Minister for having indicated that the technical defects in the Lords amendment have now been put right in the amendment before us.
      Mr. Durant: Is the hon. Member aware that during the period of the Labour Government this proposal was moved in various Finance Bills in the
      638
      other place and that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) raised the very points that have been raised by his party in opposition to the principle behind this matter? I am delighted that the hon. Member has seen fit to welcome it, but his party was not too keen when it was in government.
      Mr. Graham: The clearest indication of why the Government have finally accepted the amendment has been the campaign waged, not merely by hon. Members on both sides of this House but of those in another place as well. Also because of the effects of inflation, not least during the past 18 months, there has been a growing case to be made out for the benefits of the option mortgage for the non-taxpaying elderly who are buying their homes. Very late in the day, the Government, despite resisting the arguments in another place, have come before us tonight with an acceptable form of words. In view of the fact that the Government have accepted the principle and will put the matter right, I have pleasure in urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept the Government amendment.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Amendment proposed to the Bill in lieu thereof:
      'Subsidised loans—further application of Part II of 1967 Act
      (1) In relation to a loan which satisfies the two conditions stated in subsections (2) and (3) below Part II of the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 shall have effect as if the loan were for or in connection with one or more of the purposes specified in section 24(1)(b) of that Act.
      (2) The first condition is that the loan—

      (a) is made as part of a scheme under which not less than nine-tenths of the proceeds of the loan are applied to the purchase by the person or persons to whom it is made of an annuity—

      (i) ending, if the loan is made to one person, with his life or with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include that person, and

      (ii) ending, if the loan is made to more than one person, with the life of the survivor of two or more persons who include the persons to whom the loan is made; or

      (b) was made under such a scheme before the commencement of this section.

      (3) The second condition is that each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) above has attained the age of sixty-five years at the time the loan is made (or, if the loan was made before the commencement of this section, had attained that age at the time the loan was made).'.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      Several Hon Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: We have already discussed this and I am putting the Question now. [Interruption.] I do not understand why hon. Members remain standing when I am on my feet. I am sorry if I have misunderstood the House. I am not trying to deny anyone his rights. If hon. Members wish to speak to this amendment in lieu I will allow them to do so.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. We have become so deferential to you during today that I was hesitant to stand when you were standing. Because of that, the desire of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and I to speak was almost overlooked.
      I wish to speak not only on the amendment in lieu but on the proposition that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their amendment. One of the myths is that the Conservative Party believes in home ownership and that the Labour Party seeks to deny home ownership to millions of people. The records of the parties since the war make it clear that the only party which has taken positive steps to extend the opportunity for people to purchase their own homes is the Labour Party.
      Mr. David Alton: In view of the fulsome praise by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) of my noble Friend Lord Banks, who ensured that the amendment came before the House tonight, I am surprised that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should say that the Labour Party is the only party which encourages home ownership. I hope that he will join in the fulsome praise of my noble Friend.
      Mr. Straw: There was no inconsistency, simply the omission of an adjective. I meant to say that the Labour Party was the only major party which sought to extend home ownership. In its heyday the Liberal Party, some years before the hon. Gentleman was born, also assisted in that aim. I hear Government Members laughing at the proposition. The Labour Party has taken positive steps to extend home ownership.
      Finance Acts provide that interest payable on the purchase of a home is eligible for relief against tax. That provision has been in operation since before the war.
      640
      What other changes have been made to assist people to buy their own homes? The most important is the provision of the option mortgage scheme which appeared in the 1964 Labour Party manifesto and which was implemented in 1967. That provision is aimed at lower income families who do not have the full benefit of tax relief. That was the first important improvement which the Labour Party made towards assisting home ownership.
      The second improvement was the provision to assist first-time buyers. Under the last Government loan and grant schemes were introduced to assist first-time buyers.
      Mr. Donald Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that neither measure that he has mentioned would have been necessary had his party not invented inflation?
      Mr. Straw: The Labour Party did not invent inflation. Even the Prime Minister has not had the audacity to claim that. Had the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of history he would know that before the Conservative or Labour Party came into existence inflation at times ran riot. In the fourteenth century, as a result of the plague, there was great inflation. Before my party was established in its present form there was great inflation as a result of the First World War. Although the Conservative Party may not have invented inflation, it has ensured that it has proceeded apace. The Government have doubled VAT and the rate of inflation in only 15 months.
      9.45 pm
      It is time the Conservative Party woke up to Labour's contribution to home ownership and improving the nation's housing conditions.
      Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I am listening closely and with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is an effrontery to claim that his party has contributed to home ownership. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that he would like to wipe out the opportunity for council tenants to purchase their houses. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is disgraceful for his party to try to make council tenants second-class citizens because they cannot buy their homes?
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady has no conception of the important contribution that council housing has made to the housing situation.
      Mr. Major: In the past.
      Mr. Straw: It is continuing to do so. The development of council housing has transformed the housing condition of this nation and made us one of the best-housed nations in Europe.
      I have experience of council housing. I lived in a council house until I was married. My family was able to move out of two privately rented rooms and at least live in accommodation that was dry and large enough for a family of five and my parents because of council housing. Conservative Members should give us no lectures about the importance of council housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is right to pledge Labour to repeal this damaging and obnoxious legislation. It will undermine the opportunity of local authorities to house those in need of housing in the way that my parents were housed in 1952, albeit by a pretty reactionary Conservative council.
      Local authority housing stock will be denuded by the so-called right to buy, and in years to come waiting lists will grow longer. We do not say that no tenant in no circumstance should have the right to buy, but we believe that the decision should be left to local authorities, which know the housing needs in their areas. We also firmly believe that discounts of this size should not be given.
      I return to owner-occupation. Because Labour believes in meeting the housing needs of the whole nation, whether through rented accommodation or owner-occupation, we have sought to increase and improve the public rented sector, while encouraging those who can do so to buy homes in the private sector. That is why we introduced the option mortgage scheme and schemes to provide assistance to first-time purchasers. That is why we support the scheme that my noble Friend Lady Birk and other Labour peers helped to push through. It extends the assistance that we have always supported.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, by the time people had saved enough to buy a house under the previous
      642
      Labour Government, the price of the house had escalated so much that they could no longer afford to buy it?
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady has a selective memory. One of the major reasons why the Conservative Party lost the election of February 1974 was the astonishing rise in house prices between 1970 and 1974. House prices were doubling within a year.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that Labour Governments have done far more than any other party for the extension of home ownership. We are not opposed to owner-occupation. Indeed, many of the measures that Labour Governments have introduced, some of which my hon. Friend has alluded to, have been designed specifically to assist owner-occupation.
      We are opposed to the compulsory and indiscriminate sale of council assets, which will lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of housing stock, to the disadvantage of—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are back on Second Reading points. The hon. Gentleman is wasting time. If he wishes to talk about the amendment, he had better do so.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The only point that I wanted to make to my hon. Friend—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue an intervention that was out of order. He was making a Second Reading point.
      Mr. Straw: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to invite my hon. Friend to intervene again.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The point that my hon. Friend could have made to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is that the greatest current inhibition to owner-occupation is the dramatic and unprecedented level to which interest rates have risen as a result of the Government's economic policies.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I intended to refer to after dealing with the record of the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1973.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked my hon.

      643
      Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) whether it was right to agree to the extension of tax relief as set out in the amendment when elderly people in council accommodation would not have such tax relief.
      I understand that point, but I believe that we should act fairly between all owner-occupiers. That was the reason why we introduced the option mortgage scheme. Wage earners on low incomes were not able to benefit from tax relief to the full extent and the option mortgage scheme provided compensation.
      Similarly, those with sufficient income could obtain tax relief if they entered into the sort of annuity arrangement that has been described. The amendment provides that those with a lower income should have the same benefit, in relation to tax relief, as if they had a sufficient income to get that relief.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend agree that the elderly people who are to have the option mortgage scheme, and therefore tax relief, extended to them probably received tax relief when they were younger and buying their first home? His argument that they must get tax relief in the same way that a taxpayer would does not hold water.
      Will my hon. Friend explain what other subsidy is given to any other category who are not taxpayers? When do we say that taxpayers receive a subsidy because they are taxpayers, but that because another category does not receive it because they are not taxpayers we must give them some other form of subsidy? Where is the equity in that?
      Mr. Straw: The elderly living in rented accommodation receive rent rebates if they are in public sector accommodation and rent allowances if they are in private sector accommodation. Equity is involved there. Given the present structure of reliefs available for rent allowances and rent rebates for rented accommodation, and tax reliefs for the elderly with sufficient income in private accommodation, it would be inequitable to exclude the lower income category seeking an annuity arrangement.
      My hon. Friend's first point was whether it was genuinely equitable for those who had enjoyed tax relief in the
      644
      past to enjoy it again. That raises an interesting question whether tax relief on the purchase of homes should be restricted, for example, to a 20-year period in a person's life, and should not be repeated. There are strong social and economic grounds for that. In the long term the major benefit of existing tax reliefs is not to the individual because the tax reliefs are capitalised in the capital values of the properties.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Surely my hon. Friend cannot be right. Is it not the case that every man and woman pays taxes? They pay VAT and other taxes. They cannot get out of that. Young families with children receive child allowances, and the elderly pay taxes, although they do not have any children. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the elderly should not contribute to the child allowance?
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I would not dream of answering for my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk concerning his suggestion. Despite the respect and esteem in which I hold him, he must speak for himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is right to say that everybody pays taxes in one form or another. But we are concerned with the reliefs available through the payment of income tax. The value of such reliefs clearly depends on the size of an individual's income.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton I am glad that the proposal was moved in substance in another place, and passed against the advice of the Government. I am glad also that on this relatively minor matter the Government have had the grace to return to the Commons, without having to be pushed by the Opposition, with an alternative which is almost acceptable. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of speaking about council housing. It may come as a surprise to the House to know that council housing has nothing to do with the amendment that we are discussing. Neither do I propose to engage for any length of time in a Dutch auction about which party has in the past been more beneficial to owner-occupation.

      645
      I propose to concentrate my attention wholly on the original amendment from another place, and on the words that now appear on the Order Paper. Although I take nothing away from those responsible for passing the amendment in another place, I wish to place on record the fact that in the 10 years that I have been in the House I have constantly pressed successive Governments to include the elderly in the option mortgage system. It is a great pleasure for me this evening to find some reward—although I should have preferred my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the proposal when I pressed him no later than June of this year, rather than wait for an amendment to be passed in another place.
      10 pm
      However, there seems to be a misconception running through the House. We are not talking about elderly people buying their properties. We are talking about elderly people who already own their properties and who wish to sell their properties, to take a loan upon them and, with the proceeds of the loan, to effect an annuity, and who are prevented from doing that at present because there is no taxable income to offset against the interest that has to be paid on the loan.
      I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) made certain that there would be a debate on this subject. I could have wished, however, that during his contribution he had cast a little more clarification on the Opposition's thinking on the matter and, most particularly, that he had made clear what this scheme is not, as well as what it is. Unless this debate is publicised, there is a serious danger that it will be assumed that this is a new clause that is universally advantageous to all elderly people. I place clearly on record that that is not so. There are undoubtedly powerful reasons why we should introduce the new clause this evening. For example, it is one ideal way of sustaining the independence of elderly people. Secondly, it is a way of using their principal, sometimes their only, asset, whereas otherwise it may lie dormant. Thirdly, it is a method of improving their standard of living in the later days of their lives without having to resort to social security, which is anathema to many of the people about whom I am talking.
      646
      Those are the points in its favour, but it is not for everyone. For example, if there are relatives who are confidently expecting the property to be their sole inheritance and would be put out at any suggestion that that property were to be sold effectively over their heads, it cannot be advised as a suitable scheme for elderly people in these circumstances. Even there, however, I have found in the past that where that becomes evident, the sons and daughters are frequently moved to assist the elderly people to boost their income, so that the house that is to be inherited by sons or daughters remains intact.
      In these circumstances considerable care has to be directed before it is decided that this is a desirable scheme.
      Secondly, it is not as easy as saying "I shall sell my house to an insurance company or to a financial institution, and I shall take an annuity on it to boost my income". The market for this sort of home reversionary plan is very limited. One of the disadvantages is that in taking the loan from an insurance company or an institution the annuity tends to be tied to the same insurance company or institution, and that need not necessarily mean that the individual is getting the best deal.
      I hope that as a result of this change in the law that we are here enacting, more institutions will come into the market and we shall have rather more schemes under which the financial institution giving the loan on the property leaves the person free to search for the best annuity available in the market.
      I have heard reference to high interest rates and the disadvantage to owner-occupiers. Perhaps I should say that if there is one area in which high interest rates are of enormous advantage it is that of purchased annuities. So here we are doing something for elderly people that has not been possible to do previously, which is advantageous on two fronts.
      The other point is that the elderly people to whom these schemes will apply should be rather wary. I speak as one who has been in the field and knows that many opportunities are available for attracting business from such elderly people. I also know that there are many people in the field—let us call them salesmen—who are not always on the level in

      647
      introducing these schemes to the elderly people. Not only do I suggest a careful shopping around for the correct scheme for the elderly person but I also believe that the elderly person concerned would be well advised to seek professional advice.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: Really.
      Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) says "Really". If he does not feel it wise to accept the best advice on where the best return on the money can be obtained, he astonishes me.
      It is a good thing to have this breakthrough. I wish it had been done a long time ago, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for doing it. It is not a total panacea. There are considerable pitfalls for some people. I felt that I should point to some of them.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Consequential amendment: In page 94, line 25, after '109', insert 'to'.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 118 to 121 agreed to.

    Clause 117

      CONSENT OF HOUSING CORPORATION TO DISPOSALS OF LAND BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS AND TRUSTS
      Lords amendment: No. 122 in page 82, line 37, at end insert "any of paragraphs 2 to 7 of"
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a minor amendment, which means that the Housing Corporation's consent will be required before a registered housing association can grant a long lease of a dwelling in Scotland. The bill already requires the corporation's consent to be obtained for such disposals in England and Wales. The Government have decided that it would be sensible to put the disposals on the same footing whether they take place north or south of the border.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 118

      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
      Lords amendment: No. 123, in page 83, line 24, leave out "and balance sheet"
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 124 to 128, 173 to 178.
      Mr. Finsberg: This is a formidable looking list, but the amendments are simply technical amendments that recognise the fact that the word "accounts" is in itself sufficient to cover "balance sheet", and the latter is therefore unnecessary.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 124 to 128 agreed to.

    New Clause G

      REMOVAL OF CERTAIN HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS FROM REGISTER
      Lords amendment: No. 129, after clause 121, in page 85, line 42, at end insert
      "G.—(1) In section 15 of the 1974 Act—

      (a) after subsection (2) there is inserted the subsection set out below; and

      (b) in subsection (6) for the words "this section" there are substituted the words "subsection (2) above".

      (2) The subsection inserted after subsection (2) is:—
      "(2A) Where a body which is registered—

      (a) has not at any time received a grant under section 29 or section 32 below or any such payment or loan as is specified in paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to this Act; and

      (b) requests the Corporation to remove it from the register;

      the Corporation may, if they think fit, remove it from the register.""
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment covers the Housing Corporation. As the House knows, the Housing Corporation has only narrow powers of deregistering housing associations under the Housing Act 1974. These, in effect, apply only when an association is no longer operating as such. The sort of

      649
      circumstances in which these new powers of voluntary deregistration would be of benefit mainly involve housing associations whose registration has always been unnecessary or inappropriate.
      When the 1974 Act first came into effect, as many hon. Members will recall, the corporation registered a number of associations, which continue to exist but whose activities are untypical of those of a registered housing association. Such associations will not have received public money in the form of housing association grant and have probably never had any intention of applying for grant. Their registration often stems from a lack of understanding of the purpose of registration in the early days of the Act. They remain on the register simply for want of a power to remove them. This clause enables associations that have not received public money to be deregistered with the corporation's consent. That consent is necessary to ensure, for instance, that an association does not deregister merely in order to avoid an inquirey into its affairs.
      Mr. Kaufman: We do not challenge this unexceptionable amendment, but it raises a question. As the Under-Secretary said, it lays down functions for the Housing Corporation to carry out. What I want to know is whether there will be a Housing Corporation to carry out those functions. There are rumours in the newspapers that the Government are considering the corporation's future and are indeed considering winding it up. I believe that this is a suitable occasion for a Government spokesman to assure us that this is not an otiose amendment, in the sense that there will be a Housing Corporation, that it will continue its activities and existing responsibilities, and that the very important functions of, among other things, registering and maintaining the probity of the housing association movement will continue.
      I look forward to receiving an assurance that the Government have no intention of abolishing the corporation.
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I should have thought that above most other hon. Members, with his extensive experience of the media, the right hon. Gentleman would not believe every rumour that he hears. The Housing Corporation was set up by Act of Parliament and is doing a valuable
      650
      job. If the Government contemplated any change they would inform the House.
      The position is simply that we have provided in the amendment, as in other amendments, for certain functions to be carried out by the corporation, and we have no present intention of disbanding it.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am very grateful for what the Under-Secretary says. It was not a question of my believing the rumours; it was the fact that they were circulating and that this was a useful opportunity to obtain from the Government the specific commitment that the hon. Gentleman has given, which we welcome, that they have no intention of disbanding the Housing Corporation, and that therefore it will continue its valuable activities, including its very important role of supervising and maintaining the probity of the housing association movement.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I ask my right hon. Friend to read carefully what the Minister said, which was that the Government had "no present intention" of dealing with the Housing Corporation. That is very different from a specific guarantee to keep it in being.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 124

      RECOUPMENT OF SURPLUS RENTAL INCOME
      Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 87, line 21, leave out from "date" to "as" in line 22 and insert—
      "but not earlier than the end of the period of account"
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Under the clause as drafted the Secretary of State may demand interest on surpluses accumulating in the grant redemption funds at rates to be decided by him for any period beginning up to 12 months before he serves a notice on a particular association to direct the use of the surpluses. However, this carries a risk that associations will be charged interest for a period during which they had no knowledge that interest would be payable, or at what rate. Clearly that is

      651
      not a satisfactory position for them to be put into.
      I believe that the amendment puts matters right. In practice, my right hon. Friend intends to make a general announcement in advance of the rate at which interest on surpluses arising will become payable where those surpluses remain in the funds after the end of the accounting period in which they were generated. When the Secretary of State subsequently gives a notice to an individual association to direct the use of its surpluses, the amendment provides that the earliest date from which interest will be payable is the end of the accounting period. The amendment therefore removes the risk of associations incurring unknown liabilities.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 126

      INTERPRETATION OF PART VIII
      Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 88, line 11, after "Act" insert
      "or, as the case may be, section 208(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966".
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment inserts the Scottish definition of a housing association into this clause, which is the interpretation clause of part VIII. The definition is almost identical to that for England and Wales, which appears in the clause.
      Since most of part VIII applies to Scotland, it is clearly necessary to include the Scottish definition. I hope that the House will accept it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 132 and 133 agreed to.

    New Clause H

      AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN UNAUTHORISED DISPOSALS
      Lords amendment: No. 134, after clause 129, in page 90, line 10, at end insert—
      "H.—(1) If—

      (a) at any time after 18th July 1980 a local authority or a housing association has disposed of a house; and

      652

      (b) the disposal was one which, under section 104 of the 1957 Act or section 2 of the 1974 Act, required the consent of the Secretary of State or of the Housing Corporation (or would have required it had the relevant provisions been in force) but was made without that consent;

      then, unless the disposal was to an individual (or to two or more individuals) and did not extend to any other house, it shall be void (and, if made before the passing of this Act, be deemed always to have been void) and section 128(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or, as the case may be, subsection (5A) (inserted by section 117(6) of this Act) of section 2 of the 1974 Act (protection of purchasers) shall not apply.
      (2) In this section "house" includes a flat and "the relevant provisions" means Part I and sections 87 and 117 of this Act."
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      During the passage of this Bill Parliament has expressed its clear will that secure tenants of local authorities and certain housing associations should have the right to buy their homes. The Bill sets out a clear procedure for doing that. It is intended that that procedure should be exercised with legal certainty by the tenants concerned.
      We have been urged on many occasions—though only by my right hon. and hon. Friends—to ensure that there are no legal devices by which those whom Parliament intends should have the right to buy can be denied that right. We have taken that urging seriously, not least because of certain statements made by the Opposition. We noted the statement by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on 21 February in Committee. He said that the Conservative Party regarded itself as being bound by the letter of the legislation but not by its spirit.
      The basic purpose of this new clause is to ensure that no landlord should—
      Mr. Straw: Since the Minister is criticising the position taken by the Opposition, can he explain why there was active backing from the Prime Minister and other Ministers to get local authorities such as Berkshire and Oxfordshire to take the previous Labour Government to court to try to find as many loopholes as possible in their comprehensive schools legislation?
      Mr. Stanley: I shall not criticise the right hon. Member for Ardwick. I hope

      653
      that, equally, he will not criticise me for bringing forward the new clause.
      The basic purpose of the clause is to ensure that no landlord should be able to succeed in frustrating the right to buy by disposing of some or all of his housing to some other body to whom the right to buy does not apply. The Bill, in some cases by amendment of prior legislation, provides for a comprehensive requirement for ministerial consent both to the disposal of part V houses and land and also to the disposal of land and houses by registered housing associations.
      This consent requirement is needed in order to simplify the present law. It is also needed to ensure that tenants whom Parliament intends to have the right to buy shall not be deprived of that right as a result of disposals to other bodies to whom the right does not apply.
      However, as it stands, section 128 of the local Government Act 1972 has the effect that if a disposal takes place without necessary consent the person to whom it is made still gets valid title. The Bill makes similar provision in respect of housing association disposals in clause 121. We have come to the conclusion, therefore, that as the Bill stands, the rights of tenants are not yet adequately protected.
      The new clause deals with the problem by providing that a disposal that takes place without ministerial consent will be void. In other words, it will be as if the disposal had not taken place, thereby ensuring that tenants will still have their right to buy. The important exception is made to deal with the case where an individual makes a single purchase of a house or flat. It is possible that an authority would sell or lease a house or flat and do so without consent, unwittingly, because it had not conformed with the terms of an available consent. Such a disposal would clearly not subvert the right to buy, and it is clearly right to protect the position of the individual purchaser in such cases.
      The new clause also deals with a gap in the present requirements for ministerial consent for the disposal of part V council houses, that is, the requirements that apply until the relevant part of the Bill comes into force.
      Under the present law, the consent requirements may not cover all possible
      654
      disposals. We are not prepared to see the right to buy taken away from tenants by any landlord who seeks to make such a disposal in the short time that the Government hope remains before enactment. Therefore, the new clause provides that such a disposal would also be void. We must ensure that individual tenants have the rights that Parliament intends them to have and that those rights are not taken away. These provisions have that purpose. They apply only to transactions after the new clause was tabled in another place.
      The Department and the Welsh Office have already written to all local authorities warning them of the new clause. The Housing Corporation has written similarly to housing associations.
      The new clause is essential to protect the interests of tenants from any landlord who may attempt to use this legal device to deny tenants the right to buy. I hope that it will be agreed to.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the Minister for quoting my words in Committee because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate them now. The Opposition have made it clear that they will repeal the compulsory sale of council houses on their return to office. However, while the law is in force, we shall accept it. We shall oppose this provision within the law. We shall not in any way seek to have the law broken. I made that clear on many occasions in Committee, and I am glad to take this opportunity to repeat it, because it is important to emphasise that all parties in the House should accept the law as it is made by Parliament. If Ministers have some intention, it is not the duty of the citizen to obey that intention; it is the duty of the citizen to accept the law. That is what I made clear, and I am grateful to the Minister for having said that. Any local authority that can find ways of not carrying out this law, while not breaking it, will certainly have the compliments of the Opposition.
      I should like to make two points on the new clause. First, it shows that the Government have some kind of obsessessive mistrust of local authorities. In Committee we were assured that Ministers were confident that the reserve powers in clause 22 would not have to be used, but they are now sticking their fingers into what they think are holes in the dyke.

      655
      The Minister, with his zealous, clever, dutiful and agreeable officials, has been putting bits of sticking plaster all over the Bill since January. More than 500 bits of sticking plaster are stuck all over the Bill. The Minister may find that those bits of sticking plaster do not fill all the gaps in the Bill. It may be that he would have liked another stage—perhaps a third House of Parliament—to put through a further 200 or 300 amendments to improve the situation still further. We do not like the new clause for that reason. But for a Department that has to deal with local authorities, it seems obnoxious that the motivating thought should be that local authorities are not to be trusted.
      The reason why I particularly do not like this provision is that it is retrospective. It will go back a number of weeks and cover events that will have taken place before Royal Assent. The Minister, when referring to remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) about the £100 option, for example, accused him of wishing to legislate retrospectively on that matter. Yet the Government are legislating retrospectively in order to require local authorities to be relieved of public possessions.
      I should also like some information from the Minister, because it is not clear to me what disposals are covered. I pluck an example at random from my constituency, of the Birch housing co-operative, which is anxious for Manchester City Council to sell it a small number of houses for its co-operative, which it can then modernise and turn into habitable dwellings. Under the Bill that is possible for an individual, and a sale to an individual is not prohibited by this new clause. I shall be interested to know the position of a sale to a housing co-operative.
      I have written to the chairman of the Housing Corporation—which I am pleased will remain in existence long enough for him to be able to reply to me officially—about this co-operative. I should also be interested to know what will happen when a local authority sells to a housing association in order that the housing association can sell on to a housing co-operative, the housing corporation having carried out the modernisation
      656
      work. I take a moment to pay tribute to the Minister for his knowledge of the Bill. I wish that it were matched by flexibility in policy, but we cannot always hope for that.
      It would be helpful if we could be assured that worthy, small co-operatives in inner city areas were not prohibited from their activities, even in the short period that remains before the Bill is enacted, or, indeed, afterwards, The Minister knows that many inner city areas have problems such as those of Manchester. I do not apologise to the House for using an example in my constituency in order to draw attention to a general point. It will be helpful if the Minister will provide an answer to that question in his reply. I should add, almost in passing, that we shall of course vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) criticised this amendment as being retrospective. Although I do not often pray in aid nationalisation legislation, if he looks at the Labour Government's Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, with which he was so intimately associated, he will note that it included a provision that rendered null and void anything that took place in the companies concerned after the date of publication of the legislation. That thought struck us when we considered how to deal with the problem.
      On the specific point of disposals, the effect of the amendment is not to prohibit disposals but to ensure that where the consent of the Secretary of State is required for a disposal, that consent is obtained. If it is not obtained the purchaser will not obtain valid title. There would be nothing to stop a disposal by a local authority to a housing association, which could then be the subject of further disposal, but disposal by a local authority needs the consent of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Straw: As I understand from what the Minister said earlier, section 128 of the Local Government Act 1972 was so worded that where a mistake was made and a local authority had failed to gain consent, it did not affect a bona fide purchaser. Will the Minister explain the position of a bona fide purchaser who purchases more than two dwellings from

      657
      a local authority which has failed to gain consent as a result of a mistake? Will that innocent purchaser fail to gain title as a result of this amendment?
      Mr. Stanley: Some important points of law are involved, and if my reply is not in any way correct I shall writer further to the hon. Gentleman. All local authorities were alerted to the new requirements in the legislation from the date on which it was tabled in another place. It has been made clear that consent is required. I hope that all local authority housing associations are clearly aware of that. If consent is not obtained and the disposal is not to an individual, the purchaser would not get valid title.
      Mr. Kaufman: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will deal with the question of—
      It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 159.
      See Division 450
      in column 1089
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Speaker: I now have to put the Question on the motion to agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments up to and including No. 145.
      Lords amendments Nos. 135 to 145 agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      EXCEPTIONS TO RIGHT TO BUY
      Lords amendment: No. 146, in page 95, line 19, leave out from "dwelling-house" to end of line 23 and insert
      "is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age ".
      Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      658
      I shall wish to move a maunscript in lieu of the Lords amendment, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, at end insert—
      5. The landlord has, within six weeks of the service on it of a notice claiming to exercise the right to buy the dwelling-house, applied to the Secretary of State for a determination under this paragraph, and the Secretary of State has determined that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if satisfied—

      (a) that the dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and

      (b) that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.

      As my right hon. Friend made clear earlier today, the Government have agreed to accept the intention of the amendment passed in the other place and to exclude from the right to buy those dwellings that are designed or adapted for elderly people—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear"]—and that it is the practice of landlords to let to the elderly. We have, however, accepted the amendment so that these dwellings, and only these dwellings are excluded, and at the same time scope is not provided for excluding tenants from the right to buy if the dwellings are not in the particular category of dwellings covered by the amendment.
      For that reason, a local authority will have to apply to the Secretary of State within six weeks of service of the right to buy notice, if it wants to exclude a dwelling under this provision.
      10.45 pm
      Just as conditions are placed on the way in which the local authority must operate, so there is also a clear obligation placed on the Secretary of State. He will not be able to withhold giving a determination if he is satisfied that the application relates to a dwelling that falls within the terms of the paragraph. The amendment provides that in those circumstances he shall so determine.
      The House will wish to know what sort of dwelling is likely to be covered by this provision. The paragraph will apply to any dwelling-house that is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and that it is the practice of the landlord to let only to such persons. That definition is taken from the amendment made in another place, with the addition of the word

      659
      "only". That addition is based on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), which we thought was an improvement.
      In practice we envisage that the amendment will extend the provisions in the Bill, as introduced in this House, to exclude a further category of dwelling for the elderly from the right to buy. The original provision in the Bill was intended to exclude what is widely known as sheltered accommodation for the elderly. That is the kind of dwelling that falls within what is known as category 2 for the purposes of granting subsidy. In essence the amendment extends the exclusions to what are known as category 1 dwellings for subsidy purposes.
      The type of dwelling for which a determination would be made would be, for example, a bungalow specially designed for an elderly person. However, it would not be made for an ordinary dwelling that happened to be occupied by an elderly person. The amendment that we shall move is based closely on the Lords amendment, with the changes that I have described. It widens the exemptions in the Bill as introduced, to exclude what can broadly be described as all special-purpose accommodation for the elderly. I hope that the manuscript amendment which we have moved will meet with the approval of the House.
      Mr. Kaufman: This is a very important day for Parliament because the amendment that the Minister is to move means that the Government have accepted the will of Parliament—not of one party but of many parties and of no party. They have accepted the will of all those who have felt strongly about this issue. When Parliament expresses its will, even a Government with a majority as large as this one, must give way.
      I pay tribute to my noble Friends in another place who carried the amendment against the Government last month. They worked hard at it. The Minister now says that he accepts the Lords amendment, but when my noble Friends moved it in another place Lord Bellwin told my noble Friend Lady Birk that it was unacceptable, and he spent many minutes explaining why. One can tear up
      660
      those pages of Lord Bellwin's speech in Hansard now, because in President Nixon's words "they are now inoperative".
      I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends in this House who made the Government concession possible. What they did on Monday night and yesterday made the Government aware of the power of my right hon. and hon. Friends to continue through today and tomorrow. Without that, the Government would not have made the concession. That being so, this is a victory for my noble Friends and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Parliamentary Labour Party has shown that we are fighting the Government. Most of all, this is a victory for good sense.
      Mr. W. Benyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that if we had single Chamber government in Britain it would be impossible for the amendment to be carried?
      Mr. Kaufman: That is a hypothesis that might or might not be tested in the future. When I put such questions to the Minister in Committee he said that he was not prepared to answer hypothetical questions.
      This is a victory for good sense, because many people of all parties, all persuasions and convictions asked for the amendment. In the House of Lords the Bishop of London begged the Government to grant the amendment. He was supported by other bishops and members of other parties, including former Conservative Ministers.
      The Government derided the arguments. I cannot understand why they were so obstinate. It is an issue that might be small numerically but in social and human terms it is a large issue. It has spanned parties. In moving the amendment the Government agree that the judgment of local authorities should be accepted. The Government are accepting the judgment of local authorities and are placing a requirement upon the Secretary of State to accept their judgment.
      Of course we accept the amendment. We are glad that the exclusion will be included in the Bill and that such houses will not be sold under compulsion. The day will come when no local authority houses will have to be sold. That day

      661
      cannot come too soon. Meanwhile, we welcome the amendment and support it.
      Mr. Bobin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful for the amendment. It avoids the potential abuses of the amendment carried in another place while achieving the substance which many of us in all parts of the House wish to be achieved. There was a defect in some of the earlier arguments, in that the relief that would have been granted would have been applicable to groups of old people's bungalows where there was, for instance, a warden in attendance. That applies to towns, but certainly it does not apply to villages that have only a few old people's bungalows.
      The form in which the Government have drafted the amendment will achieve what many of us wish to achieve without opening the door to the abuses that could have been used to circumvent the major provisions of the Bill in a spurious manner. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the drafting of the amendment and thank the Government for introducing it.
      Mr. David Penhaligon: I am worried that we might be on the verge of congratulating the Opposition on a confidence trick. The amendment uses the word "only". The regular practice in my part of the country, where there are a number of old people's houses, is that occasionally they are let to single-parent families or to someone else who at that time has a good argument for being on the housing list. I should like to know exactly how the word "only" will be applied. If the person asking to buy an old folk's flat can produce evidence that in the past five years one has been let to a single parent for two or three weeks or a couple of months, would that pre-empt the clause and invalidate the exercise? If so, I am doubtful whether we should so readily accept it.
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: When the Bill came from the Lords it was perfectly plain from reading the amendment that the Minister was right in being prepared to reject it. It would have been easy to drive a coach and horses through the Bill. By introducing small amendments it would have been easy to say that the accommodation could have been let to persons other than old people. Further, there was no provision that the accommodation would be
      662
      let only to persons of pensionable age. Those of us who have a large number of old people's homes in our constituencies, which are especially designed for the purpose and usually but not only let for such purpose, were in that difficulty.
      For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), myself and others considered it necessary to include a provision which has been ably drafted by the Government, that it is the practice of the landlord to let only for the occupation of such persons. Additionally, there are two clearly defined objectives. The accommodation must be specially designed and adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and let only to them.
      I congratulate the Government with complete sincerity. The amendment has been ably and quickly drafted. They are to be commended.
      Mr. Thomas Cox: Sycophant.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: No one has called me that before, and are not likely to again. In my 25 years or more in the House I have been the last person to be sycophantic. No one but the hon. Gentleman would ever dare to call me that. My hon. Friends and most hon. Gentlemen know that to call me a sycophant is pure buffoonery.
      I told the Government that I wanted to see the amendment effectively redrafted. They achieved the redrafting in effective terms and in a way that retains the principles that they are following. They will also be able to provide what is necessary—that houses especially adapted for the purpose should not be sold and that we have houses that are let only to people of pensionable age.
      Happily, both sides of the House support the amendment. I do not criticise the Labour Party for its opposition generally. Indeed, I approve of it. However, the Government have demonstrated ability and flexibility. As a result, the decision is supported by the whole House. The Ministers have recognised the importance of what they are doing. We should for once leave it at that.
      11 pm
      Mr. Bob Cryer: The occasion should not be allowed to pass with no more than the platitudinous twaddle

      663
      uttered by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). The concession was not obtained from the Government by a consensus arrangement; it was won from them by the hard work of a number of Labour Members, with one or two Liberals, behaving as a united and determined Opposition.
      We are giving notice to the Government that although they have an overall majority of 50 or 60 they will meet more determined opposition in the next Session, because we shall be representing the people of this country against the oppressive measures of what the Lord Chancellor called an elective dictatorship. That phrase is not used much today. The Lord Chancellor used the expression about the minority Labour Government. What about the present Government, whose Back Benchers have tramped through the Lobbies in support of all sorts of amendments and proposals, including the original provisions in the Bill as they existed before Labour Members got them altered?
      The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West talked about the amendment being drafted sensibly as the result of an arrangement reached yesterday. But why is it a manuscript amendment? Why was it not prepared yesterday? Why was it not drafted and printed in the normal way? The reason is that it arises as a result of the pressure exerted by the Opposition Front Bench because of the views expressed by Labour Back Benchers. It was determined opposition, lock, stock and barrel, to the whole of the wretched Bill.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not also appropriate to put on record that the activities engaged in yesterday by certain Labour Back Benchers—never mind what was done in another place—were not the result of any activities by the Gang of Three who have been telling us to fight the Tories? We do it every day and we shall be doing a lot more of it in the next Session.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is correct. It ill behoves Conservative Members to talk about getting drafting alterations. I cannot remember their being thick on the ground yesterday, when we were arguing for parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure of £42 billion. I thought that Parliament
      664
      was supposed to exercise scrutiny. I cannot recall the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West's scrutiny of that £42 billion.
      It is a matter of concern that paragraph 5(b) of the manuscript amendment refers to:
      "the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons."
      If a local authority is to have the full, proper and unfettered discretion that the Tory Front Bench talk about in relation to private education—when it is called freedom of choice—the word "only" should not be included. A local authority should have the opportunity to switch some bungalows, for example, from ordinary dwellings to old person's dwellings if it wishes.
      When a Labour Government are returned to office—and that cannot come too soon—we shall have a massive amount of legislation to put through in order to get rid of the pernicious and oppressive legislation that has been put through by the Tory Cabinet and its hacks who troop through the Lobbies. Occasionally, one or two of them abstain and tell their local papers that they are fighting their Government tooth and nail.
      I do not think that there has been an occasion on which the Tory hacks of the Back Benches have voted against Government policy and expressed a positive point of view. There is no doubt that there are one or two rumbles and grumbles swelling up from their ranks, but it is nothing compared to the concerned and dedicated opposition that is now swelling up throughout the country, which is being reflected on the Labour Benches, and which will continue to be so reflected.
      Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are discussing a manuscript amendment, would it be in order for you to accept a manuscript amendment to the manuscript amendment changing the word "only" to the word "normally"?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Not being Mr. Speaker, it is not within my power to accept a manuscript amendment.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I thank the Government for accepting the amendment in its present form. It is exactly the same as the proposal put forward by my city council. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was not correct when he said that the amendment applies mainly to country areas with only one or two dwellings. It applies to certain older cities with ageing populations, which were quick off the ground and built elderly persons' dwellings before the time that the idea of attaching wardens to the dwellings was introduced. They would not have come within any other definition. They have been habitually and historically occupied by the elderly.
      In my city only 270 elderly persons' dwellings would come within the definition and therefore not available for sale, but 700 other dwellings would be eligible for sale, which would leave us with an inadequate number of houses for our considerably ageing population. The number of old people in Lancaster is considerably higher than the national average. It is a matter of importance. We are accordingly most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to the amendment.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question has been raised whether we could delete the word "only". You have ruled that you cannot accept such an amendment. Is it not possible for the House to request Mr. Speaker to return to the Chamber to enable such an amendment to be moved? Although the amendment is an enormous improvement on that which previously existed, it is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Speaker is always available to anybody who wishes to see him on these matters. I believe that one hon. Member has already gone to see him. I checked on the position, and it is not within my power to accept a manuscript amendment.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Nobody could accuse me of being a hack in relation to this piece of legislation. As a signatory to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop),
      666
      I welcome the concession that has been made. I wish to repeat a point that I made in an intervention during the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). Whatever is said, and whatever the humbug that we hear from the Opposition, if we have single-Chamber government in Britain it will not be possible to reconsider matters. It must be rubbed home that it does not matter whether it is a Tory or a Labour Government—if we have a single-Chamber Government we could not reconsider matters.
      If the Bill had remained as it stood, or if the pre-emption clause originally on the Order Paper had been moved, no Government—whether Tory, Labour, Liberal or Flat Earth—could ever build a custom-built old person's house again. We have made considerable progress in the sensible compromise that has been reached. I congratulate the Government Front Bench.
      Mr. Alton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) on having been consistent in raising this point throughout our deliberations on the Bill. He voted against the Government on this question and on other questions. That courage showed also some practical common sense. It was clear that he had had experience of the problems which local authorities will be up against because of the compulsory nature of the Bill.
      Again and again we have found that the sheer dogma which the Government have enforced on us through the Bill has taken the place of common sense. I have had to administer a city's housing committee, as chairman, for over a year. It would have placed us in an intolerable position to have to sell property which had been specially built for elderly people or for disabled people at a premium. It would have meant that these properties, which are very few in number and for which there is obviously great need on the part of people who have special problems, could have disappeared out of the local housing stock. That would have meant that people in special need would have gone without the kind of accommodation to which they are entitled.
      In some ways, the amendment tries to rectify that. It was an amendment for which Liberal Members pressed on Second Reading. Regrettably, as a party

      667
      we did not get the opportunity to press for it in Committee because, as hon. Members will know, the Liberals were excluded from membership of that Committee. That was a matter which we raised repeatedly because we were so disappointed by that exclusion.
      However, this sheltered and special accommodation is prized by a local authority. It would be very foolish to allow it just to be sold off without trying to build in adequate safeguards. It is clear that the safeguard in this manuscript amendment is insufficient, because paragraph 5(b) says clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) have said, that it is "only" for occupation by such persons.
      Not all property that has been built as sheltered accommodation is necessarily used by people who are elderly. Sometimes, on a short-term basis, for instance, a single-parent family might be moved in, or someone just appearing lower down the housing register might well be moved into a special-category style of accommodation. In that way it would still mean that there would be a loophole through which could flow some properties which had been built specially for people in need. That seems to be the point which the Minister and the Government have accepted in principle. Therefore, I hope that the House will consider replacing the word "only" with the word "normally". That would be one way of ensuring that this abuse does not occur.
      In conclusion, I make one other point. It seems that the manuscript amendment demonstrates yet again this incredible act of folly by the Government in taking away decisions of this kind from local authorities and determining on the Floor of this House what we believe to be right in any district of the country regardless of the local circumstances.
      I am one of those who believe very strongly in home ownership. My local authority sold off certain categories of council accommodation. We preferred to develop our build-for-sale policies in order to give the maximum opportunity of home ownership and to encourage people out of properties which were rented and into houses for sale. In that way we were able to create more home ownership as well as being able to provide
      668
      properties for people in need. Having done that, we still felt that there was a case for some people to get the chance of owning their council homes if they wished. That was a decision taken in local circles by that local authority. But one man's meat is sometimes another man's poison. What might be right in that local authority—the decision taken by local councillors elected by their electorate—is not necessarily right in another part of the country, and anyway, the local councils there might well have been elected on a different mandate altogether.
      It seems to me, therefore, that this is just another example of sheer bloody-minded dogma. I am pleased that as a result of a lot of pressure in the House, particularly yesterday, when much feeling on the subject was expressed by Opposition Members, there has been some response. I hope that the Government will not hoodwink the House by pushing through what is not an adequate amendment, but will accept the common sense of replacing "only" by "normally".
      Mr. Penhaligon: Will my hon. Friend, as chairman of a housing committee, confirm that it was perhaps not the practice but at least an exception to a general rule that property clearly designated, designed and built for the elderly was occasionally used for other purposes? I cannot see how any other translation of the clause could lead to the conclusion that that would exclude such properties.
      Mr. Alton: Of course that is the guts of my argument. There are occasions on which this very expensive and highly desirable property for people who are disabled or elderly is used for people from other categories of housing need. If the amendment goes through in its present form, there will still be a loophole, as a result of which that property can be sold. It will be taken out of the housing market for people in special need and will go for sale to someone with no particular need.
      For that reason, it would be wise for the House to reconsider passing the amendment in its present form.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not wish to delay the House, because the argument has

      669
      been advanced from both sides of the Chamber. However, I should like to give some personal examples.
      I have a close friend, who is aged and living in accommodation specially built for the elderly in my constituency. She has a disabled daughter below pensionable age, who lives with her. Under the amendment, the word "only" would take that house out of the category of protected dwellings. If the word "normally" were used instead there would be protection, because the house is let to a particular aged person. In the way in which my local authority works, that accommodation would normally go to the disabled daughter. It then ceases to be "only" let, and becomes "normally" let. If we allow it to be "normally" let, my constituent and the house are protected. If we leave "only" in the amendment, they are not protected in the way that we desire.
      The matter of sheltered housing for the aged has caused more concern than any other matters that have been raised with regard to the sale of council houses.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend has given an instance that could well come up in a court of law. It would be most unfortunate if that case, or any parallel case, became case law and any matter was raised that perhaps went against the general wishes of the House.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may assist the House if I say that Mr. Speaker has accepted a manuscript amendment to leave out "only" and insert "normally ". It is my intention at the correct time to put that amendment to the House. With that knowledge, we may be able to proceed.
      Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that I was making only a short intervention, and in fact my object was to ascertain Mr. Speaker's decision. Having got it, I shall sit down.
      Mr. David Steel: Is it in order for me now to move that amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Can you give me guidance as to when that may be done?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House so wishes, it will disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, the Government manuscript amendment in lieu will be moved formally, and before any decision is reached on that the other amendment will be moved. It will then be put to the vote, and if agreed to will be included in the Government amendment.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to speak at great length, but there is one aspect of the matter of which it might be useful for the House to take note. Slightly less than a week ago I presented a petition on the selling of bungalows. I doubt whether, in the several hundred years of this House's history, Parliament has responded to a petition with the same speed. Therefore, it is only right that on the behalf of the Rotherham borough council I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and those who encouraged him.
      There is one difference between the decision reached by the House today and the request made by the Rotherham local authority in its petition last week—namely, purpose-built accommodation for the handicapped. I hope that the sensible views of local government—and local government should have had a fulsome tribute from my hon. Friend as well as others of my hon. Friends, both here and in another place—will be heeded by the Minister. I hope that in due course the hon. Gentleman will seek to ensure that purpose-built accommodation for the disabled receives rather more consideration than the contemptous way in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government. I hope, too, that the amendment, which represents an improvement, will be acceptable to the Government.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment disagreed to.
      Manuscript amendment to the Bill proposed in lieu thereof, in schedule 1, page 95, line 23, at end insert—
      5. The landlord has, within six weeks of the service on it of a notice claiming to exercise the right to buy the dwelling-house, applied to the Secretary of State for a determination under this paragraph, and the Secretary of State has determined that the right to buy is not to he capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if satisfied—

      (a) that the dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and

      671

      (b) that it is the practice of the landlord to let it only for occupation by such persons.—[Mr. Stanley.]

      Mr. Alton: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the manuscript amendment proposed in lieu thereof, in paragraph 5(b), to leave out "only" and insert "normally".
      Hon. Members have heard the argument for the amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Manuscript amendment to the manuscript amendment proposed in lieu thereof, in paragraph 5(b), line 2, to leave out "only" and insert "normally".
      The Question is, That the amendment—
      Mr. David Steel: Before you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that we shall have the courtesy of a ministerial reply to the points that have been made. It would be quite monstrous for the Minister to sit quiet and have the House vote on it. Surely a reasonable case has been put and we are entitled to an answer to it.
      Mr. Stanley: The manuscript amendment, which we brought forward earlier this afternoon, has been the subject of detailed study and discussion. We are satisfied that it fully reflects the intention of the amendment that was agreed in another place.
      I assure the House that the situation to which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) referred—which would be a short-term let for a week, or possibly a few weeks, to a single-person family in what would normally be elderly persons' accommodation and which it is the practice to let as elderly persons' accommodation—would be governed by the word "practice", which implies some measure of latitude. If we replaced the word "only" by "normally", it would substantially widen the intention behind the amendment, which is to provide an exclusion for category 1 accommodation and not a basis for excluding accommodation that may regularly be let to people of pensionable and non-pensionable age. That is why the Government do not feel able to accept the Liberal amendment.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government
      672
      have changed the wording of the Lords amendment on this matter? Will he also explain whether, if it is the practice of the landlord to let only to people of pensionable age and a house is let to a man aged 65 and his wife who is 59, that would take it out of the exclusion? This is the kind of problem that arises from the inclusion of the word "only". Will the hon. Gentleman amplify the reasons for the introduction of a word that seems to reduce the effect of the Lords amendment for no reasonable purpose?
      Mr. Stanley: Inevitably, there is no way in which we can say that every case is totally black or white. In the majority of cases a dwelling will be excluded from the right-to-buy provisions, or it will be within the right-to-buy provisions, but in certain circumstances there will be a slightly grey area in between. However, the dwelling has to be designed or specially adapted for, in addition to it being let to, a person of pensionable age. We are satisfied that that will exclude the category of dwellings that has exercised hon. Members on both sides of the House and their Lordships in another place—the category 1 type of accommodation, the genuine purpose-built, specially adapted accommodation for the elderly. That has been the subject of this debate and we are satisfied that it is covered by our amendment.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I press the Minister a little further? The Opposition wish to exclude, and wish to obtain an agreement to exclude, from the obligation to sell property that was intended and designed for old people. As I understand, the argument falls into two categories. The first is whether, by a change of words, there is an opportunity for councils to exclude from the provisions of the Bill houses and flats that were not intended for old people, but that are occupied by old people. I accept that the Government's position is clear on that, although I do not agree with it. I do not wish to disagree with the Government's insistence that houses and flats that are temporarily occupied by old people are not covered by the amendment.
      Many hon. Members pointed out that unless this single word is changed, unless the semantic argument is altered, there

      673
      may be flats that were intended, maisonettes that were built, and houses that were designed for old people, which despite the principle that the Government have conceded are nevertheless in the area of obligatory sale. If that is the case, the House will agree that the intention described by the Secretary of State has not been fulfilled. I ask the Minister in all humility—I do not understand the semantics and technicalities—to make clear whether the change of a single word makes a material difference between what the House intended and what he promised.
      My position is clear. Our understanding from the Government is that accommodation that was intended for and designed for elderly persons shall be excluded from compulsory sale. I shall vote for every amendment that clarifies, stipulates and confirms that. I accept that accommodation that is temporarily occupied by elderly persons is a different matter. Does this amendment make a material difference to what the Secretary of State promised?
      I accept the Minister's judgment, and I accept his word. This is an argument not about honour but about interpretation and clarification. If the Minister tells me that the difference between the two words is immaterial I shall not support the Liberal amendment, but if he tells me that there is a material difference, the understanding given by the Secretary of State to the House is of such a character that I shall regard the Liberal amendment as clarifying and confirming any implied agreement. I hope that the Minister will make the position clear.
      Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister clarify one point? He said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that if a category 1 house was let temporarily to a person who was not of pensionable age, that would be covered by his amendment, because of the word "practice". I know of cases in my constituency—let us leave aside the fact that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, because presumably it happens elsewhere—where category 1 houses are allocated to tenants who are below pensionable age because of specific needs. By no stretch of interpretation could it be said to be the "practice" of landlords to let such houses only for occupation by
      674
      persons of pensionable age, when they may have been let for some years to people who are below pensionable age. Our amendment is designed to cover those houses.
      I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that point, and that if he is in any doubt about the matter he will consult a Law Officer on the interpretation. I believe that the assurance that he gave a few moments ago will not cover the sort of houses that I have described. That is why the word "normally" is essential. I do not believe that it opens any loophole. One still has paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b). I believe that we have made a sensible improvement to this amendment.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Skinner: Unless the Government are prepared to accept the new manuscript amendment, clarifying the position, they can be accused of ratting on the agreement drawn up this afternoon at a time, let it be said, when the Speaker of the House was trying to take part in some kind of agreement and ensure that the House of Commons could be satisfied as to the conduct of its Members during the course of the events later in the day.
      I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will realise that we are not finished yet. He was gloating initially when reference was made to this matter, because he felt that he had got away with something by his sleight of hand. It is necessary for the Government to make it clear that they have not ratted on the agreement.
      Let me give an example, which occurred many years ago when I was in local government. This example could be repeated many times. Often bungalows are built for old-age pensioners, but circumstances change because of a mine closure, for example, and there is a population drift. In 1959 about 30 bungalows were built for old people in my area. The Tories took control of Clay Cross council and broke an agreement by letting the bungalows off to single people. The following year I was elected to the council and we shifted the Tories out. We regained control, and those bungalows reverted to their original use—occupation by old-age pensioners. How would they fit into this proposed category? How

      675
      would those who have retired at 60 under the miners' voluntary retirement scheme be dealt with? How do they fit into this provision if it is on the basis of "only" and not "normally"?
      It is time that the Government spoke up clearly on this matter. They have been dragging their feet and trying to escape from the decisions made in the Lords weeks ago. It is time they made clear just what they mean by the amendment, so that we can vote for the amendment that gives most pensioners the chance to remain in their homes and ensures that fewer bungalows are sold.
      Mr. Straw: We do not yet have the Official Report for this afternoon's proceedings, but I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said when he made his statement. My recollection—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—is that at no time did he suggest that the manuscript amendment to be moved would be qualified by the word "only". The import of what he said was that the spirit of what was proposed in the Lords, which did not include the word "only", would be embodied in the manuscript amendment, subject to the Secretary of State's having the power to decide whether categories of dwellings came within the specifications of the Lords amendment.
      At no time did I hear him use the crucial qualifying word "only". If I am wrong, I will give way immediately, to be corrected, but if I am right, the Minister and the Secretary of State appear by sleight of hand to be twisting the agreement that was reached—in this House, not behind the scenes—and that resulted in our withdrawing our opposition.
      Therefore, I ask the Minister what the Secretary of State did say. Is our recollection right, that he did not use the word "only"? When the right hon. Gentleman claimed to clarify paragraph 5(b), he said that even where a landlord let a dwelling for a period to someone who was not elderly, that would not undermine the statement that it was the practice of the landlord to let it only for the occupation of an elderly person. Either words mean what they say or they do not. If it is said that it is the practice of the landlord to let the property
      676
      only for the occupation of elderly persons, surely if the landlord lets it for occupation by someone else it is the practice of the landlord to let it for occupation by people other than elderly people. Therefore, the Secretary of State will refuse his consent.
      Does the Minister intend to accept the Liberal amendment? If not, what will his administrative practice be to ensure that dwellings that are generally used by the elderly are not excluded from this amendment simply because, from time to time, they happen to be let to people who are not elderly?
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many Opposition Members talk about the spirit and the intentions of the amendment. Many of us are aware what the spirit is among them. They want an amendment so loose that a dwelling with a longer toilet chain or a handrail on the bath can be called a dwelling for the elderly.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Member represents a part of the city that I represent—as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—so he knows what examples can arise there. What happens in such cities, with many hundreds of tower blocks, the ground floor flats of which are, by and large, let exclusively for elderly people—they are, in effect, bungalows—but occasionally for the disabled? In other words, they would be covered by the word "normally", but not by "only". Are the ground floor flats that the hon. Member tries to secure for old folks to be denied the protection of the amendment?
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The hon. Memmer speaks emotionally, as ever, but he used the phrase "by and large", so he knows that the situation would not be covered. Therefore, it does not matter. It always sounds good to talk as the hon. Member does, but we want to ensure that people are allowed to buy their own properties. What we do not want is a clause so widely drawn that friends of hon. Members opposite, by some minor amendments to property, will be able to frustrate what many of us were elected to do—give people the right to buy their own homes. If anyone withdrew the word "only" we should not vote for the amendment.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I should like to put an idea into the Minister's mind to try to get him to agree that it should be "normally" and not "only". In my constituency a number of the dwellings that are normally reserved for old people are let to miners who are suffering from pneumoconiosis and need this type of dwelling in which to spend the remaining years of their lives. These houses are normally old people's dwellings.
      The other thing is that the Bill refers to lodgers. Many an old person will take his son or daughter into that type of house, and that will become the only rather than the normal dwelling. Therefore it is imperative in my constituency that the word is "normal" rather than "only".
      Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe): The deep divisions that have arisen during the debate show the unwisdom of immediately accepting just a change of word. As I interpret the Government's intention, the sort of amendment that ought to be put in is not one concerned with "only" or "normally "but one that refers to the type of accommodation that is usually occupied. The question of "normally" or "only" makes no difference.
      Mr. Keith Wickenden: I think that the House knows what the amendment to the proposed amendment is trying to achieve, but I question whether the word that is being used is the right one. My hon. Friend has stuck fast to his guns and insisted that "only" is the word to be used. Labour Members have said that "normally" was the word that should be used. Surely the phrase "normally occupied" demonstrates the manner in which the property is to be occupied rather than the circumstances under which it is to be occupied.
      The phrase that should be used is either "usually occupied" or "customarily occupied" which is different from "normally occupied". If that is so, the amendment to the proposed amendment is misconceived, and should be rejected.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the Government will take account of some of the specific points that have been made by hon. Members about the precise circumstances in which
      678
      this phraseology would be unhelpful and that the amendment to the proposed amendment would make the matter more sensible. I think that discussions are still being held and advice is still being taken as I speak which may lead to that.
      The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) suggested an alternative that is no less acceptable to us, but we would not wish to complicate the proceedings. The hon. Gentleman suggested that "usually" might be a better word, but we are all trying to get at the same thing. We are trying to find a form of words that will achieve what the Minister said he wanted to do in practice.
      The Minister said, quite helpfully, that in practice an authority that had special reasons to let—perhaps temporarily—such a property to somebody who was not a pensioner would not be covered by the word "only", but Ministers are not always the final judge of the law on these matters, and even if the Minister attempts, in the best spirit, to interpret this provision flexibly and freely, at the end of the day he may fall foul of the strict form of the law.
      In the circumstances, I think that it would be sensible to take due account of the various suggestions that have come from various parts of the House. If the hon. Gentleman finds "normally" unattractive, there are still a few moments left in which to consider using "usually" or to find some other suitable word. "Normally" is a word that appears regularly in statutes in circumstances such as these, and I hope that in these few moments the Minister has found it possible to regard these words as acceptable.
      Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is confronted with a problem relating to a guillotine motion that will bring the debate to a close at 12 o'clock. The last seven hon. Members who have spoken have asked the Government a question, and the guillotine motion is such that the Government can simply not answer the question and wait for the guillotine to fall at midnight.
      May I plead with the Government simply to answer the question, even though the guillotine will allow them to escape from doing so? The House was under the impression that the statement made by

      679
      the Secretary of State and the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend made it clear that accommodation intended for the use of elderly persons should be excluded from the compulsion to sell. If the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear that his amendment will fulfil that principle, I for my part will accept his word without qualification. What we need from the right hon. Gentleman is a clear undertaking that, semantics apart, words apart, what he intends, and what he said, are met by his amendment, namely, that accommodation intended for elderly persons will not come under the provisions relating to compulsory sale. Even though the guillotine might allow the right hon. Gentleman to escape, I ask him to make a statement of clarification before midnight.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should point out that this matter is bound to be put to a vote even if it continues to midnight. The Minister may speak again by leave of the House, but he cannot keep intervening while other hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. However, if hon. Members are agreeable, I shall call the Minister.
      11.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I could catch your eye. I have listened to what right hon. and hon. Members have said, and I should like to try to clarify the situation. Of course, we gave an assurance earlier today that it was our intention to exclude those units of accommodation that are built, converted and used for the elderly. We have tried in honour to draft and agree an amendment that carries out the intention that I first announced to the House. I assure the House that in my view, having listened to the arguments, there is broadly no change in the commitment.
      I appreciate that if we try to examine every word we shall run into the difficulty that we have always experienced with this legislation, and I do not try to escape from it at this late hour. The problem with this legislation is that it can deal with the issue from two points of view. It can be dealt with from the point of view of those who are genuinely trying to ensure that the accommodation built or adapted for the elderly is preserved
      680
      for that purpose, and I have assured the House that that is our intention. It can also be dealt with from the point of view of those who are looking for different opportunities within the drafting. I do not suggest for a minute that the hon. Members who raised this point have such a thing in mind. However, as the Minister sponsoring the Bill, I must always have in mind the possibility that others less charitably disposed to what the Government are seeking to achieve might have such a purpose in mind.
      I gave the assurance this afternoon in total sincerity and I still believe that that is the way in which the amendment will work out if it is incorporated by this House and their Lordships in the legislation.
      I cannot deny to the House—and it is clear from the amendment—that there will be questions at the margin. There is no way of escaping that situation. We have tried to deal with that by taking the view that where the case is at the margin the discretion remains with the Secretary of State, to whom the individual authority will have to apply. If the amendment is accepted the Secretary of State will have to act within the law of the land. That is laid down, and it is quite clear what it will be.
      Nevertheless, the sort of questions that are being raised enable the Secretary of State to look at the practice of the local authority. If it is the view of the Secretary of State, looking at that practice in the context of a specific house, that it has been the practice to let that house for the elderly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only."]
      Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: If it is the view of the Secretary of State that it is the practice of the authority to let the house for the elderly—[Hon. Members: "Only"] It is a question of the word "practice". There is an element of discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is designed to balance the position of the local authority, which also has the discretion as to whether—
      Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I want to

      681
      try to explain the situation as best I can. It will be for the Secretary of State, acting within the law, to interpret "practice" and the relationship of the word "practice" to the word "only". It would be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to say that although there had been the sort of exception that right hon. and hon. Members have raised, nevertheless it was the practice only to let to elderly people. This is totally compatible with the assurance that I gave the House. It is completely within the spirit of the amendment that I have tabled, which is also in keeping with my assurances.
      Mr. Kaufman: If the amendment is incorporated into the Bill and a resident of one of the dwellings in question seeks to buy it and the local authority does not wish to sell it, it will go to the Secretary of State and will say that it does not wish to sell the property because it is an old person's dwelling within the Act.
      I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is giving an assurance that will meet the views of my hon. Friends and those of Liberal Members—namely, that where a local authority comes to him not wishing to sell, having been served with a notice to sell, the Secretary of State will not wilfully set aside the wish of the authority not to sell—[Interruption.] I am attempting to be helpful to the House.
      I trust that the Secretary of State will not wilfully set aside the authority's wish and that its wish not to sell in such circumstances will be accepted by the Secretary of State in the spirit of the statements that he has been making today. If he is satisfied that that is the position—namely, that the wish of the authority not to sell will be accepted in those circumstances—my view is that the difficulty does not arise. If he can give that assurance, he can help to settle the problem.
      Mr. Heseltine: I shall try to help the House—
      Mrs. Peggy Fenner rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: With respect, it is important that I try to deal with the specific point that has been put to me. If I have time, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner).
      Mr. Hattersley: Why is there a shortage of time?
      Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman knows the problems of guillotines. He has used as many as anyone else in the House.
      Within the definitions that my hon. Friend the Minister of State spelt out, there is a real area of clarity on the houses that are to be excluded, because they have been the subject of special subsidies. There is documentation, and the houses are known. There are perhaps a few more than 200,000.
      It is difficult to foresee these things, but I may be the Secretary of State who has to bear the first responsibility of administering the legislation. If I receive a bona fide application from a local authority that has old people's accommodation of the sort that we are discussing and that is referred to and defined in the legislation, it will not be my intention to call for the record to try to find an occasion when, one night, the authority let the dwelling to someone of 59 years and 364 days and to say "Look, I have got you. You cannot sell because you once let somebody under pensionable age into the house." That is not my intention. I can only assure the House that that is the position.
      Mr. David Steel: I give the House a specific example that cannot come within the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman has given the House. In a block of about a dozen specially designed houses built about six years ago, one house was allocated from new to a man with multiple sclerosis, under pensionable age. If a request came for that house to be sold and the authority told the Secretary of State "We do not wish to sell the property", it would be no use the right hon. Gentleman's saying that it was the practice to let it only for occupation to those under pensionable age. He could be taken to court.
      Mr. Heseltine: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman comes relatively fresh to the complexities of this legislation. He may remember that the disabled are specifically dealt with elsewhere in the legislation.
      At this late hour, I shall try to state the case. If local authorities genuinely co-operate in the spirit of the legislation

      683
      and if, rather than frustrating the purposes of the legislation, they maintain legitimate accommodation for the elderly, I shall not try to use the minutiae of past practice to frustrate the assurances that I have given.
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am trying to explain the situation. However, there are difficulties, because the amendment is in manuscript form. I am trying to give the House every reasonable assurance possible in support of the undertakings that I gave earlier.
      Mrs. Fenner: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this Bill is not concerned with the question whether local authorities wish to sell properties? It concerns the tenant's right to exercise the right to buy. My local authority has specifically sold a specially adapted disabled home. It was adapted for a severely paralysed tenant, who had asked to buy it. The Bill concerns the tenant's right to buy rather than the wishes of local authorities.
      I deeply respect the view that, on the whole, elderly folk will not seek to exercise the right to buy. However, I should prefer to let them exercise that right if they so wish. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill concerns the tenant's right to buy?
      Mr. Heseltine: No one has pioneered the sale of council houses to a greater extent than my hon. Friend. Nor has any hon. Member secured better results for his or her constituents. I shall repeat the assurances that I have given. The Government propose to define in legislation a significant number of people who will not be able to purchase their homes unless the local authority concerned is prepared to let them do so. In general, those people live in accommodation that has been built or specially adaped for the elderly and is being used for that purpose. That is the assurance that we gave, and that is the basis on which welcome progress has been made. I cannot go back on those assurances, and I do not wish to do so.
      There is bound to be an element of discretion in the hands of the Secretary
      684
      of State. However, I have tried my best to assure the House that the Secretary of State will behave within the spirit set out today. On that basis, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the manuscript amendment and to reject the additional manuscript amendment proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party and his colleagues.
      Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has misunderstood the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). We are well aware that other provisions in the Bill deal with the disabled. However, a property that has been designed for a person of pensionable age can be sold off.
      I believe that the Opposition Front Bench may have been duped. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have drafted about 500 different amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere, why cannot he accept a change of one word to one line? If he does not accept it, he will be guilty of an act of deceit and subterfuge. He is deliberately pulling the wool over the eyes of Liberal Members.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 264.
      See Division 451
      in column 1093
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Manuscript amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment that the Minister wishes to move to a Lords amendment.

    Schedule B

      HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM FIRE
      Lords amendment: No. 220, after schedule 22, in page 150, line 33, at end insert—
      "Exercise of powers of local authority
      1. If it appears to a local authority that a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household is not provided with such means of escape from fire as the local authority considers necessary the local authority may exercise such of its powers under this Schedule such as appear to it most

      685
      appropriate; and it shall do so if the house is of such description or occupied in such manner as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
      Powers available to local authority
      2.—(1) The local authority may serve a notice on any person on whom a notice may be served under section 15 of the Housing Act 1961 specifying the works which in the opinion of the local authority are required to provide the necessary means of escape from fire and requiring the person on whom the notice is served to execute those works within such period, not less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice.
      (2) The period specified in the notice may from time to time be extended by the local authority.
      (3) Where the local authority serves a notice on any person under this paragraph it shall inform any other person who to its knowledge is an owner, lesee or mortgagee of the house of the fact that the notice has been served.
      3. If it appears to the local authority that the means of escape from fire would be adequate if part of the house were not used for human habitation the local authority may secure that that part is not so used.
      4. The local authority may secure that part of the house is not used for human habitation and serve a notice under paragraph 2 above specifying such works only as in the opinion of the authority are required to provide the means of escape from fire which will be necessary if that part is not so used.
      5. For the purpose of securing that a part of the house is not used for human habitation the local authority may, if after consultation with any owner or mortgagee it thinks fit to do so, accept an undertaking from him that that part will not be used for human habitation without the permission of the local authority.
      6. If the local authority does not accept an undertaking under paragraph above with respect to a part of the house, or if, in a case where it has accepted such an undertaking, that part of the house is at any time used in contravention of the undertaking, the local authority may make a closing order with respect to that part of the house.
      Enforcement
      7. Any person who, knowing that an undertaking has been accepted under paragraph 5 above, uses the part of the house to which the undertaking relates in contravention of the undertaking, or permits that part of the house to be so used, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 and to a further fine of £5 for every day, or part of a day, on which he so uses it or permits it to be so used after conviction.
      Consultation with fire authority
      8. A local authority shall, before serving a notice, accepting an undertaking or making a closing order under this Schedule, consult with the fire authority concerned.
      Exclusion of Rent Act protection
      9. Nothing in the 1977 Act shall prevent possession being obtained of any part of a house which, in accordance with any undertaking in pursuance of this Schedule, cannot for the time being be used for human habitation.
      Interpretation
      10. In this Schedule expressions defined in the 1957 Act have the same meanings as in that Act.
      Application and amendment of enactments
      11. Part II of the 1957 Act shall apply to a closing order made under this Schedule as it applies to a closing order under section 18(1) of that Act, but the ground on which, under section 27(2) of that Act, the local authority is required to determine the order shall be that it is satisfied that the means of escape from fire with which the house is provided is adequate (owing to a change of circumstances) and will remain adequate if the part of the house with respect to which the order was made is again used for human habitation.
      12. In section 17(1) of the Housing Act 1961 for the words "either of the two last foregoing sections" there are substituted the words "section 15 of this Act or Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980" and for the words from "in the case of a notice" to "that section" there are substituted the words "in the case of a notice under that Schedule, that the notice is not justified by the terms of that Schedule".
      13. In section 18(1) of the Housing Act 1961 for the words "section fourteen, section fifteen or section sixteen of this Act" there are substituted the words "secton 14 or 15 of this Act or Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980".
      14. In section 61 of the 1969 Act for the words "section 14, 15 or 16 of the Housing Act 1961" there are substituted the words "section 14 or 15 of the Housing Act 1961 or Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980".
      15. In section 29(7) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for the words "section 60 of the Housing Act 1969" there are substituted the words "Schedule B to the Housing Act 1980" and for the words "section 60(2) of the said Act of 1969" the words "paragraph 5 of the said Schedule B."."
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment:
      Leave out paragraphs 12 to 14 and insert:—
      '12. Any reference in the provisions relating to houses in multiple occupation (that is to say Part II of the Housing Act 1961, Part IV of the Housing Act 1964 and Part IV of the 1969 Act) to section 16 or Part II of the Housing Act 1961 shall be construed as including a reference to this Schedule; but the functions of a local authority under this Schedule shall not be among those referred to in section 70 of the 1969 Act (review of housing conditions by local authorities).—[Mr. Stanley.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 263. Noes 150.
      See Division 452
      in column 1095
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in amendment No. 220, as amended.
      Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am putting the Question.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 55.
      See Division 453
      in column 1099
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 147 to 164, 167, 169 to 183, 185 to 197, 199 to 202, 207, 209 and 211 to 251 agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to designate any amendments involving privilege. The amendments in question are Nos. 165, 166, 168, 184, 198, 203 to 206, 208 and 210.
      These designated amendments must now be put to the House. I understand that the Minister proposes to move, That this House doth agree with all those amendments. Is the House willing for me to put the Questions on these amendments en bloc? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I must put them separately.

    Schedule 11
      AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (C. 44)

        PART VII (LOCAL AUTHORITY GRANTS)
        Lords amendment proposed: No. 165, in page 114, leave out lines 44 to 46.
        Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]
        The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 29.
        See Division 454
        in column 1101
        Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 166, in page 116, line 39, after "1957" insert:—
        "(a) section 60 above shall not apply; and (b)"
        Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley]
        The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 26.
        See Division 455
        in column 1105
        Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry]
        1 am
        Lords amendment: No. 168, in page 119, line 20, leave out "£5,000" and insert "£6,750"
        Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
        The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 29. Noes 29.
        See Division 456
        in column 1107
        Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Schedule 17

      AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ACT 1974 (c. 44) PART III
      Lords amendment: No. 184, in page 135, line 19, after "lease" insert "or licence to occupy"
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
      The House Divided Ayes 244, Noes 26.
      See Division 457
      in column 1109
      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Schedule 19

      HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES
      Lords amendment: No. 198, in page line 32, after "corporation" insert
      "or the Development Board for Rural Wales"
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 35.
      See Division 458
      in column 1111
      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 203, in page line 19, after "corporation" insert
      "or the Development Board for Rural Wales"
      Question put forthwith. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 34.
      See Division 459
      in column 1113
      Question accordingly agreed to [Special Entry]
      1.45 am
      Lords amendment: No. 204, in page 144, line 21, after "corporation's" insert "or Board's"
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Stanley.]
      The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 35.
      See Division 460
      in column 1117
      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 205, in page 144, line 21, at end insert
      "or the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976"
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 34.
      See Division 461
      in column 1119
      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment, No. 206, in page 144, line 27, after "corporation" insert
      "or the Development Board for Rural Wales"
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      The House divided: Ayes 241. Noes 31.
      See Division 462
      in column 1121
      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      2.15 am
      Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 144, line 30, after "corporation" insert
      "or the Development Board for Rural Wales".
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 30.
      See Division 463
      in column 1123
      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 210, in page 144, line 33, at end insert "or Board".
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Heseltine.]
      The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 32.
      See Division 464
      in column 1125
      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments:—
      The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 26.
      See Division 465
      in column 1129
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill:
      That Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Stanley and Mr. Waddington be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      That three be the quorum of the Committee;
      That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Stanley.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that this should go through on the nod.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must put the Question. It does go through on the nod.
      Question put:
      The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 35.
      See Division 466
      in column 1131
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported; and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.3 am
  Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The statement made on behalf of the promoters of the Bill told us that the debate would take place at 7 o'clock yesterday. I am very grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have so kindly come to show the importance that they attach, which is the same importance as I attach, to this Bill.
  I want at the outset to deal with the point that was raised twice yesterday by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The House knows that the hon. Gentleman would never knowingly mislead it, but it may be that inadvertently he did so, for he raised two points of order when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair, saying that he had not had an opportunity to discuss with the promoters the issues raised in the Bill.
  The Bill was introduced into another place on 21 February this year. It received its Third Reading in another place on 11 June. It was introduced into this House last month and was considered on 21 July. It was put down for Third Reading for the first time on 24 July, and the hon. Member for Keighley and others put down a blocking motion. On the following day, 25 July, the parliamentary agents acting for the promoters wrote to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends asking whether they would like to have a meeting with the promoters to discuss the issues raised by the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman replied on 3 August to the parliamentary agents in these terms:
  "I note from your letter of the 25 July that you"—
  the parliamentary agents—
  "think that a meeting could be arranged. However, after receiving your letter, I see that the Bill is down for Third Reading next Wednesday."
  That, as we all know, has slipped to Thursday. The hon. Gentleman went on:
  "I regarded as a grave breach of parliamentary convention that the Bill should be put down in

  693
  this manner without any discussion which I would have been happy to have entered into with yourselves."
  The hon. Gentleman made no attempt to approach the promoters of the Bill. When the parliamentary agents representing the promoters wrote to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends offering a meeting, that was the hon. Gentleman's reply.
  The Bill is promoted by the Eastbourne Harbour Co. Ltd, whose shares are held by the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Who are they?
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman asks "Who are they?", and I shall tell him. They are Lord Hartington, Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Burroughs. Those trustees own 380 acres of barren, featureless land three miles to the East of the centre of Eastbourne and in between the town of Eastbourne and Pevensey Bay. At present that land is used only for the extraction of gravel. The foreshore is largely shingle and is largely deserted, even in summer.
  The promoters seek to build a harbour, most of which would be inland. The Bill is required because it will be necessary to build certain harbour works, including two breakwaters—one to the West, which will be 540 metres in length, and the other to the East, which will be 300 metres in length.
  Under clause 11, no works of any kind can be carried out to the harbour unless the plans have first been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Further, under a later clause, any plans have to be approved by the Eastbourne borough council, which is the planning authority.
  There will be moorings in the outer tidal harbour for 258 boats, including 30 moorings reserved specifically for fishermen. Ten moorings will be reserved for pleasure boats, to which the public will have access, and the remainder for sailing boats. There will also be an inner non-tidal harbour with berths for a further 1,560 boats. The non-tidal harbour will be connected to the tidal harbour, one may think appropriately, by two locks. Thus, the total moorings will be 1,818.
  The estimate of expense was deposited in the Private Bill Office under Standing
  694
  Order No. 45. That estimate shows that the total cost of the harbour works is £24,263,000 at 1979 prices.
  The scheme that the trustees and the company have in mind does not involve only the construction of a harbour, although this Bill is concerned with the harbour alone. The harbour is part only of a wider plan to utilise this barren strip of land. Under an agreement between the company, the trustees and the East Sussex county council which records the granting of outline planning permission by the borough council, the trustees have agreed to make available to the county council, free of charge, land for a primary school, a health clinic, a library and a community centre.
  The benevolence of the family of my noble Friend the Duke of Devonshire, and the benefits that he and his family have already conferred upon my constituency, are being continued in this way.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gow: No. I shall not give way. [Interruption.] I hope to have the Opportunity to reply to the debate, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his contribution later.
  This land, amounting to six acres, will be conveyed by the trustees to the East Sussex county council. The trustees have also agreed to pay £2 million to the East Sussex county council, index-linked to 1980 prices, in order to pay for improvements to the main road from Eastbourne to Pevensey Bay. The trustees have also agreed to sell to a profit-making housing association, at a price fixed by the district valuer, land on which it is planned to build 100 flats. A swimming pool, a children's playground, and a caravan site, will also be built, all of which will be open to the public. It is intended that the public will have access, free of charge, to the whole of this development which at present provides no facilities for the enjoyment of the public. In addition, there will be 2,400 dwellings, ranging from four-bedroomed houses to two-bedroomed flats and maisonettes.
  This is a thoroughly imaginative project. The cost of the harbour will be just under £25 million. The cost of the remainder of the development will be approximately £55 million at today's

  695
  prices. This project will have an important effect on employment in my constituency and in the surrounding area. The harbour works are estimated to provide employment for between 2,000 and 3,000 people, which, together with the development of 2,400 houses, is expected to last for 15 years. I repeat that figure for the benefit of the Labour Deputy Chief Whip. Employment will be provided for between 2,000 and 3,000 people, extending over 15 years. There will also be permanent jobs for 900 people. Knowing the legitimate anxiety of the Labour Party about providing jobs, I should have thought that Labour Members could have given a small cheer.
  This Bill will provide a harbour for 30 fishing boats which at present have to be dragged up and down the beach at Eastbourne. It will provide a marina with 1,778 berths for small boats and 10 berths for pleasure craft. It will provide—I hope this will commend itself to the Labour Party—a haven for seafarers off the treacherous coast of Beachy Head. Indeed, it will be a source of satisfaction to my right hon. and hon. Friends to know that any members of the Labour Party whose pastime is sailing will be able to take refuge in my constituency. All this will be done wholly from the private sector, and at no cost to the public sector.
  The Bill is supported wholeheartedly by the Eastbourne borough council and by the East Sussex county council—
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Both Tory.
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman should not be too scornful about that: they are a great deal better than the other sort.
  The chief executive of the borough council writes:
  "Obviously, the harbour facility is vitally important and will give local fishermen the shelter and facilities for which they have fought so long and hard."
  He goes on:
  "The number of new jobs involved in this development is of considerable importance to the town and the new business opportunities created will be significant and affect an area much wider than Eastbourne."
  The chief executive of the county council wrote on 4 August:
  696
  "The County Council fully supports the Eastbourne Harbour Bill."
  The minutes of the policy and resources committee of the county council for 19 February 1980 record:
  "A major development in this location can be regarded as a natural physical extension to the town and will provide considerable benefits to the community, both in the constructional phases and after completion. The marina, with its associated development, will make a substantial contribution to the economic development of the town in terms of both direct and indirect employment generated by the project."
  Whatever may be the views of hon. Members opposite, those views which I have just quoted were shared by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). In 1978, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he approved the East Sussex structure plan, from which I will quote two passages only. Page 41 says:
  "The following specific proposals, which will bring jobs and environmental improvement or additional amenities to the area, are made:
  A marine development at The Crumbles, Eastbourne."
  So whatever the view of the Labour Party now that it is in opposition, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, when Secretary of State, gave specific approval to the whole of the marine project.
  I should like to read two letters that I have received from my constituents about the Bill. One, dated 1 August, reads:
  "Dear Mr. Gow,
  My husband and I were most gratified to read in the Eastbourne Gazette "—
  an excellent newspaper, which also supports the Bill—
  "that you intend to do your utmost to get the Eastbourne Harbour Bill through Parliament and stop the defeat the town suffered five years ago."
  My constituent goes on:
  "The bigoted, petty-minded Labour MPs who are opposing this Bill obviously appear to be doing so purely from spite and envy, as no public money is involved. If this Bill is approved, it will be marvellous for Eastbourne and the residents of the town. We await August 8th and the vote with renewed hope, knowing you are fighting to get the Bill through."
  There is one other letter I would like to read to the House—[Hon. Members: "More."] My hon. Friends must not tempt me. I am no longer a frequent contributor to the business in this House—[Hon. Members: "Shame."] This

  697
  correspondent writes, perhaps unusually nowadays when addressing a politician:
  "Dear Sir, Wishing you all the mighty success on Wednesday. Plan big please. Marina. Rule Britannia."
  My constituent ends his letter, which was put through the letter box in our house in the constituency—which is called "The Doghouse"—on Monday morning. "Len the postman." Len the postman, because I think it is a closed shop, would be a member of the union of post office and telecommunications workers' union. The House will understand that it was particularly gratifying to me, having moved in the last Parliament a Bill to end the Post Office monopoly, that an employee of the Post Office should write in these terms in support of this free enterprise movement.
  I have not exhausted the advantages of this Bill. My constituency has long been an attraction for former Members of this House. The noble lords Lord Shaw-cross and Lord George-Brown, dearly beloved by the opponents of this Bill, have come to live in my constituency. The Leader of the Opposition, who is not in his place—[Hon. Members: "Where is he? "]—has a small estate just outside my constituency. He is the Lord of the Manor of Ringmer. If, in the evening of his life, the right hon. Gentleman should seek to escape from the treadmill of leading the Labour Party, a berth could be made available for his yacht in the new Eastbourne harbour—and not for him alone.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) states in "Who's Who" that his recreation is travel. I gave notice to the right hon. Member that I would be referring to him during my remarks. It is true that I told him that I would be speaking yesterday and that may explain why the right hon. Gentleman is not present. The right hon. Gentleman's party—certainly I do not claim to speak for the right hon. Gentleman—sought to prevent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment from getting through this House a Bill which would give the right to council tenants to become owner-occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman is himself an owner-occupier of another property close to Eastbourne.
  The Shadow Chancellor is the squire of Alfriston, and when he invites the
  698
  comrades trom Leeds, East to stay with him for a weekend in East Sussex, what better way of spreading brotherly love than by sailing his small boat from a berth in the new Eastbourne harbour and reflecting as he does so—some of my hon. Friends will understand the importance of this—on the lessons taught to him by our mutual friend Dr. Johannes Witteveen?
  Those who oppose the Bill seek to deny a harbour for fishermen. They seek to block a project that will provide 15 years of employment for 2,000 to 3,000 people, and permanent employment for 900 people. Seeking, as ever, to abandon the magic of the market place, they would say to the growing number of their fellow citizens who like to sail in small boats "You may not do so; we "—that is the Labour Party—" seek to impose our prejudices on your freedom of choice".
  Those who represent Keighley and Erith and Crayford, York and Darlington, Lambeth, Central and Bolsover—all, save one, landlocked constituencies—seek to prevent Eastbourne from remaining in the vanguard—at the head of the vanguard—in its primary industry, which is tourism. Theirs is a strange exercise in collective agonising about the undoubted capacity of free enterprise to create jobs and to meet the wishes of the people. They seem to forget that miners from Bolsover are more likely to be able to have a sailing holiday in Eastbourne than many of my constituents, who find it increasingly difficult to pay for coal.
  We are a seafaring nation. Ours is an island race. Down the centuries we have built and improved harbours. Sailing, which used to be the privilege of the few, is now the free choice of many. I want to extend that choice, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.28 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I rise to speak because I have been elected to the House, and I am not indulging in a strange exercise. I am indulging in the right of elected Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation that comes before us.
  I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who talks about the opportunities that we have had to discuss the Bill with the promoters, that I wrote back within six sitting days of Parliament

  699
  agreeing with the suggestion of a meeting, and at least one other member of the six signatories wrote back in considerably less than that time, and also personally contacted one of the representatives of the promoters, to say that they would be happy to have a meeting. That does not seem to me to be undue delay in any sense, and I think that it is wrong that the promoters, having written to myself and my hon. Friends seeking a meeting, should at the same time have arranged to place this motion on the Order Paper.
  Therefore, it is not a strange exercise at all. It is an exercise in trying to obtain some element of democratic scrutiny—[Interruption.] There are some hon. Members who are keen to exercise that scrutiny but who have worn the hours of the early morning rather less successfully than others. We are all keen to exercise that scrutiny which the hon. Member for Eastbourne would apparently deny to us.
  I should like to go into some detail on the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the Third Reading of the Bill. It was circulated following the blocking motion that was put down by myself and five of my hon. Friends. [Hon. Members: "Who are they?"]
  Paragraph 3 says that:
  "It is intended that the Scheme should comprise all types of dwelling from very small flats to four-bedroomed houses and that over a period of ten to fifteen years more than 2,400 dwellings will be built for a wide range of income groups."
  I had a brief meeting with a representative of the promoters earlier today, although I cannot speak for my hon. Friends. I wish that they had had the opportunity. It was quite clear that the cost of these dwellings, the detailed plans, the type, the sort of availability and the sort of people who are expected to occupy them have not yet been decided.
  In view of that absence of certainty, it seems to me that it is reasonable that we should object to a scheme, one of the components of which is still reefed in ambiguity. It may well be that the promoters are seeking to shield the basic purpose of the scheme, which is to create a wealthy marina with high-priced flats and fourbedroomed houses for people who are in the class that the Prime Minister and her Cabinet seek to represent, and that this
  700
  has no relationship at all to the ordinary workers of Eastbourne who are seeking accommodation.
  Secondly, paragraph 4 says:
  "The whole Scheme, when completed, is expected to provide permanent employment for over 1,000 people."
  Presumably, some of those jobs involve maintaining the housing and the infrastructure which, as yet, has been undecided and unplanned, and for which no detailed provision has been made. Meanwhile, the development work itself could generate 2,000 to 3,000 jobs and thus benefit the construction industry.
  However, at present part of the land is occupied by N. F. Newton-Smith, Metal Recoveries, Newhaven Ltd., according to the plans that have been deposited with the Bill. The second item on the plan is occupied by the Department of the Environment. The third area deposited on the plan is occupied by Hall Aggregates (South East) Ltd.
  I assume that some activity is taking place, that some jobs are involved and that there will, therefore, be some loss of occupation. I should be interested to know the extent to which these works will have an effect on the occupations that are listed and deposited with the plans accompanying the Bill.
  Paragraph 5 of the statement issued on behalf of the promoters states:
  "An important part of the Scheme is the creation of a harbour for small boats, including fishing boats".
  I wonder why more commercial operations are not included in the plan if the promoters are interested in developing jobs in Eastbourne. Why is there not the planned promotion of wider commercial activities? Why is there no clear statement in the Bill, or in the statement accompanying it, that small boats up to a given length will be admitted free of charge? That would surely help those who live in Eastbourne and who recognise that there might be an opportunity for working class people on low incomes to have a dinghy in which they might gain some relaxation.
  If the promoters are anxious to provide for all classes of person in Eastbourne, why do not they make some provision of that nature? However, with the present policies of the Prime Minister and her cronies in the Cabinet, the range

  701
  of choice is becoming increasingly limited for those in Eastbourne and elsewhere as the level of unemployment increases.
  Paragraph 6 states:
  "The intention behind the Scheme is to create a community at the Crumbles with a permanent resident population".
  What size of population have the promoters in mind? That is part of the proposal that is totally vague. We have been furnished with no detail. At least two of the 14 paragraphs—of the statement—most of them cover technical detail—are about this vague area. It sounds attractive, but when we get down to detail there is virtually nothing there.
  The estimated expense attached to the Bill is £24,263,000. That seems to be a great deal of money to expend on what might be described as the lesser order of priorities in a country that is currently facing a massive and savage diminution of its manufacturing industry. Is the Duke of Devonshire concerned about creating jobs, or is he concerned about creating a rich man's paradise in a marina very similar, perhaps, to a nearby example at Brighton? The House passed a similar Bill that enabled the marina development at Brighton to take place.
  The promoters of the Brighton Bill indicated that there was to be a residential development. To this date no residential development has been made available, and there has been criticism of the access given to very small boats that are used for pleasure purposes.
  Mr. Keith Wickenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the past few weeks the Brighton marina company has announced plans to develop about 2,000 houses in partnership with Barrett Development Ltd.?
  Mr. Cryer: It is a happy chance that, just when a similar Bill is being debated, the Brighton marina has announced plans to fulfil a promise made many years ago.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us were here in the late 1960s? We remember the promises that were made by the promoters of the previous Bill. I do not remember any promise to the effect that they would introduce housing plans in 13 years' time. They promised that houses would be built
  702
  alongside the marina immediately. It looks as if the promise made in the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary's rehearsed speech will be worth as much as the promises made by the promoters of the other Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has emphasised a point that I made earlier. There are so many Conservative Members in the House because this is a pay-roll vote. The Prime Minister's bag carrier is promoting the Bill. Those who are not on the pay-roll are, on the whole, those who would like to be on it—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the former Labour Member for Brighton, Kemptown sponsored that Bill? Does he also recall that the Brighton Marina Company had to argue with a former Socialist Secretary of State for the Environment for three years before it could get planning permission to build the properties?
  Mr. Cryer: That Labour Member came in for a good deal of criticism. Indeed, there was a referendum in Brighton on the virtues of the marina. There was a vote in favour of the proposals. Afterwards, people felt that they had been badly betrayed, because the promises that had been made were not fulfilled.
  Mr. Christopher Price: There is a certain amount of impatience in the air. It is important to get the record straight. Although the previous hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown promoted that Bill, a very much larger number of Labour Members—led by the former Labour Member for Birmingham. Northfield—strongly opposed it. The former Labour Member for Brighton, Kemptown—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Cryer: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made the position clear. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but I understood that that was the position. It demonstrates that the House would be in great danger if, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested, we were to tremble at the knees and fail to exercise any scrutiny of such measures every time the names of the Duke of Devonshire and the Eastbourne Harbour Bill [Lords] are mentioned. That was the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

  703
  [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was. In his opening remarks the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was wrong even to question the Bill. At the beginning of my speech, I had to make it clear that I was exercising my right, as a Back Bencher, to debate this issue on the Floor of the House. Had it not been for the efforts of Labour Back Benchers this debate would not have taken place.
  Contrary to the wishes of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, a debate is taking place. There should be an interchange of ideas. It is only reasonable to examine the ideas put forward. The Brighton measure provides a basis of experience. Even those Conservative Members who wish to curry favour with the Prime Minister, with "oohs" and "ahs" in support of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and who desperately hope that she will notice, must accept that the previous Bill is not the best star on the horizon.
  This kind of project seems very low on our scale of priorities in this country. For example, manufacturing industry in many areas could do with an injection of private capital and it is not getting it. [Interruption.] Of course the Tories joke about injecting private money into manufacturing industry. They have to find some small grain of comfort from somewhere. Their constituents are pressing them about lost jobs which have resulted from firms closing down in their constituencies. The fact that they are enjoying a little entertainment at this early hour is no reason for not looking at the cold reality of life; and the cold reality is that one manufacturing company after another is closing down. That is not because we are not competitive, or because we lack investment. In the textile industry there has been co-operation with the trade unions, investment, the lot, and yet jobs are still being lost. I do not want to go too far down that path because I would probably he out of order.
  Mr. Donald Thompson: Is not the hon. Member very pleased to encourage the manufacture of boats? I know two very good boat builders in Keighley who will be delighted with this Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: This is the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, and if it provides even half
  704
  a job for a boat builder in the next five years I shall be very surprised. It will not do anything of the sort. We are talking about expenditure over 15 years just to get things sorted out and provide the basic marina. It is nonsense to suggest that the Bill will have any significant effect.
  It is a sign of the times that people with influence and money should contribute to this sort of thing. Incidentally, the source of the money is not clear. Will the local authorities have some investment in this development, or will the Duke of Devonshire's well-lined pockets make the major contribution? Should not money go into more urgent priorities than a rich man's marina in a Victorian seaside resort?
  The other items in the Bill that worry me are the number of clauses which would cause concern if they were in delegated legislation. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would be equally concerned in that case. Do they not think that it is wrong to have powers residing in various institutions which cannot be subject to some sort of control and application of justice? Clause 19 says:
  "The Company may from time to time make, alter and repeal such byelaws as they think fit for all or any of the following purposes."
  About a dozen purposes are then listed. This is not a small matter because we are talking of byelaws which impose criminal penalties.
  Is it right that Parliament should hand over the ability to make criminal law to a private company? Surely that cannot be reasonable without any redress, obligation to consult or right of appeal before the byelaws become law under which criminal penalties can be exerted.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the provision in section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972 which makes it wholly clear that any such byelaws are subject to the confirmation of the Minister of Transport, who is accountable to this House.
  Mr. Cryer: Subsection (5) makes that clear. The Local Government Act 1972 was such a lousy Act that the local government reorganisation which it produced is a constant reminder of the

  705
  botched up activities of the last Conservative Government. I am talking about local topics and the lion. Member for Eastbourne should have the right to be involved in this type of decision making. Is the man in Whitehall supposed to know best about this elected dictatorship which we now have?
  Clause 22 states:
  "The company shall have power to levy such dues and charges for the use of the harbour and for the services and facilities provided thereat subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit and shall publish and prominently display a list of such dues and charges "and so on.
  There is no right of appeal and no requirement to publish these dues and charges. A meeting of local people might be called to give them the right of consultation or objection. But the Bill states:
  "The Company shall have the power to levy such dues and charges for the use of the harbour … provided thereat subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit."
  Why should Conservatives take such powers with such solid consciences, when a value added tax inspector who is able to impose such conditions as he thinks fit can enter property? Do Conservatives say that such powers are too wide? If that is true for one person, surely it must be true in private and industrial companies which see their advantage as private profit for the trustees of the Devonshire estate? That is the aim—it is not for the benefit of the community. Conservatives might moan and groan, but I make the point because this is not the best way to take powers to make regulations as the Government think fit.
  Even the Secretary of State for Industry, who as everybody knows is besotted by private enterprise and the profit motive, qualifies his remarks by saying that they must operate within a regulated framework. That is because we know that the profit motive can produce cruel, harsh and even corrupt results. That is why this House should hesitate at handing over, in effect, the powers to produce,
  "such terms and conditions as they think fit".
  without the qualifying democratic accountability, which is at least a safeguard for the citizenry.
  Clause 23 states:
  "Dues and charges demanded at the harbour shall be payable subject to such conditions as
  706
  the Company may from time to time specify in their published list of charges."
  That brings me back to the question of free access for boats of less than 16 ft in length. It is clearly within the province of the Company to make charges and give exemptions.
  Now that the Prime Minister is leaving, more Conservative Members will be able to leave their seats in the knowledge that they will not be in danger of hindering their careers.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: That is the first joke that the hon. Gentleman has made since I have known him.
  Mr. Cryer: The company is clearly able to give exemptions. Such exemptions may cost the company money. The marina is the first stage that we are concerned with, and it gives us the outline. The residential part and the gift of land for schools for the community are vagaries. We are dealing with the legal powers relating to the marina. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eastbourne can state that the company will under clause 23 be giving a concession so that the ordinary people of Eastbourne—not those who will be able to afford either high dues or high-cost housing—can enjoy the coastline that they live near.
  Clause 24 states:
  "The several dues and charges which the Company for the time being demand, take and recover in respect of vessels shall be payable before the removal from the harbour of any vessel in respect of which they are payable and may be demanded, taken and recovered by such persons, at such places at such times and under such regulations as the Company may from time to time appoint."
  I am not sure what the word "appoint" means. Does it mean that the company would have the power to make regulations? If that is so, it is a serious extension of the powers that Parliament normally grants on thankfully, relatively rare occasions to private organisations. We should guard such provisions jealously.
  The House goes to the trouble of—[Hon. Members: "The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is asleep."] Many hon. Members are taking a deep interest in this matter, drinking it all in, ready to make a contribution at the appropriate time. I was diverted by the excessive concentration of Conservative Members on an extraneous matter

  707
  —whoever is taking a kip is beyond the Bar of the House and it is not a matter for our concern.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is on a good point and is being treated disgracefully by Conservative Members. I am in favour of the Bill, but in clause 19(5) the private company is being treated as if it were a local authority. It has the same powers as a local authority and the secretary of the company is treated as if he were a chief officer. Conservative Members should understand that they are creating a precedent which they may regret.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is correct. He has raised a serious point to which I shall return in due course.
  The House has established a Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and a Joint Committee with another place to scrutinise delegated legislation, because we regard it as so important. In the 1930s, Lord Chief Justice Hewart wrote a book called "The New Despotism" and centred his ideas on the fact that delegated powers handed over to Ministers were creating a new non-accountable framework of legislation which was not being treated in a sufficiently serious and, more important, democratically accountable way, and it was eroding the powers of the House.
  I hope that none of my hon. Friends is doing such a mean thing as recording the names of all the Conservative Members who are leaving the Chamber, in order to send a list to the Prime Minister. That would be unworthy of them.
  Mr. Michael English: The Prime Minister has gone as well.
  Mr. Cryer: The Statutory Instruments Committee was established as a result of general concern about the growth of delegated legislation. The House says that we must have scrutiny of delegated legislation, but it was prepared, before Back Benchers exercised that scrutiny, to allow through legislation that unquestionably handed an element of delegated legislation to a private company. That is an element of double standards which the House should not tolerate.
  Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make an enormous mountain out of a molehill on clause 25. Can he explain how it differs from, say, the arrangements that British Rail makes for people who want to park their cars at its stations?
  Mr. Cryer: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are dealing with clause 24, not clause 25. There are two differences. First, the powers of British Railways were often inherited from the old 19th century railway companies which were established in exactly the same way, and of which I would not approve. Secondly, British Railways' powers are, to some degree, accountable to the House because the Minister of Transport can answer from the Dispatch Box a range of questions which are not the responsibility of the relevant Minister, for example, the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  If an hon. Member visited the Table Office and asked about the general position of British Railways, it is conceivable that he could table a question and raise the issue in the House. The accountability for British Railways—and all publicly-owned industries—on a day-to-day basis should be greater. That should apply also to private industry. We are discussing handing over powers to a private company. If an hon. Member went to the Table Office to table questions on the matter, he would be told firmly that it was not the Minister's responsibility. There is a marked difference between the powers that we are considering in the Bill and those of British Rail.
  Mr. Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when discussing the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill the hon. Member for Newham spent a long time debating that point and arguing that rights should be left with individuals. I presume that we were arguing on behalf of the Labour Party, which would have scrutinised that Bill at some length. That point is dealt with early in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newham delved into that matter, and insisted that private companies should have those powers.
  Mr. Cryer: I cannot answer for any of my hon. Friends. It is for them to argue

  709
  their cases, if they so choose. I did not serve on that Committee—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a serious matter when an hon. Member makes an interjection and states something that is not true. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) did that. There is no hon. Member for Newham. If he wishes to interject he should get his facts right. There are hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) or Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The hon. Gentleman should try to get his facts clear and say what he really means.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): We do not want another debate on that point.
  Mr. Cryer: I do not wish to become involved in points of order on such a matter. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) is right to point out the correct definition of each hon. Member.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about statutory instruments. Both he and I know that statutory instruments relate to the expenditure of public money and Public Bills. Surely the Bill is about establishing a company. The true comparison is between the rules set out in clauses 24 and 25 and the rules set out in the articles of association of a private company, and how they affect people both within and outside the company. His comparison is inappropriate.
  Mr. Cryer: That is not the case. Under their articles of association companies cannot produce rules and conditions that are binding on other people in such a fashion as that provided in the Bill. [Interruption.] A company cannot produce regulations, for example, as it may from time to time appoint. It certainly cannot produce regulations which have criminal penalties attached to them by the company and enforced in the courts, decided by the company, as it from time to time thinks fit.
  I mentioned clause 19 earlier. I must answer this point by referring to clause 19(1), which says:
  710
  "The Company may from time to time make, alter and repeal such byelaws as they think fit for all or any of the following purposes".
  It gives quite a wide range of purposes. Subsection (4) says:
  "The byelaws which may from time to time be made by the Company in exercise of the powers in that behalf conferred on them by section 83 of the Act of 1947 and by subsection (1) above may provide for the imposition on summary conviction for the breach or non-observance of any of the byelaws of a fine not exceeding £50 and of a daily fine not exceeding £5."
  I am not talking about clause 24 in isolation. I am asking for clarification of the words
  "under such regulations as the Company may from time to time appoint."
  It is true that a company may lay down rules about "no smoking" in a particular area, and so on. But this is a very wide application. It covers all the people who use the harbour and come under clause 24, and
  "The several dues and charges which the Company for the time being demand".
  A company that enters into contractual relationships is governed by the common law and statute law, as they from time to time apply. It is not able to make regulations which govern it is own contractual relationships. Therefore, that covers section 24.
  Clause 19 makes clear—beyond peradventure, I should have thought—that it has criminal penalties attached to it for breach of the byelaws which the company can produce as it thinks fit. I should have thought that it was quite clear that almost no company was able to do that—only a specialised company, which is why we are debating this issue tonight, why we are giving it this power—[Interruption.] An hon. Members says "You are doing this." All right. I admit that Conservative Members, because of fear for their career prospects or whatever, will not be making a contribution. But that does not mean to say that there should not be this sort of scrutiny. If Conservative Members want to contribute, we shall look forward to listening to them with interest.
  However, I want to come to clause 26 This says
  "The Company may, if they think fit, require any person liable, or to become liable, to pay dues or charges to the Company to deposit with their collector, or to guarantee

  711
  such sums as, in the opinion of the Company, is reasonable having regard to the probable amount thereof."
  Here we are giving a power to a company to require any person
  "to pay dues or charges … to deposit with their collector"
  or to make a guarantee to the company "if they think fit"—in the opinion of the company.
  If we are dealing with delegated legislation, we would have regard, for example, to the right of appeal against a particular body. It is very interesting that Conservative Members are gloating now at this private enterprise venture, and are apparently, with such carefree comments, consigning it, as they hope, to the statute book. If this matter was dealt with by value added tax collectors, for example, or by any of the employees of Customs and Excise, and the VAT collector were able, if he thought fit, to require any person liable, or to become liable, to pay dues or to guarantee such a sum, would not there be a song and dance about it? Would not the Conservatives be asking "What about the right of appeal? Is it not true that we have built into our system of tax collection, for example, a comprehensive system of appeals so that we may be seen to be dealing with people fairly when they disagree with a tax assessment, whether on a direct tax or a tax such as VAT?"
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the clause. It is clear that there is a right of appeal under clause 26, because if a person who is required to make a deposit says that he is not liable in respect of any debt, the only remedy to the company is to go to the court. If the court agrees with the person required to give the deposit, that is the end of the matter.
  Mr. Cryer: I can well understand a lawyer arguing in support of the courts, with a fee of £200-plus a day—inconceivable though it is that anyone should pay anyone on the Conservative Benches for his legal expertise. The hon. Gentleman knows that the fees that lawyers earn in courts are astronomical compared with, for example, the money we pay a machine tool fitter or a labourer in a factory.
  We have built into many of our tax laws a system of tribunals, a system of
  712
  appeal, that does not involve recourse to the courts. That is far better, because recourse to the courts is often punitively expensive for those involved. In effect, that acts as a bar to the ordinary person who is seeking justice. With his legal background, the hon. Gentleman should know that a person who goes for legal aid, unlike a person with money in his pocket, is subject to further scrutiny by the legal aid committee to see whether he has a case.
  There are occasions—even if rare—when people gain support, perhaps because they are members of trade unions, go to court and win, contrary to the view of the legal aid committee. The need for legal aid is an additional bar and handicap.
  We all agree that if there is one case of injustice it is a case that should be remedied. Therefore, we should look at clause 26 carefully before glibly saying "There is always recourse to the courts." It is not a matter that Parliament should have much regard to. I am not over looking the courts, because they act as a stopgap, a place of last resort. But when we are dealing with primary legislation we should seriously try to produce words and phrases that avoid the possibility of people going to the courts and having judges decide what we mean. It is far better to achieve clarity of words and lack of ambiguity here in the House than to say "We shall pass it and leave it to the judiciary to make a decision." A visit to the judiciary can result in deep unhappiness, because of the possible financial penalties.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could it not be the so-called expensive court work that determined the Government view tonight on the Housing Bill, when they refused to remove the word "only" and substitute another word? Will it not have been a very expensive night for the Government?
  Mr. Cryer: I think that is right. That is an illustration of the kind of point that I am making. We are trying to clarify the position. Unfortunately, because of their doctrinaire view, Conservative Members voted down what many hon. Members felt would clarify the position and avoid local authorities having to make expensive recourse to the courts,

  713
  although the Government say that they want to save local authority expenditure.
  I should like to summarise my conclusions on the Bill. First, we have every right to raise issues on Third Reading, although that was brought into question by the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, as the record will show. Subsequent to his remarks, Tory Members have been trying to ridicule every serious examination—[Interruption.] Conservative Members, in the manner to which we have become accustomed, question the very nature of the debate.
  We have raised some issues and had a debate. That is parliamentary scrutiny which we are elected to carry out. I have posed a number of detailed questions on the promoters' statement. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will answer the points that I made concerning residential development, types of houses, density, availability, price and rent. Will they be available to rent? If so, will the tenants have the right to purchase? The Government have gone to great lengths to give council tenants the right to purchase. Perhaps, significantly, they have not given private tenants the right to purchase. Is it because they wish private landlords to reap their profits unhindered? Do they wish to give advantage to private landlords and to deprive local authorities of the flexibility in the provision of housing that they have sought to maintain?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend seems to have misunderstood the point put to him by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Did not the hon. Gentleman suggest that this was a private company connected with, I think he said, the Duke of Devonshire? Does my hon. Friend realise that the Duke of Devonshire may be a Socialist? He may not be a Conservative. He may not support Government policy. He may be a worthy Duke of Devonshire who is against the Tories. I do not know.
  Mr. Cryer: It may be that the person in question has had a rapid conversion from the time when he occupied a junior ministerial position in the Macmillan Government. We do not know.
  I am concerned that these decisions should be in the hands of a small group
  714
  of people without any element of public accountability. We are giving the Bill public accountability. When it leaves the House, it will go into the hands of a tiny group of people without any of the desirable provisions that the House seeks to apply in other areas.
  Mr. Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cryer: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman would not give way, but I will.
  Mr. Gow: A serious charge has been levelled against my noble Friend—namely, that he might be a Socialist. I reject that charge. I am happy to say that my noble Friend is a warm and enthusiastic supporter of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member has confirmed my worst doubts and fears, and therefore, the reassurances that I seek are even more important. The sort of housing that the promoters have in mind for the marina development should be clearly set out.
  On the question of employment, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I asked him how many jobs are likely to be lost. I should also like to know for how long the 2,000 to 3,000 people will be employed. Will there be 2,000 to 3,000 people in total employment over 15 years, or will 2,000 to 3,000 people be employed in each of those 15 years?
  Finally, I covered the question of priorities. I urge the promoters to contact the originators of the scheme. I do not believe that providing a rich man's marina at Eastbourne is likely to be the best source of fruitful activity for the nation as a whole. A sum of money of this size—approximately £50 million—should be devoted more urgently to the process of getting manufacturing industry out of the mess in which the Government have placed it. It should be used to try to provide some of the much needed jobs, because, although this candy-floss project may have some superficial attraction to Conservatives, when North Sea oil runs out in 15 or 20 years we should have built up our manufacturing industry, using the abilities and skills of our population, rather than being left in a manufacturing desert, able only to import a few goods. If that happened there would be a low level of income for

  715
  the vast majority of the population, certainly not at such a level as to enable them to enjoy the facilities provided by this sort of marina. There would be no manufacturing skills, no job opportunities, no openings for apprentices, and so on.
  That is the stark alternative that the Conservative Government are providing, and, in a microcosm, this Bill is a demonstration of their priorities. They are giving it their full-blooded and full-voiced support tonight, but it is a demonstration to the nation of the warped priorities that are plunging the nation deeper into economic gloom.
  4.28 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): As is customary on an occasion such as this, intervene briefly to state the Government's position on the Bill. The Department of the Environment had a number of doubts that were resolved with the promoters of the Bill. If there had been any doubts left, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has convinced us in his speech that he speaks for his constituents and what they want, and that all the local authorities concerned support the Bill. It is unthinkable that the House should not support a measure that provides employment not only in terms of bulk building but in terms of the construction industry also. In terms of the environment, we believe that this project will be of benefit not only to the people whom I have described, but to many people who simply want to enjoy themselves. Pleasure is something that Labour Members seem to forget on so many occasions. We believe that my hon. Friend has done a great service in introducing the Bill, and the Government give it their support.
  4.30 am
  Mr. Christopher Price: I reject immediately the charge that hon. Members on this side are not interested in pleasure. One of the greatest pleasures I have had is to have a front seat at this show, with the massed ranks of reaction gathered to show proper deference to the Cavendish family and their lords and masters, the Duke of Devonshire and his—[Interruption.] It really is a pleasure, especially after events
  716
  earlier this week, to see those Benches full and showing the deference that we expect of them.
  I cannot hope to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who has studied the Bill with more care than I. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made great play of the claim that this was a private sector project. I never thought of the Duke of Devonshire as part of the private sector. Certainly Chatsworth benefits from a great deal of public money in one form and another.
  However, although the Duke of Devonshire has been firmly planted in the private sector, I did not gather from the hon. Member for Eastbourne what his motives were. At first it seemed to be pure altruism, that the Duke, in a proper Whiggish way, was not interested in private profit but was just giving all this to the good citizens of Eastbourne out of the goodness of his heart. That is the impression that, in the early part of his speech, the hon. Member tried to convey—of this grand gentleman taking pity on the town of Eastbourne.
  My hon. Friend described Eastbourne as a Victorian town. On my few visits to Eastbourne, I have not seen one building of anything remotely approaching architectural merit.
  Mr. Gow: The greatest eyesore in my constituency is the rest home—that might not be the right term—constructed at immense expense by the Transport and General Workers Union.
  Mr. Price: The hon. Member knows his constituency, I am sure, and I bow to his greater knowledge. All that I have seen in Eastbourne is a rather grotty conference centre of absolutely no taste and some scruffy Wimpy bars.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we get back to the marina?
  Mr. Price: I am sailing in at this point.
  Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. He has made a claim which I am sure he would like to be corrected. I think that I understood him to claim that the trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement had received

  717
  considerable public money over the years. The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, like to know that I am in a position to deny this. I am sure that he would wish to correct the record.
  Mr. Price: It is a pleasure to be amidst all the belted earls on occasions such as this. One has so few opportunities. Of course, if the hon. Member says that not one penny of public money has flowed into Chatsworth over the years, with his knowledge of the aristocracy and their ways, I am sure that he may be right. I had thought that there were ways and means whereby the Duke of Devonshire managed, if not to get actual grants of public money, at any rate to avoid paying those imposts and taxes which he might otherwise have to pay in one way or another. That is public money in the same sort of way. If I were to pursue that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will be note that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), has informed the House that the greatest eyesore in the town is the building erected by the Transport and General Workers Union? In those circumstances is it not strange that this Bill places responsibility for the approval of plans on the very borough council which approved that building?
  Mr. Price: I bow to my hon. Friend's expertise on such matters relating to the Transport and General Workers Union, as I do to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) on Chatsworth.
  I move quickly from Chatsworth and the Wimpy Bars of Eastbourne to the point I was making earlier. In his speech the hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke of the Duke of Devonshire—who, we are pleased to know, is a Conservative, unlike the Duke of Norfolk who voted against all the Government's Bills in the House of Lords—as some sort of altruistic gentleman, giving away his great wealth to this impoverished little town of Eastbourne out of the goodness of his heart. As the hon. Gentleman ended his speech with something of a paean of praise of the private sector, the
  718
  impression was given that the Duke of Devonshire, so far from being a rather Whiggish nobleman, was an entrepreneur, one of these people the Conservative Party is trying to encourage, someone who is to make a profit out of this marina and bring jobs to the area.
  Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that his view of capitalism is somewhat imperfect? Does he realise that an entrepreneur may make a profit and he may make a loss?
  Mr. Price: I am pleased to be called the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, which I take as a real compliment—and pleased also to have another intervention from the Tory Benches, from some duke or other. I can never remember which earl or duke—
  Mr. Cryer: It is an interesting observation that, although this Government claim to encourage entrepreneurs, this entrepreneur decided in the first place to embark on this venture in June 1975, with a Labour Government. Clearly it is not the tax concessions which are said to be provided by the Tories which encourage entrepreneurs to start off on this tack.
  Mr. Price: All I am saying—and it is not a point on which I put a great deal of emphasis because I propose to make a short speech; indeed, I do not want to detain the House at all—is that the hon. Member for Eastbourne should make up his mind about what sort of man this duke is. Is he one of these thrusting, profit-making entrepreneurs, or is he a member of the Cavendish family we know of old?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we pursue that line too far I should point out that this is the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, not the Duke of Devonshire Bill. May we get back to the Bill before us?
  Mr. Price: As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not a matter on which want to put any real emphasis. It is not something that we should make much of, but I was commenting on the hon. Gentleman's speech. I thought that there was a slight inconsistency there, but it is probably right to move on from the Cavendish family to the marina.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is a fact that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) went into detail about the philanthropic approach of the Duke of Devonshire, making out that he was interested in helping poor people over housing, and so on, and that he used private money. Is not my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that in Newham—and in other London boroughs—and that is probably his home as well—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Be precise.
  Mr. Lewis: I wish that the hog would keep quiet and stop snorting. I believe that my hon. Friend has in his constituency—as I have in mine—a number of tower blocks. He may know that they are, unfortunately, falling down. These blocks were built by private enterprise. Taylor Woodrow Ltd. built them, and we are still trying to contest the Ronan Point disaster, where lives were lost. We still have to find £1 million—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has all that got to do with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill? Will the hon. Member please come to the point?
  Mr. Lewis: I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was explaining that the hon. Member for Eastbourne went into detail about the philanthropic approach of the Duke of Devonshire, who is interested in helping the poor people with housing and had contributed his private funds to that end. Is my hon. Friend aware that Newham is urgently in need of finance of any sort to rebuild these tower blocks, which are dangerous and are having to be pulled down? The Government refuse to give any money for this purpose. Is it possible to ask the Duke of Devonshire to say that instead of giving this money to Eastbourne he will give it to Newham?
  Mr. Price: I am sure that you will agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was a tremendously helpful intervention, which has enabled us to see both the Duke of Devonshire and the Bill in a new context. I am certain that when my hon. Friend gets a chance to make his contribution to the debate—and I am sure that he will—he will be able to elaborate further.
  I wanted to move towards the marina and scrabble up on the quay before I
  720
  got myself out of order again—something which, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I never have any wish to do.
  I was impressed by the care that the hon. Member for Eastbourne devoted to his speech. It was beautifully delivered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is unfair of his hon. Friends to dispute that. I felt that it was quite beautifully delivered. However, it reminded me more than anything else of the speeches in favour of the Brighton marina in 1967, 1968 and 1969. On each of those occasions, the then Member for Brighton, Kemptown, Mr. Dennis Hobden, who perhaps did not have the turn of phrase of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, told the House with great eloquence of all the wonderful housing plans, roads and employment that the building of Brighton marina would instantly bring to Brighton. As we have seen, not one house for a whole decade appeared in that marina project. In other words, en that occasion the words presented to the House as to what would happen proved completely empty and quite worthless.
  Mr. Wickenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when one builds houses on reclaimed land, which is what happened at Brighton marina, it is first necessary to enclose the harbour? That was not done until two years ago, because it was a major project. The reclamation of the land then started, which has now been completed. The land had to be allowed to settle, which has now happened, and the contract is now being placed for the building of the houses, which is precisely what the late Mr. Dennis Hobden said would happen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have debates about other marinas. We are talking about the Eastbourne marina, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to that.
  Mr. Price: I shall certainly relate my remarks to the Eastbourne marina, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although this debate is a little wider than the one we had on Monday, when we were on a very narrow point indeed. On that occasion, I made a short speech just to start things off.
  I am relating my remarks to the speech made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who sounded like an advertising

  721
  agent making a presentation and producing a prospectus. As is inevitable in this Bill, and in all these private Bills, the promoter must say "If you vote for this Bill, the following things will happen. We will build this marina, these berths, these houses and these flats". It is seldom that those things happen. This is a small point and I do not want to place too much emphasis on it, but I think that the House should be aware that time and again promoters come here with Private Bills and plans, which are knocked away by the economic situation, but the difficulties they encounter over the land on which they want to build, by changes in fashion and a whole range of things. We must consider the hon. Gentleman's speech in that context.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that five years ago when we debated this matter some lavish promises were made on housing in the event of the Eastbourne Bill being passed?
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The promoter was allowed to make promises.
  Mr. Skinner: The Bill's supporters said that 2,400 houses would be built in the following 10 years if the Bill were enacted. The Bill was defeated, but if the Chatsworth trustees were concerned about building houses for run-of-the-mill people—that is what they were saying—and not necessarily for those who would have yachts close to the marina, they would have got on with the job. Seemingly they have made no effort to do that during the past five years.
  Mr. Price: I think that my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Gow: May I correct the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
  Mr. Price: Yes.
  Mr. Gow: Since we debated this issue five years ago 400 of the 2,400 dwellings have been constructed.
  Mr. Skinner: So they are 2,000 short.
  Mr. Price: The Chatsworth trustees have decided to apply their considerable funds to the development of housing, a marina and various other plans at Eastbourne. Why have they so decided, with all the options available to them, and why should the House let them—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Because they have the land.
  Mr. Price: Why should they put their considerable resources into Eastbourne?
  Mr. Hogg: Because they have the land.
  Mr. Price: I enjoy the sedentary interjections from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I hope that we shall hear him make a proper speech after I resume my seat.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman asks why the trustees are carrying out the operation at Eastbourne. Surely the answer is that that is where they have the available land.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: There is available land in Docklands.
  Mr. Price: The Duke of Devonshire and the Chatsworth trustees are one of Britain's largest landowners. They have land all over the place. When I lived in Sheffield I used to enjoy visiting Chatsworth. The trustees have a far greater responsibility to the areas that they have systematically milked over the generations. If they had not done so, they would not be so rich now. For example, they have far more pressing obligations towards the industrial area around Sheffield.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend raised an interesting topic. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has a brother-in-law or nephew who owns a derelict harbour in the northern region at Maryport. It is a harbour that is silted up and it cries out for development. I think that it is the hon. Member for Buckingham, but I may be mistaken. I see that he shakes his head.
  Mr. W. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I apologise and I withdraw that remark. However, certainly one Conservative Member has a relative who owns a silted harbour at Maryport. It is a town with 141 per cent. unemployment. It is crying out for development. Conservative Members say that the developers own the land at Eastbourne and that should be the criterion that governs where they lay their investment. If the moneys are to be made available, they should be made available

  723
  to those ports that lie in disrepair and disuse. Is not that in line with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Eatbourne (Mr. Gow)? He said that thousands of jobs would be created.
  Mr. Price: I wish to get on, and to confine my remarks to the Bill. However, my hon. Friend has made a helpful intervention, and has concentrated hon. Members' minds on the issue. We are being asked to pass a Bill under which the Chatsworth trustees and the Duke of Devonshire—with all his money—will put money into a scheme for building a marina and houses. It is only right that the House should weigh the issue in the balance and ask itself, "Why Eastbourne?".
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Duke of Devonshire should build the marina in Sheffield? If so, is it not a curious suggestion? Is not the main reason for building the marina in Eastbourne that it is a seaside town, and that that makes it easier to build one?
  Mr. Price: If I were to follow the hon. Gentleman too far up that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might rule that I was out of order. A marina in Sheffield is not such an absurd suggestion. Sailing is a popular sport in Sheffield. There are many reservoirs, rivers and canals. However, I do not wish to pursue that point.
  If the Duke of Devonshire has the type of social conscience portrayed in the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, he is applying it in a curious way. He intends to build houses in Eastbourne despite the fact that the dilapidation and shortage of houses in Eastbourne is not nearly as serious as the dilapidation and shortage in Newham and Lewisham.
  Mr. Matthew Parris: Has the hon. Gentleman any conception of the contribution that the Duke of Devonshire makes to housing in my constituency, in the area round Chatsworth?
  Mr. Price: Indeed, I have. I know the area well. In happier days that constituency was represented by a Labour Member of Parliament. I hope that those days will return. In 1944, just before the 1945 general election, that area had a
  724
  famous by-election, at which the Marquis of Hartington, the Conservative candidate, was defeated by an independent candidate, Charlie White. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know his constituency well. If he should care to invite me there to show me around, I shall consider accepting the invitation. However, I should certainly stop at Clay Cross on the way.
  We should decide whether the provisions allow for an appropriate expenditure of private funds, and whether the House should authorise such expenditure.
  Conservative Members say that the Duke of Devonshire is willing to spend this money on housing in Eastbourne and, therefore, we should vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. The serious point that I am making is that in considering this sort of Private Bill, the House of Commons has a duty to order expenditure of this kind properly—whether private or public because it is such a considerable amount. If that money is spent on housing it should be spent in areas where people need housing. A Select Committee of this House has just reported that in 10 or 15 years this country will be tragically and massively short of housing.
  I oppose the Bill because it proposes to put new houses in a place where that need has a low priority. I believe that the Duke of Devonshire should be encouraged—if he is such an altruistic chap and wants nothing more than the wellbeing of the people of England—to concentrate on areas where housing and investment are needed. Hon. Members may ask why he should not develop a marina in Eastbourne. I say that he is doing so, not because he is altruistic, but because he thinks that he will make a lot of money out of a growing tourist industry in the South Coast. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is perfectly legitimate."] I did not say that it was not legitimate. But it is up to the promoter of the Bill to say that this Duke character is just another entrepreneur like anyone else.
  Viscount Cranborne: Is it not curious that the hon. Member for Lewisham. West (Mr. Price) is so qualified to say where new housing should go? I am sure that much is needed in Sheffield. But equally there is a great need for housing

  725
  in my constituency—particularly in Weymouth. Is it not curious that the hon. Member should feel himself so expert that he knows that Sheffield is more in need of housing than Weymouth?
  Mr. Price: The noble Lord makes an interesting point. [Interruption.]—I am sorry, perhaps I should have said the hon. Member. Anyway, he looks like a noble Lord.
  If the hon. Member had been rather more careful about giving his votes to the Housing Bill over the past weeks, he would not have half the council houses in his constituency being turned into second homes and holiday houses, which will be the result of that Bill. If there is a housing shortage in his constituency it will be due to the fact that his Government have refused to provide money for housing and instead have produced a ludicrous Housing Bill which will take desperately-needed houses from Weymouth and other places and turn them into secondary homes. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is in need of my protection. He protested that he wished to bring his remarks to a conclusion, and he should be allowed to complete his speech without interference.
  Mr. Price: I was misled. I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends want to participate and that time is running out. I want to give my hon. Friends plenty of time, especially since we now have a distinguished audience on the Front Bench. The House must concentrate hard if such sums are being spent on areas of low priority in housing.
  It is proper to refuse to allow the Bill to go through on the nod. I hope that when we reach the end of Third Reading my hon. Friends and others will use their votes as well as their voices and say what they feel about the Bill.
  5.6 am
  Mr. Robert Adley: Only last week the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) suggested how Dorset county council might run its education policy. This evening he has spoken about the rising cost of housing and has said that houses built in Eastbourne should be built in
  726
  Sheffield. He illustrates that Socialists spend their time trying to run everyone's lives with little benefit to anybody, including themselves.
  I have two reasons for intervening. My constituency is coastal. I shall seek to show how my constituents will seek to gain benefit from the Bill. I am a recent former commodore of the House of Commons yacht club and I have received representations from the Royal Yachting Association and the British boating industry which fully support the Bill's objectives. Unlike Opposition Members, Government Members feel no antipathy towards those who sail in boats. Certainly we have no antipathy towards those who sail in boats. I shall explain how the Bill will help my constituents who are involved in boating activities.
  Boat builders need customers. Customers who buy boats urgently need berths, and I am told frequently that boat builders find it increasingly difficult to sell boats unless prospective customers can guarantee somewhere to keep their boats. The boat builders need customers; the boat owners need berths. There is an extreme shortage of berths and this scheme could provide facilities which in due course could help my constituents.
  The director general of the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation has told me:
  "The SBBNF is interested because any proposal to create a marina to provide more mooring spaces for boats is very much in the interests of the British Boating Industry, and will assist the sale of boats, and, therefore, encourage employment in the Boating Industry."
  Safety is an important topic. The Royal Yachting Association wrote to me to say:
  "In the short time available to us all that we can do is to state that this project, a marina of considerable size, is to be situated on an area of the coastline which sadly needs such a facility even if it were only on grounds of safety and for use as a harbour of refuge."
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) expresses concern about jobs. When he talks about jobs he refers to jobs only in industries of which he approves. He talks only of jobs which fit his private criteria. Life is not like that. Many people find satisfactory employment outside the fantasy world in which the hon. Gentleman believes that acceptable jobs exist.

  727
  If the scheme will provide permanent employment for a thousand people, and many others in the construction industry, I do not understand why Labour Members do not support it, unless their spite and hatred for dukes overshadows their wish to provide employment. Jobs for boat builders in my constituency are as important as jobs for coal miners in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or in factories in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley.
  There is no good reason to oppose the Bill. It is acceptable on planning and environmental grounds. As there is no financial burden on the public purse, I urge my hon. Friends to support the Bill enthusiastically.
  5.10 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not intend to speak, as I do not know a great deal about the coast near Eastbourne. However, we are in danger of overlooking a most important aspect—our concern to protect our national heritage. It is important that we do not continue to build over good agricultural land or our coastline. It is well worth while trying to preserve as much of our countryside and coast as possible from building.
  It will be argued that the site is not particularly attractive. As a shingle area it does not have many of the attractions that exist elsewhere. Reasons can always be found for taking away a little more of our countrside and coast for building, gradually eroding more and more of an attractive country. On each occasion we should try to prevent more of our coastline or countryside from being developed.
  A large amount of money has already been made from the site by the extraction of gravel. A great deal of work would be involved to return it to attractive countryside or coast. However, it is the duty of those who exploit mineral workings to put the land back to an attractive state. Having made a profit from extracting shingle, developing it to make further profit will destroy our countryside and coast.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: One reason why the site has not yet been developed is that it is at the extreme eastern end of
  728
  Eastbourne. It is as far out of Eastbourne as it can be. The people of Eastbourne never see the site. It is about five miles away.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that. However, I believe that in order to preserve the coast and the countryside we must be firm and say that each bit is worth preserving. We should be doing more and more to restore it, instead of allowing it to be eroded.
  Those who wish to use marinas also like to look at attractive countrside and coast. They do not want to look back at built-up coastlines. A tragedy of the 1920s and 1930s was the way that we allowed strip development along the coast and along our major motorways. On each occasion when we can say "No" to such development, we should do so.
  I understand that it is possible to walk along the coast from Eastbourne to Pevensey Bay at any time other than high tide. Although the inland area is not particularly attractive, many people enjoy walking along that stretch of coast. I have studied the plans with care and it seems that if the development goes ahead it will no longer be possible to walk along the waterfront. That is another instance of the way in which traditional rights are taken way.
  Many people enjoy walking along a beach looking for the odd bit of driftwood or other material that may have come ashore. It is a pleasure which costs nothing and which many people enjoy. Putting the works into the sea will ensure that, instead of being able to walk along the sea front, people will have to turn inland, round the marina and through an area that is to be developed for housing.
  I hope that we shall be given an idea of what the promoters are doing to protect the right of free passage along the coast. The map also shows a series of tracks along the coast, which some walkers use. The promoters should have given us more information about the protection of rights of way.
  We should not blame this development for the sins of many others, but often grandiose schemes that appear to meet all the interests involved end up with many sections being left out because they are uneconomic. We have not had assurances that we shall get the advantages of the

  729
  scheme, as well as the disadvantages. We need more evidence from the promoters that they will do the whole thing and will not give up halfway through.
  I understand that there will have to be negotiations with the water authority about the marine implications of the works. I have scant knowledge of hydrography, but it would seem difficult to predict what will happen to one section of the coast if another section is altered.
  We know the shingle was deposited in the area by coastal drift over the years. If the coast is slightly changed, there is a strong likelihood that the shingle will be deposited somewhere else. Can the promoters guarantee that the shingle will not end up on someone else's sandy beach?
  There is considerable rivalry between resorts to ensure that they have sand rather than shingle. Many resorts spend vast sums to import sand to cover up the shingle during the summer season.
  Mr. Wickenden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a sandy beach within 20 miles of Eastbourne?
  Mr. Bennett: At the beginning of my speech I made the point that I did not know the coast especially well. I also said that I hoped that Conservative Members who knew the coast would make their points. It is a perfectly valid point that there is a complicated process of coastal erosion and deposition along that coast.
  Mr. Gummer: All hon. Members who know the coast are in favour of the marina. Only those hon. Members who do not know the coast, and who are venting their personal spleen, are against the marina. Would it not be better if the hon. Gentlemen left those hon. Members who bother to go to that coast to talk about the matter, and not make general comments that are of no use to the House when discussing this important Bill?
  Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman say what studies he has made of the effects on the coast of the proposed development? It is extremely difficult to predict coastal drift, deposition and erosion, even when sophisticated models are produced. If the hon. Gentleman has considered those problems I am willing to give way to his knowledge of the matter.
  Mr. Gummer: As the Member of Parliament for a constituency with a considerable coastline, I was making the point that if I made such ill-informed speeches about Stockport the hon. Gentleman would rightly object. One of the reasons why many of us feel that this is not a debate about the Bill but simply a means to keep everyone here for three hours while hon. Members make these comments is that the hon. Gentleman has admitted his scant knowledge, and has proved by his speech that he has no knowledge at all.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is making assertions, but he has not checked on the problems of coastal erosion and deposition. If Conservative Members are saying that there is no problem with coastal erosion and deposition, I suggest that they are wrong. I have spent a considerable time in the past studying various parts of the coast to see the way in which shingle silts develop and the problems of coastal erosion and deposition across river estuaries—
  Mr. David Crouch: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House about the beach. I am interested in his views about the movement of shingle, which I have on my coastline. It needs the establishment of only one groyne to cause a different movement of shingle. The House may not know that during the war I lived on the beach that we are discussing. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might have something to say about that because of my considerable knowledge of what happens on the beach.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that. I am suggesting that we must be satisfied that people know what is happening. Almost everyone is happy to say that he is an expert on his half mile of coast because he is confident about what happens there. But no one is confident enough to say what happens on the next three or four miles, or further along the coast, as a result of a single change in the coastal pattern.
  A whole section in the Bill provides for negotiations between the promoters and the water authority about changes to ensure that they do not cause problems elsewhere along the coast. We should have assurances that those negotiations

  731
  will happen. The actual design of the works tries to minimise the problems of silting on this development They do not want to end up with a marina that silts up. I am concerned that, in designing carefully their proposed works, they have not simply solved their problems but have created problems for people further along the coast.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is on a very good point, although Conservative Members keep trying to ridicule him. I can tell him that I spoke to the parliamentary agents about this Bill—which is more than the hon. Gentleman did—and they told me that this matter was of great concern to the people living in the area. A great deal of work has been done by the Southern water authority and the promoters to ascertain the facts that my hon. Friend is trying to elicit tonight. Rather than that he should think that he is on a poor point, I can tell him that I was told by the parliamentary agents that the local people are very concerned about this point.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. But I would have hoped that it would be the promoters who would be giving the House the assurance that they have worked out what will happen to their bit of coast and the rest of the coast. Therefore, it seems that at this stage we should be ill-advised to approve the Bill. It increases the amount of coastal land that is being built on. There is no guarantee that people will continue to have the right to walk along the coast at that point. We have no guarantee from the developers that they will complete the whole scheme, both the advantageous and disadvantageous parts of it. Finally, we have no assurances as yet as to the effect of altering the coastline at this particular point on the rest of the coast in the area.
  Therefore, I hope that many hon. Members will oppose the Bill on this occasion.
  5.26 am
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) back from his quiet "zizz" below the bar earlier on, and to pick up the three points on which he touched.
  732
  I think that the hon. Member's first and second points can best be answered by reference to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He made the point that the people in Eastbourne voted for this development. It is those people to whom the hon. Member is referring as having their walks or their facilities put in jeopardy. They have weighed the pros and cons of it and thought that with this new facility, when it is built—as I am sure it will be built when we give permission for it—they will have a better facility than they have had hitherto.
  As regards the hon. Member's third point, the removal of shingle, while I cannot profess to be an expert, I should like to correct the impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), by saying that there is one patch of sandy beach well within the 20-mile area of Eastbourne—and that is behind the breakwater at Newhaven. It is the very fact that the breakwater was built that has caused the sand to appear. So, contrary to the impression about the movement of shingle along the coast, the shingle builds up on the windward or tidal side of the breakwater, and the sand builds up on the leeward side or the inland side.
  I hope, therefore, that after this magnificent marina is built, in years to come the hon. Member for Stockport, North will come down and be able to curl his toes in the newly appearing sand along the Sussex coast.
  Having, I hope, saved my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne the need to pick up those points, I should like to add my congratulations to him on his emphatic, informed and most persuasive opening speech. It is yet another indication of the way in which he represents his constituents' interests in this House, and, where it is possible and politic, he is able also to embrace my constituents' interests as well, as he so graciously did in his speech tonight.
  I have the great honour to represent in this House the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very often they take an interest in local matters. They open local Labour Party fetes. They take part in local activities. Very welcome they are too, in their new roles as landlords of

  733
  considerable properties in my constituency.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has only recently bought his property, for a considerable sum. I would not wish to embarrass him by stating the sum, but the mortgage on it would certainly be well over the tax-allowable limit. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has managed somehow. I am also sure that both right hon. Gentlemen will make full use of the facility when it is built.
  The facility is a remarkable example of free enterprise entrepreneurial provision of genuine jobs, both now, in the construction of the harbour, and into the future, in the servicing of all its requirements. As my hon. Friend pointed out—but it can be pointed out over and over again—not one penny of public money is going into it. Usually Labour hon. Members are very concerned about genuine jobs being created, but they seem to be paying little attention to that tonight. I repeat that such jobs are being created at no cost to the public purse.
  I have one question about the building procedure. If it is not possible for my hon. Friend to answer it tonight, it may be wise to gain reassurance from the promoters about it. It has to do with clause 10, part II, about the use of sea water and the discharging of sea water, and whether the pollution requirements of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 are sufficient to protect the surrounding coastline from the omnipresent risk of pollution. I am sure that the construction engineers will take the greatest care. Does the rider in clause 32(6), part IV, also contribute sufficiently to this?
  May I add to that question a commendation of clause 32(2)(a), part IV, which lays out clearly the complete protection that all of those living in the Eastbourne community will have through the requirement on the company to clear all plans through the borough council and to obtain the council's approval to all of the plans that are laid.
  I have three further points. The great boon that the new harbour facility can give to sailors along the South Coast will be felt by all those sailing along the coast. That is particularly true of those sailing from one end of the coast to the
  734
  other. The House will remember the tragedy that only a few years ago befell the boat then owned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It is conceivable that if the facility had existed then the boat would have made port, and that tragedy could have been averted.
  Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup wrote me a letter wishing the Bill every success.
  Mr. Rathbone: I welcome that intervention. I am not a bit surprised by what my hon. Friend said, because the whole House knows of my right hon. Friend's prowess on the waters.
  There is one point with regard to provision for small boats. The previous incumbent of the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, warned about mention of the Brighton marina, but I should like to make a point of comparison. It is that at Brighton marina there are no facilities for launching sailing dinghies. I sincerely hope that in this new marina, although it is not necessary to put them in the plan now, there will be facilities for the launching of sailing dinghies, so that the many people who sail in those small boats can make use of it.
  The next point also concerns a comparison with Brighton marina, because there have been difficulties for those who use it in not being able to sight land from far out at sea as a result of the inadequate lighting at the ends of the two groynes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will reassure me that the lighting at the end of each of the sea walls, which is touched on in clause 16, will be better than that which is provided at Brighton.
  I believe that the new facilities of and around the harbour will be of immense benefit to the community: workers, retired people and visitors. Visitors are immensely important all along the South Coast. [An HON. MEMBER: "The miners."] And the miners who come to the community. I refer to all categories who participate in the activities which take place along the South Coast and bask in the sun, which can often be found only on the South Coast. That affects my constituents as much as the constituents of Eastbourne. It will also be of benefit to all who sail and, perhaps

  735
  most of all, work on and in the waters along the South Coast.
  I believe that, contrary to the inclination of Opposition Members who preach that this or that route should be taken or that thing should not be done—so often a negative approach—those who know this area of land and sea will welcome this operation.
  5.37 am
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: This has been a truly remarkable debate. It has been remarkable particularly for those of us who are new to the House, because we have seen a full turn-out of Conservative Members for this measure for reasons which I cannot understand. This is almost the last night of my first Session. I have attended more than 95 per cent. of Question Times and major debates in the House and, apart from Budget day, I have not seen as many Conservative Members in their places at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, let alone 3 o'clock in the morning.
  What was so interesting about this debate was that, when the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister got up to go out of the Chamber. Conservative Members went out after her. But they waited until she had disappeared behind Mr. Speaker's chair to make her exit.
  A little rumour has been floating round the Lobbies tonight. Why was there this sudden turn-out of Conservative Members on this occasion? According to rumour, it seems that at a meeting of the 1922 Committee tonight the right hon. Lady gave an undertaking to her right hon. and hon. Friends that she would make a point of supporting her satchel carrier, I think someone said, by attending throughout the proceedings on the Bill to ensure that it got a Third Reading. Indeed, it could be said that the right hon. Lady has let down her hon. Friend, because she disappeared some two hours ago. But we must assume that she will be back at 6 o'clock when the debate is supposed to terminate.
  I was one of four Members, the other three being the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) and another hon. Member whose constituency I cannot remember, who took
  736
  part in the proceedings on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. The reason why I raise the matter during this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—is that during the proceedings on that Bill we enjoyed a considerable amount of evidence from a barrister representing the company in that case—and representing a company which hired the services of an hon. Member in this House. In putting his case, the barrister informed us about the details of the Bill and about the effect on Felixstowe of the introduction of the Bill. The people of Felixstowe had the right to object. [Hon. Members: "Order."] The reason why I am in order is that I am trying to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on that occasion—
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to discuss a Bill other than the one we are supposed to be discussing?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If it is relevant to the Bill that we are discussing, I can see no difficulty.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have not been in the Chair all night, and no hon. Member would expect you to be, but I have been present in the Chamber most of the night, except for a 20-minute break that I allowed myself. The conduct of Conservative Members, who have been in a majority of 10 to one over Labour Members, has been thoroughly disgraceful during the night—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I notice anything out of order, I shall not need the assistance of hon. Members.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The point that I was making was relevant. On this occasion, because of the procedures of the House, we do not have the opportunity of listening to the case that would be put by a barrister. But, more important, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, we have not had the opportunity to hear the case of the objectors. During the last two and three-quarter hours of our proceedings no reference has been made to the position of the people in Eastbourne who object to the Bill. Listening to the contributions of Conservative Members, one

  737
  would think that no one lived in Eastbourne apart from the representatives of the company which seeks to promote this legislation.
  Mr. Adley: I wonder whether I can give the hon. Member an opportunity to deny the rumour—which I am sure is completely untrue—that perhaps his interest in Sussex stems from the fact that his sister was head girl of Roedean.
  Hon. Members: Oh! What a disgrace.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That information is marginally incorrect. She was not head girl. [HON. MEMBERS: "Deputy head girl."]
  I make my point because there has been no consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) passed me some interesting cuttings from the Eastbourne Herald of 1 March 1975, when the original Bill was brought before the House and was rejected on Second Reading by my hon. Friends. Some interesting comments were made during the debate at that time. Here is one article:
  "Mr. Daniel Sheldon (Tory) said that there was a danger that if the development other than that of the harbour itself went ahead first, then the developers might suddenly say that they could not finish the whole job. He also mentioned the possible effect of the harbour on shingle drift and the shape of the coastline. ' We need to tie all these matters up before we give approval,' he said. 'There is also the question of pollution which should be looked into in more detail. There are many aspects that we should be very careful about, especially financial ones, before committing ourselves to the project. The problems that arose over the Brighton marina might easily reappear.' Mr. Thorburn said that every aspect of the project had been fully investigated and regulations covering such things as pollution were included in the Act."
  Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, on Third Reading one can discuss only the contents of the Bill. The hon. Member has rambled around the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill in Committee and he is now dealing with objections to the previous Bill in 1975. That can have no direct bearing on the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, in that the only matters that can be discussed are the contents of the Bill. I was about to remind
  738
  the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that this Bill must have been through Committee on two occasions.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank you for guiding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would say that it was relevant in that I was drawing attention to the history of the Bill.
  I should like now to quote an article from a newspaper that is particularly popular with hon. Members on the Government side, if not those on this side—the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party. The article, which was written some years ago and deals with the development of the harbour and the marina, was headed
  "Messing About in Yachts (at £50 million)".
  It said:
  "Deep in the gloom of the crisis, the Duke of Devonshire and his son the Marquess of Hartington are planning to build a pleasure port on the Sussex coast near Eastbourne. It will cost £50 million—rather more than the Government's offer of wage increases for 250,000 miners. The Duke, a Tory Minister when his cousin Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, has been scouting around the pleasure spots of the French Riviera for ideas for his new pleasurama … The marina will cover 400 acres of coastline near Pevensey, and will include luxury hotels, luxury shops and luxury flats for yachtsmen from all over the world. Up to 200 rich men and women will be able to enjoy themselves there at any one time and there are 400 berths for yachts. The Duke of Devonshire, incidentally, owns half of Derbyshire "—
  perhaps including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—
  "a large portion of Yorkshire "—
  perhaps including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—
  "most of the county of Limerick in Ireland"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of those parts of the country can possibly be in the Bill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That may be so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so perhaps I had better move on to the Bill.
  I have within my constituency a development to which I wish to refer because there are parallels. When an assessment is made of the Bill, it should be done on the basis of the experience by hon. Members of the development of

  739
  ports, harbours and marinas in other parts of the country. I draw the attention of the House to the development of the marina in Maryport, in my constituency. I do so because it is relevant. It was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who so carefully reminded me earlier that when I speak in this Chamber on this subject I must ensure that my comments are relevant to the Bill. That is precisely what I am doing.
  My remarks are relevant because there is a lot of feeling in Cumbria, certainly West Cumbria, to the effect that one of the problems with the development of the marina lies in the fact that it is owned by a privately owned company. As a result, the criteria governing the development of the harbour are not laid down by publicly accountable authorities, not by local authorities and not by elected representatives of the people, using social criteria. Instead, criteria are laid down by the developer, the private company, the intention of which is singularly to make a profit.
  In such a debate hon. Members must balance the social criteria, determined by elected representatives of the people, against other criteria which must include profit, which will determine the view of a private developer of a harbour seeking to make a profit. That single factor has been the greatest impediment to the development of the harbour at Maryport. Despite the statement of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), the people of Eastbourne, quite rightly, say that in their view the future of the land comprising the projected marina development should be determined by the representatives of the local authority by way of ownership or of nationalisation of the piece of land. A social facility is being created, and it is objectionable to many hon. Members that that facility should be in the hands of private developers.
  I move from the subject of the harbour to a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley—namely, housing. In the document introducing the Bill which is available at the Vote Office, there is a reference in paragraph 3 which says:
  "It is intended that the Scheme should comprise all types of dwellings from very small flats to four-bedroom houses and that over a period of ten to fifteen years more than 2,400
  740
  dwellings will be built for a wide range of income groups."
  I have visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne only rarely, to pick up my sister. I am sure that he would want me to make that point. He would be quick to tell us that a growing number of elderly people are retiring—
  Mr. English: Having had the benefit of the acquaintance of my hon. Friend's tall and beautiful sister—who was not the head girl of Roedean—I wonder why Conservative Members felt that it was necessary to drag in this irrelevance.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps for the same reason as during the debate on the Finance Bill, when we sought to table an amendment to remove the charitable status of public schools—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the Third Reading of the Eastbourne Harbour Bill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am told that it is customary in this type of debate to allow the hon. Member who introduced the Bill an opportunity to reply. If he does not wish to exercise that right I shall carry on speaking, but I propose now to give way to the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
  5.57 am
  Mr. Gow: The debate has ranged far and wide. It is a matter of relief to my right hon. and hon. Friends that on this occasion at least we have been spared a speech from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is perhaps that absence that we shall remember most when we reflect upon the events of the early hours of this morning.
  Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A little earlier you drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to the fact that there was a certain discrepancy between his speech and the Third Reading of the Bill. What on earth has the last remark of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to do with the Third Reading of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with observations about the absence of certain Members from the House.
  Mr. English: What has that to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) asked why this harbour was proposed at Eastbourne. It is difficult to build a harbour save at a seaside place, and since the trustees of the Chatsworth settlement own land at Eastbourne it is hardly surprising that they chose that site.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) complained that the building of the harbour would interrupt the free passage of citizens along the foreshore. If that argument were to be deployed throughout the country, there would not be any harbours in the kingdom, so I think that that argument is not valid.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When people have built harbours, they have had to make provision for people to get across at that point, by putting in lock gates with a bridge across or something similar. Why should that not happen in this case?
  Mr. Gow: I have the greatest difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I invited the hon. Gentleman to intervene simply to answer many of the points that were made by my hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 15.
  See Division 467
  in column 1133
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 12.
  See Division 468
  in column 1135
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  BRITISH AEROSPACE (BORROWING POWERS)
  Resolved,
  That the draft British Aerospace Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT VICTIMS (COMPENSATION)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Financial Limits (National Enterprise Board and Secretary of State) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT VICTIMS (COMPENSATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  6.21 am
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: It has been a very long, hard day's night. I am appreciative of the fact that the Minister is in his place to deal with what he and I believe is an important subject. The hon. Gentleman had a professional interest in the aviation industry before he entered the House and he will know at first hand of the conditions about which I am concerned. He will accept that few, if any, of the thousands of charter flight holidaymakers, or any other air travellers, when responding to the announcement that the aircraft is ready for boarding, will give a second thought to the provisions of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols which impose an arbitrary limit on the level of compensation which is available to dependants if some terrible tragedy befalls the aircraft.
  That is understandable. The international aviation industry, and particularly British airlines, have an impressive and proud safety record. Precisely because the public are unaware that an arbitrary limit is imposed on the level of compensation to the dependants of those who lose their lives in aircraft crashes, I believe that Parliament should be ever vigilant to ensure that the dependants of people who lose their lives should receive adequate financial recompense. My contention is

  743
  that under the provisions of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols the limit of liability and levels of compensation available are a shambles and reduce the question of compensation to a lottery.
  It is wholly unjust that, for example, the dependants of a 30-year-old professional man earning £10,000 a year and with a wife and three children could expect to recover damages of about £100,000 if he were killed as a passenger on a bus, whereas if he lost his life in an air crash they would receive a maximum of only £9,600 under the provisions of the Warsaw-Hague limits and of £25,000 under the special contract arrangements for British airlines flying to destinations overseas. If he were travelling to and from the United States, the limit would be £34,000. Facts such as these demonstrate that a dependant of an air crash vicitim is likely to receive a mere fraction of the compensation of the dependant of a road accident victim.
  To illustrate the complexities that result from the variations in the liability regimes, I shall quote from chapter 19, paragraph 1117, on page 236 of the Pearson report on civil liability. For the purposes of illustration, the commission assumed an air disaster at Heathrow on a Paris to London flight. It records:
  Liability in respect of a passenger on a British Airways flight from Paris to London might be up to £25,000 under that airline's special contract if the aircraft crashed on landing at Heathrow. Liability to another passenger in respect of a similar journey by an airline operating without a special contract and therefore governed by the Hague Protocol might be limited to £10,700. On another similar journey, liability to a further passenger who was booked through to New York could be up to £34,000 under the Montreal Agreement. If the aircraft had been flying from Ankara to London passengers ticketed only for that journey would not be covered by the Warsaw Convention and therefore liability might be up to £37,450 under the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967."
  It is situations such as that which demonstrate the variations in the liability regime.
  My interest in the extent of liability accepted by individual airlines originated because two of my constituents were killed in the Dan-Air Boeing 727 air tragedy at Tenerife in April. If I may digress, I find it indefensible and sad that some of the relatives of those who lost their lives in that crash are likely to receive only
  744
  £1,250, because a high proportion of the passengers were elderly couples. The only claim that their relatives can make is for what is termed the loss of "life expectancy."
  To justify the assertion that the Warsaw-Hague arrangements are a shambles, I need only record the details of the Warsaw convention and the associated protocols. The 1929 Warsaw convention introduced a liability limit of £5,350. The Hague protocol lifted that limit to £10,700. The International Air Transport Association in Montreal in 1966 introduced a limit of £34,000 for flights to and from the United States. The Guatemala protocol of 1971 introduced a limit of £64,200, but it is unlikely that that protocol will be ratified and it was superseded by the Montreal No. 3 protocol of 1975, which imposes a new effective limit of £56,000.
  As I have indicated, all British airlines travelling to destinations overseas have special contract arrangements for flights to and from those destinations which effectively fix a compensation limit of £25,000. In fairness, I should also point out that the United Kingdom Government have legislated for further amendment to the Warsaw-Hague limits in the Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979, which enables Britain to ratify the Montreal No. 3 protocol, which provides the new limit of £56,000.
  The point that I make in regard to the new limit of £56,000 is that the improvement is not likely to become effective until 1 April 1981, by which time the figure of £56,000, which was originally suggested in 1975, when the Montreal No. 3 protocol was introduced, will have been seriously eroded by inflation. It has been suggested to me that £56,000 in 1975 terms should be something approaching £100,000 in 1980 terms.
  Another difficulty has been drawn to my attention. I am led to understand that the Montreal No. 3 protocol has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to make it effective, and rumour has it that the United States Government are not likely to ratify it either. I should like the Minister to comment on that point.
  It is not surprising that the United States Government are not likely to ratify that protocol, because, although the

  745
  United States signed the Warsaw convention in 1929, the courts in the United States have awarded compensation substantially higher than any of the figures so far contemplated.
  I need remind the Minister only of the DC10 crash on the Paris to London route and the resultant legal action taken by the dependants of those who lost their lives in that tragedy. They took action in the American courts and £30 million compensation was paid to them. I am conscious that there are those who will argue that air passengers have the right, and in some cases the obligation, to increase the level of insurance and compensation that they might receive and that they should do it on their own account.
  The Minister said almost the very same thing in a letter that he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 31 July. In the penultimate paragraph he said:
  "if a prospective airline passenger feels that his dependants will not be adequately compensated in the event of his death or serious injury in an airline accident it is always open to him to take out extra personal insurance cover which is readily available through brokers and other outlets, and at airport terminals. Such extra cover is not expensive."
  That is not an unreasonable view to take, until we put ourselves in the position of the charter flight air traveller or the air passenger generally. The charter flight traveller is encouraged by the travel agency to believe that the £3 or £4, in addition to the cost of the ticket, which he pays to cover the insurance for sickness and added death cover gives him additional substantial cover. In most cases it covers him only to the extent of a further £2,000 or £3,000 at the most.
  Insurance cover is not the first thing about which an air passenger thinks. When he responds to the call "The aircraft is now ready for boarding", he does not think about that, although the business man might think about it. Having discussed this subject with a number of friends, I find that the business man has read the small print on the air ticket, which explains that liability and compensation are subject to the arbitrary limits laid down in the Warsaw-Hague-Montreal conventions and associated protocols. That is the reality.
  Frankly, I subscribe to the view that either the Warsaw-Hague-Montreal system
  746
  of imposing arbitrary limits on liability and compensation—with its outdated limits of compensation—must be abolished, with a return to the ordinary law of negligence, or we must seek to build a wholly new Warsaw arrangement which establishes realistic levels of compensation. I believe that Britain owes that much, at least, to the dependants of those who have lost their lives in air crashes. I am bound to inform the Minister that it is my intention to persist in seeking justice for those who, I believe, have received so little so far.
  6.30 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) for providing the House with an opportunity—although too short and at a not especially convenient moment—to consider the complex subject of payment of compensation to the dependants of victims of aircraft accidents. I am grateful to him also for the tribute that he paid to the safety record of British airlines.
  There is general agreement that there should be adequate and speedy compensation following air accidents—and I emphasise "speedy". The emphasis and the interest are always heightened when accidents occur. I am aware of the tragic loss which came to the constituents of the right hon. Member in a recent accident.
  None the less, I want to show that the Government are making some strenuous efforts, both nationally and internationally, to improve the present position, which is not in all respects quite as the right hon. Gentleman understood it. We are doing our best to improve matters on the international scene, but as ever, reaching international agreement is at times a tortuous and lengthy business.
  The Warsaw-Hague provisions have been the subject of a good deal of criticism, much of which centres upon the level of compensation, but I think that there are advantages in having a system of uniformity of law under which the system of law to be applied in a given case is not in doubt, even if, as I readily concede, the limits of liability may vary according to the circumstances. The right

  747
  hon. Gentleman has made that point well enough.
  The alternative in a field of activity involving foreign factors would involve the application of different legal systems in each case, and questions would arise then as to, in each case, which system would apply. Those questions would be answered by the very complex rules of private international law, and the application of those would be both time-consuming and costly.
  It is worth making the point here that although the right hon. Gentleman referred to the awards of very heavy damages in the Californian courts arising out of a DC10 accident, I should emphasise that those were the product of actions against the manufacturers of the aircraft and would not be affected in any way by the Warsaw-Hague limits, since those awards arose from product liability law as opposed to airline liability.
  The Warsaw convention, which puts the onus of disproving negligence on the carrier, established a regime under which in practice a person can recover damages, subject to proof of loss, up to a fixed limit. The system has the advantage that negligence does not need to be established by the passenger and carriers know with some certainty what the limit of their financial exposure is. That is important for the carriers when they take out third party liability insurance.
  Therefore, although there are shortcomings, I do not think that we should lose sight of the benefits of the system. I know that it may be attractive to some lawyers to have the thought of frequent and contentious litigation, and I understand that in some cases recently in the United States the lawyers have been taking as much as 35 per cent. of the awards of the court for their expenses, but I do not think that necessarily that is in the best interest of the victims' dependants.
  The United Kingdom is not in a position in any case to go it alone in this area. We are, of course, members of the European Community, but, even before that, for many years we have kept in close discussion with other European countries, particularly in order to reach areas of agreement from which we can all benefit.
  748
  It has been suggested that the advantage of not having to sue a foreign airline in a foreign court, which is a benefit conferred by the Warsaw convention, is not all that valuable since it is not difficult to bring an action in the United Kingdom courts against a foreign airline, provided that the airline has assets, even temporarily, in the United Kingdom. But I think that that is too simple a view of the problem, since issues of legal policy will arise as to which of a number of competing jurisdictions should hear a particular case. The Government's belief is that the Warsaw-Hague rules bring benefits which we ought not to surrender. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater in trying to remedy the deficiencies which exist.
  The main problem is the level of compensation which is payable. Here the Government are making every effort, both nationally and internationally, to raise the current levels to more realistic levels. Indeed, it was due to a United Kingdom initiative in 1974 that action was taken by means of the special contract limit to increase the amount applied by the airlines of more than 20 countries to the present limit in respect of international carriage to not less than £25,000.
  The Montreal additional protocol No. 3 of 1975 proposes that the Warsaw-Hague limit should be increased to 100,000 special drawing rights—about £57,000—and the United Kingdom has already taken steps to ratify it.
  I realise that progress generally is unlikely until the United States ratifies. Although we, too, have heard rumours that there are difficulties about this in the United States, we have no positive information that that is so. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the United States is not habitually quick to ratify these conventions.
  There is not a great deal more that we on our own can do to bring that protocol into force. But, as we realise that the current limit of £25,000, or $58,000, required of United Kingdom airlines by standard condition H in air transport licences has been eroded by inflation and the decline in the value of the United States dollar since it came into force in April 1978, on 28 May this year the Civil Aviation Authority published a proposal to revise the limit to 100,000 special

  749
  drawing rights—about £57,000. The intention is that any new limit should come into effect from 1 April 1981, which gives the airlines time to make their arrangements. The change to special drawing rights is intended to prevent fluctuations in value which have resulted from the use of both the dollar and the pound sterling.
  The limit of liability in respect of domestic as opposed to international flights is already fixed at 58,000 special drawing rights—about £33,000—by means of the Carriage by Air Act (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, as amended in 1969. Our intention is that this should be brought into line with the international limit at the same time as the new limit for international carriage.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Pearson Commission. At the end of the day that Commission did not reject the principles of Warsaw-Hague and thought that limitation of liability might be regarded as a fair price to pay for the relative ease of recovery against airlines provided that the limit of liability was high enough. The Commission favoured a system of strict liability but thought that this should be achieved by international agreement, despite the practical difficulties. It concluded generally that air transport accidents were different if only because of international considerations. First-party insurance is by far the most efficient method of providing compensation to victims of accidents, for the obviuus reason that issues of liability which are expensive to resolve do not have to be considered.
  Travelling on international air flights is not the same as travelling on trains, buses and coaches at home, and I think that it is sensible for people to take advantage of the inexpensive extra cover. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the awareness of the passenger of this cover. I have recently asked ABTA travel agents particularly to bring this
  750
  to the notice of their customers at the time a customer is buying his package holiday, and to remind him that it is possible to purchase extra cover, which would be in the interests of his dependants if there were to be an accident. The £1,250 payment for loss of expectancy of life, which seems brutally little when put in those terms, is the usual amount awarded by the United Kingdom courts in all cases and is not confined to air accidents. Therefore, it is in no way affected by the Warsaw-Hague conventions.
  I should like to emphasise the value of these conventions with one other example that has come to my mind recently—the recent case of an aircraft that disappeared on a flight over the sea. Some wreckage of it has been found, but there is little prospect that the cause of the accident will ever be established. Therefore, the prospect would be of lengthy litigation to decide at whose door the responsibility for the accident could be laid. It is in a case of that sort particularly that the Warsaw Hague conventions can be of such great benefit to the dependants of those who have lost their lives.
  Of course, money can never recompense for the emotional losses that follow in the wake of an aircraft crash with injury and death, but adequate and prompt compensation—again I emphasise "prompt"—can enable one to cope better with the practical problems that are an inescapable part of such tragic events. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's intention to take whatever steps are practicable to see that compensation reflects so far as is possible the needs of the travelling public. I shall not resent at all any pressure that comes from him to see that that is done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Seven o'clock a.m.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  De Lorean Car Project
  De Lorean Car Project
WALES
  Pensioner Families
  Pensioner Families
SCOTLAND
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Pensioner Families
  Pensioner Families
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensioner Families
  Pensioner Families
  Middlesex Hospital
  Middlesex Hospital
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Benefits (Value)
  Benefits (Value)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  General Practitioner Trainees
  General Practitioner Trainees
  Artificial Limb Centres (Complaints Procedure)
  Artificial Limb Centres (Complaints Procedure)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS (TELEPHONE INQUIRIES)
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS (TELEPHONE INQUIRIES)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Universities (Professional Staff)
  Universities (Professional Staff)
  European Community (Food Aid)
  European Community (Food Aid)
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS (TELEPHONE INQUIRIES)
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS (TELEPHONE INQUIRIES)
TRADE
  Carpets and Carpet Yarn
  Carpets and Carpet Yarn
  Textiles and Clothing (Dumping)
  Textiles and Clothing (Dumping)
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Companies Act 1980
  Companies Act 1980
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Airport Security
  Airport Security
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Civil Aviation Authority
  British Airports Authority
  British Airports Authority
  Beer
  Beer
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Shortage Subjects)
  Teachers (Shortage Subjects)
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Kingston Polytechnic
  Kingston Polytechnic
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Craft and Design Technology
  Craft and Design Technology
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Child Battering
  Child Battering
  Misuse of Drugs
  Misuse of Drugs
  Pentonville Prison
  Pentonville Prison
  Burglaries
  Burglaries
  Boards of Visitors
  Boards of Visitors
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Defective Tyres (Prosecutions)
  Defective Tyres (Prosecutions)
  Immigration (Entry Certificates)
  Immigration (Entry Certificates)
  Spontaneous Disorder
  Spontaneous Disorder
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
EMPLOYMENT
  Retraining
  Retraining
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Students
  Students
  Apprenticeship Schemes
  Apprenticeship Schemes
  Construction Workers (Overseas Contracts)
  Construction Workers (Overseas Contracts)
  Wandsworth
  Wandsworth
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Coventry
  Coventry
  Road Transport Industries Training Board
  Road Transport Industries Training Board
  Staffordshire
  Staffordshire
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Special Temporary Employment Programme
  Homeworking
  Homeworking
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
EMPLOYMENT
  "Executive Post"
  "Executive Post"
  Diving Centre, Fort William
  Diving Centre, Fort William
  Handsworth
  Handsworth
  Aston
  Aston
  Maternity Pay
  Maternity Pay
  Short-time Working Schemes
  Short-time Working Schemes
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Derv
  Derv
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Job Mobility Allowance
  Job Mobility Allowance
  Job Creation and Training Measures
  Job Creation and Training Measures
  Select Committee on Employment
  Select Committee on Employment
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
INDUSTRY
  Excise Duty (Beer, Wines and Spirits)
  Excise Duty (Beer, Wines and Spirits)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS (TELEPHONE INQUIRIES)
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS (TELEPHONE INQUIRIES)
  WORKS OF ART (EXPORTS)
  WORKS OF ART (EXPORTS)
ENERGY
  Phurnacite
  Phurnacite
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Energy Supplies (Disconnection)
  Energy Supplies (Disconnection)
  Royalty Oil
  Royalty Oil
  Coal Liquefaction
  Coal Liquefaction
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  North Sea (Oil and Gas)
  North Sea (Oil and Gas)
FOREIGN & COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Immigration (Entry Certificates)
  Immigration (Entry Certificates)
  United Nations Conference on Women
  United Nations Conference on Women
  South America (Foreign Secretary's Visit)
  South America (Foreign Secretary's Visit)
WALES
  Schools (Staff Redundancies)
  Schools (Staff Redundancies)
  Schoolchildren (Meals, Allowances and Grants)
  Schoolchildren (Meals, Allowances and Grants)
  Schoolchildren (Free Milk)
  Schoolchildren (Free Milk)
  Teachers (Vacancies)
  Teachers (Vacancies)
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Unemployed Teachers
  Unemployed Teachers
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Ford Engine Plant (Bridgend)
  Ford Engine Plant (Bridgend)
  Employment (Bridgend)
  Employment (Bridgend)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Colliery Closures
  Colliery Closures
  Inmos
  Inmos
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Frozen Fish Laminates
  Frozen Fish Laminates
  Milk
  Milk
TRADE
  Plasterboard
  Plasterboard
DEFENCE
  NATO (Southern Flank)
  NATO (Southern Flank)
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Armed Forces (Republic of Ireland Nationals)
  Armed Forces (Republic of Ireland Nationals)
  Special Widows' Pensions
  Special Widows' Pensions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Monetary Policy
  Monetary Policy
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Private Sector Financial Wealth
  Private Sector Financial Wealth
  Fixed Capital Investment Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Fixed Capital Investment Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Customs Commissioners (Powers)
  Customs Commissioners (Powers)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Citizens Band Radio (Seizure of Sets)
  Citizens Band Radio (Seizure of Sets)
  Customs and Excise (Goole)
  Customs and Excise (Goole)
  Double Taxation Agreement (Namibia)
  Double Taxation Agreement (Namibia)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Public Sector Assets (Sale)
  Public Sector Assets (Sale)
  Inland Revenue Inspectors
  Inland Revenue Inspectors
  Charities (Disabled Persons)
  Charities (Disabled Persons)
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Capital Taxation and the National Heritage
  Capital Taxation and the National Heritage
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Management Studies
  Management Studies
  Grammar School Scholarships
  Grammar School Scholarships
  Senior Trade Scholarships
  Senior Trade Scholarships
  Farm Grants
  Farm Grants
  Education (Handicapped Pupils)
  Education (Handicapped Pupils)
  Car Parks
  Car Parks
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Ormeau Park, Belfast
  Ormeau Park, Belfast
  Stevensons Primary School, Dunmurry
  Stevensons Primary School, Dunmurry
  Security Statistics
  Security Statistics
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Business Closures
  Business Closures
SCOTLAND
  Detained Persons (Tape Recording)
  Detained Persons (Tape Recording)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Housing Managers (Diploma)
  Housing Managers (Diploma)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Levenmouth
  Levenmouth
  Building Regulations (Plasterboard)
  Building Regulations (Plasterboard)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Land Reclamation Projects
  Land Reclamation Projects
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Housing Associations (Coventry)
  Housing Associations (Coventry)
  Ice-cream Vans (Chimes)
  Ice-cream Vans (Chimes)
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Nationalised Industry Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  New Towns (Common Parts Assets)
  New Towns (Common Parts Assets)
  Harlow Development Corporation
  Harlow Development Corporation
  Housing (Cannock Chase)
  Housing (Cannock Chase)
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  New Town Housing
  New Town Housing
  New Town Development Corporations (Staff)
  New Town Development Corporations (Staff)
  New Towns (Community-related Assets)
  New Towns (Community-related Assets)
  Local Authority Construction Projects
  Local Authority Construction Projects
  Building Regulations (Plasterboard)
  Building Regulations (Plasterboard)
  Urban Programmes
  Urban Programmes
TRANSPORT
  Gipsies (North Mimms)
  Gipsies (North Mimms)
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Service Areas
  Motorway Verges (Wild Flowers)
  Motorway Verges (Wild Flowers)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Motorways (Heavy Lorries)
  Motorways (Heavy Lorries)
  Public Transport (Schoolchildren)
  Public Transport (Schoolchildren)
  Municipal Bus Services
  Municipal Bus Services
  Parking (Darlington)
  Parking (Darlington)
  Road Construction Sub-unit (Cheshire)
  Road Construction Sub-unit (Cheshire)
  Mr. B. Williams (Flood Damage)
  Mr. B. Williams (Flood Damage)
  Midland Link Motorways
  Midland Link Motorways
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits (House Purchase)
  Benefits (House Purchase)
  Invalid Care Allowance and Noncontributory Invalidity Pension
  Invalid Care Allowance and Noncontributory Invalidity Pension
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals, Liverpool
  Moss Side and Park Lane Hospitals, Liverpool
  Cirrhosis of the Liver
  Cirrhosis of the Liver
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Poliomyelitis Immunisation
  Poliomyelitis Immunisation
  Blind Persons (Clifton Spinney Training Centre)
  Blind Persons (Clifton Spinney Training Centre)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  Departmental Officials (Telephone Inquiries)
  One-parent Families (Yardley)
  One-parent Families (Yardley)
  Maternity Grant
  Maternity Grant
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Benefits (Heating Addition)
  Benefits (Heating Addition)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Benefits (Non-qualification)
  Benefits (Non-qualification)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  National Health Service (Partnership Schemes)
  National Health Service (Partnership Schemes)
  Health and Social Security (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Health and Social Security (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Whooping Cough
  Whooping Cough
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Unemployment Benefit (Earnings-Related Supplement)
  Unemployment Benefit (Earnings-Related Supplement)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Vaccine Damage
  Vaccine Damage
  Blood Donors
  Blood Donors
  Acute General Hospitals (Care Costs)
  Acute General Hospitals (Care Costs)
  "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin"
  "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin"
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
CIVIL SERVICE
  Public Bodies (Expenditure)
  Public Bodies (Expenditure)

Preamble
(Sitting in the Royal Gallery)
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION: EXPENDITURE
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 why, at a time when reductions in expenditure are being imposed on a large number of important departments and activities, no such actual reduction is being imposed on the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the provision made in the Supply Estimates for the Equal Opportunities Commission in the present financial year is the same in real terms as the revised estimated expenditure of the commission for 1979–80. This represents a significant reduction compared with the expenditure planned for that year. In common with other Government departments, the commission has been asked to accommodate the cost of the recent Civil Service pay settlement within the published limits by reducing its staff complement.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he accepts that to maintain expenditure in real terms cannot be described as a cut? At a time when departments of great importance, such as those dealing with education and housing, are being subjected to real cuts, why is this particular organisation exempted from them? Is that not carrying my noble friend's chivalry a little too far?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the commission achieved considerable savings on the level of expenditure planned for last year and those savings went beyond those required as a result of last year's cuts in public expenditure; in other words, the commission made extra savings over and above the cuts made in public expenditure. All the savings made by the commission last year have been carried through into the budget set for this year, which therefore represents a significant cut in real terms.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is my noble friend arguing that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept from other departments that there were cuts where the cuts were only in planned expenditure? If that doctrine is accepted, is it not an incitement deliberately to plan for substantial increases in expenditure?
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend; but possibly the fault was mine in that I did not make myself entirely clear. I do not think my noble friend is placing enough weight on the fact that the budget figure for the Equal Opportunities Commission for the present year, which is the same as the final revised estimated expenditure for last year, was a figure which was reached including some substantial cuts which were made entirely voluntarily by the commission.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say how many other Government departments made economies similar to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission about which he has told us? Would he not agree that in any case the Equal Opportunities Commission was provided with a budget cut to the bone when it was set up?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer the second part of that supplementary because it falls outside the knowledge I have at the moment. Regarding the first part, the level of funding for each organisation in receipt of grant from my right honourable friend's department has been carefully considered on its merits in the light of its needs and Government financial policy, and I would guess that that is the policy

1481
which runs across all Government departments.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the public expenditure budgets were based on the premise that industrial production would increase by 4 per cent. last year and this year? Is it not necessary therefore to cut in real terms rather than in what the budget allowed for on totally false premises?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wish to make it absolutely clear that there has been and is a cut in real terms in the budget of the Equal Opportunities Commission for this year compared with the original budget for the commission for last year.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if there have been such cuts in respect of the expenditure of the Equal Opportunities Commission, may we be assured that those cuts have applied equally to males and females?
Lord BELSTEAD: I am delighted to say that that is entirely a matter for the commission, my Lords.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the two top jobs in this country are both held by women, is there really any need for this commission in future?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am not sure that would be the view of all women, and, at any rate, my right honourable friend sees a continuing need for this commission.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the EOC is the envy of many countries abroad which are setting up their own equivalents, and that any curtailing of the commission's work would be a pity?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of being able to view the activities of the Equal Opportunities Commission from abroad.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the Government might at least consider cutting their
1482
indirect subsidy to the EOC's newsletter, whose main propaganda message seems to be that any woman who wishes to remain feminine instead of aspiring to become a coalminer, a pneumatic drill operator or a member of the SAS should be thoroughly ashamed of herself?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wish to make it quite clear that the expenditure of the Equal Opportunities Commission is subject to strict cash limits, but within those limits it is a matter for the commission as to how they spend their money?
Lord ELWYN-JONES: Would it not be a good idea if a little chilvary were allowed to creep in, my Lords?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted to have a question to which I can answer an unequivocal "Yes".
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to indicate—this would seem to be germane to the original Question—whether the Commision for Racial Equality is also subject to the process of slimming and, if so, what is the annual cost?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that I gave what is in fact the reply to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question a little while ago; the answer is, give or take a bit, about £7 million.

LAW OF THE SEA: GENEVA CONFERENCE
2.44 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made at the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the Geneva session, which began only on 28th July, will continue until 29th August. The conference set itself the objective of concluding a draft convention

1483
at this session, but it is too early to judge whether this will be achieved.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that the conference has been in session for only a short time, may I ask what is the Government's view on three controversial issues that have been raised? The first concerns the United Nations legislature authorising companies to extract minerals prematurely. The second issue relates to the voting rights in the 36 States International Seabed Authority. Are the Government opposing the proposal that five industrialised nations should have the power of veto and that voting should be undertaken not on the basis of nations, but by technological ability? Thirdly, will the Government support a world tax on offshore minerals, to be contributed to a common heritage fund to help in particular the land-locked nations?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first of the three supplementary questions of the noble Lord was about what he referred to as the United Nations legislature authorising companies to extract minerals. Looking at my brief rather carefully, I suspect that the noble Lord meant the United States legislature. The United States have enacted legislation to establish an interim procedure for the orderly development of seabed resources, pending the entry into force of an acceptable Law of the Sea Convention. Similar legislation is in the course of being enacted in the Federal Republic of Germany. The so-called Group of Seventy-seven have repeated at this session their opposition to national legislation. Her Majesty's Government do not accept that interim legislation is contrary to international law or that it should stand in the way of efforts to negotiate an international deep seabed mining regime which gives effect to the concept of the common heritage of mankind. I think that that really is the first instalment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that one of the main ingredients of civilised law at sea is the elimination of piracy? Is he also aware that the piracy on the Nigerian coast, and in Nigerian harbours, has reached such a volume that navigating officers
1484
are very reluctant to allow their ships to enter the harbours or indeed to sail along that coast? Will the noble and learned Lord in his wisdom use his influence to ascertain whether it is possible to take effective action to ensure that British vessels and those who sail in them are freed from piratic actions in that area?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I know that the whole House will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in his desire to put down piracy on the coast of Nigeria, but I am afraid that I do not have ready a supplementary answer on that subject, since evidently those instructing me did not think that it was likely to be asked in connection with this particular Question.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, first, will the noble and learned Lord accept my thanks for correcting the slip that I made earlier? Secondly, will he accept my apology for not having given notice of these supplementary questions, as I should have done? I wish to ask whether, despite the declaration of the United Nations that the oceans should be the heritage of mankind, there is not a great danger that this plan will assist mostly the rich nations with their offshore facilities? Has the noble and learned Lord noted the statement of Bernardo Zuleton, the United Nations General Secretary for Economic Affairs, that the area beyond the 200-mile limit will yield only "peanuts"?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the first part of his supplementary question. "Peanuts" is perhaps an unfortunate phrase today. However, without having noted the particular statement to which the noble Lord referred, I agree with him that the main outstanding issue before this conference is the question of deep seabed mining. I think that it is possible to count one's chickens before they are hatched in this field. We do not yet know quite what is there, or how to get it. It is obviously a matter of contention, between those who have the means to get it, if there is anything there, and those who would like to share the proceeds but cannot have the means to get it, as to how the proceeds, if there are any, will be distributed. But I think that is what the conference is about.

ZIMBABWE: PROVISION OF AID
2.50 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what success they have achieved in persuading their allies to contribute to the aid fund for Zimbabwe.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, no general aid fund for Zimbabwe has been established. We have been active in urging all friendly donors to provide generous aid for Zimbabwe, and will continue so to do. The results so far have been somewhat disappointing. However, some donors have made only initial pledges for immediate reconstruction, and others have yet to make known their intentions. In addition to bilateral pledges, a number of international agencies will be starting programmes in Zimbabwe.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that according to a recent survey four out of five Zimbabweans are facing famine in the next few months unless something drastic is done in the immediate future? Is he also aware that the previous régime in Zimbabwe had estimated that it would require £600 million of development money to offset the effects of the war? As the last reply I received from the Government on this matter indicated that they were trying to mobilise resources from our allies, could the noble Lord be a little more forthcoming as to what is to be done in this emergency situation?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I must say that this is the first I have heard of figures anything like those which the noble Lord has just mentioned in terms of starvation, and I do not think that they at all tally with the facts in Zimbabwe. There is a considerable distribution problem owing to the communications having been very disrupted during the war, but it is much more that than anything else. There are certain areas which the food is not reaching, but the situation has nothing
1486
like the character, so far as I am aware—and I hope I am right—inferred in the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question.
As to the second part of his supplementary, our offer of £75 million was over a three-year period. Taking what we think is likely to be spent by Zimbabwe in the first year, both from ourselves and from other donors, it comes to between £60 million and £70 million—of that sort of order. Over a three to four-year programme, there will be much more needed than has already been decided upon, as it were, by us and our friends; but we are hopeful, as I say, that others will be more forthcoming. In particular, there is to be an aid donors' conference (and we have offered every help we can to the Zimbabwean Government to get this off the ground) which will be held in Salisbury, hopefully, before the end of this year, and we hope that this will be the moment when other countries will be forthcoming. So far as we are concerned, not only have we offered the £75 million, which, at present, is among the highest that we are giving to any country in Africa this year, but on top of that we have waived over £20 million of Government debt. So I do not think that we have done other than set a good example, and it is our fervent hope that others will follow it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could some indication be given that, in this and in other matters affecting Zimbabwe, Her Majesty's Government must be influenced by the attitude of the Zimbabwean Government towards the administration of law by due process, and are taking particular interest in what is happening with regard to the prosecution of those whom the police may consider guilty of a particularly atrocious murder of a white farmer near Salisbury, I think, two days ago?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I find it a little hard to answer that question because, as the noble Lord rightly said, this is something which occurred yesterday or the day before, I think, and is obviously, in the nature of things, sub judice.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to indicate the approximate date of the

1487
proposed Salisbury donors' conference; and could he—I am sure he could—give an assurance that the United States in particular will be effectively represented at such a conference in view of the fact that very early on they came forward with very generous proposals as to their own role in a joint donation to the new state? Is the noble Lord aware that we are all most understanding of certain contemporary preoccupations in the United States, but the world's preoccupation with what is happening in Southern and Central Africa should perhaps take precedence, even over internal American politics?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I sympathise very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said, and it is our hope that the contemporary and temporary preoccupations will have passed before the aid donors' conference comes into being.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a further supplementary question of which I have given his office notice? Would he agree that one of the aspects of aid which we can give to Zimbabwe is help in training their young people to take over the various positions of responsibility in that country; and, in that connection, could he tell the House what is the present position of the two young ladies, Miss Nkala and Miss Tshuma, who apparently were refused entry to this country when they came here in order to further their education?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty here, in that the noble Lord was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to ask this question. On the other hand, as Leader of the House I must say that this question about two specific young ladies and what happened to them when they came into England seems to me to be rather far from the original Question about what success they have achieved in persuading their allies to contribute to the aid fund for Zimbabwe. However, since notice was given, I perhaps might do my best to answer the noble Lord's supplementary question, which is that when these two young ladies came into this country they were not given leave to enter on the grounds that they had no evidence of
1488
acceptance for a course of studies; and despite representations which were made to Her Majesty's Government following on this by Members of another place, Ministers have confirmed this to be the case.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: But, my Lords, is it the Government's intention to deport these two young ladies tomorrow, as I understand, according to reports, is the present position?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, if they are refused entry, they will have to go back to Zimbabwe.

UN CHILDREN'S FUND: UK CONTRIBUTION
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in the present state of emergency in so many areas, they have reduced their contribution to the United Nations international children's emergency fund in 1980 compared with the amount contributed in 1978 and 1979.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, taking account of both the regular programme and special projects outside it, we shall still be contributing more in 1980 to the United Nations Children's Fund than in any year except 1979. when we gave additional funds in recognition of the International Year of the Child. We are still the fourth largest regular donor to UNICEF.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer. Would he not agree that, in view of the changed value of money and the comparatively small amount involved, anyway, in the contribution to this particular United Nations agency, it is rather sad that the British contribution is not higher than it is having regard to the urgent situations throughout the world on which this fund is trying to help?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, United Kingdom support for UNICEF has been rising rapidly in recent years, and I think we would agree that it is one of the most effective of the United Nations agencies, with a high proportion of staff engaged in field programmes and a good record of activity in the poorest countries of the world, and in areas of greatest need. But this contribution to this very desirable end must be seen, for instance, in the light of the last Question on another claim on our resources—no less urgent, I think the noble Lord would say—and of the total aid programme which in 1979 (and before Zimbabwe was taken into account) ran at £891 million. I think we must take account of the fact that in borrowing £10,000 million a year, much of which goes on current assumptions, we cannot always do as much as we should like.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, having regard to the fact that this country during the International Year of the Child made an extremely good effort, and bearing in mind that the cause of children throughout the world is extremely important, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the difference between what we shall give this year as against what we gave in 1979? If it is an appreciable difference, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Government would keep this matter in the forefront of their minds?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may read out some figures which I think will give an effective answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. One must add together the regular contributions and the contributions to special appeals and specific projects. In 1978 our contribution to the regular programme was £4·5 million with £1·192 million to special appeals and specific projects; in 1979—it was the Year of the Child—the figures were £5·8 million with £1·6 million to special projects and appeals; and in 1980, the current year, the figures are £4·3 million and £1·3456 million to special appeals and specific projects. All three are very much the biggest contributions which we have so far made to UNICEF.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be agreed to. I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to the first two items in this report. On the first item, I am sure that all noble Lords will have seen with great regret that Miss Wilson has decided for personal reasons to resign at the end of this Session. A letter has gone out to all noble Lords inviting contributions to a leaving present for Miss Wilson in view of her 16 years' exceptional service as supervisor of the Refreshment Department.
My Lords, on the second item, I am sure also that your Lordships will be pleased to see, in view of recent events, that your Lordships will soon be covered by a personal accident insurance scheme. As this scheme comes into effect as soon as it is approved by the House, I hope that your Lordships will agree this report without further ado.
Moved, That the Sixth Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The report was as follows:
1. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Committee received a report from the Refreshment Department Sub-Committee and were informed of the impending resignation of Miss S. R. Wilson, the Superintendent.
The Committee requested that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee should convey to Miss Wilson their appreciation of her long and valuable service.
2. INSURANCE FOR LORDS
The Committee approved provision for the Personal Accident Insurance cover of Lords whilst they are engaged on Parliamentary duty in the United Kingdom.
3. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Committee approved provision for the payment of revised subsistence allowances.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee were informed of the promotion of Mr. R. FL Walters to Senior Clerk.
5. POLICE
The Committee were informed of a recommendation to appoint a Chief Fire Officer and approved provision for a share of the cost of this additional post.
6. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee confirmed the application of the following Civil Service Memoranda:

(a) CM/427 and GC/I89—Museum Keeper etc. grades

1491

(b) CM/428—Revised scales of pay

(c) CM/444—Higher Grades etc. pay

(d) CM/446—Typing Proficiency Payments

(e) GM/193—Fees to Academic Consultants etc.

giving revised rates of pay to applicable staff of the House of Lords.

(f) The Committee also approved a revision in the pay of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.

7. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee sanctioned a revision in the Official Shorthand Writer's scale of fees.
8. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised a revision in the fees payable to temporary Reporters and approved the arrangements made for the temporary appointment of Reporting Staff formerly employed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
9. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. Preston, Senior Personal Secretary, who is retiring on 1st September 1980.

(b) Preserved pension and lump sum to Miss C. Jennings, Higher Executive Officer, who resigned on 30th June 1980.

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. R. L. J. Pope, Judicial Doorkeeper, who retired on 13th May 1980.

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. Langley, Cleaner, who retired on 18th April 1980.

(e) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. Bell-chambers, Cleaner, who formally retired on 17th June 1980.

(f) Short service payment to Miss E. A. Bowen-Jones, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 25th April 1980.

(g) Short service payment to Miss A. E. M. Roberts, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 31st May 1980.

(h) Short service payment to Mrs. S. Sadler, Clerical Officer, who is resigning on 30th July 1980.

10. CONFERENCE ON DELEGATED LEGISLATION
The Committee agreed to make provision for the payment of expenses so as to enable a Lords member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Counsel to the Chairman of Committees to attend a conference on delegated legislation in Australia in September.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS' EXPENSES
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I should explain that the Motion which was before the House on 22nd July reflected the Government's original proposal that secretarial allowances for office holders in this House should be limited to £1,100 as opposed to the £1,175 recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and the
1492
TSRB Report. In the light of the vote in another place to increase the secretarial allowances of Members of Parliament to the full TSRB recommended rate the Government think it right that the allowances for office-holders in this House should be increased similarly to the rate recommended by Lord Boyle.
Moved, That this House approves the proposal to increase to £1,175 a year the limit on the expenses which a Lord who receives a salary under the Ministerial and and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees may recover under the Resolution of 22nd July 1980.—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª, with the amendment and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH WELLINGTON PIER) CONFIRMATION BILL
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord or learned Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord or learned Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.9 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Bill read 3ª.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill is a declaration that for a long time ahead coal is to be our principal source of energy supply and, indeed, from the reception that the Bill has received in both Houses that proposition is I think agreed on both sides of the House. However, there are a number of grounds where there are doubts in the minds of some of us as to whether parts of it are adequate to that purpose. At Second Reading, my principal objection was to the cutting off of operating grants by the end of 1983. Of course, if the necessary progress to profitability has been made, a very different situation arises. With all the doubts which must obtain, I believe it is very wrong to tie ourselves to the date of the end of 1983. Indeed, even if we have none of the geological problems which can happen, if we take Selby, one of the new sources of coal supply, it will hardly have managed to achieve its maximum production by the end of 1983.
Noble Lords will probably agree that we must think in terms of a 10-year period before we can achieve maximum production in any particular coalfield. Even if the inquiry into the Vale of Belvoir— the results of which we do not yet know —results in an agreement to mine coal there, it is quite obvious that we shall not by any means have reached the stage at which coal will be available from that particular field.
I am speaking now of the two coalfields which may well be the greatest source of increased coal supply. Therefore, to think in terms of a cut-off date at the end of 1983 for development supply is, I suggest, completely irrational. Those of us on this side of the House consider this is the greatest single doubt about the possibilities of achieving the kind of coal production, whether we think in terms of the 170 million tonnes (which was initially the target) by the end of the century or go
1494
further and think in terms which the Venice Conference talked about, of doubling our supplies in the next 10 years. It seems to me that the Government have a lot of explaining to do before they can convince, not only this side of the House and not only this nation but the EEC, that we shall be capable of producing the kind of tonnage to which we are now committed.
If I may look at another point, in the early days of my connection with the administration of the coal industry, we had engaged in it something like 650,000 people. Now we are down to fewer than a quarter of a million people. I do not know whether the noble Earl will tell us what the feeling of the Government is as to the ability of fewer than a quarter of a million people in the coal mining industry to meet the targets which we are now talk-about. I know that we are hoping for a far more capital intensive industry than ever before. I, for my part—and I know that the noble Earl agrees with me in this —want to see far greater mechanisation, maybe gasification or liquefaction, which of itself would mean that we would not need the same number of people in deep mine pits as we now have.
However, this is conjecture. We must hope that those experiments will go ahead rapidly and enable us to meet the target that we now have in mind without there being the need for a far greater number of people than we now have working in deep mine pits in the industry. This is pure speculation. Those of us who have been involved in these problems over the years know of the great setbacks which can take place. In Britain we have very expert geologists. In the main their forecasting has been excellent. How one looks at what happens 2,000 feet below the surface, I for my part have never understood. They are very fine; they are very expert.
No group of men can know of the geological faults which one encounters when actually mining for coal. I come from Lancashire and we are quite used to the fact that the coal seam suddenly disappears. It may appear 20 ft. higher or lower than one is mining. In order to find it and change one's mining methods entails many months of hard work and a huge amount of capital development in order to be able to go on with that kind of work.

1495
Here we are in 1980. The idea that one can cut off development grants by the end of 1983 is, to me, quite impracticable—I say this without political bias; there is no party politics in this matter, for we all agree about the need for much of this Bill. I do not understand the basis upon which we can possibly say that by the end of 1983 there will be no further need for development grants. This is given the facts about two of our hopes for the future: Selby, which is now being exploited although coal production is minimal; and the Vale of Belvoir, in which we have not yet permission to mine. How we can possibly say that by the end of 1983 the coal industry will be able to function without development grants, quite frankly, I do not understand.
The noble Earl, if I may say so, made a heroic effort late in the evening when we discussed the Second Reading to convince us about this. He did not convince me and I doubt whether he convinced many others. Once one puts a limit into legislation, one becomes tied to it. I would far rather that in the Bill we are now discussing the Government had not placed a limit for the end of either 1983 or any other particular period.
I notice that last Monday, in a Written Answer to a Question in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I hope that he had this Bill in mind—seemed to be saying that there could be a more flexible approach to the limits of borrowing by the nationalised industries. His Answer is in the second edition of Hansard for 4th August. There were certain eventualities which happened in another place which caused the second edition of Hansard to be published. One of the reasons why I did not put down any amendment to this Third Reading was that we have been defeating the Government with such monotonous regularity in your Lordships' House; so I did not wish to put down even a probing amendment for fear that my noble friends wanted to press it to a Division and we could have lost the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, at col. 41 of the Written Answers of the Commons Hansard for 4th August:
"On finance, we have agreed on a more flexible approach to the determination of the terms on which industries may borrow from the National Loans Fund (NLF). The rules governing the
1496
maturity period for such borrowing have been changed so that they are determined by an agreed view between each industry, the Treasury and the sponsor Department as to what is an appropriate maturity pattern for the industry's liabilities, rather than by the present arrangement under which the majority of borrowing is for a maturity period linked directly to the asset life of the industry".
I would ask the noble Earl whether that widening of the loan provisions of nationalised industries now applies to this particular Bill. I am sure many people outside this House who are vitally concerned with the future of the coal industry would, with me, be far happier if they felt that the limits imposed by this Bill would be subject to the new dispensation as announced on Monday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, an assurance that this will apply to this Bill when it becomes an Act would be very helpful to many of us. I am sorry I could not give the noble Earl notice that I would raise this, but I hope he will be able to give us some kind of answer on it.
A further complication must be expected, in that, if we are able to increase supplies of coal in the manner which we are all hoping for, we may find that the market is unable to keep pace with the supply of coal for a limited period of time. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that some of our industries will require considerable time and also considerable capital investment to turn over from the use of oil to that of coal; while in the domestic market—a market which I am pleased to see is now expanding —many of our housing estates as well as private houses have now been built without chimneys and they will need a considerable amount of adaptation before they can begin to avail themselves of the increased amounts of coal which will be available. There may well be—I think it is probably impossible to avoid it—a hiatus between the increased supply of coal and the ability of both industry and the domestic market to use that coal. During that period, inevitably I would have thought, the stocking of coal would increase considerably.
I mentioned on Second Reading that at one period we reached a stage where, despite the fact that 120,000 jobs were lost in coal and despite the fact that the NCB cut back its production by some 28 million tons, coal stocks increased to

1497
36 million tons. I do not know what the cost of that is these days but in my time at the Ministry of Power it cost something like £1 per ton to lay down stocks and pick them up again. It could well be there is no particular relationship between our ability to produce or increase our production of coal and the ability of the markets, both industrial and domestic, to consume that coal until they have changed from the present situation. As I say, during that hiatus coal stocks could well build up to enormous proportions. I hope that will not mean that people will feel we are wrong to increase the production of coal but I hope the Government will be prepared to look at the enormous cost of stocking coal in the quantities I have just mentioned.
One of the problems we are all faced with in discussing this Bill is that we are debating it without any complete picture of the total requirements of coal equivalent needed. During my days at the Ministry of Power, one can see, if one looks at the 1965 White Paper that I produced, that we gave coal as a portion of the total coal equivalent that the nation would require. If I may say so with modesty, we were right: in looking forward five years, we got the coal equivalent right and we got the coal burn almost right. Therefore we are looking at this problem of coal itself without any idea of what the Government have in mind as our total coal equivalent requirement in a few years from now.
It could be that we would have been better advised to have an energy debate in which we looked at the whole picture before we embarked on discussion of this Bill. Nevertheless, we are completely in the dark as to the Government's ideas of the requirement of coal equivalent and the contribution that coal will make to that equivalent during the next few years. We are all hoping and believing that the future of British industry is to be broadly a far more capital-intensive type of industry than we have had in the past. I would remind your Lordships that the more one builds up a capital-intensive industrial base, the higher is the consumption of energy. I do not know whether the noble Earl can assist us today in saying what the Government's reaction is to that kind of problem but. quite certainly, without some kind of
1498
analysis and some kind of approach as to what we intend to do about that, it is very difficult indeed for any of us to comment constructively on the content of this Bill.
I can illustrate one of the issues I have in mind by looking at, for instance, the gas industry, which is of course a vital cog in the wheel of energy production. I speak of a period during which I had some responsibility for this. When gas was produced simply by carbonising coal, the whole gas industry was in danger of going out of existence through pretty crass inefficiency. It was saved by going over to oil as a feedstock, and after huge capital investment it was then organised more on the lines of the electricity industry, with a national grid, and so on. In other words, we produced in national terms instead of depending on purely local supplies from rather inefficient local gas industries. But when it went over to oil it expanded rapidly at some 11 per cent. per annum for a great number of years. Indeed, it took an ever-increasing share of energy demand, especially in the space heating of housing, industry and so on. That was a huge revolution and of course it cost a great deal of money; but within a very short space of time of that revolution taking place the industry ceased even to make gas at all. It simply became a distributor of North Sea gas.
I do not think the gas industry has ever received the credit notices it deserved for the way it accomplished that very remarkable revolution. As I say, it became simply a distributor rather than a producer either by coal or by oil—what we called then the ICI method—which was very efficient but took a huge amount of capital in order to produce it. We are now anticipating the time when that process will need to be completely reversed. I know that it will not happen overnight, but as North Sea methane declines there will need to be preparations to go back to making gas from coal, which seems to me to be where we began. That will happen at a time when there will be an expanding overseas market for coal.
In all parts of the House we are extremely worried about the way in which British manufacturing industry is practically being decimated. What is to take its place in the export markets? How are

1499
we to get to a position in which we can break even on our balance of payments? I should have thought that if, indeed, the coal industry is to take the place of much of our manufacturing industry, we had better attune ourselves to the fact that it will have to enlarge its scope in the overseas markets of the world.
I am sorry to keep harking back, but I want to say again that at one period our exports of coal were decimated by the fact that Poland was dumping its coal supplies in Scandinavia, and our export markets in Scandinavia went down at an awful pace. If primary production—and we are all agreed that coal is now to take a huge part in that—is to take the place in the export markets of a great deal of that upon which we have relied from the manufacturing industries, then we had better attune ourselves to that fact. It is a great problem. I do not criticise anybody; I am only asking that we begin to look ahead to the point at which that position will arise.
Then there comes the problem of shortages of certain types of coal, such as anthracite. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who at Second Reading remarked that the South Wales coalfield is now in grave trouble with geological problems. Indeed, we depend heavily upon that coalfield for much of our anthracite. What are we going to do to find substitutes for that kind of coal? It is not purely a question of whether we produce 170 million tonnes or 200 million tonnes by the end of the century; it is a question of the types of coal which we are able to produce. I am told that the Phurnacite plant which provides a suitable alternative to anthracite is now reaching the end of its life.
I have been talking to members of the Chamber of Coal Trades, and naturally they are most concerned about this. They tell me that an alternative is available in the ANCIT process. They would welcome the building of an ANCIT plant, but apparently the NCB are now unable to fund the plant and they are quite unable to convince the Government of the need for an expenditure of some £30 million on that plant. I do not know whether the noble Lord can comment today on what I believe is a very vital issue.
1500
There is now nothing that divides us about the future of coal, as there was in the 'fifties and 'sixties. We are all convinced that a great deal of the future of our ability not only in the domestic market but, indeed, in the industrial market depends on our capacity vastly to increase our supplies of coal. That is common to all of us. I want to feel, and I hope noble Lords agree, that we will now supply the tools to do that job. I want to feel that in the new coalfields we can train the necessary manpower to meet our targets. I want to feel that in the older parts of the coalfields new faces can replace old. I know that where one has an extractive industry—from coal to dentistry—the time comes when there is nothing left to extract; and I myself am suffering from that problem at the moment. Nevertheless, I know there is now a common ground between all the parties, and indeed the Cross-Benches, that a very great deal of the future of this great nation depends upon our capacity to find the energy to drive our new industries. My criticism of this Bill is that it does very little to assure us that that energy can be found. For that reason, I hope the noble Earl will be able to assure us in what he says today.
3.36 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to make a few remarks. I shall be very brief and will try not to repeat what has already been said, but I do beg the House to take notice of some of the points I wish to spike down. A great world conference on coal was organised by the Institute of Technology at Massachusetts. They have just produced a learned tome on their conclusions, called, The Bridge to the Future. Professor Wilson was the marshal of that conference. I hope that we can get the book in the Library. I have asked for it, and instead of talking about it—this is an intelligent audience—I hope noble Lords will take the opportunity of dipping into this. We have also had the Venice conference on coal and the Tokyo conference on coal, but to me they have been pillars of cloud.
On three occasions in this noble House I have mentioned the fundamental importance of coal to the destiny of this nation. I have one question straight away about the mighty pit at Margam.

1501
That pit is absolutely necessary to get some of the best coking coal in the world. Is it going to receive some finance apart from that which my noble friend has been talking about—the finance that is being given for three years? In dealing with the coal industry it would be a tragedy to say there will be finance for three years and leave it at that. Other coalfields are being opened; for instance, there is one in Staffordshire. It will take 10 years from the day the sod is cut to produce the coal. The point I want to make is that we need trained men. I was told that we are getting more than we need, but not real trained, skilled miners. Despite the transition period, opportunities should be subsidised for the training of the miner.
Now comes the last point of my short speech. In this House we have noble Lords who are distinguished, gallant Lords, with military ranks as high as field marshal. They have spoken in this knowledgeable House. I am damned if I understand why this nation talks about coal and forgets to link it to the Ministry of Defence. We should draw in with defence the issue of coal. How on earth do we expect to live? I do not want a war—neither does anybody else—but one should not think that nuclear power would take one through a period when one had no coal even in an age when some people are daft enough to talk about nuclear war. Why are there not conferences about coal with the Ministry of Defence, and why cannot some of the defence expenditure help to subsidise the coal industry?
I am president of a mining museum. We have a pit 700 ft. deep and we have had about 35,000 people down it these last few months. I love to see some of the young boys from the fifth and sixth forms going down this pit to the coal face to encourage them to look into this man's job. Some may aim at being mining engineers; others may aim at being shotsmen or firemen. I should like to see the encouragement of that type of museum. It is worthy of some help from either the defence budget or from the coal budget.
I beg of this House to realise that they should not let the railway system disappear because it can move the bulk
1502
coal. Are we going to depend upon the juggernauts which will ruin the beauty of this country? Are we going to make acres and acres of concrete out of our fields and farms? Let us get back, for God's sake… I heard today that, when somebody looked at new railways laid in Britain, he saw one rail piece of steel which was produced by Krupps. Here is Britain, one of the biggest railway engineers in the world, and we are importing steel railways when we could be making them. To allow the British steel industry to disappear is a sin against the Holy Ghost.
I come to the last point, noble Lords will be delighted to hear. I want to ask whether Mr. MacGregor is going to be allowed to "Beechingise" the British coal industry as we "Beechingised" the railways of Britain. If that is an answer, any damn fool could give that kind of answer. We want a constructive answer to the industries that mean power. We should return to that old-fashioned phrase —the Ministry of Power. Power means that it could be linked with defence and the movement of Britain's goods.
3.42 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend in an eloquent speech that he described as brief—it was brief, succinct and incisive—conjoined the subject of coal with that of defence. Naturally I am tempted to intervene because, as it happens purely fortuitously, I was associated with both. I am not quite clear whether my noble friend Lord Davies sought to reduce defence expenditure and devote the surplus to subsidising the development of our coal industry, or whether he thought that the coal industry would develop according to his forecast, although not the forecast of my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton in his very eloquent and knowledgeable speech, and we could subsidise the defence requirements by using the profits derived from the production of coal. But this is not the occasion for a debate on either subject. Whether we prognosticate about the future of coal or whether we decide one way or the other about the propriety, desirability and ability to provide adequate expenditure in order to promote our security, this is not the occasion for a debate on either subject.
Our purpose, so far as I can gather, is to summarise the beneficient effect of the

1503
Coal Industry Bill, the Government's legislation. Whatever we do, let us not indulge in too much forecasting. After all, I had to forecast a long time ago. Here I enter, as did my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton, the subject of administration. I began to administer in the legislative field long before he did; that was purely accidental, a matter of accident of birth. I had to forecast when I was Secretary for Mines in the first Labour Government. There were problems then. There have been problems ever since and I add, for what it may be worth, despite this piece of legislation and the euphoria about the production of coal reaching its target or nearly reaching its target, I would not care to indulge in optimistic forecasts about the future of the coal industry.
That seems to be somewhat pessimistic, but we have to take account of the possibility, indeed, the probability which is likely to be factual, of the production of coal in other coal-producing countries. In the United States of America they have hardly touched the fringe of their capacity to produce coal. They are still operating on the surface; they have not as yet gone deep down. In the vast steppes of Russia, Siberia and elsewhere, there is an abundance of coal deposits. There is a great deal still in Poland, and, indeed, in other parts of the world. Even in the African countries the sphere of coal production has never been explored or exploited.
I leave that aspect of this subject to come to the point. My noble friend Lord Lee of Newton made a significant observation; if I may say so with respect, it was perhaps the most important observation in the course of his speech. He said that we are very much in the dark and that the Government were leaving us very much in the dark because they were only prepared to forecast as far as 1983. That is not so far ahead; as one gets older probably it is far ahead, but for those who are younger it is only a matter of months or so. By that time what is to happen? New coal seams are being developed and surveyed in other places. That is not where the vast expenditure is entailed. Of course, there is vast expenditure, but does it reach the highest level of expenditure? In any event most of the money for capital
1504
development is borrowed, and rightly so. That always was the case even when the industry was privately owned. Many pits went out of existence because they became bankrupt. There was no money available and the banks would not provide it. Therefore, what is to be done?
The most important consideration for our national coal industry—I emphasise the term "national coal industry", because so far it seems to be the only nationalised industry or service which is being retained by the Government; the others are being rapidly disposed of—is what may happen in the future, and that is difficult to say. Some parts of it may be hived off. Who can tell? One would not care to forecast about that. But what is important is that we should seek to develop rapidly, without any false, mistaken hesitation, and with the utmost ability—scientific, technical and technological—at our command, the processing of coal in order to produce a vast array of commodities.
My noble friends both spoke of oil production. That is a mere bagatelle. In any event, we may not need it. We may have nuclear energy at our disposal. But we need it for the purpose of producing those commodities which are in the pharmaceutical market—even the humble aspirin—and perhaps foodstuffs. Who can tell what may be derived from the processing of coal? It is in the technological field that we can hope for great developments, and there we can indulge in some optimism. Otherwise, I am not so sure.
We do not want long speeches on the subject, so I think I can conclude by saying that this is perhaps the only Coal Bill that I can remember which has not aroused much controversy. There have been all the other Coal Bills ever since 1924, when I was Secretary for Mines in the first Labour Government, and had to negotiate on the subject of wages as between the Miners' Federation and the coal owners. I successfully managed to persuade the coal owners to grant an increase of 13 per cent. which they did, not because of my persuasion but because our coal market in exports to France had accelerated and there were some profits available. The following year, it was otherwise. So much so that Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister, intervened by pro-

1505
viding out of the Exchequer £25 million which was not even enough to prevent trouble, as a result of which we had the General Strike a year later in 1926.
Therefore, let us use our energies in every possible aspect, in every possible direction—technical, scientific and technological—and in every field which is available to us, in order to produce a vast array of those commodities which we can either use internally or export to other markets. But let us always keep in mind the possibility, as we spend more money on the development of our coal seams in the United Kingdom, that the United States may compete with us, as will the Soviet Union, and there may be other countries. So we must be prepared for an eventuality of that kind.
I hope that those observations in which I have indulged will not be regarded as too pessimistic, but they are not intended to be optimistic either. They are factual, in my judgment, and on that basis, and on the assumption that the Government meant well, and mean well, and do not intend to intervene in the nationalised coal industry as they have done in other aspects of nationalised industry, we accept the Bill for what it may be worth.
3.54 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, when I begged to move that the Bill be read a third time, I tried to do so in the most uncontroversial manner possible, because I thought that I might head off debate. But, of course, it would be an innocent Minister who expected that an important Coal Bill would not receive comment on Third Reading, in spite of our having had a fairly good run with it on Second Reading. I must say, such is the importance that we attach to the industry and, indeed, to the Bill, that no one could resent the fact that it has caused a certain amount of comment. I shall try to answer, in as expeditious a way as possible, the comments which have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, was anxious about the degree to which the Government were committing the industry to forecasts or targets. In fact, we do not believe in setting our policies in terms of targets to be achieved regardless of other circumstances. We believe in creating the conditions in which the
1506
efforts of individual industries can be rewarded with success, and then in leaving specific decisions and actions within this framework to those people who are qualified to take them; that is to say, within the industries themselves. That is the whole reasoning behind the present Bill and, indeed, it is no more than the reasoning behind our policies, particularly policies towards the public sector trading industries generally.
In the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, told us—most interestingly, if I may say so—of some of the issues that he grappled with as Minister of Power. Your Lordships will be aware that when I go to obtain my briefing on these subjects, I pass a photograph of the noble Lord in Millbank and it gazes down upon me—I hope benignly. I think it is common ground between us that not all the decisions taken since the time when the noble Lord was in office, or indeed at other times when my own party has been in power, have altogether been proved right by events, but some decisions have been proved right and I am sure that the noble Lord is associated with many of these.
In particular, in the 1960s, by and large, the course was rejected of using oil as the principal fuel for our power stations. When we plug coal, we must not forget that as early as 1961 this country took the view that it should not be mono-dependent on oil. Indeed, a Conservative Government first introduced a tax on heavy fuel oil in that year. It is now clear that those who seemed at the time to be, and were often accused of, hankering after past ages were in fact far-sighted. As a result of their actions we find ourselves in this country in the relatively fortunate position which I mentioned in Second Reading, in that over 70 per cent. of our public supply electricity is generated from coal. Indeed, the use of coal in power stations has risen from 53 million tonnes in 1960 to 89 million tonnes in 1979. While we have enjoyed some growth in that period, the disparity with the natural growth rate is still fairly substantial.
An inevitable consequence of these decisions earlier is that there is rather less scope for some of the kind of progress which has been urged upon me now.

1507
Indeed, in the long term we expect nuclear power to play an increasing role in electricity generation. I have always been glad to remark that your Lordships are a somewhat pro-nuclear House, taken across the board. Though coal is expected to continue to be the dominant fuel in this area for many years yet, we must nevertheless look to the time when coal may be too valuable in other areas—for liquefaction, in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is very interested—to burn in power stations. It is in this sense that the nuclear programme is surely complementary to, rather than competitive with, coal. At the same time, the NCB is energetically pursuing a programme of research and development on these new uses of coal, which will become more and more vital as oil and gas become even more scarce and expensive. There is some ground between ourselves and the noble Lord on this.
It is this re-entry of coal into not so much new markets as markets which it dominated not very many years ago—general industrial markets, domestic, gas, transport—that is the really exciting prospect for the industry in the years ahead. It is exciting, but also challenging. Though progress is being made, many of the technical difficulties are still considerable. In areas of research and development, we have a leading position and we hope that British industry, as a whole, will grasp the opportunities that this offers.
So far, I have been talking long term and, indeed, our strategy for coal looks to the long term. But the noble Lord, Lord Lee, has accused our provisions of being short-term and has pointed out, rightly, that the Bill covers only the period up to 1983–84. I do not think that this really need be a considerable difficulty. The reason for the limitation is very simply that the coal industry is so important to this economy that it needs full review by Parliament. That framework of time up to 1983–84 is a framework not of the development of the industry as a whole but of the parliamentary review and scrutiny of that industry. As I said at Second Reading, I am delighted, with the assumption, which the noble Lord makes, that I myself will be making this scrutiny subsequent to 1984.
1508
May I turn quickly to some other specific points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton. On his comments about the times before grants finish, may I say that the programme for phasing out operational grants was agreed with the National Coal Board, following wide discussions. However, as I said earlier, social grants will continue and the Bill provides for the maintenance of NCB investment. On the NCB's borrowing structure, which the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, cited, the Bill does not lay down any particular maturity structure for NCB borrowing. The present structure follows the recommendations of the 1978 White Paper on nationalised industry finance and should therefore, I think. be non-controversial between us. As the noble Lord said, the Government are keeping the position on nationalised industries' forecasting and accounting generally under review.
Looking again towards the future, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, asked me about energy supply and demand prospects and how these could be tailored to the projections in the Bill. The Department's most recently published energy projections suggest that after incorporation of allowances for conservation, which approximate in our view to a reduction of some 20 per cent. or so in demand, total primary fuel requirements in the year 2000 could be 445 to 510 million tonnes of coal equivalent, depending on our rate of economic growth. As the noble Lord himself said, obviously we are involved in conjecture here and we must make sensible guesses and estimates. The potential indigenous supply by the end of the century is estimated in the range of 390 to 410 million tonnes of coal equivalent. This includes a possible installed nuclear capacity of up to 40 gigawatts—approximately a fourfold increase on capacity already installed or under construction. The upper estimates of coal and nuclear power will not of course be reached without great efforts by us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is correct in drawing attention to the great potential for increased coal production which exists in some of our competitor countries—in the United States, in the USSR and, indeed, in Australia within the Commonwealth. The market price level for coal will be set by the production

1509
levels which these countries achieve. For our coal industry to be viable, it must continue to compete and it is at getting it in the shape for successful competition that this Bill is primarily directed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, I think it was—and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised this at Second Reading—asked me about Phurnacite. The Government have explored with the NCB the possibility of special financial assistance on non-commercial terms to enable the Coal Board to replace the two oldest of the six batteries at the Phurnacite plants by the Ancit process, which is owned by National Smokeless Fuels Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NCB. The cost might he some £36 million, of which £5·5 million might be met by regional development grants. After the most careful consideration we have decided against giving special assistance, but we are bearing in mind that there are other ways of securing the continued production of Phurnacite. If this continued production is not possible by these means, we shall of course review the position. What we want to do is to see how we can best continue production while minimising environmental problems.
Much of what we have talked about this afternoon relates to conjecture and to the future. An example of the Bill's provisions which is related to the longer-term needs of the coal industry is contained in Clause 2, which empowers the Secretary of State to make loans to the Coal Board, with interest deferred. As was stated in Committee in another place we expect to make such loans for a period of up to 25 years, with payment of interest deferred for up to 10 years; but the terms of each loan will depend on the project to which it is related, which is only sound commercial sense. This measure will give the Government a valuable measure of flexibility in assisting the Coal Board to finance projects within a long lead term while yet maintaining sufficient disciplines upon the Coal Board to make the whole project worth while.
Finally, in all this discussion we must not forget that the coal mining industry depends overwhelmingly on the people who work in it, and it will go on doing so for many years yet, whatever the technological improvements that exist.
1510
There have been huge strides in mechanisation. These have allowed great improvements in productivity and, as important at least, have led to improved and safer working conditions underground. But I think that the day of the totally automated pit is a very long way off. We cannot foresee underground gasification geing a major factor in Britain in the foreseeable future, although as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale said at Second Reading it could be the only way of exploiting the huge reserves of coal which have been found in the course of drilling for oil under the North Sea. I think that my point is clear: that for the rest of this century at least and for most of our lifetimes the winning of British coal will depend on the skill and the rewards of the British miner. It is with this in mind that the Bill extends the social grants in duration and scope, and I welcome the close attention which has been paid to this aspect at all stages of the consideration of the Bill.
May I say how valuable we on this side of the House, and our colleagues in another place, have found the contributions to the debate and the discussions which have come from all sides of the industry as well as from Parliament during the past weeks. The Bill has attracted a lot of interest but also, I think I may say, a lot of support, and this reflects the level of concern that we all feel for the future of the coal industry.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I hope that he is not going to ignore the importance of the entire issue of energy and power production to defence. I asked a simple question: Are there ever any discussions between the noble Earl's Ministry and defence? If there are not, there should be.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I felt that I had dealt with this at Second Reading. It is impossible to design, as the noble Lord intimates, a coherent defence policy without relation to energy policy and issues of energy supply, and the coal industry is very important in this area. So these things are quite continuous.
On Question, Bill passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) 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 lª.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICUL- TURE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 1980
4.9 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield)The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th July be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a great many of your Lordships will have perceived that until very recently these motions were in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I hope that the House will forgive me for going outside the terms of the motion, but I am sure that I speak for all parts of the House when I say that we are indeed extremely distressed at the most unfortunate and unhappy predicament which he and Lady Ferrers find themselves in. We hope that their daughter will soon, indeed speedily, be restored to health.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly on this. I associate the Opposition with the remarks made by the noble Earl. We all know how much the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, enjoys agricultural debates concerning his Ministry, and we are sad that he has had this difficulty but I hope that everything will be all right soon.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. In fact, it is not totally inappropriate that should be moving these Motions today because part of my ministerial responsibility is agriculture in Scotland and indeed these statutory instruments are signed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. So it is quite appropriate for me to take off my kilt, to put on my pants—and trousers —and pontificate in this way. I say this for a purpose, my Lords, because these orders will apply in Scotland in the same way as they do in the rest of the United
1512
Kingdom. Although our procedures may be different—and I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—and our language is certainly very different from that employed in England, the principles are the same.
It might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if at the same time as we deal with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Regulations 1980 we deal with the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme 1980 which also was laid on 28th July, and the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1980 and the Horticulture Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1980, which were laid before the House on 8th July. I say that because all the issues are closely related. All these statutory instruments require Affirmative Resolution, and what I shall say also relates to the Farm and Horticulture Development (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1980, which were laid on 8th July, and against which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has tabled a Prayer.
These schemes are the second and final stage of implementing the study carried out under the auspices of Sir Derek Rayner into the administration of the capital grants scheme. The first stage which amended the grant rates payable was approved by this House on 28th February last. The purpose of this study was to simplify the schemes to the benefit of both departments and applicants. We are grateful for the work carried out by Sir Derek and his team which has enabled us to bring these schemes before your Lordships today.
As your Lordships will know, we set out to achieve simplification by combining the three existing capital grant schemes into one, in the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Regulations 1980, which were laid before the House on 2nd July. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had doubts about the use of the 1972 European Communities Act, which is required for the European Community grant arrangements, as the authority for paying national rates of grant. In view of these doubts we withdrew those regulations and replaced them with the two main instruments before the House today which deal separately with national and European Community grant arrangements. But I

1513
do want to emphasise that there are only minor differences between the two new instruments and the ones they have replaced. Nevertheless, I must apologise to the House for the fact that this action was necessary and which has resulted in your Lordships having less notice of our proposals than we would have wished. We are, however, anxious to bring the simplified arrangements into operation as soon as possible, both to derive the benefits from them and to remove any uncertainty about our intentions. It is for this reason that we felt impelled to ask the House to consider them before rising for the Summer Recess. I trust, therefore, that the House will accept that we did not take this decision lightly and did so knowing that it would cause some difficulties.
The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Regulations 1980 provide for assistance in terms of the European Community directives; the national arrangements are provided for in the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme 1980. Before bringing our proposals before the House we had wide-ranging discussions with the various interested bodies following the issue of consultation documents in the spring. We have carefully considered the views expressed to us and, in the light of this consultation, we have made some changes in the original thinking. For some reason this has brought criticism. I see no reason to apologise for the changes because they show in fact that our consultations were genuine. Nevertheless, I appreciate that we cannot satisfy everyone. This is not altogether surprising since the comments varied very widely. What we are proposing however will simplify the whole process, by cutting out bureaucracy and hassle for the farmer and saving time and money. I assure your Lordships that this will not in any way interrupt the harmonious relationship which exists between farmers and our local staffs, who will continue to be as helpful as in the past to grant claimants.
Turning now to the schemes themselves we have clarified the coverage of improvements qualifying for grant; for example, investments in such things as general purpose buildings and water supplies on deer farms will qualify for grant. The rates of grant are unchanged compared
1514
with those applying at present, other than standard rates for arterial drainage work in Scotland which has increased from 37½ per cent. to 50 per cent. to restore a balance with the position in England arid Wales which was removed in the scheme we introduced earlier this year. Otherwise I do not think I need say more about these aspects at this stage.
The two main statutory instruments essentially consolidate the present statutory provisions with a few drafting changes. But to understand the new arrangements one has to go beyond the statutory instruments, which are merely the legal skeleton on which we have put the flesh of the procedures. However, one statutory change compared with the present provisions concerns the eligibility arrangements for qualifying for national rates of grant. The existing schemes have what is known as the "sufficient livelihood test". This requires the agricultural or horticultural business to be capable of providing a sufficient livelihood for a reasonably skilled occupier. It was put to us that variations in farm income, depending on how well or badly a particular sector was doing, made the test uncertain and unfair. So we have replaced it in the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme with what, in the jargon, is already called the "sufficient employment test", which must be satisfied to qualify for grant on buildings. This test requires the agricultural or horticultural business to be capable of providing the greater part of the employment of at least one person reasonably skilled in agriculture or horticulture. The applicant will be able to test his own eligibility by means of a simple test set out in the claim form.
As at present land improvements will be exempt from this test. Further, we propose that in order to qualify for grant it will no longer be necessary for the land of a farm business to have basic buildings, nor that a horticultural business must have been in operation for the 24 months prior to application on not less than 1·6 hectares of land. It is, however, in the field of administering the statutory schemes that the main changes will be made. At the present time, other than for expenditure on plant, machinery and livestock it is necessary for applicants to have their proposals, including competitive

1515
tenders, submitted and approved before work begins. This is the arrangement known as prior approval. We are proposing to discontinue this apart from arterial drainage work in Scotland which will still then be broadly in line with the different arrangements applying in England and Wales.
In future farmers and growers will take their own investment decision without the reference of prior approval. They will not even have to give us advance notice of their intentions. When the work is complete they will submit their claims for grant. While the dropping of prior approval has been welcomed in some quarters, I quite admit that it has raised anxieties in others.
First, there are the farmers who fear that they will lose the assurance of grant. I should like to assure the House that a farmer need have no worry about this: if he acts reasonably he will be all right. We would not expect him to do more than one would expect any prudent person safeguarding his own interests. Even then we will not be deserting him. The explanatory leaflet on the schemes will give detailed guidance; if a farmer is still in doubt he will be able—as he is now—to seek information from the local office of the departments. If I might, therefore, sum up this aspect, provided work is carried out to the standards we have ben adopting there should be no risk to grant. Consequently, I feel that these worries are over-stated.
Secondly, there are those who are concerned about the conservation considerations. This includes both the farming industry and the conservation bodies. The industry, I believe, in general is extremely conservation-minded, and whatever happened in the past I do not believe that nowadays farmers deliberately set out to destroy any part of our natural environment. Their concerns are—the conservationist concerns, so to speak—that they might do this unintentionally and thus put grant at risk; and further that, as we propose, in consulting the conservation bodies concerned before starting work they, the farmers, feel they may be frustrated in their intentions.
I must emphasise that under the prior approval arrangement operating at present
1516
the obligation is on the farmer to consult conservation bodies before starting work. We are not asking him to do more in future. At present in cases of difficulty it is up to the farmer in the first instance to try to resolve any problems with the conservation body concerned. If this cannot be done, the departments come in to see whether any modified arrangement suitable to both parties can be achieved. There are few cases where the farmers' investment intentions are completely frustrated.
In terms of the Countryside Acts, Ministers must have regard to the desirability of conserving the countryside, including the fauna and flora, in administering the capital grant schemes. Under the new arrangements we are not setting these obligations aside. We will observe them as before. In fact, I might for a moment refer specifically to staff savings which will arise for ADAS from the administrative charges in the grants schemes. These savings we have allowed for include additional input on conservation work which the service provides in the course of its normal advisory role. Thus the staff savings from the grant charges are offset by this and are not being realised in full. That is a point I should like to underline, because it is an extremely important one. In our explanatory leaflet we will make it clear to farmers that if they wish to claim grant they must have regard to conservation aspects, and if they have any doubts they should seek advice from our local offices before doing any work.
In national parks and sites of special scientific interest, which give rise to particularly sensitive conservation considerations, farmers who wish to claim grant will have to consult the appropriate statutory authority about their proposals before starting work. If the authority has no objection, or if agreement is reached on modifications, the work could then go ahead. If there is disagreement which cannot be resolved the agricultural departments will be brought in. Grant would be payable on condition that the farmers had done so. The departments' staff will offer advice, as they do now, to try to help farmers with any problems and to try to achieve compromises acceptable to both parties. If agreement was not possible Ministers would have to decide in principle whether, if the work

1517
were done and grant claimed, they would have to reject the claim. I wish to emphasise this. The farmer would be told of this decision. If he decided to proceed without waiting for it he would be told that grant would be at risk, and that Ministers would base their decision on the situation applying before the commencement of the work. In claiming grant applicants will have to sign a declaration that they have considered conservation aspects and consulted the appropriate authority where necessary. Applicants who cannot make the declaration or who make a false one would have grant withheld or indeed recovered.
In our consideration of the representations made to us we have reviewed how best to assist the authorities, which would be notified under this procedure, to assess the environmental implications of proposals sent to them. In England and Wales we have decided to make available to them a suitably qualified and experienced ADAS officer on a regular weekly basis. He will help the authority to decide whether any proposal is likely to give rise to difficulties on conservation grounds and will be ready to visit the fanner concerned to give him advice on how to overcome them. Arrangements will be made in Scotland for similar contacts.
I really cannot see that these proposals should give cause for concern to anyone. The procedure is essentially what is, or should be, done now by farmers, although the prior approval arrangements have meant that informally on receiving an application for prior approval for work affecting a conservation area we have made contact with the body concerned as a check. But there is no reason why this informal check should be necessary.
Summing up, therefore, about these anxieties, I can assure your Lordships that the agriculture departments' intentions are to co-operate both with applicants and conservation bodies. There will be those who maintain that even this is not enough, but I believe that given the existing arrangements and the co-operation which exists now there is no reason why these arrangements I have outlined should not work in the future. It is certainly our intention to see that they do work.
1518
It has been claimed that the new arrangements represent a withdrawal by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from his acceptance of the main recommendation in the report of the Advisory Council on Agriculture and Horticulture in their report—widely known as the Strutt Report —Agriculture and the Countryside. This is not true. His commitment to the extension of the role of ADAS in countryside matters remains. ADAS can develop its work on conservation matters in England and Wales to the extent that resources can be made available. As I said earlier, one beneficial effect of the new grant arrangements will be to reduce the administration burdens on advisory staff. Some of the savings which result are being "ploughed back" to increase the capacity of ADAS for giving advice and assistance on both agriculture and conservation matters.
One criticism of the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme concerned tile amount of time it took to get development plans and subsequent variations approved. We are proposing to simplify the administrative procedures relating to development plans under the new arrangements. Farmers will he free to start work, if they so wish, as soon as they have established their eligibility; they will not have to wait until their development plan has been approved. But grant cannot be paid until then. In addition, they will be free to propose variations at any time and to start work on variations, but they will be considered and the plan varied, if necessary, only once a year.
Subject to approval of these orders we propose to bring the new administrative arrangements into operation on 1st October. Thereafter the existing schemes will be closed to applications. I should, however, explain to the House the arrangements which we propose to adopt in this transitional period. There are legal constraints on how far the requirements of the present schemes can be set aside, but we will not insist that in this transitional period applicants must observe all the requirements of the existing schemes.
Farmers and growers who have applied under present Farm and Horticulture Capital Grant Schemes will be able, if they wish, to go ahead without prior approval and claim grant under the new scheme.

1519
If, however, they still want prior approval they will have to tell us and we will deal with their application accordingly. Applicants who have not so far applied under these schemes but want to undertake work with prior approval must submit an application before 1st October and advise us that they want prior approval. Applicants under the present Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme must have their development plans approved before they claim grant. However, after the plan has been submitted they may go ahead without prior approval if they wish. Where applicants decided to go ahead without prior approval under existing schemes they will be required to follow the procedure for clearing their proposals in environmentally sensitive areas.
As I have said earlier, I realise that the new arrangements will not command universal approval with all the bodies that we consulted. That, I fear, is unavoidable. But I believe that what we are proposing represents a great step forward for both farmers and departments. It is the result of careful study and deliberation, long experience, lengthy consultation and a willingness to take account of the points which were put to us. It is part of this Government's policy to reduce bureaucracy and to let people take decisions about running their own businesses without official interference. After all, the farmer in most cases is putting up the greater part of the investment himself. That is what our proposals are about, by giving more freedom to farmers who are themselves best able to decide their investment intentions. We think that these proposals achieve that. My Lords, I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th July be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
4.33 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Earl has suggested that we should debate the first four orders and my Prayer against one order—which otherwise would not have been subject to debate, because it was subject only to a Negative Resolution procedure—in one block, which I am sure will be for the convenience of the House. I hope,
1520
therefore, that I shall be able to speak not only to the order which the noble Earl has moved, hut, as he did, to the entire package, including the order against which I have a Prayer on the Order Paper.
I speak, as I am sure will most noble Lords who will take part in the debate, as someone who is a farmer and who is also involved in a number of nature conservation organisations. It seems to me that the almost unique—although, thankfully, not unique—achievement of the Government in producing this scheme has been to unite parties, which are on many occasions not united, in their opposition to the Government's proposals.
I should like to begin by suggesting to the noble Earl that, from a farmers' point of view, things will certainly not be as simple and as straightforward and easy as he tended to suggest in the remarks that he made when introducing the order. It seems to me that all of this hinges on the precise contents of the explanatory leaflet. Until your Lordships have a chance to see that, it is really quite impossible to make any judgment about whether what the Government are saying is right.
In any event it must be the case that either the explanatory leaflet is so detailed and precise that the idea, as the noble Earl suggested, that farmers would have greater freedom in their investment decisions is simply a charade, because the leaflet takes them in very precise detail through every step; or, if the leaflet is not that precise in that detail, then farmers will be left with some areas of uncertainty, areas where they are not quite clear whether they will get a grant, how much discretion they have about, for example, the materials to be used in the building and so on. So it does not seem to me, despite the fact that we have not seen this leaflet, that the Government can have it both ways. They must be losing and wrong on one count or the other.
It seems to me, for example, that a working farmer who is making an investment, a major investment which involves, for example, the erection of a building, would go to a specialist, to an agent to a building firm and ask them to prepare the plans. As would be the case now generally, that agent or building firm would arrange with the appropriate authorities to ensure that prior approval was available.

1521
Presumably in the future the working farmer will simply go to the same people and ask them to ensure that the explanatory leaflet is complied with. He will then have the building or whatever erected and pay a large sum of money, only to be told by ADAS: "Oh! well, the building firm missed one paragraph at the bottom of the explanatory leaflet, which we admit, as it was written by officials, is not unambiguously worded", and the farmer will be the loser. How the Government can guarantee that that will not happen on numerous occasions is simply beyond me.
A case of which I have had experience recently concerns farmers in many areas of the country who wish to put up buildings which will blend with the surroundings or the traditional buildings on their farms. Those are difficult cases under the existing procedure. It is necessary to get prior approval, but also to get some exceptional approvals if, for example, the farmer wishes to use slates on a roof rather than asbestos sheeting. That is but one example of the many areas where farmers would wish to have some variation from the standard building, the standard scheme, the standard investment or whatever it is.
It seems to me quite impossible, unless this explanatory leaflet and booklet is to be several thousand pages long and extraordinarily detailed, for all those types of exceptional, personal decisions by farmers to be covered. In all those exceptional personal cases the farmer will have absolutely no certainty at all that he will get a grant.
Finally, it seems extraordinary for the noble Earl to say that farmers are actually being given more freedom. As noble Lords involved in farming will know—for a farmer to make a major investment with a large amount of capital tends, at the best of times, to be a tricky business and the returns, compared to the money invested, to be relatively low. That is particularly the case at the moment with high interest rates. In future farmers will not only have to make these decisions bearing in mind the risks that the new operation, whatever it will be, involves them in the dangers of world markets changing, and prices collapsing or whatever; but also in some cases, it seems to me, the substantial risk that grant aid will not be actually payable once the
1522
investment is completed and the whole of the economic calculations on which the investments were based will become absolutely null and void. What the noble Earl expects a farmer to do when a new fattening unit simply gets pulled down again because grant was not payable and so on, I do not know. It seems to me that it is not giving farmers any freedom, except the freedom to take an enormous risk, and a risk at the hands of an explanatory leaflet, or the interpretation of an explanatory leaflet, which noble Lords have not yet seen.
The noble Earl said that the Government had had extensive consultations and that they had not been able to satisfy everyone. I should like to suggest to him that in fact the Government have not been able to satisfy anyone. There has been unanimous opposition to the Government's proposals. As I have said, the Government have succeeded in uniting farming, environmental and conservation interests against these particular proposals. The NFU has said that farmers will be investing large sums in farm improvements arid running
"much higher risks than at present of not receiving grants".
Many smaller farmers, who rely very heavily on grant aid to finance their essential farm improvements, could be deterred from undertaking such improvements at all, surely to the detriment not only of those individual farmers but of the farming industry and the interests of this country as a whole.
The Council for the Preservation of Rural England—not very often quoted as being in complete accord with the NFU—has said that the scheme will create clashes of interest between farmers and conservationists and will have a damaging effect on landscape conservation. The Exmoor Society, which has a particular interest in the Exmoor National Park—as regards which the noble Earl has said particular arrangements will be made, and one might therefore expect it to be slightly less opposed to the proposals than some other amenity and conservation bodies—has said that the special arrangements for national parks are, in its view, inadequate and will leave both farmers and conservationists in the dark; whereas what is needed is a measure of certainty, something which I am sure will be echoed by

1523
farmers in that area as well as by conservationists. The society points out that:
"the Ministry's proposals would involve the National Park Authority in having to approve many minor farm capital projects,"
which, far from being a saving in manpower, would be:
"…a waste of time, energy and manpower".
The Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation—the body which represents all the county naturalist trusts in this country—is strongly opposed to these proposals and points out that this has united farming and conservation organisations, and says that:
"…the proposals should be withdrawn and substantially modified"
along the lines which the National Farmers' Union has proposed. So not only is the opposition to these proposals unanimous, but the suggested alternative from both farmers and conservationists is agreed.
In addition, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have said that:
"…the proposals will in no way assist the conservation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and that they will have a significantly harmful effect in the wider countryside".
Turning to the statutory bodies, the Countryside Commission has said that:
"The proposed arrangements would…lead to a reversal of the progress made in improving the design and siting of buildings"
in the countryside—something I am sure that all noble Lords welcome—and that it would also lead to a reversal in securing concern for wildlife and improving the conservation of the landscape.
As noble Lords will have seen, some Questions for Written Answer were put down by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, about various aspects of these orders, including one which asked about the views of the Nature Conservancy Council. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys—whom I am glad to see is present—provided an answer, which I must say was, frankly, not the whole story, to put it mildly. The Written Answer said that the Nature Conservancy Council:
"…have endorsed the arrangements agreed at official level on safeguards for Sites of Special Scientific Interest".
As I say, I do not find that the whole
1524
story because, in fact, the Nature Conservancy Council has said that these proposals:
"…will lead to the accelerated destruction of wildlife habitats throughout the country".
It points out, as has been pointed out by many other people, that there is nothing to be gained from a nature conservation point of view in withholding grant after the nature conservation interest has been destroyed.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for listing in such detail the views of a number of outside organisations, but it seems to me to be important to stress that these proposals have been very carefully considered in a great deal of detail by a number of organisations from different camps, and the unanimous view is that your Lordships' House should reject the orders and ensure that the existing grant schemes remain in being until the Government can rethink their proposals.
I think that it is just worth spending a few moments looking at why there is such unanimity among so many diverse organisations. It is no secret that there are many different points of view on the desirability of there being greater or less control over agriculture and agricultural developments in this country. As I say, opinions on that matter differ widely, and quite strongly on occasions. But what is I think agreed by everyone—by farmers, conservationists, environmentalists and so on—is that there are many farming operations where the only people who are likely to influence the farmer are those who are in regular contact, those who are accepted and trusted by the farming community; and those people undoubtedly must be ADAS officers. As the noble Earl mentioned, this was the point of view put forward in the Strutt Report.
It seems to me that the Strutt Report cannot be implemented—and it has been accepted by this Government in principle, as it was by the last—without ADAS playing a major role in giving advice to farmers on both farming and conservation matters. It is true that should these orders go through and should the Strutt Report be implemented, ADAS would be able to continue to give advice on such matters as when dykes should be cleared, minor farming matters, questions of

1525
rotation, spraying and so on, and would be able to take conservation interests into account in giving such advice.
However, it seems to me to be a complete negation of all that the Strutt Report was about and all that the consensus which has gathered round the Strutt Report's proposals was about to suggest that that is sufficient. If ADAS is not able to play a role in looking at major developments—ents which inevitably have a major impact upon the countryside: major drainage developments, major buildings, and so on—and if ADAS is not present before those schemes are carried out and able to give advice, the whole of the Strutt Report might as well be chucked into the wastepaper basket. That is what I would suggest to your Lordships would be the effect of agreeing to these orders today.
It also seems to me that it is not the case that the Government would be able to take full account of Section 11 of the Countryside Act if they implement these proposals, because they will have to say that they are implementing Section 11 simply by not giving grant once something that was scientifically important or important for some other reason has already been destroyed. That is what agreeing with Section 11 and following it amounts to. It seems to me a strange interpretation of Parliament's decision when it passed Section 11 that the Government should preside over the destruction of things which Section 11 lays a duty on them to preserve, and should say that they are following Section 11 in the legal spirit of it simply by not giving a grant once that destruction has taken place.
I think that I should say a few words about the fact that I have put down a Prayer against an order, which is not a usual procedure in your Lordships' House, although it is not an unheard of procedure, and explain why, although it has not been done very often, I suggest that your Lordships' House should divide against the order which the Prayer affects and, indeed, against the other orders which are part of this package.
Two points need to be made. First, it is the normal practice—and this has been my understanding for many years, certainly long before I was a Member of this House—that controversial orders are
1526
normally taken in this House after they have been considered by another place. I know that various matters—which, no doubt, were not entirely foreseen by the Government—have led to this House considering these orders before they are considered in another place. Nevertheless, that seems to me to lift any obligation which your Lordships might feel to follow the decision of another place, which is the usual practice when orders are debated and divided against here, because we simply do not know what the decision of the other place might be when they come to consider the orders.
There have, of course, previously been Divisions on Prayers against an order subject to a Negative Resolution. Certainly since I have been in your Lordships' House there has been one moved by the father of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It was not entirely a good precedent from my point of view because it was not successfully moved; the Division was lost. Nevertheless, it was significant that that particular Prayer was opposed from all sides of the House, and it is my belief that this particular Prayer and the opposition to these orders, in fact, have support from all sides of the House.
I should like to conclude by looking, briefly, at the sort of argument which the Government are deploying in suggesting to your Lordships that this order should be approved and that the other orders should be approved. As the noble Earl has made clear, this is about saving jobs. That is the basis of the operation. It was not an investigation undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, but by Sir Derek Rayner. The object is to reduce the number of public servants—not a policy, as will be no surprise, with which those of us on this side of the House, agree. Nevertheless, it is the Government's policy, and it would be fair to your Lordships to take that on its merits even if one does not agree with it.
As I understand it, it is not possible to suggest to the Government that they should save money in some other way rather than by reducing the role that ADAS plays. They could quite easily make savings in the payment of capital grants and the level of grants; a very small adjustment would be needed to save the amount of money that would be saved as a result of these orders going

1527
through, But that is of no interest to the Government; it must be a certain number of jobs or nothing. Perhaps we could look at that argument.
It seems to me that what is being asked of your Lordships' House is an equivalent of this. The Government come along and say that in a particular area of the country they wish to close some motorways—100 miles of motorway—that has to be lost. There is no question of looking for savings elsewhere in transport or of increasing any charges for transport; that does not interest them. They have a policy to close 100 miles of motorway in an area of the country, and in the areas supervised by MAFF they want their pound of flesh. One then suggests to the Government that maybe it would be important to look outside this particular area, because obviously the motorway network covers the whole country. One cannot simply close a motorway in one area without it having some implications elsewhere. In this case these orders have very considerable implications for many other bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council and the voluntary organisations, all of whom are desperately pushed for staff, time and people. But the Government say, "No, we have no interest. If we are giving extra work to other people, whether public servants or volunteers, that does not bother us. We must have 100 miles of motorway closed here". That seems to me to be unfair to the other organisations concerned.
One then says to the Government, "This may well cause chaos. If you simply look for the closure of 100 miles of motorway without taking anything else into consideration, you are going to cause great confusion and chaos. People are not going to understand your new administrative booklet, farmers are not going to know what is going to happen to them. A whole host of other ill effects will happen, including the difficulty that farmers will face in contacting nature conservation organisations to get the prior approval which they still have to get when nature conservation organisations cannot at the moment do the work that is placed upon them.
But the Government say, "That is no interest to us. As long as we close
1528
100 miles of motorway in this area, that is all we are concerned with," It seems to me that it is slightly irresponsible of Government Ministers responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture not to have taken rather more consideration of the implications of these proposals for others in the local authority sector, the voluntary sector and other statutory organisations.
Finally, one might say to the Government, "Simply closing 100 miles of motorway without affecting the flow of traffic will not actually achieve any saving in manpower at all" This is certainly the criticism made of these proposals by the National Farmers' Union, who suggest that the changes that the Government are proposing will not effect the savings that the Government have claimed for them. The NFU have a greater expertise in this field than I, but it seems to me that that is a consideration to which the Government have not paid nearly enough attention.
I suppose the Government might say in response to this analogy, if they accepted it at all, "We are not simply closing 100 miles of motorway. That would be foolish. All we are doing is closing the slow lane of the motorway in this area. We are speeding the procedures up, we are allowing it to be simplified, and everyone will go a bit faster". And that was much as the noble Earl suggested to your Lordships. But that is simply not true, because a number of farmers will still be stuck in the slow lane—those affected by sites of special scientific interest, national parks, and so on. Indeed, their lane will get a good deal slower if those whom they have to consult and get approval for simply do not have the staff to respond.
One of the major objections from the farming community is that the Government are making two classes of farmer, some having a totally different and more onerous burden placed upon them than others. It seems to me that what the Government are doing is closing the hard shoulder. They are closing something which is extremely important in the event of accidents. If it is not there when something goes slightly wrong, if somebody misreads the instructions and goes slightly too fast or a bit more slowly than he is meant to, if the hard shoulder is not there to bail them out a very serious accident results.

1529
It seems to me, furthermore, that the Government have actually accepted this, because they have said—and I quote from a Written Answer given in another place by the Minister, Mr. Wiggin—that, in considering claims for grant, they will have regard to conservation and,
"reserve the right to reject a claim relating to an investment which has seriously damaged the countryside including its flora and fauna".
Two immediate objections come to mind as a farmer and conservationist. First of all as a conservationist, if the flora and fauna have already been destroyed it is not very much use to anybody the Government turning round and saying, "You have done this terrible thing. We are not going to give you any grant" But as a farmer having done this would undoubtedly, as the noble Earl said, in the great majority, if not all, cases have done so by accident and not intentionally —because I certainly agree with him as a farmer that farmers do not go around destroying the countryside at will—it is going to seem extremely unfair, not to say criminal, that he is then left with a major investment upon which no grant aid is paid.
That point seems to me to sum up beautifully the reason for the overwhelming opposition to these orders by both farmers and conservation interests. It seems to me that if your Lordships' House wants to prevent very serious accidents occuring both to the farming interests and to the nature conservationist interests in this country, it will vote against these orders and ensure that the existing grant aid scheme, which has worked well for both the farming and the conservation community, will remain in place until the Government have had another think about these proposals.
4.55 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, before discussing the order I should like to associate myself and these Benches with the good wishes to be sent to Lord Ferrers for a speedy resolution to his troubles. When I came to look at this order first of all I said, "Well, it is all right. It is the Government trying to save money." It appealed to my Scottish heart. I said, "Of course people will beef a bit, but why should not farmers take the responsibility? They can read as
1530
well as other people, and if they make a mistake they will lose the money".
Then, the conservationists: "Well, we all know what they are" I said to myself. "The order will be all right. It will go through, and I will agree with it." But I must say that when I started to look at the order, I came to a different conclusion. It is extraordinary, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, the unanimity of opposition all over the place to this order. Even in the Liberal Party, who are not normally as united as some monolithic bodies, we are at one in our attitude, although I may say that it is for quite different reasons.
Taking the straightforward farming case, I think that in these times any change like this is probably a bad one. This is a conservative sort of thing to say, but we are in very bad times indeed in the farming industry on the livestock side. The people who really require to become more efficient, to get a larger income to carry more stock, and so on, are the livestock people in the hills and on the plains.
I think they will look very carefully at spending their money, because it is mostly their money they are spending. I would think that confidence plays a big part in all investment, and if there is the slightest doubt whether they will get a grant then it is more than likely that this investment will not be made.
The other thing which I have noticed myself on many occasions is that I have thought of applying for a grant, and when I have started to discuss it I have found that so little do the regulations agree with my frugal soul in not allowing me to use secondhand material that I think perfectly reasonable, that I have frequently gone ahead with improvement without applying for a grant because I consider I can build as good a shed, or whatever it might be, without complying with the number of regulations laid down. If a farmer, as a practical farmer, is doing an improvement, he may well think it perfectly reasonable to use first class secondhand material which may be prohibited. People do not read the same small print as much as they are supposed to, and I think that, taken on the whole, it will be a had thing for most farmers if the pre-recognition, pre-approval, is dropped. I am pretty sure of that.

1531
I am not sure whether the department is going to save a lot of money. After all, most of the applications will be under the Farming and Horticultural Scheme—at least I think most of them will; I hope the Minister will tell us—and under this scheme you have to have the scheme approved before you start. If the scheme is approved I cannot believe that it will be a lot of extra work to approve the individual schemes as they come forward. Furthermore, it is true that if the department inspectors are going to look at the projects after they are finished, they will have to take a very much harder look at them after they are finished if they have not had the approval starting when half the work at least will have been done. I really cannot see that it will save a lot. I know that there has been a departmental investigation. It may transfer a lot of the work onto the shoulders of farmers and other bodies, but apart from that I cannot see it really saving a tremendous amount of work, taken on the whole.
From the purely farming point of view I think that the dropping of the approval, the pre-approval, is a bad move. I think that the party opposite, the Government, should be conservative on this and leave it as it is, because the farming industry is in no case to take experiment. That is the main point which people are against.
When we come to conservation and the countryside, I say at once as a farmer that I am all for conservation; I like to live in a nice countryside and I am as capable of appreciating beauty as the chap out for a run in his motor car from the great city on a Sunday afternoon. While many conservationists are extremely sensible people, there are a large number of nuts among the conservation groups, and to allow them into direct contact with farmers is asking for trouble. I can imagine some of my neighbours and friends when faced with a demand from some group that because the lesser crested brown tit was known to nest in an area in 1872 and again in 1923, the farmer should not plough up that area and make it carry another 50 head of cattle. That sort of thing is not apt to endear conservationists to the farming population. One could multiply the sort of irritations that may arise—they could of course arise on both sides; farmers could irritate the
1532
societies perhaps even more than the societies could irritate the farmers—and I am sure that if we had such societies in, for example, Holland when they were erecting the windmills which were such a great feature of the countryside there, there would have been an outcry against spoiling the line of the horizon by erecting what would have been described as dreadful windmills which made an awful noise as they ground round and round.
There is a strong case for not interfering too much with the practical aspects of farming, and if there is to be—and I agree there must be—some interference, it should be done by skilled people. There is no doubt that the farmer will listen to practical reasons put forward by a member of ADAS without any trouble because after all he will give them some money. But if the farmer comes into direct negotiation with a conservation group then, in the words of Mr. Enoch Powell, rivers of blood may flow throughout the countryside. On the two main issues the Government should leave well alone, otherwise this is a recipe for anarchy. I hope the Prayer will succeed.
5.3 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I speak for CoEnCo, whose members on its council and committees represent virtually all the non-government conservation organisations in this country. We have all been very worried about these regulations, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, quoted the comments of some of my members. So worried were we that I went with Lord Melchett, who is the chairman of CoEnCo's wildlife committee, to see the Parliamentary Secretary. It was a most unsatisfactory meeting and we came away even more worried than we were when we went in.
These regulations have, in my view, been most ineptly handled from the beginning. The Ministry must have been in no doubt about the universal worries and fears caused by them since March, when we were able to read the consultation document issued in February. Since then there has been more pressure than I can remember in any similar case. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, it takes a real crisis for the conservation bodies and farmers to act together in harmony. As a result of all this costly

1533
and time-consuming pressure, I learn that the grant proceedings have been modified, but, from what I understood of my noble friend's remarks, that has not met any of our objections. Furthermore, so far as I am aware there have been none of the discussions between, and advance information to, the bodies concerned that are normal in matters of this kind. We got the message for the first time today, and we take it or leave it.
I still believe that the effect of the regulations will be to limit the obligations under Section 11 of the Countryside Act to geographical locations. In 80 per cent. of the countryside, areas of irreplaceable value to the nation will be lost forever. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, gave an example, and I take this from the National Farmers' Union: unless the farmer seeks the Ministry's advice before asking, work will be done which cannot be undone, grant or no grant. The only excuse, or reason, we shall be able to give to posterity will be that it saved 400 civil servants.
The Government have embarked on a financial course with which I agree. I do not support special pleading, even in this case. When we saw the Parliamentary Secretary we were told that, if we did not agree with this, something worse would befall; but we were not told what it was. I wish I could believe that MAAF had tried their very hardest in find another way out of this problem and had failed. The dilemma is that we just cannot, without a struggle, lose or risk the loss of irreplaceable and precious bits of Britain, and these also exist outside the so-called sensitive areas; so what are we to do about it?
There is a solution to this difficulty, and I state now a personal view. We do not have any problem in protecting buildings of special architectural or historic interest; under Part IV of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 we list them and it is then an offence to work on them without consent. Should we not follow the pattern and precedent of that Act and, with due regard to doing only what is practicable and sensible—and not against the spirit and best interests of the farming community—take powers to list a spot that must survive and put a site preservation order on it?
1534
We may soon have the opportunity to do just that and to enact such powers by amendment of the Wildlife and Country-side Bill. We have not yet seen the Bill, but about its provisions the Department of the Environment have had meaningful and constructive negotiations, which have been so absent in the case of these regulations. If, when we see the Bill, an amendment such as I envisage is in order —and if your Lordships support me—the regulations we are now discussing, and which we so dislike, may have forced the nation to take the step of listing in the way I have described. That step, when taken, would clear up once and for all this dangerous and unsatisfactory part of our rural scene, because, before adding the losses in sites of special scientific interest and so on that these regulations will cause, we are now losing every year to damage or disturbance some 4 per cent. of the 3,860 sites of special scientific interest, which is all that we have left.
5.9 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I have listened as best one can in this rather difficult Chamber to my noble friends Lord Mansfield and Lord Melchett, to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend and ex-colleague Lord Craigton. I am bound to admit that I find it a little difficult to understand most of the arguments that have been put forward. May I start in reverse order, as it were, and refer to my noble friend Lord Craigton? He and I were in the Scottish Office together, and while he was mainly concerned with the town administration, I was more directly concerned with the land. That was perhaps quite proper, because for my sins, or for whatever reason, for the last 50 years I have had the pleasure, the difficulty, the frustration and the excitement of trying to develop a type of land very different from that owned by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
However be that as it may, my noble friend Lord Craigton seemed to me to be talking without any kind of relation to what has actually been happening over the last years, and indeed up to the last few months, because there has been no system by which anyone could prevent a farmer doing with his land more or less whatever he wished, other than the knowledge that, if it were not approved,

1535
he would not receive the grant. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, brought to your Lordships' attention. He said that very often he did exactly that because it was a bore conforming with all the rules and regulations apt to be issued from Government departments.
If in the past farmers have been able to put the plough into unsuitable places, and do things which, from a strict conservationist point of view, they should not do, then I quite see that there is some reason to look at the whole problem, if your Lordships so wish. But to say that this particular order alters in a dangerous way what has happened in the past, is in my view dangerous nonsense; it does not.
I turn to the second point. My noble friend Lord Craigton said that work will be done that cannot be undone. Well, of course it may; it always has been the case, and is likely always to be so, whatever rules and regulations exist. What we must do is try to educate our farming community, and indeed our countryside community, including foresters and others —we are not all farmers—to the fact that they must pay more attention to conservationists when they are talking sense; not to all conservationists at all times. That we must do. I tried to listen carefully to what my noble friend Lord Mansfield told us at the beginning of the debate, and that is exactly what is to happen. Farmers will have to sign a declaration stating that they have consulted the proper authorities for conservancy problems. This has never happened in the past. It is new and, as I see it, will be a very real benefit to the conservationist theory.
No, my Lords: in at least my part of Scotland—and of course I cannot speak for everywhere else—an enormous amount of time and effort is wasted. We do not have ADAS. We have what is perhaps a better system; I do not know whether it is better, but it is a different system. An enormous amount of time is wasted in people travelling often hundreds of miles in order to look at something and approve it. I have seen this happen very regularly over certainly the last 40 years. Quite often an unfortunate officer arrives and asks "Where are all these fences?"
1536
since most of us in the hills are engaged in draining, fencing and reseeding. The officer says, "I have to be back in Oban in an hour and a half". Well, Oban is two hours' drive away from me, in the summer, if one does not hurry. I say, "Well you have 17 miles of fences to go round and look at". "Oh, Lord!" he says, "I had better do it on the map". Now, what a waste of time, money, effort and scarce petrol!
If what we have been told is true—and I have no reason to doubt it—to the effect that ADAS in England and the agricultural colleges in Scotland are as much available as they always have been in order for one to go to them if in any doubt as to whether one's scheme is sensible, and so obtain approval and advice, and if the people who work in ADAS and in the agricultural colleges have taken away from their ordinary everyday existence as it is at present a great many hours of purely bureaucratic and, I believe, wasted effort, then these orders—and what I have described is all that they are doing —are to be most thoroughly commended.
5.15 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, before I say a few words may I declare my interest in that I am a member of the NFU and an ex-chairman and president of the CLA for the county from which I come. I should like to put forward what I regard as a somewhat important view of this matter from my part of the world, Devon. We take great exception to having to consult the appropriate body before starting work. In the county of Devon—and I say this with apologies to my old friend Lord Foot; and I see that there are other Members of your Lordships' House who realise the point here—we have in the past been somewhat afflicted by what are known as the conservation or preservation lobbies, of which some of your Lordships are aware.
The only defence that we have had against these extremist bodies has been provided by the agricultural organisations that we have had in the past, and I am concerned if such organisations are to be abolished and we are to be put in the hands of these extremist people who oppose, for example, the planting of a tree on what my old map refers to as a forest.

1537
This will make life very difficult for the farmer, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I happen to be a farmer.
If anyone seeking a grant in an area of outstanding natural beauty or at a site of special scientific interest must first consult these bodies, rather than a recognised agricultural organisation, it will be more than difficult for a farmer to carry on his job. No one—least of all the farmers of this country—is against conservation as such. I shall not bore your Lordships by mentioning the number of things that I have done in that line; I am sure that every farmer and landowner in your Lordships' House has done such things over the years. If there is to be a requirement that the appropriate conservation body must be consulted before work is started, then agricultural development will he put back a century.
I believe that we ought to retain the organisation in which there was someone who could hold the balance between the conservation bodies (as they are referred to) and the agricultural bodies; otherwise farming development will be stultified, and no one will bother to put in for a grant if he is to encounter these extremists holding things up. I have the support of the NFU in my county and of the CLA in saying that we object to this proposal in particular. We are all for saving money and for that sort of thing, but we are concerned about the question of having to preconsult the bodies which for years, especially in our part of the world, have definitely been anti-agriculture.
5.19 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I rise because of my interest in the Strutt Report, and of course I want to support the Prayer moved by my noble friend Lord Melchett. Some of your Lordships will remember that on 21st March last year I introduced a debate on the Strutt Report. A large number of Members of your Lordships' House spoke in that debate and, with only minor exceptions, the proposals made by the Strutt Committee were widely accepted and indeed welcomed. I can only say in opening that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Melchett when he says that the proposals which are now being put to us by the Government drive a coach and
1538
horses through pretty well every recommendation made by the Strutt Committee. Indeed, we could well think that we wasted many months of time, and that when the report was completed and printed we might just as well have thrown it on the fire.
I shall confine myself, as I think one should this evening, to just one or two aspects of the proposals before us, and its consequences. The whole tenor of the Strutt Report, and indeed our whole objective throughout the time we were working on it, was to produce machinery to bring town and country together. I have never believed that there has been a great battle going on between town and country. I was an agricultural worker, and I am now a townsman. I understand the country and I understand townspeople. But what we sought to do was to provide machinery whereby bridges could be built where there were misunderstandings between the agricultural interests, on the one hand, and the conservation and amenity interests, on the other.
We thought that much more needed to be done by the Ministry itself to help enhance that procedure. We have already been told, as indeed we all know, that the Ministry of Agriculture and other agricultural departments have a duty under the Countryside Act 1968:
"…to have regard to the desirability of conserving natural beauty and the amenity of the countryside".
As things are now, the system of prior approval (where the agreement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is required before a scheme is implemented) for capital grant-aided works allows practical conservation advice to be incorporated in any scheme. The present Government's proposals, announced in the press release of 2nd July, suggests replacing the prior approval procedure by retrospective payment, and a considerably reduced role for the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. It is on that point that I feel so very sore, because I believe that the officers of ADAS have a great part to play in bringing about understanding between town and country by giving farmers adequate and appropriate advice, both on their technical problems and on their conservation and amenity problems.

1539
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote a paragraph or two from the Strutt Report. They say:
"It is plain to us"—
that is, to the Strutt Committee—
"that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must in future take a wider view of countryside affairs, extending well beyond the obligation 'to have regard to' natural beauty and amenity. The Ministry should take on a more active and positive role, and openly assume a greater responsibility for landscape and wildlife conservation".
I am sure we would all agree with that. They go on to say, in the next paragraph:
"Greater provision of more expert advice is perhaps the most important single need. ADAS is uniquely fitted to undertake this in that it has close contact with the industry and has the confidence of farmers. In our view, and in that of many who gave evidence, it is the organisation best capable of expeditiously promoting conservation across a wide spectrum of farmers and landowners. At farm level, with these new responsibilities, ADAS would be able to integrate its conservation advice with that on technical and economic matters".
Then we went on to make specific recommendations to the Minister. One was that the Ministry should
"…take on wider responsibility for promoting wildlife and landscape conservation in the countryside, this to be reflected in its advisory, promotional, statutory and regulatory work".
Another was that
"the advisory and promotional role of ADAS be extended to include landscape and nature conservation, and provision made for the training of existing staff and, if necessary, the recruitment of specialist staff".
Then, that
"landscape and wildlife conservation criteria be built into the relevant Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grant-aided schemes, where approriate, as conditions of eligibility and provision be sought for paying grants to farmers and landowners for certain conservation works".
Then, finally, that the ADAS man should
"use his good offices to encourage many more farmers and landowners to enter into landscape and wildlife conservation agreements, with rates of compensation which realistically reflect any related"
disability or disbenefit to the farmer.
Personally, having spent so many years studying the problem, I cannot emphasise too strongly the admiration and respect for ADAS officers which farmers and countrypeople as a whole have. They see them, not only as expert technical advisers but as true friends; and they would clearly be the best people to advise farmers on
1540
matters concerning conservation and amenity. Quite apart from all that, it is saddening to know that their role is to be reduced.
Because people knew I was a member of the Strutt Committee, I have been sent a number of letters by the amenity and conservation interests. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been mentioned already, and they, like me, are emphatic in their belief that the new procedure will accelerate the erosion of the wildlife fabric of the countryside; that it does not satisfy the agriculture departments' obligations under the Countryside Act; and that it will needlessly sharpen the conflict between the farming community and the public at large. The public at large do not wish to see a countryside devoid of scenic or natural history interest.
I accept, and the society accepts, that it is only right that the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the other agriculture departments, should be carefully assessed and wise economies made, but we are not convinced that the new scheme is the best use of the resources available. The Royal Society has consulted closely with the National Farmers' Union on these matters, and the National Farmers' Union, too, do not like many of the proposals that are being made. They do not wish to have this division of farmers' obligations to consult or to go ahead without prior consultation. They would rather have the scheme as it now exists, whereby consultation, and prior consultation, has to take place. The Strutt Committee recommended that a call-back to the Minister should be made even more strict. We suggested that the 10-acre requirement should be reduced to five. Again, what these proposals are recommending is completely contrary to that idea.
Among the people I have heard from are some very small societies, not only the large ones. For example, I had a letter from the Green Belt Council for Greater London, who are equally concerned on exactly the same points; and, coming right down to my own locality, I have had a letter from the Nazeing Conservation Society. My noble friend Lord Melchett was absolutely right when he told the House that there is a clear consensus of opinion about these proposals.

1541
They are disliked; they are going to be detrimental to what I believe to be the best interests of farming and the interests of the community as a whole. We want people brought together and a facility made for them to be so, and we believe that ADAS are the best people to do that job.
5.30 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, it is not my debate so noble Lords can follow me. May I say that I am pleased that we have debated this and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Melchett for raising the question. It is an important matter and, as I thought there would be, there were varying views from all parts of the House. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Collison has said. He was a distinguished member of the Strutt Committee and, not only that, was a big farmworkers' leader. He comes forward today defending what is in reality a document basically produced (which people forget) by the National Farmers' Union which is anxious that we should reject these orders. There is no question about where the National Farmers' Union and the farmers stand. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, whom I respect, that when he talks about Devon and about extremist bodies, I would not call the Council for the Protection of Rural England, for example, an extremist body. There are some good conservation bodies—and some wild ones, as we know—but the farming community has always respected the bodies which are positive and helpful.
May I say on conservation, in company with other official agencies—and this is in a document of the NFU—that the Minister of Agriculture has a duty under Section 11 of the Countryside Act to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and the amenity of the countryside. In the past, the farming community has been criticised for not doing enough to integrate conservation of objectives with the development of modern agriculture. In recent years it has been the conscious policy of the NFU to draw the attention of its members to the importance of taking proper account of conservation considerations in running their businesses wherever they farm. This policy has included the production of practical
1542
guidance on conservation matters for farmers and support for projects and research in this field. The document goes on to say:
"Relations between agricultural and conservation interests have probably never been better".
I can only say that when I was an Agriculture Minister (as were many noble Lords here) with others of the Scottish Office, we always took care about the preservation of the countryside. Most farmers like the countryside as much as the visitors like it. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was right. In my old constituency of Workington I had one of the larger parts of the Lake District. I know that the farming community in that part of Cumberland were always careful about farming and how not to affect the landscape. It is not true to say that the argument about conservation is on one side only.
I take the view that we must reject these orders. We reject the order in question because it fails to give a proper appreciation of the situation. The National Farmers' Union certainly have come out against the Government on this. All that I would say—and I do not want to make a long speech—is that I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Collison said; I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said; and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, that he can go on arguing with his colleagues and with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who I think made an excellent contribution. I am sorry to say that he was rather critical of the negotiations at the Ministry. I am rather surprised at that. However, he has put that on the record. MAFF, I believe, to do their best; and what is more important, the main people affected by this are ADAS and the advisory service.
I am suspicious of a Conservative Administration when they are in power. I do not think it happened at the time of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, but at a later period there was an attack on the advisory service. It had disastrous results. I believe that ADAS is an important body and I am sure that we have confidence in it, but, despite that, I believe that we shall be right to carry this Prayer and to divide against the order.

1543
I shall always remember that it was an Agriculture Minister who destroyed the rural development board which affected a major policy decision in the North of England. I set up that rural development board under legislation. At a later period a Conservative Minister of Agriculture came back in office and at a stroke destroyed something which was very positive for the farming community in the North of England. All that I am saying today is that I believe we should reject this order and that the Government should think again. This is not a party matter. I believe that noble Lords who are interested in conservation and in other matters, too, should reject this order and say to the Government: "Let MAFF look at this again and have another go".
5.36 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I do not believe that the Government should look again. I will explain why not. It has not been said yet, and it ought to be said, that the Minister of Agriculture should be given more credit than noble Lords seem to be willing to give him; that, at a time when the nation is in a tight corner economically, he is able to achieve for farmers the kind of level for grant aid for capital improvements which are proposed by these orders —even though the rates are lower than those which the agricultural industry have received in the past. According to the last figures that I have seen, the amount to be received by farmers for capital projects this year is no less than £170 million. I do not suppose that in money terms the amount for 1980–81 will be very much less.
I am always very conscious as a farmer when I am at the receiving end of a grant for some kind of capital improvement that it is coming out of some other taxpayer's pocket. This applies to the whole of the money paid out under the farm capital grants scheme, and to a very large proportion of the money paid out under the FHDS scheme, although some of the latter comes from the European fund. But even that 25 per cent. has a large British contribution in it in view of the amount that we pay to the EEC budget. This capital injection into our agricultural industry whose capacity for capital formation has always been acknowledged
1544
(and rightly so) by Government to be limited, is of immense value to our food producers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will agree with me on this. We should never forget that. My own view is that, in the light of the need to cut public expenditure and in order to save staff, we should accept that prior approval on capital improvement should no longer be a condition of grant aid being payable. What has worried me during the consultation period has been the Government proposal for procedure in the so-called environmentally sensitive areas.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, I have no objection whatsoever to the requirement that the appropriate authority, be it the National Parks Planning Department or the Nature Conservancy Council, must be consulted by a farmer when he wishes to carry out a scheme that will qualify for aid. What seemed to me to be quite wrong was that the Ministry's advisory officers were going to be called in only after a conflict had arisen between the agricultural and the conservation interests. Such a conflict is precisely what we all wish to avoid. We also wish to avoid a reluctance on the part of farmers to apply for grant aid if they think the procedure is too cumbersome; and if they think, as with justification they might well think, that it would pay them better to go ahead right away with an improvement scheme dispensing with grant aid rather than have the scheme held up by lengthy procedure resulting in the end in the work being more expensive to carry out. It would then be more difficult to ensure that a scheme was an acceptable one environmentally or in the conservation sense.
I know that Agriculture Ministers have been aware of these worries, and having now heard today the more detailed proposals for regulating procedure in the sensitive areas, my own view is these are certainly an improvement on those envisaged in the earlier consultation paper. I am now happy about the proposed involvement of the ADAS officers in the sensitive areas that can take place. So delays, misunderstandings and possible conflicts can be avoided. I find, from what I have heard, this procedure to be satisfactory.
Subject to certain assurances, I believe that the Government are right. The

1545
assurances that I would ask from my noble friend are these. First, the noble Earl referred to the role of the ADAS officer in national parks and SSSIs. Can he confirm that there is nothing whatever to stop a farmer in a sensitive area from consulting the ADAS officer for advice on a farm improvement scheme at any stage? It would seem very desirable that advice he sought not only on technical matters but on the conservation aspect right at the beginning. I am not referring to prior approval; I mean advice, which is what the advisory officers are there to give.
Secondly, the noble Earl told us that staff savings can be used to allow ADAS to give more conservation advice. Can he assure us that, notwithstanding the staff reductions that are proposed, there will be sufficient ADAS officers and staff in the sensitive areas to ease the consultation process? Thirdly, will he give me some assurance that he will bring to his right honourable friend's attention the fact that due to the lack of consultation and notification in the past by the Nature Conservancy Council, many farmers are still unaware that their land, or part of it, is designated as a site of scientific interest? Unless one knows that one has land in that category, one is unlikely to adopt the right procedure in future in respect of capital grant applications. I wonder whether my noble friend will reply to those points now?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I cannot intervene in the middle of the debate. I have carefully taken down what my noble friend has said. I will answer his points in due course, if I may.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I understand. I am sure that those assurances will be forthcoming. When they are I will not oppose these orders and I recommend noble Lords who have the interests of our farming industry at heart to vote with me for the Government.
5.44 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, this is not the first time that I have addressed your Lordships on agricultural matters. I have never before claimed to speak on behalf of or even with the agreement of
1546
the majority of farmers in this country; but I believe that today I can do so.
Not so very long ago, as some noble Lords who have spoken have already pointed out, there was a very strong antagonism between farmers and the conservationists. We were the people who got on and did the job and produced food as cheaply and as efficiently as we could. They were the people who got in our way and did not want us to take down the hedges; they did not want us to put up efficient buildings, and matters of that sort.
I am glad to say—and, again, other noble Lords have borne this out—that that attitude has almost entirely disappeared and today it is realised both by the farming community and conservationists that there is a very great harmony of interests between us; that we as farmers want to do all that we can to preserve and enhance the countryside, wildlife and the environmental aspect as a whole, and the conservationists and environmentalists want to do all that they can to help us as farmers to produce efficiently.
Why is that happening, my Lords? I believe that a very large part of the credit for it must go to the officials of ADAS who have taken on in the past few years the role not only of advising farmers how to farm, but also of explaining to them the importance of conservation and the environment and helping them to work out schemes where the two can be married safely together. That is an enormous advantage to all of us, whether as food producers or as those who enjoy the countryside.
These orders put that in jeopardy. No longer will there be ADAS officers specifically charged with the job of bringing together the production and conservation aspects of rural life. No longer will farmers be encouraged—and more than encouraged—to seek the advice of such people. They will be left in the interests of saving a few hundred officials and a very small amount of cash, to drift apart once more. I believe that the damage to the countryside over the decades to come will he immeasurable.
For those of your Lordships—and there are very few indeed, if any, in this House—who are avowedly philistines, all right, we are saving money; that is

1547
what we must do and to hell with the consequences. If there are a few more ugly buildings, if a few more nature reserves are destroyed, what does that matter?— we are efficient. For those of us—and I believe it is all of us here—who are concerned with the enhancement as well as the preservation of the beauty of our countryside, for the marriage between food production and environmental protection, these orders cannot be acceptable, and the Prayer of my noble friend Lord Melchett must be supported.
5.48 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, in my opinion the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has overstated his case, and he has weakened his case by so doing. I have farmed all of my life in Scotland and England. In my opinion, these orders are going to help farmers. The view in the House regarding prior approval appears to be that, if it is done away with, the farmers will not be able to seek the advice of the ADAS officials if they want to attempt a grant-aided scheme. That is complete nonsense. Any farmer who wishes to go in for a grant-aided scheme can telephone and ask an ADAS official to come and see him and give him advice.
I have had quite a lot of experience of trying to get around civil servants. I must say that when one needed prior approval it was often a very great delaying tactic. I think that abolishing prior approval will speed matters up considerably. I understand that the ADAS officials will now be relieved of a lot of office work such as form filling, and they will therefore have far more time to give advice.
Regarding conservation, I am a conservationist, but I agree with one or two noble Lords who have said that among conservationists there are a few cranks, and I have also suffered from them. I have had quite a few instances of this and I would give one example where some planting which I was going to do was held up for a very long time. There were some small plants in a piece of boggy ground in this area. It was not all that rare but my planting was held up for this reason by the conservationists.
1548
The latest example I have had is that I am starting a salmon farm on my estate in Scotland, and the amount of bodies and boards I have had coming to inspect it is absolutely fantastic. The only person who has never been asked for advice is myself—and I am paying the rates and taxes. For instance, we had the Clyde Purification Board. They drove up from Glasgow in a chauffeur-driven car; they came and saw the site for four or five minutes; they drove 100 miles; they came over on a boat; they drove another 16 miles and saw the site for, as I have said, four or five minutes. Then they went off to the most expensive hotel and had an enormous lunch, and drove back to Glasgow. How much did that cost the ratepayer?
However, I digress, my Lords. I did not agree with my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh when he said, with regard to areas of scientific interest, and national parks, that the farmer should not have to ask for prior approval before embarking on a scheme. Of course he must. Many farmers, of course, are not scientists, and indeed they cannot have all the knowledge that is needed concerning the countryside. They may be very good farmers, but there are other aspects of the countryside apart from farming. So I think the Government are quite right here in suggesting that, before a farmer embarks on a scheme in a conservation area or in an area such as a national park, he must seek advice and he must not embark on the scheme if the appropriate body objects.
I should like to say that I support the Government on this with regard to public money. I think it is going to save probably £2 million by 1982–84. That, of course, is not a very big sum, but there is a saying which goes something like, "Many a mickle makes a muckle"—I cannot quite remember the saying. But certainly with £2 million here, £3 million there, £10 million here and so on, it all adds up and in the interests of saving public money, I heartily support the Government in saving public money.
Before ending, I should just like to say, with regard to public money, that about 25 years ago I applied, under the hill farming scheme, to build a bridge across a river. I was told that it would cost £8,000 to carry a car, a Land Rover or tractor, but I do not like wasting public

1549
money or my money, since under the scheme the landowner had to pay half the cost. So I did not apply and I built that bridge for £500, and it is still standing today. Having said that, I should like to repeat again that I fully support the Government.
5.54 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for a new governmental definition: that "a consultation" is one where the parties have agreed and "a genuine consultation" is one where the interested parties have disagreed. I congratulate the noble Earl on his frankness in admitting that his consultations have been "genuine". That, I think, is the answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that in fact nearly every interested party affected by these proposed orders has disagreed with them, sometimes very strongly and even almost violently.
I do not think that we should pass these orders with the knowledge that those interests are very much opposed to them. I speak as one who once upon a time erected a barn which was shorter by one bay than I had specified when making the application for a grant. When in the end I applied for the grant, I was told: "This is not up to the specification and we will not pay you any grant, even though it be a smaller grant than the one you would have had". So I am once-bitten-and-twice-shy regarding these new proposals and I am apprehensive about whether the Government proposals, however reasonable they look on the surface, could work in practice. There is no way in which I, as a farmer, would be satisfied by the noble Earl's explanation without the explanatory leaflet which, of course, has not been forthcoming. The reservation of the NFU that there should be a residual option for a farmer to receive prior approval is a very reasonable one but, even if we all agreed with that, we could not amend this order. For that reason alone, I would oppose one of these orders.
I want to take the opportunity just for a moment to say something about grants in general, because I think the whole matter of agricultural grants has got rather out of hand. In this country they became consolidated as part of the farming scene with the 1947 Act, and they
1550
have continued ever since without, I believe, enough thought being given as to how much good they were actually doing. Now that so much emanates from Brussels things have got worse in this respect. Our Sub-Committee "D" paid a visit to the Berlaymont a couple of years ago where we were faced with a charming Irishman—I may say that the Irish are very clever in getting themselves in positions of this kind—who presented us with a mass of statistics and charts regarding agricultural grants which, on the face of it, could be obtained by a farmer for going into anything or coming out of it again, or for the purchase and sometimes the disposal of live or dead stock—grants for any and every activity in the farming sector. He obviously thought he was doing a good job, giving a comprehensive service no doubt; but what was missing from his presentation was any evaluation of any kind of the money and effort he was spending, and their cost effectiveness.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, did not try to make an economic justification of farms grants schemes—I do not think he was expecting that he should; but if grants are, let us say, to aid production, who wants more production? The only justification I can see for building grants is that perhaps the buildings we have had erected in the countryside may be of a better quality than they otherwise would have been; but that would need proof.
I think the Government should concentrate their responsibility for farming in making it a reasonably economic activity, and they should encourage farmers with indeed the invaluable and neutral help and advice from ADAS remaining available to set about producing what is wanted by the consumer in the best way possible. The only exception I would make is that grants would need to be made in national parks, where, let us say, materials of certain kinds more expensive than usual have to be specified for the roofs of farm buildings, and in hill areas, where obviously there are special considerations.
The only part of these orders I would welcome would be the simplified criteria and the relaxation of the minimum income stipulations. But while the new criteria are not only very complicated, it seems to me they mean that Ministry officials will be making some tricky value judgments,

1551
which will inevitably be challenged. In a sense, these criteria of eligibility make my case for me. I do not see that the Minister should be making value judgments, say, as to the worth of an agricultural business or as to the proportion which the business might contribute towards somebody's income or towards making employment. We ought not to discourage part-time farming—we ought to encourage it—and we should not generate a frame of mind in which some sorts of part-time farming are officially okay and some are not.
I end by saying that surely it is all right for farmers to engage in business other than farming without looking over their shoulders in fear of losing some grant or other. In my view it is better that no grants should be made available at all than that the Ministry or the EEC should make an attempt at classifications of the kinds which appear in these orders; and although perhaps they might be considered to be a worthy effort at achieving an unsatisfactory objective, I think that these orders demonstrate how impossibly invidious will be the effects of the working of both schemes, and I oppose them.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hesitate to speak to your Lordships at this rather late hour. This matter has been very considerably drawn out. But, like so many of your Lordships, I have an impeccable agricultural background—I sustain myself as a farmer—and I also think I have a comparatively impeccable conservationist background in so far as I am a member of a large number of conservationist organisations. These organisations, agricultural and conservationist, have lobbied me as intensively as they have lobbied many of your Lordships. I should like to say, particularly to those of your Lordships who pay great weight to the conservationist issues, that I think the problem has been blown up. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would agree in his heart that he has expanded to a very great degree the problems that conservationists face.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in introducing this debate this afternoon, brought together all these orders. I feel
1552
that it might possibly have been in his interest to unscramble them, because, unless I am mistaken, there are fairly considerable differences between the order that relates to the FHDS and the order that relates to the capital grants scheme. As the noble Earl has explained to us in introducing these orders, there is yet to come an explanatory memorandum. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has asked for several points of clarification to be made to us this afternoon. We hope these can also be incorporated in that memorandum, which will be greatly to the relief of those of us who are concerned both with agriculture and with conservation.
I ask for further points of clarification because, on my reading of these draft documents, the first, that is to say, that concerned with the European Communities—the FHDS scheme—has as a requirement for grant that the farm development under paragraph 7(c), is included in and appears to the Minister to be necessary or appropriate for the purposes of an approved development plan. Nowadays a majority of farm grants are under the FHDS scheme because there is, as all of us who are farmers know, a margin of financial advantage in being under the FHDS rather than under the ordinary capital grants scheme. The order appears to me—and perhaps this could be clarified in the explanatory memorandum—to imply that grant will be given only to a development which has already been approved, at least in the broad, overall aspects.
I believe that conservationists would be perfectly satisfied to know that farm developments had received prior approval in principle and that conservationists do not require the present—I know this as a farmer—sometimes excessive bureaucratic exercise involved in getting detailed approval, involving, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan has said, maybe the number of bays in the barn or the materials of the barn, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, the actual materials with which the barn has been constructed. These points are not of interest to conservationists. If I am right—maybe at this very minute the noble Earl would care to clarify whether I am right; maybe he would not—there is already required under the FHDS scheme some form of

1553
prior approval. The problems that both farmers and conservationists are concerned with are only those developments which are under the ordinary capital grants scheme, and this therefore excludes the large number of developments that we as farmers all undertake, using our own labour and using our own materials because it is cheaper and more convenient.
As a comparative novice in your Lordships' House, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for recognising that he is following my late father in his procedural applications. But if we separate out these orders, and if I am right in my interpretation, I feel that the first satisfactorily meets all objections that anyone might have raised this afternoon, because it concerns the FHDS. The second concerns the capital grants scheme. There are a number of points of clarification which the Minister has been asked to make, and perhaps it could be emphasised that the farmer, in taking advantage of the ordinary capital grants scheme, is going to be required in the documents, in an initial stage, to have taken account of advice. We hope that that advice can be co-ordinated through ADAS, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has pointed out, there can be unfortunate and deeply regrettable animosity between conservationist organisations and agricultural bodies. None the less, there is overriding interest in ADAS providing an umbrella whereby there can be cross-consultation on all conservation matters as well as other matters. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to satisfy both agricultural and conservationist issues with regard to the second order on the paper.
Now we come to the third, which is the one against which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has prayed, if I understand the situation correctly. If noble Lords follow the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and consent to his Prayer, I understand this will throw an awkward spanner in the works, but perhaps would not be totally disruptive. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has drawn our attention to the involvement of the EEC in agriculture; as we are members of the Community, this is inevitable. Sub-Committee "G", of which I am at present chairman, is looking at a draft directive concerned with environmental impact. The United Kingdom representatives have participated
1554
very fully in the preparatory work for this directive. The text was produced last month, and it contains two points which I think are important. First, it contains a general requirement to ensure that advance evaluation will take place of the environmental consequences of any development likely to have a significant impact on the environment. It also contains a general requirement, in suitable cases, to consult the appropriate environmental bodies, to consult other member states if trans-frontier problems are involved, and to inform the public of these issues. This draft directive has yet to progress through the machinery of the Communities, and maybe it will be further modified.
At the minute, agriculture, which is to a large degree outside the United Kingdom development system, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, emphasised, is covered by the draft, although probably it will be covered largely on a voluntary basis. I am perfectly aware that the Government, largely through the Department of the Environment, have taken an active and a positive part in discussions which preceded the formulation of this draft directive. As I wish to emphasise, this draft directive is concerned in a very central manner with the necessity for advance consultation. We have been told that in the explanatory document which is to accompany the orders that we are discussing this afternoon, the farmers are to have their conservation obligations drawn to their attention. We have been told that at present the ADAS involvement is largely notional, but none the less I consider that it provides a useful system for cross-referencing.
The Minister at one stage in his opening speech said that he was not asking farmers to do more in future than at present. But I hope, in fact, that when we receive the explanatory document which accompanies his papers we will see that he will ask farmers to do more than at present. I think he would agree on reflection that if he is able to answer satisfactorily some of the questions that have been posed to him this afternoon, farmers will be asked to do a little more in the interests of conservation. This will not be to their detriment, and I think it will be very much in keeping with the widespread public concern that exists about the

1555
perpetuation of good relations between those who are actually in control of the land and those who otherwise enjoy it as members of the public at large.
6.11 p.m.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I do not wish to say much about conservation, because I have not had sufficient experience of it. All I would say now is that the problem seems to be rather like the little cloud on the horizon which is the size of a man's hand. It will grow if only because there seems to be no limit to the number of conservation societies which can claim to be consulted about the agricultural industry and therefore cause delays.
I wish to say two or three words about the prior approval because I have personal experience of that, if only because for the last 30 years I have actually processed grant applications for ourselves and our tenants with my own hand. That leads me to think that the National Farmers' Union in their brief are right in saying that they are opposed to the complete abolition of prior approval. My own experience has been that nine out of 10, or maybe 19 out of 20, applications go through on the dot. The 10th or the 20th does not, and in those cases it would be highly imprudent for any farmer to go ahead with the improvement without making certain that the grant is going to be paid. In fact, I can hardly see how he can go with a straight face to his bank manager unless he knows, nor can I see how a landlord would be wise in giving landlord's approval for the work to go on unless he too knows that the grant will come through.
We have made a practice on our bit of land of giving landlord's approval to any scheme which we know is going to get the grant and therefore is approved by the Ministry as suitable to that farm. So, although I certainly do not feel strongly enough about this to follow the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, into any Lobby, I think that the matter is not satisfactory as it is now.
What therefore can be done by the Ministry to leave the opportunity of consulting in certain cases to the farmers and in giving them a right to consult? There would seem to me to be three possibilities
1556
of avoiding action. Conceivably, it might be possible to insure against the risk of losing the grant. I do not think that would be very satisfactory. Conceivably it might be possible for the Ministry to accept a certificate by a professional person such as a member of the Institution of Chartered Surveyors that the work fulfils the conditions and therefore can go ahead with no risk that the grant would not be paid.
The third possibility, which I mention as a strong supporter of saving public expense, is that there would be power for the Ministry to make a charge for the cost of advising the farmer or landowner whether or not the application is eligible for grant. I would always be ready to pay such a fee if it was asked and it would be worth every penny. But, as I say, I feel that there must be some right for the member of the farming community to get an opinion from the Ministry before he commits himself to the time and the money and before he goes to see his bank manager.
6.15 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I will be brief. Many of the points have already been mentioned, but I must start by saying that the way the Government have handled the presentation of these orders has been appalling, crude, thoughtless and clumsy. The proof of the clumsiness, as has already been pointed out in the House, is that it is the first time I can remember that every kind of conservationist has been driven into the agricultural lobby. However, as a farmer in North Wales, where there are over 200,000 acres of national park or sites of special scientific interest, I want to emphasise just one point which I think was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Middleton. Under the new arrangements the farmer wishing to apply for a grant in those sensitive areas will have to clear his application with the national park authority, nature conservancy or, indeed, local authority. Due to a very recent, and very welcome, change, the Government have agreed that once a week ADAS will call in and inspect these applications with his opposite number in the national park or nature conservancy and they between them will decide which of the schemes might have a conservation problem.

1557
The trouble is that, welcome though this change is, it is not quite right for the following reasons. First, your Lordships are probably aware that the relationship between the farmer—it may be me—and the national park authority or nature conservancy is not always the best. It is, in fact, inclined to be armed neutrality. Making the farmer go on his bended knees to ask permission to be allowed to improve his farming is no way to run the countryside and the best way, if I can use a modern expression, to cause "aggro" at the start.
Secondly, many farmers have no idea where these national park offices are. The farmer may not even realise, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, that he is in an SSSI, for, as opposed to your Lordships, lots of farmers, including myself, find other things to do than read. However, I know of no farmer who does not know where his local Ministry of Agriculture office is, and, much more important I know of no farmer who does not respect and value the advice given by his local ADAS man.
Thirdly, these national park authority officers and nature conservancy officers have very little, if any, experience of detailed agricultural problems and of farm finance. If it is to be they who go through the application form first, I can see the exact opposite of the Government's intention to cut down on bureaucracy. There will be endless delays and the unfortunate national park officer will, because of his position, be inclined to place 90 per cent. of the application forms in the "Don't know" or pending tray, partly because of lack of experience, which will further delay matters and add to expense.
On all these counts, it would be very much better if the farmer's first approach could be made to the Ministry of Agriculture rather than to the national park officer or Nature Conservancy Council. But perhaps of greater importance is that, through my suggestion of approaching the Ministry of Agriculture first, a large number of doubtful schemes in the conservation context would never even appear at the local ADAS office because the local ADAS officer, who, I emphasise, is a friend of the farmer, will have talked him out of it, maybe when visiting his
1558
farm on another matter. That is a very much better place and time to discuss matters than in a dusty office, certainly so far as persuading the farmer is concerned. Finally and most important, it will cost less, in my opinion, for the Government in time for the reasons I have given.
I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Craigton that we should have listed land areas as with listed buildings. My knowledge of listed buildings in my area is that they are mainly falling down, and I do not want that to happen. To finish, I am not entirely happy with the scheme even if the Government concede this very vital point of approaching the Ministry of Agriculture before the national park officer or the Nature Conservancy Council. But then someone once told me that farmers are never satisfied. Perhaps that is why we are rather better, I hope, than many other parts of the community. However, I realise only too well the difficulties of trying to run a business profitably, and I sympathise very much with the Government's dilemma. It is a pity that Governments, of either party, are unable to admit that occasionally they have made a mistake, and they have made a mistake in the handling of this order. But we all make mistakes, and I am always appalled by the number of mistakes which I make and usually get away with.
So, despite my criticisms, and subject to some help from my noble friend Lord Mansfield on the point that I have raised, if I am asked by your Lordships to go through a Lobby today I shall go through the Government Lobby. I should perhaps finish by saying—and I know that I am saying this advisedly—that, whatever your Lordships decide today, the National Farmers' Union will make every effort, and more than every effort, to see that whatever scheme comes out is made to work.
6.21 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I rise, first, to express my wholehearted support for the intention of the Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker, in his quest for a simplified and streamlined form of administration for the farm capital grants, and I do not disagree for a moment with his choice of

1559
the abolition of prior approval as the main way of doing it. But the significant political issue is not in the terms of the grant orders. Our debate so far has shown very clearly that the significant political issue is the way in which these grants are administered within the framework of a conservation policy, where that is important.
Fortunately, this whole consultation procedure, and this debate today, goes on at a time when, as several noble Lords have said, the relationship between farmers and conservationists has hardly ever been better. The mistake has been in thinking, in some circles, that this issue is one on which farmers and the conservation lobby are polarised and in opposing camps. That is not the case. We have the report of the Strutt Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Collison, rightly mentioned, to, as it were, set the seal on this happy state of the relationship between farmers and conservationists. This is what makes it all the sadder that a gremlin has got into the works—and it certainly has-—in the whole consultation procedure.
We have had three papers setting out the policy for the administration of farm grants in relation to conservation. Mark I was the one issued on, I think, 20th February, and it was this that set the cat among the pigeons, or produced the instantaneous reaction of all concerned to what the Government were trying to do. The consultation of this was intended to last until 31st March, but one of the effects of the gremlin was that two sets of people, who were supposed to take part in the consultation—namely, the national park authorities and the district councils, in respect of the areas of outstanding natural beauty—did not receive their papers until the middle of March.
The consultation procedure was very properly extended to something like the end of June. Then, as a result of that, policy Mark 2 was issued and that, too, produced an almost united reaction against the proposals, because there had not actually been very much movement during the first consultation phase. I am glad to say that, in the light of that second lot of reactions, Mark 2 was withdrawn; and I think that sonic of the remarks in this debate, particularly from the Benches opposite, have been, as it were, addressed
1560
to Mark 2 which are not the proposals that are before us.
Fresh supplementary arrangements were worked out and agreed by Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment on 22nd July, which I have heard being explained, and the orders which had been withdrawn, based upon Mark 2, were relaid on 28th July and those are the ones against which policy Mark 3 has been designed.
Difficulty arises because it is not until this afternoon that the House as a whole has heard, formally and officially, of these changed arrangements—that is, what I describe as Mark 3—and we still have not seen them in black and white. I have seen them, and no doubt many noble Lords have seen them, in the versions which were sent by the Ministry of Agriculture to the various interests concerned. For instance, I have seen the correspondence with the Countryside Commission.
I submit to the House that what we have heard this afternoon is a very considerable improvement, and I was glad to hear my noble friend expound it clearly and emphatically, as he did. It seems to me that the improvements add up to three items. There is a clear restatement of the Minister's recognition of the fact that he has, and farmers have, an inescapable duty to meet their obligations under Section 11 of the Countryside Act, in respect of each and every farm grant that is made throughout the whole countryside. If that had been stated clearly and emphatically right at the beginning, we should have got through with much less trouble. I am glad that it has been stated now. Coupled with that, there is the countrywide option on farmers to consult ADAS about conservation, if they are in any doubt, and certifying that they have done so when they have. That is a considerable improvement.
Then there is the second innovation since Mark 2, which is what has come to be described already as the ADAS weekly tea party, when an ADAS officer goes to sift through the proposals which have been submitted by farmers to the national park authority, the Nature Conservancy Council or whoever it may be. I am rather inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley, that it

1561
would not make much difference if the ADAS officer took the applications to the tea party, instead of finding them there when he arrived in the hands of the planning officer. But that is a matter for my noble friend to consider. The removal of the areas of outstanding natural beauty, in the change from Mark 2 to Mark 3, is, in view of the first assurance that I have just mentioned, not a matter of great concern, but it is something on which there has not been very long for many people in the planning world to consider.
The other factor, which I have heard for the first time this afternoon and which I am very glad to hear, is that the Minister proposes to use the savings made by the abolition of prior approval to shift ADAS resources from filling up forms to giving conservation advice, and is not using all of that change to effect economies. To the extent that that is the case, it is very welcome news indeed. So the upshot is that Mark 3 is an acceptable package of proposals. It is unfortunate that we have not heard about it sooner than we have. It may be that it has not taken the form of a document in black and white because further consultation, on the way in which this scheme is to be administered, is still going on and will continue in the light of experience.
If that is so, I welcome it, but I think the House will be glad to hear from my noble friend what is the intention of the Government. There is room for further improvement still. If it is going on, let us hear about it and that will encourage us still further. The second assurance which I should like from my noble friend is that this whole new system of administering farm capital grants will be got right and settled firmly, before Parliament is asked to embark on any consideration of a Countryside Bill, which I believe may well be before us in the next Session.
6.30 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Mansfield rises to answer the many points that have been made in the debate, I feel that as Leader of the House I should put one fact before your Lordships. This is an item of subordinate legislation. It was decided that, unlike primary legislation, subordinate legislation should not be affected
1562
by the Parliament Act. I am told that ever since the Parliament Act there has been an unwritten convention that subordinate legislation, since it is not subject to the Parliament Act, should not be rejected by this House. I am told that in recent years there has been only one instance where this has happened. It happened over a matter which affected what was then Southern Rhodesia. That is the one and only case that I have been able to find out about since the passing of the Act.
It would not be right for me personally, as Leader of the House, to enter into the merits or demerits of the argument, albeit, like the noble Lord, Lord Peart, having been Minister of Agriculture, I should dearly like to do so. However, I refrain from so doing. May I suggest that noble Lords should ask themselves whether these proposals—which, as we have heard, have been amended after consultation, although I understand from certain noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that the consultation was not all that they would have liked it to be—are such, in the opinion of your Lordships, to warrant, although one precedent has been created, the creation of another precedent which could affect future Governments of either party. I feel that it is right to put this point to your Lordships.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am not sure that he was able to be present in the Chamber when I was speaking. Obviously what he has said affects in particular the Prayer that I have put down on the Order Paper. I wonder whether he can confirm that these orders, as I have suggested, amount to another precedent; that your Lordships' House does not normally consider controversial subordinate legislation in advance of another place. That is a practice which is unlike the rather novel practice which the noble Lord the Leader has put forward, that the House does not divide against orders—which in my brief experience it frequently has. But the regular practice is that we do not consider controversial orders before another place, and these orders break that precedent.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, whether orders of this character prove to be controversial or, in the end, non-controversial,

1563
certainly it is far better that they should be considered first in another place before coming to your Lordships' House. It just so happens that owing to a concatenation of circumstances in this particular instance, with many of which your Lordships will be well acquainted, it was thought right to deal with the matter in this way on this particular occasion. It was not possible for us to take the business which we were going to discuss today. I agree with the noble Lord, but I answer him by saying that if these orders were to be rejected it would have the effect of their not being discussed. There would be no point in the orders being discussed. Because they would have been rejected by Parliament, they would not be discussed in the other place. I do not think that this in any way necessarily diminishes—perhaps rather the contrary—the points which I thought it right to put to your Lordships.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness White): My Lords, may I put to the noble Lord one other point which disturbs me? I speak at the moment as President of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. I know that my members there would have wished me to vote against the order and to support the Prayer of my noble friend. However, a new matter has been introduced. I should have thought that possibly it would have been appropriate for the Leader of the House to express some regret to those of us who have been placed in this position. We are being asked, on constitutional grounds, not to vote against something which has caused very great concern to both the conservation and the farming interests in this country, both of which have been opposed to these orders. Now, at the last moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained, a fresh matter has been introduced, so I understand, which was not available to any of us. We could have no previous consultation on what is now called Mark 3, and Mark 3 is, I hope, a good deal better than Mark 2. But we are entitled to some further explanation and perhaps to some degree of apology.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, the noble Baroness feels herself to be, as it were, split over this issue and does not know
1564
which way to turn or to go. She is asked on the one hand to vote against it, while I, on the other, put to her the constitutional argument which might lead her not to vote against it. But that reason would not have made it right for me not to put my observations before the noble Baroness. All I can or should say as Leader—I am not entering into the argument—is that I felt that it was necessary to put the point so that it could be weighed with other points which might be in the mind of the noble Baroness and of other Members of your Lordships' House before the Division. I still feel that it was right so to do. If this makes it harder for the noble Baroness, I regret that it makes it so, but I still think that I was right to put the point to her.
Lord PEART: My Lords, some of us are in a difficulty. This is a last minute intervention by the noble Lord. I am not criticising him. He has chosen his moment. But I should have thought we could have had more advance warning of a matter of this kind.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, the noble Lord has himself been Leader of the House. I inquired about the matter because I thought it right to do so and to inform the House about it. If the noble Lord feels that I should have done so sooner, then I am sorry that I did not. But I certainly felt it right so to do.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I understand that if it is negatived it then falls in the other House, but I see no reason why we should not have a Division.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, there are a couple of points that, very briefly, I should like to mention. I would ask my noble friend the Minister to take on board the point raised by my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Sandford; namely, that we should allow the prior approval of SSSIs and national parks to go to ADAS first. This would save a lot of worries so far as the farmers are concerned and would create the extra confidence which is being undermined at the moment. It would also improve a slightly invidious position so far as ADAS is concerned.

1565
We have been told that any farmer can go to ADAS to seek informal advice. He does this, he puts his prior approval in front of the NCC or the national park authority. They have a disagreement and then ADAS is brought back in as an arbitrator. I can see here that there could well be a clash of interest and the ADAS man would be reluctant, on an issue on which perhaps he is not quite sure, to give the free advice that he would normally give to a farmer. I hope the Minister will be able to take this on board and perhaps make a change, even at this late stage, to make Mark 3 a little better.
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like quickly to support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that, if possible, in sensitive areas the applications should go to the ADAS officer first. I believe that would be vital and valuable, if it could be achieved; and, if so, it is quite likely that the farming community would be very much happier about this matter.
6.42 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I come back to the merits of the matter. My noble friend the Leader of the House has given his opinion to your Lordships so far as the constitutional questions are concerned, but in the space of not too long a time I hope to persuade a goodly number of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady White, that a lot of the fears which have been very properly and naturally and genuinely expressed, particularly by a number of the bodies who are interested in conservation, as this long matter has been unfolded have become, I would not say groundless but perhaps of slightly less importance than they were before.
I think it is necessary in the context of our debates to have regard for what the Government are trying to do and how this particular scheme has come about. The Government are committed to a number of things: partly the saving of money, partly the abolition of waste, but even more a dedication to trying to ensure that the processes of government in this country and the administration are carried on in a more efficient and cost-saving
1566
way than they have been in the past. I do not suppose that any of these ambitions would strike your Lordships as being other than entirely laudable; and if the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that this has been merely a cost-saving exercise which was designed to save a certain sum of money—and he produced an example which I am afraid I did not think was entirely appropriate; that is to say, the shutting off of a section of motorway—that is very wide of what we have been trying to achieve, and indeed what we are achieving with these various exercises which have been undertaken by Sir Derek Rayner.
The fact of the matter is that some of these procedures—which, as I shall tell your Lordships, are very old, have been with us for many years and come from a time when the farming community at least was in a much different position—are really out of date and outmoded, and by the establishment of really quite sensible measures considerable savings can be made.
Over this matter of farm capital grants, in the Ministry of Agriculture—and I am not talking about my own department for the moment—it has been estimated that no fewer than 400 posts could be saved; that is to say, 250 office staff and 150 ADAS. Far more ADAS could be saved, but only that number in fact will be saved because of considerations to which I shall return. As noble Lords have already hinted, the idea is to improve the service which ADAS gives to farmers and also, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, to improve the liaison as between the farmer and the conservation interests when such liaison should come about. I cannot stress too much that this is not some mean, cost-cutting exercise which is purely, in a Scrooge-like manner, designed to save money.
The next point I want to make is this: I think anybody who listened to this debate from on high (hopefully a rather safer roof than in our Chamber) would have to conclude that this House is a very conservative one—and I say "conservative" with a small "c". In all parts of the House we are violently resistant to change. This emerges from the farmers, who quite naturally are suspicious when their procedures are changed, and it certainly has emerged from some of my

1567
noble friends and some noble Lords opposite who have been highly critical of the way in which these changes have been brought about and about the consultation procedures.
In any difficult operation such as this the difficulty of meaningful consultations is exemplified by, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and his attitude to those who really might not want him to do anything on his farm without obtaining permission, and my noble friend Lord Craigton, who certainly would not want him to do anything on his farm without permission. If we take these two extreme views—I do not say that in any offensive manner—we can see all too clearly the difficulties we meet when trying to make a new scheme like this.
A number of criticisms have been made by some of my noble friends and noble Lords of the way in which these consultations have taken place. Almost every conceivable body was consulted. Certainly all statutory bodies were actually consulted; every other body interested in conservation and that kind of thing was invited to state its position. Whatever opposition there may have been at the beginning—and I appreciate that there was a lot—as the months have worn on and various changes have been made, I think it is fair to say that gradually the conservation bodies, and indeed, the. National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and others who are interested, came very much nearer to what, gratefully, may I call the very balanced view of my noble friend Lord Sandford. Having taken into account all the things we are proposing, they came to the conclusion: "All right, change there is going to be, but it is perhaps not quite so frightening, and certainly not so appalling in its possible effects, as we thought at first blush". So I want to quell any notion that there may be among your Lordships that the Government have blundered ahead in an arrogant and domineering, indeed almost a dictatorial way, failing to consult and, above all, failing to change course, changing their scheme as a result of representations which may have been put to them.
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time on this but it
1568
seems to me that the criticisms which have been voiced this afternoon really fall into two categories. In the first instance there is the issue of prior approval; that is to say, whether a farmer who expects to obtain a grant in respect of an investment he is going to make should obtain prior approval. Prior approval was introduced many years ago when the advisory services were new and there was a need to ensure that farmers used them.
Over the years farmers have learned the value and have become economically in a position where they could take advantage of the value not only of the departments but of professional advisers, and they really no longer need to be forced to seek the opinion of the department before they spend their own money. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned—pretty hesitantly, because, if I may say so, he cut the ground of his argument under his own feet and quickly stopped—there are, and have been for years, criticisms that the system was slow, that it was bureaucratic, and that it interfered with the farmer's right to make his own investment decisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, sometimes it got the better of him and he made his own investment decision without waiting for the council or whatever to say yea or nay. That is something that has happened. It has led to breaches and it has led to disputes, and on occasions these have led to loss of grant. These new arrangements will sweep away all these disadvantages, and I do not believe we should, as it were, throw them out of the window.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, produced the argument that the poor farmer —I say poor, not financially, because according to Lord Melchett he was going to undertake heavy capital expenditure—would not know whether he would at the end of the day qualify for grant and he might be left grantless and having to pull the whole thing down again. I know the noble Lord comes from a part of the farming world which is I think of even better quality than Lord Mackie's farm. In my experience, at any rate, farmers simply do not behave like that. If they are going in for any sort of capital expenditure, other than the minimum, they are the first to rush and obtain advice. That is what they will be expected to do and what we shall encourage them to do,

1569
and what one hopes they will not be slow to do. They can, as it were, obtain the same crutch, if I may so use the word, the same support as they presently use; only at the end of their consultations they will not need prior approval before they continue.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Earl has made a very interesting point. If farmers are in fact able, having got advice from ADAS, to have some guarantee, which is what the noble Earl seems to be saying, that they would at the end of the day get the grant, what on earth difference does introducing these orders make? If the noble Earl is saying that farmers will be able to get prior approval, and no staff savings would result from these orders, the Government had better drop them.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. I never said anything about getting a guarantee. I said that farmers will be encouraged to do what they have always done—get advice. That, I suggest, will provide the support they need when they are making their investment decisions. It is not a question of a bureaucratic guarantee, a signing on the dotted line.
The next point the noble Lord brought up was the matter of the document. Of course, the explanatory leaflet has to steer a middle course; it has to strike a balance between being comprehensive, on the one hand (and possibly incomprehensible as a result), and then it has to be simple, it has to be brief, it must not leave too many questions unanswered, and above all it must not leave important matters unexplained. We shall concentrate on getting the leaflet into the position where the essential points are put across; that is to say, basic eligibility, the sort of standards which will qualify for grant, and what the farmer's obligations are. But the leaflet—and I want to stress this—will stress that if farmers are in any doubt they should seek help and advice from the departments. They do so already. If the farmers read the leaflet and follow the advice in the leaflet they will get the support and help they need. Over this question of prior approval I do not think I can take the matter very much further. I have tried to point out that the farmer will obtain everything that he needs in
1570
this modern world to help him to make his own decision.
I do want now to turn to the conservation argument. It would be wrong to try to draft on to a capital grant scheme some sort of planning approval applicable to the countryside. That has never been a feature of our capital grants legislation. I suggest it would be totally wrong to view it now in that light. That does not mean to say that those who, very properly and understandably, are concerned with conservation matters need worry that vast tracks of our beautiful and unspoilt countryside will be ruined because no apparatus exists to keep them unspoilt. The farmer—I must make this point absolutely clear—is going to be under the same duty as he is now, no more and no less. He is going to be under an obligation, if he is in, for instance, an SSSI, to consult the NCC, and he is going to be under that duty to consult before he goes any further—that is, if he expects grant.
Call I add just this. There is at the moment no power in this country to stop any farmer from doing anything he wants to do with his farm, always provided that he does not expect to do it on public money. That is a fairly stark statement, but that is the fact of the matter. I hope the provisions I have related this afternoon will show, first, that there must be this prior consultation; secondly—this is a terribly important point from what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said—that the farmer will he encouraged and indeed expected to avail himself of the services of ADAS. Because the officers of ADAS will not have to go in for what, if I was not a Minister, I would call so much bumph-pushing; they will have more time and there will be more of them to help farmers over this difficult area. So that, I hope, disposes of part of that argument.
We have also been told by noble Lords, notably my noble friend Lord Stanley, that in fact there will be regular liaison between the conservation bodies, such as the NCC, and ADAS, so that they will have an early warning system which will give them an opportunity to consider matters, and, far more importantly, it will allow the opportunity for the usual cooperation and compromise which goes on at the moment.
I was asked if it could not in some way come about that the farmer should, as it

1571
were, put his application or notice into ADAS, or possibly the department, rather than the NCC. If we did that we would then in fact be resurrecting a great deal of the bureaucratic machinery which we are trying to take away. The expense and the amount of work which would be caused, I am informed, would be considerable. I believe that the method we have chosen in this respect is the best that can be designed. The farmer will have the protection that he wants in the sense that he will have the ADAS officer available to talk to and to use as a confidant, if you like, when hopefully coming to some sort of arrangement with the NCC or whatever body it is.
My noble friend Lord Middleton asked me to give three assurances and those I cheerfully give. His first point concerned the role of ADAS. He asked me to confirm that there was nothing to stop the farmer, in sensitive areas, consulting ADAS. That is absolutely the case. Indeed, we shall encourage by leaflet, and other means, farmers in such areas to do just that. His second point was that, as a result of this saving, he hoped that I could give the assurance that, in fact, there will be enough officers to carry out this task. What I have tried to say to your Lordships this afternoon is that as a result of this exercise there will be more and better advice than there has been previously.
Thirdly, my noble friend asked whether there could be—I think he really meant this —a tightening of procedures if farmers in an SSSI area, for instance, were unaware that it had been designated. That is a very interesting and important point. I am delighted to give him the assurance that we shall continue to take stock of the situation and, if we can devise a method of tightening this up so that the farmer knows where he is, we shall certainly do so in the weeks ahead.
I think that my noble friend Lord Sandford asked more or less the same questions, but I wish to assure him that we are, and shall be, having further thoughts in the next few weeks. Certainly I would hope that long before any Countryside Bill reaches either House of Parliament, all these procedures will have been got right in the sense that they will be comprehensive
1572
and understandable to everybody and, one hopes, will be working smoothly.
I leave your Lordships with the following point so far as conservation is concerned. The obligation on the farmer will be exactly the same as it has been previously. Before he makes his application for grant, he will have to certify that he has informed and consulted the appropriate body. If he does not, he will not get his money. I have compressed my remarks into "shortish" compass, probably too long for some and hopefully too short for a few, but in the circumstances I ask your Lordships to hold to the view that the Government have considered the whole of this matter with great earnestness and with a desire to produce a plan which is fair, logical and above all in the interests of the farmer and the countryside he inhabits.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he confirm that the Government consulted the equivalent Scottish bodies to those which they consulted in England?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, yes, roughly the equivalent bodies.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; the contrary, "Not-content"? I think that the "Contents" have it.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, which Motion are we being invited to agree?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, only one Motion has been moved so far and that is the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Regulations 1980.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, since then a Prayer has been moved.
7.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gainford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Northchurch, B.

Atholl, D.

Glenkinglas, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orkney, E.

Avon, E.

Hacking, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bathurst, E.

Haig, E.

Pender, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Blake, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boardman, L.

Hawke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Redmayne, L.

Bradford, E.

Hives, L.

Renton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rugby, L.

Caccia, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cockfield, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sharples, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Soames, L. (L. President.)

Craigavon. V.

Long, V.

Spens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Croft, L.

McFadzean, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mansfield, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trenchard, V.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dundee, E.

Mills, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Faithfull, B.

Moyne, L.

Young, B.

Ferrier, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Barrington, V.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk,B.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Janner, L.

Simon, V.

Blyton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

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

Strabolgi, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Underhill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Dunleath, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L.

Peart, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

George-Brown, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

AGRICULTURE AND HORTI- CULTURE GRANT SCHEME 1980
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the scheme laid before the House on 28th July be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURAL CAPITAL GRANT (VARIATION) (NO. 2) SCHEME 1980
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the scheme laid before the House on 8th July be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM CAPITAL GRANT (VARIATION) (NO. 2) SCHEME 1980
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the scheme laid before the House on 8th July be approved.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Farm and Horticulture Development(Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1980: Motion for annulment not moved.]

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICUL- TURAL CO-OPERATION (VARIATION) SCHEME 1980
7.14 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft scheme laid before the House on 25th June be approved. If in an agricultural context I can say this, I think that we are sailing into calmer waters. The Agriculture Act 1967 provided for a scheme of grants to be devised for the benefit of agricultural co-operatives. Such a scheme was introduced that same year and modified in 1971 in the light of experience. When its initial 10-year life expired in 1977 the scheme was extended for a further three years, and again modified to bring the rates of grant for capital costs into line with those available to individual farmers and growers under the Farm
1576
Capital Grant Scheme and the Horticulture Capital Grant Scheme. In May this year the period of the scheme was further extended for three years until 14th May 1983.
Ths scheme, which is administered with the help of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, basically offers assistance to cooperatives towards their formation costs (including feasibility studies and initial managerial salaries), and grants on their capital investments. In 1979–80 107 applications for grant were approved and about £1·2 million paid out. This compares with expenditure in 1979–80 of about £84 million on the two individual capital grant schemes.
As your Lordships know, the FCGS, HCGS and FHDS are being simplified and rationalised. These changes make it necessary to amend the Agricultural and Horticultural Capital Grant Scheme if only because of the existing references to the FCGS and HCGS, which will cease to exist as such. However, the Government are taking this opportunity to make more significant amendments to the scheme in order to provide better incentives to farmers and growers to market their produce through co-operatives.
Specifically, we are proposing that, first, a schedule be added to the scheme listing the capital and non-capital costs for which grants are available to cooperatives and specifying the maximum rates of grant for each item; and, secondly, that the maximum rate of grant for capital investment by co-operatives in central facilities be increased from 22½, per cent. to 32½ per cent. with effect from 1st October 1980. These central facilities are those which are, by their very nature, related to more effective marketing.
It has been the policy of successive governments over many years to encourage the promotion and development of agricultural and horticultural co-operation which we see as a particularly effective means towards achieving our objective of improving British agricultural marketing. In August 1979, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture appointed five advisers who are looking into all aspects of agricultural marketing. Two of them gave particular attention to the work of the Central

1577
Council and the encouragement of cooperation. Their conclusions were clear —that the development of co-operation must have a high priority in any attempt to improve marketing; that the position and past record of the Central Council must place it in the forefront of any Government initiative on marketing; and that the continued work of the Central Council should be backed up by renewal of its funds for developing marketing and by extension of the co-operative grant scheme.
Following these recommendations the Government have taken action in four specific ways to enable co-operatives to play a full role in the improvement of marketing. First, we have reorganised the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation so that the council's marketing work can be integrated more closely with its work on co-operation generally. Secondly, having given the council a new structure and a dynamic new chairman, we have increased the marketing promotion funds available to it by over £100,000 in the current financial year. Thirdly, my right honourable friend has instructed all sections of his department, but most particularly ADAS, to pay special attention to the needs of marketing, to encourage market awareness among producers and to develop the closest links with the processing and marketing sides of the food, agriculture and fishing industries. In Scotland, my department and the colleges of agriculture are also actively considering how they might help improve marketing, both in their educational and advisory work.
The Government appreciate that, by themselves, research, discussion and exhortation can only do so much to develop co-operation and better marketing. These efforts must be complemented by aid directed to the right place at the right time. We estimate that the increase in grant rates will cost an additional £500,000 annually from the financial year 1982–83, plus £100,000 in 1981–82 as additional financial claims start to build up. We are confident that this expected increased uptake of co-operative grants will be accompanied by at least an equivalent decrease in capital grant claims by individual farmers.
I hope that noble Lords will support these improvements to the co-operative
1578
grant scheme, and I commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 25th June be approved—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  NUCLEAR WASTES: DUMPING AT SEA
  NUCLEAR WASTES: DUMPING AT SEA
  DRUG SEIZURES: COST OF COMPILING STATISTICS
  DRUG SEIZURES: COST OF COMPILING STATISTICS
  HEROIN INTERCEPTIONS AND PERCENTAGES
  HEROIN INTERCEPTIONS AND PERCENTAGES
  NORTHERN IRELAND HOMOSEXUALITY LEGISLATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND HOMOSEXUALITY LEGISLATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S DECISIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S DECISIONS
  THE WARNOCK REPORT: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
  THE WARNOCK REPORT: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
  PUBLIC DISORDER: REVIEW
  PUBLIC DISORDER: REVIEW
  GRANADA TELEVISION: HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION
  GRANADA TELEVISION: HOUSE OF LORDS DECISION
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: LATENT DAMAGE CLAIMS
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: LATENT DAMAGE CLAIMS
  TEACHERS' PAY: ARBITRATION RECOMMENDATIONS
  TEACHERS' PAY: ARBITRATION RECOMMENDATIONS