Sitting of 5 February 1980

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 19 February.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 February.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that long supplementary questions are unfair to other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

      Expenditure
      Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received to date on the effects of financial cuts on education provision.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I have met deputations from all the main teacher unions, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities of the United Kingdom and from the TUC. I have also met the Archbishop of Westminster and other Church leaders; and I have received many letters from individuals
      212
      and representatives of local interests, either direct or through hon. Members.
      Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the widely held view in education circles is that the cuts, in conjunction with the Education (No. 2) Bill, will seriously damage mandatory educational provision? It will devastate the non-mandatory sector and abolish virtually all educational welfare provisions such as school meals. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the industrial action that is being taken today by teachers is a reflection of the real concern felt by them, if not by all Conservative Members.
      Hon. Members: Too long.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be patient. That is a short question in North Wales.
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept a word of what he says. The reductions in expenditure are necessary. I believe that they can be achieved without causing damage in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. With regard to his comment about teachers, I hope very much that before they consider taking action of any kind they will consider the effect of that action on the children they teach.
      Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that today in Trafford, because of cuts in education, the National Union of Teachers has decided to take limited strike action, despite the fact that the council was prepared last Friday to make concessions? The education of children in Trafford is suffering. Is there any move that can be made to restore full-time teaching in the schools of Trafford?
      Mr. Carlisle: It is for the Trafford local education authority to decide the way in which it makes reductions in public expenditure. I repeat that I very much regret any action taken by the National Union of Teachers, or any other teaching body, that will harm the educational opportunities of children.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take advantage of this Question Time to announce what changes he proposes to make to clause 23 of the Education (No. 2) Bill to

      213
      prevent new impositions on parents? Is he aware that if he does not make substantial changes in this respect he will render denominational choice ineffectual in many schools, impose new impoverishment upon parents who are already demonstrably poor and make it impossible for many parents to afford to send their children to school in rural areas?
      Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir, I shall not do that at this stage. However, I have made it clear that I shall consider whether it is necessary to put down any amendments on Report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Report stage is likely to be taken during the early part of next week. I can add only two other comments. First, it is not the intention of the Government in any way to damage the interests of denominational schools. Secondly, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's comment about poor children is that under our proposals local education authorities have power to remit any charges that they may make in any cases which they think are appropriate.
      Mr. Beith: Since school transport and school meals represent the biggest cuts, what will the Secretary of State say to those authorities which decide not to impose these charges, at least in full measure, especially on country and Catholic children? Will they not have to face more cuts in the classroom as a result?
      Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I fear that that is so. The Government have made it clear that, in the interests of the economy as a whole, these reductions in expenditure must be made. I hope that a large proportion can be made out of charging for meals and transport, rather than in the classroom. If local education authorities choose to do it in another way, that is a matter for them. But it follows, I accept, that if they are to make the reductions and choose not to do it in that way, inevitably it must have some greater effect on the standard of education.
      Mr. Alan Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take advantage of this opportunity to deny that there is any suggestion of cutting back—still less doing away with—the assisted places scheme? Does he agree that there is a distinction between measures designed to
      214
      improve the economy and those designed to take advantage of that improvement?
      Mr. Carlisle: I should like to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that the provisions for the assisted places scheme are in the Education (No. 2) Bill that is going through the House. It is my intention that it should start as proposed, but I have always made it clear that the timing and the extent of its implementation must be left in my hands.
      Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the sale by the Staffordshire county council of the land in Llandudno on which the Blackfriars school for the disabled has its holiday caravan is an absolute disgrace? Will he issue directions to counties not to take the consequences of these cuts out on the disabled?
      Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is an extremely detailed question, of which I must ask him to give me notice. If he cares to write to me about that matter I shall look into it.

      Primary and Secondary School Rolls
      Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he expects will be the size of reduction in school rolls in 1980–81 for primary and secondary schools, respectively.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Between January 1980 and January 1981 it is expected that in England and Wales primary school rolls will fall by 180,000, or 4 per cent., and secondary school rolls by 40,000, or 1 per cent.
      Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that these reductions allow some scope for a reduction in expenditure but also room for an increase in standards, and that most parents are concerned about standards? Will he tell the House what he is doing to improve standards in education?
      Dr. Boyson: I accept the two points that my hon. Friend has made. Over the two years 1978–79 and 1980–81 there will be a 4·7 per cent. reduction in pupils, but the reduction in expenditure will be only 3·5 per cent. That should allow more expenditure per pupil. In any case,

      215
      educational standards are not just a question of money. They are also a question of core curriculum, discipline in the classroom and the way in which examinations are organised.
      Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not correct that in certain areas, such as Leicestershire, the number of pupils on school rolls will increase? If that is so, will the Minister give a direction to Tory councils, such as that of Leicestershire, that they should not dismiss ancillary workers from their primary or secondary schools, thus devastating standards of education in those schools and imposing a burden on those who can bear it least?
      Dr. Boyson: In areas such as Leicestershire, which I accept may be faced with increases in population, these increases will be taken into account for rate support grant and facilities will be provided for the authorities there to maintain, and indeed to improve, standards in the schools.

      Assisted Places Scheme
      Mr. Porterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, under the assisted places scheme, he intends that parents who could have afforded the fees at the schools in question should be able to obtain financial assistance.
      Mr. John Townendasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is proposed to have some totally free places under the assisted places scheme; and what test will be applied for the award of such places.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: Parental contributions towards the cost of school fees under the assisted places scheme will be means-tested. The means test will set an income threshold up to which full remission will be paid, and an upper limit beyond which no help will be given.
      Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm and emphasise that the scale is such that only those children whose parents cannot afford the full fees will benefit from the scheme?
      Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I confirm that the purpose of the scheme is to give certain children whose parents would not otherwise be able to afford the fees the opportunity to benefit
      216
      from the education provided at the schools which join the scheme.
      Mr. Townend: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but will he give an indication of the level of family income at which parents will no longer be entitled to a free place for their children?
      Mr. Carlisle: I cannot do that now, but I can tell the House that it is my intention, following the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary, to set out our proposed scale of income later this week so that the House will have knowledge of it before we reach the Report stage of the Bill.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced to the House in a written answer that he has received from schools only half the applications necessary to run the scheme—that is before any sorting out has been done—when will he announce the reduced scale on which the assisted places scheme must now run?
      Mr. Carlisle: The answer is that the figures given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in a written answer yesterday show that to date we have had applications in relation to 10,000 places starting each year. Further applications are still coming in.
      In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question I can only repeat what I said in answer to the first question—that the timing and the extent of the introduction must be a matter for me. Clearly, it is a matter on which I shall inform the House on an appropriate occasion.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the average cost to the State of a child under the assisted places scheme is likely to be more or less than the cost of keeping that child in a maintained secondary school?
      Mr. Carlisle: I cannot answer that question exactly at this moment, but in general terms it would be roughly the same.
      Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he asked schools to enter their applications by the end of January? For how long does he

      217
      intend to extend the date of application? Will it be until he has enough applications to justify the scheme in his terms?
      We welcome the withdrawal that is taking place, although it is being done gradually and grudgingly, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further reconsider the matter and erase the scheme altogether, to remove both the threat and the insult that the scheme poses towards the maintained sector?
      Mr. Carlisle: It is right that we asked for replies by 31 January. It is equally right that replies are still coming in. That is not unreasonable, perhaps, in view of the fact that our letter went out shortly before Christmas, on 6 December. Governing boards tend not to meet over the Christmas period. Answers are, therefore, still coming in.
      My reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not accept that this scheme, any more than the old direct grant scheme, is in any way an insult to the maintained sector of education.

      Physically or Mentally Handicapped Pupils
      Miss Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he has given, or intends to give, to local education authorities regarding increased or decreased per capita expenditure on physically or mentally handicapped pupils for the financial year 1980–81.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The Government's expenditure plans, as embodied in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81, assume that, nationally, per capita expenditure on physically or mentally handicapped pupils will be mainatined at about its present level. My Department informed officers of the local authority associations about this assumption last November.
      Miss Wright: In view of the local authorities' general intention to cut education as a result of Government admonishment, will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is necessary for the Government to indicate clearly to local education authorities that it is not their intention that expenditure should be cut in the case of the most needy and least vocal
      218
      members of the school community? The Government should put their money where their mouth is and say that they are prepared to fund, if not increase, the support for the mentally and physically handicapped.
      Mr. Macfarlane: I indicated that my Department made this clear last November to the local authority associations. I hope that that will provide some sort of reassurance to the hon. Lady.
      It is ultimately for individual local authorities to determine the pattern of their expenditure, but they must take into account the Government's view that standards of provision in special education should be protected at all costs. In recent years expenditure per pupil in special education has consistently risen. The national overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained special schools now stands at just over 7: 1. The current standards of provision in terms of per capita expenditure are at their best ever level.
      Mr. Ashley: As the expenditure on many physically disabled pupils is abysmally low in many areas, is not there a case now for asking for increased expenditure for this small group of people?
      Mr. Macfarlane: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I hope that he was reassured by the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright). As I said, expenditure has been maintained. Indeed, it has consistently risen over the years, and I have no doubt that local authorities will continue to view this provision with compassion.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister tell us what steps are to be taken to ensure that pupils who are physically or mentally handicapped are not discriminated against by the Education (No. 2) Bill? Is he not concerned about the effects of the transport clauses, which will discriminate against mentally and physically handicapped pupils? Unless the Minister is willing to give a specific direction to local authorities and to safeguard the position of those pupils, local authorities will make cuts that will damage their education. Unless the Minister does something, he will be opting out of his responsibilities.
      Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Lady has gone over an important argument. We rehearsed that argument on and off during 100 hours in Committee and on the Floor of the House. All local authorities, social services and education authorities are aware of their commitments, duties and responsibilities. The Department will keep the matter under constant review and I have no doubt that local authorities will maintain a responsible attitude to these important commitments.

      Pupil-Teacher Ratios
      Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what have been the pupil-teacher ratios of maintained schools in Bootle over the last three years; and what are the anticipated ratios for 1980–81 and 1981–82.
      Dr. Boyson: Separate figures for Bootle are not available. For Sefton, the local education authority within which Bootle is situated, the overall pupil-teacher ratios for maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools were 20·6 in January 1977, 20·3 in 1978 and 19·6 in 1979. The local authority estimates that the ratio for January 1980 remains unchanged at 19·6. Projections of pupil-teacher ratios for individual local authorities are not made by my Department.
      Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that his figures are probably out of date as a result of a secret meeting that took place last night in Sefton? The Conservative councillors of Sefton decided behind closed doors to cut £1·3 million off an already inadequate budget. They have agreed to policies that will directly affect teacher-pupil ratios. Those policies will force 100 teachers to retire prematurely. They are to amalgamate 12 infant and junior schools. They have gone so far as to cut out swimming lessons in an area that incorporates the Leeds and Liverpool canal—the cause of many deaths. They have even decided to close a special school.
      Dr. Boyson: I do not see how my figures can be out of date. Those figures were from January 1977. Whatever strange meeting may have been held last night, and whatever canals were closed in that area, I do not see how it can affect the pupil-teacher ratio of three years ago. As soon as we have received
      220
      official information about the meeting we shall study it with interest to try to understand the situation in Bootle.

      School Facilities (Public Use)
      Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the Government's policy on the use of school facilities by the whole community.
      Mr. Macfarlane: Generally speaking, the use of county school premises outside school hours is a matter for local education authorities and the use of voluntary aided premises a matter for the managers or governors. The Government and my right hon. and learned Friend are anxious to see the widest possible use of school premises for other community purposes. It adds to the importance of the school's role in the community.
      Mr. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that I find his reply very disappointing? Is he further aware that many schemes for extra provision are being cut because of the Government's policies? Is he aware also that it is a scandalous waste of resources to lock high quality indoor and outdoor facilities away from the community? He should take some responsibility for this matter and ensure that backward authorities at least know what the enlightened authorities are doing. He should take some initiative to ensure that these facilities are fully used.
      Mr. Macfarlane: The principle behind the right hon. Gentleman's remark is well understood. However, I cannot understand why he finds my initial reply disappointing. There is nothing in the existing legislation that forbids local authorities, school governors or managers from opening those facilities and thereby making a great contribution to the local community. At the same time most members of the community understand that they will have to pay for the use of those facilities. Local authorities are entitled to make an economic charge in respect of services, such as the cost of heating and lighting, as well as any additional payment to caretakers and grounds men over and above their wages.
      Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major obstacles to the use of school premises for recreational or other purposes out of school

      221
      hours is the reluctance of school caretakers to work extra hours? Will he encourage local education authorities to allow voluntary organisations to staff those premises outside school hours?
      Mr. Macfarlane: Although local authorities are responsible for such decisions, in principle we support any action that a local authority might want to take on that issue.
      Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that it is about 15 years since a policy circular was issued by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Education? That circular advocated that all local education authorities should make dual use of buildings. To date only a minority of authorities have embarked on that policy. Does the Minister not realise that such action requires direction from central Government, or at least a lead from them? School rolls are falling in many areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that schools should not be closed and that every effort should be made to use them for other purposes, such as the expansion of vocational and further education?
      Mr. Macfarlane: At the outset the right hon. Gentleman said that the last circular had been issued 15 years ago. The last circular on this theme was sent out in February 1970. As I do not wish to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to identify any of the long list of activities that might take place in school premises out of hours. Local authorities are entitled to expand their facilities for use within the community. Hon. Members from all parties will know which schools and colleges in their constituencies are utilised effectively. I do not believe that the picture is bad, but there is room for much improvement.

      Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage
      Mrs. Reneé Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his policy on future grant-aid to the Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage following the recent submission from its governing body.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am giving careful consideration to the detailed document
      222
      received recently from the centre's governors and will be writing to them shortly.
      Mrs. Short: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the unit has been in existence for four years and that it is run on a small amount of money—less than £300,000 per annum? Will he further take into account the fact that the unit has carried out many important projects on the welfare, counselling and education of the disadvantaged? The unit has received splendid support from teaching unions and from schools. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is scandalous that he should suggest closing the unit, when he has not visited it? Will he ensure that someone visits the unit before any decision is made about its closure?
      Mr. Carlisle: Any decision to close any unit is worrying. However, as the hon. Lady said, the unit costs £300,000. From advice that I received about its achievements, and bearing in mind that its expectations must be based on the relatively limited resources that are likely to be available, I concluded that even that amount of expense was unjustified. I came to the conclusion that there were better ways of achieving those ends. However, since then I have received a letter from the governors, and I am considering their points.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many people have considerable respect for the work produced by the centre, but have genuine reservations and doubts about whether its advice is getting to schools? That is the area of anxiety.
      Mr. Carlisle: That is true. I felt that the centre was not being widely used by local education authorities, and that it had not been so used in its lifetime. I do not denigrate those who work there. The centre was given an almost impossible task, given the size of its budget.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Has the Minister, or have his hon. Friends, visited the centre to assess the work that it is doing? If not, on what basis was his assessment made? Has he had consultations with the local authorities, including many Conservative-controlled authorities, which are using the centre on an increasing scale? If the Minister believes that the

      223
      centre's work is not adequately benefiting schools, does he agree that the answer is to increase its funding not to close it?
      Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady in the last part of her question put the dilemma that faces me. On the advice that I have received, I do not believe that the centre, with its present funding, can meet the remit that it has been given. We are faced with the problem of either vastly increasing its expenditure, which I do not believe can be justified, or considering whether it has a continuing valid life.
      I have not visited the centre, nor, as far as I know, have my hon. Friends. We obviously have to take account of the advice that we are given. On 5 December the delegation that came to see me included among its governing body representatives of the local education authority.

      Core Curriculum
      Mr. Guy Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in implementing a core curriculum.
      Mr. Thorntonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he proposes to have over the recent paper from his Department "A Framework for the School Curriculum"; and when he expects his proposals over the school curriculum to be implemented.
      Mr. Mark Carlisle: The consultative paper "A Framework for the School Curriculum" was issued by the education departments in January. Consultations with the local authority associations, the teachers unions, the Schools Council and other major interests will be held soon. Our intention is to publish in due course a further document revised in the light of these consultations.
      Mr. Barnett: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the remarks of his Minister of State last month that the possibility of implementing a core curriculum is seriously threatened by the shortage of teachers of mathematics, science and modern languages? What provision does he propose to make to train and retrain teachers to obviate that shortage in primary and secondary schools?
      Mr. Carlisle: I am concerned about the shortage of teachers of mathematics and science, because this affects the speed at which we can implement the core curriculum that we should like to see. We have specifically asked teacher training institutions to give priority to shortage subjects. I think that at our previous Question Time I announced that we were continuing for a further year the scheme for retraining teachers in the shortage subjects. I accept that that provision is not for a large number, but it is a move in the right direction.
      Mr. Thornton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is widespread parental concern about the need for greater emphasis on basic subjects, particularly in primary schools? Will he accept that early moves towards the establishment of a core curriculum will be widely welcomed?
      Mr. Carlisle: I realise that there is widespread concern, and I am pleased with the general support for our document. We do not wish to dictate in every detail what should be taught in schools, but we want to achieve a more general national acceptance of where the emphasis should lie.
      Mr. William Shelton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he is proposing to use persuasion rather than legislation to achieve that excellent objective?
      Mr. Carlisle: Certainly. As I made clear in my main answer, our desire is to have discussions with local education authorities and teachers unions and reach general agreement on the basic framework for curricula for schools throughout the country. I hope that we can achieve that in a spirit of co-operation.

      Assisted Places Scheme
      Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is (a) the average annual fee and (b) the maximum annual fee now contemplated for participating schools in the assisted places scheme.
      Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend has no fixed average or maximum fee in mind. We shall be considering the responses that we receive from schools individually and not against arbitrary limits of that kind.
      Mr. Price: Is it contemplated that these places should be brought side by side with empty places in local authority secondary schools? If so, how can the Government justify the scheme, in the light of the plea for more efficient use of public money?
      Dr. Boyson: Schools with superb sixth form facilities will take pupils from areas where the maintained sector cannot offer such facilities, particularly in inner city areas. It will be an excellent opportunity for those children.
      The current recoupment level for local authority secondary schools is £715 for pupils between the age of 11 and 16, and £1,155 for pupils aged 16 plus. The six ex-direct grant schools in Manchester have an average fee of £841. In certain areas the scheme could even save money.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the assisted places scheme extend to schools which offer specialist skills, such as ballet, music and singing, and will it help children who have problems such as dyslexia and need to go to special schools?
      Dr. Boyson: Ballet and music schools were exempted under the 1976 Act, and pupils could go to them. We shall consider applications from schools at sixth form level and below where it is felt that pupils would gain advantage from the facilities offered in music, art or languages.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his continually repeated emphasis on the sixth form aspects of the schools that he would want to be in the assisted places scheme provides strong circumstantial evidence to support the fears of the National Association of Head Teachers and many other organisations that, in reality, the assisted places scheme will mean piracy of talent at the leadership and inspiration levels from schools in the maintained sector?
      Dr. Boyson: Under the system wiped out by the Labour Government, about 2 per cent. of pupils went to direct grant schools. I do not remember hearing complaints from county grammar schools then that they were being denuded of sixth form talent. The maintained schools will retain 80 per cent. of the top 20 per cent. ability pupils, and there is something wrong with them if, on those figures,
      226
      they cannot achieve good academic results.
      Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme will give great advantage to children from poor areas, and that that sort of advantage was given to certain Labour Members by the grammar school system?
      Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely. I believe that when they are published the figures for acceptance on the means test will bear that out. The scheme will offer superb sixth form opportunities that do not exist in certain areas for pupils whose parents cannot afford to pay.
      Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the assisted places scheme will be found attractive by the more third-rate "bucket shops" in the private sector? Will he accept that, with the shrinking child population and the declining economic situation, those institutions would otherwise be seriously threatened, since even snobbary at some point is insupportable?
      Dr. Boyson: It is interesting that we are attacked from the Labour Benches on one side for taking talent from sixth forms and on the other over craft schools or what the hon. Gentleman calls "bucket shops". Labour Members should make up their minds from which side they want to attack.

      Science and Mathematics Teachers
      Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any proposals to offer financial incentives to attract scientists and mathematicians into the teaching profession; and, if so, what they are.
      Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend does not rule out that the Burnham committee might consider some form of differential financial incentive, although there are serious difficulties both of principle and of practice to be taken into account.
      Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that helpful and constructive reply, and I hope that the Burnham committee will look at the matter seriously. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our major competitive countries in the EEC, such

      227
      as the Federal Republic of Germany, provide better conditions and pay for scientists, mathematicians and engineers? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we are to get the right quality of teachers in those subjects we must pay them the right wage?
      Dr. Boyson: It is open to local education authorities, if they so wish, to appoint suitably qualified teachers to posts in the shortage subjects on a salary scale above scale I.
      Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that there is a shortage of mathematics teachers to meet all the demands of industry, commerce and the academic professions? Will he consider a high-powered scheme to second people with mathematical qualifications from industry to teach in schools that have a shortage in a particular subject?
      Dr. Boyson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Discussions are being held with the CBI along the lines mentioned. Our advertising campaign to attract more people to train and retrain in the shortage subjects was launched earlier this year, with 1,000 replies in the first week.

      Immigrant Children (Bussing)
      Mr. William Sheltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy regarding the transport of immigrant children by bus to different schools in order to avoid a large concentration of immigrant children in one school.
      Mr. Macfarlane: This is purely a matter for local education authorities to determine in the light of the educational needs of the children concerned, local circumstances and the requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976. My right hon. and learned Friend welcomes the fact that most authorities do not find it necessary to bus children from ethnic minority groups.
      Mr. Shelton: May I tell my hon. Friend how much I agree with the last part of his answer? Does he agree that such action would generally dislocate communities, except in the most exceptional cases, and smacks more of social engineering than education?
      Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. It must remain the responsibility of local education authorities. If there are problems within adjoining communities, local education authorities should consult each other closely, together with the ethnic minority leaders.
      Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) that the use of the word "immigrant" is incorrect when applied to children who have been born in this country?
      Mr. Macfarlane: I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

      Science and Mathematics Teachers
      Mr. John MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to improve the supply of teachers of science and mathematics in schools.
      Mr. Macfarlane: Teacher training institutions have been asked to give these subjects a high priority, and the Government's training and retraining schemes continue as a valuable short-term measure.
      Mr. MacKay: Will my hon. Friend consider a bonus grant system for those students who elect to study mathematics and science at universities or colleges?
      Mr. Macfarlane: That is a suggestion that could come under the review that is taking place within my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions. A number of discussions on this important matter have taken place with both local authority and teachers' associations. We have had consultations with the CBI, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson),to discover whether those with mathematics or science degrees who retire early could be retrained and encouraged to teach these important subjects.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the ways to deal with the problem is to recognise that qualifications for teachers are rising and that over the next five years we should aim to pay all teachers more, even in

      229
      preference to a reduction in the staff-pupil ratio?
      Mr. Macfarlane: If that were possible it would be an ideal situation. It will have to be reviewed closely.
      Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Minister seized of the urgent and pressing need to acquaint school pupils with the demands of new technology? Nothing is being done in our schools in that respect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he ought to ensure that enough scientists and technologists go into our schools to provide that information.
      Mr. Macfarlane: This is an important subject, and I shall try to answer as quickly as I can. Through the Standing Conference on Schools Science and Technology, through the organisation of SATROs—that which the hon. Lady will know of—because of our determination to encourage closer links with industry and engineering in schools, because my right hon. and learned Friend has frequently referred to the importance of teaching craft, design and technology in schools at an early age, and from meetings that have been held with the CBI, the TUC and representatives of all the teacher associations, I believe that a number of important steps have been taken in recent months that will bear fruit in the future.

      Student Unions (Finance)
      Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give details of the changes he proposes to make in student union financing.
      Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend will announce new arrangements in a written reply to a question later today.
      Mr. Beith: Is not that an insult to the House? Is it not clear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid being questioned on the subject for another six weeks, so that by the time he next stands at that Dispatch Box the scheme will be a fait accompli?
      Dr. Boyson: I thought that the House would welcome the fact that at last the Government are taking action over student union financing. We could not have done it from the Dispatch Box, because
      230
      the answer is too long. Hon. Members will wish to consider the whole scheme, and it is with pleasure that we will announce it today. I warned the hon. Gentleman yesterday that that was the only way that we could do it.
      Mr. Kinnock: As I understand it, the principle of the answer is a brief one. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to try to avoid the question asked by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the basis of the length of the answer. That is the hon. Gentleman's responsibility. We want the basic information now.
      Dr. Boyson: The principle of making student unions more accountable than they are is accepted and understood by both sides of the House. The way that it has been worked out could not be explained briefly in the House, and that is why it will be done by a written answer.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the British Independent Steel Producers Association.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister agree that last night's television programme on documents published by BSC indicate that the Secretary of State for Industry deliberately provoked the national steel strike, blocked a 14 per cent. pay rise and insisted on 52,000 steel redundancies? Will the right hon. Lady assert herself against the reactionary and totally wrong policies of her right hon. Friend? Is the Iron Maiden chicken, or will she sack her right hon. Friend and stop the brutal butchery of working-class communities?
    The Prime Minister: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's ridiculous and disgraceful allegations against my right hon. Friend. Some months ago my right hon Friend, in conjunction with the industry, fixed a cash limit for next year of some £450 million, which the taxpayer

    231
    will find. Already we have a high level of tax in this country, and I think that it is as high as the taxpayer finds acceptable. We are not prepared to find more for operating losses.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the Palladium antics of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones)? Will she find time in her very busy programme, to explain at somewhat greater length to the people of this country why our Olympic athletes should not go to Moscow? Will she explain to the people of this country that the future security of the world is more important than a few gold medals?
    The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear that I think that if Olympic athletes go to Moscow that occasion will be used by Russia to indicate that either the countries which go or the athletes who go are, in some way, in favour of Russian foreign policy. I believe that that would be catastrophic. Because we know that the athletes have trained long and hard for that occasion we have asked, in the first place, for the venue to be moved to somewhere more suitable.
    Mr. Foot: To return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), will the right hon. Lady undertake, if she has not already done so, to see last night's "World in Action" programme on the steel papers, since that programme indicated, among other things, that within BSC, long before Christmas, there were some who warned about the catastrophic effects of a steel strike and the likelihood that it would take place if they went ahead with what they themselves described as the zero offer to the steel workers?
    Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether she has seen that programme? Will she undertake to do so, and will she undertake to return and report to the House on the interventions by the Government in the steel industry prior to 31 December?
    The Prime Minister: I did not see the programme. I have more or less read the script, together with the radio script—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, because I am not certain that it is accurate in every particular. I read the script, together with certain radio broadcast scripts at
    232
    lunchtime today. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the steel cash limit of £450 million for next year, following the £700 million for this year, was set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The only fetters upon it—if I may use that word—are that the £450 million should be used for a mixture of investment, working capital and redundancy payments.
    It seems to us that it is perfectly reasonable to provide good redundancy payments for those who lose their jobs, having previously provided, and continuing to provide, the best investment and equipment so that those who stay at their jobs may have the chance to earn higher and better pay.
    Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady says that she has more or less read the script, will she give us her comments on the warnings given to her and her Government from inside BSC way before Christmas of the catastrophic effects of proceedings as the corporation eventually did proceed? What support did the Government give to that and what intervention did they make? Will she give a full report to the House when she has read the whole script?
    The Prime Minister: If I may respectfully say so, the argument is not so much about percentages as about how those percentages are to be met. There is plenty of prospect for considerably improved pay if people will properly use the excellent and latest equipment and machinery that has been provided by the taxpayer. In that way, their levels of productivity will reach those of many industries on the Continent.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a deep sense of desperation is spreading throughout the country, for which she is responsible? When will she come to the House and say that she will take some action to stop the spread of paralysis throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of a sense of desperation. There is a great sense of desperation when a whole people provide a whole industry with the latest and best equipment so that it may become the best and most efficient steel producer in the world, and those who work in the industry do not take the opportunity to use it but go on strike to

    233
    demand more from the taxpayer—the taxpayer who, in the same world, has to make a profit.
    Sir John Eden: Does my right hon. Friend feel that she will be able to reassure the members of the British Independent Steel Producers Association that Ministers will in no way miss the opportunity of the passage of the Employment Bill through the House to ensure that, never again, are they made victims of the sort of strike action to which they are being subjected? Will she also make clear that if people wish to stop the damage that the strike is creating in the country and the steel industry, they must cease going on strike and resume negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend's last point. It is a cause of great sorrow to me that people who are on strike are not around the table negotiating again. The Employment Bill deals with secondary picketing, but of course it does not deal with secondary strikes. I do not believe that it can deal with such strikes at the moment.
    Mr. O'Neillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given.
    Mr. O'Neill: When will the Prime Minister recognise the Government's wider responsibility in the steel dispute? Will she assure the 12,000 workers in my constituency who are employed in the refractory brick industry that their jobs will not be put in jeopardy? Millions of pounds of public and private money have been spent on the arm to make it profitable, while the Government stand idly by.
    The Prime Minister: Jobs are put in jeopardy because of a strike. The hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to those who decide to go on strike, stay on strike and extend that strike.
    Mr. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend give a warning today about the consequences of the removal of all safety cover at BSC plants? The effect of that action may well be to destroy jobs in that industry. Will she invite the Leader of
    234
    the Opposition—whoever that might be in reality—to join in the condemnation of the foolish threatened action?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If the report is correct that safety workers are being withdrawn from coke ovens and blast furnaces, by so doing they are destroying their own jobs. I doubt whether some blast furnace men would do that, but I believe that the management and staff would be able to keep the safety procedures going for some time.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: In view of the Prime Minister's present position and the disastrous consequences to the national interest of what she is proposing, that is, to do nothing, will she willingly concede that, having said that she has fixed the cash limit only, by so doing she has fixed within it a wage increase? What is that wage increase that she assumed?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, we have not fixed a wage increase. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the cash limit applies to three matters—investment, working capital and redundancy. The wage increase will depend upon the level of productivity, and that is what the argument is about.
    Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep frustration that is felt by many workers in the steel industry, particularly in the private steel industry, because many of them do not wish to strike but are afraid to defy the unions in case of victimisation? Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of introducing a one-clause Bill to provide that if 500 workers, or 10 per cent. of the work force, whichever is the lower, demand a ballot, that will be mandatory on the trade union leadership?
    The Prime Minister: There have been times when I have believed that a one-clause Bill might be tempting. However, I must be candid with my hon. Friend. I doubt very much whether we could get a one-clause Bill through the House during the course of the strike. We have to get the strike settled first. There are provisions in the Employment Bill which will help considerably with the matter of the closed shop, to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Strawasked the Prime Minister if
    she will list her official engagements for 5 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier today.
    Mr. Straw: Why has the Prime Minister evaded the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) put to her? His central question was about what reply the right hon. Lady gave to BSC when it predicted a catastrophe if a 2 per cent. offer was made? I repeat, what reply did she make to BSC?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot know about relationships between nationalised industries and Prime Ministers. In a properly-run Government, the matter does not come to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to examine a parliamentary answer which suggests that the Government will continue to lend money to the Russians at subsidised rates of interest to buy capital goods. As these goods can be used to make military equipment, will she stop that immediately and seek to persuade our European partners to do the same? If not, our protest against Russian aggression and events in Afghanistan will become a farce.
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are not continuing with the higher preferential credit terms which were previously negotiated and which terminate this month. However, we expect to continue with what are called "consensus terms" with national trade, which we are agreeing with our partners. We are trying to negotiate those terms with them.
    Mr. Jay: Are the Government's industrial policies producing the results that the Prime Minister intended?
    The Prime Minister: They are certainly giving people the opportunity to earn more. If they take that opportunity they will have the assurance that they will be able to keep a bigger proportion of their pay packet. If some people receiving considerable subsidies from the taxpayer strike because they want more, that is
    236
    their own viewpoint and responsibility. I will have no truck with them.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mean "Yes we have done it all on purpose"?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must be very much kept down when his right hon. Friend is here.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from the Government Benches because I called two hon. Gentlemen from the Opposition.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country of the positive encouragement and reward given to the Soviet Union's aggression by the previous Labour Government when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was Prime Minister when he handed over to the Soviet Union the gold reserves of the independent republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? They had been deposited for safe keeping with the Bank of England when Soviet Russia invaded and annexed those republics.
    The Prime Minister: I remember the occasion very well and the great trouble that it caused among people who had previously been citizens of those countries.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise—as I am sure every hon. Member does, the special position of the Leader of the Opposition, but may I put it to you that it cannot be right, in the interests of all Back Benchers, that the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition in this case presumed on his position to intervene four times in question?
    In no way do I seek to complain that you rightly give preferential treatment to the Leader of the Opposition, but I hope that you will accept, that he will accept and that all Members of the House will accept, that to preserve his special position he should manage it with restraint and with regard for other hon. Members.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have often said that special latitude is given to the Leader of the Opposition and to his spokesman. To-day, because it was the last moment, I

    237
    called one hon. Member from the Government Benches after time because I thought it was the fair thing to do.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order. I hope that I may have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. On 17 January I tabled a question to the Home Secretary asking how many prosecutions were taken out during 1979 against persons for failing to have a dog licence. I was rather surprised to receive a reply from the Home Department saying that this was a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Nevertheless, since I trusted the Home Department implicitly I decided to wait until I received a reply from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That reply came on Thursday 31 January.
    "So far as England and Wales is concerned, I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the information requested for 1979 is not yet available…"
    That surprised me since the Home Department had said that it was not responsible for prosecutions.
    I therefore decided that I would table a question to the Prime Minister, so that she might get an iron grip on the two Departments and knock their heads together to get some sense out of at least one of them. I had her reply yesterday, which said:
    "Local authorities are responsible for collecting the dog licence fee and are required to keep a register of licence holders. The police are concerned with proceedings with licence evasion. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales have powers to alter the level of the licence fee."
    That simply is not good enough. I was refused the opportunity by the Home Department to ask specific questions that affected the interests of my constituents by a transfer of question, which, as far as I can see, should not have happened. I should be most obliged, Mr. Speaker, to have your guidance on this matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to take this opportunity to advise the House first of all that there is a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who hope to speak in the debate later today. We have now had a time-wasting
    238
    exercise, which was not a genuine point of order. Hon. Members should raise with me only those matters that are affected by the Standing Orders of the House. I cannot rule on the issue of an hon. Member's questions being transferred. The House knows that quite clearly. I make it clear to the House also that if hon. Members are not satisfied with answers that they have received they should not raise the matter under the guise of a point of order. They should pursue it with the Minister concerned. I cannot rule on that matter.

JUBILEE BUILDING, COVENT GARDEN
Mr Dobson: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, 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 the Secretary of State for the Environment not to list a building of architectural and historic interest—the Jubilee Building in Covent Garden."
It was built at the time of Queen Victoria's Jubilee as part of Covent Garden market and was recently converted into a sports hall.
The future of the site of the building is about to be determined by the Greater London Council, which wishes the building to be demolished and replaced by offices. To list the building would ensure a public inquiry before this sports hall, used by my constituents, could be demolished.
A report in The Guardian today states that the Department of the Environment inspector, exercising his professional judgment, recommended that the building should be listed. This recommendation was set aside following representations by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—that the issue should be dropped, or it would still be around, and very tricky, for the 1981 GLC elections.
The listing functions of the Secretary of State are semi-judicial in nature and should not be subject to short-term party political considerations. For these reasons I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is urgent, specific and particularly important, as it goes to the heart of the

239
discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the Secretary of State and would also provide an opportunity to save from vandals and property speculators a useful building of architectural importance.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock 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 believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The interference by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on political grounds in a quasi-judicial process of determining whether or not to list the Jubilee Market building, in Covent Garden."
I listened with care to the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt at all that to him and to his constituency this is an important matter, but as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I totally accept your ruling on my hon. Friend's application under Standing Order No. 9, but as the Secretary of State for the Environment is here and as a most serious allegation has been made—that a quasi-judicial act has been set aside for party political reasons—would it not be helpful if that were dispelled by the Secretary of State's standing at the Dispatch Box now and making clear whether that is true or not?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no notice of any such request.

BILLS PRESENTED

  BROADCASTING
  Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Ed-
  240
  wards, Mr. Secretary Atkins, Mr. Secretary Carlisle and Mr. Leon Brittan presented a Bill to amend and supplement the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in connection with the provision by the Independent Broadcasting Authority of a second television service and otherwise in connection with the functions of the Authority: to establisha Broadcasting Complaints Commission, to require consultation between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority about the scheduling of television programmes in Welsh; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (DECLARATION OF PARLIAMENT'S INTENTION)
  Mr. Michael Brown, presented a Bill to explain subsection (1) of section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 as amended by subsection (2) of section 3 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  EMPLOYMENT (No. 2)
  Sir Ronald Bell presented a Bill to amend the law concerning industrial relations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the motion relating to Community energy situation and nuclear proposals with the substitution of One o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES
  3.41 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a scheme to assist households on low incomes with the payment of fuel bills by means of rebates.
  The aim of my Bill is to bring in a national and comprehensive scheme that will give the necessary assistance to those who are unable, because of low incomes, to meet their fuel bills.
  There is no doubt that increasing numbers of people are having difficulty in paying their fuel bills, and none more so than those on low incomes. For such people, keeping their homes adequately heated and finding the money for the fuel bills becomes almost a nightmare.
  Last year, for instance, electricity prices went up by about 20 per cent. This year the increase will be larger. As we know, gas prices are due to go up during 1980 by nearly 30 per cent. The price of paraffin, so much used by poorer families, is 50 per cent. higher this year, due to the ending of price controls.
  When the Government announced the substantial increase in gas prices they should also have announced a proper and adequate scheme that would give the kind of assistance that should be given to people on low incomes to help them to meet their fuel commitments.
  Clearly, retired people on limited incomes need more help then they are now receiving in meeting their fuel bills. Many elderly people in the community—certainly those on limited incomes—find it so difficult to keep their homes warm that they do not use the fuel that they have. The reason is obvious. They are frightened that at the end of the quarter they will have bills that they will be unable to pay. Many keep the heating off. They wrap themselves in blankets. I suggest that is not a dignified way for the community to treat its senior citizens.
  Apart from the elderly, there are others who need assistance with fuel bills—the disabled and the handicapped, the single-parent families, often on very limited incomes, and those on low pay with families.
  When I raised the matter on an Adjournment debate last July I argued that
  242
  the electricity discount scheme should be maintained and extended. The electricity discount scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Administration, gave help to 4 million people on low income. It was a recognition that because of the high charge for electricity special provision should be given to people on low incomes. I was pleased when that scheme was introduced by the previous Labour Government. However, I was displeased when, instead of keeping and extending the scheme, the present Government decided to cancel it. In its place there is a new kind of benefit, which is likely to assist only 345,000 people.
  One argument in favour of the new benefit is that the main category likely to be assisted comprises pensioners over 75 years of age who are on supplementary benefit. But there is nothing for those pensioners under 75 who are on supplementary benefit. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has estimated that 70 per cent. of pensioners over 75 on supplementary benefit are already receiving a heating addition—an inadequate one, in my view. However, those people will not receive a penny under the Government's new scheme. The truth is that the Government have cheated those who are most in need of assistance with their fuel bills.
  I argue in my Bill that it is necessary to have a system of fuel rebates, or allowances, that will provide comprehensive assistance for the people whom I have in mind. In the early 1960s, when the revaluation of domestic property took place, great concern was expressed, if not by the Government of the day, that many retired people would not be able to pay their rate bills. It wasargued—rightly, in my view—that there should be a system of rate rebates. After a great deal of pressure, a rate rebate system was introduced, and it continues now. There is no controversy over rate rebates. My argument is simple; if it is right to have rate rebates and rent allowances for people on low incomes, it must be equally right to have a system of fuel rebates for those who clearly cannot—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must not make the speech that he would make if the House gave him permission to bring in his Bill. He must make a speech justifying the Bill.
  Mr. Winnick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My aim is to bring in such a scheme to provide the assistance that I believe is necessary. Fuel poverty is a blight in this country. Millions of our fellow citizens cannot make ends meet when it comes to paying their fuel bills. The type of hardship that I have described must be ended. I see no reason or justification for allowing that type of poverty to continue in our midst. That is why I request permission to bring in my Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. George Park, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Kevin McNamara.

  DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES
  Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a scheme to assist households on low incomes with the payment of fuel bills by means of rebates: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 March and to be printed. [Bill 141.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  I do not wish to inconvenience you or the House, but you may recall that at the end of Question Time the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said that an answer sought by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would be given later in the day in written form. This caused certain disquiet in the House. I was all the more surprised, therefore, to find on entering the Tea Room that the Evening Standard has a full report of precisely what the Government will be saying in the form of a written answer later this afternoon. It seems an extraordinary denial of the rights of the House that the press has the details of the answer before the House has been permitted to see it.
  Mr. Speaker: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have no control over what the Government give to the press or what the Opposition give to the press. It is not a matter on which I am able to rule.
  I propose to operate the 10-minute rule from 7 pm until 9 pm. I must warn the House that, even then, it will be very hard to call everyone who wishes to be called.
  3.53 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I do not want to underestimate the importance of this Bill on local government and local democracy. Nor do I want to understate the scale of what it proposes. In a number of ways, it challenges long established habits and attitudes. It encourages the more effective use of resources, the creation of a better understanding within local communities—councillors, officials and electors—of the opportunities and options they face,

  245
  and a more open relationship between central and local government.
  Changes of this nature, challenging as they do many deeply held convictions, cannot expect to lack controversy. They are overdue in any circumstances, but in the economic circumstances of today they are essential. I start with the present regime of central control over local government.
  A statutory framework is first approved by Parliament to give duties, powers and discretions to local government. But, from that moment on, by circular, by project control, by the refusal to sanction expenditure, and by borrowing limit, the central Government impose a detailed control at incalculable expense on the opportunities of local government. This web of detailed control is little understood, rarely examined, but its existence gives central Government the most comprehensive and detailed control over virtually any and every significant choice that, in theory, is the prerogative of local government.
  It is perfectly true that central government provide 61 per cent. of local government current expenditure. But the very system of distributing this £8 billion a year compounds the problems to which I refer, by rewarding those who spend more at the expense of those who spend less and by allocating the money by methods that few people understand.
  Finally, local authorities operate in a financial climate that gives no indication of the available underused capital resources, principally land, that they own and that could be better used. There is little comparative information that could enable councillors or ratepayers to judge their council's performance against that of a similar council.
  No one in this House and very few in local Government challenge the right of central Government to set priority for overall policy. The last Government's Education Bill and our sale of council houses are both controversial examples of that fact. Central Government has to set the frontiers. But, once those frontiers are set, we want to enhance the opportunities of local government to carry out those responsibilities that are theirs. The first general objective of the Government is to pull back in many areas from detailed interference with local
  246
  government discretion. As an example of this intention, my Department has issued only 39 circulars and circular letters in nine months compared with 222 in the last 12 months of Labour Government. Part I of this Bill relaxes a substantial number of detailed controls.
  We examined, as a Government, nearly 1,000 powers held by central Government over local. In general terms, we did not feel it correct to enhance the rights of local authorities at the expense of the individual. So we kept the 100 or so such powers that would affect this. Fifty more are default provisions and these also remain. Of the remaining powers, we have agreed, in this Bill, or elsewhere, to repeal or remove 300. They vary considerably in importance. Some are very small. Others are significant. What we have announced, in total, adds up to the largest repeal of such powers ever undertaken.
  But the real thrust of our removal from detailed control comes in part VIII of the Bill, where we proposed capital ceilings for local authority expenditure.
  I must ask the House to step back from the proposals in the Bill for a moment and understand the present arrangements currently in force in connection with capital expenditure. I am often told that there is no need to introduce capital controls because local government has a good record of keeping within present ceilings. But the fact is that central Government detailed controls are so stringent that anything else is virtually impossible. Block borrowing approvals cover local authority plans for personal social services and the locally determined sector. The Home Office has its range of controls. For transport, there is a combination of grant and borrowing approvals.
  Under my own Department, in housing, there is a combination of expenditure ceiling and specific borrowing approvals. Before one brick can be laid on the ground, a local authority has to answer up to 100 different questions in form after form. In addition, borrowing approval and subsidy entitlement involve another 80 or so questions. We expect to receive half a dozen plans and, when all of that is carried through to the satisfaction of my officials, an authority is free to proceed.

  247
  Parker Morris and cost yardstick standards ensure that not a house is built which has not been looked at in detail by my officials in respect of cost, size and design. That is the background, and words like "freedom" have no part to play in that process.
  It is because this Government are drawing back from this web of detailed control upon which they and their predecessors have, for decades, relied that it is necessary to ask what new controls would be needed in the climate of freedom that will consequently emerge. We need to know that local government will still keep within ceilings of capital expenditure. The Bill gives us powers to ensure this.
  Authorities will receive annual capital blocks for housing, education, social services, transport and miscellaneous, as they do now. But, having received firm allocations, they will be free to aggregate these allocations into one single block and then to decide their own priorities for expenditure as between services.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon) rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: The annual allocation will carry with it automatic borrowing approval. In addition, capital receipts can supplement allocations, and 50 per cent. of housing capital receipts may be used for any capital purpose.
  Housing services especially benefit. The abolition of housing project control restores to authorities the freedom to decide what sort of houses to build, and at what cost, to meet local needs. Parker Morris and cost yardstick as we know them will no longer apply. Authorities will no longer be caught between prescribed standards and costs. Government will intervene only by use of reserve powers in instances of flagrant extravagance that the taxpayer cannot fairly be asked to support, or to prevent building of an unacceptably low quality having regard to the practice of other local authorities or the private sector.
  There are a number of further points. Law and order services will not be included in the new system.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that to determine a fair provision of capital allocation to local authorities he will need a tremendous number of bureau-
  248
  crats, and a method of assessing the needs in the localities and balancing them against his relaxation of the restrictions on local authorities? Bearing in mind that local authorities in total have kept within 5 per cent. of the White Paper capital expenditure forecast over the past five years, does the right hon. Gentleman regard that exercise as worth while?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) could not have been listening to what I was saying. The reason why local authorities keep within 5 per cent. of the total is that the central Government machine is so detailed that they have no choice. It is because we are drawing back from those detailed controls and introducing a new system of ceiling controls that it will be necessary to deliver, in the new climate of freedom and discretion, the same close proximity to totals that we have experienced in the past.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I have a long speech to make, and many hon. Members wish to speak. Looking back over the past two occasions on which I have addressed the House, when I have given way to Opposition Members, their interruptions have added about one-third to the length of time for which I intended to speak. In giving way to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), I ask hon. Members not to make too many interruptions.
  Mr. K. J. Woolmer: If the Minister says that local authorities have kept within Government guidelines for their capital spending because of central controls over loan approvals, can he confirm that local council financing of capital spending by revenue contributions from the local rate did not cause any significant problems? In that case, why does he intend to prevent local councils using rate contributions to finance the local capital needs, so denying local councils the flexibility to use their own funds to respond to local needs?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. We are seeking control over the level of capital ceilings. No one questions that there should be such an overall level of capital control. The only question is whether the control

  249
  should be detailed or open by having known published totals and allowing local authorities flexibility in operating within them. That position is absolutely clear. I am sure that when he looks at what I have said the hon. Gentleman will realise that this new discretion to local authorities is far wider than any they have had under any previous Government.
  There will still be a need for specific government approval where capital projects could have a regional or national impact. Capital expenditure by parish councils and de minimis expenditure on equipment below £5,000 by all authorities will be outside the new controls. Individual authorities will enjoy a 10 per cent. tolerance carried forward or back on a year-to-year basis and will be able to vire with other authorities within a county areas. The Bill provides a fallback for authorities that exceed their capital ceilings.
  In the last resort, should an authority deliberately seek to break the new system, the Government can either remove the new freedoms from that authority specifically or put all authorities back into the present straitjacket. We have chosen the former as the only proper way to protect the overwhelming majority who will observe the new limits faithfully. The Bill provides for a direction to a local authority that has overspent or looks certain to overspend. This is essentially a reserve power, and no directions will be made in respect of marginal or accidental overspending.
  It is a common view that the politicians and the electorate know too little of what happens in the bureaucracies that serve them. The House has greatly extended the Select Committee system in recognition of this mood. The Government want local communities—councillors, officials and electors—to know more of the options that face them. In general terms, part II of the Bill enables Parliament to request local authorities to publish information about their activities in such a form that judgments can be made locally about them. Let me give the House just three examples of where I think such information should be available, authority by authority. First, manpower: every three months figures are supplied confidentially by each authority to a central body, the Manpower Watch, showing the total number of employees
  250
  that it has in each principal activity. These individual figures are added up and published in total, but they are not published at individual authority level, where they would have real meaning. I believe that these figures should be published.
  Secondly, planning: anecdotal comment about the delays in the planning system are commonplace, but facts have been hard to come by. Yet jobs, investment, environmental improvement and wealth creation are intimately tied up in this process. I ask no authority to change the nature of the decisions it takes. But I shall ask authorities to provide for publication details of the time it takes to deal with planning applications, in straightforward tabular form. My Department handles planning appeals. I can see no reason, save in the most extraordinary case, for decisions to take two or even three years to reach. I shall accordingly publish the time taken by my Department in reaching decisions on appeals in broadly the same form as I expect local government to do with planning applications.
  Thirdly, housing: in replacing the detailed approval of individual projects with the freer system I have already outlined, I shall expect local authorities to make available to councillors, and to publish, details of housing schemes in a form that will enable the cost, subsidy and value to be judged by those who are expected increasingly to pay for them.
  In general, enough comparisons between authorities cannot easily be made. This requires information on a common basis. I do not believe that my proposals will lead to a significant extra cost, because all authorities keep records. It is a question of seeing that the records are in common form and that more of them are open to public inspection. There will be discussions of the detail with the local authority associations and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy before the House is asked to decide on final proposals.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Has any local city council or county council ever denied the Minister's Department any information for which it asked? If not, why does the right hon. Gentleman require to change the law? Is he not in danger of trying to do for local people what local people are perfectly capable of doing for themselves?
  Mr. Heseltine: I have not yet been able to persuade the local authority associations to publish details locally of their manpower figures, although I am optimistic that it may be possible to reach agreement on that. Unless there is central co-ordination of the publication of this information it will not happen. I put it to the hon. Gentleman with all respect that within the private sector the House has ensured that there is a range of comparative information about the performance and activity of that part of our society, and it is perfectly reasonable that we should take exactly the same steps where appropriate to ensure that the public sector operates in such a way that its activities can be clearly seen.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool the planning department and the architect's department recently refused to tell me how many people they employed?
  Mr. Heseltine: I know that the whole House in its pursuit of open government will reflect upon my proposals and welcome them.
  The Bill provides for a new block grant system to be brought into effect by order of Parliament and similarly for transitional arrangements to apply in 1980–81. The House will know that I set out our proposals in considerable detail on 16 January, when we discussed the rate support grant orders. The new system in no way sets limits to what an authority spends, nor does it fix the level of an authority's rates. Those decisions remain with the authority.
  The new system ensures that the high spending authorities do not pre-empt even larger shares of a fixed amount of taxpayers' support away from those that remain within the Government's guidelines. Electors will more easily be able to judge the nature of the decisions being taken by an authority. In addition, the new system ends the present automatic assumption that the more an authority spends the more it pre-empts for itself at the expense of more cost-conscious authorities.
  The House has seen how the county share of grant has diminished until this year under such principles. But perhaps the clearest exposition is to be found in
  252
  the press release issued by the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) on 15 December 1978 when, as Secretary of State for Transport, he turned down South Yorkshire's transport bid. He said:
  "It is also important that all counties get a fair share of the limited resources available. If one county absorbs too much of these, others must suffer."
  He went on:
  "But it would have been unfair to give them relatively more money in total than other authorities with similar inner area problems."
  That is precisely the position. It is to end the automatic rewarding of high expenditure that the present RSG proposals are designed.
  The new arrangements mean that grant support on marginal expenditure is progressively reduced as expenditure rises substantially above the standard levels of authorities with similar economic and social circumstances. No cash is actually removed from an authority, but authorities that wish to pursue abnormally high levels of expenditure will have to bear a much higher proportion of the burden directly through rates or charges rather than at the expense of other authorities. Operational details will be worked out in consultation with the local authority representatives.
  The associations themselves have suggested that there may be other means, which they would prefer, to meet the objectives of block grant. They have not yet put forward an agreed alternative that meets our objectives. If they are able to put forward such an alternative I will of course consider it carefully and discuss it with them, but as I have told them, we are doubtful whether a practical alternative exists.
  Mr. Jack Straw: While we are on the matter of alternatives to the rating system, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this matter? Three years ago he told the House that the commitment of his party to abolishing the domestic rating system was one of the wisest political commitments that the Conservatives had ever made. Does he still believe that that is the wisest commitment that he ever made? If so, why is not a proposal to abolish the domestic rating system, rather than one to make it more complicated, included in the Bill?
  Mr. Heseltine: Since then, we made a commitment to reduce the levels of income tax. That was even wiser in the circumstances.
  The whole future of domestic rating is being considered by the Government, as we made clear in our manifesto. However, today we are dealing with the systems of distributing grant within an existing or revised rate support grant situation and we are not considering the alternatives to the present domestic rate situation.
  The Bill also provides for transitional arrangements for the year 1980–81 prior to the working of the new block grant that will be introduced in 1981–82, if Parliament approves. It has been suggested that the powers of the transitional arrangements should be retrospective and arbitrary. The powers are not retrospective because right from the start of this year's arrangements I made the Government's plans known.
  In June the Government's expenditure plans for 1980–81 were set out, asking for a further 1 per cent. reduction on the revised targets that we set for 1979–80. The RSG allocations were made conditional on the transitional arrangements. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. Further, the only power in my hands is to invite Parliament to approve an order introducing the transitional arrangements. It is for Parliament to decide whether it approves the order.
  It will be for Parliament to approve the proposals. The arrangements will have to comply with general rules. I expect that these rules will affect very few authorities. However, the House will want to bear in mind that without such arrangements we shall have a continuation of the situation in which the majority of authorities will see resources drift to authorities less responsible and less prudent than themselves.
  If anyone in the House feels that Governments have hesitated to go back on their plans once they have been agreed with local government, let me quote from the circular issued on 29 December 1976 asking for cuts in 1977–78. It said:
  "The Government appreciate that to achieve this, authorities will need to consider a combination of lower staffing levels, less spending on goods and services, and increases in income
  254
  from fees, charges, etc.rising at a faster rate than costs."
  There is built into the rate support system an element of retrospection. The resource grant is fixed retrospectively. Indeed, the Government announced that they would reduce this year's increase order by £300 million during the course of the current year on the basis that the Government could no longer afford to pay the underlying totals. Of course, the House will be aware that in taking that decision—as it could be suggested, retrospectively—we were acting totally in keeping with the precedent established in 1976, when the previous Government did exactly the same thing.
  This Bill is also concerned in a number of ways with the better use of resources. Part III introduces a new regime for direct labour organisations. The case for legislation in this area is overwhelming, and action is long overdue. There are endless examples of overspending and abuses within direct labour organisations. The last Government promised action, and that promise was the only action that we actually got.
  Our objective is simply to cut waste and inefficiency. Authorities will have to put their DLO accounts on a sound footing, closely comparable with a commercial undertaking. Unless they can do this they would be better employed using their assets in a more productive area elsewhere. The Labour Party is always calling for more competition, and fairer competition, with the private sector, and can therefore enthusiastically support these proposals in the Bill in this respect.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the object of part III is to ensure that direct labour organisations compete on terms that are neither more nor less favourable than the terms upon which private contractors operate? Will he give undertakings that if in Committee he is satisfied that any of the provisions or restrictions in this part of the Bill impose unfair burdens on direct labour organisations, he will accept amendments and that the regulations that he will have power to introduce will also ensure that there is fairness? In doing so, will he explain to the House why he feels that it would be unfair for direct labour organisations to undertake work outside

  255
  the scope of public works? There is profit there, and they are deprived from obtaining that profit.
  Mr. Heseltine: It would be wise for the direct labour organisations to prove that they can work effectively within their own areas before we consider whether we should extend the areas in which they trade. The Committee will want to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman raised—as will other hon. Members who are not on the Committee, when we come to the Report stage, if any other issues remain outstanding.
  A second area where I believe we can cut out waste is planning. The overlap of jurisdiction of districts and counties on development control contributes to this problem. The Bill will make development control, except in respect of minerals and one or two other instances, a district matter. This will not, however, affect the strategic role of the county. Districts will continue to be obliged to have regard to the structure plan and to refer to me applications which would be substantial departures from the structure plan.
  I also intend to reduce the case load of about 500,000 applications to local authorities—by about 20 per cent.—by raising the present limits of development permitted in the general development order. My proposals will include safeguards in sensitive areas such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, the national parks or conservation areas. Clause 63 gives a power to introduce a charging system, which I expect to raise £30 million in a full year. It will be universal, mandatory and simple. I also hope to bring forward shortly a range of other improvements to the planning system.
  I have talked about the planning system, and that brings me to the next area of the Bill, which concentrates on better use of resources. One glance at any of our cities and the scale of unused or underused land is evident. But nobody knows just how much there is, although all the evidence is that most of it is owned by the public sector.
  The land registers provided for in part X of the Bill are part of the drive to release this land. The provisions will enable the land to be identified. The provisions also give me, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales,
  256
  subject to Parliamentary control, a power to direct public bodies to dispose of land entered on a register which is demonstrably surplus to their requirements. I intend to announce shortly where the first registers will be and the size of sites to be registered.
  The Bill also repeals the Community Land Act, which has required nearly 200 circulars, guidance notes, directions and statutory instruments. Its administration has cost nearly £15 million and in three years it has provided less than 300 hectares of land for private development in England. Its passing will be unmourned.
  The proper role of local authorities in bringing land forward for development is recognised and their powers are clarified in clause 67. The Land Authority for Wales is retained but in future it will operate commercially, free from the doctrine that public ownership is desirable in its own right. The scale of operations will remain roughly at the present level.
  The previous Government reduced the population targets for some new towns and the designated areas now contain more land than is needed. The Bill provides for the de-designation of surplus land, but we are going further. This Bill also clarifies present disposal powers and gives the Government power to regulate the pace and direction of the disposals programme.
  The final part of the Bill deals with derelict docklands in an exciting and challenging concept—the urban development Corporation. The problem of the inner city areas is stark; there is tragic decay of vast areas which—as in London and Merseyside docklands—were once thriving parts of the country's prosperity. The problems of Merseyside and London are of such scale and national importance that special solutions are needed.
  I have made it clear—and I reaffirm today—that the Government intend to set up UDCs with the individual and specific approval of Parliament only in these areas, where single-minded agencies can secure development, bring in the private sector, and secure improvements of benefit to the areas and the country as a whole. There must be no loss of momentum in setting the bodies to work.
  The Bill gives wide permissive powers but nothing happens in respect of powers,

  257
  boundaries or financial regimes until Parliament considers these matters and approves the necessary orders. That gives the necessary flexibility for the widest possible consultation, particularly with the local authorities, and for the establishment of organisations tailor-made for each local situation.
  My UDC proposals have been widely welcomed by many of those with knowledge of the areas concerned. There is much to be done. In the event of this Bill receiving a Second Reading today, I intend to appoint the two chairmen on a shadow basis, so that each can plan now to begin work effectively on vesting day. In respect of Merseyside I am pleased to announce that the chairman of Bibby's, Mr. Leslie Young, has agreed to take the chair and that Sir Kenneth Thompson, leader of the Merseyside county council, has agreed to be deputy chairman.
  London offers an even bigger challenge and I am pleased to tell the House that Mr. Nigel Broackes, chairman of Trafalgar House Investments Ltd., has agreed to be shadow chairman. I know that the whole House will be particularly pleased that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has agreed to be deputy chairman. I shall make further announcements shortly.
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are any of these appointments paid appointments? Are they offices of profit under the Crown?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a point of order. It is an interruption.
  Mr. Heseltine: This is a major and central Bill in the Government's programme. It is one that seeks better value for money and a range of new opportunities for local government. Of course, the House can sympathise with the dilemma of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he decides how to oppose the Bill. He knows that much of the Bill is concerned with getting better value for money from the public sector. His party believes in the extension of the public sector as long as it is not expected to be accountable or efficient. He knows his party promised to reform direct labour organisations but was stopped by Labour authorities with inefficient direct labour
  258
  organisations. He knows his party wants more open government, but he is going to resist my proposals for fuller and better information. He knows his party wanted to reform the rate support grant system but that it gave in to the pressure from Labour over spenders. He resents my decision to postpone the rating revaluation because his party has postponed every revaluation it could since the war.
  The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in the traditional role of the social democrat, sandwiched between the Labour Party and common sense. For five days a week he preaches moderation and balance from the columns of the serious press. Then, at weekends, he sets off to Labour conferences to get it all out of his system by inciting Labour authorities to rate increases that could reach 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. I cannot understand why he does it. He convinces no one, let alone the extremists in his own party. One of them, the Labour leader of Lambeth, in a rare and wholly uncharacteristic flash of insight, described the right hon. Gentleman's policies this weekend as
  "a recipe for disaster for the Labour movement".
  Who are we to argue?
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Roy. Hattersley: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for enabling me to win my bet with Councillor Ted Knight that the comment he made on Sunday would be the peroration of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not predictable, as is his Bill.
  I want to make it clear at the beginning that the Opposition's objections to the contents of the Bill are reinforced by what I can only describe as our resentment at the form in which it has been presented to us.
  Our resentment is the result of four specific facts. First, this is not a single Bill but a number of disparate proposals, each one justifying a Bill of its own, which have been pulled together under a self-contradicting long title which talks simultaneously about extending and reducing controls over local authorities. Because there are so many major issues within one binding, it is almost impossible for my right hon. and hon. Friends to make the sort of Second Reading

  259
  speeches that are appropriate. It probably also means that the Government, on their present record, will introduce a guillotine into the Committee stage before we have reached the contentious proposals that are towards the back of the Bill.
  Secondly, this is a simple enabling Bill which is more dependent on secondary legislation than any Bill has a right to be. Clause after clause amounts to asking the House to provide the Secretary of State with a power to do what he wants, when he wants and as he wants. Usually the powers that he is given are limited by no more than the most general statement of principle. In some cases—especially the calculations surrounding the unitary grant—the Secretary of State asks for enabling powers to introduce a system which he cannot or will not yet describe to us.
  The Secretary of State talked about the operating details, but the operating details are what matters when calculations of rents and services are dealt with, as well as rates and all the other matters for which local authorities are responsible. What the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do is to give him the power to set the scheme of his choice, yet he blandly tells us that it may not be so bad because the power is so wide that if anybody else invents another power which conforms to his prejudices, or another scheme which abides by the rules he sets down, he will introduce that instead. The idea that the House should be asked to give any Secretary of State, let alone the present one, such wide discretion in clause after clause is intolerable.
  Thirdly, the Bill contains proposals which, by any normal understanding of the words or any sensible use of English, are retrospective. I want to return to the point later in my speech, but, since the right hon. Gentleman was specific in saying that no retrospection was involved, let me put it to him in the simplest possible terms. Councillors all over the country are entitled under the law today to fix their local rates according to their judgment as to the necessities of the area that they represent. Yet if they exercise that legal right in a way that does not conform with the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, a Bill is to be passed which, in November, punishes them for exercising
  260
  a right which was legal when they exercised it.
  Does not that come under the definition of "retrospective"? I think that no one who understands these matters can believe that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem is anything like accurate.
  Fourthly, and what is perhaps in a sense the most fundamental objection of all to the Bill's form, the Bill is described fraudulently. The Association of District Councils—Tory-controlled—says:
  "We cannot accept the claim of the Secretary of State for the Environment that this package of financial and other measures offers a new deal to local government and…is a major advance in local freedom and local responsibility."
  No one else can accept it, either.
  The Association of County Councils—not Tory-controlled but Tory-dominated—says that it believes that the Bill
  "must inevitably result in greater control by central Government notwithstanding the stated intention of the Long Title to relax controls."
  I admit that in part there are certainly some relaxations of the onerous burdens placed on local authorities. For instance, if the Bill is passed, an urban authority will in future be allowed the right to fix such reasonable rates as it thinks proper for the hire of pleasure boats on water-ways and other places. I am sure that there will be much rejoicing in town halls that that is to come about, but that hardly compensates for what the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—Tory-controlled—says would be the major effects of the Bill. Sir Godfrey Taylor, who was knighted for his services to local government—not to the Conservative Party, because it was not a political honour—and is a member of the Conservative Party of long standing, was here in the House of Commons yesterday drumming up opposition to the Bill at a meeting upstairs. His association described the major effects of the Bill in this way:
  "It would in effect mean that the Government specified the amount of expenditure and rate to be levied for every authority in the country."
  The Opposition take the view that a Bill of this importance should be given a great deal more scrutiny than the present parliamentary timetable permits. It was certainly the view of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the entire Bill should be committed to a

  261
  Committee of the whole House for proper discussion. I take the rather more modest view that clause 6, which concerns the change of functions, powers and roles between local authorities and national Government, should have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. But, because we are reasonable people, we suggested yesterday, through the usual channels, simply that three clauses, the three retrospective clauses, which provide punishments for councillors who may today do things which are legal but be punished for them later, should be properly considered by the House in Committee of the whole House. The Government were not prepared to accede to even that limited request, and the Opposition are not empowered under the Standing Orders to move that a limited amount of the Bill be considered by the whole House in Committee.
  Therefore, if the Bill gets a Second Reading this evening, we propose to move that the entire Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. I have no doubt that those guardians of our freedom who these days sit on the Tory Benches will walk slavishly into the Lobby with their party leaders and the Secretary of State not only to vote for a retrospective Bill, an enabling Bill and a Bill which changes the balance of power between local authorities and national Government, but also to make sure that it does not get proper discussion on the Floor of the House.
  We at least make our position clear. Part of the Bill has such important constitutional consideration and so much constitutional effect that we believe that it ought to get much better consideration than the present programme allows. I have talked about constitutional consideration because much of the Bill, perhaps the whole of the Bill, is concerned with local authority autonomy. I want to make my own position on that subject absolutely clear.
  Of course, I accept that local government does not, cannot and should not possess powers which are intrinsic to itself. The local government authorities of this country, urban and county authorities, possess what powers they are given by Government; and those powers that the Government give, the Government can take away. But if the powers that exist are suddenly subject to an arbitrary shift
  262
  and an arbitrary change, if the balance is suddenly swung dramatically away from town and county halls, if they lose their rights and Whitehall steadily increases its controls, I believe that democracy is deeply damaged by that process.
  I know that very many Conservative Members believe that, too They have been part of the discussions with the Association of County Councils and with the local authority associations in general, in which it has been generally agreed that it is a bad thing for local authorities to have powers snatched away from them in a way which undermines local democracy, as many people of this country believe it works best for the people of individual regions.
  Mr. Michael Latham:: Did the right hon. Gentleman believe in that principle when he was a member of the Government who took away local authorities' powers to determine their own education structures?
  Mr. Hattersley: That question is asked during every such debate. I give exactly the same answer. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember it for next time. Since 1870 it has been established that education is a national service locally administered. That was Mr. Forster's view of education. It was Lord Butler's view of education. It was written into the preamble to the Education Act 1944. That distinguishes the education service form other local government services. That is the traditional, historic and generally accepted difference between the two things.
  But I want to talk about the operation of the Bill in relation to local autonomy and the powers of the local community, particularly in respect of part XVI, which will enable the Secretary of State to set up urban development corporations and urban development areas.
  The Secretary of State—in, I am sure, one of those slips of the tongue which he corrects from time to time—said that this part of the Bill was about dock-lands. It is not about docklands. It is about lands in general. It may be that the Secretary of State for the time chooses to use the Bill simply for two specific areas, but the powers that he gives to himself and his successors can be applied anywhere in the country.

  263
  Clause 108 will enable the Secretary of State of the day to
  "designate any area of land as an urban development area."
  It gives him the most wide powers of designation. It says:
  "If the Secretary of State is of opinion that It is expedient in the national interest to do so, he may by order…designate any area of land"
  for that purpose. When he does so designate the area of land, he removes from the local, democratically elected public representatives their rights over housing, over land and over planning, and he appoints in their place nominees of his own who are given the most extraordinary arbitrary powers.
  Clause 110 describes what those powers are and what the nominees are entitled to do, which includes
  "anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes."
  It means, in fact, that the Secretary of State can set up such an area, remove democratic control, place control in the hands of his nominees and give them the most extraordinary discretions—certainly discretions to ignore the normal town planning—
  Mr. Heseltine: I can do none of those things under the Bill. Only Parliament can do them.
  Mr. Hattersley: Parliament's opportunity comes after a 90-minute debate and a single vote in this House and in the other place. That is the opportunity that Parliament possesses before it gives to a body of unelected men the power to do
  "anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes."
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point, with which I think he will probably not disagree.
  It think that it is possible to argue about the economic merits of the Secretary of State's proposals. My hon. Friends will argue—and I shall agree with them—that the interests of the area, the rights and possibilities of developing the area and the prospects of getting dockland moving again are being inhibited by this
  264
  new proposal, which is holding up developments which would take place were it not for the uncertainty that the Secretary of State has caused by saying that he insists on starting again from scratch.
  Whilst I concede at once that there are two economic arguments, can there be two democratic arguments about this? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have any doubts about the propriety of giving the Secretary of State such powers, let me remind them that under this Bill a future Labour Secretary of State could actually set up the urban development corporation of Lewisham, Bromley, or Wandsworth and Merton, or Solihull and Sutton Coldfield, or South Birmingham and Solihull, and give remarkable powers to nominees in those areas. My right hon. Friend might even become the actual chairman of ours. We might have Mr. Ted Knight as the deputy chairman, since he figures so largely in the Secretary of State's mind. We might actually get some houses that Lewisham needs to have built in Bromley; some of the houses that South Birmingham needs to have built in Solihull; and some of the development necessary for Wandsworth in Merton.
  I am not suggesting that we should use any of these arbitrary powers, but are the guardians of our liberty on the Conservative Benches going to vote future Secretaries of State the right to do such a thing?
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The point my right hon. Friend is making is, I believe, very apposite, because the Greater London Council is now divesting itself of its strategic housing role, I believe, and I would have thought that the temptation to a future Labour Secretary of State to set up urban development corporations in all the outer London boroughs to provide homes for the overcrowded inner London boroughs would be very great.
  Mr. Hattersley: I hope my hon. Friend will not tempt me to commit the Opposition to such a policy, although I see its attractions.
  The point I am trying to make is related not to its development merits but to its constitutional demerits and whether any Government should be given such powers by Parliament. I hope that hon. Members opposite, including the few of

  265
  them who have actually read the Bill, will consider that point very carefully.
  Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must take refuge in the point made by the Secretary of State. This is a long debate and a complicated subject. Many people want to make speeches, and I think I should proceed to the end so that speeches may be made from my own and opposite Back Benches rather than prolong my own speech.
  I move on by referring to the points made by the Secretary of State about his proposals for capital control. He spoke of them so warmly that I almost forgot that they were not his own idea. He spoke of them as if this were something that he had been wanting to do all his life. They are, of course, quite different from his original capital control proposals. This is the one area in relation to local government in which he was persuaded to change his mind. However, the conversion was so complete that he spoke of them today as if there had never been a better possible idea in the world. I do not think that the present ideas, now that the Secretary of State has been persuaded to change his mind, are all that bad. I believe in some ways they offer an extra freedom, which I am glad to see local authorities possess.
  What disturbs me and local authorities too about them is the discretionary right possessed by the Secretary of State to announce that one or another local authority is not conforming to the rules and therefore is to be subject to a much more stringent safeguard. As the rules now stand, the blocks are allocated and there is a 10 per cent. discretion on each one, which I take it is intended to allow for the inevitable overlap between one year and another when contracts take longer than was intended. But if there is constant overspending, the Secretary of State may remove the 10 per cent. discretion and may require authorities to make specific application for individual capital projects.
  I also understand—no doubt the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—that, if that new imposition is made, the local authorities which still go over the figures stipulated by the Government will be behaving in a way that is ultra vires and will be subject to legal penal-
  266
  ties. I think it is quite intolerable that the Secretary of State should be able to put local authorities in that position, particularly when, by his own admission, they may face a situation in which a contract, through no fault of theirs, moves from year to year.
  Mr. Heseltine: No, no.
  Mr. Hattersley: I knew the Secretary of State would say that, because in his opening speech he said "I will exercise these extra onerous arbitrary powers only if the behaviour of the council has been to flout deliberately the 10 per cent. ceiling." But what is wholly intolerable in a democratic society is that rules governing councils are determined by the Secretary of State's personal judgment about their motives. Time and time again—and it will appear even more forcibly when we talk of revenue control—the Bill gives the Secretary of State not only the right to make his own decisions about the performance of local authorities, but their performance is judged by his opinion of their intentions, which seems to me to be fundamentally bad law. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."] The right hon. Gentleman said that, but as I heard him speak and as I wrote it down, although I know that Hansard traditionally has trouble in writing down the contentious parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I believe that the word "deliberately" will appear. That is what he said and that is, of course, what he meant.
  I turn from that to the second area of extended control—that is, the extended control over revenue. Does the Minister for Housing and Construction wish to say anything?
  Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction was originally making this interruption, because inadvertently—I hope it was inadvertently—it was his feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was casting aspersions upon the technical competence of Hansard. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Member would not have intended to do that and that he would want to make quite clear that he was not doing so.
  Mr. Hattersley: No. I make it absolutely clear that what I said about the

  267
  error in Hansard last week was in no way intended to reflect on the Hansard authorities. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]
  I return now to the revenue aspects of the Bill. They have four essential features. The first is that the Government will assess each authority's spending need. That assessment of need is euphemistically called "standard expenditure", and it is to be calculated in a way which the Secretary of State has not yet thought fit to reveal to us. Secondly, there will be a calculation of standard rate poundage calculated not for each individual authority but for each class of authority, and then there will be a computation of the amount of rate receipts likely to be obtained by each authority, according to the standard rate poundage. Then the standard rate poundage will be deducted from the standard need and the Government will meet the balance of the two. If the authority spends more than the balance, the Government may meet some of the cost of the excess, but, as I understand it—andI am glad to see that the Secretary of State is nodding his head in agreement—to a diminishing degree, in order that there should be a deterrent.
  I know no one outside the Department of the Environment—and the Secretary of State will know better than I that it is not even a unanimous view within the Department of the Environment—who believes in the Government's ability to assess the spending needs of individual local authorities. I ask the Secretary of State whether he has any idea how the assessment is to be made. We all know that he rejects regression analysis as a method. He never speaks on these subjects without dealing with what he regards as the inefficiency and unsuitability of that scheme. How is he going to calculate the needs of the various authorities? May I ask him or the Minister of State when he winds up the debate to be very clear in answering a question related to that point? Will he impose a method of calculating the needs of authorities if he cannot obtain the agreement of the local authority associations for a scheme that they regard as equitable, rational and fair?
  268
  There is a very great fear in the local authority associations amongst Conservative as well as Labour members, based partly on previous actions and previous statements of the Secretary of State, that the formula will simply represent his arbitrary prejudices of how local authorities ought to spend their money. The Association of County Councils is a body on which there is one Labour council. I do not deny the ability of the councillors of Durham to sway colleagues in bodies in which they take membership, but I think that the Association of County Councils, with 21 Conservative members to the one Labour representative, ought to be taken seriously on the Tory Benches. The Association of County Councils says that it fears that the new scheme will enable the Government to adopt any grant distribution pattern that they please. I had hoped that some Tory Members would agree that it is intolerable for the Secretary of State to say that he wants the power to adopt any grant mechanism that he pleases but cannot say what it is today. He says that he is interested to hear other people's ideas about what it may be, but he wants the power to do exactly what he wants and that is what he asks the House to provide.
  It is impossible to calculate the needs of individual authorities in a way that is both efficient and honest. The Secretary of State puts himself into an appalling dilemma in committing himself to construct such a formula when no one has the faintest idea of how that formula can be made up.
  The other half of the calculation can be made more honestly, but it can hardly be made more sensibly. Irrespective of our mutual failings in dealing with rate revaluation—and I include my party—if there is a system of rate distribution and of grant distribution which is in part dependent upon rateable values it is nonsensical to base it on rateable values which are 10 or more years old. It is nonsensical to say to the boroughs that the Government will share out the money according to rateable values when the rateable values might have been appropriate in 1973 but certainly are not appropriate in 1981.
  The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): Why did not the Labour Government do something about it?
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister should know better. We did not do anything because we were not running the proposed scheme. That may have escaped the Minister's attention. In addition, we said that a Labour Secretary of State should have the power not only to have a review when he chose instead of once every five years but to have a partial review. If the Bill is passed, the Secretary of State will be able to order a rate revaluation whenever he wants one. It will not have to be a complete rate revaluation. He can choose any group or class of hereditament. That is a wholly arbitrary power. The Secretary of State can decide to revalue domestic properties but not houses. He can decide to revalue a particular class of building but not another.
  I agree with the three local authority associations which say in unison that if revaluation is constructed in a way which allows the Secretary of State to pick and choose those parts which are revalued and those which are not, the honesty, the objectivity and the visible impartiality of the rate valuation system will be damaged crucially and perhaps totally destroyed.
  Bad as the actions are to be taken in the name of the block grant, the proposals for the transitional measures are worse still and the worst of all. The Secretary of State, in his normal bland manner, said that the object of the unitary grant is to allow local authorities to determine the rates which they think to be right for their area, even if they receive less Government assistance. The object of the transitional measures is to coerce certain local authorities into holding down their rates to a figure stipulated by the Secretary of State. For reasons which the Secretary of State has thought it right not to reveal to us, he has decided that outside London the appropriate rate this year is 119p.
  Mr. King: That is not right.
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the Minister will explain what the 119p is, how it was arrived at and whether the rumours passed from his Department to certain local authorities that it is soon to be revised are true or false. The Secretary of State has said that any local authority which charges a rate above that figure may be in trouble. The trouble will be that they will receive a smaller share of
  270
  the increase order and the rate support grant than otherwise.
  The Secretary of State said something else. He said that he will allow a margin of error. He will not say what that margin of error is—another example of his arbitrary power. He says that when withholding money he will judge according to a number of criteria. London is not subject to the 119p rule. In the operation of the rules of simplicity in which the Secretary of State believes so strongly, the standard uniform rate for London, according to the Department of the Environment, is:
  "ES-N-B / NS X P"
  Apparently it is essential that local authorities in London do not exceed that rate poundage.
  The transitional arrangements will result in certain councils being penalised if they go beyond the margin which the Secretary of State stipulates as being appropriately above 119p. How will he judge whether they are to be penalised? I asked the Secretary of State that question during the rate support grant debate. The House will know that two Hansards have to be consulted because the first was corrected. The first Hansard of 16 January 1980 stated that he would judge according to their spending and to their rates. The correction, which appeared on 17 January, which the Secretary of State was kind enough to confirm, was that he would judge according to their rate poundage, their spending and "speeches". If the right hon. Gentleman meant "spending and rate poundage" and "speeches" was a slip of the tongue, he has only to say so. I make more slips of the tongue than most and I shall forget about it if it was a slip of the tongue. If it was not a slip of the tongue, it is a matter of great importance. In this country we have not reached a time when councils and councillors are penalised not because of what they do but because of what they say.
  It is extraordinary for a Secretary of State to announce that men and women are to be penalised for their opinions. That great guardian of our public liberties, Lord Denning, has nothing to say on this subject. However, local Labour authorities in Leicester on Saturday were unanimous that we should give Lord

  271
  Denning an opportunity to adjudicate on this issue. I assure the Secretary of State that if there is the slightest suspicion that the increase order is being withheld from councils because of councillors' speeches, all the necessary and proper legal processes will be used. Since I am in a benevolent mood, I say to the right hon. Gentleman again that if he wants to say that the word "speeches" was an error nobody will be more pleased than my right hon. and hon. Friends and the matter can be forgotten.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but the House has covered this ground. There was a question about whether the original Hansard report of my reply to a question was accurate. As the House will remember, I said that in my view the original report left out the word "speeches". We established our position clearly. I used the word "speeches" and I said that I used it. In the context of the decisions and the speeches, I meant it.
  Mr. Hattersley: I have done my best for the Secretary of State. He must not expect me to bring in the meat pie with the file inside when the time comes.
  I turn to several other matters which require a moment of the House's attention. They deserve more than that, but because of the nature of the Bill they cannot be given more time. In all quarters of local government there is unanimous opposition to the Bill's major provisions. However, all quarters of local government will want to thank the Secretary of State for implementing the major proposals of the Robinson committee. We did not do that. It is ironic that a Bill which severely diminishes the powers of local government should acknowledge that many councillors may make a considerable sacrifice by spending time in county and town halls. I am glad that that is provided for.
  I am particularly glad that the services of major chairmen are to be assisted under the terms of the Bill. There are other important parts of the Bill—although in the context of other issues they may seem minor—on which my hon. Friends and I would like to comment, such as the charges to be levied for planning applications and the repeal of section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925,
  272
  which appears in schedule 5. We shall be forced to raise those matters in Committee because the Bill prevents us from raising them on the Floor of the House.
  There are two remaining issues to which I should like to refer. The first is direct labour. I say to the Secretary of State, who anticipated my opinion on the subject—rather rashly, as is his wont—that I have no doubt about the necessity for direct labour organisations to be run efficiently. Equally, I have no doubt that most of them are run efficiently. Most local authority direct building organisations obtain their major contracts through open competition with private builders. They obtain those contracts despite the extra costs incurred in providing security for their employees, in providing safety measures, and in training young craftsmen. Those extra costs are rarely borne by private contractors.
  Twenty years ago I was privileged to be the chairman of a direct labour organisation. We constantly competed in the open market against Wimpey, Terson, Laing and Gleeson. We obtained the contracts because we offered the lowest price, and when we completed the work below our contract figure we gave back the money to the local authority rather than keep the profits. Most local authorities' direct labour departments will be able to compete adequately under the terms of the Bill.
  I share the view that since we want direct labour departments to compete with private builders, we must make sure that they do so properly. I vividly remember that they were highly successful in Sheffield in obtaining private contracts in open tender, against private companies. We regretted that we could not just move our equipment across the road to build a private store or any other sort of private building. We had to take cranes and machinery to the other end of the city. I want the competition to be fair and genuine. I want private and public companies to compete, but I believe that more often than not the public sector will win, which will be a credit to it.
  It is expensive nonsense to expect public works departments' direct labour organisations to go through the long bureaucratic process of controlling repairs and maintenance. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has deep prejudices

  273
  about the building industry and that he believes that the public sector is usually inefficient and that the private sector is the paragon of all commercial values. I should like him to visit Birmingham—ideally before May, when there will no longer be a Conservative majority—and see what is happening to private builders in my constituency who are asked to carry out repairs and maintenance work. They are leaving the work half done while they move on to more remunerative jobs, to the enormous inconvenience and sometimes to the danger of the inhabitants.
  We shall press for the sensible use of direct labour, and we have no doubt that many authorities will be able to demonstrate how sensibly it is used already.
  I should like to comment on the Community Land Act. This is the fourth occasion this century that Conservative Governments have repealed Acts which provide that the community receives some of the profits that accrue to private landlords as a result of community activities. The Liberals attempted to do so 50 years ago. The Conservatives repealed that legislation. This is our third attempt, and the third repeal. I am delighted that the Land Authority for Wales remains—a fact which the Secretary of State could not even bring himself to tell the House.
  Mr. Heseltine: I must help the right hon. Gentleman in case Hansard does not record the situation. I said specifically that the Land Authority for Wales will continue. I am not too worried that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear that. He has not listened to any other part of my speech either.
  Mr. Hattersley: If it will make the right hon. Gentleman look any happier than he has looked for most of the afternoon, I shall beg his pardon for the fourth time. I am delighted that he referred to the success of the Land Authority for Wales. That is a credit to his open-mindedness and his objectivity. When the Labour Party is returned to power, we propose to extend the success of the Land Authority for Wales into England and beyond.
  If a private landlord, through no industry, effort or activity of his own, suddenly discovers that the community has changed the use to which his land is put, it is
  274
  palpably wrong that he should receive the enormous benefit and bonus rather than that the community should enjoy the fruits of its own decision. We must find a way in which the betterment of land will be to the credit and advantage of the whole community rather than to the person who temporarily and fortuitously has the good luck to own that land.
  That is best achieved by substantial sectors of land being taken into public ownership. That would make it appreciably more difficult for a future Conservative Government to repeal such an Act. Some method of recognising and representing the community's interest must be found—and found it will be. I do not expect it to be found by the right hon. Gentleman. His entire Bill is a manifestation of the fact that he is not concerned with the community's interests. He is concerned with two interests, the commercial interest and his obsession with centralism—government run from Whitehall, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, according to his judgment and his rules. For that reason above all others, we shall vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the first speaker from the Back Benches, I remind the House that a great number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. The 10minute limit on speeches will operate from 7 pm until 8.50 pm, and I hope that it will perhaps operate before then.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I offered some critical observations on the first version of the Bill during the debate on the executive and public bodies on 10 December 1979. This revised version shows a welcome reduction from 288 pages to 210 pages, including no fewer than 105 pages of schedules. It still compares unfavourably in length with the 146 pages of legislation, including the Finance Act, with which the reforming Parliament of 1912 was content. In those days Parliament had shorter Sessions and fewer Committees, but it spent twice as much time debating public expenditure.
  It is a happy chance that the Bill was mistakenly introduced into the House of Lords in the first instance. However, the fact that this revised version contains some worthwhile modifications only serves.

  275
  to fortify me in the opinion that there should be some form of pre-legislation procedure, which would enable the House to express a view on the general principles before Second Reading, which offers no chance of exploring amendments before the Committee stage. As I said in the procedure debate on 2 February 1976, if the Community Land Act had been introduced as a draft Bill we should at least have got rid of the incredible and replaced it by the unacceptable. At least some of the absurdities would have been removed. I also advocated during that debate that when the House considered major policy changes in relation to a matter such as London's docklands, there should be a preliminary consideration of what was involved.
  In spite of the slimming process that it has undergone, the Bill contains too many Bills rolled up into one measure. There is far too much reliance on enabling provisions, and there is certainly too much for anyone—especially in 10 minutes—tocover in any way the matters raised in the Bill. I am very much concerned about the planning provisions, for example, but there will be no time to speak about that subject.
  Those of us who read the Local Government Chronicle will know that it is by no means a vehicle for extreme expressions of opinion, but what it has to say this week is this:
  "The revised local government Bill is a curate's egg of which the edible parts are spoilt by provisions which, to correctly pursue the metaphor, can only be described as stinking."
  I warmly welcome the abolition of the Community Land Act 1975, which has proved, as many of us forecast, a costly and futile exercise. I also warmly welcome the possibility of creating new corporations to regenerate urban areas, but I incline to the view that, as drafted, the Bill is too wide in its provisions. I am not impressed, from long experience, by reliance upon the so-called affirmative resolution procedure.
  I am much more doubtful about the wisdom of the financial provisions of the Bill as they stand. I refer particularly to the new unitary grant system and the capital spending controls. If these are not substantially changed, I fear that the Secretary of State will find that he has opened a can of worms—and a can of rather fat and costly worms at that.
  276
  This is a Bill that is intended, according to the first sentence of the preamble, to
  "Relax controls over local government".
  No doubt there is considerable merit in what the Secretary of State has had to say about that. The proposals in part I and the first batch of schedules are very good—as far as they go. I am glad to see the relaxation of Whitehall control over such matters as mortuaries and slaughterhouses and fees for tests under the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951. But these provisions pale into insignificance beside the new financial controls that are now envisaged.
  No one, I am sure, will dispute the need for Government control over the totality of national public expenditure—including, necessarily, that of local authorities. So I do not quarrel with the Government's general objective, bearing in mind, for example, that the total contribution by national taxpayers to local government in the London area alone in 1977–78 was £1,609 million. But I share very strongly the anxieties which have been expressed by all the local authority associations—and I have never known them to be in such a measure of agreement—about the way in which the Government propose to exercise their control.
  Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I am glad that the Government have modified the original proposals to omit the system whereby an authority would, in effect, have been prevented from making any payment in respect of capital expenditure without the consent of the Secretary of State.
  Equally welcome is the decision not to make expenditure by parish or community councils count against the expenditure allocation of district and county councils. It is a good thing that there has been this little pause between the first Bill and the second. There has been some improvement, but the Bill still contains proposals which are not merely objectionable but will, I submit, prove to be unworkable.
  With regard to the central Government we know that there has never been any distinction, regrettably, between capital and revenue spending. Because it all

  277
  comes out of the Consolidated Fund, it is all treated as though it were revenue. It has always been one of my complaints about the Treasury that it cannot tell the difference between above and below the line; it cannot tell the difference between capital and revenue; and it cannot tell the difference between investment and consumption. It budgets only in terms of annual packages.
  Trying to reconcile the pattern of local government expenditure, extending over more than one year, with an annual allocation, as my own Northumberland county council has pointed out, will be "a nightmare".
  I hope that the Government will heed the advice that they have received from the local authority associations and either exclude direct financing from the rates from control under the new system or, perhaps preferably, use a mechanism to control the amount which can be borrowed. That would be just as effective and much more in line with present practice.
  I turn now to the new rate support grant, which involves replacement of the needs and resources element of the present grant by a single block grant, adjustable at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I think that it is too wide a discretion in any circumstances. I know from my experience that the present system is far from ideal. It is very complex. I used to say that to sort out all the factors that we were feeding into the administrative machine required a computer so sophisticated that it would demand, when we put the question to it, "First sacrifice a goat."
  I am not defending all the aspects of the present system. It is complex but not as complex, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, as the basic proposal in the Bill. As the Association of County Councils has said, the criticism of the present system is concerned with fairness, not with the ability or otherwise to influence the national total of local spending.
  As to fairness, it will probably never be possible to satisfy everyone. When I settled the rate support grant, I was criticised by the cities for giving them too little and by the county councils for giving the cities too much. Since then, the Labour Government in every year tilted the balance against the rural areas, so that the rural deprivation is perhaps
  278
  now the most serious social problem that we face.
  But all that is a matter of judgment. It can be settled within the framework of the existing system. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the weakness of the present method of assessment of the needs of local areas is that, because it relates retrospectively to expenditure actually incurred, it tends to reward extravagant authorities at the expense of thrifty ones.
  My authority, the Northumberland county council, is a thrifty authority. One would have thought, therefore, that it would welcome the Bill, but it does not. The effect of the new Bill is to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and to penalise everyone in order to deal with a problem which, although we know it exists, could be dealt with in some other way.
  I well understand the Government's desire to ease the present links between a local authority's spending demands and its rate support grant. But I share the grave doubts which have been expressed whether the new block grant will achieve its objectives. I think that it will be even more complex than the present system. It involves an unnecessary and, to my mind, undesirable degree of Government intervention.
  I should like to quote once again that very moderate organ of opinion, the Local Government Chronicle. On 7 December 1979 it said this:
  "Even if a team of Department of the Environment officials is permanently installed in every local authority, it will still be impossible to make unitary grants work in an efficient or fair way."
  That is very strong criticism, and the Government must take into account that that is a view shared by many people with long experience of local government—Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals. The Government must take note of the anxieties which have been expressed by local authorities and local councillors everywhere in the country.
  In Northumberland, an all-party plea not to proceed to shackle local government in this way has been made by the county council, with the support of all the six district councils in the county. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise the validity of their concern and agree to hold further discussions with the local authority associations about

  279
  their alternative proposals. There are alternative proposals; they ought to be considered. Indeed, I for one, without a firm assurance that these further discussions are to take place, would find it difficult to support the Bill, in spite of my approval of its intentions and many of its provisions.
  By all means control the taxpayers' total contribution to local government, by all means seek as fair a distribution as possible between the various parts of the country and the various types of authority, between cities and rural areas, but do not reduce the effectiveness of locally elected members of councils.
  I shall quote a typical reaction to the Bill that came from Councillor David Adams, mayor of Castle Morpeth. He chaired the joint meeting of the seven councils in Northumberland. That area is one of the most disadvantaged under the existing system, yet it still prefers that system. He said:
  "Do not rob the local electorate of their democratic right to run their affairs through the ballot box."
  One of our great constitutional lawyers, F. W. Maitland, said during the last century:
  "The local authorities must be left to flounder and blunder towards better things…There is no good in half trusting men; they should be trusted fully or not at all…give the local authorities a large room in which, if they can do no better, they can at least make fools of themselves upon a very considerable scale."
  No doubt in the nineteenth century Professor Maitland could not foresee the extravagances of modern local authorities. However, the truth remains. If local electors are dissatisfied with the running of local affairs, they have a remedy in their hands They must be encouraged to use it.
  The alternative is further erosion of local democracy. There will be even greater difficulty in finding people who are willing to serve on local councils. Conservative Members have often said that there is nothing wrong with Britain that a little less legislation and a little less Government interference would not improve. In so far as the Bill flies in the face of that belief, it will require a great deal of further thought and discussion before it deserves to reach the statute book.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Robert Mellish: As requested, I shall make a brief speech, and I shall concentrate on that part of the Bill that personally affects me—London's docklands. When the area became derelict in the early 1970s, I made a speech in the House to the effect that this was the greatest chance that London had had since the fire of London. It provides an opportunity for the use of imagination, great plans and great finance and an opportunity to build something for the future of which we could all be proud.
  At that time I declared my support for a development corporation. I recognised that it was the only machinery that could achieve that. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the record of development corporations. They have built new towns that are the pride and joy of Britain. Those new towns were built under different Governments. I wanted a development corporation 10 years ago. However, I wrote to the previous Prime Minister, now the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and I received a good reply. The present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stalled democracy by one of the oldest methods—he set up committees of inquiry. For several years we had nothing but committees of inquiry. They produced three reports. One report suggested that the whole area should become woodland.
  The most democratic gentleman, the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon), then set up the dock-lands joint committee, men of great integrity. Within the limits prescribed, they did a good job. However, they do not have the powers of a development corporation. It may be said that such powers should now be given to them. However, the very concept of a development corporation is as right today as it was then.
  When the Secretary of State asked me two weeks ago to become vice-chairman, I accepted the invitation in the spirit of challenge in which it was made. I may add that I would have loved to have been chairman. I have always been one who wanted to be a boss.
  Over the years I have argued in favour of a development corporation and

  281
  I now have the opportunity of becoming involved. I know that I shall be criticised, but I have asked everyone what purpose I should serve by not being a member. What purpose would I serve if I refused on the basis that contrary critical views might be expressed? What purpose would I serve if I walked away? Whatever I may be, I have never been gutless, and I therefore accept the challenge.
  It is imperative that there should be local government representatives on a development corporation.
  Mr. Ogden Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Mellish: I know that my hon. Friend will say that it is an office of profit. I shall come to that point. I have asked the Secretary of State whether local representatives are to be included on the development corporation. I cannot state his final reply—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) appears agitated, but I have no hesitation in saying that local authorities will be represented on that development corporation if they so wish. The Secretary of State will invite them.
  The powers embodied in the proposed legislation offer a great chance to the development corporation. I accept the challenge on the basis that it gives me a chance to be inside and to protect those whom I represent.
  Mr. Ogden Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Mellish: I shall give way as my bon. Friend appears to be agitated. His question must be very important.
  Mr. Ogden: My question has nothing to do with any office of profit. I wish the chairman well when he has my right hon. Friend as vice-chairman. Does he agree that the key to success of any urban development corporation is the dowry that it brings to the area? How much cash will urban district corporations have?
  Mr. Mellish: Of course, that is right. If I had known that my hon. Friend wished to ask that question I would have given way ages ago. A development corporation that has just been set up would be worse than no committee if no money were available. What a joke! I cannot imagine what entertaining business might
  282
  be under discussion. I wish to put it on record that the Docklands Joint Committee—within the limitations of its authority, power and finance—has done a first-class job. I shall not walk away from that but rather build on it. I hope that within the next decade we shall be inspired to regenerate that land and that it will become a credit to all.
  Of course, there is a salary attached to the job. However, as I said to the Secretary of State, I shall not take the salary. Therefore, the job is not an office of profit under the Crown. I shall not leave the House. If I do not take a salary, I can stay here. I have been a Member of Parliament for 34 years—
  Mr. Hattersley Mr. Hattersley rose—
  Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend appears to be agitated. Does he wish to say something?
  Mr. Hattersley: I was anxious for someone to take this green card out for me. As my right hon. Friend is doing jobs, perhaps he will do that one as well.
  Mr. Mellish: Let that be recorded. I am not taking any salary for the job and, therefore, the job cannot be regarded as an office of profit under the Crown. In those circumstances, I shall continue as a Member of Parliament.
  I know that my remarks will be read by others outside the House. I have represented my constituency for 34 years, and I think that I have given it fair service. I think that my constituents trust me. My constituents will understand why I am taking part in the development corporation. I want to continue that work. I cannot continue it if I do not join the development corporation and so protect the interests of my constituents as well as those of others. I care about the social needs and outlook of that area as much as any hon. Member. Against that background, I accepted the job.
  My parliamentary career is coming to an end. I wish to be certain that I can continue the same type of work for which I came into the House. I believe that the development corporation will allow me to do that. I shall go in with enthusiasm and with guts. I shall do what I can to make this great London of ours something to be proud of.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will forgive me if I do not continue along the lines that he followed. However, I shall be the first Back Bencher to offer the congratulations of the House on his appointment. Few people can know more about dock-lands than the right hon. Gentleman. He has lived and worked in that area for a long time. It will give pleasure to the vast majority of hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman is to remain with us, at least for some time.
  The foremost objective of local government reorganisation was to create a system in which it is possible to stop the steady erosion by Whitehall of local authority powers and responsibilities and return many of them to town and county halls, where they can be best exercised to take full account of local needs and circumstances. I welcome the relaxation of ministerial control, which is set out in clause 1 and elsewhere, for the greater discretion that it will give local authorities and the manpower saving that it implies for the Department of the Environment by removing from it those responsibilities and powers.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that the Secretary of State must accept that, taking the Bill as a whole, the balance sheet of increased powers, in the opinion of local authority associations, is not as advantageous to local government as they would wish. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out that the Association of District Councils stated that it cannot accept the claim that the Bill is a major advance in local freedom and responsibility. In particular, there is considerable opposition to the block grant. That opposition comes from all the local authority associations, and it is not often that they all agree about anything.
  I have considerable sympathy with the Government over the block grant. Undoubtedly the rate support grant and the regression analysis method have been abused by prodigal and selfish authorities. People in and out of local government have been crying out for a change in the system. The Government now produce their block grant proposals
  284
  to stop the abuse, only to find that local government says that it was not so bad after all and that the powers that the Government propose to take are out of all proportion to the limited problems with which they aim to deal.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the spending authorities have been the progressive ones? He cannot make a broad statement that covers all authorities. Environment makes a difference. Before reorganisation, my own small local authority, almost from a tip, created a complex of roads and sewers on which to build factories. If that project had not been successful, it would have been counted as an extravagance, but it was successful. Such factors should be taken into consideration.
  Mr. Morrison: It does not necessarily follow that the councils that spend the most money are the best councils. The best councils are those that produce the the best value for money. In the past, we have only too often seen Labour-controlled councils throwing ratepayers' and taxpayers' money down the drain. That is why the Government bring forward the proposal.
  There is an implied backhanded compliment to the Secretary of State in the criticisms of the block grant. Memories are short. Distribution of the rate support grant, as practised by the previous Government, was unfair and biased, but that is already beginning to fade from memory. The new distribution introduced by my right hon. Friend is satisfactory to local authorities, and therefore many now feel that these proposals are not necessary.
  Nevertheless, if I may proffer a little advice to the Government, they must do one of three things, They must either find an acceptable alternative to the block grant in conjunction with local authority associations, as they are trying to do—and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his open-mindedness—or they must persuade local authority associations of the benefits of the block grant system. Clearly, they are dissatisfied at present. The final option is to drop the proposal and leave the system as it is until such time as local authority associations come forward with an acceptable solution. After all, we are arguing

  285
  not about the total amount of money available for local government but whether a few selfish authorities should benefit at the expense of the majority of responsible authorities.
  Finally, I am concerned about one important aspect of the planning proposals in part IX of the Bill. Although perhaps it is arguable, it may not be unreasonable to place more decision-making in regard to development control in the hands of district councils. However, it is unacceptable to create a situation in which district councils may ignore the structure plan. If they do, it may be imposible for the county, within the new capital control system, to provide the required infrastructure. Alternatively, if the county provides that infrastructure, it may well be only at the expense of development in other districts within its area. That point must be given serious consideration. I hope that in Committee the Government will be sympathetic to the need for ensuring that structure plans can be upheld. The Secretary of State tried to reassure us. Nevertheless, doubts exist and will continue unless there is further reassurance in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend and I both served on the Committee on the Local Government Bill in 1972 when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He will remember the problem of trying to create the right balance of planning powers between the types of local authority. He is now making a further attempt to right what some thought was an injustice. If he is to right an apparent wrong, he should do so on the basis that the solution is satisfactory to county and district councils.
  The Bill is full of good intentions, but it has given rise to considerable fears, which can no doubt be removed in debate or by amendment in Committee. I look forward to an even better Bill when it returns to the House.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I have taken note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the request that hon. Members make short speeches; and, in deference to the House, I shall endeavour to limit my speech to 10 minutes, although it is not yet 7 o'clock.
  There are many ex-councillors in the House tonight who have been through
  286
  the mill of local government. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made a thoughtful speech. I believe that the debate augurs well for an interesting Committee stage, of which the Government will have to take careful note.
  I am in a unique position today. My county council has a Conservative majority of three to one, and for the first time in my life I have been given a brief by that council to attack the Conservative Government's proposals. It is unusual to ask a Labour Member to do that.
  I wish to speak of the relationship between central Government and local authorities and to say a few words about the direct labour organisation.
  The Conservative-controlled Nottinghamshire county council generally welcomes the format of the Bill. In a report it states:
  "The main platform of the Government's approach was against a back-cloth of giving greater freedom to local authorities by in the first place reducing central controls and then by giving greater freedom to local authorities in local decision making and the ways in which it spends its money."
  The report goes on to say:
  "certain of the Government's proposals and in particular the provisions of the Local Government Planning and Land Bill presently before Parliament, do in fact take us in an opposite direction by increasing central control and by adding to rather than diminishing bureaucracy".
  On the subject of block grants, the document states:
  "The proposal is the same as was suggested by the last Government following the recommendation of the Layfield Committee for the introduction of 'unitary grants', which were opposed at that time by some members of the present Government. The 'block grant' will in fact severely prejudice local democracy and will vest substantial additional powers in the hands of central Government to influence the decisions of individual local authorities.
  The Government's main intention appears to be to prevent a relatively small number of local authorities who overspend from obtaining additional grant at the expense of other authorities. Such limited intentions could be achieved, it is contended, by an adjustment in the existing rate support grant system without the need to introduce a complex set of proposals which strike at the roots of local democracy. Opposition to the proposals has been voiced from all sides of the County Council."
  I find it unique that I am speaking on behalf of a Conservative-controlled county council in opposition to its Government's proposals. I asked the council

  287
  "Why do you not go and see the Minister yourself? He will say that I am politically prejudiced." I was amazed at the disappointing reply that I received. If Ministers in the previous Labour Government had flatly refused, or not received or welcomed leaders of our county councils, I am sure that our Prime Minister of the day would have rapped the Ministers' fingers and told them to listen to the county councils.
  Whether he likes it or not, the Secretary of State is now fervently believed to be taking over certain functions of local authorities. When the Labour Party is returned to office, our Front Bench must refuse to pick up the powers. It must repeal them as soon as possible. All county councils and associations are picking faults in the Bill.
  It is rather odd that another Secretary of State is trying his level best to give more power to local authorities when the Secretary of State for the Environment is seemingly taking powers away.
  I was a Minister for some years in Northern Ireland, where local authorities had very little power. The saying in Northern Ireland was that the only thing that local authorities could do was bury the dead and empty the dustbins. Because I was a Minister for five years, I know of the difficulties and problems that arise when Ministers usurp the powers of local authorities. I know that it happened when I was a Minister, and I am sure that it happens now.
  The local authorities and various groups such as the Alliance Party and the SDLP did not have any decision-making powers. It is the fear of local authorities that they will follow Northern Ireland on that matter. Local councillors and other bodies become professional critics. They have no powers of decision-making but become passers-on of complaints to the Minister in charge on the hill. Planning, house building, lettings and repairs—what I would term the blood and guts of local democracy—are in the hands of the Minister.
  If old Mrs. Jones stops a councillor in Londonderry and talks about something that might need repairing in her council house, or why she has not got a council house, the councillor—if he is on the majority side—does not have to explain
  288
  the policy of the council, which he would have to do if he were stopped in, say, Mansfield or Nottingham. He would not have to explain the priorities but would say that he would take the complaint to the Minister on the hill who would try to sort it out.
  When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, I found that my desk was full of complaints of that nature, not only from councillors but from the Members of Parliament who represented that area. They also became arbiters of complaints that should have been dealt with not by Members of Parliament but by locally elected councillors. If the powers are usurped by the Government, there is nothing left for them to do.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can also talk of the time that he and I spent on one case about a ball cock that had become stuck. That is what happens when Ministers usurp the powers of local authorities and take over decision-making. I am pointing out the dangers of taking too much power out of the hands of local government.
  I know that it does not apply to this Bill, but I see a danger in the sale of council houses. I am against legislation enforcing the sale of council houses. I am opposed equally to legislation that stops the sale of council houses. During my five-year stint in Northern Ireland, I brought in a scheme for selling council houses, but those houses were about 100 years old and were in a special category.
  Decisions are better left to those at local level. I can remember some decisions that I made at local level on local schemes which, if the Bill had been in force, would not have got off the ground.
  If I had had to fill in a pro forma, questionnaire or return and send it to the Minister, he would have thought that it was frivolous spending. I remember being carpeted by my local press when the local hippodrome closed and the local council decided to buy it and turn it into a theatre. People said that it would be the biggest white elephant in Mansfield. I have no doubt that if the Bill had been in force the Minister would have said that it was frivolous spending. It turned out to be anything but a white elephant. It was one of the best decisions that we made.
  Another example is the local sauna baths in Mansfield. Again the local press

  289
  and others criticised us, and it would have been a case where the Minister would have said that it was frivolous spending. There again, it is a moneymaking project and one that everybody appreciates.
  The danger of the Secretary of State's proposals and his relations with local government is that he will go down a slope that will give rise to a situation developing between councillors and central Government such as we faced in Northern Ireland.
  I hold a clinic morning in Mansfield on Saturdays. It is a good clinic, attended by councillors and myself. County councillors from both sides attend on a rot a basis and sit in one room while I sit in another room. When people come into my clinic, it is easy for me to refer them to the councillors. Any good local councillor will tell me to mind my own business and that I have enough to do looking after my affairs at Westminster if I try to poke my nose in. However, that does not stop people from asking me to pull a few strings or to put pressure on so that they can see a councillor.
  Up until this Bill, I have always been able to tell people that such matters as policy are for local councillors. With the spate of takeovers and legislation that will be forced on local authorities, as was pointed out to me by a group of councillors on Saturday morning, certain problems will become national and not local if the Bill goes through unamended. If I start hearing about problems with housing and repairs after the Bill goes through, let me say to the Minister that he will have to sort out my housing problems. The Minister is coming dangerously close to upsetting the balance between central and local government, and he should think hard and long before doing so. [Interruption.] I have nearly finished my speech. I should like to make a point about district labour organisations.
  In Nottinghamshire, the county council has written to me saying that, if the DLOs go through, in Nottinghamshire, on maintenance and roads alone, the council will require an additional 30 staff at a cost of £130,000 to operate the new arrangements. I often hear the phrase from local councillors, more than anybody else, "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut." That is what is happen-
  290
  ing. My district council of Mansfield has had a district labour organisation for over 50 years. One often thinks that local councillors do all they can to usurp the powers of and override other organisations. My district council has had a building management board for the past two years which has put out a report showing that the district labour organisation in the council has saved the ratepayers of Mansfield over £350,000 in the last two years. The district council has no illusions that the Bill will bring it out of the wood. What it will find hard will be the extra administrative and bureaucratic costs.
  The Committee stage of the Bill will be interesting. I am sure that the Bill will be considerably changed by the time of Third Reading. If it is not, the local authorities will come back to the Minister, and deservedly so. My advice to the Minister is that he should forget his prejudices. This is not a fight between himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), although at times it appears to be. It is a fight with the local authorities—a heck of a lot of us have worked on local authorities—and my advice to the Secretary of State is that he should get off their backs before it is too late.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: First, I declare an interest as a parliamentary consultant to the George Wimpey group. However, my views this evening will be based on three years' experience at the National Building Agency, where I was chief executive, and two and a quarter years—prior to entering the House—when I was director of housing construction with the GLC. In the GLC, I had a work force of 3,000 and a turnover of £30 million before I realised that the forward building programme of the GLC was reducing from about 5,000 new houses a year to only 1,000 a year.
  It became apparent that the size of the organisation had to be reduced drastically. Over that two and a quarter years I reduced the work force by 1,000 direct blue collar employees, 200 white collar office workers and several hundred subcontractors. It was essential, because the work load was reducing. That contrasts markedly with many Labour-controlled councils up and down the country which,

  291
  when the work load in the construction industry reduced, did not tailor their work force accordingly, but sometimes increased it. That is not sound economics in a business sense.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned in his speech that 20 years ago the authority that he was in charge of won jobs in competition with major contractors. I submit that over the past 20 years the rules of the game have changed dramatically. The legislation has required only a reasonable percentage of jobs to go out to competition. The front page of the Bill states that in certain circumstances local authorities are obliged to invite tenders. In many cases only 15 or 20 per cent. of the work has been gained in competition by the direct works organisations. That is not good enough. It should be remembered that private contractors outside obtain virtually all their work in direct competition and that little work is obtained from negotiation.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of apprentices and to the safety and security aspects of direct works organisations. Certainly, some of them have done well. Private contractors have to try to give their employees as much security as is possible in this difficult time for the construction industry. They also have to pay particular attention to safety on the sites, in the workplaces and in the offices. That is of paramount importance. The training has to be tailored to the needs and the economic circumstances of the future flow of tradesmen.
  Some major contractors have an enviable record with apprentice training and tradesmen training. The Bill concentrates, rightly, on the need to produce proper accounts. That relates to maintenance work as well as to new work and modernisation and it does not need a vast organisation. Indeed, if the organisations had been allegedly showing a profit or gain in the past, surely, by changing to part I and part II of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy proposals, the same accountants or cost clerks could give the results in the format that the Government expect from the direct works organisations.
  I look forward to the day when direct works and private enterprise compete on like terms. With my two and a quarter
  292
  years at the GLC and 13 years dealing with national contractors, I do not doubt which sector will produce the goods and which will show that it can produce value for money. After all, that is what we are trying to achieve from the Government and from the local authorities.
  I turn briefly to Part XVI of the Bill, which relates to urban development corporations. I welcome the proposals for an urban development corporation here in London and I am sure that they will be welcomed in terms of jobs in the respective areas. I am not sure about the need for an urban development corporation in Liverpool, where I have worked and lived. My constituency is part of the central Lancashire development corporation. In the past, I had a great deal to do with new towns as chief executive at the National Building Agency. The lesson has always been to buildhouses, along with the development and creation of jobs. The two must go in tandem. Unfortunately, in central Lancashire that golden rule has been broken. We are left with vast acreages of rented housing in an area where there was 65 per cent. owner-occupation before the advent of the new town. That is a lesson that the urban development corporations in London and Liverpool should learn.
  Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the central Lancashire new town should be wound up?
  Mr. Dover: I have made it clear on many occasions that we should work towards the reduction and eventual closure of the new town by January 1985. So far we have had far too many rented houses, which were a big drain on capital expenditure locally and nationally and a drain on the ongoing debt because none of the rents were fair economic rents.
  What better than to have private enterprise housing built at the expense of the developers and paid for by the buyers who have an investment in the area or who might be moving up the housing market? Such people buy because they have a stake in the area, whereas in the rented sector we are attracting people into an area which is experiencing a net loss of jobs. My main point is that we must create employment in the two new development corporations. By all means let there be some housing in the rented sector, but in the main we should concentrate on the provision of jobs in the area.
  6 pm
  Mr. David Alton: The miscarriage suffered by the Bill in the House of Lords was but the beginning of a series of mistimed and misplaced manoeuvres which have damaged the credibility of the Government and the Secretary of State in the eyes of local government. Some of the original intentions of the Bill were doubtless sincere and might even have commended themselves to both sides of the House.
  However, hopes for any such co-operation were dashed by the high-handed action of the Secretary of State. First, he tried to introduce the Bill surreptitiously through the House of Lords. Then he rode roughshod over the wishes of local authorities. Now he introduces a Bill that is so lengthy and full of detail that almost certainly the guillotine will be used, thus making nonsense of democratic processes.
  For many of us still involved in local government, it appears that the Secretary of State and his Ministers know nothing of the workings of local government. Despite their lack of practical experience, however, some elementary common sense might have avoided the greatest catastrophe which has befallen local government since the equally disastrous reorganisation of local government in 1972. It is the same old Tory shifting of power from local authorities to central Government, ignoring the wishes of the local authority associations and introducing new procedures which are both cumbersome and more costly.
  Part I of the Bill deals with the relaxation of controls on local authorities. The principle behind that relaxation is that local government autonomy should be increased. If the Bill achieved this, my reservations would be reduced. The partnership that should exist between local and national Government is being abolished over a number of simple matters such as the maintenance of allotments, planning and pollution control. These are precisely the areas where minimum standards are necessary and where everything should not be left to the discretion of local government. Local government accepts that it must work with the national Government, as it also accepts the need for basic minimum national standards.
  Part I of the Bill removes from local authorities the obligation to comply with
  294
  a long list of minor and fiddling requirements. They include such matters as whether the local council should transmit a copy of a report by the public analyst to the Minister under section 99(2) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 or whether local authorities should be obliged to keep records under the provisions of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. Such issues are neither here nor there.
  In part III there are far more serious implications for every local council in England and Wales as the Secretary of State proceeds to place the dead hand of central Goverment upon local government. In part III, clause 7(2), the Secretary of State blandly asserts:
  "A local authority or development body may not undertake functional work unless they have first made a written estimate of the cost of carrying out the work."
  This provision replaces the long list of fiddling constraints with a new range of controls. More pen-pushers will be needed to fill in even more forms before the most basic work can be carried out.
  What happens if a council tenant rings up the direct labour office to report a burst water pipe and water is gushing out of a loft, damaging belongings and endangering the electric supply? No doubt the Secretary of State would reply "Sorry, Madam, you will have to wait until a form has been filled in and an estimate has been made." What is the woman supposed to do in the meantime? What happens if a sewer collapses or a wall caves in? What happens to a local authority if it completes the work and fails to make out a written estimate or work out the cost of carrying out the work? Perhaps that is the most sinister part of the Bill.
  If a local authority overspends, the chief executive, his officers and local councillors can be surcharged. There is need for greater control over maintenance departments. I am certain that we do not get value from DLOs, but the House should accept that the Government are misguided in their attempts to tackle the problem. Instead of bashing DLOs, the House should accept that they fulfil some functions which it would not be appropriate for private builders to undertake. For instance, the emergency call-out service could not be mounted nearly so

  295
  effectively on a 24-hour basis by private contractors.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: They would not be prepared to do it.
  Mr. Alton: As the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) says, private contractors would not be prepared to do it. Nor are all DLOs more costly than private builders. They give good training, provide for decasualisation and can be used for emergency work. There is certainly a need for a tough audit on DLOs, and, where new building or rehabilitation is being undertaken, the Liberal Party favours the use of competitive tenders against private enterprise.
  Part VI deals with the punitive measures that might be exacted against local councils that fail to comply with the wishes of the Secretary of State. In principle, I can see some advantages in the new block grant system. It works quite effectively in some parts of Scotland. Nevertheless, to have entered into this arrangement and to abolish the rate support grant settlement in the arbitrary way that the Secretary of State has done damages the relationship between central and local government. The association of local authority chief executives pointed out last week:
  "The Bill states its intention to relax controls over local government. In practice it does the reverse. Minor relaxations are compounded by major new proposals for new controls."
  Where local authorities overspend, the Secretary of State will cut their block grant, and he says that he will be monitoring their speeches and their actions. Then he will strike. Perhaps he intends to install a tinkerbell in every municipal building in the land and, having heard the clandestine conversations of council chiefs, no doubt the Secretary of State will swoop like a bird of prey. Understandably, the local authorities are up in arms about this vindictive new system of controls, especially in view of their good record in complying with the financial guidelines of successive Governments, whoever has been in power.
  Similarly, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the new transitional arrangements for the next financial year are close to retrospective legislation. We will know what those arrangements are only when
  296
  we are two or three months into the financial year. The Secretary of State has announced that the threshold for the year will be 119p in the pound. Some authorities already levy poundages of 130p or more. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain how local authority Houdinis in treasury departments are expected to turn 130p into 119p.
  I turn now to the new capital expenditure system, where once again local authorities will be penalised if they fail to comply with the parameters laid down by the Secretary of State. Although I welcome the decision to allow capital receipts against the capital expenditure of local authorities, I am not certain that the 10 per cent. tolerance level is realistic. Chief executives and their councils will probably be caught between breaches of the law and breaches of contract on capital projects to which councils are already committed. When I met the chief executive of Liverpool city council yesterday and discussed these matters, I found that it was a problem that certainly concerned him.
  Equally, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, just because this Government will use this new system to hit council spending what is to prevent the system from being used by a future Socialist Government adopting, say, a "money grows on trees" approach and penalising councils that they decide do not spend enough?
  The Liberal Party would repeal this legislation, although the Opposition spokesman made no public statement about whether he would be prepared to do that.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the publication of information by local authorities, and we welcome that provision, However, I feel that it is hypocritical of central Government to say one thing and to expect local government to practise more open government when central Government is not prepared to live by those standards. I would like to see that principle applying to national Government as well.
  In the matter of councillors' allowances, I welcome the measures that are being introduced, but I think that they should apply not only to committee chairmen but to opposition leaders as well.

  297
  As regards rating revaluation, inevitably the whole basis for evaluating rates is suspect. I hope that it will not be too long before the Secretary of State brings forward proposals for abolishing the preent rating system and introducing a new system based on the ability to pay rather than the current arbitrary values.
  Mr. Ogden: They would not get much from Liverpool.
  Mr. Alton: The Community Land Act was a flawed piece of legislation. I point out to the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who was present when that measure was going through Committee, suggested that we needed regional landlords. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to have been converted to that cause today. I notice that there have been more converts today than there were on the road to Damascus.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: There was only one on that road.
  Mr. Alton: Turning to urban development corporations, I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr.Mellish) on his appointment to the London urban development corporation. The Conservative leader of the Merseyside county council, who has long been the most vociferous critic of the principle of urban development corporations, has today been appointed vice-chairman of the Merseyside urban development corporation. Many might say that that is suitable as he comes from a long-established firm of funeral directors.
  I am suspicious of the sudden conversion of the Secretary of State for the Environment, because in Liverpool in March of last year he said that the election of a Labour Government would mean that yet another body would be established to tackle the problems of Merseyside's dockland. How right he was. There are probably no fewer than 11 different bodies now trying to tackle the problems of Liverpool's dockland. I hope that new resources will be brought to bear on the problems of the sad, rundown area of the Liverpool docks. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the lack of autonomy of the urban development corporations. It reeks of the
  298
  irresponsibility about which the Secretary of State frequently talks when castigating local government to establish bodies that do not have budgets for their first year of operation. Again, it is distinctive of the figure mentality of the Secretary of State when he cannot even say what it will cost to run the urban development corporations in the first year.
  Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the London and Merseyside docks have been a public disgrace for a decade or more and that something needs to be done about them? Does he further agree that today is a great day for Merseyside, because there is to be an injection of £200 million which will help to regenerate the area?
  Mr. Alton: I should be delighted if the Minister were to tell us that £200 million was to be injected into Merseyside in the first year of operation of the urban development corporation. I suspect that this again is an hon. Member—this time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen)—taking a figure from the top of his head. I should like to know precisely what money will be made available before I give any firm commitment to a body which is not to be accountable to local people; and of the members who are to serve on it we know only the chairman and deputy chairman.
  The Bill seeks to abolish the Clean Air Council, and the Government wish to abandon their supervisory role over clean air matters. It appears that the Government do not wish to pursue further the improvement of standards of air quality. They offer no justification for that. The Secretary of State barely referred to it in his speech. The Government simply say that 1·2 man-years per annum will be saved—a trivial saving compared with the pollution of the atmosphere which will result. The Bill undermines rather than strengthens local government; it divides rather than unites central and local government; and it will cause as much additional bureaucracy as it abolishes.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: Since the Secretary of State sat down, not one hon. Member on either side of the House has offered unequivocal, let alone enthusiastic, support for this measure. The Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will have to take

  299
  account of that factor. Indeed, he and his colleagues will have to take still more account of that factor during the later stages of the Bill.
  I cannot hope to match the expertise in and knowledge of local government that have been exhibited by several hon. Members. I shall confine my observations to the one small area covered by the Bill of which I can claim to have a little special, direct and detailed knowledge—London dockland. I want to refer to their problems and the best way to deal with them.
  One of the few matters referred to by the Secretary of State with which I agreed was his description of the damage suffered by London's dockland over many years. Many parts of the country have suffered blight of one kind or another. London's dockland is unique, because it has suffered four separate successive causes of blight.
  First, there was the bomb blight. Dockland was damaged more than any other part of London—perhaps more than any other part of Great Britain—during the war.
  Secondly, there was what might be called technological blight, because of changes in the handling of freight containers, packaged freight, roll-on/roll-off, and larger vessels with deeper draughts. Therefore, there was a tendency for dock traffic to move from the upper river docks towards the estuary, and that created a great deal of havoc in dockland.
  Thirdly, there was de-industrialisation blight, partly because of the docks traffic moving out and with it all the industries associated with the docks, and partly because of the attractions offered by successive Governments to industry to move out to new towns, development areas and special development areas. For all those reasons, there was a great deal of de-industrialisation in dockland.
  Fourthly, there was planning blight—making the perfect the enemy of the good: making a plan, making another plan because the first one was not liked and then making yet another plan. More than two and a half years and £250,000 were wasted in the Travers Morgan study of dockland. We had all the airy-flights of fancy of Sir Horace Cutler and such chaps about shoving into dockland Olympic villages, a golf course, a safari
  300
  park and so on, as though it was an empty space. But thousands of people live there and they want to go on living there. All that created delay after delay.
  Mr. Steen Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) may know about the problems of Merseyside, but he obviously does not know much about London's dockland. He should look at the problem before pontificating upon it.
  Mr. Steen Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is hoping to be called later in the debate. Surely he can keep his interventions until he is called, if he is.
  Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only right to correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that I have not visited the London docks. I have just completed a three-hour coach trip of the docks.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I get concerned for those hon. Members who cannot be called. If there are more interruptions of that kind, fewer hon. Members will be called. The hon. Gentleman should be patient. Those words ought to mean a great deal to him.
  Mr. Mikardo: First, that was not a point of order. Secondly, I did not say that the hon. Gentleman had not been to see the docks. I said that he did not know about the problems of London's dockland. He has been to see the docks, but he still does not know about their problems. We have had these problems in London's dockland for the reasons that I have given.
  The second matter about which I agree with the Secretary of State is that there must be no loss of momentum in dealing with these problems. Considerable momentum is now being developed in the provision of jobs, housing and amenities. There has been an economic resurgence in the past two or three years and almost miraculous things have been done.
  I am worried that there will now be a loss of momentum precisely through the introduction of the urban development corporation. The right hon. Gentleman said that everybody who has studied the

  301
  matter is in favour of the scheme. He was careful not to give any list. All the people I know—all the local authorities in the area, all the community associations, all the representative bodies, all the industrialists and the trades councils—are against it. The only exceptions are those hoping to make a fast buck out of it. They are in favour of it.
  I fear that there will be a stoppage. With the best will in the world, and even though the Secretary of State has been quick to appoint the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the two corporations and intends to get the operation going as quickly as possible, there are stillmembers of the corporations to be appointed. Staff will have to be appointed and offices found. Things have to be started up and there will be a need for consultations with all sorts of bodies. A study will have to be made of what is now being done to see whether any changes are necessary. I estimate that two years, possibly longer, will elapse before any firm decisions are taken. The Secretary of State is achieving exactly the objective he says that he wants to avoid—the objective of slowing up momentum.
  The urban development corporation will be no more than a spanner in the works. The Docklands Joint Committee set up in 1974 took two years—that is understandable for a big job—to produce its strategic plan. The urban development corporation will have to go through that process all over again. The strategic plan is pretty good. It provides for 33,000 new jobs, for 23,000 new dwellings and for all the services that go with them. Every single bit of that strategic plan is on schedule, except for two things—[Interruption.]—that are being held up by the Government.
  If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) wishes to talk, I wish that he would stand up. He is sitting there, muttering non-stop. If he cannot be intelligent, he should at least not be discourteous.
  Mr. Alan Clark Mr. Alan Clark(Plymouth, Sutton): rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that what is disturbing the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is speaking, it would appear, from the aisle rather than from his place. Mr. Mikardo.
  Mr. Mikardo: Mr. Speaker—
  Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman is still standing there.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and I entered this House together, only I have been here a little longer. At the same time, we all try to observe the old customs. That is what I think was agitating hon. Members.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was making a speech that I thought highly germane to the subject.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman was in the wrong place.
  Mr. Mikardo: I was being distracted by constant comments from a sedentary position.
  The strategic plan of the Docklands Joint Committee is on schedule except for what is being held up by the Government. That puts paid to the myth that there has been some indecision or even bickering, as I have heard some Conservative Members say, in the Docklands Joint Committee. In the six years that the joint committee has been operating, there has been only one disagreement of any substance. That concerns a difficult and complex matter about which anyone could disagree—the line of the southern relief road. Apart from that issue, things have gone very well.
  I should like to refer to the place I know about—the borough of Tower Hamlets. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for getting jobs. News International is building premises along the Highway at the moment. That project will provide 4,000 jobs. There has been reference to slowness in the granting of planning permission. The project, covering many acres and running into millions of pounds, was granted planning permission in 20 days by the borough council from the time that the application was lodged. Some other publishers down the road are starting to look with envy at that project. Before long, the Highway may have to be christened New Fleet Street because it will be full of newspaper publishers.
  Three other major private companies are building there. Billingsgate is moving into shed 36 in the West India Dock. Shed 35 has been converted into 14

  303
  small enterprise units for smaller businesses, all of which were let within a few months and are now functioning. The Tower Hamlets Centre for Small Businesses, in which I am personally involved, with great help from the National Westminster Bank—for which we are grateful—is building a new enterprise centre on the site of a derelict warehouse. It is an excellent site where new starters in business will be given decent premises and some help. All this makes nonsense of the argument that the Docklands Joint Committee has some prejudice against private enterprise.
  We are trying to move the City of London polytechnic into the docklands. It is now housed in short-lease premises and will soon be facing problems of space. That is held up only by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Everyone else has agreed. This week, the first houses with gardens to be built in Wapping for 200 years will become occupied. Before long, they will be surrounded by Wapping wood, the first time that a wood has been planted in an inner city area in this country for 200 years. All this will be set back by a new organisation. That is the trouble. People will have to stop and think again.
  One would have imagined, listening to the part of the debate that concerns London dockland, that we were talking about a piece of empty space with no one living in it. One of the main differences between the Merseyside problem and the London problem is that not many people, I understand, live in the Merseyside dockland area whereas an awful lot live in the London dockland area.
  The total area covered by the London dockland scheme contains a population of about 60,000. Half of those 60,000 live in Tower Hamlets, which is a minor part of the acreage, crammed into the narrow strip between Tower bridge and Canning Town bridge. Much the biggest part of the acreage is in Newham. One cannot walk in and do what one wants without taking notice of how those people want to live. They have their own ideas. They will express those ideas. They will be tough about the issue.
  I do not envy the urban development corporation if it cannot carry the cooperation of those people. If the UDC sets up its office in Cable Street—a logical,
  304
  central place forit—Mr Broackes and my right hon. Friend might have as much difficulty getting down Cable Street to their office as Sir Oswald Mosley experienced getting down Cable Street some 40 years ago. The Secretary of State's appointment of a Labour man to one of the two jobs, to team up with the toughest asset-stripper in the City, is not a partnership between St. George and the dragon. It is a partnership between the dragon and the virgin. if he thinks that by appointing a Labour man as one of the two chiefbods, he will assuage local feeling, he must be more naive than I imagine him to be.
  The people in that area have views of their own. More than half a century ago, when a Minister tried to impose on the people of Poplar something which they did not like, the Poplar councillors defied the Establishment. They were charged, they went to court behind a band with banners flying, they went to gaol and they were re-elected from gaol. Their point was eventually conceded by the Establishment. The Establishment could not do what it liked without taking the views of those people into account, and the Establishment today has to take into account the views of the grandsons of those people.
  I would not have the job of the chairman of the UDC for all the tea in China. There are 30,000 people in that small area, and the Secretary of State had better stop thinking that he can decide what is best for them. They have their own views about that.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: I would dearly like to pursue the speech made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), because in 1974 and 1975 I served on the Select Committee of the House which investigated London's dock-lands and was doing so again in 1979 at the time of the general election. There were mixed views both on the Committee and in the report about the future structure of dockland. I remember cross-examining the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow in the Select Committee, and it was obvious that there were many wide-ranging views on this subject.

  305
  I want, instead, to take up another matter raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow when he said that no Conservative Members supported the Bill. I support the Bill very strongly and warmly welcome it. Without a shadow of doubt, it is one of the most important pieces of local government legislation this century. I wish it was shorter and its scope narrower, but, given the Government's desire to do everything simultaneously, on the whole it is well and clearly drafted and surprisingly easy to read.
  On direct labour building, in which I immediately declare my direct financial interest as a builder, we must ensure that the rules of the game are clearly defined. Far too much is left to regulations under the Bill, and. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider publishing his draft regulations before the Bill comes back for Report. There are precedents for that. It is vital to ensure that the best accounting practice is followed, in the hope that all the details of the CIPFA report will become operative within local government.
  I want now to speak on the clauses dealing with the Community Land Act, including the Land Authority for Wales, and the related clause 67. The basis of the Community Land Act was quite simple. It was to be what the late Tony Crosland called "the permanent scheme". Land for building would increasingly be bought by the State and resold, perhaps, by the State, with the development controlled by the State and the builders selected by the State. The ultimate intention was that virtually all land should be nationalised in this way and, what was more, that it should be confiscated as well, as the intention was to take it at a 100 per cent. level of tax.
  What did the permanent scheme in England achieve? In 1976–77 local authorities bought 1,570 acres of land and resold 53·3 acres. There was a deficit of £11·61 million, and administrative costs were £3·5 million. In 1977–78 they bought743 acres and resold 132 acres; staffing costs were £3·1 million and the deficit was £6·6 million. In 1978–79—which Labour Ministers said would be a better year—local authorities bought 1,156 acres. I do not know how many acres were resold, because the figures
  306
  have not been given, but they cannot have been very impressive, because only five local authorities out of 377 which had submitted accounts by last November managed to make a profit.
  When all the administrative and other charges are taken into account, the period 1975–76 to 1978–79 showed a collective deficit in England of £52·5 million, and that is a deplorable waste of public money.
  For Scotland the position was equally atrocious. In 1976–77 Scottish local authorities bought 66·42 acres and resold none. In 1977–78 they bought 114·42 acres and sold just under 1 acre. In 1978–79 they bought nearly 860 acres and managed to sell 26 acres from the purchases of 1976 and 2·8 acres from the purchases of 1977, making a grand total by November 1979 of 30 acres resold out of just over 1,000 acres bought. Of that 1,000 acres, 788 acres were on one or more sites in the Shetland Islands.
  Meanwhile, the ministerial paper poured remorselessly out. By the day of the general election there had been 151 pieces of bumf issued to local authorities. By November 1979 the Conservative Government had already issued 26 more pieces, mostly concerned with winding up the whole exercise. Never was there a better example of futile and bureaucratic administration than this dismal scheme.
  The scheme could never work. We warned in 1972, when Mr. Crosland and others first floated ideas about it, that it could not work. It made three assumptions about land purchase and local government, all of them wrong. It assumed that there were up-to-date structure plans allowing for the speedy identification and release of land; but that was not true. It assumed that local authorities could act speedily and in an entrepreneurial way to buy land for development; but they are congenitally incapable of doing that. Indeed, their whole training is against it. It assumed also that people would willingly part with their land at below its market price, but they will not. Such land has to be taken compulsorily, slowly, expensively and bureaucratically.
  Only in Wales did the scheme work quite well. Once this became plain, I argued in early 1978 that the Welsh Land Authority should be kept. I was not

  307
  popular with some of my hon. Friends for saying that at the time, but I am glad that the matter has been dealt with in this non-ideological way.
  The basis of a sensible land policy is fairly simple and it is fourfold. First, the basic assumption should be that building land should be found by builders and brought forward by them for development. It should be the job of local government to make the plans and to approve the applications, but not to find the land. The Bill achieves that and scraps all the absurd assumptions of the Community Land Act.
  Secondly, it should be the job of the Government to ensure that structure plans are approved speedily. Ministers should have the power to require local authorities to publish registers of land and to disgorge surplus land. The Bill does that. It should have been done years ago.
  Thirdly, there should be voluntary back-up powers for local authorities to help in the assembly of land where the private sector cannot cope on its own or where good planning requires this. Clause 67 amply achieves that.
  Fourthly, there should be a proper tax on planning gains which should be set at a realistic but not confiscatory level. The 60 per cent. rate contained in the most recent Finance Act is the correct rate, and I have long argued for it in the House, although the builders would obviously wish it to be lower.
  Parliament has a dreadful record on the land issue. Since the war, it has changed its mind 10 times. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 sought a 100 per cent. level of land tax, subject to the £100 million compensation fund. In 1953 and 1954 we returned to a two-tier system by which land in the public sector was confiscated at 100 per cent. tax but private sector land exchanged hands at market price. That system caused Mr. Pilgrim's suicide. In 1959 we returned to full market value all round. In 1962 we had a short-term capital gains tax. In 1965 we had a full capital gains tax. In 1967 we had a Land Commission and a 40 per cent. levy. In 1971 we had no Land Commission but capital gains tax again. In 1973 and 1974 we had a development gains tax of up to 83 per cent. and a first lettings charge. In
  308
  1975 and 1976 we had the Community Land Act and a land tax up to 80 per cent. with the threat of 100 percent. in the future. Now, in 1979–80 we have a 60 per cent. tax rate and no Community Land Act.
  I hope that the House will agree that we simply cannot go on like that. It is no wonder that the land situation is so bad in this country and that there are so many grumbles about bureaucracy, high prices and delays.
  The Bill contains a sensible and non-ideological response to an issue that has troubled Parliament since Lloyd George's day and which Parliament never got right. I hope that the Opposition will think so, too. In the light of the atrocious experience of the 1947 Silkin Act, the Land Commission Act 1967, which Richard Crossman himself described as a total failure, and now the pathetic performance of the Community Land Act 1975, the time has come to bury this dreary issue. I trust that on the issue of land the Bill will be, as Robert Peel said in 1835 about parliamentary reform, the final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I should dearly like to follow in detail the speech to which the House has just listened. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) and I have frequently debated this subject informally in the House and in other places. I was responsible for administering the Community Land Act in the latter part of the term of office of the previous Government.
  There are two points on which I agree with the hon. Member. First, I agree with what he said in general about the appalling record of Parliament since the war in handling the land situation. Although he and I may disagree about the way in which the matter should be handled, there is little doubt that a great deal of damage was done to the environment and to the whole issue of land use generally as a consequence of not settling on a final solution to the problem. I wish that the Bill did that. I do not believe that it does. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it does, either, as the Land Authority for Wales, which he champions, is so obviously the kind of solution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook

  309
  (Mr. Hattersley) said, that might well be applied elsewhere.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is extremely important. I listened with great interest, and, indeed, the House listened with great respect, to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who once was Secretary of State for the Environment. He and many others on the Government Benches expressed grave disquiet about the Bill, and perhaps also about the way in which the House is treating it. Unquestionably it is an important Bill. It is not just one Bill. It is three or four Bills. It is a fat Bill—although, admittedly, it is slightly thinner than it was previously—and I discover that it costs 25p more than the earlier, fat Bill.
  The fact that this is a fat Bill does not necessarily mean that it demands special treatment from the House. When I was on the Government Front Bench, I was responsible for the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That was carried through without much difficulty in Committee and on Report as it was largely, if not wholly, non-contentious.
  I maintain that this is a major constitutional Bill, for reasons that were advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. On the previous occasion when a local government Bill of this magnitude was presented to the House, in 1972, it was given two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. It had many days on Report. That was quite right. If it was right in that case, it is even more right for this Bill because of its deep constitutional implications. I go further than my right hon. Friend and suggest that several parts of this Bill should be considered on the Floor of the House because of their constitutional implications. I refer to part III, about direct labour organisations; unquestionably, part VI, which covers the whole issue of the rate support grant; part VIII, which covers capital expenditure; and part XVI, about urban development corporations, which was of concern to several hon. Members who have already addressed the House.
  In its title, the Bill refers to the fact that it will relax cotrols on local government. Let me be amongst those hon. Members who welcome the relaxations that are being made. But let us also
  310
  recognise that in the main these are minor proposals. Although they are very welcome, they have had the effect of misleading some people into believing that that is the main purpose of the Bill. It is not. This is one of the biggest attacks made on the freedom and autonomy of local government that has taken place this century. It will inevitably result in a fundamental shift of power from local to central government. That is very surprising coming from a Secretary of State who on 18 July 1979 at the annual conference of SOLACE, said:
  "I believe that an efficient local democracy can monitor the activities of local councils far better than civil servants in Marsham Street."
  I wish that those words had been reflected in the Bill. I do not believe that that is the case.
  Some time ago, I was addressing a conference of CIPFA. I should like to quote the words I used on that occasion. These words better illustrate the relationship that should exist between central and local government. At the CIPFA conference in 1977, I uttered these words quite deliberately as a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of whether rates should be abolished as an independent form of revenue for local government. I said:
  "I believe in the right of a Labour council to defy within the law the will of a Conservative Government, as I accept the right of a Conservative council to do the same when we are in power."
  I doubt, as a consequence of the Bill, if it becomes law, whether it will be possible for a Labour council to defy the Conservative Government within the law or, when a Labour Government come to power, whether it will be possible for a Conservative council to defy the will of that Labour Government.
  I want to illustrate my point with two aspects of the Bill, although there are many and I refer to them as issues that should be debated on the Floor of the House. The first is the provisions in part VI.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that for the first time in history the Secretary of State will be laying down what he believes to be the standard expenditure for each local authority. I accept that he will not be able to do that in an arbitrary fashion and that he will do it, using the words of clause 38(1),

  311
  "in accordance with the principles to be applied to all local authorities."
  I think that the House should reflect on what this innovation actually means. It means that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will be defining a figure that he thinks a local authority should spend. He will do that for the first time in history. For that reason, it will be difficult for him to avoid answering questions put to him by the local authority or on the Floor of the House about where he thinks cuts should be made, if the local authority is spending more than the standard figure, or where he thinks more expenditure should take place on the occasions when a local authority spends less. One may adduce that argument, whichever Government are in power and whatever political control the local authority may have at the time. It will be difficult.
  In effect, the Secretary of State will make a judgment about the actual level of expenditure of each local authority. By setting a standard figure he would, in effect, be saying "This local authority is spending too much" or "This local authority is spending too little." The Government may reply by suggesting that the standard expenditure is an objective assessment of need which was carefully worked out and tested in the computer. However, as many hon. Members know—especially those who have been on rate support grant deputations to the Department of the Environment or who have raised on the Floor of the House the issue of their authority's needs element—an objective assessment of need is very difficult.
  Both parties have been accused in the past of using the needs element for political purposes. Indeed, the Secretary of State did just that this afternoon. During the debate on the rate support grant, he used these words to describe what had happened under the previous Government. He said that the intention of his settlement this year was
  "to halt the unjustified"
  —I emphasise the word "unjustified"—
  "drift of the needs element from the shire counties which has taken place every year in the last six".—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1677.]
  The Secretary of State is entitled to that point of view and I am entitled to mine.
  312
  What I am trying to point out is that an objective assessment of need is a difficult thing to arrive at.
  The difference between the situation that we are talking about under the Bill and that which existed hitherto is that previously when we talked about the needs element of the rate support grant settlement we discussed in the House what sort of contribution we thought central Government should make towards local authorities and on what basis it should be made.
  But we will be talking about a completely different matter once the Bill becomes law. We shall be talking about the needs for expenditure throughout the whole area of a local authority, which means that that subject now becomes a legitimate subject for discussion in the House and answer by the Minister who happens to be sitting on the Government Front Bench representing the Department of the Environment. These are the things that make me deeply concerned about the Bill.
  Of course I accept—as did the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham—the necessity for central Government to express opinions and have at their command powers to control the level and totality of local government expenditure. But once we get into the issue of local government individual authority expenditure and begin to express opinions and to incorporate into legislation penal sanctions to back up the opinions or decisions of central Government, one is entering into a serious area.
  I want to refer to the proposal for urban development corporations, though not in the same detail as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). I want to refer to the general principle. There is a significant difference between the provisions in the Bill and the provisions in the New Towns Act 1965, which has already been quoted in the House.
  The Bill says:
  "If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so, he may by order made by statutory instrument designate any area of land as an urban development area."
  The 1965 Act contains these words:
  "If the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with any local authorities who appear to him to be concerned, that it is expedient in the national interest to do so"—

  313
  and the words that follow are roughly comparable with those in the Bill.
  In the 1965 Act there is a requirement that the Minister shall consult the local authorities which will be concerned, whereas in the Bill there is no such requirement.
  In the schedule to the 1965 Act there are these words:
  "If any objection is duly made to the proposed order and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall"—
  I emphasise the word "shall"—
  "before making the order, cause a public local inquiry to be held"
  So far as I can make out, there is no reference in this legislation to the necessity for a public local enquiry. That deprives local authorities and local interests of the right to make an objection and have it heard at a properly constituted public inquiry.
  I believe that those are serious omissions. My reasons for believing that are that in present circumstances it is vitally important. If we are building Stevenage or Harlow new towns in green fields, there will inevitably be some people who will be directly affected and who will have reason to object. If we are building a new town in Warrington, central Lancashire or some other part of the country where there is an established urban community, it is all the more important to have a public inquiry and to consult local authorities and obtain their agreement and co-operation about what is to be done.
  If one is building a new town slap in the middle of the docklands area of Greater London, it is imperative that one has the co-operation of the GLC and the borough councils that are involved. If one does not, the proposal will fail. It will fail because of lack of co-operation and because local community groups and local authorities will not be able or willing to co-operate with the work of a development corporation. For that reason alone, the whole proposal is bound to lead to chaos, confusion and delay in an area where we can little afford them.
  In conclusion, if the Bill becomes law it is likely to destroy much of the independence and autonomy of local government. It will place weapons in the hands of the Secretary of State—and, indeed, future Secretaries of State—which will enable central Government virtually to set the
  314
  rate, as has been said by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, to control expenditure within fairly narrow limits and to exercise considerable control over capital expenditure.
  If all else fails, it is open to the Secretary of State, when faced with defiance by a local authority, to set up an urban development corporation in the area and take away housing, planning and building control powers. Defiance of central Government by a local authority—which I believe to be an integral and necessary part of the devolution of power to an active local government—will become impossible. These are the issues upon which the House must vote tonight and why the Bill is of such fundamental importance.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made some important points which no doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister will answer when he winds up. I should like to concentrate on one particular point which the hon. Gentleman raised and about which he spoke at great length with feeling and obvious concern—urban development corporations. This matter is contained in clause 129.
  It is a novel concept. I have recommended it in speeches and proposals in my part of the country for some years. However, the point that I made was that we should go slightly further than urban development corporations and set up old town corporations. That would mean that in ailing city areas where the local council had not proceeded with the job of recreating wealth and rejuvenating the area, the old town corporation, like the new town corporation, would carry out those tasks.
  The proposal for UDCs does not go far enough and confines itself to a small part of the country in two principal cities. My main concern when I proposed the concept of an old town corporation, and my concern about the new proposals for UDCs, is connected with derelict land. As the House knows, many thousands of acres of derelict, vacant and dormant land are now in public ownership. It has been suggested by one national organisation that as many as 250,000 acres are contained within our major city areas and that there are 1,600 acres in the Merseyside area—Liverpool in particular—some

  315
  900 acres of which are in the hands of public authorities and nationalised industries. Will the proposal for UDCs deal with this problem? The answer is that it will not.
  What will happen is that other parts of the Bill that compel local authorities to keep a register of derelict land will start the process that I myself have sought to start through two Bills, and that is to compel authoirties to auction off derelict, dormant and vacant land and get market forces to work so that those who want to buy such land can do something with it. I suspect that the proposals in the Bill are the first step in that process. I hoped to do that in the Bills that I sought to introduce in one step. Perhaps, in looking at this matter in detail, it is necessary to take two bites at the cherry.
  That, however, is clearly an important issue, because so long as there is dormant and derelict land in the hands of public authorities it is forcing up the prices of the remaining pieces of land because of scarcity. It is also making rents higher, because the remaining buildings are fewer than could be available if the land were sold and developed.
  Although the urban development corporation is not dealing with the total problem of urban renewal in terms of vacant and dormant land, there is another provision in the Bill which, if pushed to its logical conclusion, will start the process by which dormant land is used for some purpose. It does not really matter what purpose, provided that it is used for something. At present, that is not happening.
  We should not presume that the UDC will solve the total city problems. It will not do so. It is dealing with only one small part of London and one small part of the docks in Liverpool.
  If I have a criticism of the Bill, it is that it does not declare the Government's policy on urban renewal. That is what we need. What we need in the Bill is a commitment by the Government to a total programme of urban renewal. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but I wish that it went a little further. In itself, it will not bring back small firms to the inner areas, it will not rehabilitate older housing, and it will not recreate the wealth which the cities have lost. What
  316
  the Bill will mean is the revitalisation of two abandoned areas. One of them is right in the centre of London, and whatever has been done—and it has been very commendably done—has not been done fast enough. The UDC will speed up the process.
  Mr. Spearing: Rubbish! Absolute nonsense!
  Mr. Steen: It is the same with the Liverpool docks, where land has been lying dormant for far too long. The purpose of the UDC is to get something happening. What we are talking about is that purpose and not a total urban programme.
  The concern, however, is whether the UDCs are relevant to the overall problems facing the total cities. I have mentioned derelict land. Perhaps I should also mention the massive demolition which has taken place in the inner areas and the way in which the bulldozer has destroyed homes and firms. This is still going on. In Liverpool, we still have cases, week by week, of small firms being bulldozed out of existence and public housing being built on the sites.
  There is, therefore, no point in having a UDC set up on the docks in the hope of creating new wealth there if, at the same time, the Government's programme does not halt the progress of the bulldozer and call in every attempt by local authorities compulsorily to purchase small firms which are the wealth creators in urban areas.
  I am told that, in spite of enormous investment in St. Katharine's Dock, in London's dockland, there has been a very poor return on the capital invested. That is why, even more so if the Government wish to recreate wealth and to bring in new firms, they must take these powers.
  A further point which needs examination is population drift. According to paragraph 74 of the White Paper of 1977, "Policy for the Inner Cities", Glasgow lost 21 per cent. of its population over the 10 preceding years, Liverpool lost 22 per cent., Manchester lost 18 per cent. of its central population, London lost 16 per cent., and Birmingham lost 8 per cent. All the principal cities in Britain have shown an outflow of population from the inner areas to the outer areas

  317
  and new towns. One of my concerns about building the new factories, industrial complexes and housing on the docks, particularly in my city, is whether there is the population to provide the wealth creation to sustain that operation.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us this evening whether he will be relaxing planning controls in the UDC areas. One of the problems in the major urban areas is the planner. In my view, the planners have a lot to answer for as regards the destruction of inner city firms and homes. They have destroyed not only homes but communities. Is the Minister proposing that the planning regulations will be relaxed in these two UDC areas? If they are not relaxed, the speed of the process could be fouled up by local authority planners. Does my right hon. Frend also agree that the architects' departments should not be allowed, as often happens, to design all that is to go in through the UDC?
  Mr. Alton: I know that the hon. Member is a great enthusiast for the UDCs. He has made that point again today. I understand that an announcement was made today in Liverpool about the chairman of Bibby's becoming the chairman of the UDC. At the press conference, he said that he had in mind an involvement of two days a week. He said that he would be shedding one or two of his existing activities to make room for his work as chairman of the UDC. I understand that he is also chairman of NORWIDA, a council member of the CBI in the North-West, a member of the Merseyside chamber of commerce, a member of the Merseyside Enterprise Forum, a director of Granada, and a director of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. On top of that, he is on the northern regional board of the National Westminster Bank.
  All that considered, and knowing that the hon. Member is such an enthusiast for this concept, may I ask whether he would care to indicate whether a person such as this gentleman will have sufficient time to do the kind of work that will be necessary, and whether he is convinced—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that this is more than just a half-baked, half-crazed scheme?
  Mr. Steen: What the hon. Member has said has clearly indicated what an
  318
  ideal choice this man is. I am also delighted that the deputy chairman of this body is to be the chairman of Merseyside county council. He is a man of great experience. I am sure that between the two of them they will rejuvenate that area.
  I must move on, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I was saying that the architects' departments in many of the principal cities are cornering the market and not allowing private architects to have a go and get involved in the urban regeneration plan. Will the Minister assure the House that private architects will be given an equal chance to compete by tender for contracts in the urban development areas and that local authority architects' departments will not be allowed to corner the markets?
  I have dealt with the problem that the Government face concerning small firms going to green field sites on the edges of cities. They moved in droves from the inner city areas because the Government's regional programme encouraged them to leave inner areas and move to the green field sites on the peripheries of cities. The Government did this by a whole range of grants and incentives. In special development areas, I think that it cost the Government over £14,000 to create a job in the outer area in place of one in the inner area.
  Again, the UDC will not be relevant if it does not at the same time have an answer to the problems of the continuance of firms moving from inner to outer areas. It is no good having a small area of wealth creation on the docks. If the move is from the inner area to the outer area, the population drifts from the inner to the outer area and the green field site drift makes the town longer and larger. What we must do by declaring UDCs is to strengthen the inner areas.
  I should like the Minister to deal with the question of how the Government will strengthen the inner areas. One of the problems we have faced with urban regeneration is that of creating wealth. One of the points that needs to be discussed in relation to UDCs is whether they will have tax-free zones within them. Shall we have free ports? Shall we have enterprise zones that will be free of planning laws, with rates rebated and Customs and Excise duties relaxed? Here there are two development corporations on the

  319
  docks, the ideal place for that sort of movement, but, unless wealth creation is obtained along those lines, it may well be that the UDCs will not have the effect that we should be looking to them for.
  I invite hon. Members to take a cursory look over the Government's programme since 1968 on urban rejuvenation. In 1968 we had the speech by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), saying that the urban crisis would be solved by the provision of £20 million. Then there followed the "pockets of deprivation" speeches, to the effect that there was nothing wrong with the urban areas but that there were little cankers in the urban areas which could be cured if extra funds were made available to those areas. Therefore, teams of community and social workers went to those pockets of deprivation with a view to trying to improve the communities there.
  Then the urban aid programme switched the burden of the rate support grant from the shire counties to the urban areas, but that did not last long. Soon after the pockets of deprivation theory was exhausted, there then came into being a new approach, which was that the problems of the cities would be resolved only if the towns were looked at as a whole. Then we had the quality of life studies, the six town studies, the neighbourhood projects, aimed at trying to understand—
  Mr. Ogden: Mr. Deputy Speaker, are we or are we not under a 10-minute rule from 7 o'clock?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman was fortunate enough to be called just before 7 o'clock. The rule does not apply to anybody called before that time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
  Mr. Steen: Of course I will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just outlining the fact that the policies of successive Governments since 1968 had failed to cure the problems of the cities, and I was dealing with the number of schemes that had been introduced by successive Governments and which had failed. I was talking about the way in which the pockets
  320
  of deprivation had been replaced by the total approach to the urban areas. We had an urban deprivation unit in 1970; then a comprehensive community programme; and last but not least we had the partnerships of the previous Administration. Yet, in spite of all those urban programmes, the cities are as deprived and as depressed as they have ever been. The number of people who are homeless, who are living in had housing and who are unemployed is as great as ever.
  Therefore, I think that the House has a right to ask whether the urban development corporation is just another scheme along the line of previous schemes and whether it will have any major impact on the environment and on the the improvement in wealth in urban areas, or whether it is another project that will join the list of projects which will be marked up in some book and which are, in the main, gloriously irrelevant to the difficulties faced in the inner urban areas.
  Therefore, my concern and that of my constituency is to give the urban development corporation a good try and as much support as we can. It raises new issues and creates new challenges. Just how far it will succeed will depend upon the support of the community, the support of the local authority and, above all, on how much private enterprise can generate fresh money, fresh employment and new jobs.
  Where the urban development corporation will fail will be if it relies entirely on public funds and does not manage to create new wealth and new private incentive and initiative.
  All I can say is that we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. We think that the urban development corporations will give the areas of London and Liverpool a chance to revive. The extent to which they do so will depend upon the confidence that private enterprise will have in recreating new jobs and new wealth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, may I say that we shall be operating the 10-minute rule until 9 o'clock. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will ration themselves, to save the Chair from having to intervene.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly obey your injunctions, in spite of provocation by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). He is the last of the great romantics and a dedicated individualist. I can think of many terms in which to describe him, but I would never suggest that he is thin-skinned. I am still amazed that, having spent the past six to eight weeks charging round Merseyside damning every suggestion that the urban development corporation might solve the needs of Merseyside, he has made tonight exactly the same U-turn as Sir Kenneth Thompson, the chairman of the county council, has made. I am lost in admiration for Ministers in the way that they have twisted arms, or used gentle persuasion over these last weeks or used reasoned arguments. If the Government have not started making U-turns, my goodness their county council supporters in Merseyside have.
  The Secretary of State and his colleagues will know that on 26 July the right hon. Gentleman met a deputation from the North-West Economic Planning Council—the day that those councils were abolished. He was most courteous. Actually, he was wearing the same shirt; it does not come from Marks and Spencer. It was a most friendly meeting. We asked for many things and got nothing. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he could help by removing any procedural blockages in the Department and getting speedy decisions. I told him of the Hebden Road "fiat tops", Ministry of Defence houses in West Derby, which the local authority wished to sell to a housing area so that they might be modernised and improved.
  I left a note for the Secretary of State. Three weeks later I received a reply saying "The Secretary of State has read your note"—he is a fast talker but a slow reader—"and things are going to be done about it." In July I reminded him again. Apparently, the matter was very complicated; he was going to make a decision. Another note came, and in January it was said "We are expecting an announcement soon". May I ask him to chase up this matter, make a decision or telephone 01–876 2224, which is the Dyno-Rod Limited telephone number in
  322
  London, to clear the blockages in his own Department, without worrying about the Bill? I admire the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, the triumph of amateur theory over practical experience, though it was noticeable that the response from his colleagues was in inverse proportion to their practical experience of local government.
  The Bill promises much but in fact will do little. It will take the "local" out of local government, will take the "plan" out of planning and will knock the "I" out of land. The right hon. Gentleman may want local government to be more independent. Certainly he is entitled to want local government to do what he wants it to do. We are all guilty of that. Local government is great as long as it does what we want.
  I was amazed to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mention the separation between the powers of the local council, the county council and the Government, with everybody sitting round in the same place. My councillors send me housing cases, and this applies to most Members on Merseyside. We need a gauleiter or a housing commissioner to sort out housing problems on Merseyside, but the boundary is between one and the other. The key to the whole Bill must be this, and surely the right hon. Gentleman will recognise it.
  In parts VI, VII and VIII, the Secretary of State is to increase the control on central Government funds provided for local government. He will control the money supply of Government funds. He will also control the amount of local money that authorities can raise from rates unless it is raised in a particular way for a particular purpose, and if they do not do that he will control them. He is the Henry Ford of politics. One can have any kind of freedom one likes locally, just as Ford said that one could have any colour motor car as long as it was black. That is the sum of it.
  I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for wanting that as long as he does not dress it up as freedom. It is a misuse of the English language. Of course, he is a Welshman, as Nye Bevan used to point out when he was heckled by him from time to time. It is true that the Secretary of State is to relax some of his controls. That sounds fine. What is he

  323
  to relax?—weights and measures, trade, amenities, clean water, all very important but nothing compared with rates, roads, housing and industrial development. Those are the real needs of local development; but the Bill will not help local government at all.
  Mr. King: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has glided glibly over the issue. He said that nothing is being done about housing. The Bill contains the most fundamental relaxation of housing controls ever announced in the House.
  Mr. Ogden: The real needs involve rates, roads, education, housing and industrial development. The Minister seems to be talking about a different Bill. The Government say that they will allow a reduction in Parker Morris standards and that if there is extravagance local authorities will be clobbered. If standards are reduced, how can there be extravagance? The Secretary of State and his colleagues—hawks in the Cabinet—are committed to a reduction in Government controls, a reduction in taxation and a reduction in Government expenditure. No one should blame them, because they told us before the general election what they intended to do. The Secretary of State for Industry is doing that in relation to the British Steel Corporation.
  However, the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to direct the mode of operation of all direct works departments. Is that not intervention? Is that not a contradiction and a misuse of the English language? The Secretary of State proposes to extend responsibility allowances for councillors. We must face the fact that there are full-time paid politicians in local government just as there are in national government. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) was a full-time politician before he came to the House. There is no harm in that. He declared his interest honestly. We must accept that we shall, at some time, move on to elect city managers. We should act deliberately and not allow ourselves to drift by chance into such a situation.
  I wish to deal quickly with the urban development corporations. Merseyside Members from all parties have asked for a Merseyside industrial development agency. We called for that particularly
  324
  at the time when the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies were established. We never asked that Liverpool, Bootle or Birkenhead be made free ports. We never asked for a speculators' paradise.
  Mr. Steen: Why not?
  Mr. Ogden: At least that is honest. Perhaps that was why my former Conservative opponent in West Derby, now the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), declared his interest in land and building. Much money can be made out of UDCs. Since the Secretary of State's announcement, the Conservative-controlled county council has opposed everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The former Member of the House, the leader of the Conservative county council, Sir Kenneth Thompson—a doughty character—has since changed his mind.
  The Liverpool city council, in one of its daftest pieces of maladministration, said that it was in favour of an urban development council. It could not wait to see how much money would be available before it gave the idea its blessing. All its cards were on the table. There was nothing left to bargain with. Next May there will be local elections and in Liverpool a local government mini-general election, and, although I am not a betting man, I believe that the Liverpool city council will be controlled by the Labour Party, which is opposed to UDCs. No development corporation can succeed unless it is able to work with local authorities. That is the key to new town development.
  We do not know how much money is available. I tell the Secretary of State frankly that if he sends this new bride to Merseyside without a dowry there will be no support. If it is to be a speculator's paradise and the profits go out of Merseyside, it will be of no use to us, to Lancashire or anywhere else. If there is more money, there is a very slight possibility of support. The Secretary of State must spell out how much is in the dowry. He must show us the colour of his money and tell us what he intends to do. Then we may go along with him.
  The Government say that the cancellation of the general rating revaluation in England and Wales will save nearly 1,000 permanent posts and 400 short-term appointments in the Inland Revenue. On Merseyside, when we talk of saving jobs,

  325
  we mean keeping jobs. I presume that the Government's proposal means unemployment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order The hon. Member has had his 10 minutes.
  Mr. Ogden: I think that I have made it reasonably clear that I do not like the Bill.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Squire: I speak as a London borough councillor and a former leader of that authority. I shall not deal with the florid comments by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). However, he may detect an element of sympathy during my enforced 10-minute speech.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on much that is in the Bill. I say that with sincerity, although time forces me to concentrate on the areas with less appeal to me. I particularly welcome the details of councillors' reimbursement, which is long overdue. I welcome the tidying-up of planning laws and the abolition of the Community Land Act. I do not expect that to find favour on the Opposition Benches.
  I wish to examine three specific areas. First, I shall deal with capital expenditure controls. I welcome the change that has taken place in the Bill since its first appearance in the House of Lords. A major improvement is incorporated. It should be recognised by all sides. It removes many legitimate objections by local authorities. I have a small quibble. I hope that the Government will examine again in Committee the necessity for detailed control over repairs and renewals, repairs to roads, maintenance, and replacement of equipment which is done by local authorities on an annual basis and which previously it has not been thought necessary to control. The Government might be over-egging the pudding on that issue.
  The Secretary of State is taking power to bring in an ultra vires order against an authority in certain circumstances. I hope that that power will be used only when issues of supreme importance are involved. At times local authorities face major building programmes. It would make local government even more im-
  326
  possible if a Secretary of State, of whatever party, were able to step in at a critical moment when the budget was over-running.
  I regret the other major changes since the Bill was first published. I refer to a subject which has not yet been dealt with—the question of gipsies. Hon. Members will represent constituencies either where the word "gipsy" conjures up visions of horror or where the word is greeted with some amusement. The problem is no laughing matter. I hope that some of the proposals contained in the original Bill will be reinserted in Committee. I hope that at long last councils will have the power to take action following the provision of sites under the 1968 Act. That power has long been denied them under successive Governments.
  The main part of my speech deals with the block grant and the transitional arrangements, I make no apology for referring to this because it is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It is unfair to base rate poundages on 1973 values, particularly since there will be no revaluation in 1982. That could make a substantial difference to local authorities, and it does nothing to improve the standard of public appreciation of rates and rateable values generally—which in many areas is fairly low. As regards the substance, I can do little better than to quote briefly from the AMA editorial in January's issue of Municipal Review:
  "The rate poundage is no way to compare the spending performance of individual authorities. Figures produced by the AMA show that there is not necessarily any correlation between unit costs and rate poundage. For example, the metropolitan authority with a rate poundage of 88·28p has a unit cost for secondary education of £597·12 per pupil, while in another metropolitan district with a rate poundage of 117·51p, the unit cost for secondary education is £520·43 per pupil."
  I seek to show that there is a considerable element of uncertainty about the proposal. Indeed, as the local authorities have pointed out on the question of the 1980–81 transitional arrangements, there is a further problem in that they will not know the final position until after they have been required to make their pound-ages for 1980–81. I accept the assurances given by my right hon. Friends that that is comparable in some respects with other problems. However, it increases uncertainty at a time when local authorities do not need that uncertainty.

  327
  I turn now to the heart of the matter—the main proposals on block grant. I have some sympathy with the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He highlighted the problems that we face. In 1977 the Labour Government suggested in their Green Paper a unitary grant proposal. After strong representations by local authorities, coupled with an element of inertia, nothing happened to that proposal and it disappeared. It has now surfaced in a slightly different form but bearing a number of the same characteristics. That is to be regretted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said during the debate on the rate support grant on 16 January:
  "Standard rate poundages will be determined based on the relationship between actual expenditure and an assessment of standard expenditure—that is, the expenditure which authorities with similar characteristics and circumstances would, on average, be likely to incur in providing a normal standard of services. Standard expenditure will therefore be a figure based on facts."—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1681.]
  With great respect, that is still not a fact of expenditure. It is based on an actual expenditure and a collection of a number of individual units, which are, correctly, a part of the rate support grant and valuation. When all those factors are put together, particularly with a variety of multipliers, which have also been taken into account, there will ultimately be an assessment. It is no worse for being an assessment. One is tempted to think that the measurement of need has been the golden fleece of successive Governments who have adopted the policy of "searched for by all, and found by none". I do not criticise that. But at the end of the day it is still an assessment. It has to be an asssessment because there is no other way of calculating that sort of measurement.
  I am surprised that we continue to give support to authorities which propose to spend above the assessed need, plus the 10 per cent. tolerance. That is at variance with the Government's main proposal to control expenditure. If we are to have a form of block grant system, I would prefer a system whereby above a certain level there is no assistance from central Government and whereby, above that level, the money must be provided by ratepayers. That is the way in
  328
  which to make local authorities truly accountable. I do not believe that we shall make authorities more accountable by taking from them greater control over their decisions.
  I have served in local government for a number of years—even if it does not yet show—and I have no illusions. I do not believe that all authorities are good. Manifestly, they are not. A few local authorities are determined to set themselves up as independent kingdoms of one sort or another. That is to be deeply regretted. It is to be regretted even more if they do so at the expense of the taxpayer. We must ensure that that element more than anything else is removed. If we did that, I should be prepared to accept the broad canvas of local authorities and accept that they will sometimes disagree with the Government. That is why they are there. If they never disagreed with the Government, there would be no need for separate local authorities. We must live with the irritations. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to make such changes as are necessary to leave local authorities with some control over their own affairs, and leave national Government to control the extent to which taxpayers' money is spent in local authorities.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. R. B. Cant: As I listened to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), I felt quite an old man. He said that he had served in local government for a number of years. I am just completing my twenty-eighth year. Therefore, inevitably, I have a built-in admiration for the status quo. Unfortunately, not enough emphasis is being given to the matter.
  The reason why the Bill has been produced, particularly the financial parts, is that we have a crisis. Undoubtedly, local authorities are enthusiastic spenders. The desperation of Ministers stems to some extent from the fact that it is difficult to curb expenditure once it has reached a certain level. Civil Service expenditure cannot be curbed, and, therefore, local government often becomes the whipping boy. Following from that, it is difficult to control or cut local government expenditure. The headquarters staff always remain intact and high profile cuts take place, followed by the dramatic closure of old people's homes, and so on.

  329
  My objections to the Bill—I shall deal only with the financial aspects—are similar, to some extent, to those which have already been raised. Regarding capital expenditure, the points which have been raised—the difficulties of the relationship from one year to another, a five-year plan, the problem of revenue expenditure for capital purposes, and the possibility of the use of outside funds with joint partnerships between local government and private development—pose serious problems.
  The present Secretary of State knows nothing about local government, and his predecessor who reformed local government knew even less. The Secretary of State must know that without a great deal of Government supervision there will not be a rational allocation of the blocks of resources which he is putting at the disposal of local authorities, bearing in mind the parts played by different personalities. If the right hon. Gentleman is still in office, he will wake up. I agree that the real departure is the application of the doctrine of ultra vires to expenditure which is not really defined but which is connected with persistent overspending.
  I do not know how one defines the spending needs. I do not know how authorities of the same characteristics are to be grouped together. It is extremely difficult.
  It is interesting to note that the county councils' brief says that presumably what will happen is that the Government will have to fall back on a modification not only of the rate support grant but of the multiple regression analysis which was the foundation of it. Many people who have been in local government even longer than I have are mystified by the concept of multiple regression analysis. I am mystified by it.
  I am reminded, in this context, of Palmerston talking about the Schleswig-Holstein question in the nineteenth century. He said that only three people had ever understood it—one was dead, one was in a mental home, and he himself had forgotten it.
  If the county councils are right, the Government will be driven back to the previous basis or something like it.
  Then there is the important matter of revaluation. There is a letter in the Estates Times this week which draws
  330
  attention to the stupidity of trying to devise a grant based upon rateable value when we have not revalued for so long. It points out that we are faced with a situation in which some valuation officers have valuation dates of 1972 whereas some other areas, more typically, have valuation dates of 1969 and 1970.
  In order to tame the thing that we call money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement, we are introducing the block grant as a substitution for the rate support grant, and it will have quite dramatic consequences for local authorities.
  I believe that we can deal with the problem and keep faith with local government. In all my experience in local government, we have never yet had a consensus, not only between the different political parties but between all sorts of different types of council, opposed to the Government. But now they speak with one voice. If we can get a consensus about a redefinition of the rate support grant in order to make it a little less silly, a little less subject to political whims, that is the direction in which we should go.
  I believe that that can be done. It can be done by looking again at standard prices. It can be done by reassessing the importance of the education factor. With the same unit costs, there can be very different costs per head of population between counties. In Staffordshire, the cost per head of population is 34 per cent. higher in rate terms than the average, simply because there are so many more children.
  There are also social factors. An important variable in the rate support grant is the one-parent family. The fact that only 1971 figures are available makes nonsense of the position, quite apart from the factor of population. I repeat that it can be done within the existing framework.
  What worries me is that the democratic price that we shall have to pay for the introduction of this new financial approach to the solution of problems will be a very high one. We have a very nice medium place in between the dirigiste system in France and the system in the United States and Western Germany, where state government has very well-defined statutory powers. I hope that we shall keep what we have. I hope that the

  331
  Secretary of State will not introduce something that will transform local government in the wrong way, moving us along the road to centralised bureaucratic control. If the Secretary of State is using the Bill and his new financial techniques for that purpose, we should be discussing a different Bill relating to the political reform of local government and he should show us more clearly the map that he is following.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: This is an important Bill, making some radical changes. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) will forgive me if, time being short, I do not take up the points that he mentioned.
  I should begin by saying that I am a chartered town and country planner and a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I should like to refer to those parts of the Bill that are related specifically to planning and to development control and promotion.
  I very much welcome the transfer of some functions from the county level to the district level. Of the 31 functions that Parliament has given to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts, I calculate that at the present moment at least 20 are in some way split between the county and district levels. The result of this has been significant, although I do not want to exaggerate. There have been demarcation disputes, leading to substantial delays in determining some planning applications. Anything that concentrates the power in one quarter or the other is a good thing. This is proposed in the Bill without in any way compromising sound planning principles.
  There is one thing that I should like to mention as a Member who has the privilege of representing a seat just inside Greater London. It is that the Bill does not refer to the powers vis-à-vis the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. I should like an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to transfer some of the present GLC powers to the London boroughs, on the lines of the counties-to-districts proposals in the Bill.
  332
  I also welcome the provision for local plans to be adopted or amended before the structure plans are in operation. The structure plans replaced the old development plans under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. Two years ago—that is to say 10 years after the Act came into being—more than half of the more than 80 structure plans that were expected had not been submitted to the Secretary of State. I know that progress has been made since then, but it is the time factor that has led to the necessity for my right hon. Friend to propose in the Bill that local plans can, in effect, go ahead before the structure plans are implemented.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to bring forward a General Development (Amendment) Order which would exclude, as he said, about 20 per cent. of the total of 500,000 planning applications. I ask him also to look carefully at the overwhelming need to make modifications and amendments at the same time to the use classes order.
  I have mixed feelings about the proposed introduction of fee charges for planning applications and planning appeals. I have no ideological point to express. My own view is that development control is for the benefit of the community as a whole and in the public interest, and should therefore be met out of taxation or rates. There are good precedents for this—the weights and measures legislation, the factory inspectorate, the inspection of food and the building regulations, although I understand that the Secretary of State is also minded to introduce fee charges for the submission of building regulations.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the problems that the introduction of fee charges for planning applications might bring about. A local planning authority, for good or not so good reasons, may reject an application because of one part of it and encourage the application to come back slightly revised. Would the applicant have to pay another fee charge to put in the application again, slightly amended? My own opinion—it may not be accepted by either the House or the Minister—is that the fee should be charged only when the planning application is approved. Even then, I strongly suggest that it should be payable only when the

  333
  application is approved within the statutory period laid down by Parliament, namely, two months.
  I shall give one other instance that illustrates the difficulties that may arise. Why should an applicant, who then becomes an appellant, have to pay a fee charge for appealing when a decision has not been given by the local planning authority? One can appeal if the local authority does not determine any application within the statutory period. The aspects that I have pointed out will lead to problems. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider those points.
  I welcome the repeal of the Community Land Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has already demolished that Act in this debate. It has two particular faults that concern me from a planning point of view. First, under the Community Land Act virtually all land suitable for development had to pass through the hands of local authorities. At best, that was an irrelevant waste of time and provided yet another layer of bureaucracy. At worst, it gave a dangerous and unnecessary power to local planning authorities as those authorities could then decide who should develop what land and when.
  Secondly, the Community Land Act tempted local authorities to put financial gain before sound planning policies when selecting land for development. The Act was therefore totally unnecessary. It was objectionable because of the sweeping powers that it gave to local authorities and to the Secretary of State. It led also to the loss of individual rights. I hope that individual rights will now return to the position that existed before the passing of the Community Land Act.
  The question of urban development corporations raises deep controversy. I listened with care to the expert points that were raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). We may disagree, but I believe that too many acres of prime land in the centre of cities have remained derelict for too long. Redevelopment is needed on a massive scale. The main cause of that dereliction has been that the five London boroughs have squabbled between themselves or with the GLC.
  Mr. Spearing: That is not true.
  Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman and I disagree. However, I can supply cases that will prove my point.
  I do not like the name "urban development corporation". It smacks of a past era of municipality. I suggest the name "special priority areas"—or "SPAS"—to my right hon. Friend. I welcome and support the concept. A valid case has been raised by many hon. Members. They have pointed out that the difference between a new town development corporation and an urban development corporation is that new towns are generally built on green field sites, although that does not apply to Peterborough, Northampton, Skelmersdale and a few other new towns. The argument continues that many thousands of people live in designated urban development corporation areas.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should consider some slight redesignation of London dockland—I am not qualified to speak about Merseyside. Before he sets up the urban development corporation, he might be able to exclude more people without prejudice to the need to develop the site.
  This is an important and large Bill. I have reservations about one or two points, and perhaps they can be explored later. On the whole, I welcome the Bill and I give it my support on Second Reading.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Harry Lamborn: I have represented the inner London borough of Southwark as a local councillor, as a member of the London County Council and as a member of the GLC. I have also represented that area as a Member of Parliament.
  I shall confine my remarks to the proposal to establish an urban development corporation in dockland. That corporation is to be established without any consultation with the London boroughs and without any public inquiry. If ever there was a case of flagrant disregard for local democracy, it exists in the proposals for the urban development corporation.
  The areas that compromise dockland are not isolated areas of vacant land that can properly be placed within the control of an urban development corporation. They are an integral part of existing

  335
  London boroughs. Vast sums of money have already been invested by local ratepayers to revitalise those areas and to bring industry back to inner London.
  The Secretary of State stated that dockland boroughs cannot handle the development. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) spoke of squabbling among the five boroughs. Such total misconceptions on the part of those who have not taken the trouble to understand events in dockland, have led to the present situation. The Secretary of State said that dockland boroughs could not handle the development of those areas because they had broader responsibilities. However, it is that very concern for those broader responsibilities that provides the best reason for retaining redevelopment within local government control.
  The dockland areas cannot be redeveloped independently of the boroughs of which they are an integral part. At the same time, an awareness has developed of the need to balance the independence of those boroughs with the need for an overall strategy. Within that strategy, the London Dockland Joint Committee has been developed. Despite remarks to the contrary, that committee brings together five boroughs and the GLC, as well as independent members—including Government nominees. The arrangement preserves local democracy and ensures that the development of dockland proceeds in harmony with development in all the boroughs. The urban development corporation cannot do that.
  I can speak only as an authority on events in Southwark. I shall do so in order to refute the suggestion that nothing has been going on in those areas and that it is therefore necessary to establish a quango because the boroughs are not acting fast enough. In Southwark, the council's main objective has been to get the proposals off the ground as quickly as possible. Another objective has been to get as quickly as possible the increase of £10 million in the borough's rate base that such a development would give. Already, £13·7 million has been spent on the preparation of the Surrey docks area for redevelopment. A further £8 million has been spent on buying land. Projects to the value of £28 million are now in hand.
  336
  To reach that stage, the council has overcome the problems of drainage, soil contamination and methane gas. The former dockland areas have gradually been filled in since 1970. The planning of the basic sewerage and drainage services for the new development began in 1975. The main trunk sewer is now ready to serve the first housing and industrial areas. There may not be a lot on the ground, but much of the basic groundwork has been started by the London boroughs. We are on the threshold of major development that will revitalise the area.
  I fear that the appointment of an urban development corporation can only put back the clock. A new staff on a new UDC will want to start redesigning schemes from scratch. We have already suffered too many delays in the dockland areas, most of them from Government interference. In Southwark it took us from July 1974 to February 1979 finally to get a refusal for our imaginative Trademark proposition in the Surrey docks.
  I urge the Secretary of State to think again. The establishment of an urban development corporation may be necessary for Liverpool—and I leave hon. Members for that area to speak for themselves—but it is not necessary for the London docklands. It can only delay redevelopment plans for which much groundwork has been accomplished.
  The plans for the London dockland represent an agreed strategy between the five local authorities and the GLC, with a workable timetable and an organised staff to implement them. The London joint committee retains the advantages of democratic control while co-ordinating the activities of the borough and the GLC. That is a fine demonstration of making democracy work. It does not need to be replaced by a corporation.
  Finally, if the Government use their majority to force the dockland corporation on inner London, I welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as deputy chairman, and I congratulate him on his courage in accepting that appointment. If the corporation is forced on us, we need a voice at the highest level who understands the needs of inner London and who has lived with the problems of the dockland area since the days when he was a dockers' Member of Parliament

  337
  —although he now has not a single docker. My right hon. Friend has an important role to play if we have to have that corporation. With his aptitude for expressing his views in a forthright way, he might cut through some of the red tape that we are bound to encounter and ensure that some of the projects that the boroughs have in the pipeline are not long delayed.
  Nevertheless, I am convinced that local democracy can solve the problems of London's dockland. Great progdess has been made. I hope that in Committee the Secretary of State will consider withdrawing the proposals that affect inner London.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Bill has achieved a rare result in uniting Labour, Tory and independent-controlled councils in opposition to it. It can fairly be described as a Trojan horse in lamb's clothing. Despite relaxation of 300 detailed controls, its most significant feature is the centralisation of power. The councils fear that the Bill provides the framework for rigid and dictatorial central control. It could well be a milestone in centre-local relations in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ioan Bowen Rees, the chief executive of Gwynedd county council, is the author of a highly regarded book, "Government by Community", which I recommend to all hon. Members. He described the Bill as possibly heralding
  "the end of true local government as we know it."
  It is worth recalling that one of Hitler's first actions in Germany was to emasculate local government. We could be opening the door here to the same process.
  Over many years we have seen the gradual erosion of local government powers. Trunk roads, hospitals, personal health, school health, ambulances, electricity, gas and the rivers have been taken away from the powers of local authorities. In some ways the urban development corporation moves further in that direction. I hope that we shall not see such a corporation in Wales. I should like to see us moving in the other direction. I should like to see the abolition of the ultra vires rule, although in the present climate that is unlikely.
  338
  Parts of the Bill are welcome. I welcome the retention of the Land Authority for Wales, which is generally acknowledged to have done good work. We also welcome the structure of a separate block grant for Wales, which was foreseen in the Wales Act in the previous Parliament. Sadly, we shall not have democratic control over that grant, and there is the question of how the total size of the block grant will be determined. It will also be interesting to know whether there will be provisions for Scotland similar to those in parts VI and VIII, which do not apply to Scotland.
  We welcome the provision to make local authorities publish more information, and hope that that message will get home to central Government. By and large, local government is better than central Government at publishing information. Officers send reports to all councillors well in advance of meetings, which can be contrasted with the lack of information given to hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, from the Civil Service. We also welcome the relaxation of controls, though many are trivial, such as the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, appeals on the height of chimneys and regulations concerning density meters.
  We give a limited welcome to the planning provisions. The case to have planning functions under one roof at county or district level is overwhelming. There is no case for a split. I prefer to see planning as a district level function, but, whichever tier has responsibility, it should be under one roof. I fear that in clause 62 of the Bill provision still exists that districts will have to consult the county on certain matters but that there will be no sanction with the county. However, the counties will retain their planning staff and in Wales they will have to report to the Welsh Office when things are out of line. No doubt that will involve more bureaucrats in the Welsh Office to give the final authority. Thus, there will be a centralisation and not decentralization in the planning functions.
  We should like to see an amendment in Committee or on Report regarding the vexed question of second homes in Wales. The Welsh Office advises us that the planning clauses in the Bill are suitable for such an amendment.

  339
  I profoundly disagree with parts of the Bill. There is a real erosion of local authorities' powers implicit in the Bill. I speak as a convinced devolutionist in all senses. I quote what the Secretary of State said on 19 July:
  "Together with responsibility goes accountability. Freedom for individuals cannot be achieved only by abolishing restrictions.…I believe that an effectively functioning local democracy can monitor the activities of local councils far better than civil servants in Marsha Street."
  I agree with that, but it is not the direction in which the Bill takes us.
  The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives stated:
  "In the Bill at each critical point the Government have chosen central control and influence rather than local accountability."
  That body is not notoriously Labour-controlled or Opposition-controlled and might be expected to have sympathy with the Government in other matters.
  I contend that the capital controls are totally unnecessary. Over each of the past five years the local authorities have been within 5 per cent. of public expenditure White Paper projections. The restriction on funding capital projects from the rates is a grave imposition and one that could kill off a vital project in my constituency, namely, a sports centre that is due to be provided at Caernarvon by that means.
  The relaxation of other controls such as the Parker Morris standards—which was the point made by the Secretary of State in an earlier intervention—in no way requires this new straitjacket on the total capital expenditure of local authorities.
  Equally, local authority revenue expenditure has not been grossly out of line over the past five years. It has fluctuated by plus or minus 2 per cent. against target in each of those years. That is not a reason for introducing the sort of controls that are contained in the Bill.
  The central question that arises is, how will central Government assess the varying needs from one area to another? What will be the criteria, who will be assessing them and how? Are we to have what could develop into a perfect system such as that in France? The bureaucratic cost for central
  340
  Government of having a real measuring rod and real sensitivity to the needs of each area far outweigh the benefits that could come from the steps that the Government are taking.
  I return to the comments of the local authority chief executives in summing up the Bill:

  "(a) To lay down for each and every authority the level of expenditure it should undertake.

  (b) To take powers to penalise local authorities whose level of expenditure differs from standard expenditure.

  (c) To extend its control over capital to all expenditure on capital however financed.

  (d) To take powers to compel local authorities to disband direct labour organisations, when a specified rate of return on capital has not been achieved.

  (e) To take powers to compel a local authority to dispose of land it holds, judged by the Secretary of State not to be required."

  All these are centralising features, so that despite the good parts of the Bill—and there are some good parts—we must vote against it because we regard the essential features of the Bill as being anti-freedom, centralising and bureaucratic in nature.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late hour, and I shall be brief.
  One of the disadvantages of speaking at this time, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Minister who has left the Front Bench, is that most of one's foxes have been shot by previous speakers.
  I wish to concentrate on two issues that other hon. Members have not concentrated on, and I declare three interests. One interest is as a consultant surveyor and director of a building and contracting company. I would consider my remarks on the Community Land Act 1975 and the abolition thereof to be made with the benefit of some inside knowledge of the working of that Act, and, as I wish to dwell also on the cancellation of rating revaluation in 1982, I should inform the House that I am a fellow of the Rating and Valuation Association.
  I was especially impressed by the contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Clearly, if a Bill achieves the almost impossible task of uniting the

  341
  Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils in opposition to one part of the Bill, all may not be well in the State of Denmark.
  A Bill that is designed to encourage local government to be more efficient, more effective, more cost-conscious and more mindful of the needs of ratepayers and others must, in essence, be good. I wish, first, to describe the two reservations that I have about the Bill and then to touch briefly on the Community Land Act 1975.
  I start with my reservation about schedule 5, which relates to the proposed repeal of parts of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 and the Allotments Act 1925. For 600,000 council allotment holders there are 300 square yards of England's green and pleasant land, which represent an escape from the boredom of the high-rise block. It represents a breath of fresh air amidst the concrete jungle of anonymous urban life and an opportunity to out price the supermarkets. It represents a chance to return to the soil, to grow vegetables to supplement the shopping basket and to tend flowers to adorn homes.
  I fear that the provisions of the Bill, if they remain unamended in Committee, will reduce substantially the number of allotments available in the future. The provisions for the repeal of parts of these two Acts deal with the proceeds arising from the sale of allotment land, which shall be used in the first instance for allotment purposes, the keeping of allotment accounts and the consent of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the disposal of allotment land.
  If the repeal survives the Committee stage, it will enable local authorities, where they may be so minded, to conceal receipts from the sale of allotments from their ratepayers and not use such moneys for the benefit of allotments. These vital safeguards should continue to be vested in central Government so that the Court of Appeal continues to be available to allotment holders as an appeal of last resort against any action by the local authority.
  I ask the House to bear in mind that allotment holders are, in the main, the elderly of our community, many of whom live in flats and other types of accom-
  342
  modation lacking what some of us have begun to take for granted—namely, our back gardens. There are thousands upon thousands of acres of derelict and despoiled urban land crying out for redevelopment, without the temptation to encroach upon fertile land which once played so vital a part in the "Dig for Victory" campaign.
  I turn to my reservations about the cancellation of the Rating Revaluation Act 1892. If indeed the cancellation is the primogenitor of a complete and absolute review of our rating system, I welcome it. I invite my right hon. Friend when he replies to consider the anomalies that the cancellation of that Act might produce. It would produce a clamour for amendments to the laws of compensation. I refer especially to compensation for site value brought about by compulsory purchase orders and compensation based upon gross value assessment when the effect of section 32 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is taken into account.
  One further point that has not been touched upon so far is contained in part V of the Bill. I welcome that wholeheartedly. It seeks to extend domestic rate relief to more mixed hereditaments, and by that I presume is meant shops with maisonettes or flats above, and to extend the right to pay rates by instalment to the occupiers of non-domestic hereditaments. I presume that that also means commercial and small industrial premises. Surely that must be welcomed by the small business sector, shopkeepers and small industrialists throughout the length and breadth of the land.
  I shall contain my final remarks to endorsing the breathtaking assassination of the Community Land Act 1975, so cleverly carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). That Act has, over the past five years of its inactive life, been the dead hand of the building industry. The Act was born out of ideological dogma by the previous Labour Administration. In its brief appearance on the building sites of this country it has proved to be a major contributor to the present high rate of unemployment in the skilled sector of the industry. The Act was at once too complex, too cumbersome and too expensive. It was an Act which gave local authorities entrepreneurial powers that they were ill equipped to put into practice. It is

  343
  an Act which, in its pathetic lifetime, did not build one new home or create one new estate.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) reminded us that in 1947 they tried it—and it failed. In 1967 they tried it—and it failed. In 1975 they tried it—and it failed. I am referring to land nationalisation. In the words of the famous songstress,
  "When will they ever learn?"
  I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to return to the House and confirm that his party will never again attempt to reintroduce a Bill that has so patently proved to be a costly failure three times in the past 30 years.
  With respect to the right hon. Gentleman in his absence, I was surprised by his contribution. Dedicated as he was to a future Labour Administration re-enacting a Bill designed to achieve the total nationalisation of our building land and, no doubt, subsequently in its wake, the nationalisation of agricultural land—that will inevitably follow as the night does the day—hefailed to realise that that will stultify the development and creation of new homes. While he waxed eloquent about the need for the community to have a benefit from betterment, he failed totally to realise that the Development Land Tax Act, which was produced in parallel and as a tandem to the Community Land Act by his Government, provides to the community, by way of 60 per cent. of the betterment, the gain that is rightfully the community's.
  I welcome the reservation in the Bill. While we assassinate the Community Land Act, the power remains to reserve to local authorities the right to assemble land which will enable them to create small factory estates and help small business men to start up on their own. It will help to solve our still enormous but inherited unemployment problem.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to be called to speak at this time in order to add a Scottish voice to the debate, not just for oral variety but because there is a substantial Scottish interest in the Bill. This is a United Kingdom measure and I am sorry that more Scottish Members have not been present to participate in the debate. I
  344
  am glad to see the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) here today. Five of the 16 substantive parts of the Bill apply totally to Scotland and six apply in part to Scotland. Perhaps others should apply to Scotland as well. I shall return to that point later.
  It is difficult to analyse the effect that the Bill will have on local government in Scotland. It is an untidy and bad Bill. We have a different system of local government in Scotland and I should have preferred to see a separate Bill, as in the case of education, to deal with that separate system. I examined the Bill in detail and my first reaction was to give thanks to the Lord—or at least to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister or whoever is responsible ultimately for the inclusions or exclusions in the Bill—that sections 6 and 8 do not apply to Scotland. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) raised that point.
  However, on examining the Bill more carefully, it occurred to me that what is being proposed is similar to the system that currently exists in Scotland. Let people be warned. The Secretary of State for Scotland is currently waving a large favour at the Lothian region council which is not doing what it is told by this Right-wing reactionary Government. The council is being told that there will be dreadful penalties—its capital allocations will be cut and its revenue expenditure will be adjusted—if it does not do what it is told. Let friends from England and Wales beware. The existing system in Scotland is about to overtake them.
  There are bad examples of the current system in England and Wales as well as in Scotland. For example, I was recently examining the position where a person employed in local government—say, a teacher or a social worker—becomes unemployed. I am talking about the economic effect—let us forget the social and other effects. I asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter. An interesting fact that has not been widely publicised became clear. Someone earning about £5,000, which is a typical salary for a social worker or a teacher, after 10 years, with two children aged 6 years and 4 years and a mortgage of £10,000 over 25 years, will cost, in terms of his redundancy in lost revenue, over £1,500. In additional benefits payable to him and his family he will cost

  345
  over £3,300. That makes a total of £4,880 in extra public expenditure—a net gain of only £120.
  There will be a loss to the community and to society of a valuable teacher, keeping class sizes down and keeping up the literacy standard or the loss of a social worker dealing with social problems. It is ridiculous even in economic terms, let alone in social terms, to put a man on the scrapheap. The theory is that these men will find jobs in the private sector. That is manifestly ridiculous, because jobs in the private sector are not available. They are being destroyed by the policy of Conservative Members.
  I should like to deal with two specific points and ask why they do not apply to Scotland. Perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will answer my point. Why does not part II apply to Scotland? I believe that it is right that there should be a duty on local authorities to publish reports of their activities. I do not think it is an undue restriction, although it may be presently covered in Scotland. However, having been a member of a local authority for nine years, I do not believe that it is. I believe that there is no duty to publish reports.
  Why does not part VII apply to Scotland? It deals with rebates under the Rating (Disabled Persons) (Scotland) Act and caravan sites for gipsies. Both are welcome provisions which should apply equally north of the border. It may be that they are both covered by existing provisions. The Birsay committee made representations concerning gipsies. If the provisions only apply by custom and normal habit, I wonder whether we should consider making them statutory in Scotland as well.
  I move to a major issue in the Bill—the question of new town corporations. The Bill gives the corporations more power. I should have liked to see a Bill which included the abolition of new town corporations. I do not like non-elected authorities. I believe that new town corporations have an adverse effect on surrounding areas. When I was chairman of the education committee of the Lothian region, we spent more than two-thirds of our capital expenditure on education in the new town of Livingston, causing problems in the city of Edinburgh. Because they are an extra tier over and above regional and district
  346
  councils, they mean extra expenditure on officials and members of the authority. If we are to dance a few quangos out of our lives, we should have got rid of those rather than the important ones, such as the clean air quango, which, unfortunately, is got rid of by the Bill. New town corporations are a negation of democracy. They clash with the local authorities and create tremendous problems. Indeed, their existence has resulted in inner city deprivation in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
  I come to part XVI of the Bill. Urban generation is vital because of the dead centres in the inner cities. However, it is ironic that proposals in Merseyside and docklands are modelled on the new town corporations that created the problems. I would support any sort of activity to encourage and develop the centres of our city, but I would question strongly whether that should be done by non-elected bodies. If the Government gave resources to the existing local authorities, if money was being pumped into them instead of being withdrawn, those democratically elected authorities could get on with their job.
  I am suspicious of part X of the Bill, which suggests a public register of land. The idea is to force local authorities to sell off land. There are allegations of hoarding. I suggest that local authorities need land in reserve. With the ups and downs of the economy—the stop-go—it is important to have a reserve of land so that when a local authority receives an injection of finance it can get on with the building programme. It can then build the old people's homes and new schools on the sites it has reserved instead of having to wait for the necessary compulsory purchase of the land. It is not unused land; it is land in reserve. That is proper planning.
  The Tories are keen to sell land off to private developers anxious to make a quick buck. We have seen that in Scotland recently where the Robroyson hospital—the case was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Martin)—was sold for a mere £400,000.Already the developer who bought it has sold part of the site for £1½ million. That is what the Tories want to see. That is why they wish to sell off public authority land.

  347
  I believe in our democracy. It is an important part of our lives that is not just exercised every five years at a general election. It is not merely a matter of the period in between elections where a Prime Minister says that a Government have received a mandate and they will get on with the job. That is an elected dictatorship.
  Democracy is a subtle balance of all the forces in our society. It is made up of central Government, which is an important force, pressure groups, industry, the unions and the voluntary organisations; and, in this context above all, our democracy embraces local government. Local councillors were elected, too, and they have a mandate to get on with the job. They are an important part of the local democracy that the Bill will stifle by taking away their powers. The Bill will destroy local government.
  That fact has been mentioned by many Conservative councillors and the majority of hon. Members have acknowledged that fact in this debate. I hope—though I fear vainly—that they will express their feelings by coming through the Lobby with is. If they do not do that, I hope that major changes will be made in the Bill as it goes through Committee.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: As a former member of a county council and of a county borough council, I give the Bill a cautious welcome. I say "cautious" because I believe that many present and past members of local authorities, including those in the House, feel that successive national Governments in recent years have succeeded in reducing much of the best of local government, either through reorganisation or intervention. That has happened instead of local government being allowed to evolve naturally as it had done successfully for nearly a century.
  I opposed the reorganisation of local government in 1972. I particularly regretted the abolition of the county borough councils, which, I believe, were probably among the finest units of local government administration anywhere in the Western world. It cannot be said that local government functions, as they apply to former county boroughs such as Bournemouth—which includes my con-
  348
  stituency—are being managed more efficiently today because their former functions are now divided between district and county. Nor do I believe that the previous Government's proposals for organic change would have improved matters.
  I welcome the principle of clause 2(4), which will allow a ready comparison of unit costs between like authorities. The sole object of such comparison should be that the ratepayer is made aware of how efficient or expensive his local council is. The danger, however, is that the wrong conclusion can be jumped at too readily. No two local authorities are exactly alike. It is not possible to compare directly, for example, the unit costs of a borough such as Bournemouth—a coastal resort with a high proportion of elderly people and extremely dear housing compared with housing in the rest of the South-Western region—with the unit costs for social services and housing in a new town of similar size or an industrial borough. I believe that every set of statistics published for comparison of performance should make that plain.
  It will, of course, be up to local councillors to explain that to their electorates. Too many councillors do not communicate as well as they might with their electors. The intention of the Bill to relax, or remove, certain controls or constraints on local government functions has, I have found, provoked a universal reaction among councillors that they are glad to know that they are free of such controls, though some of them say that they never appreciated that many of those controls had been imposed on them in the first place.
  These proposals in the Bill will, I think, be regarded as only a start along the road to freeing local government of many of the statutory regulations that it must satisfy, often at great cost to the taxpayer. Many of those regulations, on analysis, will be found to be out of date and totally unnecessary and should have been scrapped a long time ago.
  I hope that, in establishing comparisons of performance between local authorities and in reviewing statutory functions and responsibilities, my right hon. Friend will also compare the practices of local government in this country with practices abroad, especially in Europe. There may

  349
  be many ways in which other countries organise their local government better than we do. Many provide fewer services at less cost to their taxpayers. I believe that we can learn a great deal from them.
  I welcome the better allowances for councillors, especially those with special responsibilities. However, I appreciate that doubts remain whether local councillors should be paid at all and that some people may be wrongly motivated if they are. In some instances these doubts are justified. Nevertheless, councillors should not be out of pocket for serving the community in such a time-consuming and costly way. Local authority service must not be the prerogative of the rich or the retired. They must include the widest possible cross-section of the local community, including younger people in tune with modern management techniques and the attitudes of their generation. The financial compensation for the loss of income and career prospects which election to a local authority undoubtedly encourages must be adequate. Up to now, it has not been adequate. It will not be adequate even as a result of the provisions in the Bill.
  The proposed control of the capital expenditure of local authorities and the new block grant system is causing most concern because of the implied loss of local freedom. The Government were elected to control and ultimately to reduce public expenditure. They are imposing strict cash limits on themselves. If they are to succeed in this aim, I accept that they must apply similar controls to local government expenditure. Only the most extravagant councils should fear these controls—and rightly so. However, I hope that the Government will continue genuinely to listen to local authorities, to take note of their alternative proposals and, if necessary, to amend the Bill in Committee to achieve the right balance between central bureaucracy and local freedom.
  I hope that in the not too distant future such measures will no longer be necessary because they will be superseded by a new system of financing local government and a reformed rating system based on the ability to pay.
  Recent press reports indicate that the Government have effectively abandoned their pledge to abolish domestic rates. I hope that my right hon. Friend will con-
  350
  firm that the Government remain committed to that pledge in principle and that they will produce detailed proposals for consultation with local authorities, ready to be implemented as soon as the economy allows. If not, the long-suffering taxpayer, who is also the ratepayer, will lose all hope and will feel that he has been abandoned by the Government that he helped to elect.
  This is an important Bill. It is aimed, amongst other things, at keeping local government expenditure under control. As such, it will be welcomed by the ratepayer.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and try to be extremely brief so that another hon. Member may he squeezed in before the Front Bench spokesmen wind up the debate.
  Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken, I have not been a member of a local authority. I have often said that it has been an advantage for me to represent part of Birmingham not having been a member of the Birmingham city council.
  I have had some harsh words to say about local authorities. But, as has been made clear by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many sincerely believe that our system of local government is the cornerstone of our democracy. The Government are perpetrating an act of vandalism on our democracy. If the provisions in the Bill are carried out to the extent that we fear, local government electors will rise up in their wrath because of what will happen to the local authorities. They will see that there is no redress for their grievances. Curtailment of the redress of individual citizens will be brought about by this "freedom-loving" Tory Government. It will not take long for the electorate to see through it.
  Listening to some hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), who spoke for the Liberal Party, one would think that clause 2 had something to do with open government. I do not see that the publication of information laid down in the Bill has anything to do with open government. The phrasing means that

  351
  the information given out is under the control of the central Government. The central Government will dictate what is published and how. It may be published on the back of the rate demand. That happens now in Birmingham. But council tenants do not get a rate demand. They do not see the breakdown of the information. This point is not covered in the Bill.
  The first action of the present Tory leadership in Birmingham, on taking control of the city, a few years ago was to abolish publication of the "Brum Bugle", introduced by the Labour council. That went to every house in the city and explained how the city council worked and how money was raised and spent. It was claimed that the move saved public expenditure, but it curtailed local democracy.
  The Government are not interested in open government. I hope that I am not doing an injustice to the Library. The briefs that they produce for hon. Members are first-class. But a sentence in the brief on clause 2 says:
  "The publishing of details of service costs will give ratepayers the opportunity to judge the workings of local government and to curb the power of pressure groups to dictate Government policy, according to the Secretary of State."
  If the Secretary of State has said that the reason behind the publication of information in a form that he lays down is to curtail the action of pressure groups that are vital to our democracy, he has some questions to answer. The fact that someone somewhere will have to monitor the speeches of councillors in committees and council chambers up and down the country is a serious erosion of our civil liberties and one more step down the road to the corporate State.
  I hope that the Minister will reply to the points raised from the Opposition Front Bench. Who will report to the Secretary of State on the content, the manner and the context of speeches made by councillors so that the Secretary of State can determine whether they are naughty boys and deserve to be subpoena'd and surcharged and to have their electorate damaged and vandalised because of the money they have spent and because their motives may have been misunderstood? There is no Hansard in
  352
  local government. Will they rely on the Press Association? They will not be able to rely on the local press.
  My second point relates to direct labour organisations. My right hon Friend the Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the position in his consituency, but the matter affects the whole of Birmingham. Since the present Tory-controlled council abolished the direct building department, there have been catastrophic problems in Birmingham regarding the use of private contractors. In one example, scaffolding put up round a block of four houses by a private contractor fell down. The firm has been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive. Such examples of the rip-off under the urban renewal scheme are legion. This has happened because private contractors, in the small way they operate—unlike large firms such as Wimpey—are not geared to servicing areas such as Birmingham. We were able to do the job on our own more efficiently, more cost-effectively and with some sort of surveillance.
  The great advantage of direct labour departments, in terms of saving, is that they do not need a Christmas gifts list. Hon Members know of the case of the building company, Bryants from which hon. Members on both sides of the House were in receipt of gifts. There is no secret about that. It came out in the court case. I have not heard of a case of a local authority direct works department needing a Christmas gifts list with crates of whisky and such like. It does not operate like that. It does not need to operate in that way when it is under the control of democratically elected councillors open to the surveillance, of ratepayers and the local press. I can speak only for Birmingham, which has suffered greatly since the abandonment of the direct works department.
  I shall vote against the Bill with a glad heart, knowing what I am doing. I have campaigned for the policy contained in clause 88 for five years. That is not Government policy. It is the result of a recommendation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Select Committee—namely, to remove from the Land Compensation Act 1973 the closing date of July 1975 for the making of claims.

  353
  More than 200 families in my constituency who live alongside the M6 did not claim in time. Throughout the country there are 10,000 citizens affected by road schemes who did not claim within the time limit. The main reason for that is the lack of publicity. One of my constituents who was building the motorway had moved on to build the next bit of motorway by the expiry date. There was a lack of publicity and no forms were put out. I took a case to the Ombudsman, but it was thrown out.
  Another case in connection with the M2 opened up the whole question 18 months ago. The previous Government were in the process of reviewing the Select Committee's report and I understand that they were about to make a similar decision to that which the Government have made.
  I wholeheartedly welcome clause 88, although it seems to rely on the whim of the Minister. He has to be satisfied that the publicity given is not sufficient. However, we can argue about that later. I will take no truck from any Tory who says that I am voting against the interest of my constituents because I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, having campaigned for clause 88 for five years.
  The Bill sounds the death knell of local democracy. I hope that there will be many amendments in Committee. If only a few Conservative Members who have spoken today would follow their voices into the Lobby, the Bill would not get a Second Reading.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am glad to have the opportunity to put the Scottish voice from the Conservative Benches. I welcome the Bill because the broad objective of part I is sensible devolution, which relaxes central Government control and allows local authorities to provide services with the minimum of central Government interference. As a Scot, I believe in devolution which strengthens the relationship between local authorities and their local communities and allows local authorities, ratepayers and electors to have a more meaningful say in the kind of services which are provided. The Bill goes a long way towards doing that. It will also improve the general level of information available to councillors and ratepayers, which in turn will help them to play a
  354
  full and constructive role in their local authorities. I believe that councillors have a key role to play in our democracy.
  I have some reservations. The Bill does not relax enough of central Government's control. However, it is a step in the right direction. Reference has been made to the sale of hospital land. That sale was carried out under the Labour Administration.
  I am delighted to see that the Bill tackles the problem of direct labour organisations. For far too long, British taxpayers and ratepayers have been sustaining ineffective and inefficient direct labour organisations which have been protected from the real world. They have, in the main, been operating on the economics of the bottomless bag of gold, that is to say, the public purse—the open drain down which all the losses have gone.
  The public purse is not bottomless. The bag of gold does not exist. The Bill will ensure that direct labour organisations become more accountable. In future they will be run as separate and accountable trading bodies and must tender and operate in fair competition with the private sector. The sensible and efficient direct labour managers and work-people will welcome this opportunity to show that they can compete. Those who do not have faith in their ability to compete will make a lot of noise, but the ratepayers and taxpayers will not be fooled. They will recognise that it is just another attempt by individuals and groups of individuals to protect out-of-date work practices.
  Clause 63 allows the Secretary of State, as he thinks fit, to make provision for the payment of a fee for planning permission. That will be acceptable only if the delays and other areas of aggravation are removed. The delays and the aggravation are the real planning problem.
  I wish to draw attention to the glaring anomaly that exists in Scottish rating law. Owner-occupied shoots are rated, whereas they are not under English law. This difference in the laws of the two countries creates acrimony and a sense of injustice and is seen to be absurd. It is all the more absurd when we realise that many of the assessments made are for farm land which is quite unsuitable for shooting and where no shooting takes place.

  355
  I should declare a non-interest here. I have never been shooting in my life. What is more, I have no intention of going shooting.
  I also suggest that the rights and duties of the water authorities should be updated—especially those of the water authorities in Scotland—to bring them into line with the other statutory bodies. Could not an amendment have been made to the Water (Scotand) Act? In particular, water authorities do not enter into way leave agreements or make way leave payments. Farmers in Scotland cannot understand way there should be a difference between water pipes and other pipes which cross their land.
  Finally, I suggest that the Government should consider water authorities' liability for compensation for burst pipes and their failure to pay interest on damages or compensation for drainage after a specific period. These are aspects of the Bill that apply to Scotland. I hope that the Minister will consider them.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: The Bill is a slimmer version of, but only a slight variation on, the original. What is abundantly clear is that the objectionable clauses remain. That indicates that the Government have taken no notice of the vigorous protests, advice and suggestions from local authorities and their associations. The consultation document was a sheer waste of time. It was a fallacy.
  The Government's proposed intention to give local authorities more responsibility with less bureaucratic control from central Government is far removed from reality. The Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State for the Environment on many vital issues but at the same time erodes the rights of local government. That is happening in face of the overwhelming objections from councillors, officers and local authority associations. There is a fundamental shift from local government to central Government that is neither healthy nor desirable.
  In this wide-ranging debate, and in the short time that I have, I should like to consider part II and the attack made on direct labour organisations. All parties are agreed that DLOs should justify their existence and be seen to give value for
  356
  money. However, that issue should not be confused by considering them to be merely profit-making organisations.
  The one basic element that is overlooked in these arguments is the standard of service provided by direct labour organisations, which is immeasurable in financial terms. Direct labour is there to provide a service and not a profit. It has to meet obligations as a model employer. The Bill disregards the social benefits of a decasualised labour force which provides apprenticeship training, employment for the disabled, superannuation and welfare benefits, safety and health, all of which are accountable costs and have to be included in competitive tendering. How can direct labour organisations provide these standards of service, meet their obligations, give secure employment and all the social benefits I have mentioned, and compete with contractors who do not?
  In Manchester, direct work on new construction has provided the labour which has built 21,000 houses, 60 schools and massive recreational projects. It has also built police stations and fire stations. Most of that work has been won through competitive tendering, and the treasurer's figures show a vast saving to the ratepayers of the city.
  We employ about 5,000 and provide training for over 500 apprentices. Apprentices, under the supervision of craftsmen, have built sheltered accommodation for the elderly in the city of Manchester. Where would one get that in the private sector? We provide jobs for the disabled. It is not featherbedding but horses for courses. Where would one get that in the private sector? The performance in the private sector has been abysmal. Direct labour gives us all the benefits of a model employer and it is all at risk because of the restrictions of the Bill.
  The Bill makes the mistake of assuming that we are comparing like with like. How can comparisons be made with the private sector when it works under different rules and disciplines? Direct labour organisations cannot hire and fire men or negotiate new bonus schemes on every contract. They are limited to working within their own boundaries. They cannot invest moneys in lucrative ventures or switch resources and finance. They cannot buy work in an economic depression

  357
  in the building industry, nor can they enter into suicidal tendering.
  If we are to compare like with like, will the Government insist that there should be no lump labour? Will every firm competing with direct labour have to train apprentices, take its quota of disabled people and give the same welfare benefits as are given by direct labour organisations? Will direct labour organisations be allowed to compete outside their own boundaries?
  Before reorganisation, we could build complete fire stations and police stations. After reorganisation, if the education authority had gone to the county with a request for buildings we would not have been able to build schools within our own city through our own works department. Will direct labour be allowed to carry out speculative building and tender for such buildings as Centre Point? Will the Bill mean that work now negotiated with the private sector will have to be tendered for in open competition?
  The Bill's proposals to force direct labour organisations to tender for every contract valued at over £50,000, a figure that has not been updated since 1975, will mean increased overheads, extra staff to work the system and additional administration and staff requirements to assess costs, raise accounts and settle them.
  At the same time, are turn of 5 per cent. on capital employed is insisted upon even when the rate required in the private sector may be much lower. How can DLOs remain economically viable with all the restraints that are to be imposed? They cannot, and the Secretary of State then has the power to close them down completely.
  Do the Government realise that a considerable amount of maintenance work has already gone to the private sector? Will that work be included in the one-third that will go out to tender? Where specialist work is required or where there is difficulty in recruiting, will that work go out to tender? Perhaps the Minister will make that clear when he winds up.
  Manchester's maintenance section attends to over half a million day-to-day repairs, provides emergency services 365 days a year and meets special situations such as storm damage. When the IRA bombed the law courts, direct labour was on the scene, and over the weekend the
  358
  law courts were made habitable for Monday morning.
  We have an emergency flying squad which can be called out at all hours in all weathers. Sometimes it has to work in appalling conditions doing disgusting work in an emergency. Will this work go out to competitive tender?
  This Bill will eventually close down many direct labour organisations. We have about 300,000 building workers already unemployed. With the Bill there will be another massive dose of redundancies. This is while 1 million people wait on council house waiting lists.
  A top local government official who has spent all his life in local government has said:
  "I cannot emphasise too strongly the damage to local government in the financial provisions of this Bill. It will affect the whole fabric of local government as we have known it. If local government as a democratic institution is worth preserving as part of the English heritage, then the financial provisions of this Bill must be resisted."
  So it is under the guise of giving local government more freedom and making it more accountable that the Bill will enable the Government to achieve their economic targets. These claims are demonstrably false and bear no resemblance to the reality, and it should be—I emphasise this—the Government's obligation to show the need for the controls that are enshrined in the Bill.
  9 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: We have had a full and varied discussion of this monster Bill. I use the word "monster" in every sense. It is monstrous in size and monstrous in its provisions. It is a Bill whose main provisions are bitterly and vigorously opposed by all three local government associations, all of them completely Conservative-controlled. It is opposed by individual authorities, of varied political complexions, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. It is opposed by trade unions, by individual pressure groups, by the Liberal Party and by the Welsh National Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—as well as by the Labour Benches.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that from what we have heard in this debate it is a Bill with very few friends indeed, even on the Conservative Benches. Apart from the hon.

  359
  Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who confined his remarks to the repeal of the Community Land Act, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), who was mainly concerned with the provision relating to the urban development corporation in Liverpool, the other speeches were varied and mixed in their reception. Some were speeches of almost outright hostility from the Conservative Benches, especially those of some Conservative Members who have experience in local government. That was the link of the attacks—those Conservative Members who have experience in some form with local government, and particularly with its grass roots.
  I listened with great care to the excellent speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He has not only experience as a Secretary of State for the Environment but considerable experience as a county councillor and a local authority member. That is why he was so critical of so many of the Bill's provisions. And it was not only him. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), who has a distinguished record in county council work and administration, and the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), both of whom have served on local authorities in one way or another, were all highly critical of the Bill's main provisions. I hope that the Secretary of State will take good note of the lack of any measure of support for the Bill even from his own side of the House.
  One of the things that has struck me during the debate, especially when listening, to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, is that every clause of the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If what the right hon. Gentleman was saying in his honeyed words in moving the Second Reading was true—that there are a few overspending authorities and that, therefore, he must take powers to curb them; that some authorities do not give sufficient information, and, therefore, he must take powers; and that he will be setting up two development corporations, one in London and one in Liverpool—why do we have this huge Bill whose provisions go far wider than that? I think the reason is—and I regret to say this—that there are sinister provisions behind the Bill, and my view has been
  360
  reinforced. The right hon. Gentleman was given every opportunity by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to correct or at least to explain what he meant when he talked about judging a local authority by speeches, and he insisted that that should go into Hansard. Indeed, he repeated that he meant "speeches".
  Are we to reach the position where a chief executive or a leader of a party in a council will tell a young councillor to curb his speech because the Secretary of State might get to know and the authority might be fined and penalised? The right hon. Gentleman is laughing. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the word "speeches"? I think it is an absolutely disgraceful provision in any Bill in a democratic country, particularly in this country, where curbs of that nature can be put forward by the Secretary of State so that councillors are frightened of expressing a true opinion because, if they express that opinion, the ratepayers of the area may suffer at the whim of the Secretary of State.
  There are some provisions, but very few, in the Bill with which the Opposition can agree. My right hon. Friend mentioned the provision for the payment of councillors with special responsibilities. I hope that it will apply not only on the "government" side of the council, as it were, because oppositions, whether Labour or Conservative, have a considerable amount of work to do. I hope that that fact is taken into account when the decision is made over these extra payments. We can go along with that.
  I agree with some of the provisions for compensation. The point has been made with regard to the cut-off date in 1975. I agree with that. Those are just crumbs in the Bill when one considers the enormity of other provisions in it.
  I shall start with some of the things with which we mildly disagree before I go on to those on which we have a major disagreement with the Government—even clause 1, which, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, relieves local authorities of some of their obligations and duties. Incidentally, in normal language, if one is told that one is relieved of one's duty, it means that one is being sacked. In effect, in the Bill that is what the Secretary of

  361
  State is doing to the local authorities in relieving them of their responsibilities.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) in what they said with regard to allotments. What is proposed goes completely counter to the trend of leisure, a trend that helps the nation, whereby people who have no land of their own can take unused, derelict land, grow good, useful food on that land and enjoy themselves in the process. Clearly, what will happen in many authorities is that those allotments will be sold off for development.
  The Bill does not go back 40 or 50 years; it goes back over 150 years. One of the repeals proposed in the Bill is that of a protection given to allotment holders in 1830 under the Enclosures Act. In this first part, also, I would not object to some of the duties of local authorities that are to be removed. I object very much to the removal of the provision of the Secretary of State's overall direction on pollution and clean air.
  I do that because these are two issues which clearly go well beyond the boundaries of the local authority concerned. Other local authorities are affected. If a local authority does not carry out its duty, its next-door neighbour will suffer from its smoke and pollution. That is why the power is given to the Secretary of State. Some may think that there could be agreement about clause 1, but we cannot agree to it.
  Clause 2 deals with the provision of information. We accept the need to provide information. It is useful for local councils to detail their manpower and how long a planning application takes for instance. Is it beyond the wit of a councillor, whether Labour or Conservative, to ask for that information and to get it? We do not need clause 2. Any councillor can ask for such information and receive it. Can the Minister say which authorities do not supply information? Some Conservatives have said that by setting up public relations departments and distributing information to ratepayers local authorities are wasting money. Information can be provided without the rigmarole of clause 2. The local authorities could have their own codes of practice or the Secretary of State could state that he wants specific information to be given.
  362
  Instead of that, the Bill sets out a series of regulations to provide information. Regulations to provide information and the form in which the information should be given mean mumbo-jumbo jargon. One does not receive free information in ordinary language but jargon, not because the local authority tries to prevent information being given to the public but because the local authority must comply with the Secretary of State's regulations and cannot move an inch away from them. Such a system will lead to a reduction in the amount of information given to the public.
  Clause 3 deals with direct works—an issue which is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree that local authorities should be more accountable for direct works. My Government made proposals that were similar in some respects but they were not draconian. There should be accountability. However, are the Government wise to include maintenance in addition to ordinary building in their proposals? They include maintenance not only by building departments but by highways departments, for example. As the hon. Member for Edge Hill said, builders want the big contracts. They do not want to mend old Mrs. Jones's door hinge or to put a washer on her tap. They will not do that type of job. In many authorities council houses are in a deplorable state. This applies to houses in areas which are both Labour and Conservative controlled. That deplorable state will become even worse if forms have to be filled in and competitive tenders obtained to complete simple maintenance work.
  Mr. Latham: May we be reminded why the Labour Government did not introduce the proposals mentioned by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)?
  Mr. Oakes: We were overtaken by the election. We were anxious to allow direct works departments to compete properly. We did not want to tie their hands behind their backs in the way in which the Secretary of State proposes in clause 3. Maintenance should be excluded. We shall press that view in Committee. Apart from that, does the Secretary of State stick to the £50,000 figure without provision for inflation? That figure was fixed five years ago. Surely there is need for an amendment. Far from reducing

  363
  the number of staff of local authorities, there will be a massive increase in nonproductive staff merely to administer clause 3. Instead of money being spent on repairs, on improvements and on building, the money will be spent in the offices in order to provide returns to the Secretary of State so that he cannot exercise his draconian power under clause 14 and close down the direct building works departments of local authorities, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants. That is the sort of power that the Secretary of State is adopting.
  I, too, have mixed feelings on the planning provisions. We must look philosophically at the question whether we impose a charge on a citizen for carrying out his duty and submitting a plan. I am concerned—the Government are right to tackle the problem—that the large development corporations submit plans with only slight variations year after year to local authorities, which cost an enormous amount of manpower. That is a different case from that of the man who wishes to erect a garage or who wishes to change his front door. I hope that the Government will agree that there should be some cut-off point before charges are applied.
  Those are some of the less contentious points. I now turn to some of the more contentious issues, in clauses 6 and 8, but especially clause 6. I shall not deal with these at any length because many hon. Members have already spoken about them.
  Local councillors are elected on almost the same franchise as that of hon. Members. They are democratically elected. We share in government and we have always shared in government with local councillors. The provision contained in clause 6 totally and fundamentally upsets the balance between national and local government.
  Many hon. Members have asked the Government—I implore the Minister of State to reply to this point—how the Department of the Environment will assess need. The Government cannot bring this sort of provision before the House without any explanation of how that need is to be assessed. It will be assessed not by councillors but by an official in the Department of the Environment, perhaps by means of a scale or a
  364
  points scheme. One does not know how he will make an assessment of what is happening in Manchester, Liverpool, Cornwall or elsewhere.
  The local authority associations are bitterly concerned about this attack upon them and about the provisions for a unitary grant. We put the question of a unitary grant before local authorities because the Layfield inquiry recommended it. The local authorities were as opposed to it when the Labour Government were in power as they are now when the Conservative Government are in power. The Labour Government wisely dropped that provision. We agree with Conservative Members that the rate support grant in its present make-up has many faults, but the provision contained in clause 6 has many more faults. Its main fault is that it takes away democracy from local councils. Local authority assoctiations and individual local authorities will fight it bitterly.
  The language of the Bill leaves a lot to be desired. The provisions on new towns are merely provisions to force new towns to sell off land they have acquired.
  This is the language that we find in clause 101(1) of the Bill:
  "The Secretary of State may direct a development corporation or the Commssion to pay to him, on the date specified in the direction, such sum as is so specified."
  That is in a Bill introduced by a British Government. These are more like the peremptory demands of a godfather of the mafia.
  Clause 105(5) talks about the Secretary of State's powers and it states:
  "Before giving a direction under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the corporation,"—
  I am glad of that—
  "unless he is satisfied that because of urgency consultation is impracticable."
  That is the sort of power that the Secretary of State is seeking to take upon himself in the Bill. He is asking the House to give him that sort of power.
  I now come to part XVI of the Bill, which to my mind is as bad as part VI, although for some reason the local government associations do not seem to have paid sufficient regard to the draconian powers taken under part XVI, which relates to the setting up of urban development corporations.

  365
  The Secretary of State told the House that he intends to set up two such corporations, one in London Dockland and the other in my own area of Merseyside, in Liverpool. If that is all he intends to do, why did he not put the provisions in the Bill? Instead, under part XVI, he takes upon himself the power to set up an urban development corporation wherever he wishes. Clause 108(1) states:
  "If the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so, he may by order made by statutory instrument designate any area of land as an urban development area."
  Why should he seek to take such wide powers throughout the length and breadth of the country to deal with this matter if all he has in mind is the setting up of development corporations in London and in Liverpool, which could be provided for specifically in the Bill?
  The words that I find bizarre in a local government Bill are the words
  "that it is expedient in the national interest to do so".
  They are peculiar words to find in a local government Bill. One could understand such words being used in a Bill dealing with security, terrorism, or something of that nature, but surely in a local government Bill the primary concern is with the interest of the local people in the area.
  Why, then, have these unusual, bizarre words been imported into the Bill? Could it be that what the Secretary of State has in mind is something far worse? Could it be that, where there is a recalcitrant authority, he wishes to have the power to set up, in the national interest, a development corporation—a creature of his own making, under his own control?
  The Secretary of State loves to laugh at these matters, but why is he asking for these powers? Hon. Members in all parts of the House—not merely on the Opposition Benches—are entitled to challenge those powers because they are most dangerous powers to give to any Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friends from Liverpool and from London are concerned about the setting of these urban development corporations. We should be extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for the way in which he proposes to do it. He has implied that he intends to set up urban
  366
  development corporations for London and for Liverpool. But he has no need to do that. He can use his powers under clause 113 to make one urban development corporation responsible for another area, if he so wishes. He can tack on another area to an existing urban development corporation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) should be grateful that there will be a Liverpool development corporation for Liverpool, and that it will not be administered by the London boys. My hon. Friends in London are also interested, both London and Liverpool having docklands. It might, indeed, be expedient, in the interests of economy, to run them both together. The Secretary of State has not done it and we are grateful for that, but in which area will he strike next? In which area will he seek to take away democratic rights? I assure him that he will have a great many problems on his hands if he conies to Widnes. He will take away the democratic rights of local councillors who have been elected by local people and he will impose on them a development corporation.
  An announcement was made that affects London. The Secretary of State should listen to those Opposition Members who represent London constituencies. They have all told him of the problems involved. I endorse their feelings as those problems are equally true of Merseyside. They have all said that the problem is not lack of co-ordination between local authorities but lack of money. Local authorities, whether in London or Liverpool, could get on with the job if they had the resources and the money.
  The only good news that I heard today was the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as vice-chairman of the corporation. That is a good appointment. I know my right hon. Friend very well. If the Secretary of State thinks that his appointment will provide a soft option, he has another thing coming. My right hon. Friend will fight to the death for Londoners. If the development corporation acts in the interests of big business and against those of the people, he will be the first to stand on the Secretary of State's doorstep vociferously and bitterly to complain.

  367
  The balance between local democracy and national democracy will be sadly upset if the Bill goes through. I hope that there will be adequate and proper discussion of the Bill. I assure the Government that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook nor I will waste time in Committee. We shall not make spurious points of order. We shall not make long speeches. We want debate and discussion. However, we want to debate the whole Bill. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not take up the offer to debate the main constitutional provisions of the Bill on the Floor of the House. The Bill might then have been properly debated by all hon. Members.
  The other provisions in this monster of a Bill will involve a considerable amount of time. The Government tried to conceal this important piece of legislation by having it debated in the House of Lords. They failed. I implore the Government not to use the guillotine. If the Secretary of State imposes a guillotine, local authorities will react. They are already completely opposed to the provisions. If the House and the Committee do not have the opportunity fully to debate such important provisions, it will be a disgrace to democracy.
  With the support of the Conservative-controlled local authority associations, individual local authorities and many hon. Members who feel uneasy about the Bill and who respect local government, we shall save local government. Those who are true democrats and who respect true democracy will support us. A distinguished Conservative, Sir Gervas Walker, made an announcement earlier today. We may have some peculiar allies, but we are fighting together to save local government. I assure the Government that we shall fight dictatorial diktats to the bitter end.
  9.28 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I shall begin with a point that will be generally accepted. No one would dispute that this is an important Bill and that several very important issues have been raised.
  It has been suggested that the Bill is too long, but that has not prevented hon.
  368
  Members from wishing to add their interests to it. The Bill does not cover everything. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) asked about the abolition of domestic rates, provision for which is not in the Bill. We made it clear during our election campaign, and my right hon. Friend emphasised the point, that reduction in direct taxation must take priority. However, I confirm that a review is in hand in my Department of the options to pursue that objective.
  I believe that it will be helpful if I make clear the Government's objectives in the Bill.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. King: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised points. The right hon. Gentleman has just walked in to the debate and will understand if I do not give way to him at the expense of replying to some of those points.
  Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and it would be an abuse of the House not to reply to the debate.
  Our aim is to clarify what we consider to be a proper balance and relationship between central Government and local government. But it is not only that. We also wish to clarify the relationship between central Government and local government and the local elector—the ratepayer, the citizen and the taxpayer—and the accountability of local government and central Government to him. I hope that all hon. Members will bear that important qualification in mind.
  It has been suggested that certain provisions contain a basic challenge to the autonomy of local government. I entirely reject that suggestion and shall seek to explain why that is a misrepresentation of the situation.
  We have made clear, as any responsible Government must, that there must

  369
  be financial ceilings. There must be an overall financial umbrella within which central Government must control the economy. The scale of local government makes that inevitable. Within that limit we are determined to ensure the maximum freedom for local authorities to determine their priorities as they are best able to do. We do not assume, as a certain right hon. Gentleman once said, that Whitehall knows best. However, we are responsible for funds that are centrally distributed, and we must discharge that responsibility.
  Among non-contentious issues raised was our response to the Robinson committee. We thought that it was right to respond, but it is a limited response. Some hon. Members felt that we should have gone further. It was a difficult judgment to make, but we grasped the nettle.
  Another non-contentious matter concerns capital controls. The original proposals in the consultation document were the subject of vigorous representations. We have succeeded in considerably modifying those. It is fair to say that, on balance, the proposals are now reasonably welcome to local government. Although it might prefer to stay exactly as it is, it accepts that there are considerable freedoms contained in the proposals. The allocations are as before. Local authorities will have total freedom on capital receipts. Although allocations will come to them under five separate blocks, in their hands they will become one block—in other words, 100 per cent. virement. They will have discretion to allocate priorities.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) raised the question of the ultimate fallback position of ultra vires. There is a fallback safeguard. A criticism of the previous proposals is that there would be an automatic situation of ultra vires even if an accidental or marginal overspend occurred. We accepted representations on that, and under the present proposals there are considerable safeguards.
  Only an authority that is quite determined flagrantly to disregard the rules and the allocation will find itself at risk of being alleged to be acting ultra vires. It is a three-stage procedure so that there is no question of an accidental or mar-
  370
  ginal overspend being affected by that. It is a last resort only.
  Mr. Hattersley Mr. Hattersley rose—
  Mr. King: I do not know how many times the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. He may wish to intervene later on other points. I shall let him intervene now.
  Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. I wish to ask a question in the unemotional and un-polarised manner in which he has described the situation. He says that it is a fall-back position that will be operated only when councils are in flagrant abuse of the rules. That worries many Members on both sides of the House. How can a judgment be made on what constitutes a flagrant abuse? If it were a figure, a judgment could be made. If it were objective, that is understandable. If it is subjective, such as "flagrant", it worries many people that a Secretary of State has the right to judge. Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of how the decision will be made?
  Mr. King: Allocations will be made, and together with those allocations there will be total freedom on capital receipts, and freedom, for the first time, for an additional 50 per cent. of the sale of council houses to be attributed to it. There will also be a 10 per cent. under-spend-overspend carry-over or carry-under from the previous year.
  If an authority overspent by some 5, 6 or 7 per cent., that would normally be deducted from its next year's allocation. That would be standard procedure. If it went way beyond that, we would draw the authority's attention to the fact that it was way beyond the allocation and the margin of allowance over and above the allocation. If the authority failed to respond to such representations, we would have to consider the position. If we took action, we would have to bring such action before the House. I hope that the matter is now clear.
  I turn to a more contentious item, namely, block grant. There has been much misrepresentation in the debates that we have had on the matter. It has been represented as the end of autonomy for local government. I know that the

  371
  previous Labour Administration considered the possibility of imposing individual cash limits on individual local authorities. They considered also fixing the rate increases of individual local authorities. There are those who advocate such action. That would certainly be the end of the autonomy of local government. It would mean that central Government would fix the expenditure of individual local authorities.
  Our proposals do no such thing. Our proposals are concerned with the allocation of public money that is given to local authorities. It is not an argument between individual local authorities and the Government. It is an argument in which the Government are standing in the middle, having to determine how a certain finite pool of public money should be most fairly distributed between individual authorities. If one authority is to receive more, it will not get it from the Government. It will get it from another authority. Our responsibility is to ensure fairness in the allocation between authorities. That is an important procedure.
  Our proposals leave with local authorities the full freedom to fix their own levels of expenditure and to determine their own rates. What we are concerned to do is to prevent, as happens under the present position, high spenders pre-empting resources away from the more prudent authorities. That practice, which exists at present, must surely be rejected by any hon. Member who considers the matter in a sensible manner.
  Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister agree that in the past the high-spending authorities have been those with the greatest needs in their areas, and that the consequence of his proposals is that he will be taking money away from the areas of greatest need and contributing it to areas where there is much less need?
  Mr. King: The previous system has equated need with expenditure. We do not accept that total correlation, although many hon. Members have observed that our proposal makes allowance for that because of the difficulties of making an absolutely accurate assessment of need. We do not accent the generalisation that automatically, high-spending authorities are spending money because they desperately need to do so and that
  372
  there is not extravagance in some of those authorities.
  We all respect the views and experience of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I feel that it would be fair to say, having listened carefully to his speech, that there is no difference between us on the objective that we seek. What concerns him is the method that we are employing. He suggested that the main legislation that we are proposing is too general and not specific enough. With great respect, I suggest that it is more specific than the 1974 Act.
  Many hon. Members may wonder whether the present system is too rigid and cannot be manipulated, but they have only to look at what the previous Government did to the rate support grant distribution. There is no control over the allocation between resources and needs elements. That is a crucial factor which affects distribution between authorities greatly. There is no control over the London claw-back. That can have a substantially damaging effect, and that was the thing that damaged the shire counties in the previous Government's term of office. If the domestic element is changed that, too, has considerable effect on the distribution.
  Mr. Rippon Mr. Rippon rose—
  Mr. King: I should like to complete my remarks, if my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me.
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned about our proposals. He is anxious, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), about the consultation with local authority associations. He was anxious to have an assurance of further discussions with the associations. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate: that the local authority associations have suggested that there may be other means which they would prefer to use to meet the objectives of the block grant. In other words, they accept the objectives but they feel that there may be other ways of achieving them. They have not yet put forward any alternatives that are agreed among themselves which would meet those objectives. If they are able to put forward an alternative, we shall consider it carefully and discuss it with them.
  Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I am glad that there will be further discussions with local authorities. May I add that I did not complain that the proposals were not specific enough? I said that they were unworkable.
  Mr. King: I shall address myself to that matter now. My right hon. and learned Friend talked about the problems of needs assessment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also discussed the problem of needs assessment and asked why we had not brought the full, final package to the House so that it could be fully evaluated. He knows the way in which needs assessments are calculated. Every year it is an extensive process which lasts throughout the year, culminating in the final announcement by the Secretary of State of the rate support grant allocations.
  This year we are changing the formula, and we have made clear to the local authority associations that we wish to develop this with them. We are already starting work on that. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman criticises us for not consulting the local authority associations. He cannot have it both ways and say that we should have brought an agreed package to the House in advance. It will take considerable time to develop. He asked whether we could impose a formula if we failed to get agreement.
  The procedure every year is by way of consultation in working groups, with study and discussion. I am not sure in which years there has been agreement though on a number of occasions there has been disagreement between the Government and some of the associations. Sometimes one association has differed from another. In each case it may be necessary, ultimately, for the Secretary of State to determine the final formula. We might be forced finally to take that decision.
  This is a complicated matter. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), whose knowledge of financial matters we respect, was frank enough to say that he did not understand it. The House should appreciate that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch spoke of close-ending the resources element. That was a very technical point and hon.
  374
  Members on the Opposition Benches who had read their briefs said "Hear, hear". They thought it was a splendid idea. I hope that they have worked out what it means, because that is much more draconian than anything we are suggesting under the block grant mechanism. It is a very savage instrument indeed, which places anabsolute requirement on the accuracy of the needs assessment. It is an absolute cut-off, which takes no account of the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), which was that expenditure should equal need. It is an extremely draconian action. However, if that is what hon. Gentlemen want—we did not dream that we could possibly go that far—we would like to hear from them. Otherwise, I suggest that, on a complicated matter such as this, they consider carefully what is put before them and make sure that they want to support it.
  The right hon. Member for Spark-brook raised the issue of the transitional arrangements. He made the point that it was unfair on councillors if they did not know at the beginning of the year exactly what the allocation for their councils would be. He seems quite unaware that, under the present resource claw-back system, late in each year the more prudent authorities have had money clawed back from them without their having any opportunity to raise the matter, even through their representatives in Parliament. That claw back has been effected not by Parliament and not even by the Minister. It has been done by an administrative mathematical calculation in my Department.
  I would have thought that our proposals to put a clear proposition before the House by giving clear warning, putting it into the Bill, seeking parliamentary approval as the Bill progresses towards Royal Assent and then laying an order was a much more satisfactory method of dealing with this process.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the 119p. That notional uniform rate is effectively the average expectation for rating. The fact that some authorities are above it should not come as a blinding surprise to any amateur mathematicians here. If that figure is the average, it means that at least half of the authorities will have a rate above that figure. That is why we said that

  375
  the figure would be substantially above that. There will be clearly published rules under which any question of tapering of grant will fall.
  Mr Hattersley Mr Hattersley rose—
  Mr. King: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with one further specific point. He asked me a number of questions. He must take the answers. He asked whether this figure would be revised. The answer is "No".
  Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to get this clear. Is he saying that a council which imposes—if that is the right word—a rate of more than 119p in the pound ought not to assume that it is in jeopardy and ought not to assume that there will be a reduction in its rate support grant supplementary award in September? Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that a rate of 119p in the pound or a figure in excess of that does not put a council in jeopardy?
  Mr. King: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asks a naive question. In the last rate support grant debate he waved at us a circular that set out the rules quite clearly. He will remember that the figure was substantially in excess of 119p and that there would be a power of waiver for those who had traditionally higher rates but who had clearly made an effort to make economies in expenditure.
  The reason why this cannot be determined is exactly why it cannot be determined for resource clawback. Resource clawback cannot be determined until every authority has set its rates. That is the present situation. It would help in our discussion of these matters if right hon. and hon. Members who chose to criticise our proposals understood the present system better. Their arguments might then have more validity.
  Accountability is an important part of the Bill. The publication of information will be of great value, not only to councils and councillors but to electors. It is meaningful not only on the absolute figures which are published but on the comparability of information that is put forward. Nothing on its own makes
  376
  absolute sense. Perhaps I may give one example on planning. One of the statistics on planning is that 70 per cent. of authorities processed 90 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks. Another 10 per cent. of authorities processed only 10 per cent. of applications within eight weeks. I suggest that that one comparative statistic invites questions as to whether the 10 per cent. of authorities are providing the services that the others manage to provide.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: The question is: who ought to be asking the questions—the electorate of the local authority or the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. King: We hope that the electorate and councillors will ask the questions. Our role is to try to ensure that the information is on a comparable basis.
  Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as Parliament has laid down a statutory period of two months for determining planning applications, Parliament has a right to ask these questions?
  Mr. King: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We hope in this way to help performance in a number of ways.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and Manchester, Central (Mr. Lither land), referred to direct labour organisations. Some said that direct labour organisations were carrying excessive burdens, whereas others said that they were creating unfair competition for the private sector. Both arguments strengthen our case for saying that there should be better accountability and more clarity about the operations of direct labour organisations. We hope that there will be general support for CIPFA's proposals based on the recommendations that the previous Labour Government warmly endorsed but did nothing about. We intend to deliver on this point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked whether we could publish the regulations in advance of Report. We are having close discussions with the local authority associations. If we can do that in time, we shall do so.

  377
  We hope that our proposals will help to simplify and clarify the planning procedure. We propose to end the overlap of district and county councils. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that we hope and believe that there are adequate safeguards for the county to protect the structure plans. We are to modify the general development order that we shall put before the House. We hope that that will help to take the more minor developments out of the planning system.
  Urban development corporations have attracted considerable attention in the debate. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) suggested that they were not an exact parallel with the new towns because there was a different procedure for setting them up. He suggested that the procedure of laying an order before the House would cause chaos and delay. I suggest that the new towns procedure would cause infinitely more delay. As we were attacked by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) on the risk of a hiatus in setting them up, I hope that he will feel that on balance we have chosen the right proposal.
  I was pleased to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). We hope that private architects and others will have a full opportunity in the urban development corporations to play their part. We believe that the UDCs must attract private as well as public capital.
  Of all the speeches on the urban development corporations, the one that moved me most was made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who, as my right hon. Friend announced, has accepted appointment as deputy chairman of the docklands UDC.
  I think the whole House respects the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has served that area in the House for 34 years. He has made speeches in the House saying that he believed that UDCs were the right answer for the Docklands and his constituents. The House can only respect a man who has spoken on that subject against his own Government from the Back Benches in the past, and now, when he has a real opportunity to to continue, in a practical way, to serve his constituents, he is prepared to under-
  378
  take this responsibility. We should express our appreciation to all those who have accepted appointments.
  I wish to say a word about our repeal of controls. We have said that we want the Bill to extend—
  Mr. Alton Mr. Alton rose—
  Mr. Ogden Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. King: We have said that we wish to extend the maximum freedom for local government, and while I would accept—
  Mr. Ogden Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. King: I am sorry, I am not giving way. While I accept that in the controls that we are repealing—
  Mr. Ogden Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. King: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid we are up against the clock. I accept that, in our repeal of controls, perhaps the Rag Flock & Other Filling Materials Act 1951 is not exactly the stuff of which our manifesto was made. There are otherwise in these proposals a number of significant relaxations. Nobody can deny that the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced for Parker Morris and the housing cost yardstick is the most significant abolition of detailed control in housing ever seen in this House.
  It is galling to have to listen to Opposition Members chipping away at the 300 controls that we are abolishing and saying that this is not very much. It just happens to be 300 more than they have ever done.
  One of the most significant aspects of this debate, if we are talking about the chipping away of controls, has been the total absence of grief from any hon. Member about the departure of the Community Land Act. It was perhaps excessive cruelty on the part of my hon. Friends the Members for Melton and for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who fairly assassinated the remaining pieces of the Community Land Act—a total disaster in the best tradition of all socialist land planning. Richard Crossman buried the Land Commission. We are now burying the Community Land Act—an Act that gave rise to 200 circulars, guidance and statutory instruments, cost £15 million in administration,

  379
  cost £52 million deficit on the local authorities and produced precisely 600 acres of land as a result of its whole activity. It is totally unlamented. We are delighted that the Bill will finally bury it.
  We have had to listen during the debate to some pretty righteous speeches from the Opposition Benches, from the great lovers of local government independence and freedom—those who always stood back and never sought to interfere in any decisions of local authorities and those who guaranteed close and detailed knowledge for local government, at the start of the financial year, of their financial situation, burying the fact that as late as August 1976 they issued a circular retrospectively, without any authority from Parliament, clawing back £50 million from local authorities. They represent the party that does not interfere in local government. Yet in the last year of the previous Government 222 circulars were sent from my Department
  380
  alone to local authorities telling them what to do.
  I am happy to say that we have already reduced that figure to 39. The previous Government unscrupulously manipulated the transport supplementary grant. There was the business of judging between individual authorities. I should like to refer to what the Financial Times said in 1978:
  "County councils that have refused to back Government policy are punished by cuts in the grants made to them. The worst offenders, Oxford and Northamptonshire, must make do with only £100,000. Dorset regarded as a model county gets its full grant."
  How is that for non-interference?
  We are determined to get the right balance in local government. We stand for its freedom and independence within the overall ceilings. We believe that the Bill is an important step along that road, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 260.

  Division No. 153]

  AYES

  [10 pm

  Adley, Robert

  Farr, John

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Altken, Jonathan

  Fell, Anthony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Loveridge, John

  Alison, Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Luce, Richard

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacGregor, John

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  McQuarrle, Albert

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Madel, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Major, John

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Marland, Paul

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marlow, Antony

  Best, Keith

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Blackburn, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mawby, Ray

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Gray, Ham sh

  Mellor, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grieve, Percy

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Brinton, Tim

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brittan, Leon

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Brooke, Hon Peter

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

  Monro, Hector

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hannam, John

  Morgan, Geraint

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Buck, Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mudd, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murphy, Christopher

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Heddle, John

  Myles, David

  Burden, F. A.

  Henderson, Barry

  Neale, Gerrard

  Butcher, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Neubert, Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hill, James

  Newton, Tony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Linco n)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Normanton, Tom

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hooson, Tom

  Onslow, Cranley

  Channon, Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Osborn, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Parris, Matthew

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Cope, John

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  Corrie, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Pollock, Alexander

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Porter, George

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Dover, Denshore

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Raison, Timothy

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Knox, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees-Davles, W. R.

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Latham, Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Eggar, Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Lawson, Nigel

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lee, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lester, Jim (Beeslon)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  382

  383

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Stevens, Martin

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Rost, Peter

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wall, Patrick

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Stokes, John

  Walters, Dennis

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Ward, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Watson, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

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

  Shepherd, Richard) Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Wheeler, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Silvester, Fred

  Thompson, Donald

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sims, Roger

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Wickenden, Keith

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thornton, George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Speed, Keith

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Speller, Tony

  Trippier, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spence, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Viggers, Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sproat, Iain

  Waddington, David

  Squire, Robin

  Wakeham, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stainton, Keith

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Stanley, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dobson, Frank

  Howells, Geraint

  Adams, Allan

  Dormand, Jack

  Huckfield, Les

  Allaun, Frank

  Douglas, Dick

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Alton, David

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dubs, Alfred

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  John, Brynmor

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Eastham, Ken

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Beith, A. J.

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  English, Michael

  Kerr, Russell

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Lambie, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Ewing, Harry

  Lamborn, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fitch, Alan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Leighton, Ronald

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Buchan, Norman

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Litherland, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Ford, Ben

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Ian

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Derek

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Cant, R. B.

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  McCusker, H.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McElhone, Frank

  Cartwright, John

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  George, Bruce

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Cohen, Stanley

  Ginsburg, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Golding, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gourlay, Harry

  McMahon, Andrew

  Cook, Robin F.

  Graham, Ted

  McNally, Thomas

  Cowans, Harry

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McWilliam, John

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Magee, Bryan

  Crowther, J. S.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cryer, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  Haynes, Frank

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  Home Robertson, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Homewood, William

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dempsey, James

  Hooley, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Dewar, Donald

  Horam, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Dixon, Donald

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

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  384

  385

  Molyneaux, James

  Robertson, George

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Tilley, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Tinn, James

  Morton, George

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Torney, Tom

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ryman, John

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Newens, Stanley

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Sever, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Ogden, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watkins, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Weetch, Ken

  O'Neill, Martin

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Short, Mrs. Renée

  Welsh, Michael

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

  Park, George

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitlock, William

  Parker, John

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Parry, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Penhaligon, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, John

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Woodall, Alec

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Stoddart, David

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Race, Reg

  Stott, Roger

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Strang, Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Richardson, Jo

  Straw, Jack

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Mr. Hugh McCartney.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
  The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes. 314.

  Division No. 154]

  AYES

  [10.15 pm

  Abse, Leo

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)

  Forrester, John

  Adams, Allen

  Crowther, J. S.

  Foster, Derek

  Allaun, Frank

  Cryer, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Alton, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Davidson, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  George, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)

  Ginsburg, David

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

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

  Golding, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Deakins, Eric

  Gourlay, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Dempsey, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bidwell. Sydney

  Dewar, Donald

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dixon, Donald

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dobson, Frank

  Hardy, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  Dormand, Jack

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Bradley, Tom

  Douglas, Dick

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Haynes, Frank

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Eadie, Alex

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  Homewood, William

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Hooley, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Horam, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

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

  Carmichael, Neil

  English, Michael

  Howells, Geraint

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Huckfield, Les

  Cartwright, John

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Ewing, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Field, Frank

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fitch, Alan

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Flannery, Martin

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  John, Brynmor

  Cook, Robin F.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Cowans, Harry

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Molyneaux, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenthawe)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Kerr, Russell

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Snape, Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Kinnock, Neil

  Morton, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lambie, David

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lamborn, Harry

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lamond, James

  Newens, Stanley

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stoddart, David

  Leighton, Ronald

  Ogden, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Park, George

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradlord West)

  Parker, John

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Parry, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tilley, John

  McCusker, H.

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Penhaligon, David

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  McElhone, Frank

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Prescott, John

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  McKelvey, William

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Watkins, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Race, Reg

  Weetch, Ken

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Wellbeloved, James

  McMahon, Andrew

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Michael

  McNally, Thomas

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  White, James (Glasgow. Pollock)

  McWilliam, John

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Whitlock, William

  Magee, Bryan

  Robertson, George

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

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

  Rooker, J. W.

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

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

  Rose, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Ryman, John

  Winnick, David

  Maxton, John

  Sandelson, Neville

  Woodall, Alec

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Sever, John

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

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

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Short, Mrs. Renée

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)

  Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Ted Graham.

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Eggar, Timothy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Emery, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Buck, Antony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Alison, Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Ancram, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Arnold, Tom

  Butcher, John

  Farr, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Fell, Anthony

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Fermer, Mrs Peggy

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoin)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Bell, Sir Ronald

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Forman, Nigel

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Best, Keith

  Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)

  Fox, Marcus

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, John

  Cope, John

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Blaker, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gardiner George (Reigate)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  Gardner, Edward (South Fytde)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Costain, A. P.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Critchley, Julian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Crouch, David

  Goodhart, Philip

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Bright, Graham

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Gorst, John

  Brinton, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Gow, Ian

  Brittan, Leon

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dover, Denshore

  Gray, Hamish

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Greenway, Harry

  Brotherton, Michael

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Grieve, Percy

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Durant, Tony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Grist, Ian

  388

  389

  Grylls, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Mawby, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Shersby, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Silvester, Fred

  Hannam, John

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mellor, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Speed, Keith

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Speller, Tony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Spence, John

  Heddle, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Henderson, Barry

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Sproat, Iain

  Hicks, Robert

  Monro, Hector

  Squire, Robin

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stainton, Keith

  Hill, James

  Moore, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stanley, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hooson, Tom

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Stevens, Martin

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mudd, David

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stokes, John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Needham, Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Neubert, Michael

  Tebbit, Norman

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Newton, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Normanton, Tom

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Jessel, Toby

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thompson, Donald

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Osborn, John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Thornton, George

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Parris, Matthew

  Trippier, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Trotter, Neville

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Pawsey, James

  Waddington, David

  Knox, David

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Wakeham, John

  Lang, Ian

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrove, Hon William

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Latham, Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Porter, George

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Lawson, Nigel

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Wall, Patrick

  Lee, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Waller, Gary

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walters, Dennis

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Ward, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Raison, Timothy

  Watson, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Loveridge, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Luce, Richard

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wheeler, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Renton, Tim

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Whitney, Raymond

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wickenden, Keith

  MacGregor, John

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wilkinson, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Madel, David

  Rossi, Hugh

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Major, John

  Rost, Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Marland, Paul

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Marlow, Antony

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Mates, Michael

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make further provision with respect to rates and to grants for local authorities and other bodies, to amend the law relating to new towns and to provide for the establishment of corporations to regenerate urban areas ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such money under provisions of the Act authorising the Secretary of State to make rate support grants consisting of a domestic rate relief grant and a block grant and calculated by determining, as provided by the Act, the aggregate amount available for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the grants to local authorities specified in the Act and making the deductions required by it;

  (2) any increase in the sums—

  (a) falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund;

  (b) falling to be paid out of money provided by Parliament, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the Act increasing to £4,000 million the limit imposed by section 43 of the New Towns Act 1965 (as amended) on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowing by the development corporations for the new towns and the Commission for the New Towns;

  (3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to pay to urban development corporations established under the Act ("corporations") sums in respect of the exercise of their functions and their administrative expenses, the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to corporations and the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to corporations, where the aggregate amount of the following sums does not exceed £400 million—

  (a) sums paid by the Secretary of State to all corporations in respect of the exercise of their functions and their administrative expenses,

  (b) all sums borrowed by all corporations minus sums repaid in respect of temporary loans, and

  (c) sums issued by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees of debts of all corporations;

  (4) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to the Land
  392
  Authority for Wales, where the aggregate amount outstanding by way of the principal of any money borrowed by that Authority does not exceed £20 million, and the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to that Authority;

  (5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such money under provisions of the Act authorising the Secretary of State—

  (a) to make to any authority granting rebates under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 in any year a grant equal to 90 per cent. of the aggregate amount of the rebate so granted in that year, excluding any additional amounts granted by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act or by virtue of section 4(7) of that Act;

  (b) to make to any local authority grants in respect of expenditure which, in his opinion, is expenditure of a capital nature incurred by that authority under section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 in respect of caravan sites provided for the accommodation of gypsies;

  (6) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State or a government department which are attributable to the Act;

  (7) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the Act and not mentioned above;

  (8) any increase in the sums falling to be paid out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act, being an increase which is attributable to the provisions of the Act and which is not mentioned above.—[Mr. Cope.]

  10.27 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I wish to draw attention to paragraph (3) of the resolution, which refers to
  "the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to pay to urban development corporations established under the Act ('corporations') sums in respect of the exercise of their functions and their administrative expenses".
  This is a curious provision because as yet there is no guidance about how often or how much the so-called urban development corporations will have to call upon the public purse. I am particularly anxious because Newham, South has 2,700 acres which could be passed to the urban development corporation and taken away from the local council. It will be possible for the new corporation compulsorily to purchase any one of those 2,700 acres. The corporation will be able to

  393
  transfer any part of that area. The corporation will be allowed virtually to do anything, and under the money resolution it will be able to lend money to anybody to do anything.
  Clause 110(3) of the Bill gives authority to
  "carry on any business or undertaking for the purposes of the object; and
  generally do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes."
  Since the object is the regeneration of the area, if the money resolution is passed the House will be signing a blank cheque, or a blank money resolution, for the new body to do anything. Some of my hon. Friends may say that that is all right because the vice-chairman of that body will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). But clause 112 makes quite clear that the vice-chairman of the corporation—or, indeed, any member of it—will be very much under the thumb of the Secretary of State, for it gives authority to the Secretary of State to
  "give directions to such a corporation for restricting the exercise by it of any powers under this Act"—
  and I emphasise the next words—
  "or for requiring it to exercise those powers in any manner specified in those directions."
  In other words, in seeking to look after the interests of his constituents, my right hon. Friend may find himself in one capacity immediately under the direction of the Secretary of State. In that circumstance, I am not quite sure for how long my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey would remain my right hon. Friend, because in having to protect the rights of my constituents and half of the area of dockland it might be that my view and that of the Secretary of State would not coincide.
  I have a few questions to put to the Minister. What net benefit to the dockland area of London does he expect to accrue in money terms? In other words, how much is he to draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the project? Does the Minister think that there will be a gross charge to the taxpayer? If so, how much will that be, because he will be taking public assets—railway land, gas land and perhaps Port of London Authority land—and turning it over to devel-
  394
  opers who will not be under the usual planning constraints.
  At the moment, the whole of my constituency is within the planning purview of the London borough of Newham—and very glad it is of that. No less than half of my constituency, if the Bill goes through, will come directly under the urban development corporation, which has planning powers, transport powers and housing powers. The value of the land could well change because of the nature of the planning authority to which it was being transferred. As everybody knows, that is the way in which paper can be changed into gold almost overnight by the granting or withholding of planning permission.
  I have two points to make. Conservative Members should listen, because so far their views of London dockland have been entirely misleading. They have been told, in press release after press release, that nothing is going on. They have been told that the area is one of almost complete dereliction.
  I shall deal first with the suggestion that there is nothing going on. The official figures of my local borough council—conveyed to the Secretary of State by me and by the council—indicate that there is at least £20 million of investment in public undertakings, particularly drainage. That is a very moderate estimate. There is also £62 million which has either been spent by private industry or will be spent by private investors in the next two or three years. There is another £12 million being invested by housing associations in housing in the Beckton area. That adds up to about £100 million of capital which is already committed and would go ahead in a visible and tangible form. I see that the Secretary of State is nodding his head, because he has been taken round the area—albeit for 20 minutes—and he has been informed by the borough that that is what is happening.
  By the terms of the Bill the Government are creating uncertainty in relation to no less than £33 million that is to be spent on private housing. The Secretary of State is very keen on private housing. This housing is to be built in my constituency, yet the Secretary of State claims that nothing is happening in dockland.
  The urban development corporation is unnecessary. It is not wanted by some

  395
  of the most objective observers. The Newham chamber of commerce stated that it was concerned with the collective welfare and development of the business community. In a letter to the Secretary of State on 9 November, it pointed out that the Secretary of State had said that the urban development corporation would reverse a long-established trend, that it would take time, and that it would be a difficult process. The letter continued:
  "we suggest to you that here in Newham the trends you want to change—reclaiming land, encouraging private development, improving the environment, creating a demand for housing, encouraging the voluntary sector—are the very things already in active progress through the local Council. So why change?
  As a Chamber of Commerce, without political affiliations and concerned only with the collective welfare and development of the business community, we would ask you to reconsider your decision or at least modify it so that the local Authority can continue to operate and direct to a successful conclusion the developments which it has started, has already put into the pipeline or are planned for the future".
  Those facts have been supplied by the borough and by the Newham chamber of commerce. They clearly show that the press releases about dereliction and the lack of action in dockland are untrue. Those releases have been mouthed and held up by Conservative Members and until recently, alas, by the Secretary of State. We have told the Minister time and time again. I have noticed a slight change in his attitude and demeanour during the past few weeks. Perhaps that is a good thing. I hope that he will consider the issue more seriously during the Committee stage.
  The Beckton district plan is due for approval by the borough council. It plans to develop 8,000 new homes in dockland. I believe that the plan will go to the Secretary of State on 5 March. It will become the statutory development plan for that area unless he decides to call it in. There is no reason to suppose that the Secretary of State will do that. Therefore, this highly imaginative scheme, in which half of the housing will be municipal and half private, will go ahead. It is part of the strategic plan for docklands. It has been approved by the docklands. It has been mittee—the existing municipally based organisation.
  Unless the Minister instructs the chairman-designate, vice-chairman-designate,
  396
  and members of the urban development corporation to adopt the plan, there will be delays in the regeneration of that important area. The Minister will contribute to that delay, although he claims that he wishes to avoid such delays. If the Minister wishes to see public money well spent, he should ensure that the existing strategic plan goes ahead and that the existing Beckton development plan goes ahead.
  The corporation will be looked upon as a Tory agency in an area that has not been of that political colour for a long time. It will succeed only if it shows by its actions that it is willing to cooperate with local councils and is very sensitive to the duties and powers of local council members.
  I do not want to ask the Secretary of State questions about the conduct of those members. The provision will put areas that have been the responsibility of local government for over 100 years into the hands of Whitehall. The Bill is therefore a constitutional Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much money will be authorised. I hope that he will take into account all the criticisms that have been raised. Perhaps he will think twice about the whole procedure of the urban development corporation. It is unnecessary in dockland. I have proved that tonight. No money should be spent on the corporation.
  10.39 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I should like to reply briefly to the points raised by the hon Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Although we are debating the money resolution, the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to wander rather more widely over his support for the Beckton district plan. That is his privilege within the rules of the House.
  I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman referred to the development corporation as Conservative. That is indeed an offensive remark, bearing in mind that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has given far more service to the Labour movement and London's dockland than the hon. Gentleman has yet had the privilege to do, happens to believe that it in the best way to help his constituents. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know how much support we have

  397
  had from Members in the Labour Party who are prepared to rise above immediate local issues and look to the genuine interests of the area as a whole. They believe passionately that it is the right approach for the area.
  The financial provisions that the hon. Gentleman asked about are set out in the financial and explanatory memorandum. He will recognise that they are understandably general and unspecific. When the UDC is approved by Parliament and can start operations, it will put forward specific proposals for what it hopes to do with public money and what it hopes to achieve with private money. Until that time, it is not possible to determine exactly what the balance and effect on public expenditure will be.
  I shall not read out the whole of paragraph 21 of the explanatory and financial memorandum, but I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to it. It sets out quite clearly the financial considerations and the arrangements that will surround the formation of the UDC. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any further information except to tell him that the creation of the UDCs will genuinely mean that greater resources will be available for the docklands area and for Liverpool, Merseyside.
  Question put and agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ENERGY PROGRAMME AND NUCLEAR PROPOSALS)
  10.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of EEC document No. 9625/79 on the Energy Programme of the European Community, which describes the Commission's view of the current energy situation in the Community and the longer term outlook, together with EEC Documents No. 8587/79, amending the Council decision of 29th March 1977 on the EURATOM Loans Scheme and No. 5331/79, a proposal on the Plutonium Cycle Research and Development Programme.
  I am grateful for the chance tonight to hear the views of the House on these three EEC documents and to outline my impressions of recent developments in the Community and international energy scene, which will be reviewed in depth by the Energy Council of Ministers at its March meeting.
  I turn first to the background report on the Community energy programme that was proposed by the Commission for the Energy Council last October. That report describes the Community's energy situation and outlook, in particular developments in the oil supply situation. It goes on to outline the Community's existing energy objectives and the Commission's proposals for new 1990 objectives and, against that background, describes in detail what member States are doing in each of the main energy sectors.
  A great deal of the effort described is, of course, going on at national level, where the main thrust of Community energy developments must lie, complemented by Community schemes and programmes where these can make an extra contribution. They do that in energy savings and research into alternative energies and in major projects like the Joint European Torus fusion development—to name three examples of areas where Community collaboration can pay dividends.
  This document is a heavy and formidable catalogue of commitments by Governments and industry in member States to tackling the Community's energy problems. In the United Kingdom this Government, together with United Kingdom industry, are shouldering the massive

  399
  investments in coal, oil and gas, and nuclear developments which are essential to secure our energy future. We are playing a vital part towards the achievement of the Community's energy objectives as described, and other member States derive benefit from our growing oil production as well as from the important part our coal production plays in reducing the Community's import dependence.
  Vital to long-term stability in the world's energy markets is the need to reduce oil and energy consumption. In the United Kingdom we are making a good contribution to this important objective. It would obviously be easy to concentrate on what we have done and on the considerable achievements on the supply side of the picture. But in reality, as I think the House agrees, energy conservation is also a vital part of the response needed from us and from all our partners in the industrialised world.
  In the last quarter of 1979, our daily rate of oil consumption was about 5 per cent. below expectation. That was in accordance with the objective for 1979 agreed in the EEC in March. In 1979 as a whole, despite a very severe winter, we pegged oil consumption at around 1978 levels. That was a substantial achievement, and that vital effort by householders, motorists, managers and the Government, in their public sector role, must be sustained in the future.
  Let me say finally, in this general background document, that I welcome the emphasis it places on wider international co-operation. The Community's energy problems are, inevitably, only part of a wider picture in which we are determined to play our part constructively.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that background document, can he say now, or can my hon. Friend say in winding up, what the achievement of the United Kingdom has been in relation to paragraph 35 of that document in terms of the overall saving of energy over the last three years?
  Mr. Howell: May I leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give the precise figures? I have outlined our approach and contribution, particularly the aspects that have been registered on oil consumption for the past year. I
  400
  will ask my hon. Friend to provide the figures for the past three years.
  The Community has frequently acknowledged the vital contribution which nuclear power will have to make in meeting our energy needs. Decisions on how much, how fast or what kind are necessarily taken by each Government in the light of their countries' needs and potential and according to their own democratic procedures. That is entirely right. The Community as such cannot hope to have a great influence on this, but in certain areas it can provide useful help by encouraging collaboration and supporting common aims. The two proposals on the nuclear sector which are before us for debate must be considered against that background.
  I now come to those two proposals. First, the Euratom loans scheme was launched by the Community in March 1977. It allows the Commission to lend money for the construction of nuclear power stations and fuel cycle installations. The Eupropean Investment Bank acts as the Commission's agent in operating the scheme. The scheme complements in the nuclear sector the wider role of the bank in financing projects in the interests of the Community.
  The Commission raises the money on the international market and lends it on to the borrower against first-class guarantees, so there is no element of subsidy in the scheme. It enables an undertaking building a nuclear power station to take advantage of the Community's Triple A credit rating to raise long-term finance on world money markets.
  When it was set up, a ceiling of 500 million units of account—about £335 million—was placed on the total volume of loans under the scheme. To put the figure in perspective, a commercial nuclear power station may cost upwards of 1,000 million units of account. The Commission was required to notify the Council when the value of transactions effected reached 300 million units of account, so that the Council could consider a further allocation of funds. This position was reached in the middle of last year. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to the Council that the ceiling be raised to 1,500 million units of account, all other aspects of the scheme being left unchanged.

  401
  The scheme has evidently been attractive to borrowers. In addition to the 300 million units of account already lent, applications had been made for a further 845 million units of account. No applications were made in respect of United Kingdom nuclear facilities in time to qualify for the first tranche of loans. However, applications have been made by United Kingdom utilities for money from the second tranche.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am interested in what I think the right hon. Gentleman is about to say. How far is the Central Electricity Generating Board likely to get help from the Commission under this scheme for the new nuclear construction that is now proposed, and how far will it affect the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is percipient to a degree in that I am about to say something concerning not so much the CEGB as the SSEB and the funds available to it. As these funds are to be raised from outside the United Kingdom, they do not fall upon the Government. To that extent, they ease the burden of our borrowing. As I said, the scheme has been attractive to borrowers and applications have been made by United Kingdom utilities for money from the second tranche. I shall come to the detailed aspects later.
  The Commission's proposal was considered in the Council machinery. The United Kingdom Government had formed the view that the scheme was fulfilling a useful role in helping the development of nuclear power and that it clearly met a real demand as evidenced by the number of applications. Of course, we are very conscious of the recommendation made by this House's Select Committee on European legislation on 7 November that the proposal should be considered further by the House. But, on 15 November, agreement was reached by all other member States that the ceiling on the scheme should be raised to 1,000 million units of account. Only the United Kingdom reserve prevented the proposal going forward. It was decided that it would be wrong for us to hold up the extension of this useful scheme further and delay the release of funds to the United Kingdom and other applicants.
  402
  Accordingly, on 19 November our reserve was lifted.
  Unfortunately, it was not possible to arrange a debate on this document, particularly in the context of a general debate as the Scrutiny Committee had understandably recommended, in the short time available. The formal adoption of the decision by the Council took place on 20 December. The lapse of time between all member States agreeing the proposal and its being adopted was necessary to complete certain formal procedures, including notification of the decision to the Greek Government.
  Once the Commission was informed of our agreement to let the proposal go forward on 19 November, the way was clear for it to process applications under the second tranche. Following the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), I can tell the House that the Commission has now informed me that a decision on the first of these applications, for £100 million by the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the Torness power station, is due to be announced in the next few days.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: What is the difference between the interest rate on this form of loan and the interest rate on other sources? How far does this difference represent a subsidy to nuclear power that other forms of power are not enjoying?
  Mr. Howell: The interest rate is the Triple A rate that can be raised by the Community in world markets. If there is a differential, it is between raising money at the Triple A rate and raising money at higher interest rates. The European Community has a number of schemes and loan facilities for different projects of different kinds. I do not think that this represents a discrimination between nuclear projects and others so much as a particular scheme that allows Triple A access. There are many projects other than energy projects that allow it as well.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: If we borrow money at preferential rates of interest from the European institutions and this goes on for a long time, will they not say to us that we are under some form of moral obligation to accept a European energy policy?
  Mr. Howell: The aspects of European energy policy are discussed at different times and arise in different contexts. Our view is that nuclear policy is a sovereign matter for this Government to decide and that this is the end of the issue. These loans are made under the Euratom provisions. It is good business for the loans to be available. Our own nuclear policy is a matter for the House of Commons.
  I turn now to the proposed research programme on the plutonium cycle and its safety. Nuclear programmes in the Community are underpinned by a considerable research and development effort. To esure that this effort is deployed effectively, without unnecessary duplication, there is a wide measure of international collaboration. This makes sense. The Community has an important role to play here. It has a joint research centre with a budget of about £70 million, of which the bulk is devoted to nuclear research.
  The Community also has a number of indirect action research programmes in the nuclear sector. Under these, Community funds are made available to contractors to support work in certain specified areas. Existing programmes concern uranium prospecting and extraction, safety of light water reactors, decommissioning of reactors, and radiation protection.
  A programme on recycling plutonium in thermal reactors was adopted in 1974 and came to an end in 1979. The Commission has now proposed that the programme be broadened to cover the use of plutonium in fast reactors and that it should look more deeply at all aspects of the plutonium cycle. The new programme, if the Commission proposal was adopted, would cost about £13 million over the next five years, about four times as much as the last programme.
  The plutonium in nuclear reactors is an important man-made fuel. If recycled in thermal reactors, it can reduce uranium requirements by about 20 per cent. compared with reactors fuelled with uranium alone, but the economic benefits of doing this at present are calculated to be marginal. If it is used to fuel fast reactors, uranium requirements are ultimately reduced to zero. There is a considerable body of expertise in the
  404
  Community on the manufacture, transport and use of plutonium-based fuels.
  The prototype fast reactor at Dounreay and its counterpart in France use plutonium. Plutonium fuels have also been used on a small scale in thermal reactors in Germany and elsewhere. The purpose of the proposed new Community programme is to develop this expertise so that decisions on the wider use of plutonium fuels can be taken with full information being available.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian): May I put to the Minister a question of which I gave his office warning this morning? It is being said that the British are being difficult about commercial secrecy. May we hear something of the argument that is going on inside the Community and whether the view expressed by our partners has any foundation? Some of us think that it might not have and that the British have a very good case.
  Mr. Howell: If by "being difficult" the hon. Gentleman means are we asking whether we would gain by participation in certain aspects, he is perfectly right. We are not so much being difficult as assessing, quite reasonably, whether we wish to join and whether the BNFL, for instance, would gain from being involved in this research. In our view, it is probable that it would not, for the good reason that we have some extremely advanced and commercially advantageous programmes and techniques, such as the gel precipitation in the plutonium fabrication, and so on. These are commercially advantageous and we would lose the commercial advantage involved in participation in that aspect of the programme. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has heard, but I would put it in a slightly different way.
  I emphasise that this programme would in no way pre-empt decisions on nuclear policy, and I hope this makes clear the point I tried to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The responsibility for taking these decisions is and will remain with the national authorities.
  Most of the areas covered by the proposed programme are of common interest to a number of member States, and it makes good sense to collaborate in

  405
  carrying out research in some of these areas.
  I have some reservations on the proposal. I have just indicated as much in my reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Daly ell). I believe that it should be somewhat amended before it is adopted. I am particularly anxious about that part of the proposal concerned with new plutonium fuel fabrication methods where commercial considerations may make it difficult for the Community to mount a worthwhile programme, at any rate from our point of view.
  I am also hesitant about the emphasis placed on the use of plutonium in thermal reactors. We have no plans in the United Kingdom to use plutonium in thermal reactors, and some other member States are in a similar position. In our view, sufficient research has been done to establish the feasibility of using plutonium in thermal reactors. The principles are understood, so it therefore seems inappropriate to us to spend substantial sums in this area, particularly at a time when pressures on public expenditure are severe.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the store of plutonium held in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Howell: I shall have to ask my hon. Friend to wait for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give him the precise figure.
  In conclusion, I would say that, while this proposal is not unacceptable in principle, there are some reservations about its size and detail. It has already been subject to considerable discussion in the Council and I believe that when it finally emerges it will reflect some of the qualifications I have tried to express and be in a more acceptable form.
  Those are the three documents that are before us tonight. They give rise to a much wider range of issues on which I and my hon. Friend will be glad to provide the House with answers that are available to us. We are the EEC's leading energy producer and as such we are making a massive contribution to the energy effort of the Community. This debate gives us the opportunity to
  406
  reaffirm our intention to continue along this path.
  11.4 pm
  Dr. David Owen: Once again, the House will be concerned that we are debating energy—possibly the most crucial issue which faces the EEC—late at night. We are grateful for a three-hour debate, but the Leader of the House should find at least a day for a major debate on enenrgy.
  The Secretary of State should have taken this opportunity, just before another important Energy Council meeting, to take the House into his confidence about some of the major issues that face the Council. There is a widespread feeling that it is now urgent that the European Community and the OECD countries enter into a dialogue with the OPEC countries. We hear reports on whether there is a possibility of an opening of discussion between the European Community and OPEC. There is some speculation in the newspapers. If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, I should be grateful if he would let the House know what is his thinking on this matter. There are few more important issues.
  We debated this matter some months ago. The events in Afghanistan have underlined the importance of the crucial danger that we would face in the industrialised West over the next 10 years if there were any major interruption in oil supplies from any major oil-producing country. The events in Afghanistan have underlined the absolute vital necessity to reduce our dependence on oil imports.
  Whatever one's views about the Soviet aggression—whether the Russians went there primarily for defensive reasons fearing that they were going to be thrown out or whether they went there for offensive reasons—there is no doubt that the Russians are now placed geographically in a situation which makes it much easier to interfere with oil supplies from the Gulf.
  A dialogue must be opened between the OPEC countries and OECD. It is not enough for the European Community alone to be involved. With Japan taking so much oil from the Gulf States and with the United States being such a crucially important area, the dialogue

  407
  should not be entirely confined to the European Community.
  Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an extremely important issue in beginning a dialogue with OPEC is first to appreciate that OPEC is a heterogeneous establishment or institution? Is not one of the immediate and important requirements the need for someone to persuade the OPEC countries to agree upon a coherent economic policy spread right across the whole area?
  Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be extremely difficult. One of the problems with OPEC is that in recent months it has found it increasingly difficult to get an agreed position on pricing policy. To some extent, that reflects a difference of attitude. One of the powerful pressures on OPEC is the general concern of the Third world, to which it has been much more sensitive in recent years. The possibility of a dialogue in the North-South context, between OECD and OPEC, is perhaps the most important aspect. In that dialogue OPEC would be under some pressure from the OECD countries. I stress that as it puts this debate into context.
  We face a serious situation. The Saudi Arabian oil production is held at 9½ million barrels a day. If that were to be cut by a significant amount to 2 million or 3 million barrels a day or less, it would have a very grave impact on the economies of all the Western industrialised countries.
  Against that background, reading these Community documents, our response is nowhere near serious enough. The commitment undertaken on the reduction of imports has already been broken by some of the Community countries. The Federal Republic of Germany is above target at the moment. What is being done within the Community to ensure that the member States actually live up to the commitments that they have already undertaken?
  Before we are complacent about our own record—and the Secretary of State said that we were well within our target figure—in fairness we have to admit that one of the reasons is that we had substantial room to switch from oil-fired to coal-fired power stations. Our switching
  408
  formed the largest section of that reduction. Our record in other areas of conservation is disappointing.
  We do not lead the rest of the European Community. We are slow to cut our demand. We do not put anywhere near enough money behind conservation.
  This matter was raised in our debate on the gas industry, but there was no reply. I ask the Secretary of State whether the rumours that we hear about a reduction in the conservation effort of the Government are true. I think that many hon. Members would not accept this as an area for reducing public expenditure.
  The Secretary of State's Department contributes substantially to the Exchequer and the reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement. It is a Department in which he should be able to argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an investment in conservation will pay off in a short time. We are not talking about a 10 or 15 year pay-back.
  There is evidence in industry that some of the smaller firms that face high bank rate charges, and all the other financial pressures that they are under, find it difficult to find the money to invest in conservation. They need financial incentives in terms of preferential loans and preferential tax arrangements.
  It is not enough to talk about conservation. There is a whole series of actions that the Government must take. So far the record is depressing. One of the first areas is in the home. The insulation grant of £50 is still grossly inadequate, and our building regulations must be tightened up.
  Mr. Peter Rost:The right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the conservation programme might make people wonder who had been in charge of the nation's affairs for the previous five years. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour Government were not only slow in starting anything but were lethargic in pushing through any conservation programmes or providing any incentives?
  Dr. Owen: That level of debate on an issue such as conservation is unnecessary.
  The investment in 1977 in the "Save It" campaign was a substantial pioneering achievement to which tribute was paid

  409
  by the European Commission. The introduction of the home insulation grant was an important measure. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is saying that that should have been increased a year or so earlier, I agree that it probably should have been. But at least it was introduced. The Secretary of State announced a minor widening of that scheme as regards local government, which I welcome, but it does not go far enough. I think that it needs more resources.
  I am making a plea for the exemption of conservation from the financial restraints to which we understand the Secretary of State has been asked to contribute. He should be able to say to his colleagues that conservation should be exempted. As I have already argued, relying on the price mechanism is totally insufficient.
  I turn to the three main documents before us. The terms in which the Secretary of State has explained the procedural issue may well have satisfied some hon. Members, in the sense that he recognised that by not having come to the House for authorisation before he gave it he was technically in breach of the undertaking. He has tried to make amends for that. However, I believe that the Leader of the House should have found an earlier opportunity for this debate.
  Most of us would agree—I believe that the Scrutiny Committee agreed at the time—that the regulation was not a substantive one of principle. But it must be accepted that the procedure of coming to the House before Ministers make decisions in the Council of Ministers is something to which all hon. Members attach a great deal of importance. It is the exception when Ministers have to make a decision prior to coming to the House. I am inclined to accept the explanation we have been given on this occasion, but on a major issue of policy it would not be acceptable. This should be something that happens very rarely.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the exceptional procedure has to be undertaken—that is, of course, part of the written undertaking from the Leader of the House—whilst it says that a statement should be made to the House at the
  410
  earliest opportunity, there should be an oral statement and not, as in this case, a written statement some time later which can easily go unnoticed?
  Dr. Owen: I think that it is far preferable for it to be an oral statement. I agree with my hon. Friend, although I think that there are occasions when it would be done by a written statement. However, when one is in breach of an undertaking to the House it is always preferable to make an oral statement to the House.
  On the issues involved, when we analyse what the Secretary of State has said we realise that he has indicated that it is no subsidy. As far as I can understand what he was saying, the terms of the loans are not giving us any preference, apart from the fact—[Interruption.] As I understand it, the interest rate is not necessarily any lower than we could get ourselves. I should be very interested if the right hon. Gentleman could clarify the matter. As I understand it, the net gain to us from taking this loan is minimal. If I am wrong, I should be very grateful to have it quantified.
  What is the financial benefit to us of accepting this loan? What percentage of the overall increased tranche is likely to come to the United Kingdom? Will this be going at least some way towards the financial contribution upon which we are trying to improve? Is this something that will be put on the credit side in assessing our financial contribution?
  My understanding is that there is very little value to us in getting such loans. I am not saying that we should not do so, because it allows us to free up our capacity for getting loans in other sectors, but I think that the financial advantages are very minimal.
  On the question of the plutonium cycle, I had hoped that the Secretary of State would make the attitude of the French Government a little clearer. They have traditionally taken a very sceptical view of the Euratom treaty anyhow, and they have been asking for a substantial amendment to the treaty. In no area is their scepticism greater than where it affects plutonium. As I understand it, they are very anxious that the Euratom treaty should not be used to extend into

  411
  areas concerned with plutonium. What the Secretary of State said implied that the cost was very much greater, and he gave his qualifications. But I do not think that any of us were left with a clear impression as to whether the British Government would agree to this proposal in its present form, and, if not, what they intend to do about it. Is this likely to be put to the vote in the imminent Energy Council? What is the French Government's attitude? We would like to know a good deal more about this, and perhaps a little more about the fundamental criticism that is raised, if I am right, by the French Government.
  However, the substantive matter which I wish to address tonight is the issues concerned in the overall look at energy policy. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 70 on page 20 of document No. 9625.
  For a variety of reasons, not least because it has been extremely difficult to separate the issue of coking coal from the dispute which is involving the British Steel Corporation, we have not had the opportunity to focus on the specific issue of coking coal. I do not know whether every hon. Member is aware of the significance of this issue.
  First, I should like to hear the final date by which the BSC has to make up its mind whether to import any further coking coal. Previously we have been given a pledge that the BSC would not import any further coking coal before the end of January. We are now into February. Has there been a further extension of the time limit? That is an important question. The British Steel Corporation went ahead with its decision to import, with almost no consultation with the National Coal Board. The NCB had invested £50 million in improving the washing and overall coking coal facilities and it was suddenly faced with a fait accompli—a substantial import of coking coal.
  The history does not need to be described in detail. We have heard arguments about the quality of coking coal and about the price. It is clear that the level of imports of coking coal that have already been contracted are such that the quality and safety arguments are fully met. There is no doubt about that. In Redcar there has been understandable
  412
  anxiety about the quality and safety arguments and about the Japanese consultants. The level of imports to Redcar is already enough to meet all requirements. We are dealing with the issue of price alone.
  Mr. Budgen: May we hear the official Opposition's attitude towards a European energy policy? Is it proposed that the next Labour Government—if such a thing emerges—will cede sovereignty over our natural sources of energy to any of the European institutions?
  Dr. Owen: When we have a full day's debate we can debate energy policy. The last Labour Government were extremely zealous in protecting British interests on the United Kingdom continental shelf. We made it clear that in the areas of oil, coal and overall energy policy we were not prepared to cede sovereignty. That does not mean that there is not a case for a Community energy policy, particularly in a crisis. It is important that we agree that if the Community and the rest of the world are plunged into an acute oil crisis there should be sharing arrangements.
  I have argued for a tough depletion policy. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what that will be. If we adopt a tough depletion policy under which we shall not export more oil than is necessary to achieve net self-sufficiency and we are faced with a severe cut in oil supplies, it will be in our interests to increase our production. As a manufacturing nation, we would suffer deeply from an economic recession affecting not only our Community partners but all the industrialised West. We cannot adopt an energy policy which is totally selfish and which fails to take account of the Community States. Equally, we should not forgo the right to make our own decisions, particularly on the continental shelf.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have scheduled Mexborough as a development area? They now propose to close the coking plant at Wath-upon-Dearne, which means that 580 jobs will be lost. What do the Government mean by talking about importing coking coal? They have made false promises about bringing new jobs to the Mexborough area.
  Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend knows the history well. I was about to refer to the

  413
  shadow that has been cast over the industry by the coking coal issue. The industry has experienced difficult years under successive Governments.
  Substantial investment has gone into the industry from 1974 onwards, and it has begun to pay off. Over the past year the coal industry's record is striking. Production is rising, and at an accelerating rate. The indicator of absence, which includes absenteeism, but also non-appearance at work, is substantially down. The third aspect is recruitment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may scoff, but the industry had serious problems of production, absenteeism and recruitment. To have reversed all three is an achievement that we should all be pleased about. Snivelling comments about it will get us nowhere.
  The coal industry is one on which the country will rely over the next few decades more than on almost any other. It is in this context that we come to coking coal and why we are so concerned about it. There are many jobs at risk. We are talking about redundancies. Some people have spoken about as many as 10,000. We are talking in terms of substantial pit closures. All this is because of a short-term decision to import coking coal, on the basis of a narrow financial advantage that may not last for more than a year. This is against every policy that is being pursued by every other industrialised country in the world—not only our Community partners, but certainly including them.
  I draw attention to paragraph 70 on page 20 of the document. It is clear from that paragraph that the Community is prepared to introduce new schemes for coking coal to encourage its production in the member States. There are already substantial national subsidies. The Federal Republic of Germany subsidises its coking coal industry to a substantial extent, as, indeed, it subsidises its whole coal industry. It does so for overall strategic energy reasons, and for good reasons. If the Federal Republic, which is a greater believer in market forces than any other member State, can see the sense in keeping a viable coking coal industry and not relying on imports, I find it incredible that this country should be allowing the BSC to import coking coal.
  414
  I understand that the BSC's present financial problem makes it extremely difficult for the corporation to give up any potential savings. I have constantly reiterated that we must not have a dispute between the BSC and the National Coal Board or between steel worker and mine worker. There is a national interest here. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State and the Government generally to hide behind various statements and gradually to be seen to be shifting their position.
  The latest statement is that made on 4 February by the Secretary of State for Wales, who said:
  "The NCB has asked for an additional £18 million towards the agreed cost of £33 million, but, since the subsidies and cash limits were agreed, the price of oil has risen sharply raising the Coal Board's headroom and the Government can see no reason why, on the scale of a total turnover of around £3,000 million, the NCB should not be able to find the necessary funds."—[Official Report, 4 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 39.]
  If that is, in plain English, permission for the NCB to subsidise the coking coal and to make up the cost to the BSC, I hope that the Under-Secretary will say so when he replies to the debate.
  If we can end the uncertainty here and now for the coming year, we can settle a longer-term policy for coking coal and lift the shadow over the industry. It is a shadow that is cast over large areas of the coal mining industry. It is felt most bitterly over South Wales in particular, because of the effects on the BSC. In the North-East it is also very worrying. At least there is the possibility of selling most of its coking coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board and putting it into power stations. But that is expensive—and temporary. It will also affect Scotland, Stafford and Kent. What is needed for from the Government is an end to the uncertainty on the issue.
  Mr. David Howell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will certainly clarify the matter, which is as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already described it. May I clear up one misapprehension that I believe continues in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there are still funds available on application from the EEC or the ECSC to help the coking coal industry. In fact, the only funds available are to

  415
  subsidise intra-Community trade in coking coal, and this country does not, save to a minute degree, indulge in such trade. So there are no such additional funds available.
  What is available, and what the Federal Republic of Germany is using, are permissions from the EEC for the country concerned to use its own funds to subsidise as it wishes. That is a matter of legitimate debate. But the implication that there is some additional EEC honey-pot from which we could draw but are not drawing is not accurate.
  Dr. Owen: If the right hon. Gentleman studies in Hansard what I have said, he will see that I said that I believed that the money is available within the Community. In my judgment, what is needed is a proposition from the British Government. We hear from the Prime Minister that she wishes to improve the contributions coming to the United Kingdom from Community resources in order to put us into broad balance. What is being asked in Brussels is what specifically the British Government want. Here is an area where, I believe, a proposal from the British Government would be met with a favourable response.
  I agree, of course, that at present, as is said in paragraph 70 of the Commission's report,
  "The only support scheme in operation at Community level is for Community production of coking coal";
  and it goes on to say that a proposal has already been made for a new scheme. But that is a limited proposal, and I believe that a more ambitious proposal from the British Government for a subsidy from Community funds would find a receptive response.
  At any rate, let the right hon. Gentleman remember that if he does not try he will not find out, and this industry has had to hang about for three months for a reply. I do not mind if it comes from national funds. I do not mind either, if the National Coal Board, in the light of what the Secretary of State for Wales said, is told that the Government now expect it to make up the difference for the BSC. That is all that has been requested, and that is the issue which I want to see settled in this debate. We shall come back to it time and again.
  416
  First, we want an assurance that no more coking coal will be imported for the British Steel Corporation. We want to know that there is no question of the corporation going off and making a contract in the next few days. Apart from anything else, coking coal contracts last for from three to five years and are denominated in dollars. One only needs the pound to go down against the dollar and the whole equation is changed. Shipping rates are temporarily low and will rise. Some of the countries from which we are importing, such as Australia and the United States, will almost certainly put up their price. Moreover, if they run into an acute energy shortage, we can say "Goodbye" to there being any increase in coking coal on the market.
  Moreover, coking coal is cheap at the moment because steel demand is low. If steel picks up and the world recession moves away, coking coal prices will pick up.
  Mr. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated the position correctly. Australia has millions of tonnes of coking coal. In fact, the National Coal Board has an interest in German Creek in Queensland, and I dare say that when that becomes productive the NCB will be exporting coking coal back to the United Kingdom—and most of it is opencast.
  Dr. Owen: There are two grounds of difference there. First, on financial grounds, there is the question of a tax being put on by the Australian Government. That is being talked about at the moment. Second, the Australians will charge the international price, and if the international price goes up the Australian price will go up. We shall find that we have clamped down and cut off our coking coal supply in this country for two or three years and then, when we ask for our production to be expanded, we shall find pits closed and the capacity lost.
  But there is an overall argument, which is that at a time when we are asking for self-sufficiency in energy and we are trying to ensure that there is less importation of energy—oil is the classic example, but the same is true of coal—it makes nonsense for us to run down the resources of coking coal which we have available.

  417
  What we are asking for is a decision not to import any more coking coal and not to make any more contracts, and a decision to authorise the BSC to go ahead and rely on National Coal Board coal and for the National Coal Board to make up the difference, so that the BSC will not have to find the money from its own resources. We ask that it effectively makes the decision which, in my view, is implicit in what the Secretary of State for Wales said. If that is not forthcoming, we shall return again and again to this subject. We are not prepared to see the coking coal industry, as part of the overall coal mining industry, run down in the way that is suggested. It would have savage social consequences. It is economic madness and it runs totally against the energy policy contained within the documents we are debating tonight.
  I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to raise other issues. I have concentrated on the issue of coking coal because of the severe consequences for many parts of the country of a rundown in this part of the industry. It is also the most graphic example of how our energy policy is heading in the wrong direction. I call on the Secretary of State to change that policy, and to do so quickly.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dr. Owen) dealt with coking coal. I shall not pursue what he said on that point, other than to say that the British Steel Corporation would be prepared to take what coking coal the National Coal Board has, provided that it is of the right specification. It would be prepared to take the coking coal, not merely for Red-car but for other modern blast furnaces, on such a condition, provided that it was at a relatively advantageous price. The differential between the price of imported coking coal, which comes largely from opencast mining, and that produced in the United Kingdom is considerable.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the lack of advantage of loans from the European Investment Bank. He must recognise that interest rates in Europe are much lower than they are in the United Kingdom. A study of the figures relating to nuclear power station development between 1973 and1978 shows that we have
  418
  received 203 mua as compared with a figure of 268 mua for France. In 1979 we received a further 156 mua, and we have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Torness is to receive a further loan this year of 100 million—I do not know whether that is in units of account or £ sterling. That is a considerable advantage which we have derived from Europe and, possibly, in totality, it will exceed all loans to France.
  We are supposed to be dealing with nuclear power. My right hon. Friend spoke a little time ago about the United Kingdom programme. It is to be 15 gigawatts over a 10-year period beginning in 1982. I am of the view that this programme probably will not get off the ground at the right time. We may be in a serious situation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has given me some figures for the United Kingdom showing what the position was in gigawatts at the end of 1977. At that time the United Kingdom figure was 5·9. At the end of 1985 it is to go up to 9·4, which is 11 per cent. of total electricity generating capacity. By the end of 1990 it is estimated that the figure will go up only to 12·3. That is only a minor improvement over the period.
  Let us compare the position with France. There, the figures for the same periods are 4·6 and 38·5, going up to a total of 58. These are very large figures in gigawatts. This is an important matter for the United Kingdom since it means that energy costs in France will be low but in the United Kingdom relatively high, making France much more competitive than ourselves. Similar figures apply to Western Germany.
  We have had no indication whether any coal-fired power stations will be built—apart from Drax. Nor have we been told to what extent Selby and the Vale of Belvoir will affect the outcome. Nor have we been told when fluidised-bed combustion for power stations will enter the commercial phase. It would be a great help to us if we could be told whether, in the ordering programme, there are to be any further coal-fired power stations. Apart from the completion of Dungeness B, Hartlepool and Heysham A in 1982, Heysham B in 1987 and Torness in 1988, there are not likely to be any further nuclear power stations commissioned in the 1980s. Ordering a PWR in 1982,

  419
  and allowing a six-year period for construction, will probably mean commissioning in 1989–1990.
  Commissioning in the 1990s will be affected by at least three factors. The first is the uncertainty of the development of electricity demand, which is itself dependent upon a correct interpretation of the United Kingdom's economic growth. Second, there is the long lead time required for the construction of power stations, and particularly the performance of the construction industry undertaking large-scale projects. Third, there are the doubts about the capacity and performance of the nuclear engineering industry, which has had no nuclear station ordered since 1970. Further, commissioning in the 1990s will be undertaken at a time when Magnox stations will be ready for de-commissioning.
  I say all these things because it is important to note that the Europeans in two nations, France and Western Germany, are going ahead of the United Kingdom. What will be the reality here? When are we to move ahead in the United Kingdom? We are told that we have this 10-year programme, but to what extent is it a programme and to what extent will it be implemented?
  A number of hurdles in the way of early implementation have to be overcome. First, we have to get a letter of intent, which I dare say will be secured without any great difficulty from Westinghouse. As has been indicated by the Secretary of State, a Westinghouse and not a Babcock licence will be accepted. Following that, we have to get a nuclear site licence. The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will apply, but a safety case submission will have to be made by the NNC, in conjunction with the CEGB, to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and the inspectorate will have to be satisfied.
  Any result on that will be delayed by the Government's difficulty in recruiting engineers for that body. The inspectorate enters 1980 12 per cent. below strength in inspection staff, with the prospect of an increase in its heavy work load associated with the planning of the 1,100-MW demonstration PWR. It may take time, therefore, to overcome the first hurdle. At the same time, we are crying out in the United Kingdom for the discharge of the programme.
  420
  The next hurdle is the statutory consent, or the site consent, under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, but where is the site in the United Kingdom to be? Is it to be Sizewell? Is it to be in Scotland? Is it to be in Wales, or elsewhere? The body of protestation is extremely loud these days and there may be opposition in any of those places.
  Mr. John Hannam: Bedford.
  Mr. Skeet: If it comes to Bedford, we shall consider it in the national interest. If I could make a personal recommendation, I would put it down just by Exeter—the best spot in the land.
  The next hurdle is probably the most dangerous of the lot—the deemed planning permission under section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
  The Secretary of State has to provide a plan for our acceptance. We hope that his plan will be realised. We have not the foggiest idea whether it will materialise at the time when it is required. If we do not have the increased capacity available for the United Kingdom, the standards of the people will fall relatively to those in Western Europe.
  Are we to have a Windscale-type inquiry—we are quite familiar with that—or is it to be of the sort that is currently taking place in the Vale of Belvoir, which will last for approximately a year, after which it will have to be considered by the Minister, who will prescribe on that? Or will he be wise enough, under section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to have a planning inquiry commission during which all relevant matters may be considered? My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who is very concerned in nuclear matters, will then be able to put forward certain ideas on whether we should have a nuclear programme.
  Another hurdle amidst the long saga of difficulties is that of capital investment approval under section 8 of the Electricity Act 1957. That is not the end of it. Radioactive effluents must be covered. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, authorisation must be obtained from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Secretary of State for the Environment for the discharge of radioactive effluents. There is, therefore, a large amount of bureaucracy. It is

  421
  perhaps essential to have some such provision because of the public's sensitivity. However, could not several of the procedures be telescoped?
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member listed a number of hurdles over which planning procedures must pass before a nuclear power station can be built. However, I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament to represent a constituency that has a nuclear power station under construction. Even if the Secretary of State is satisfied with the plans, it may be that the majority of people in that locality are not satisfied. We must therefore persuade people that a nuclear power station is desirable and safe.
  Mr. Skeet: I recognise the sensitivity of that point. I also agree with the hon. Member about obtaining a consensus. However, that can surely be accomplished by a wide-ranging public inquiry. At a public inquiry all the arguments can be put forward and they will be considered in extenso. The matter will then revert to the Minister and he may reconsider the issue.
  When the Labour Party was in power, we dealt with the Windscale inquiry. The issue was not only thrashed out before the inquiry, but there was a debate in the House. I believe that the then Secretary of State for the Environment did a good job of informing the public about the reality of the situation. The chances of dying from radioactivity are minute. It is much more dangerous to walk across the road or to travel by train. Travelling by air is yet more dangerous. The most dangerous job at sea is that of working on a trawler in the North Sea. The most dangerous job on land is that of working in a mine or quarry in the United Kingdom.
  Many people's fears are totally unfounded. They are whipped up by such groups as Half Life and Friends of the Earth, who appear to have a vested interest in causing difficulties. We are trying to pave the way to a high standard of living by having relatively cheap energy costs, compared with Western Europe and elsewhere. Unless we go ahead with plans for a coal and nuclear future, we shall be in dire difficulties. If we postpone the evil day it will be too
  422
  late, because of the long lead time involved in building nuclear stations.
  Mr. Budgen: Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that groups such as Friends of the Earth have no right to express their objections. That group has a valid point of view that should be considered.
  Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend has probably misunderstood me. Of course it has a right to express its views, just as I have a right to express my views in the Chamber. I debated with Friends of the Earth in the Cambridge Union and I beat them. However, we should not play with the lives of people by rendering the future of nuclear power more difficult. We should strive to sustain the high standards that we enjoy. Nuclear hazards are limited because the industry takes great care to ensure that no great danger is involved.
  There were three other difficulties in the way of building nuclear power stations. There are not merely procedural problems. Before the Secretary of State can decide on any arrangement, he must be satisfied about the level of demand in the United Kingdom and about the performance capacity of the British nuclear industry, which has had no new nuclear order since 1970. It is a rundown industry and will have to be built up. It has little experience in building a PWR, and I strongly recommend PWRs in the United Kingdom.
  The third point concerns project management responsibility. Anyone who has visited the Isle of Grain or the suspension bridge that is being constructed near Hull must conclude that those projects were apparently never intended to be completed. The cost to the public is rising annually. The amount of money wasted on these projects is scandalous. Unless management or the unions can secure some control of large nuclear power station developments, there will be difficulty in fulfilling our programme.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the 10-year programme for 15 gigawatts, starting in 1982. I believe that it is much more likely to begin as late at 1984 or 1985. Bearing in mind the long lead time. I do not believe that any of these stations will be commissioned until well into the 1990s. Another difficulty is that we cannot supply the coal that is in the ground. We could have a shortage of coal, which would make life difficult for

  423
  members of the public, who are represented on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before I call the next hon. Member, let me say that less than two hours of the debate remains and 11 or 12 hon. Members wish to speak. Any hon. Member who speaks for longer than 10minutes will prevent another from speaking.
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) in referring to the nuclear aspects of the documents.
  First, may I put four propositions about the country's ultimate future with regard to energy? There will be increased total demand for energy, particularly in view of greater industrial production and a rising standard of living once this Government are out of the way and an improved Government take their place. The relationship between energy use and gross national product is close, though not exact. If we are not to scramble madly among ourselves for a share of the national cake, that cake must grow in size.
  Secondly, increased demand for energy will be less than it might have been because of higher efficiency in the production and use of energy as costs rise. There will be less waste and more conservation.
  Thirdly, primary energy sources that are as yet little developed—sea tides, sea waves, sun and wind—will contribute much more than in the past. However, they will not be sufficient to fill the gap caused by the ultimate decline in the output of fossil fuel sources—coal, oil and gas—due to physical exhaustion of supplies and increased expense of extraction. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends who say that in the next 10 years or so there will be considerable demand for and, I hope, availability of coal. However, I believe that in the longer term there will be increasing difficulty in finding people prepared to risk life, limb and future health in what is still the highly dangerous trade of coal-getting.
  Fourthly, with present levels of scientific knowledge—and we cannot say what
  424
  the future will bring—more energy from nuclear fission processes, mainly in the form of electricity, will be needed to meet demand because there are no other sources from which it can with certainty come. Hence the British contribution to the overall European nuclear development need is important. The Secretary of State announced before Christmas a new nuclear programme. It was astonishing because some 15,000 MW was promised over 10 years.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford because I believe that between that aspiration and its fulfilment a great gap is fixed. As the Secretary of State knows, I questioned him very closely on these matters in 'the public hearing of the Select Committee on energy last week. The hon. Member for Bedford was in the audience. He seems to have learnt his lesson very well, because he listened to what I said and he has improved on what I said. I congratulate him; his Government would do well to listen to his cogent remarks.
  I do not know whether the Government appreciate the width of the difference between what they have on paper and what they are likely to get in practice. There is, first, the question of choice of reactor. We are committed now to a trial PWR. The last Labour Government agreed to these design studies, but it is not yet clear whether the AGR will finally be abandoned. The issue is extremely cloudy. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bedford has said, the nuclear reactor industry has been running down for many years and it is hard to see how a programme for the building of one 1,500-MW nuclear station per year from 1982 can be fulfilled quickly given that fact.
  Sir Francis Tombs, the chairman of the Electricity Council and formerly chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, who has a lot of experience in these matters, said last September, I think, that such a crash programme would not be possible. It will be useful for the Secretary of State for Energy to check the view of Sir Francis Tombs against that of Mr. Glyn England, the chairman of the CEGB.
  Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that the feasibility study did

  425
  no more than generally argue that safety could not in itself be the sole reason for not having a PWR? However, that circumstance does not validate it and this is still an issue that the Government must get clear before we can go forward with PWRs.
  Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend has great knowledge in these matters, and, as he says, it is a question of clearing the PWR through all the difficult British nuclear planning processes and of clearing it also through the British nuclear inspectorate. There may be all the difference in the world between a PWR built rather carelessly, as I think has been done in the United States, and a PWR built to stringent British safety standards. I am sorry to have to raise these doubts, but it is important that we should not live in cloud-cuckoo-land and that we should keep our feet firmly on the earth.
  We still have not done very much to bring our total electrical nuclear manufacturing capacity in this country into a unified whole. Some valuable changes were made a number of years ago, but the rivalries between the independent firms still within the British nuclear construction concentration—part private and part State-owned—continue. One considerable section of manufacturing interest in his country is still openly opposed to the PWR because its resources financially, technically and so on are committed to the AGR. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should look at these matters realistically and try to get at the truth on timetables, if he can, from those who advise him, and certainly not put on paper plans that are not likely to be fulfilled. I say that as one who is very friendly to the idea of further nuclear construction and regards it as essential.
  I should like to make two final points which were not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The first concerns the future of the fast breeder reactor, particularly the commercial fast breeder reactor. About three years ago the Atomic Energy Authority told some of us that a decision on a commercial fast breeder reactor was needed urgently. Some of us went to Dounreay and listened to Sir John Hill when he gave evidence to the then Select Committee on science and technology. He said that it was essential that there should be a
  426
  decision by the autumn of that year. That was several years ago. Since then everything has gone quiet. I should like to know whether we are to have a joint fast breeder reactor programme with the French. Or is that something that is talked about that again has no reality?
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend able to tell us about other countries which are developing prototype fast breeder reactors? Has he any observations to make on the safety of the running of the prototypes to date?
  Mr. Palmer: So far the running of the prototypes has been very safe, but everyone is cautious about a commercial fast breeder because, if it is to be a truly commercial reactor, it will have to be placed not far away in the North of Scotland but nearer population centres. It is assumed that the risks are greater than with conventional thermal reactors, rightly or wrongly. But other countries, including the Soviet Union and the United States of America, are working on these fast reactors because of the need for economy in the use of uranium.
  Finally, will anything be done about further interconnection between the British and Continental grids? I know that the CEGB has plans and is carrying out certain work in the English Channel, but it would be interesting to know once again the reality and the facts and figures of the related energy economy through interconnection.
  12.3 am
  Mr. Nigel Forman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on science and technology, with whom I served for some time on that Committee. I am sure that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to his great personal knowledge and experience of energy policy.
  I do not propose to pursue the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I want to astound the House by concentrating on one of the documents that we are supposed to be discussing, namely, COM(79) 527 final, which is the appellation of the document headed:
  "The energy programme of the European Communities."

  427
  The House should bear in mind that the background against which we are discussing these documents and considering what the Commission has to say is bleak. There are the international recession and the prospect of British GDP declining by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. over the coming year. Oil prices are rising fast in real terms with Saudi Arabian market crude now up to about 26 dollars a barrel and Nigerian and Libyan crude even further up at about 34 dollars a barrel. There is the extreme vulnerability of all the OECD countries to sudden interruptions of oil supply and the real danger, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of another Iranian crisis elsewhere in the Middle East. If it were to strike in Saudi Arabia, I do not know what the advanced Western world would do in the short term.
  Document No. 9625 makes the important point of the economic burden of an adequate energy insurance policy. I use the phrase "energy insurance policy" because it is contained in one of the paragraphs of the document.
  The progress that the Community has made so far in attaining its energy objectives has not been good. Nothing like enough has yet been achieved on energy conservation. There is a need for much better progress in reducing the dependence on imported oil. There has been some progress but nothing like enough to ensure a margin for safety.
  I am sure Opposition Members will agree that it is disappointing that coal production and consumption have declined since 1973. Forecasts for natural gas are probably too sanguine, especially the expectation of vastly increased imports in paragraph 20 of the document. I am not sure where these imports are expected to come from. A quadrupling of imports by 1990 presumably refers to Algeria and Norway. I should like to know the evidence on which that is based.
  There is growing realism about the contribution of nuclear power from 1990 onwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was right to warn the House of the real danger that the out-turn on nuclear building and nuclear stations coming on line will be a great deal more modest and slow than the paper plans.
  428
  The most vital points in the document are those made in paragraphs 21 and 22. A salient sentence in paragraph 21 states:
  "The evolution of demand can either exacerbate or moderate these supply problems and depends on future economic growth and on the effectiveness of our efforts to use energy more effectively."
  In other words, the document brings out the shortcomings of previous energy policy in the unwillingness to act sufficiently on energy demand as well as on the supply side. What has to be recognised over the coming years is the inevitability of the energy sector as a whole preempting to a massive extent resources that were previously available to other sectors of the economy.
  The objectives for Community energy policy are set out in paragraph 26. I agree with objective (i), but I believe that the Community could go much further, especially if some of its economic growth can be wisely invested in the more efficient conversion and use of energy. I agree with objectives (ii) and (iii), but these imply a vigorous policy of fuel substitution and conservation.
  I agree with objective (v), although it contains an element of internal inconsistency. There is an inherent tension when the same paragraph talks of increasing coal imports and restoring Community coal production. It is important that coal should be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say something positive about the Government's attitude to CHP and the wider use of fluidised beds, especially the direct use of coal in British industry.
  I agree strongly with objective (vii) in paragraph 26. There is no doubt that what are called
  "economic and transparent energy pricing policies"
  are a major factor in conservation and the efficient allocation of resources. To this extent, I cite the Government's recent brave decision on gas prices as a step in the right direction and as being consistent with that objective.
  I am a bit dubious about objective (iv) because of the nuclear costs and delays, the great problem of reaching the indigenous coal production targets and my personal doubts about excessive reliance upon electricity in the future, whatever that electricity will be fuelled by.

  429
  Equally, I am doubtful about objective (vi) because of the strengthening argument in favour of a cautious depletion policy for both oil and gas. Once again, I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on this. I hope that we shall get a positive statement on the Government's depletion policy, not necessarily in this debate but soon. If we wish to emulate partner countries, we would do better to emulate the Norwegians than the Dutch.
  The top priority that comes out of the document is the priority which must be given throughout the Community to energy conservation. I commend paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 to the Government. They repay a great deal of study, and I hope that they will be implemented.
  I also hope that the Government will use all the weapons at their disposal in energy conservation. I include price, exhortation, regulation, incentives and taxation. We cannot reply, as hitherto, solely on exhortation and price. We need to be more ambitious with the other mechanisms. All sensible studies show that conservation is the best, the quickest, the safest and the most employment-creating investment on an opportunity cost basis that can possibly be made in the energy sector. If I may be a little critical, I wish that the Government would show more signs of realising that, not just in their policy pronouncements but in the action they take.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government might adjust the rate of value added tax for the improvement of property, which in many cases involves insulation, which cuts energy costs?
  Mr Forman: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. He has also pinpointed a dilemma, which is that the Department of Energy is the lead Department in energy conservation. Energy conservation entails a great deal of co-ordination throughout Whitehall if it is to work. I hope that the Government will say something positive tonight and do something positive in future about energy conservation.
  12.13 am
  Mr Peter Hardy: The House will have found the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)
  430
  very interesting. He is right to offer a note of criticism of the Government. I, too, shall be offering one or two criticisms of the Government.
  The documents show that large sums of money are being made available for nuclear research. I do not object to nuclear research, but, given the note of realism that has dawned on the Community, it would be better for some of that money to be switched to augment the me agre funds which are devoted to the support of coal and research into coal technology.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was right to talk about the depletion policy. In document 9625/79 we are told that oil supplies to the Community were 6 per cent. higher in the first half of 1979 than they were in 1978. That is a very serious matter. If that trend is continued, the British commitment to be a net exporter of oil throughout the 1980s is very dangerous. I hope at the next Energy Ministers' meeting the Secretary of State will ensure that Europe is made aware that we as a net oil exporter—I think foolishly a net exporter—will expect EEC countries to abide by the commitments they have made. If they do not, we should rapidly examine our commitment to export oil and drastically change the depletion policy.
  Coal, as the documents say, is the most abundant energy resource in the Community. Coal production in the 1960s fell by deliberate design. People have realised since then that that was a mistake. Unfortunately, despite all the protestations and comments, some of which we read in these documents, coal production is continuing to decline in the Community. Having recognised the need and realised that coal is necessary, the Community should take very much more positive action to safeguard the industries, particularly on the mainland.
  The Belgian and French fields are contracting. Two of the four areas of the National Coal Board in Yorkshire will be producing far more coal than is produced in the whole of France. Their position is deteriorating. The production in West Germany may remain substantial, but it is bolstered by very heavy national subsidies and by its reliance upon the Community's reported trade within the rest of the Community. The West

  431
  German industry is not economic. It is scarcely viable. It cannot be regarded, under any criteria, as comparing with the National Coal Board. Yet, because of the Community's support, it is able to compete with the National Coal Board, which is an infinitely more successful and productive industry.
  However, grievous problems have developed for the National Coal Board. It should be poised and buoyant. Since 1974 it has had confidence injected into it. Massive investment has taken place. It can properly be regarded as potentially the most successfull deep-mine industry in the world. Yet we are now facing enormous difficulties.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport referred to some of the areas in Britain which were placed in difficulties as a result of coking coal imports. However, he did not mention South Yorkshire. I shall talk about the effect in my own constituency. So far, little attention has been given to that effect—not even by our local media. I have been surprised that the media in South Yorkshire have not properly understood the difficulties which the National Coal Board now faces in our area. The Under-Secretary of State understands it. I welcome the visits that he made. However, we shall require explanation and understanding over the next few months so that we may maintain the tremendous progress that was being achieved.
  I want to talk about the pits in the Rother Valley. They produce coking coal. They have made the National Coal Board South Yorkshire area a successful and profitable area. That success is now in serious jeopardy. Cortonwood colliery produces the best coking coal in South Yorkshire. It may not be able to find a market for it other than generation. At the moment, National Smokeless Fuel is taking coking coal from Cortonwood on a temporary basis.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will forgive me for referring to Manton colliery. That was one of the most successful collieries in Britain. It supplied the BSC at Corby. That market has gone. Good-quality coking coal from Manton, at the southern end of the Yorkshire coalfield, is now being used for generation. That
  432
  is an absolute waste which should cause the Department of Energy a great deal of distress.
  Nearby in my constituency Treeton, Brookhouse and Orgreave collieries provide coal for the British Steel Corporation (Chemical) Ltd. works at Orgreave and at Brookhouse geared to the BSC market, which is shrinking. The reduced operation at Scunthorpe, which is an example of absolute blindness, may actually mean that Scunthorpe cannot take all that those two coke ovens produce—or, if it does. it will shrink its demand for coking coal from other collieries in my constituency. Certainly that could be the case at Silver-wood, where an expensive merry-go-round, very efficient method of coal transportation has been developed to feed the Scunthorpe industry.
  If the Government had the slightest sense, or if BSC was given the slightest grounds for confidence, far from reducing the operation at the important and expensive plant at Scunthorpe to single-vessel operation, we would see a moderate investment in iron-making there. That would make the whole of the Scunthorpe steel undertaking a viable, internationally competitive area. Instead of that it will be made permamently non-viable by the reduced level of operation. That means that the South Yorkshire area coking coal has no adequately sensible outlet. That certainly could be the case at Dinnington. Here is a classic example that illustrates the point made by my right hon. Friend.
  Huge sums have been spent at pits in my constituency, especially at collieries like Thurcroft, which has one of the most advanced technique mining faces in the world, and Dinnington, where a large amount was spent to provide modern coal preparation facilities. Previously Dinning-ton, which did not have adequate preparation plant, was supplying the generating market. So the National Coal Board invested large sums of money in coal preparation at Dinnington colliery to convert to the coking market. Dinnington converted successfully and was doing well but now could be plunged into serious difficulty. That is a ludicrous position because the investment is relatively recent. For the miners and management at that pit to be told that they must now supply the generating market is rather foolish.
  There may now also be difficulty at Kilnhurst, which is on the edge of my

  433
  constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). The coal from Kilnhurst goes to the Manvers complex in his constituency.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is not my hon. Friend forgetting to mention the price of coal for coking purposes going to the power stations?
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend and I are well aware of the effect. I have heard some Conseravtive Members say in recent weeks "Send the coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board. It will take everything that the National Coal Board can provide." That may be so. But the price that the CEGB pays for poorer quality coal is much less than the price that coking coal demands.
  Whilst Dinnington, Thurcroft, Treeton, Brookhouse, Silverwood and all the other collieries in my constituency will continue to provide coking coal, they are deep pits with thin seams, which will mean that those pits, because of the lower return they will receive for steam-raising coal, will be in a loss-making position. I did not know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) was interested in or familiar with the coal industry, near though his constituency may be to mine.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I have been talking about coal for considerably longer than the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy).At one time he stood for Sheffield, Hallam, and it was not until he obtained another seat that he was in a position to talk about coal. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the position in Germany. My hon. Friends and I have mentioned that acrisis faces Europe and its industries. Hon. Members who are in the European Parliament now—I am certain the hon. Gentleman knows this as a member of the Council of Europe—know that the Germans, the Belgians and, to a certain extent, the French will increasingly look to this country for their coal if they are to obtain it from Europe as opposed to cheaper sources elsewhere where there may be difficulties.
  Can the hon. Gentleman speak about future markets for coal for hydrogenation and converting into liquid fuels on a
  434
  European scale? The future markets for the coal of our area are in the new processes for producing liquid fuels and, perhaps, for use in the chemical industry, yet the hon. Gentleman has not said one word about the future of the coal industry in South Yorkshire.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member may not have heard it, but the first part of my speech—briefly, I accept—urged greater investment of funds for coal research. I compared the meagre amounts going to coal with the amounts going to nuclear research. What annoys me about what the hon. Gentleman said—more than anything that he might have said during the 1966 general election—is his suggestion that I started talking about coal when I became Member of Parliament for Rother Valley.
  The last thing that I did before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley was to mention Manvers, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. My father worked at that colliery, as did his father and his father's father. I started talking about coal mines and miners at a much earlier age than the hon. Member for Hallam started talking about steel. I resent the implication that some of us are, perhaps, carpetbaggers. But that implication is certainly not becoming to any Conservative Member, especially an hon. Member such as the hon. Member for Hallam, who could have played a positive part in influencing his own Government in the present steel dispute. The hon. Gentleman, because of his experience and geographical location, could have made a contribution to sanity in that stupid situation. The hon. Gentleman has lost that opportunity by his rather foolish attitude in this matter. I regret that he has intervened in this debate.
  I believe that the National Coal Board must maintain a production level of 120 million tonnes a year of deep-mined coal, because if it falls below that level, given the loss of revenue from the coking market until that recovers, the NCB cannot maintain a buoyant attitude and a successful record on a lesser degree of production.
  That means that the Minister must go to Europe and insist, with very great emphasis, that the production of subsidies for intra-Community coking trade needs, as a matter of urgency, to be extended

  435
  to cover support for steam-raising coal. That may well not provide the NCB with the same returns as the German industry gets from the trade in coking coal, but it would give it the capacity to sustain itself in the present months of difficulty.
  I shall not say more about the matter except that the assertion that Wales is the only area affected by the decline in coking coal demand does a great disservice to the coalfields in England, and particularly in the Yorkshire area. I hope that the Department of Energy, during the next few weeks, will begin to make sure that the nation is presented with a rather more accurate picture than has emerged so far.
  I should like to have spoken at greater length, but I recognise that others wish to speak. My final point concerns the question of gas. In document No. 9625 we read that Netherlands gas production will peak next year and that our production will peak in the middle of the decade.
  I end on a note which I have expressed on a number of occasions in recent weeks in regard to gas flaring. I regret the grossly inadequate and inaccurate response to a parliamentary question which I asked the other day. I was told by the Minister that 551 million cubic feet a day was being flared in the last part of 1979. I got a letter shortly afterwards—the Minister will have put it on public record—to say that there had been an error and that the figure was wrong by 90 million cubic feet. If the error had been in the right direction—that is, 90 million cubic feet a day less—I would have been delighted. But it was 90 million cubic feet a day more than the figure given officially in answer to a question in the House.
  That illustrates a disturbing lack of monitoring of the industry by the Department. It illustrates an appalling waste of a very limited natural resource. It certainly seems that we need to use that as an example of fecklessness in the Department, but, more important, it demonstrates the need for much more urgent consideration and much tighter control of offshore activities by the Department. We cannot afford that degree of profligate waste. It is disturbing that the Department could not even be accurate in its measurement of it.
  436
  The Government deserve to be criticised. If they do not take urgent action at the next Energy Ministers' meeting, that criticism ought to be very voluble indeed.
  12.28 am
  Mr. Tom Normanton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for catching your eye, particularly because it gives me an opportunity, in the next 10 minutes which you have recommended, to draw upon my involvement in the European Parliament energy and research committee. For most of the years in which I have been a Member of this House I have been serving on that committee. I am delighted to note that on both sides of the House in this debate there have been colleagues and former colleagues of mine who also served there and made a very positive and constructive contribution in that process.
  It is the process of dealing with European legislation on which I should like to touch first, and I believe that the procedural observation is probably the most important.
  We fail to use and to make use of those of our colleagues who have served in the European Parliament in fields such as energy and research, and of those who still do so. We are now taking part in a debate, which will last for three hours, covering three Commission documents. In fact, in the energy and research committee there has already been several times three hours spent on one of those documents alone.
  Consultation on Community documents takes place, but I regret that my experience in the last seven years is that we do not utilise it to the benefit of the House. The briefing and debriefing has been inadequate. My hon. Friends and I are confident that the Secretary of State is taking action to fill that breach. I should like to think that the Opposition spokesman takes the same line with his colleagues so that they make a constructive contribution in the national interest.
  The Secretary of State referred to oil consumption. The so-called pegging of oil consumption levels tends to overlook the high price. There has been a lack of growth in the last six or seven years. We should not use the present measure. We are dragging our heels unforgivably and

  437
  damnably in dealing with the energy crisis. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a long overdue impetus and I hope that he will take advantage of the nuclear energy situation in Europe.
  The paper on plutonium cycle research makes the observation that the programme is held up as a result of the European Parliament's decision to reject the Community budget. I hope that the next time a Community budget is proposed—in the next 10 days or so—we shall have closer co-operation between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the crucial issues of energy and finance.
  The House will welcome the Secretary of State's favourable comments when referring to Community research establishments. He referred to the joint establishment at Ispra However, there are three other research establishments elsewhere in Europe, each of which plays its part. They should be supported. I hope that the Government will encourage colleagues to go to the Ispra establishment to see at first hand what goes on there.
  Reference has been made to the United Kingdom having no plans to use plutonium in thermal reactors. Are we not running the risk of not utilising plutonium in an economic manner? Are we not in potential political danger of being short of uranium, bearing in mind the rate at which we are consuming or converting it?
  This is a heaven-sent opportunity to use the accumulating masses of plutonium in fast breeder reactors. I plead with my right hon. Friend and the Department to place much more emphasis on, and to be much more speedier about, progress towards the establishment of fast breeder electricity generation.
  There is in the Strangers' Gallery one of my colleagues in the European Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament for West Sussex.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not customary to refer to anyone in the Strangers' Gallery.
  Mr. Normanton: I apologise for that lapse, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But it may be of interest to the House to know that that Member of the European Parliament has been appointed the rapporteur for
  438
  this subject, which is dealt with in one of the three documents that we are discussing. I am certain that hon. Members' contributions, including their criticisms, will have been noted and will be extremely valuable. This is another way in which the House can make a positive and clear contribution towards considering Community legislation.
  I come to the last of the documents. My right hon. Friend referred to Community financing of nuclear energy production. He spoke, with justification, of the role and financial status of the Commission, as regards the funds that it is raising and disbursing. I hope that he and the industry will not overlook the European Investment Bank, which is playing a valuable role and I hope will be encouraged to continue to do so. It is not specially designed for dealing with nuclear energy, but there are many nuclear activities peripheral to electricity generation to which the bank can make a useful contribution. Its rating is the same as that of the Commission—Triple A.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious thought to the whole question of Community financing by loans. I hope that he will note that in the European Parliament debate in December one of the many matters that were seen to be agitating the minds of European parliamentarians from throughout Europe was the whole question of Commission loans, and the pressure for the "budgetisation" of those loans within the Community budget. I know that the Council of Ministers has firmly set its sights against that, but there is a growing insistence by the European Parliament on the "budgetisation" of the increasing sums that the Community is raising by loans.
  12.39 am
  Mr. Alec Woodall: like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), I shall confine my remarks to document 9625/79, and I shall speak particularly about coal. Therefore, it is as well that right at the beginning I declare my interest. I am a sponsored member of the National Union of Mineworkers.
  The document was produced in Brussels on 10 October last year. It consists of 27 pages and four annexes.

  439
  On 8 November an explanatory memorandum was produced by the Department of Energy. It consists of just two paragraphs to explain the other vast document. I make one short quotation from it:
  "…supply difficulties could become a constraint on economic growth unless greater efforts are made to increase production in the Community from all conventional and new sources."
  I emphasise the words "all conventional and new sources". I take it that "conventional" means coal, oil and gas, and the "new sources" must be nuclear, since neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Department has yet made an announcement about wave power, the the use of the sea, barrages, solar power or any other source of energy.
  We had an announcement about our nuclear energy programme only a few weeks ago, and it is clear that what the present Government have done, and done quite convincingly, is pin their hopes on nuclear energy, putting all their eggs in the one basket.
  I turn now to annex 1 to the document No. 9625/79, showing the Community energy balances over the period 1973–90. It is interesting reading. In 1973 the contribution of coal to the whole of the Community's energy balances, was 200 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 21 per cent. of the total. By 1978, due to closure programmes begun in the 1960s, it had fallen to 174 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 18 per cent. of the total. But it is hoped that by 1985 coal will rise to 210 million tonnes, or 14 per cent. of the total energy balances. By 1990 it will be 194 million tonnes, but still only 14 per cent. of the total balances.
  I shall skip over oil and gas, if the House does not mind, because their contribution is pretty well static over the whole period 1973–90.
  I come then to nuclear energy production. In 1973, the nuclear contribution to the Community's energy balances was 14 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 2 per cent. of the total. By 1978 that had doubled to 29 million tonnes, or 3 per cent. of the total. But what do we see for 1985? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has gone, because he referred to the planning difficulties in
  440
  particular for nuclear power stations and also to the Vale of Belvoir project. The Community hopes—I think that the Government agree with this—that by 1985 the nuclear contribution will be 190 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 13 per cent. of the total, and by 1990 that will rise to 204 million tonnes, or 15 per cent. of the Community's total energy balances.
  That proves conclusively to me that the Government's objective is to put everything into the nuclear basket. Why have they lost confidence in coal? The coal industry has never let this country down. Our coal industry was run down by successive Governments during the 1950s and 1960s, but more pits were closed by the Conservatives between 1951 and 1964 and between 1970 and 1974 than were ever closed by Labour Governments from 1964 to 1970 or from 1974 to last year. In fact, we did not close any collieries during the period of the last Labour Government except through natural wastage.
  The last Labour Government gave the coal industry the incentive and the economic boost that it needed in order to increase coal production. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley spoke of the target of 120 million tonnes, which it is hoped—I believe that there are high hopes—will be achieved this year, which ends after the end of this month. Over the years, the coal industry has always proved that it is capable of producing and will produce the goods.
  Why has there been the switch away from coal to nuclear power? Given the present rate of extraction and the present rate of use we have coal reserves to last us for 300 years. The coal is there, in the ground. We have the men who can get it out. They have the technical expertise, backed by capital investment. There is the muscle behind the elbow—the machinery that is a feature of highly-developed mechanisation. The Government should come clean and tell us how they stand in relation to the energy requirements of this country and the Community as a whole.
  The Government will find that there are manifold difficulties in putting all of their eggs into the nuclear basket. These were outlined by the hon. Member for

  441
  Bedford. We have evidence of the difficulties that have to be faced environmentally. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost)—always an anti-coal man—was critical about the amount of investment put into the coal industry compared to the amount of coal coming out. Does he realise that it was three years ago that the first sod was cut at the Selby project? That mine will not be completely operative until 1985.
  It is no use putting money into the energy industry one year and hoping to get quick returns the next year. The Government will find this when the right hon. Gentleman comes to give his permission for the Vale of Belvoir project, as he surely will, in the national interest. Never mind about the farming interests, the interests of this country and the Community depend upon the Vale of Belvoir, and upon all coal production.
  The Government should state their faith in the viability and the future of the coal industry. We can produce the goods. We have proved it. Nuclear power has yet to be proved. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again. I wish that he would be more forthcoming about his nuclear programme. I asked him, when he made his announcement, where the sites of the nuclear stations would be. He could not tell us. I do not believe that he yet knows. The right hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the coal industry and less in a suspect nuclear industry.
  12.46 am
  Mr. Peter Rost: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) should be so misinformed and misguided about my attitude towards coal. If he had attended energy debates more regularly and heard me in Committee, he would not have made that rather insuling remark. The hon. Member might be interested to know that I can claim to be the only Conservative Member ever to have been invited to speak inside the Barnsley Miners' Hall. I took part in a discussion on the coal industry because the miners know which Members of Parliament are interested in the industry.
  I am also sorry that the hon. Member has taken such a bigoted attitude towards the future of the energy industry in assum-
  442
  ing that the Government are against the coal industry and in stating that the Government believe that it has no future. How does he think we shall replace the natural gas and the oil unless we develop the coal industry with the new technologies? Anyone who knows anything about the future of energy strategy in Europe will appreciate that coal has a major future, combined with new energy sources and nuclear power. The hon. Member should not speak in such an ignorant way about the policies of this Government but should take the trouble to find out what they are.
  I suspect that, if the founding fathers of the European Community had visualised, a couple of decades ago, that energy would become the major problem for our strategic and economic survival, the Community might have been founded on a common energy policy rather than a common agricultural policy. We would have developed a budget which would have promoted the production of energy rather than food and, rather than having mountains of butter and lakes of wine, we might now have mountains of coal and lakes of oil.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rost: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I intend to be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  Those of us who look to the future, and who believe in the strategic, economic and political survival of Western Europe, must accept the importance of developing greater self-sufficiency within our energy policy. This is why I welcome the document. It is the beginning of an appreciation within Europe that we are vulnerable strategically unless we develop greater energy self-sufficiency. We are vulnerable economically, for unless we develop greater self-sufficiency, as the price of oil rises with scarcity, we shall become extremely vulnerable in Europe with the economic burden of having to import oil at escalating prices. We could well be faced with the sorts of problems with which America will be faced unless it grapples with its energy problems and the matter of the importation of oil.

  443
  I am therefore very concerned that we in this country should play a more constructive role than we have in the last few years in helping to achieve this primary objective, and what I regard as the most important objective in Europe for strategic, for economic and for political reasons, namely, greater self-sufficiency in our energy supplies.
  This requires structural changes. It requires us to take the measures which will allow us to be less dependent upon imported oil. But, unless we react in this way, the scramble for increasingly scarce oil supplies in the years to come, with the price escalation that will result from it, will simply aggravate world economic problems, and particularly play a major part in impoverishing Europe rather than allowing us to maintain or improve our standards of living.
  This will lead not just to strategic risks and political and economic problems but even to social upheaval. I am therefore particularly concerned that we play a greater role in a European policy for greater self-sufficiency. I regard conservation—or rather a more efficient use of our energy—as the primary contribution that we can make. There is, I believe, far more scope than we have yet been prepared to accept.
  In the document, we are reminded that, if today's best practice in energy conservation and in the efficient use of energy were to be generalised throughout the European Community, it would be possible to save up to 30 per cent. of our energy in industry, up to 35 per cent. of our energy in transport, and up to 50 per cent. of our energy in domestic consumption.
  These are formidable targets but well worth attempting to achieve. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reaffirm their commitment towards a policy of greater self-sufficiency in Europe, and that they will play a greater role in trying to reallocate the resources within the Community, so that we allocate a little less proportionately to building up surpluses of food and have a greater proportion of the budget allocated to greater self-sufficiency in energy production.
  It will involve a determined commitment to provide the incentives to do it, and the pricing signals must be enforced
  444
  to see that it happens. This policy towards greater self-sufficiency is absolutely vital for our future in Europe. Moreover, I maintain that the United Kingdom has a very large role to play here, very much to contribute as the major producer of energy, and therefore very much to gain from promoting this policy, not least by ensuring our own security, our own economic stability, and that of Europe as a whole.
  12.54 am
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall try to be brief. I apologise to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) as I shall not take up the broad scope of his remarks. The debate has demonstrated the great interest of many hon. Members, both in energy generally and in European energy policy in particular.
  Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to the choice between coal/ nuclear fuel and accepting the Government's bias towards nuclear power. Yesterday, I was struck by the speech of Peter Baxendell of Shell. He demonstrated that Shell is now putting a lot of effort into the expansion of coal production. That is significant, and lessons can be learnt. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Shell had a partnership, which is still maintained, with Gulf concerning nuclear power. However, Shell finds it difficult to achieve commercial viability. It has now turned away from the exploitation of nuclear power and it has turned to coal.
  I have two questions to ask and I hope that the Minister will reply to them. The Secretary of State said of oil that we would be a follower, not a leader. What is our position today? North Sea crude stands at $29·75 a barrel. Nigerian crude oil runs at $34. Our oil is about $4 or $5 cheaper. Do we intend to equate the price of our oil with that of Nigerian crude?
  The present rate of petroleum revenue tax is too low at 60 per cent. The Government are responsible, and they should update that position. They should review the position continually. We must not lose our world position. We must not allow oil companies to exploit the United Kingdom and to reap windfall profits. Perhaps the Government will indicate their general line of thought tonight.

  445
  We have dealt particularly with the social stresses that arise. I refer to paragraph 7 of the paper on energy policy. It says,
  "In these circumstances social tensions can appear or be exacerbated, and political and social norms can be challenged."
  That is a source of extreme danger. The Government are responsible for security of supply. As regards the Government's attitude towards gas prices, I have no quarrel with the principle of intervention. I believe that a Government should set prices. However, the Government have not jacked up prices in order to secure the supply of gas. They have done so as a result of their attitude towards the public sector borrowing requirement. Individuals have been conned into making huge capital expenditures per household. They have to bear a heavy burden. That burden is based, not on the desire to secure supplies, but on the Government's desire to achieve cuts in the public sector borrowing requirement. That must be questioned.
  The Government must tell us how they intend to secure supplies, not just for the next four or five years, but into the 1990's. I keep stressing that we need more information on production profile. We keep awaiting a statement on depletion policy and on the Government's attitude to marginal fields.
  Paragraph 22 states:
  "A variation of 1 per cent. in the average annual growth rate of Community GDP between 1978 and 1990 could lead to up to 100 million tonnes or equivalent per annum more or less energy demand by 1990".
  That is a startling figure. If that is the type of analysis that the Community is using, what lies behind the statistics? The figure is equivalent to the entire present production of the North Sea.
  Also in relation to equation of demand, we should consider our relationship with the United States regarding oil. How are the arrangements for curtailing demand agreed at the Tokyo summit working out? Is the United States continuing to import over 8 million barrels of oil a day, or has President Carter been successful in turning back demand? That is extremely relevant to Community energy policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is perfectly right. The European Community cannot determine an energy strategy on its own. It must be done
  446
  certainly in concert with the United States and Japan.
  I have one or two small but important points regarding nuclear fuel. Paragraph 61 refers to safety:
  "The Euratom Safeguards Inspectorate, now in existence for over twenty years, was the world's first multinational nuclear safeguards system."
  In my constituency at Rosyth we have a PWR-type reactor. It is extremely important to understand the public's attitude. What do the Government feel about opening up all safety provisions to public scrutiny, and in particular involving the trade union movement in access to information on how radiation affects those who work in particular plants? The trade union movement and health and safety committees should have direct access to workers' records regarding radiation, and become involved in nominating independent organisations to vet the longterm effects of radiation on the work force and, if possible, the public generally. Will the Minister consider raising that topic in discussion with the Euratom Safeguard Inspectorate?
  Turning briefly to the demand for coal, in paragraph 65 there is a startling discrepancy:
  "Taking account also of the likelihood of stable demand for coal in coke ovens and of a decline in demand for other uses, the Commission foresees a total demand for hard coal of 185 million tonnes or equivalent in 1990–37 million tonnes or equalivent less than in member States' forecasts."
  What is the discrepancy in our forecasts? The discrepancy quoted there is enormous.
  Paragraph 67 mentions coal policies for the future:
  "Special attention will be given to technological programmes to devise new processes for the extraction, transport and processing of coal."
  What is the Government's attitude to the excellent document produced by the National Coal Board called "Coal 2000"and its relationship to that statement? How far are we going to secure the possibility of extracting coal from the North Sea using techniques similar to those used in oil production at present?
  We must make it clear in the Community that we have to deal direct with the OPEC nations. The old attitude of using the multinational oil companies as

  447
  a buffer between the nation States and the producing countries has gone for good. Deals will have to be done between the consuming countries and the producing countries. We can act as honest broker here because we are a producing country. There must be an inter-relationship of mutual interest.
  That is why I am hypercritical of the posture of the Prime Minister in relation to Afghanistan and the present tensions throughout the world. Her attitude is that the West has to do something because our interests are threatened. That is the wrong way to go to the bargaining table, and it is the wrong way to impress the OPEC countries.
  There is a mutuality of interest here, and we are in a unique position because for the foreseeable future we will be self-sufficient in energy. We should be capable of taking a lead but, unfortunately, the economic policies of this Government have put us in a parlous state.
  At the next meeting of the Energy Ministers I hope that the Government will take an initiative to get some drive behind them and secure an inter-relationship of mutual interest between the producing nations, including the United States and Japan, and the members of the Community so that we can overcome some of the dislocation that can be seen in the world. That dislocation will be exacerbated if we do not come together and secure a viable policy in our dealings with the OPEC nations.
  1.6 am
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I am tempted to make my fairly standard antinuclear speech. However, the House has heard it before so I will leave it for tonight except to say that the total lack of reference in any of these documents—except for two words—to waste disposal by the European Community will not make the problem go away.
  Paragraph 30 quite clearly says, on energy saving, that
  "In the short and medium term greater energy saving can probably make a larger (and cheaper) contribution to the equilibrium of supply and demand than can action to increase supplies".
  Reference has been made to paragraph 36 where quite massive energy savings are outlined. Thirty per cent. can be
  448
  saved in industry, 35 per cent. in transport and 50 per cent. in the domestic sector. It is to that area that I wish to address my few words, because I believe that the Government's programme on conservation to date has been hopelessly inadequate. I do not criticise this Govenment only. The previous Government were not a great deal better. Insulation and draught-proofing can make massive contributions to energy saving but the £50 a house scheme is inadequate.
  After the number of times the subject has been discussed in the press and elsewhere we have not yet managed to control the temperature in this building. Except for four days of the year the heat is perpetually turned off and the windows are perpetually open in my office in order to get the temperature down to a reasonable working level. After all our debates on the problem, how far have we got with it? We must change our practices if we are to save energy. For example, glass bottles need to be used, cleaned and recycled.
  I would like a Government statement on when we are going to get down to establishing heat and power schemes in this country. The most efficient thermal station we have is running at 41 per cent. capacity. The average cannot be much more than 35 per cent. and nuclear power stations hardly attain those percentages because of heat transfer problems.
  We are wasting over 60 per cent. of the heat from our total electricity generation, whether it be from coal, oil or gas. If we could save half of that, it would mean a saving of 30 per cent. of our total electricity generation. Of all the alternative scenarios for energy that are offered, I believe that that area offers the best, the most likely and the most solid approach that we could take.
  It means that we must build smaller power stations than the Government are planning in their nuclear programme. We must also build them closer to towns and be able to distribute the waste heat. It is possible to pump water over long distances, but there is little point in that as the energy required can quickly begin to equate with the energy distributed. When are the Government proposing to make some real announcement on conservation and, more important, because the lead time is longer, on their attitude to heat and power systems?
  1.11 am
  Mr. Alex Eadie: It is no new feature that the House should be debating energy matters in the small hours of the morning. However, to some extent it is a tribute to the House of Commons that the debate has been so well attended. A great deal of interest has been shown by hon. Members. The House has distinguished itself, even at this very late hour, because, whatever our views, we have not tried to minimise the importance of the subject matter under discussion.
  Views have been expressed on the contribution that the European Community can make through its respective funds and on the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government on the various Councils of Ministers. I do not envy the Minister's task in winding up what has been a far-reaching and broad debate. It may be that I am asking too much, but I think that he should endeavour to tell the House about the actions being pursued by the Government in Europe, because there is great confusion at the moment.
  We read in the press that a battle is taking place between Ministers representing Her Majesty's Government and the various Councils of Ministers. We are led to believe that the Government, because of the monetarist restraint policies that they are pursuing, are not prepared to play the game that is generally played in Europe: that aid must be on a pound for pound basis. The Secretary of State knows that, in order to get aid from Europe for any project, we must also put money into it.
  The discussions on the steel industry, for example, have not done the Government much good. They are refusing money because of the cutback in public expenditure. I think that is a fair point to make in this debate.
  The papers that we are discussing indicate the likely demand for oil in 1985 as 3 million to 4 million barrels a day in excess of OPEC production. The whole House has been seized of the seriousness of the situation. Yet, to some extent, it understates the problem. I often gained the impression, when I was a Minister, that at times there was a failure in Europe to understand the two crises in 1974 and 1979 that shocked the
  450
  world and made it realise that cheap oil was no longer available. I have heard the Minister of State, Department of Energy say that the days of cheap energy have gone. Indeed, I said that many times, and I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members have also commented to that effect.
  The Arab-Israeli war of 1974 was not a crisis of energy. It was a situation in which the States of the Middle East applied political muscle to influence the outcome of the war. As a consequence, there was an increase by four or five times in energy prices. It was accepted in Europe that energy would never be cheap again. But memories began to dim until the Iranian crisis in 1979.
  That was a different crisis. More than any other crisis, it highlighted the appetite of the world for oil and revealed the scarcity that existed even when Iran's tiny contribution was no longer available. Many countries were shown to consume more than their fair share of oil.
  Energy represents, to some extent, defence. A country that does not possess energy cannot hope to function as an industrial country. Industry cannot be sustained without energy—there would be complete chaos. When a country tries, as best it can, to maintain its indigenous sources of energy, that is defence. At times, this House has not treated the matter with the seriousness that it merits. It is not simply a question of market forces or sheer economics. For a country with adequate, secure and indigenous sources of energy, this can mean industrial and economic survival.
  I am surprised that paragraph 2 of the main energy document should state:
  "The difficulties which arose in the first half of 1979 were due to the unforseen interruption in oil supplies from Iran, coupled with a severe winter".
  To say that it was unforeseen that something would happen in the world is complacent. It typifies the view of some European countries that oil can always be obtained if one is prepared to pay. That countries still take this attitude illustrates the general paralysis witnessed in the Community when there is call for bold, active decision-making to try to provide indigenous energy on a European basis.
  Most of the oil comes from an area of political instability. There is a greater urgency for us to realise, as the Secretary

  451
  of State said, the need to exploit and invest in our good fortune and to ensure that we have adequate indigenous sources of energy. It would be brave for anyone to maintain that the position in the Middle East is safe. That would be a foolish attitude to adopt. Europe should be more seized of the situation following the warnings in 1974 that were ignored. The Europeans had a further warning in 1979. I wonder whether they are ignoring those warnings. What policies are the Government pursuing to make Europe realise the tremendous difficulties we shall be in unless the EEC develops its indigenous sources of energy?
  We have been discussing coal. Some of my hon. Friends have coal dust in their lungs, and the House recognises that they speak with authority. The EEC countries are not investing substantially in the coal industry; they are contracting their coal industry. I believe the day will come when they will be sorry for having done that. The United Kingdom is the biggest investor in the coal industry among the EEC countries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) said that this country had coal for 300 years to come. We probably have coal for 1,000 or 1,500 years. When the technology improves that is what the figure will be, but with existing technology the figure is nearer 400 years.
  Doubts have been expressed about whether we would get the miners. I have never had any doubt about getting miners. If we pay miners, we will get them. If we apply in the mining industry all the new techniques and technology, we will get the miners. It is said that in the age of the silicon chip we shall be job-hungry. I do not expect any difficulty in getting miners. I wish those who say that would go into the mining communities and see what a modern pit is like. If we invest in the mining industry and apply the new technology we shall get the coal.
  When the Labour Government invested in the mining industry, they were criticised by the Conservatives, but I do not mind that the Conservative Government have inherited the investment made in the past five years by the previous Administration. I am glad to know that absenteeism has been reduced and that
  452
  coal production is increasing, but if the Government reduce investment in the industry production will fall.
  In their attitude to coking coal the Government are running the risk of being accused of betraying the miners. If, as was stated in The Guardian, the Government make redundant 17,000 miners in South Wales and if hundreds of jobs are lost in Yorkshire, Scotland and the North-East, if they close the pits and fling miners on the scrap heap, they will be accused of betraying the miners, and the Minister may have some difficulty when he goes into the industry.
  A country with all the rich energy resources that we have, with coal for 1,500 years—
  Mr. Skeet: What about nuclear energy?
  Mr. Eadie: Yes, if I had time I would deal with nuclear energy. The miners and steel workers want to know whether there will be increased imports of coking coal into this country. The second point is material to this debate. The British Steel Corporation should not be allowed to import coking coal behind the backs of the Government and the nation.
  I hope that the Minister will deal with some of those questions and give satisfaction to the House and to the people.
  1.22 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I start by saying how much I have sympathy with and endorse and recognise the view of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that it would be nice if we could have a longer energy debate. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The interest, the attention and spread of subject matter covered clearly illustrate how difficult it is to respond. I apologise in advance to those people to whom I cannot, obviously, reply in the brief time available. I shall write to them specifically.
  I shall try to cover one or two points. I should like, as I think the House would wish, to concern myself primarily with the question of the EEC documents and their relationship with the ECSC and the coking coal question. That is a crucial part of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and my hon. Friend the

  453
  Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) raised a point about the fast breeder and the joint project potential with the French and other people. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority recently put a proposal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covering the next stage of the fast breeder reactor. This is being urgently considered. It includes the possibility of international co-operation.
  I come on to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Devonport and picked up by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and Cheadle concerning the Euratom offer of loan facilities. It is normally the case that by the use of the EIB finance arrangements there usually are modest differentials in interest rates, but there does not have to be. The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw the attention of the House to that fact. That is a highly competitive additional source of finance, but there does not have to be a differential.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the French views on the plutonium cycle and the implications for the Community competence. I am not aware that France has raised any objections to the proposed programme on the grounds that it would represent an increased role for the Community in matters concerned with plutonium. It would indeed be odd if it did so. My right hon. Friend said that there was a previous programme on plutonium fuels which the French Government agreed to in 1974. We would obviously be happy to refer back to that point when we have a little more time.
  I agreed with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). I hope to speak briefly about conservation at the end of my comments. All of those interested in our long-term energy programmes recognise, especially in the further industrial usage of coal, the very important potential for the fluidised-bed combustion techniques. We would not do anything to impede that progress. As to the point about CHP, which was raised by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), we hope to make an announcement on this important matter in the near future.
  I now proceed to the important area of coking coal, the ECSC and the EEC area. As the hon. Member for Mid-
  454
  lothian (Mr. Eadie) said, there is enormous confusion in the area. That is perfectly understandable. It does no good to the coal industry for us to follow potential crocks of gold that do not materialise.
  I should like to outline briefly the present position and to indicate—this is relevant to the debate—why the support structures in the Community are as they are today and what proposals we have to try to broaden the whole area of Community coal production specifically and indigenous energy production generally.
  The current position is that the Commission can authorise two kinds of Community aid and it authorises national aid systems. It can authorise Community aid via the ECSC system or EEC funds. At the moment there is only one aid of the two kinds that the Commission can produce—that is the one via the ECSC system. There is a very small fund under this system.
  The proposed budget for 1980 is £119 million. Essentially this is raised—so we know exactly where the money comes from—from the steel and coal industries of the Community, including our own, plus, since 1978, as there have been some difficulties in these basic areas, some ad hoc national contributions. At the moment there is a proposal about the composition of this ad hoc contribution which is that it should be of the order of £27 million of which Her Majesty's Government are expected to contribute approximately £4·5 million. This proposal is still under discussion, but it is expected that if it were carried through—there are other States that do not see the potential advantages to themselves in it as we might—most of the money would be for restructuring in the steel industry.
  So essentially the spend of the only Community funds available for coal and fiteel are £27 million which is still under debate and most of which is expected to go to restructuring the steel industry, and a remaining £92 million, mostly provided by our steel and coal industries. That is then allocated back through 20-year patterns of protocols to three areas—re-adaptation of redundant workers, research and development, and the redevelopment and alternative employment projects. In all these areas our National Coal Board and our Steel Corporation get more than their proportional fair value. So we are content in the sense that we know that

  455
  more is coming out from the specific Community area as currently structured.
  Another scheme which is differently financed, and which has been constantly referred to, is the scheme for the cross-boundary sale of coking coal. There is much unnecessary confusion about this scheme which, on examination, is not as attractive as it might appear. First, how is the scheme financed? It is limited to £30 million at present and up to a maxi-quality to qualify for this cross trade, the comes from the ECSC budget of £92 million to which I referred. Fifteen million pounds comes from the six original members States, not including ourselves, and £11 million comes from a levy on the steel industries of those six original member States.
  If our coking coal was of the right quality to qualify for this cross-trade, the maximum apparent potential benefit on the seaborne trade would be about £2·80 per tonne. That would not offset the production cost differential or the additional transportation cost, and it would be sold at a selling price of approximately £32. Even if we were to succeed in overcoming this barrier, we would be expected to contribute to the finances of the scheme, which we do not do at present, and we would come out with nil benefit. I have gone into the scheme in some detail because I think that it is important to understand it.
  The other side of the case that people rightly look to is where the real support goes to national coking coal industries. That comes under a system by which the Commission essentially approves the ability of national Governments to support their national industries. I am sure the House knows that there is a whole series of specific grants that are exercised—certainly by our coal industry—such as social grants, stocking aids, regional and deficiency grants, coal-burn aid grants and production aids. This year, as hon. Members will know, Her Majesty's Government have received a grant for the coal industry of £255 million for production aids.
  That is roughly the system as it exists at present. Hon. Members legitimately ask why we are so limited because of the obvious difficulties the Community faces in terms of long-term indigenous energy supplies. It is legitimate here to look at one or two facts in the documents
  456
  that we are discussing, because they show quite clearly that whereas today, in terms of coal production and consumption, within the Community there is a net deficiency of about 63 million tonnes, whatever Mr. Baxendell said yesterday the relatively accepted figures indicate that by the end of the century the Community will have a net import need of over 250 million long tons—a very large increase indeed.
  Therefore, clearly one should wonder why the Community has not concerned itself more with the development of coal production indigenously.
  I think that it is legitimate to look at the last few years and reconcile oneself to the fact that 88 per cent. of Community coal production comes from two countries only. With that as a blackcloth, I think that one legitimately asks "Where are the Government going? Where do we see the future?"
  The proposals on the table, so far as the Community is concerned, the proposals that have been recently discussed in this coal area, are fourfold. First, there is a modest proposal, still under discussion, for investment in coal-burning power station capacity. But due to the current size of our existing coal-burning capacity in the United Kingdom, we do not think—although this is still under discussion—that we shall be net beneficiaries from this. We do not think that it would be as much to our advantage as other areas.
  Secondly, there was a proposal to extend and enhance the cross-frontier sale of coking coal. I have gone into this matter a little. It did not seem to have net benefit of any kind to the United Kingdom. So the scheme has been enhanced, and not extended.
  Thirdly, there is under discussion a proposal to provide reduced interest loans for investment in coal production capacity. We think that this bears attention and is of interest, but we do not think that it goes far enough.
  That is where we come to the fourth proposal, which my right hon. Friend put on the table, relating to coal production investment directly. Currently we have a proposal to raise£160 million in grant aid specifically to see whether we can invest in production, which, in the long term, is the basic problem in relation to the Community.

  457
  I summarise by saying that I go back to what I said in the Adjournment debate last night, what was discussed with the chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Derek Ezra, my right hon. Friend and myself yesterday, and what was discussed on 18 December in the meeting with the mining unions and the chairman of the NCB, when we made it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government have given this year—and it has not been adduced in debate tonight when hon. Members have been talking about the degree to which we support or do not recognise the long-term future of the coal industry—a major increase in investment. The investment programme has been maintained. The cash limits for this year are £709 million, along with the £255 million in grant.
  We felt that the NCB, within that context, needed, within that overall limit, the facility, within the ECSC arrangements, to be able to provide a coking coal grant. That permission was given on 18 December. The position is very clear. Her Majesty's Government feel that, within the overall support structures for the industry, there is scope for the NCB to offer transitional support to offset the very recognised radical reduction in demand that has occurred—to offset, if it commercially so decided that it was in its long-term interests, within that structure of aid, additional imports that the British Steel Corporation might contemplate.
  That is the position. I should have thought that we had made this very clear. The £18 million about which the NCB was talking as its net deficiency we regard as a matter that it can cover within its commercial judgment.
  I have only three or four minutes left. I touch briefly on the very important subject of conservation. As I said, it was raised very well by so many hon. Members, on both sides of the House. With respect, I think that we really ought to try to change the nature of the debate on what I regard as a very fundamental subject of great importance for our country. I find it somewhat deplorable that we spend so much of our time in conservation debates—and there is a media debate on the subject—trying to judge which nation has the best spend programme. We assume that conservation is only a matter of the degree to
  458
  which a State, through public expenditure, can out-spend another State.
  We should look at the issue in two ways. First, as a nation within the European context, we must regard the strategic nature of our energy asset resources—which include conservation—as a positive resource. We must look at conservation in the light of the large investment that we make, correctly, in our coal, nuclear and gas resources. We must see our spend and commitment as a nation in that context.
  Secondly, we must face the unique problems of our modern society. Most adults have grown up with cheap and abundant energy. To change the nature of their fundamental demand processes is difficult. The most fundamental action of this Government is to recognise that the best way to change that long-term pattern of demand of millions of our citizens is to make clear, through the pricing mechanism, the obvious reality of longterm investment. While facing that truth and helping our people to find that truth, we recognise that measures must be introduced to offset the social difficulties from which some might suffer. In an energy debate, that does not detract from the fundamental principle of energy conservation. The coal industry will recognise the importance of understanding the true long-term value of energy. The workers in that industry would not wish that real value to be underestimated by society.
  Obviously, I have not had time to answer all the questions. I shall reply to Members in writing. Our overall commitment to the coal industry is in no way denied by our desire to try to help that industry face the realities of a substantial long-term decline in the coking coal demand from a major customer.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved:
  That this House takes note of EEC Document No. 9625/79 on the Energy Programme of the European Community, which describes the Commission's view of the current energy situation in the Community and the longer term outlook, together with EEC Documents No. 8587/79, amending the Council decision of 29 March 1977 on the EURATOM Loans Scheme and No. 5331/79, a proposal on the

  459
  Plutonium Cycle Research and Development Programme.

  RETIREMENT PENSIONERS (CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]
  1.42 am
  Mr. D. A. Trippier: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of bus passes for pensioners and to highlight the problems which have led many colleagues on both sides of the House to become increasingly frustrated because no national legislation has been introduced to correct the various anomalies created by different local authorities.
  Many hon. Members represent constituencies which cover more than one county council area. Those of us who represent such constituencies are made more aware than other colleagues of the anomalies to which I have referred. At the same time, district local authorities which operate their own public transport and yet lie within the sane county can offer widely differing facilities for pensioners. In order to illustrate my point, it is necessary for me to explain briefly what happens in Rossendale. Let me begin by explaining that, although my constituency is not on the map yet, its geographical location covers four major towns in east Lancashire—namely, Bacup, Rawtenstall, Haslingden and Ramsbottom. The first three towns lie within the local government boundary of the Rossendale borough council and are in the Lancashire county council area.
  The Rossendale council, being a district council, operates its own public transport and offers concessions to pensioners who travel on its buses. Of these, a popular concession is the Rossendale concessionary pass, which allows its holders to travel within the boundary of the borough at a reduced fare, the minimum amount being 5p and the maximum 14p. Travel tokens are also available up to the value of £13 in payment or part payment of full fare on transport operating within the authority's area and to a certain extent outside it. Pensioners who live within Rossendale
  460
  can apply for one other permit, to which I shall refer later.
  The fourth town which lies within my constituency, Ramsbottom, forms part of the Bury metropolitan borough council, which, in turn, lies within Greater Manchester. The Greater Manchester transport authority offers pensioners very different concessions from those offered by Rossendale council. Greater Manchester transport permit holders pay a fare at a flat rate of 8p per journey and the pensioners who hold passes can travel on them anywhere within the Greater Manchester county, an area obviously far larger than that of Rossendale.
  As the House will realise, the pensioners who live within the Rossendale borough are well aware of the greater benefits due to pensioners who live in Ramsbottom, and, for obvious reasons, a great deal of resentment is bound to creep in when one considers oneself disadvantaged because one happens to live just outside the county boundary. That resentment turns to a white heat when the Rossendale pensioners, who live practically on top of the boundary, find that to travel to local shops, doctors' surgeries, hospitals, post offices and so on they have a considerable amount of cross-boundary travel. This applies particularly to my constituents who live in Edenfield. Their anger is not abated when they apply for a Greater Manchester transport concessionary pass, because they have to pay an extra £16 for such a pass and the flat fare is 14p.
  These are just some of the anomalies which occur for my constituents. Other hon. Members may have experiences which are worse. Having spoken at length to many of my pensioners who are annoyed with present conditions, I am convinced that the only equitable solution to these and similar problems throughout the country is for the Government to introduce a national bus pass for pensioners.
  From research which I have undertaken, it would appear that such a pass would cost a gross amount of approximately £75 on current fare values. Obviously, the cost of such a pass could be reduced by either flat fare travel or half fare travel, or, if the pass were to be issued on an annual basis, making the claimants pay a charge of, say, £5, which

  461
  could still be part and parcel of either of the two alternatives that I have just mentioned. This pass would enable pensioners to travel anywhere in the country.
  A system could easily be devised whereby local authorities were charged a precept from national Government to ensure that there was no extra charge on taxpayers. As ratepayers invariably fund the balance of money lost by the present system, I am certain that a more equitable system can be devised. There are hidden costs to ratepayers anyway in the precept already imposed by metropolitan county councils on their district authorities.
  I do not believe that the political implications of such a policy are very great. A large amount of money could be saved by having a unified system common to every pensioner in the land. A good deal of bureaucratic red tape could be removed overnight. The scheme would be simpler for the bus companies to operate, and the bus drivers and/or conductors would find such a system far simpler than the various concessions currently in operation.
  I have found, since becoming a Member of the House, that the vast majority of people are prepared to make many sacrifices for the benefit of pensioners. This is as it should be, but, apart from the economic argument for introducing a national scheme, the House should consider that there should be a moral obligation on the part of the Government to encourage retired people to develop their recreational activities. I believe that this is particularly relevant in this decade as we move towards the end of the twentieth century. No one seriously doubts that the retirement age for men will be lowered and that it is certain that retired people will live longer. Whilst both these facts are costly facts to face for any Government, I believe that travel will become increasingly important and that a scheme such as the one I am proposing will have even greater relevance towards the end of the century than it does now.
  I have tried throughout this speech to avoid being too specific, for fear that my suggestion will fall flat on its face because of a technicality. My purpose in this debate has been to draw the attention of the House to the fact that bus pass concessions for our senior citizens
  462
  need to be carefully examined. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will give me that assurance tonight.
  1.50 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Tripper) for raising this subject, which is one of wide interest to the constituents of all Members of Parliament. He has taken a close interest in the matter ever since he entered the House. I last answered a question from him on Wednesday 7 November of last year on the subject of concessionary travel for pensioners. But all of us in our constituencies find that elderly people have a considerable interest in it. We all accept that mobility is an important matter for the elderly. It is easy for them to get isolated from family and friends, and they look to a system of public transport to help them to keep in touch with their environment and their acquaintances.
  The Government give high priority to the mobility of isolated elderly people. I have just come to this debate from the proceedings on the Transport Bill in Committee, where my right hon. Friend and my colleagues are persevering with measures which we hope will encourage the facility of a much wider range of services in rural areas, and in the rural areas in particular we have in mind in putting forward our proposals the many elderly and disabled people who are becoming isolated and cut off from any form of public passenger transport.
  That is not to say that I accept that the difficulties of introducing a national scheme of concessionary fares of the kind that my hon. Friend advocates are as small as he perhaps believes. I see considerable practical disadvantages in moving towards a national scheme in the near future.
  There is a long tradition of local decision-making in this matter. The first concessions were probably given by local authorities running their own municipal transport undertakings, and the last powers conferred on anyone by the House were given in the Transport Act 1968, which allowed, but did not compel, county and district councils to give travel concessions for local travel on buses.

  463
  Having had a look at the subject again, I believe that it remains true that the local authorities, with their detailed knowledge of their own areas, are best placed to judge what is most suitable for their localities and their retired people and to devise schemes within their own resources.
  It has so far, therefore, been a matter for local authority decision, and, as I hope to persuade my hon. Friend, it ought so to remain. It follows, of course, from the fact that it is a local authority responsibility that different local authorities sometimes come to differing conclusions about their own areas. I know that that gives rise to anomalies which are sometimes difficult to explain to people who live in adjacent areas with different rules, but it seems to me inescapable that if we allow for local government independence at all we have to give authorities leeway to reach decisions that match their localities and may give rise to some local variations of the kind complained of.
  Obviously, local authorities are best placed to consider the needs of their areas and to judge what resources they may devote to this way of assisting the retired. There are wide variations in the usefulness of concessionary fare schemes of various kinds to retired people in different localities. Nationally, there are quite a lot of retired people who cannot make much use of bus services anyway. The handicapped—and that includes a high proportion of the very elderly—are often incapable of making their way to a bus and getting on to a bus at all. There are also areas where there are many retired people who do not live near enough to any kind of bus route to be able to take advantage of concessionary fare schemes.
  On a broad national average, that means that, if we were to devote resources to concessionary fare schemes as a first priority to the retired, there would be about 10 per cent. of elderly people living too far from bus routes to use them and another 10 per cent. too handicapped to board a bus readily. We should thus be devoting money for the assistance of the elderly which would be of no benefit to about 20 per cent. of those of retirement age.
  There are localities where that proportion is much higher. Let me take
  464
  the example of the county of Cornwall, where so far, I think, there has not been widespread use of concessionary fare schemes. The proportion of retired people who live too far away from any kind of bus service to take advantage of concessionary fares is quite high. If we were to introduce a national scheme, it would be to the advantage of a particular section of the retired population. Those who benefited would not necessarily be those in greatest need of assistance of this kind. It is poor value to provide an expensive pass for pensioners who may be able to make only limited use of it.
  I see virtue in local authorities adopting policies towards the retired on a basis which looks at the needs of old people generally in their locality and not just at the question of transport in isolation. We must accept that some local authorities prefer to use their limited resources to help elderly people by subsidising bus operators—for instance, enabling them to maintain bus services which might otherwise have to be withdrawn from the whole population. Looking beyond transport, some local authorities seek to help by way of the provision of home helps, meals on wheels and other facilities which might be of more assistance to their retired and elderly population, given the transport policy of the locality.
  Given that we have this local authority discretion, we have to examine the other snags of a national scheme. I am afraid that expenditure enters the picture. My hon. Friend said that in some ways costs could be saved by getting rid of some of the variations between local schemes. On the other hand, normally the pressure which is brought upon the Government to introduce some kind of national scheme is based on the premise that the national scheme should be a levelling up of all schemes to the standard of the more generous that are usually found throughout the country. Where there are discrepancies, as I know there are from my hon. Friend's description of his constituency, I would assume that the main pressures would be to bring all schemes in line with the best in the area. The inevitable result would be that a considerable increase in expenditure on concessionary schems would take place.
  At the moment, local authorities are planning to spend about £95 million on concessionary fares next year. If we went

  465
  to a totally free national scheme, and we would have to to bring it in line with the large bus-operating metropolitan areas, London being the prime example—where bus travel is free to pensioners—the cost of such a national scheme would be about £300 million. That is £200 million more than is currently spent on concessionary fares. When we look at the problems of the retired and at the problems posed by financial restraint faced by all branches of the Government, I suggest that it is doubtful whether an extra £200 million would best be devoted to the retired by concentrating on a free national concessionary fares scheme.
  The previous Government looked at the idea of a national scheme, but the high cost of a free national scheme was one of the reasons for that Government rejecting such a proposal. They got no further than a Green Paper, which contained a half-way house proposal. That was a national half fare scheme. That presupposed that the "free" counties would retain their present free system and that below that there would be a half fare system nationally. There would still have been local discrepancies. Even then, such a scheme would have cost nearly £150 million annually a year ago. That means that at today's prices the cost would be about £170 million of national expenditure. That is £70 million more than local authorities are spending on concessions in 1979–80. As in so many areas of planned spending which we inherited from the Labour Government, we have no idea where they imagined they would find £70 million more of taxpayers' money to introduce such a scheme, conveniently produced for discussion just before a general election, when they were anxious to canvass pensioners' votes.
  The only other way of achieving national uniformity would be to accept the practical difficulties in the expenditure problems and somehow redistribute the existing expenditure evenly across the country, so that there was a uniformity which was nearer the average of present provision. Unfortunately, that would not achieve a free scheme or anything like it and would cause understandable resentment in local authority areas where, to achieve national uniformity, one would be reducing the value of the
  466
  concessions available to pensioners at the moment.
  For that variety of reasons—beginning first with the very considerable range of local needs and circumstances and local judgments of what is best required to help the elderly in their area, and going on to the problems of public expenditure involved in producing any workable and feasible national scheme—I believe it is right that this decision should be taken still by democratically elected local authorities in the light of local circumstances.
  As I said at an earlier stage, it is inevitable, if we believe in independent local government and leave matters to local decisions, that there will be a variation in the answers reached in differing and sometimes neighbouring local authorities. Obviously, the local authorities themselves must be aware of the resentment caused when these differences crop up, even on the other side of a street or in different parts of the same housing estate. I hope that local authorities will look at anomalies in their region and will do what they can to eliminate them and produce some uniformity in an area.
  There are countrywide schemes introduced by some counties, and I welcome them on behalf of the Government. Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Surrey are amoung the counties which have come to an understanding which has resulted in a countrywide concessionary fare level which suits their particular needs.
  I hope that other contiguous authorities, including those in my hon. Friend's constituency in Rossendale, will continue to look at whether they can match their own policies to come somewhat nearer to each other and avoid understandable resentment among pensioners, many of whom are probably travelling on exactly the same bus service run by exactly the same operator. But, given the qualification that we hope that countrywide schemes can be devised wherever possible and local anomalies minimised by the local authorities themselves, it seems to me that at the moment there is no scope for a national scheme.
  I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend why I believe that a careful look at the needs of the elderly across the board leads me to the conclusion that fare concessions are not the first priority

  467
  in all parts of the country at all times and that we have to leave this important judgment to local authorities, which are best able to decide for themselves.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Bullwood Hall Borstal
  Bullwood Hall Borstal
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Electoral Law
  Electoral Law
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Voting Rights (Citizens of Eire)
  Voting Rights (Citizens of Eire)
  Football Matches (Police Cover)
  Football Matches (Police Cover)
  Iranian Visitors
  Iranian Visitors
  Indian Seamen (Detention)
  Indian Seamen (Detention)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Criminals (Firearms)
  Criminals (Firearms)
TRADE
  Krugerrands
  Krugerrands
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Consumer Advice Centres
  Exports
  Exports
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Company Registrations
  Company Registrations
  EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN
  EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRESIDENT CARTER
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  OCHILTREE
  OCHILTREE
  FISH PROCESSING INDUSTRY
  FISH PROCESSING INDUSTRY
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  QUANGOS
  QUANGOS
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (EMPLOYMENT OBJECTIVES)
  CITY OF LONDON
  CITY OF LONDON
  PARLIAMENT (MEETING PLACE)
  PARLIAMENT (MEETING PLACE)
  HER MAJESTY'S FORCES
  HER MAJESTY'S FORCES
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUDGET)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUDGET)
  SPECIAL ADVISERS
  SPECIAL ADVISERS
  MAUD AUCTION MART
  MAUD AUCTION MART
ENERGY
  Nuclear Waste (Reprocessing)
  Nuclear Waste (Reprocessing)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
WALES
  New Town Developments (House Building)
  New Town Developments (House Building)
  ERSKINE MAY
  ERSKINE MAY
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Skillcentre (Deptford)
  Skillcentre (Deptford)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Power Station Construction, Grain
  Power Station Construction, Grain
  Small Firms Employment Subsidy
  Small Firms Employment Subsidy
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Incomes (Legal Claims)
  Incomes (Legal Claims)
  Footwear Industry
  Footwear Industry
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  European Community (Project Aid)
  European Community (Project Aid)
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Earnings)
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Earnings)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Byssinosis (Oldham)
  Byssinosis (Oldham)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Industrial Co-operatives (Disabled Persons)
  Industrial Co-operatives (Disabled Persons)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Health and Safety at Work
  Health and Safety at Work
  Docklands
  Docklands
  Community Workshops
  Community Workshops
  Charitable Contributions (Tax Relief)
  Charitable Contributions (Tax Relief)
  Child Tax Allowance
  Child Tax Allowance
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Acceptance Credits
  Acceptance Credits
  Foreign Currency
  Foreign Currency
  European Community
  European Community
  Tax Allowance (Blind Persons)
  Tax Allowance (Blind Persons)
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
DEFENCE
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Detained Persons (Deaths)
  Detained Persons (Deaths)
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Microelectronics and Computers
  Microelectronics and Computers
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities (Education Committee)
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities (Education Committee)
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Literacy and Numeracy
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  School Books (Expenditure)
  School Books (Expenditure)
  Free School Milk
  Free School Milk
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Teachers' Unions
  Teachers' Unions
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Special Education Provision
  Special Education Provision
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  National Foundation for Educational Research
  National Foundation for Educational Research
  Finniston Report
  Finniston Report
  University Students (United Kingdom Nationals)
  University Students (United Kingdom Nationals)
  Immigrant Children
  Immigrant Children
  Fee-paying Schools
  Fee-paying Schools
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Language Laboratories
  Language Laboratories
  16 to 18-year-olds
  16 to 18-year-olds
  Primary and Secondary Pupils (Greater London)
  Primary and Secondary Pupils (Greater London)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Teachers (Trade Unions)
  Teachers (Trade Unions)
  School Population
  School Population
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Tameside
  Tameside
  Core Curriculum
  Core Curriculum
SCOTLAND
  Councillors
  Councillors
  Scottish Information Office
  Scottish Information Office
  Disabled and Elderly Persons (Travel)
  Disabled and Elderly Persons (Travel)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Finance
  Finance
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Mr. Romash Chandra
  Mr. Romash Chandra
  Ugandan Asians (Assets)
  Ugandan Asians (Assets)
  Patriotic Front (Aid Supervision)
  Patriotic Front (Aid Supervision)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Ministers (Special Advisers)
  Ministers (Special Advisers)
TRANSPORT
  Bus Grant
  Bus Grant
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Concessionary Travel
  Concessionary Travel
  Public Inquiries (Transcripts)
  Public Inquiries (Transcripts)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
INDUSTRY
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Semiconductors
  Semiconductors
  Sealink (UK) Limited
  Sealink (UK) Limited
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Reverend S. E. Allso
  Reverend S. E. Allso
  National Health Service (Employees)
  National Health Service (Employees)
  Eczema
  Eczema
  Family Allowances and Child Benefit
  Family Allowances and Child Benefit
  Dermatology
  Dermatology
  Mesothelioma
  Mesothelioma
  Cancer
  Cancer
  South-East Thames Regional Health Authority
  South-East Thames Regional Health Authority
  "Patients First"
  "Patients First"
  Brent District (Expenditure)
  Brent District (Expenditure)
  Brent and Harrow Area Health Authority
  Brent and Harrow Area Health Authority
  Tobacco Advertising
  Tobacco Advertising
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Fuel Benefit
  Fuel Benefit
  Fellowship of Workers for the Handicapped (Departmental Correspondence)
  Fellowship of Workers for the Handicapped (Departmental Correspondence)
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Children Act 1975
  Children Act 1975
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Local Disputes Procedure
  Local Disputes Procedure
  Disabled Persons (Housing Adaptations)
  Disabled Persons (Housing Adaptations)
  Mobility Allowance (Disabled Persons)
  Mobility Allowance (Disabled Persons)
  Sick Immigrants
  Sick Immigrants
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act 1975
  Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act 1975
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Water Needs
  Water Needs
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene
ENVIRONMENT
  Public Halls (Insulation)
  Public Halls (Insulation)
  Property Services Agency (Manpower)
  Property Services Agency (Manpower)
  Alexander Fleming House
  Alexander Fleming House
  Squirrels
  Squirrels
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Mineral Planning
  Mineral Planning
  Illegal Caravan Encampments
  Illegal Caravan Encampments
  Inner Urban Areas Act
  Inner Urban Areas Act
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Departmental Staff (Official Visits)
  Building Regulations (Wheelchairs)
  Building Regulations (Wheelchairs)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the
Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
The Duke of Grafton—Took the Oath.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS: LEA PROVISION
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of LEAs, under present circumstances, opening new colleges not for British students but exclusively for foreigners.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding overseas students is that the present subsidy in the education budget should be progressively removed from 1980–81 onwards. So long as local education authorities take full account of that, and so long as they comply with race relations legislation, the form of provision which they make for overseas students is their own responsibility.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply. It does not exactly cover what I intended to ask. What I wish to ask is whether plans which certain local education authorities have for opening colleges met with the approval of the Government. I am thinking of Nottinghamshire County Council which plans to open in September 1980 a college in Eaton Hall which is going to be for foreign students, mostly from the Middle East, and they apparently are expecting to lose up to £500,000 in the first three years until it goes into profit, and while at the same time—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Baroness DAVID:—Nottinghamshire is cutting adult classes by 86 per cent., withdrawing its grant of £14,000 from the WEA and £20,000 from the University of Nottingham's extra mural department. Does the Minister approve of this?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding of the position is that Nottinghamshire local education authority plan to use a college, which is at present a college of education where initial teacher training is due to end this year, for overseas students and also for British firms involved in the export trade. The position with regard to the money would be that, provided that it is the local education authority's firm policy to break even within a specified period of time, we would have no reason to take exception to the proposal.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not true that of all the West European countries we are bottom of the league in the matter of spending money on adult education? Do we not need every penny—the Government are always "binding on" about this—for education at the moment, particularly for the 16 and 19 year olds?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Baroness has really addressed herself to Lady David's second Question. It will be better if I referred my answers on adult education in that context.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's undertaking in the debate on overseas students on Wednesday 12th December last year (I quote from column 1346 of Hansard) that,
"The policy on full cost fees will be looked at when the position on enrolments is clear",
may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the significant drop in the enrolment in certain universities and polytechnics? Secondly, may I ask her whether she will undertake to encourage the placement of foreign students in existing establishments where their fees would be most welcome?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the general question on overseas matters is outside the terms of the Question which

1155
has been asked. Of course, what Nottinghamshire are proposing to do, if they decide to carry this out, is to accept overseas students on full cost. That is an essential part of Government policy, were they to use this hall for this particular purpose.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, does the Minister not think that there is plenty of room in existing establishments for these students? Other colleges may well have space. Does she not think it would be better to use these spaces and save money for other more necessary purposes?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows—as I do—that this is a matter for the local education authority to determine. They will no doubt take account of the economics and what they expect to do at the end of three years, as the numbers build up. No doubt they will consider these factors when they take their decisions about it.

ADULT EDUCATION
2.45 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, my leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the cutback in adult education in many parts of the country, they have any plans for a working party to review the long-term future of adult education.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has recently extended the term of office of the Advisory Council for Adult and Continuing Education, whose remit includes both the review of current practice and the development of future policies and priorities for the education of adults. He awaits with interest the reports on these questions due to be presented to him this autumn.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the
1156
noble Baroness aware that Dr. Hoggart, the chairman of that advisory council, and his colleagues think that we are now dangerously near the point where the fundamental structure of the service is being undermined so that it may be very difficult to secure future recovery, and the morale of the people in that service is very low indeed? He said this in a letter to me last week. Is the Minister aware that some authorities have virtually suspended adult education? Humberside, Hampshire, West Glamorgan, Cumbria and Leicestershire are cutting their grants by half, and I have just mentioned what Nottingham is doing. What is the Government's attitude to this? Do they think that these authorities are carrying out their obligations under Section 41 of the 1944 Act?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have accepted that as there have to be cuts in Government expenditure, the education service has to bear its share and the adult education service within that has to bear its share. However, the preliminary returns that we have of the numbers of enrolments of local education authority adult education centres show that there has been an overall reduction of 8 per cent. in the November 1979 figures compared with 1978. Nevertheless there is a total increase on the figures for 1976 and 1977, so there is nothing to suggest that the entire service is crumbling. On the second point about the statutory duty, Section 41 of the Education Act 1944 gives every local education authority the duty of securing, in accordance with the schemes of further education or at county colleges, the provision for its area and adequate facilities for further education, which is defined as
"full and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age and leisure-time occupations".
It does not seem to me that in the present position any local authority can be said to be breaking their statutory obligations.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, would not the Minister agree, though, that there is a need for an overall look at all post-school education? We are going to be in a very different society in the next few years and a completely new look with a broader outlook than that of the old non-vocational adult education is

1157
needed. At the moment we are full of bits and pieces—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Baroness DAVID: Would not the Minister, my Lords, think that some quite new and imaginative look should be taken at this area, or is the Department of Education going to leave it to other agencies such as the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment?
Baroness YOUNG: The Government, my Lords, recognise the great importance of adult education, and indeed my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State has, in writing, to the chairman of the Advisory Council, asked him to consider the Council's future work and particularly how it could best proceed and what its functions should be. We believe that this is the right way of proceeding because we like to build on what we have already. As I say, we have undertaken to do this.
The House may like to know that as part of our commitment to the importance of adult education we are increasing the Government funds for the development of a new unit with a wider remit than the Adult Literacy Unit, and are giving this unit half a million pounds rather than the £360,000 it has at present.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that many local authorities are forcing the adult education sector to bear a disproportionate share of these cuts? Is the Minister further aware that many local authorities, in preparing their educational budgets, have increased the evening class fees very substantially indeed? One particular local authority has increased its fees by 800 per cent. and while, on the surface, the classes will remain, in practice and in fact, many people will not be able to afford these fees and that sector of the educational activities of the local authorities will fall by the wayside.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are aware that in almost every case local education authorities have increased fees for adult education classes. This is all part of the economic restraints which we have had to apply to the education service
1158
as to the other aspects of Government policy. In fact our information is that rates for non-vocational adult educational courses have ranged from 6p per hour to £1 per hour, with an average of about 30p. I recognise that there are great variations within this, but the figures do show that the numbers attending classes are holding up and past experience tends to show that, whereas there is a slight fall-off as the cost of courses goes up, this is very soon made up as people come to a recognition of the new fee as indicating the true worth of the course.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who have had long experience of adult education—17 years in my own case—have seen nothing more wonderful than the opening of the minds of adult men and women who had no opportunity whatsoever when they were young? On one great occasion I remember the present Lord Chancellor himself at the height of his powers doing a brilliant course at Oxford University. If it was only to get a Lord Chancellor like that one down once it was worth the money the Government spent!
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think I should probably ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to this question. The fact is that the current enrolments in adult education are estimated for this year at 1,883,000 and there are some half a million enrolments for comparable courses at maintained, assisted and grant-aided educational establishments. This hardly shows that this part of the educational system is collapsing, and I hope I have said enough to indicate our great regard for the adult education service and the importance which we attach to it.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, apart from short-term measures, as things are developing and as the nature of industry is emerging, adult education will become the most important sector of the education service in 10 to 15 years' time? Retirement will take place at an earlier age: that is inevitable. Is it not a fact that if there is one sector that has never been taken very seriously in this country it is adult education?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I would not accept that adult education has not been taken seriously in this country and I should have thought, from the number of supplementary questions I have had, that all parts of the House would agree with my statement in regard to that.
As to the question whether or not one should have courses for people who are retiring and whether one should have principally retraining courses for adults to equip them for different types of jobs, and all sorts of other courses which are desirable, these are all matters we are hoping the Advisory Council will be looking at in its extended remit as regards the purpose of adult education. I think we really must await its advice on what we should be doing.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of certain experiments in some parts of the country, in which unemployed men with skills organise classes for other unemployed men which will release them from boredom and enable them to use those skills in domestic activities and so on? If she is not aware of these, will she acquaint herself with them or allow me to call her attention to them? Also, will she support that kind of activity taken on their own initiative on the part of the unemployed?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we should certainly support any activity such as that. These are really matters that are dealt with at local authority level, but I am quite certain that we would all support any kind of voluntary activity, or activity making use of the talents of people who are not currently in employment.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, if other cuts are to be inflicted, may we have an absolute assurance from the noble Baroness that no mortal injury will be done to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that it would be impossible to injure the Lord Chancellor.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, since the noble Baroness expressed overwhelming interest
1160
on the part of the Government in adult education, is it perhaps significant that there have been no supplementaries from her side of the House?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I take it as a great compliment that my colleagues behind me are satisfied.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS: EARTH TREMORS
2.51 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the standard of construction of nuclear installations, and in particular those in West Cumberland, are capable of standing up to earth tremors on the scale of those recently experienced in the Solway area, without health risk to the local population.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the recent earthquake created no damage to any nuclear installation in this country. Well-built structures, such as those of nuclear installations, are able to withstand safety intensities at the levels of any earthquake likely to be experienced in the United Kingdom.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, which will help allay misgivings in the county and will be very gratefully received.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the nuclear power stations at Torness and Heysham, which are now under construction, have anti-earthquake devices incorporated in them? Does that not show that the authorities have had a change of mind and are incorporating safety precautions which were not previously thought necessary, and can he tell us why this is so?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, while the risks of significant damage to nuclear plants from earthquakes in the United Kingdom are, as I indicated

1161
earlier, acceptably small, in the light of increased knowledge of seismic activity worldwide and with advances in technology, it is practicable to include design features which provide protection against ground motions of much higher intensity than those experienced in the United Kingdom or regions elsewhere. New nuclear installations in this country are therefore being built to meet safety criteria which set the appropriate level of protection against such ground motions.

AFGHANISTAN: MOTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2.53 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the Motion passed by the European Parliament on Wednesday, 16th January, in relation to Afghanistan.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted and warmly approve of the terms of the resolution which the European Parliament passed on Wednesday, 16th January. The United Kingdom was associated with the statement made by the President of the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament that day.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is there nothing more that can be done by us, and by the European Parliament, to impress upon the Soviet Union the error of their ways? Also, in view of the fact that on 16th January the United Nations passed a unanimous resolution condemning the Russians again for their Afghanistan behaviour, is there anything more that we can do?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords; indeed there is. Referring to what has been decided in the Community, the Council has decided to cancel the 1979 Community food aid programme to Afghanistan, and has also decided to contribute 17·7 million dollars to the
1162
UNHCR appeal for 55 million dollars for aid for Afghan refugees.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he agrees that it is all very well to pass resolutions and indulge in condemnation of the Soviet Union's activities, but it must be supplemented by adequate means of defence for the purpose of deterrent against possible invasion of Europe itself? Is he not aware that there are some of the countries of the Nine who, for reasons best known to themselves—and I apologise for asking this question, but I am not fully acquainted with all the details, nor do I know of anybody who is—do not trouble themselves very much about adequate defence; in particular, the French in association with NATO? Is is not about time that we stopped a lot of the humbug about economic unity and understood that economic unity, if it does exist, is not of much value unless it is backed by adequate unity in defence?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. He said, first, that fine words were no substitute for adequate defence—if I am paraphrasing him accurately—and I would entirely agree with that, too. The European Community is not primarily concerned with defence matters, but NATO most certainly is, and the noble Lord will have heard with as much satisfaction as I did of the decisions taken by NATO, about, for example, the modernisation of the nuclear forces, which were announced just before Christmas.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the Government regard it as rather a pity that this resolution of the European Parliament was not apparently supported by the Socialist Group?
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a pity, in view of the declaration by the French and German Governments with regard to Afghanistan, that we were not invited to join them in the same declaration?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite catch what my noble friend said.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, there was a declaration by the French and German Governments about the USSR removing themselves from Afghanistan. It seems a pity, as we are an important member of the European Community, that we should not have been included in that declaration.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the declaration by the Italian Foreign Minister, on behalf of all the Foreign Ministers of the European Community—
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: It was the French and German Governments.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords, I heard my noble friend—was very satisfactory, and I would draw my noble friend's attention to it.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, can the Minister help us in this matter: Can he tell us more about the response of the Community—that is, the Commission—to the Motion passed by the European Parliament, particularly in the matter of exports at cut prices to the Soviet Union? Is it not a fact that, while the Community will not make up the shortfall in the delivery of grain resulting from the decision of the United States Government in that area, nevertheless the export of important cereals such as barley is to go ahead apace, in very significant quantities and at greatly reduced prices?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, think that the noble Lord is taking an unduly pessimistic view of what is proposed. We should certainly like to see an end to EEC subsidies on exports of butter, sugar, meat and other items to the Soviet Union, and we are pursuing this in Brussels. But the Commission have said that in present circumstances there will be no further exports of, for example, butter, to the Soviet Union at the previous low price level.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is it not a fact that, until the last week or two, the Government have been rightly calling attention to the very serious economic situation in this country? Does the noble Lord really think that by spending more money on arms, which is largely the
1164
cause of our economic difficulties, he is not going to make much worse the real economic difficulty which is threatening us with just as grave consequences as the foreign situation?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, no, I am afraid that I do not agree with that at all. The fact is that if we do not prepare to defend ourselves properly there will be nothing left that is worth defending.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the European Parliament's resolution went considerably further than any statement which was made on behalf of the Nine Foreign Ministers? Can he give an indication of what efforts have been made within the political co-operation machinery of the Nine to make further progress along the lines of the European Parliament's resolution? Is there any proposal to discuss this resolution—high technology, the Olympic Games, export restitutions—among the Nine Foreign Ministers who are meeting today?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we certainly agree that the resolution passed by the European Parliament, which is the subject of the question referred to by my noble friend, was very satisfactory, and I can confirm that all the matters referred to by my noble friend are the subject of continuing discussions at the highest level.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the days when we used to have an Empire in these parts our peace was continually being disturbed by mad mullahs who were being patronised by a disorderly Afghan Government and that the Russians, who now have an Empire in these parts, have been suffering from similar troubles? We intervened on two occasions with punitive Afghan wars and the Russians now seem to have done the same thing rather more efficiently. Would the noble Lord tell us what British interest is thereby affected?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has not heard of the Persian Gulf.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is an inconsistency in Community policy here? As the noble Lord has told us this afternoon, the Community has cancelled all food aid to Afghanistan because of Soviet intervention there, but has continued to grant food aid to Ethiopia where Soviet intervention has taken place on an equally obnoxious scale. Only this morning I received a letter from M. Cheysson, the European Community official in charge of these matters, saying that it is the intention of the Community to continue to send food aid to Ethiopia, notwithstanding the fact that it falls into the hands of the Ethiopian armed forces and not into the hands of the civilian population for whom it is intended, and thereby supports the Ethiopian war effort against the heroic freedom fighters of Eritrea.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure that I would use the same language as the noble Lord, but certainly our aim is to see that aid goes to those people who are in the greatest need.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that concerted action by the Nine in boycotting the Olympic Games must be worth any number of resolutions and any number of protest notes?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is not the boycott of the Olympic Games that we are seeking to achieve. We are seeking to move them from Moscow.

DINNERS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available tonight at the usual time. There will be no adjournment for dinner. I therefore hope that noble Lords who expect to take an active part in the Bill will bear this in mind and arrange to time their absence from the Chamber accordingly.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield):
1166
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Jurisdiction of district courts]:
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 38A:
Page 7, line 4, after ("enactment") insert ("(including this Act or an enactment passed after this Act)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a pure drafting amendment which brings the reference to "any enactment" in Clause 7(1) into line with the reference in Clause 8(1) so as clearly to cover future as well as past enactments. I beg to move.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: May I say that the vagaries of the post from Scotland have prevented me from dealing with the same point but in a different way. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says that the purpose of this amendment is to bring the matter into line with page 7, line 30, where that phrase can be read. Is it not, however, very strange that we should be seeking to bind not only the present Parliament but any future Parliament? I may be a very simple-minded Scot but I did not think that it was possible or even desirable to attempt to do this. It may be possible if one is dealing with any enactment which is already on the statute book and which the draftsmen may have overlooked, but to talk about any future enactment is going far too far. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I think that he has been ill-advised on this amendment.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It is not the purpose of the amendment to attempt to bind Parliament in the future. What is attempted to be done is to make clear the scope of this clause and to make

1167
clear how this clause, if enacted, will relate to any future enactment which does not expressly mention it. I must submit to your Lordships that this is an appropriate clarification of the clause as drafted.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, it is both unnecessary and unwise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Citation of defence witness for precognition]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 38B:
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("24") and insert ("48").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we may take the two amendments standing in my name together since they refer to the same point. It will be recollected that when we were dealing with an earlier clause I said that we were being fairly tough on witnesses. This is another example of the Government going too far. It gives power to the accused—and I think we all approve of it—to precognise a witness and it also gives power to the sheriff to summon that witness to be examined by the accused or his solicitor at the time and place stated in the summons.
At present, the police precognise witnesses. It has been suggested that the police can tell a witness that they do not require him to make a statement to the legal representative of the accused. That is true; they do not need to do so, but they can. However, this is placing an obligation upon somebody whom the accused or his solicitor think has information about a particular charge to come to a particular place at a particular time. I do not think that I, or indeed anybody on this side, would object to that, but to say that a witness must come to a particular place at a particular time within 24 hours unless he shows reasonable excuse is going a bit too far. If we do so, witnesses will not turn up.
One must remember that it is up to the sheriff or the judge to declare exactly where the witness has to be and at what time. It took me many hours to get round Scotland this weekend. It might well be that a witness would have to get leave from his place of work. Would it be construed as reasonable that he should have to do so within 24 hours? He may be unable to get in touch with his employer and the Lord Advocate may say that that is a reasonable excuse. But the more you go into the reasonable excuse the more of a mockery it becomes in terms of getting the witness there in time. Therefore, my first amendment would insert 48 hours instead of 24, although even 48 hours is pressing it.
My second point is this. The witness having got there—perhaps at considerable expense to himself—one finds that nothing is stated here about expenses, or paying the costs of travel, or loss of work for the witness. Not only is he subject to a penalty if he does not get there, but he is also subject to a penalty in respect of what he says if in someone's opinion he does not tell what he knows. At the moment a witness can say, "I do not know. I am not going to speak to you", and that is quite legal, but the clause makes the position perfectly clear and it is subject to a penalty. Clause 9 concerns any person who has been duly cited to attend and does attend but refuses to give information within his knowledge, or to produce evidence in his possession, or who prevaricates in his evidence—I do not know who will judge that but I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, on the previous day of this Committee stage telling us just how myopic and subject to amnesia most witnesses seem to be. Faced with this provision, I am perfectly sure that we shall get even more of that.
I think we are being far too tough on witnesses if we create new penalties, albeit that they are £50 or imprisonment for 21 days in both cases—failing to attend or attending and not fulfilling the requirements of the subsection about giving information or in regard to prevarication. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to look at this subsection again to see whether it is really being fair to witnesses. If they attend then, once there, they should be entitled to say, "I have no statement to make" and

1169
leave it to the persuasive powers of the solicitor or the accused to get some information from them. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I should like to deal with the amendment which is before your Lordships at the moment, because the two are slightly different, although I agree that they relate to the same matter. At the present time the prosecution has a right to bring a witness along on 24 hours' notice and in this clause we have reproduced for the defence the present rights of the prosecution. We thought that was fair. I entirely appreciate that 24 hours is a little short and it seems to me to be short in the present rules for the prosecution, but it is important that the balance should be preserved. At the moment there is not power at all for the defence, so that the provisions we have put in for the defence are modelled on those available to the prosecution and in accordance with the Thomson Committee's proposals. I therefore propose to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord so far as it substitutes 48 hours for 24, giving the witness a longer time, and in due course, in order to preserve the balance, we will bring forward an amendment to alter the present rules for the prosecution in that respect.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: In view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, I will withdraw the amendment, unless he wants it to be put into the Bill now?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Yes; I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.14 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 38C:
Page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As I have just explained, this is a reproduction of what is available for the prosecution, and if we were to leave out this subsection the situation would be that the person who turned up would not be in the same position relative to the defence as he is in relation to the prosecution, and I submit that the correct course is to have these penalties in the Bill. The noble Lord
1170
asked: Who would decide the question? This is a criminal offence and it could only be disposed of as any other criminal offence is disposed of, by a finding of guilty against the accused, and the onus of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt; so that the judge would be required to decide beyond reasonable doubt as to one or other of these situations.
Lord FOOT: May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether the situation in English law is not this, that if a witness for the defence is summoned to the court on subpoena, which is the procedure that we adopt, he can be required to give evidence and to answer the questions which are addressed to him? In that respect he is in an entirely different position from the accused person, who need not answer questions. But in English law, as I remember it, the present situation is that if a witness refuses to answer the questions which are put to him he may be in contempt of court and penalties are provided for that.
The only matter on which I have a certain amount of doubt is that, so far as I know it, under the English procedure if a witness refuses to answer a question about something which is within his knowledge he may be guilty of contempt of court, but I am wondering whether the word "prevaricates" in his evidence, is a reproduction of the present Scottish law so far as prosecution witnesses are concerned. If it is, I should have thought that the word "prevaricates" is open to considerable objection. I have not had the poportunity to look in the dictionary to see what "prevaricate" means, but I should have thought it was extremely difficult to say of a witness, if he has answered a question, that he is prevaricating, in the sense that he is trying to deceive or mislead the court. I do not know whether anyone has ever been prosecuted in Scotland for prevaricating before the criminal court. I should have thought that was an extraordinary procedure, but if the noble and learned Lord can tell me that this has been the law in Scotland, so far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, for some years past, then of course I would bow to that information.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Yes, as I think I have said, we are reproducing for the defence exactly the same

1171
provisions as apply to the prosecution, and the relevant sections are Sections 315(3) and 344(4) of the 1975 Act. The situation that we are dealing with here is not the situation of the witness actually giving evidence in court. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has explained, it is the bringing of a witness for precognition in order that his evidence may be ascertained before the stage of court proceedings is actually reached.
Lord GALPERN: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a question. The person who is cited for precognition can be examined by the accused himself and show appearance with no one else present, I presume; but the accused examines the witness who has been cited for precognition, and according to subsection (2) if he fails to give evidence he is liable, ultimately, to 21 days in prison. Will this individual be under oath when he is being examined by the accused? If not, how are we to establish that someone has committed an offence?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as this clause is concerned, as noble Lords will see, the proposal is that the witness should be cited to appear before the sheriff. There is never a situation which involves just the accused and the witness; it will be an appearance before the sheriff. And once the witness appears before the sheriff, then of course the sheriff will be in control of the situation and he will be a person available to testify to what has occurred, as well as the accused himself. I think that deals with the evidential difficulty referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Galpern.
The EARL of PERTH: I wonder whether I may help a little on the word "prevaricate". Of course I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that the prosecution and defence should be parallel in their rights. May I ask whether, in the last several years, the word "prevarication" has been tested in the courts or has caused difficulty? If it has arisen as a problem already, would it not be wiser to withdraw it in both cases rather than leaving in something which, to my way of thinking, is a difficult word?
Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN: I know that the question has arisen in the courts. I speak in the presence of noble and learned Lords who have had experience of dealing with these situations and who will be able to give their views on this matter. I do not think it gave rise to much difficulty. The sort of situation that is intended to be covered by this is the situation in which a person in the course of his evidence gives mutually contradictory answers and that kind of thing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, I am sure will be able to help us on this point.
Lord WHEATLEY: May I first ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he is giving an affirmative answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, as to whether the witness will be on oath when merely there for the purpose of giving a precognition?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I have not said that he will be on oath.
Lord WHEATLEY: I am glad to hear that because, first, I do not know why there should be a reference to "evidence" in paragraph (ii), "prevaricates in his evidence". If he is not on oath he is not giving evidence: he is merely giving a precognition. That is point No. 1. If I may try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Foot, so far as our procedure in Scotland is concerned, the word "prevarication" arises in relation to contempt of court.
There is a difference betwen prevarication and perjury. It is contempt of court if a person is guilty of prevarication, which means where a person in the course of his own evidence has admitted by his contradictory evidence that at one point he must have told a lie, because he has made contradictory statements and one of the two must be a lie. That is deemed to be prevarication for this purpose. But a person may be lying to his heart's content, and as long as he does not contradict himself and is consistent in his evidence, then he cannot be charged with contempt of court on the ground of prevarication; he must await a further charge of perjury. If it is contempt of court by prevarication, the court on its own can deal with the matter there and then. If it is perjury, proceedings have to be raised against that witness.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: What we are doing, of course, is making a new offence. It is certainly complicated by the fact that the person is summoned by the sheriff, he is there before the sheriff, but it is not the sheriff who questions or cross-examines, it is the solicitor for the accused or the accused himself. I am not a lawyer. I am not familiar with the procedure of the courts and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and to my noble friend Lord Galpern for the point that he made. You cannot deal with a person for contempt of court if he is not in court. So I presume this is why we resort to this new offence.
I am not entirely happy with it, and I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will look at it again. But I am not going to press my luck too far; I have got half of what I wanted, and it may be that at Report stage I will get the other half. I should like an assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, that he will look at this again, in view of what Lord Wheatley has said, and in view of his answer that the person is not on oath. It is going to be very difficult on this question of prevarication.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Perhaps it would be helpful if I pointed out that prevarication is not a new offence. "Prevarication" is the word which is used in Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate say whether or not there is confusion in this subsection? The first provision, paragraph (i), is "refuses to give information within his knowledge…". As I understood it, the Lord Advocate said that that would be a matter of prosecution, and, if necessary, the sheriff who was presiding at the precognition would, I suppose, give evidence about what happened. Anyway, it would require to be proved by other evidence that he must have had this knowledge when he refused to give it. That seems to me to be a matter for separate trial afterwards.
Then we have "prevarication" which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wheatley says, is really contempt of court.
1174
Then the clause says that he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction forthwith to a fine of £50 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 21 days. That means to me that the sheriff presiding at the precognition says, "You are going round and round and making a fool of the thing; either you give proper evidence or you will be sentenced for contempt of court". That is the sort of thing that happens occasionally in the course of a trial. But that seems to me to be something quite different from proving at some separate court an offence of refusing to give information which must have been within his knowledge at the precognition proceedings. We have two separate things muddled together.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It may be that I have contributed to this situation to some extent, and if so I apologise. The whole provision applies to the citation of a prosecution witness for precognition. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, for what he said about that. The whole provision is subject to the words the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, referred to—"shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable…" to be summarily subjected forthwith to a fine and so on.
What I was seeking to point out was that in applying that provision the person who would be found guilty of an offence would be the person who this time is a witness and accused under this provision. Therefore the criminal standard would apply. It would only be held that paragraph (i) had been established and the person guilty of an offence on the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt. But I think in terms of the provision it could happen at the time if it was clear beyond reasonable doubt that the person in question had refused to give information in his possession. I hope that deals with the matter.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: I do not regard the matter as quite satisfactory. I do not know how the sheriff could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, except very rarely if there is a document. If it depended on the evidence of other witnesses it would require to be dealt with later.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I think if Lord Fraser knew some of our sheriffs he would withdraw that one!
Lord WHEATLEY: I am not too satisfied, either, with the situation here, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will look at this seriously again. He says it is an equiperation of the position of a prosecution witness. I have been trying very hard to find out which section of the Criminal Procedure Act 1975 deals with that. I do not think it does.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It is Sections 315(3) and 344(4).
Lord WHEATLEY: It is very strange, and I think this has to be borne in mind. It is one thing to constitute an offence for something done or said by a person giving evidence in court under oath or affirmation, and to do the same thing for a person who is merely being precognosced and not on oath. It is quite a different situation when you are making it an offence in these conditions. Therefore, I think the Lord Advocate should look very carefully at this matter to see whether, when a person is brought for precognition, either for the prosecution or defence, the matter is properly regulated and the difficulties to which reference has been made observed.
Lord FOOT: Did the noble and learned Lord say that so far as the prosecution is concerned this matter is covered by Section 315(3) and by Section 344 of the 1975 Act?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Section 344(4) is the one that particularly gives these provisions.
Lord FOOT: Am I not right in thinking that if one looks at Section 344—and I have had the opportunity to look at it only briefly—one sees that the procedure which applies is as follows:
"If a witness in a summary prosecution shall wilfully fail to attend after being duly cited, or unlawfully refuse to be sworn, or after the oath has been administered to him refuse to answer any question which the court may allow, or to produce documents…or shall prevaricate in his evidence, he shall be deemed guilty of contempt of court and be liable to be summarily punished forthwith for such contempt by a fine not exceeding £25"?
1176
If I have understood correctly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has been saying, that is a different type of procedure—a summary trial—from the procedure which is dealt with under the terms of the clause that we are discussing. Therefore, I should have thought that there is no strict parallel in the 1975 Act, so far as prosecution witnesses are concerned, for the provision which is being made under this clause in this Bill, because they relate to different types of proceedings. If that is right—and I may well have got it wrong—and there is not a strict parallel at present between the situation of the witness called for the defence and the witness called for the prosecution, would the noble and learned Lord be prepared to take the matter away and look at it again before the next stage of the Bill?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Yes, certainly I am prepared to do that. That point perhaps arises on Section 344 (4), which refers to:
"Any witness who, after being duly cited in accordance with section 315 of this Act"—
fails to turn up—
"shall be liable to the like punishment as is provided in the foregoing provisions of this section".
That is the provision which takes us back. However, I am happy to attempt to make certain that we have brought the two provisions into line.
Lord WHEATLEY: I am sorry to intervene again, but I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for drawing my attention to that section. However, if we look at Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 we find that the offence of prevaricating in one's evidence relates to the situation where one is in court and under oath, and not where one has been summoned for precognition. Therefore, for the first time we are creating an offence here—so far as someone summoned by the defence is concerned—of prevaricating while giving precognition, not evidence, and not on oath.
Lord FOOT: I should like to add one point to that. I think I am right in saying—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that there is the following difference between the proceedings for

1177
precognition and the proceedings before a court. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us just now, in the precognition proceedings the witness is not on oath, whereas in the summary proceedings, as explained in Section 344, he is. I should have thought that it may well be that we ought not to attach the same sort of penalty to someone who, giving evidence not on oath, is said to prevaricate. I should have thought there was a very important distinction between the two situations.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: It seems that my defence of witnesses has raised quite a bit of discussion, which only shows how wise I was to blunder in where even some of the lawyers fear to tread. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for saying that he will look at the matter, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Abolition of mandatory first diet in solemn procedure]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.35 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I rise to move the deletion of Clause 12. I do so not because I want to see it deleted, but in order to give an opportunity for the Government to justify what they are doing. Although quite a number of people approve of what is being done, there are others who think that what the Government are seeking to achieve could have been done by a much simpler formula. I understand that what was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in his report is not exactly what we have here. In fact, his solution was to give more time for the defence to prepare for the first diet, and that would make it much more meaningful and far, far better from everyone's point of view.
The present provisions appear to complicate unnecessarily the whole law of
1178
solemn procedure which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—as some people suggest—would have made much simpler. Too often this first diet, the mandatory first diet, is a ritual and meaningless formality. Some lawyers in Scotland will regret its passing, because it is something Scottish that has gone on for years, and take the view that things will never be the same without it. I can assure your Lordships that my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey does not feel that way, and he said so to me when we were sitting on this Bench during the Second Reading debate. However, I think that it would be as well for the Government to make absolutely clear why they are doing this and why they are insisting on this particular clause, despite the fact that it is not the solution to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested. I have some amendments to the schedule which is related to this matter, but they can wait until such time as we reach that schedule.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As the noble Lord has said, the Thomson Committee did not propose the abolition of the first diet altogether. Perhaps I should explain very briefly the place of the first diet in our system. The main part of the solemn procedure in Scotland involves the second or trial diet and some time before that trial diet there is a mandatory first or pleading diet. Over the years that pleading diet has become more and more of a formality. However, there are some questions that can be resolved at that stage and, of course, if they are resolved it is very convenient from the point of view of making it unnecessary to bring the jury along, the witnesses along, or to have the attendance of the parties themselves—the prosecutor and the accused—at the trial diet.
Lord Thomson and his committee made proposals for making sure that matters which could satisfactorily be disposed of at that stage would be so disposed of. Paying attention to that, we thought that if we were to make the necessary provisions to enable the first diet to be used only when it can be properly used—when there is really a point that can be dealt with at the first diet—then there would be no harm in getting rid of it in all other cases. That is what we have proposed. We believe that it will prove a considerable simplification of the system and will

1179
enable the ritual to be dispensed with, leaving the substance to take effect when the opportunity arises.
On Question, Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Prevention of delay in trials]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 38D:
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("cause shown") and insert ("sufficient cause which is not attributable to any fault on the part of the prosecutor").
The noble Lord said: Clause 14 is the hoped-for clause dealing with the prevention of delays in trials. I think that it has been accepted in principle by most people and we, on this side, generally support it. However, I felt that there was some reason for querying the Government as to why there is a distinction. With this amendment, to line 38 on page 11, I have tried to remove this distinction so that the Bill reads the same as at page 12, line 27, and at page 13, line 13. I know that the Law Society in Scotland objects to this distinction where it is "cause shown" instead of having regard to fault—they cannot have regard to fault on the part of the prosecution. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could enlighten me as to why we have this distinction and as to why he cannot accept this amendment and get rid of the distinction.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I have tabled an amendment which has the same purpose as that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I confess that I do not quite understand this because on the following page paragraphs 3 and 4 also deal with the extension of limitations, and in subsection 2(2) various limitations are imposed. In effect, how do we know that the prosecutor will not deliberately be at fault, that he will take some action which will make it impossible for the case to come on within the 12 months which is mentioned? I think that that is quite wrong. According to this, if he deliberately postpones or takes action to postpone a case, he could still get away with it. That is quite wrong. There may, of course, be some very good reason for that; I should be perfectly happy if there were. But I believe that this should
1180
be on the same footing as the other three occasions which are mentioned in the same clause, which can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the Bill. For that reason, I believe that an amendment of this sort is necessary. I willingly defer to the terms of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, which are possibly better than mine—I know not—but in principle that is the point I wish to make.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It is important to appreciate the distinctions which exists between the various parts of what is proposed here. For a considerable time in Scotland there has been a rule which limits the amount of time for which a person may be held in custody. Subsection (2) of the new Section 101 which we propose deals with the situation where a person is detained in prison awaiting trial. In that situation the proviso is that the power to extend shall not be available if the need for the extension arises from some fault on the part of the prosecution. The same is true in the clause which deals with summary offences where again the situation is one in which the person is detained, as your Lordships will see from line 42 on page 12. Both of these are in respect of persons detained. It is right that a very strict view should be taken of any application for extension arising in a situation where a person is in detention.
But Section 101(1) which is the subject of the proposed amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk, is a new provision designed to limit prosecution in solemn cases where the accused is not in custody. It is an entirely new protection for accused persons. In my submission, the same strictness is not appropriate in this new provision because, for one thing, the prosecutor must have regard to giving priority to people in custody. This is a problem which we face in practice at the moment. This new clause is intended to give as much protection as it is reasonable to give to a person who is not being detained pending trial. Therefore, that is the reason for the distinction.
The phrase which is used in the two provisos, to which reference has been made, "applicable to detention in custody", has been fairly strictly construed against the prosecution. I think that it would unduly hamper the proper prosecution of

1181
crime if one forced the prosecutor into too narrow a field where the accused person or persons in question are not in custody. In particular I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the circumstances in which this is likely to apply. It is particularly applicable in cases where the investigation is complex. If the prosecutor puts a tremendous amount of resource into these complicated cases, he might be able to bring them to trial, or be ready to go to trial, within the time specified, but very likely only at the expense of cases where persons are in custody.
Accordingly, while we seek to impose for the first time a limit in cases of this sort, we do so in a way which is not quite as strict as was available in cases of detention. The words which we have used are precisely the words which the Thomson Committee suggested at the end of paragraph 15.09 on page 80 of the Second Report. I would ask noble Lords to take the view that this is a reasonable step towards protecting people against undue delay in trials where they are not in custody.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38E not moved.]
3.47 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 9, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 10 and insert ("he shall be for ever free from all question or process for the crime with which he was charged.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment relates to the same clause to which we have just referred, that is to say Clause 101(2), which appears on page 12. This relates to the case where a man is in custody and has been in custody. As your Lordships—at least those familiar with Scots procedure—will know, when a man has been in custody for 110 days, at present his trial cannot proceed beyond that: if the trial has not been completed, he must be released. That has been found to be inconvenient. This Bill proposes to alter the provision so that, provided the trial is commenced within the 110 days, he can be retained in custody
1182
until his trial is completed. I thoroughly approve of that and think that it is perfectly right.
I simply seek to alter the words of the final sanction if the 110 days is exceeded. Perhaps I may ring a bell in the minds of those noble Lords who are more familiar with English procedure than Scots procedure when I say that this is generally considered to be the equivalent in Scotland of what is called habeas corpus in England. Habeas corpus procedure has no application in Scotland, but the sanction against a man being thrown into prison and left to rot there without being brought to trial is this 110 days' procedure.
The words which I propose will not, so far as I intend and so far as I am aware, affect the result as compared with the words at present in the Bill. All the same, it is important to change the words to the form which I propose. There are two reasons for that: it is not just a purely verbal alteration for its own sake. The first is that the words in my amendment would replace the last two lines of paragraph (b), at lines 9 and 10 on page 12. The paragraph says that if the trial has not been commenced within the 110 days:
"he shall be liberated forthwith and thereafter"—
and this is where my amendment would come—
"no proceedings shall be competent against him in respect of that offence".
I want to delete the words—
"no proceedings…"
and so on, and put back the words of my amendment,
"he shall be for ever free from all question or process for the crime with which he was charged".
Those words I am proposing are the words of the present law. They are contained in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. They were contained in the immediate predecessor of that Act, which was the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887, Section 43. That is the Act with which most Scots lawyers at any rate of about my generation were brought up. The words go much further back than that. They go back to the Act of 1701, which was entitled An Act to Prevent Wrongous Apprehension and Against Undue Delay in Trials.
These words have been the law of Scotland from 1701 to the present day, which is near enough 280 years. So far as

1183
I am aware they have given no difficulty in the way of construction. I do not know of any difficulty in applying them as they were particularly applied. They are a source of trouble and annoyance occasionally to the Crown because of the delay in getting on with the trial, but that would not be affected by the words of the Bill. The words have given satisfaction. They have achieved their object, and they should be left as they are unless the Lord Advocate is able to put forward some good reason for changing them. There may be some reason, but at the moment I am not aware of it.
The second point is that this remedy which is embodied in these words is one of the important constitutional rights of the subject in Scotland. As your Lordships may remember, this was a matter which was raised in Scotland in the Claim of Right of 1689 and in the corresponding Bill of Rights in England in 1689, when the grievances of the subjects were set out at some length. One of the constitutional grievances was that people were being kept in prison and there had been undue delay in their trials. The complaint was almost identical both in Scotland and in England.
When the Crown was accepted by William and Mary they promised to put right that grievance and arrange that no further delays of these sorts would occur. The way that that promise was implemented was in the Act of 1701, which I have mentioned, to prevent undue delay in trials. This being an ancient constitutional right of the subject, it should be enshrined in words of some dignity and with some imposing ring about them. The present words seem to me to be perfectly adequate but colourless and rather uninspiring. I prefer the words which, at the moment, contain the law and have done so for 280 years, that when the accused has not been brought to trial and his trial commenced within 110 days,
"he shall be for ever free from all question or process for the crime with which he was charged".
They seem to me to be appropriate words with which to enshrine this important right. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I am happy to say that there is no difference in effect between Lord Fraser's proposal
1184
and what we wish to achieve. The only question is the choice of words. The best I can say is that we shall consider this matter, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord's eloquence in the matter will be as effective with everyone else as it is with me. I should perhaps say that if this amendment were accepted it would be reasonable to make the same provision in relation to the other two protections which this clause has, and we would endeavour to do that also if we are able to accept this amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I think that that is very reasonable indeed. The words, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, has said, have a ring to them. I can remember a long time ago sitting in consideration of a Bill to consolidate and bring up to date, I think the Naval Discipline Act, and that the words of Pepys in that Act had such a ring and history about them that we decided to leave them. It may well be that the Lord Advocate could do the same here and leave these time honoured words.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment, if that is his intention, perhaps I may raise a question about what the Lord Advocate said just now. He said that there was no difference in meaning between the words contained in the Bill and the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. To my simple mind there is a substantial difference in their effect. The words proposed by the noble and learned Lord are:
"he shall be for ever free from all question or process for the crime with which he was charged".
Supposing a person has been charged with a complicated fraud. Supposing he has been charged with a fraud with, perhaps, 20 counts in the indictment—if there are counts in Scotland, and I do not know whether there are—or at any rate 20 items of different charge, and then there is a failure to bring him for trial within the specified period. Is it really right then that the police and legal authorities should be absolutely prohibited from questioning him about those matters in any particular?
It may be that other people are involved. It may be that the police want to pursue their inquiries into this complicated fraud,

1185
to see the extent of it and who else might have been involved. I should have thought—and of course I bow to whatever may be said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, in the matter—that prohibiting any question addressed to that person for ever is going very much further than what is provided in the Bill; namely, that thereafter
"no proceedings shall be competent against him in respect of that offence".
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I do not think that he is right in his contruction here, because what he is to be free from is "all question or process for the crime". I do not think that that means questioning about the crime. No doubt the Lord Advocate will consider this matter. With the leave of the Committee, shall withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.57 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12, leave out from beginning of line 40 to end of line 3 on page 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. May I say at the outset that I personally am all in favour of expediting trials in the criminal courts. Nothing that I say should be construed as running contrary to that. The effect of my proposed amendment is in relation to what would be the new Section 331A, and that is the counterpart in summary proceedings of the matter we discussed in relation to solemn procedure earlier, in a previous amendment.
I am all in favour of doing all that is reasonably practicable to expedite criminal trials because the delays that occur at the present time are really a blot on our criminal procedure. People have to wait in summary courts not only for a few months but sometimes for nine months and more before they can get a trial in some of our busier courts. That is what is behind this amendment. It proposes that a person must be brought to trial within 40 days after the bringing of the complaint into court.
That goes a step further back than Thomson. When Thomson proposed the
1186
40 days it was only 40 days from the first diet and not from the bringing of the complaint into court. But we know, unfortunately, from our experience, that our sheriff courts in Scotland—and if I may mention two in particular, Glasgow and Edinburgh—are so heavily overloaded that it would be a practical impossibility to observe the provisions of this proposed new section. It could result in a flood of applications under subsection (2)—which, at the present stage, are to a single judge of the High Court—in order to get an extension of time.
I do not think I need remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—because he knows probably better than I now that he is occupying the position which I occupied 30 years ago—that the problem in these busy sheriff courts is very serious indeed. Therefore, while approving of the object underlying the clause, I think that to bring it into operation with the passing of this Bill would create a situation which would be impossible to cope with in these busy sheriff courts and would just result in a flood of applications for extension to a judge in the High Court.
I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues in Government to consider very seriously whether or not, in passing this clause, it should be under the reservation of not bringing it into operation until such time as the Government are satisfied that it would be practicable to do so. In saying that, I think the touchstone must be the busy sheriff courts, because I would regard it as wholly undesirable to have one set of rules for the busy courts in Glasgow and Edinburgh and another set of rules for the country courts.
It might therefore be appropriate if the Government were to incorporate a provision to the effect that the clause would not be brought into operation until an order was issued by the appropriate Minister, in the hope that the people responsible for the staffing of the courts and the provision of new courts may be able to help us in Scotland to get rid of this terrible backlog, which imposes great hardship on many people who have to await trial in our busy sheriff courts.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has something here. There is no doubt at all that experience of proceedings with summary justice in Scotland today shows that 40 days would be the exception rather than the rule, and while it is entirely commendable that the Government should seek to insert this provision. I think it is giving a false impression that there will be such a speed up, unless there is much more information of something new that is to happen than is evident to the rest of us. As the noble and learned Lord said, it will lead to a very considerable further blockage in the High Court in finding a judge probably to sit all the time dealing with many of these cases.
Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate have any information about what proportion of cases would meet this stipulation of 40 days at the present time? My information, and the experience I have had as a result of getting complaints as a Member of the other place, was that there were considerable delays, far longer than 40 days: all very much to be regretted, but I do not think we should give the false impression that we can do this right away if we do not have the facilities to do it.
4.4 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is right to say that there are many delays greater than 40 days in the summary criminal courts, especially in the busier sheriff courts to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, referred. As I understand it, this provision in the new proposed Clause 33(A) refers to people who are detained in custody pending trial, who I should have thought would be a small minority of the number involved; and I should have thought that in most courts a trial diet could be fixed without too great difficulty, even in the busier courts, within the 40-day period, or a period not very much greater than that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: This is the only occasion on which I shall open my mouth on this Bill, but as I have every intention at some stage in the next few months of suggesting in your Lordships' House that a similar rule be brought in for my own country of England. I thought it might be wise to
1188
get up and say so. The position at the moment is that people whose crime carries a sentence of x months are being held, in this country, for 2x months before they are tried and sentenced. I do not mind what the difficulties are; I regard this as totally intolerable, absolutely unjust and something which must be dealt with, and this seems to me the only way it can be dealt in. If the nation in its present condition cannot bring people to trial within a reasonable time, it should release them, as this says. I am sorry to come in as an Englishman on a matter which is purely Scottish, but I hope the Government will not give way on this; and I hope that as a result of their excellent northern example we can bring the same thing in to the disgraceful state of our prisons here, where people on remand are kept in intolerable conditions for far too long.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as I am concerned, interventions by English noble Lords are extremely welcome, particularly when they are so supportive of the Government, as was that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The intention of this clause, as noble Lords have appreciated, is to make it essential for a person detained in custody on a summary complaint to be dealt with within 40 days, and I do not think anyone has suggested that that is other than a good thing. So far as resource implications are concerned, we have tried to take account of that. Of course this clause, like the rest of the Bill, would be brought into effect by an order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 80(2).
So far as the present situation is concerned, I believe that regarding detention in custody in summary cases we are by and large able to meet this particular limit. I agree there are unfortuate delays in the summary courts and delays on indictment, too, which we would very much like to eliminate, and we are doing our best to be as efficient as possible in bringing these matters forward. But so far as summary detentions are concerned, we think we are achieving this limit by and large and that it should not impose impossible difficulties, and I think all are agreed that it is a most desirable target.
Lord WHEATLEY: The purpose of moving this amendment was to ensure

1189
that it could be done from a practical point of view, and my experience is such—although I stand corrected because the noble and learned Lord Advocate has sources of information which are denied to me—that some of the sheriff courts, and the two in particular to which I referred, are so overloaded with work that it was not likely that it would be possible to bring this into operation at the present time. That is why I suggested that the Government, who are in control of the statistics, would be able to determine when it would be an appropriate time to bring it in. If the Lord Advocate—contrary to the view I have, but I accept his information—is of the opinion that even in Glasgow or Edinburgh the sheriff courts could give effect to this when the Bill is passed, then I must accept that assurance; but the Government ought to be very careful to be satisfied that it can be done before it is done.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, made a very serious accusation against the organisation of law courts in England. May I ask the noble and learned Lord Advocate to say whether a similar situation exists in Scotland? I would put it this way: are too many people being detained on summary cases who need not be detained? Are we not making use of the recent Bail Bill? Is there any evidence that what Lord Donaldson described actually exists today in Scotland?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As noble Lords know, the Bail Act has not yet come into operation, although we expect it soon to do so. I think it fair to say that I am doing all possible from the point of view of the Lord Advocate to see that people are not unnecessarily detained in custody generally across the whole field of criminal proceedings. Of course, this discretion has to be exercised responsibly, but we are doing our best to make sure that no person is unnecessarily detained in custody. This sanction will help in the framework to achieve that result.
Lord WHEATLEY: As a judge who deals with all bail appeals in Scotland from the other courts, I am glad to hear the assurance given by the Lord Advocate, because it will certainly lessen my work which I have to carry out on every sitting
1190
day of the court. In the circumstances, and in view of the assurance that the Lord Advocate has given about the bringing into operation of this proposal, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("A single judge of the High Court") and insert ("The Sheriff").
The noble Lord said: As it stands, the Bill provides that where an application is to be made for an extension of the period mentioned in subsection (1)—with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has just been dealing—within which the summary trial may be completed, such application is to be taken before a single judge of the High Court. The amendment which I propose seeks to give this jurisdiction instead to the sheriff. I suggest that this would be more sensible for two reasons. First, it would probably be quicker, and, secondly, it would certainly be cheaper, because it would not be necessary to instruct another solicitor in Edinburgh, nor would it be necessary to instruct counsel in the application. I doubt that it would be suggested that this is not within the competence of the sheriff because of course there are many similar matters with which the sheriff deals without undue difficulty. So obviously sensible is this amendment as I view it, that, if it is opposed, I can only assume that there is some esoteric point of law which, in the obtuseness which has been a burden to me all my life, I have failed to observe. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: There is no question of any esoteric point of law here, but in our view a very important point of individual or civil liberty is involved. If this provision is to be enacted, in our view it will be an important safeguard of the liberty of the subject, on much the same lines as the provision of much longer memory—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, has referred—since 1701 in solemn cases. This will be a somewhat similar provision in relation to summary cases. Although the facts and other matters to be weighed would be within the competence of the sheriff—there is no esoteric point of law, as

1191
I have said—the subject matter itself is of great importance. We expect that applications for extension would be extremely few and therefore would not impose any particular additional burden on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, or whoever might be called upon to assist him in the discharge of this function. We would think it appropriate that this function should rest with a judge of the High Court, and I hope that your Lordships will feel disposed to agree.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, with great interest and I could see the force of what he says but for the provisions of Clause 14 of the Bill and, in particular, the proposed new Section 101 to the 1975 Act, which, unless I misread it, provides that applications for an extension of the 12-month period may be taken before the sheriff. This is in much more serious cases on indictment; but perhaps I have missed some particular point.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: That arises where a person is not in custody and we are perfectly content that the sheriff should decide in that case, but a decision whether a person is to be kept in custody on a summary matter for more than 40 days is, we consider, one which should rest with a judge of the High Court.
Lord KEITH of KINKEL: It appears from subsection (3) of the proposed new section, Section 331A, that appeal against the grant or refusal of an application under the proposed new section is to the High Court. Although the considerations to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has drawn attention are important, might they not be met sufficiently by this provision for appeal to the High Court, if the matter were to be dealt with in the first instance by the sheriff? After all, the sheriff is the person who is to try the offence in question. Is it not reasonable that he should at first instance be in charge of the question whether the period of 40 days should be extended? When one considers that some of the applications may be made in a busy sheriff court, and that the necessity of bringing the process to Edinburgh and so on would involve time as well as expense, do not the considerations to which the noble and learned
1192
Lord referred find adequate satisfaction in the appeal proceedings, and might it not be in the best interests of the administration of justice overall that the amendment be accepted?
Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN: Certainly we shall consider this matter in the light of what has been said, but based upon present advice our view is that the considerations are of such importance that in the first instance the case should properly go to the High Court.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said about giving the matter further consideration. Will he consider the possibility that the matter raises such questions of constitutional importance related to the freedom of the individual and so on that perhaps the sheriff principal would be capable of dealing with these matters? That would be just as inexpensive as going to the sheriff, and it would be just as speedy, too, because in the ordinary courts, and especially in the busier courts, he would probably be in the same building and so it would not be necessary to go to Edinburgh.
Lord WHEATLEY: That is quite wrong. I do not want to intervene in this matter because I might have to declare an interest, but so far as the sheriff principal is concerned, that arrangement might be all right in Glasgow or Strathkelvin, but the sheriff principal in Grampian or Tayside is not immediately available, and I could quote many other examples. I do not think that this suggestion is on.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I stand corrected on these points. One makes these general assertions and is then picked up on them, but the fact remains that what I suggest would be cheaper and quicker. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that I should declare an interest, I would say—I have declared this interest so often to your Lordships that I have myself become bored with declaring it—that from time to time I sit in the summary criminal courts in Scotland; and I did not think that that raised the question of an intense interest in this matter. While I accept the correction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that in the far-flung outposts of the Scottish

1193
empire the sheriff principal is not in the same building as his sheriffs, in the busier courts he is nearer to them. Whether or not he is in the same building, what I suggest will certainly be cheaper—it will save the legal aid fund some money—and will certainly be quicker. In those circumstances, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, and beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Intermediate diet in summary procedure]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.20 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: This clause introduces into the summary procedure what is to be called an intermediate diet. This particular diet can be called for specific limited purposes; that is, to find out the state of preparation of the prosecution and of the accused with respect to their cases, and whether the accused intends to adhere to the plea of not guilty. I think the purpose is admirable, because it is to try to get at the person who pleads not guilty and then, eventually, when the trial diet comes along, changes his plea, having put off for as long as possible the evil hour of conviction. But this clause has not been all that well received in Scotland. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has seen the statement on the Bill by the Law Society of Scotland, but in that they totally reject this clause. I do not necessarily say that I do, but I think it is as well that your Lordships' Committee should know exactly what the council's opinion of it is—total and complete rejection of the clause.
There are others who are equally concerned about it, and who feel that the clause would not improve the present position. In other words, anyone who pleads not guilty and intends to stick to that plea is not going to be affected by the intermediate diet; it is not going to speed up matters in that respect. Indeed, I do not think it is going to affect anyone who is pleading guilty at the start and is going to change his plea at the last minute. There may be other cases where
1194
you will get a change of plea, but, as I understand it, there is a perfectly well known procedure at the moment in respect of a change of plea and accelerating the trial which is pretty well used and considered sufficient.
There is the other point that this is bringing the judge into the plea adjustment, the plea negotiation; and there is a fear that if someone does not change his plea at the intermediate diet but does so when it comes to the trial diet, that may well result in, or lead to, heavier sentencing in respect of those who plead guilty at the last minute. The Government may well have very considerable love for this particular clause, but when so many of the Lord Advocate's own professional colleagues do not like it then a simple-minded layman like myself must be persuaded—and persuaded, not in legal language but in lay language—that this is worth doing. It is a very considerable departure.
Lord KINROSS: It may be of interest to your Lordships to have the view of the Law Society of Scotland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has just referred. I do not think it is right to say that they were diametrically opposed to this clause. The council appreciate that the proposal for an intermediate diet between the pleading diet and the trial diet in summary proceedings is intended to deal with situations where accused persons plead guilty on or just before the day of their trial, causing inconvenience to witnesses and a waste of the time of judges, solicitors, prosecutors and others. At the same time, the council do not see how this proposal will improve the present situation.
There are three sets of circumstances. First, there are those persons who plead not guilty at the first diet with the genuine intention of going to trial. The intermediate diet would not matter to them and would not achieve the object. Secondly, there are those persons who plead not guilty at the first diet with the undisclosed intention of pleading guilty at the trial. Persons who take this course do so, for one reason or another, to postpone the evil hour of their conviction. Again, the intermediate diet would not matter to them; it would merely be another opportunity to postpone that evil hour. Thirdly, there are those who would plead

1195
not guilty at the first diet, would instruct a solicitor to investigate the nature and extent of the Crown case and, thereafter, would take advice on whether or not a plea of guilty or of not guilty should be tendered. If the advice is to the effect that they should plead guilty, then there is already an adequate and frequently-used procedure for accelerating the trial diet by joint minute to an earlier date, and for having the matter disposed of. In such circumstances, intermediate diets would be unnecessary.
The council take the view that the proposed intermediate diet will be of limited use, or of no use, in dealing with the problem which it purports to alleviate; and that such limited benefit as might be derived from its introduction would not in any circumstances justify the considerable cost of judicial manpower, solicitors' fees and other expenses necessarily associated with its operation. The cost to the legal aid fund would be tremendous. In these circumstances, I look forward to hearing the answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to this Motion. Here, may I be allowed to make a small personal digression by saying that some years ago, when the Lord Advocate gave up the study of mathematics and very sensibly took up the law, he served a short time in my office before being called to the Bar. He showed himself to be extremely able, hard-working and very versatile. These are attributes which I think he has already shown in your Lordships' House.
Lord WHEATLEY: I think there is a problem here which has to be faced up to, and it has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, in his review of the memorandum published by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. But there is this experience, and it is linked with the problem of legal aid. An accused person is brought before the court, and at that stage he probably gets legal aid from the duty solicitor. At the first diet, which is the pleading diet, he pleads not guilty, and, in the situation to which I referred in the discussion on an earlier amendment, a diet of trial is fixed for months ahead. I am sorry to say that in many cases nothing is done between the first diet and the second diet. Then, on the morning of the trial diet the
1196
solicitor goes down to the court half-an-hour before the court is due to start, and he sees two or three clients, as the case may be—and sometimes that is the first time he has seen the client since the pleading diet. In the result, he then gets instructions to plead guilty, and so the time of the court, the time of the witnesses, the time of the fiscal and the public money involved are all sacrificed.
Now there is something to be said—whether or not this is the right method of doing it is a matter for your Lordships to decide—for having a system whereby the court can say, in that situation, "What is the position of this case? If we can accelerate the diet, if we have diets falling in and we have room for new diets, how far have you progressed in this ease? Does your client still wish to adhere to his plea of not guilty?", and so remove that blockage which is clogging up even further the work of the sheriff courts and, unfortunately, causing a great deal of public inconvenience and expense.
Lord GALPERN: May I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has any knowledge of, or is in possession of, figures showing the number of accused who plead guilty during the course of the trial itself? It might help us make up our minds on this matter.
4.30 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I do not have the figures with me at the moment. I have had them from time to time and it is abundantly plain, as all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter have mentioned, that there is a problem with witnesses being assembled, the trial ready to proceed and a plea of not guilty changed to a plea of guilty at the last minute—with consequent inconvenience to people who have no real concern with the case except as witnesses. In that situation the Government feel it is important that something should be done; and this proposal of Clause 15 follows the very idea which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, mentioned. It is correct to point out that Clause 15 is not imposing a mandatory diet; it only gives the court power to have such a diet. It is in the nature of an experiment, really, which cannot go ahead without statutory authority. One has seen difficulties of this kind before. If one wants

1197
to experiment in procedural matters there often needs to be something that is based on statutory authority. That is the situation here.
The difficulty is to devise the sort of procedure which would be suitable. Clause 15 is intended to give the court an opportunity—particularly having regard to the legal aid position to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, referred—to see, in advance of the trial diet, what is the position, how the case is progressing, whether it is likely that it will be ready for the diet or whether it is likely that, at the last minute, a plea of guilty will be tendered. It is very difficult for anyone to be certain of what is the real reason for delays in decisions. Obviously the accused person tends to put off the evil day. Sometimes he goes to a busy solicitor who has many other things to do and who tends to postpone the preparation. The legal aid is granted normally without the possibility of much investigation and it seems appropriate that the court should have an opportunity, if it wishes to take it in suitable cases—and that is all that we are providing for—to look into the state of preparation. Rule 10 of the Criminal Legal Aid Rules 1964 provides a possibility of the withdrawal of legal aid for non-co-operation by the accused.
I have seen some indications from the Law Society of Scotland that, occasionally at least, solicitors have difficulty in contacting their client. The client, having got legal aid, and the trial being a fair distance off, does not have much incentive, perhaps, for consulting with his solicitor. particularly as possibly he has no financial responsibility in the matter. In that situation it seems to us that this proposal to have an intermediate diet as a matter of discretion to the court is something that is worth having, a workable means of tackling a problem which is generally recognised to exist.
I now have the numbers for which the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, asked. In 1978, in summary procedures (and that is what we are dealing with), the number of pleas of guilty entered at trial diet so that the trial did not need to proceed totalled 15,899, which represents 11.62 per cent. of the total number of cases. The number of trials that went on was 12,611; so that, on that analysis, more
1198
trials went off as a result of a plea at the last minute than went on. That is a measure of the problem that exists and which we think it right that legislation should put forward some attempt to solve. We do not claim that this will necessarily produce an answer to all the problems. My noble friend Lord Kinross said that the Law Society thought it would be of limited use or of no use: Even if it is of limited use, where it is a discretionary remedy I would suggest to the Committee that this is a clause which should be left standing.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: As I understand it, the Government want to make an experiment but they cannot proceed with it unless they get statutory approval. I do not think that it was entirely right of the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, to suggest that I misled the Committee about the Law Society of Scotland. It may well be that the Law Society of Scotland has been misleading us all by sending us different communications. I will read out mine:
"Although the Society is continuing to look at this problem that this clause seeks to remedy, it objects totally to this clause".
To "object totally is to object totally—which was what I said. The last sentence in the document sent to me says this:
"The clause would be of no value in eradicating the problem it purports to eradicate; namely, a late or very late change of plea".
On the understanding that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made, that this was an experiment, I am not prepared to go ahead with the deletion of the actual clause. I do not know how we are going to get further information. Is it his intention, in some report or in some way, to let us know how this proceeds and whether it has been successful? We are all aware of the problem, but I have my doubts whether it will be satisfactorily answered by this particular clause. That being so, I have no desire to—
The EARL of SELKIRK: May I ask a question? Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate say who initiates the intermediate diet, where it starts from? Does the court do it on its own initiative, or can the accused or the prosecutor initiate an intermediate diet?
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: As I understand it, it is the court. This gives

1199
the initiative to the court for the first time. At the present time, the defence and the prosecution can come together and make a motion to the court and have an earlier trial and so shorten the proceedings. This is part of the argument that the present procedure, which is well known and well used, is satisfactory; but this would be additional to the present procedure. From the point of view that it is additional and experimental, I am prepared to let it go.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Lord finishes, may I ask this? It follows the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about who initiates this application to the court. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, if I understood him correctly, said it would be up to the court to decide whether they want to initiate this procedure. Surely, the court are not going to do it on their own, unless they have some reason to suppose that the convening of an intermediate diet, (if those are the right words) would be useful, helpful and have some point. The court would not, of its own initiative, invoke the procedure. Does it not follow necessarily that the procedure would be invoked either by the prosecutor, because he has some reason to think that the procedure would be useful, or by the accused or his solicitor because he thinks the procedure would be helpful to the accused? If that is the case, what harm is there in carrying through this experiment to see how it works out? The legal aid will be resorted to and expense will be incurred only if one of the parties, at any rate, to the procedure thinks that this procedure has some merit and purpose in their particular case. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could comment on whether I have got it right.
4.40 p.m.
Lord HALE: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to whom I have listened with admiration and assent almost entirely throughout this discussion, if the intermediate diet is to be summoned by the sheriff or whoever the prosecuting officer is, it seems to me one is producing a procedure in which the accused will be asked to say whether he wishes to change his plea at that stage, and presumably with a certain
1200
intimation that on the whole his case is considered one in which a plea of guilty might be desirable. One is asking a prisoner to reply to certain questions that relate to the plea he proposes to make when he is ultimately brought to trial.
This is a complex matter. What was worrying me throughout the previous discussion was the assumption that pleading guilty is a purely simple matter for decision and it depends upon guilt or prospects of conviction.
In the English procedure—and, I have no doubt there is something in the Scots' procedure—that is a very important rule which weighs on the shoulders of the advocate that there are certain circumstances in which he may not put forward a normal defence of guilty because it involves making imputations upon another person connected with the case, against whom that advocate has sufficient information to be able to judge that such an imputation would be unfair.
I remember being called upon to summon counsel to a special conference in a case in which my client emphatically protested his innocence—it was a case of theft from a shop where only one of three persons could possibly have been involved. In view of certain responses that he made we had to tell him on the following morning that there was no more we could do. He could plead "not guilty", but we could not possibly put forward the defence which we had intended to put forward. When one talks of the difficulties of delay, the trial and so on, that was an occasion which I am afraid arose in my asking for an acquittal for a trial before the learned recorder of Burton on Trent. I was not aware at the time that the learned recorder had never sat in court but was an Oxford don who had been appointed with the assurance that he would never be called upon to sit. The new town clerk of Burton had never summoned sessions—and there had not been a session for years. He had to advertise the Assizes. My friend the mayor of Burton on Trent was called upon to provide an elaborate lunch for the Bar. There being no other case on the list, our plea of guilty finished the proceedings at five past ten in the morning and there was no one left in Burton on Trent—which is not an attractive place—to attend the lunch. This talk now of

1201
"We have lost an hour here or there" about a delay seems to be taking rather an elaborate view.
I put forward seriously the question about what happens at the intermediate diet in relation to the plea, if the main purpose is to find out a little more information on the duration of the trial. I was told that the present procedure (with which I have no connection) in England goes a long way for that purpose. The right to change your plea under special circumstances at the last minute may arise, not from circumstances that affect the accused alone but which may affect members of his family. In spite of the formal statements that we get from the courts about the difficulty of plea bargaining, it may arise from some circumstances in which plea bargaining is held to be reputable because of special circumstances.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The situation so far as the clause is concerned is that it will be a power in the court. I have no doubt that the court in exercising the power would have regard to all the circumstances of the case as these were laid before it by the prosecutor and the defence. I should like to make it absolutely plain that there is no intention of anything in the nature of plea bargaining in connection with this proposal. The idea is to find out the state of preparation of the defence. It is not to prevent last minute changes of plea where that is unavoidable. That can happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, has pointed out. Some change of circumstance can arise at the last minute which gives rise to a change of plea. We feel that there are circumstances in which the last minute change of plea is due to the late stage of preparation. It is that point that we desire to deal with here. It is really a matter with which the court itself has been concerned from time to time, pointing out the inconvenience that is caused both to the court and to others, and pointing out the delay to other cases caused by making available diets of trial which are not taken up. The whole thing becomes cumulative; it is a serious problem. I am sure the Committee would welcome anything that would contribute to solving it.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Failure of accused to attend diet in summary procedure]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I want to draw attention to Clause 17. It appears to me to contain a straightforward example of double jeopardy. Subsection (2) says:
"Without prejudice to any power which the court may have to deal with the accused for contempt, an accused who without reasonable excuse fails to attend any diet of which he has been given due notice, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—".
It goes on in the next subsection to say:
"…notwithstanding that the total of penalties imposed may exceed the maximum penalty which it is competent to impose in respect of the original offence".
Is it really necessary? Does it want quite as blatantly and openly to have a case of double jeopardy? I should have thought it could be done in a different way, and that double jeopardy was not necessary here.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The intention is not to make the accused liable to double jeopardy in the strict sense. It is simply making clearer what is in any event clear: that the categorisation of the particular offence by statute does not affect the court's power at common law. It does not mean that for exactly the same action one would be subject to both of these penalties at the same time.
The provision is in line with the provisions which have been made in the Bail Act. This is a situation in which bail would not be in issue because the accused has not been required to provide any undertaking or anything of that sort in the nature of bail. He is being cited to appear. It seems appropriate as part of the structure that if he does not turn up he should at least be liable to a penalty of the order which is provided in line with the bail provisions.
On Question, Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Desertion of trial diet]:
4.50 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, leave out lines 26 to 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: I must apologise for what is a very technical matter, but it is one of some importance in the courts. May I say that while my amendment merely provides a suggestion to leave out lines 26 to 28, which would be subsection (3) of the proposed Section 338A, it equally applies to the previous provision in relation to the solemn procedure—that is, subsection (1A) of the new proposed clause mentioned above in Section 127 of the 1975 Act.
This provides that the prosecutor shall not be in a position to raise a fresh libel in a case where the court has deserted the trial diet simpliciter, and the corresponding provision further down reads:
"Where the court has deserted a diet simpliciter under subsection (2) above, it shall not be competent for the prosecutor to raise a fresh libel."
If the prosecutor deserts pro loco et tempore then he is always entitled to raise a fresh libel. The question arises as to whether he should be entitled to do that when the court has deserted a diet simpliciter. That means, for all intents and purposes, that particular process is brought to an end.
This proposal here would seem to impinge on the traditional right of the Lord Advocate, as the public prosecutor in Scotland, to determine if a prosecution should be taken against a person who has been accused of a crime, albeit there have been previous proceedings which have come to an end by their being deserted by the court simpliciter. The one exception I can think of at the present time to the right of the Lord Advocate as public prosecutor to prosecute is where the Lord Advocate has intimated that he will not take any further proceedings against an accused person, whether that intimation is made publicly in open court or publicly by any other means.
The content of these two subsections to which I have referred would seem to stem from the Thomson Report at page 146. The Thomson Committee appear to have proceeded in their thinking on this from an opinion expressed by one of my predecessors, Lord Justice Clerk Moncrieff. That was in 1872, so there have been a few of us in between. Lord Justice Clerk Moncrieff, whose opinion in part relative to this matter is quoted in the Thomson Report at page 146. seemed to base his
1204
opinion on his reading of the treatise by Baron Hume on Crimes. I should explain to non-lawyers that Baron Hume is regarded as the doyen of our common law in the criminal sphere; and when one is in difficulties about any matter of principle in Scots law, inevitably one finds counsel and the court resorting to Baron Hume on Crimes. It may well be—I put it no higher than that—that Lord Justice Clerk Moncrieff misread or misinterpreted what Baron Hume on Crimes said on this subject at page 277, and indeed that Lord Justice Clerk Moncrieff had actually said what was contrary to that which Baron Hume had enunciated in his treatise on Crimes.
I do not want to get involved in an argument upon that because it would be out of place here in any event; but fortunately this very question has been the subject of an appeal in the criminal appeal court in Scotland within the last fortnight. The judgment has not yet been delivered; it was not the division of the Appeal Court over which I preside which was sitting in the case, and I do not know what the judgment will contain. It will be issued very shortly and it will deal with that very point. I should therefore like to suggest to the Lord Advocate, in that situation, that he awaits the judgment of the other division of the Appeal Court in this matter and considers it very carefully and, in the light of that decision, decides, along with his colleagues, whether the retention of these two proposed subsections is justified. I so move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN: Naturally, I shall be glad to study the judgment to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. May I say just a word about the basis of this proposal. The basis of it is that the present law allows the prosecutor to raise a fresh case where the court has deserted the diet without qualification against his will. Where the court does so desert the diet without qualification against the will of the prosecutor, this clause proposes that that should bar further proceedings. But, of course, that would be a decision of the court in that case which the prosecutor could appeal to have altered. In trying to balance all the matters which should go into this Bill, we thought—though I agree that it is a limitation of the powers of the Lord Advocate as they have hitherto

1205
been understood—that it was a reasonable limitation to propose. However, I should certainly be glad to look at the matter in the light of the judgment to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has referred. I thought it would be useful that your Lordships should know our present view on the matter.
Lord WHEATLEY: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Trial may proceed in accuseds absence if he misconducts himself]:
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 17, line 34, after ("removed") insert ("for such a period as may be necessary ").
The noble Earl said: It would perhaps be convenient to your Lordships if I were to take Amendment No. 41A with Amendment No. 41B, if that is not objected to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. This raises something of a new principle in Scots law. I do not think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would differ from Green's Encyclopaedia which says it is a fundamental principle that evidence should be taken in the presence of the accused. However, when we come to the consolidated Act of 1975 we find there are one or two exceptions. One is insanity and another refers to certain cases where the penalty cannot be imprisonment. This procedure goes quite a bit wider than that. It allows the accused to be removed from the dock as part of the interruptions he is making; and Clause 1 deals with the solemn procedure. Clause 2 deals with summary procedure. I can guess the reasons for this, but no doubt the Lord Advocate can give us better reasons.
I think there are people today who question the standing of the court and of the law, and if it is done today it generally gets a fairly wide repercussion in the media, whether in the papers or on television. It is a very good way of advertising some case you want to ad-
1206
vertise. I can see that, and maybe this is going a little further today than it ever did before.
The words of the clause which concern us are these:
"…an accused so misconducts himself that in the view of the court a proper trial cannot take place…".
I am sure no one would feel that an improper trial should take place: that is to say, it is quite impossible for a trial to go further if it is improper. If it is necessary, the question that arises is: what should be done'? At the present time, I suppose that the court will be adjourned. Perhaps there are cases about which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can tell us. There is then the expensive business concerning the jury, the witnesses and so on. It may be necessary in some cases that the accused should be removed, but the conditions in which that can happen should be very strictly limited.
I have two suggestions to make here. First, you should exclude altogether summary trials; that is, subsection (2) of Clause 21. This would also exclude district trials, which are presided over by those who are not trained in the law and who have not been brought up to the discipline which the law could impose. In any case, it is not very serious to have to adjourn a summary case. So many people are not involved and it may not be very difficult to bring on another case, until the matter has been cleared up. But with solemn procedure, it is a big business. The court will have been assembled and the witnesses will be there. Not only that. If this power exists, a presiding judge could give a warning which, in many cases, would be sufficient. So it seems to me that this power should be confined to cases of solemn procedure, and that the accused should be absent only for the absolute minimum of time. No doubt half an hour in the cells would make him take a different view. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: I wonder whether I might make a purely technical point. Does the noble Earl consider that the words that he proposes should be inserted under the proviso in Clause 21 would be better inserted after the word "removed" in line 35, rather than after the word "removed" in line 34?
The EARL of SELKIRK: The noble Lord is probably right. I shall not argue with him.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN:The purpose of this clause is, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said, to deal with the situation where a person who is on trial deliberately misconducts himself in order to make the trial impossible to conduct in a proper manner. I am glad to say that so far this has not happened in Scotland, but the risk of its happening is apparent from what has happened elsewhere. It is much better in this situation to be prepared in advance, than to give a person who misconducted himself the opportunity of the publicity of trying to get legislation to deal with that case.
So far as the suggestions are concerned, we would take it that if this power was given to the court it would be used only in the most extreme circumstances, and therefore the court would warn, perhaps more than once, before it put such a power into operation; and, of course, the existence of the power would give force to the warning. As regards the time for which it would continue, it would always be open on a construction of this clause for the court to revoke the order. It would have power to exclude the accused only so long as was necessary in order to allow the trial to proceed, and therefore it would seem that expressly to provide so might not be necessary.
So far as summary trials are concerned, the problem could exist there. I agree with what my noble friend said. The problem then would not be so serious, but, on the other hand, it would be very difficult to deal with. One method of dealing with it that might appear would be to put the accused on indictment, and use the power if it was given on indictment, assuming that the offence was one which could be dealt with in that way. But, on the whole, we thought that if it was right to have it in solemn procedure, it was right also to have it with the same kind of safeguards in summary procedure, and that is why the two provisions have been made.
Lord FOOT: I wonder whether I might make an observation or two about the procedure in England in summary trials, when one is presented with a difficulty of this kind. I have always understood—and I think that the law today is as it has
1208
always been in England—that magistrates do not have power to commit a person who is in contempt of court, in face of the court. In fact, the authority of the magistrates can be flouted by an accused person who behaves very badly, and although it is desirable that accused people should not know of this right, in fact the magistrates are very often powerless to do anything about it. I would regret it, therefore, if this power was not given to magistrates in summary proceedings, or their equivalent in Scotland, to be able to deal with somebody who misbehaves himself and makes the trial difficult. Indeed the right to have the accused person removed because of misbehaviour is really a very limited infringement indeed of his rights. I should therefore regret it if this safeguard for the protection of the court was cut down, and I should hope that in the course of time we might have a similar provision in the law of England.
The Earl of SELKIRK: May I make one point? The noble and learned Lord said that the removal will be only for such time as is necessary. That is not stated here. We are giving the presiding judge, on his own initiative and without limitation, power to remove the accused for the whole of the trial. I do not think Parliament wants to do that and I suggest—and I readily accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot—that it is necessary to show that Parliament wants this power narrowly guarded. There may be vicious or evil judges, who could remove the accused completely from the trial for unlimited periods, for what might be a minor disorderly appearance. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to look very closely at this, and see whether he can more narrowly restrict the circumstances in which this power may be used.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Certainly, the intention is to make these powers available only when it is absolutely necessary to use them, and I am perfectly happy to consider whether anything further can reasonably be added to the clause for that purpose. But, certainly, that is what we have in mind.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.8 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 41B:
Page 17, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment that I move is to limit the ability of the court to proceed, in the absence of the accused, to summary procedure. In other words, we are already allowing subsection (1) which relates to solemn procedure. Why that? The only argument that has been given for this clause is that it is to deal with the possibility of terrorists being tried, and, because of the publicity and their own feelings and all that arises out of them, deliberately so disrupting the trial that it cannot go ahead. Therefore, the Government propose to give this power to the court to remove the accused and allow the trial to go ahead in his absence, albeit that he can be represented by counsel if he so wishes. If such a person were to be tried in Scotland, I doubt very much whether his trial would take place in a sheriff court. If a terrorist were to be tried it would be by solemn procedure.
Although I have objections to subsection (1), I am directing my attention to subsection (2). It never has happened, nor do I think that it is likely to happen; and if it did happen there are procedures at present, even in the sheriff court, for dealing with the matter. The trial could be adjourned. The person involved could be given legal advice and warned that he is in contempt of court and that he could be imprisoned. This could be done without very much waste of time, and certainly he would not get his publicity. I feel that the existing law and procedures are enough so far as summary trials are concerned.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, spoke at Second Reading he said that this clause was put down with a certain measure of reluctance. I think that he was underestimating his own feelings about that. If it has to be done—and it is a very considerable change in Scottish law and Scottish tradition—I feel that we should limit it to solemn procedure and not introduce it into summary jurisdiction.
It may well be, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, that the power would not be very much used. But we are giving this power, and who
1210
knows what people will do once they have got it? As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, it might be much more convenient for some people to get the accused out of the road. We have to be very careful about giving this power. Certainly it is very difficult to justify such a power, since it represents a considerable change in the law of Scotland. It would be very difficult to argue that no case has arisen, that we do not expect one to arise, but let us have the power all the same.
I am not going to remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that certain people objected very strongly indeed. I think that he should look at the question of whether or not this power is necessary in summary trials. The Law Society are opposed to it in summary trials, and it is only fair to say that they have some experience, too. I hope, therefore, that the Lord Advocate will look at the amendment and see whether or not he can agree with us.
Lord GALPERN: May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to deal with one or two points. As I understand it, one of the main concerns is that a proper trial should be conducted. If an accused misconducts himself, he can be removed from the court. How can the appointment of counsel or a solicitor to represent the accused's interests during his absence and while the trial continues result in a fair trial? If a solicitor and counsel are pitchforked into a case and there is no mention of an adjournment of the trial—it is to continue, as I read the subsection, except for time to allow for the appointment of a solicitor and counsel—how can they be instructed by their client? That would be impossible, unless the Lord Advocate is to tell us that there will be an adjournment until such time as a solicitor is instructed, and the solicitor instructs counsel, so as to ensure that a proper trial is continued. Unless that is written into the subsection it will make a farce of the trial.
What would then happen, according to the subsection, as I read it—although I am not a lawyer—is that upon the return of the accused to court both solicitor and counsel would disappear from the scene of the trial. That is quite conceivable if the accused sends a message to the presiding judge in which he says

1211
that he apologises for his misconduct and he is therefore allowed to return to the court to resume his case. May I ask the Lord Advocate whether solicitor and counsel then disappear from the trial? The subsection says that they are to represent his interests during the absence of the accused. This limits their presence to act on his behalf only to his period of absence from the court. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would deal with these points in his reply?
5.15 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as the first point is concerned, the situation is that an adjournment would be in the control of the court. I have no doubt that the court would consider a reasonable adjournment, assuming that special counsel and solicitor had to be appointed to represent the accused in his absence. When the accused returned to the court, if he did so return, it would be up to the accused to decide whether or not he would be better off to retain the counsel and solicitor who represented his interests while he was not there.
Lord GALPERN: But he would not be able to decide that point, since he would have been out of court.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Exactly. He would have to form a judgment as to whether he would be better advised to keep them, they having been present during the hearing while he was not there, or whether he would prefer to go ahead himself. The point is that he brings all this on himself. The object of the clause is to deal with a situation in which a person deliberately misconducts himself in such a way as to render it impossible for the trial to go on so long as he is there. I agree that it would be far better if he behaved himself so that the trial could go ahead in the ordinary way. I am saying, though, that if he misbehaves himself this is the best that can be done in the circumstances to protect his interests, and I submit to noble Lords that this would be a very reasonable protection for him.
So far as the summary position is concerned, the way I see it is that to have this power in summary cases is less in
1212
the way of an innovation because the case is a less serious one than would be a solemn case. If this is a proper power to have in solemn cases, there seems to be no reason why it should not be available in summary cases. I agree that so far this point has not arisen either in solemn or summary cases, and I hope that it never will: but I believe that one of the best ways of preventing it from arising is for both courts to have this power.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said that the justification for it was by reference to terrorists. They represent a class of person who might be thought of as likely to misconduct themselves in this way. However, it is quite conceivable that somebody who was not a terrorist might consider this to be a reasonable thing to do, and so long as he always pled not guilty he could prevent himself from ever being effectively tried. Therefore prison would be a sanction right enough, but a sanction which could be reached only after the obstacle of misconduct had been overcome. If it was taken out of summary ultimately, no doubt, it would arrive in the solemn court. It seems a pity that one should have to go to that length.
Lord WHEATLEY: For the reasons just displayed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I think that this is a problem and that some solution must be found to it, otherwise, as he has pointed out, a determined accused could set at naught the whole administration of justice by continued conduct of the nature envisaged in the clause.
My difficulty is a practical one which arises out of something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Galpern. If by his own conduct a person merits the loss of the right that has persisted throughout the ages, of being present in court when his case is being tried, but is being defended by counsel instructed by a solicitor, it may well be that he would suffer no disadvantage by not being present in court, or the disadvantage might be minimal. On the other hand, it might be great, from the practical point of view, if he is defending himself.
Let us take the situation in solemn procedure. He has defended himself until two-thirds of the evidence has been laid. Then he starts to misconduct him-

1213
self and is removed from the court, and the court then has to appoint counsel and solicitor to take over from the accused himself. How can that counsel and solicitor know what has gone before in the trial, what evidence has gone before, what the atmosphere has been and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, pointed out, from the reading of this if he were only removed for a limited period and then came back it might well be that if he wanted to continue to conduct his own defence he would have to dispense with the services of the counsel and solicitor appointed by the court.
Even in summary proceedings if the same situation arose and the court appointed a solicitor who had not been in court or heard the evidence, it could be said in solemn procedure they would have to adjourn to allow the notes of evidence to be reproduced for the benefit of the counsel appointed to take over from the accused himself, which would involve a very long delay in a trial.
These are the practical considerations, but I think I am reflecting the views of my colleagues on the Bench in the High Court in Scotland in saying we are in agreement that something should be done to prevent an accused—for his own purposes in most cases or perhaps even involuntarily—from so conducting himself that the whole trial could be set at naught. So long as he continued that conduct something ought to be done, but I would invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider whether the expedient that is proposed here is one that could be adopted as it stands or whether some other modifications require to be written in.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: We have done our best to get a workable arrangement. We should be happy to consider a constructive proposal for its improvement but until now this is the best that we have been able to propose. I agree that it has difficulties, but as I have said those difficulties would be brought by the accused person upon himself.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, has not been at all helpful in regard to this amendment. Let us bear in mind that it has never happened, and is never likely to happen. With all respect to my noble
1214
and learned friend Lord Wheatley, who said that the problem is there, there has been no problem until now. It might arise but it is hypothetical.
Lord WHEATLEY: May I just point out to the noble Lord that it has not happened in Scotland so far but it has happened elsewhere.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I think in the Committee stage in another place it was suggested by someone sitting on the other side of the House that he could remember only one case in which something like this had happened in Scotland and that the judge was able to deal with it. The suggestion that the whole court is helpless and that nothing can be done is quite wrong, and from that point of view I am very disappointed. I was prepared to go half way with the Lord Advocate. He has been very helpful so far today and he admits that if something like this happened in the summary court it could well be removed to the High Court, so I think he could have accepted this amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, without losing anything at all of his powers, grudging as I was at that time to give him that particular power. It means that we shall have to look at the clause as a whole now since he does not wish to amend it in this way.
The EARL of SELKIRK: Would the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate consider excluding district courts? There is a feeling in district courts that these powers could be used in an oppressive manner. We are dealing with people who are perhaps not wholly unknown to each other, and these powers could be used forcefully in certain circumstances and on a basis which is wholly different from the basis on which we have been discussing this clause.
Lord FOOT: Perhaps I may add an intermediate point between the view of the Government and the views which have been expressed on this side of the Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, surely went to the heart of the matter when he said that there is a problem here which has to be dealt with and is not being provided for at the present time but nevertheless the solution which is offered by the Government is full of difficulties. That is the situation as I

1215
understand it. If that is so, and if noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench accept that there is a problem here and that we should try to tackle it in some way or other, and if they think that the Government have got it wrong in this clause which they are proposing, is it not their business to try to suggest to the Government how it might be better dealt with? As I understand it, that is the invitation which has been issued to them by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He said in effect, "If you can think of anything better we are prepared to consider it". If I may say so, I should have thought that the proper way to dispose of this matter today is to accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, and between now and the next stage of the Bill for those who have supported these amendments to consult with the Government to see whether a better form of words can in fact be provided.
I am much impressed with the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, drew attention. They are very real difficulties indeed, and I was impressed by what was said from the Benches behind me about all the problems which we have to face under the clause as it is drafted at the moment. Would not the sensible course be for this matter to be withdrawn now in order that the whole matter might be considered by everybody in the interval between this and the next stage of the Bill?
Lord WHEATLEY: I should just like to say that, as the Lord Advocate knows, the Lord Justice General and I at all times will be available to put forward suggestions and to consult with him in these matters which very much affect the running of the courts. I should like to give that undertaking, which he knows privately but I want to make it publicly.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Jacques): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.28 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I wonder whether, before a humble English lawyer formally tries to take on the very colourful cloak of my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, I might introduce my comments by telling the Committee that I had my first real lesson in proud Scottish national insularity yesterday afternoon, and indeed the responsibility for that lesson rested with the office of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I wanted some papers which were out of print and I communicated with the office of the noble and learned Lord and had a most courteous response from an official who told me that I would be supplied with them.
As the Committee may know, the office is in Whitehall and I asked whether I might send a messenger over for those papers. The reply was "Yes, certainly". I then asked the official (who, if I may say so, had an accent that the late Sir Harry Lauder would have been proud of) how near he was to the Home Office in Whitehall, only to receive the reply, "I am afraid I do not know where the Home Office is".
In regard to this clause, we have heard that it is beset with difficulties. Furthermore, we have heard that so far no case North of the Border—and I will not trouble your Lordships with what the law may be possibly for the less civilised South of the Border—has really caused any trouble in this connection. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said something that sounded most reasonable; that is, that if this clause was opposed but some case had been made out for the need to deal with somebody who misconducted, surely it would be sensible if we considered a suitable amendment to this clause instead of asking, as I am asking the Committee, to leave this clause out.
This Clause was Clause 24 of the Bill that was brought forward by the previous Government, and it received a great deal of consideration in Committee. If the record I have read is correct, at least five of the friends of the noble and learned Lord opposite sat on that Committee and saw to it that the clause was defeated. Mr. Fairbairn, the present Solicitor General, led then for the Tory Opposition, and he went on record as saying that he could think of no way whatsoever in which

1217
this clause could be amended. If the Solicitor General, who was then as wise, I am sure, as he is now, was unable to devise any amendment in regard to this clause, which he then thought was objectionable, as indeed did the Opposition Members of the Committee, I think it may be a difficult thing indeed for us on this Front Bench to try to do what he was then unable to do.
North of the Border—and I do not talk of the law South of the Border—this may be a very dangerous clause, because there is no definition of misconduct; it is a subjective matter for a judge or a sheriff. Your Lordships may feel that, having regard to all that has been said about the difficulties of this clause, which are admitted, and having heard what happened at the Committee stage in another place, when the self-same clause was before the other place only a comparatively short while ago, the safe and sensible
thing to do is to have this clause left out. I so move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I think I am right in saying that the clause as presently before the Committee is not the same clause as was in the previous Bill. The proviso with regard to representation is something different. But, in any case, I would take a stand on the existence of the problem as a potential problem—and there is no better way of dealing with such a problem than before it arises—as justification for having this clause in the Bill, and I would ask your Lordships to agree that it should stand part of the Bill.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 159; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Dundee, E.

Kimberley, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinross, L.

Alport, L.

Energlyn, L.

Knutsford, V.

Amory, V.

Exeter, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Armstrong, L.

Falkland, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Ferrier, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balerno, L.

Foot, L.

Lyell, L.

Banks, L.

Forester, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Bradford, E.

Gainford, L.

Margadale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gisborough, L.

Marley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brookes, L.

Glasgow, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burnham, L.

Godber of Willington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Gowrie, E.

Meston, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray, L.

Middleton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gridley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Haig, E.

Morris, L.

Coleridge, L.

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

Mountgarret, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hastings, L.

Newall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hatherton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hereford, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cross, V.

Hives, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Holderness, L.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Perth, E.

de Clifford, L.

Hooson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

De Freyne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Reading, M.

Donegall, M.

Inglewood, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Ridley, V.

Dudley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Rochdale, V.

Rodney, L.

Sharples, B.

Vaizey, L.

Romney, E.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vernon, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vickers, B.

St. Germans, E.

Strathspey, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Swinton, E.

Wheatley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Teviot, L.

Wigoder, L.

Salisbury, M.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Sandford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Wise, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Tranmire, L.

Wolverton, L.

Seear, B.

Trenchard, V.

Young, B.

Selkirk, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hamnett, L.

Shinwell, L.

Balogh, L.

Henderson, L.

Stedman, B.

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blease, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Blyton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leonard, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Cudlipp, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace, of Coslany, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell. L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wigg, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

George-Brown, L.

Peart, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Glenamara, L.

Phillips, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Rhodes, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause agreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 22 [Restrictions on report of proceedings involving person under 16]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I should like to ask a question on Clause 22. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can tell us the meaning of the words, "No newspaper". Do they refer to a newspaper available in the United Kingdom or a newspaper published in the United Kingdom? What are those words supposed to cover? I can appreciate that publicity is very undesirable, but I notice that there is no mention of radio or television. I also notice that further down it says that:
"… references to a court, shall not include a court in England".
If the Cornwall Herald published something of this sort, will someone have to come all the way up to Edinburgh in order to be fined £500 for publishing something
1220
that he should not have published? What is the intention? Moreover, if the crime was committed on English soil, is it appropriate for a court in Edinburgh to deal with that crime?
Another point is that if the matter is not to receive publicity, surely the names of the witnesses might well not be revealed. I do not know whether that is necessary, but in the event of witnesses names coming out, it might not be too difficult to identify which particular child is being charged under this section. If the noble and learned Lord could answer those questions I should be very grateful.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: First, Clause 22(2) is intended to apply the provisions to sound and television broadcasts in the same way as they apply in relation to newspapers. So, although "newspaper" alone is mentioned to begin with, the provisions are extended in that way.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Earl, I should point out that if this clause is agreed to, it will become part of the law of Scotland and therefore would

1221
affect newspaper reports circulating in Scotland. So, as long as the Cornish Herald—the newspaper which was taken as an example—stays out of Scottish jurisdiction, it would not be committing an offence. However, a paper in Scotland would be subject to this rule. The court is, of course, a Scottish court.
So far as identification is concerned, it was thought right that both witnesses, and accused persons under the age of 16, should have the benefit of the protection. Of course, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is provided that the court may at any stage, if satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, direct and effect that the clause does not apply, and the protection is lifted. The Secretary of State, after completion of the proceedings, may make a similar order. Therefore, the public interest as regards finding out the information is protected in those ways, but children who become concerned in proceedings, whether as accused persons or as witnesses, are protected from publicity unless the publicity is authorised. I hope that that answers the noble Earl's questions.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I thank the noble and learned Lord, but surely after, "No newspaper", it should say, "available in Scotland", if only for clarification? I wondered what the meaning was and possibly others will also wonder.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Peremptory challenge of jurors]:
5.50 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 19, line 3, leave out ("one juror") and insert ("three jurors").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 42. At present, as I understand it, the number of jurors is 15, and the right of peremptory challenge is to five. This clause provides for the reduction of the right of peremptory challenge from five to one. It seems to us, sitting on these Benches, that this is a very unwise provision. I understand that we are supported in this by the views of the Law Society in Scotland, who oppose this clause. If its purpose is to change from a peremptory right of
1222
challenge to one where you show cause, it is quite obvious that the time of the court will be taken unnecessarily while counsel for the accused has to argue each and every challenge.
There is an additional objection: that it must encourage the accused and the advisers of the accused to try to search into the backgrounds of members of the jury and, therefore, to do some sort of jury vetting in order to try to produce reasons to show cause. In those circumstances we feel that a reduction from the present five is bad. But in an endeavour to be as reasonable as we hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be in looking at this amendment, we have tried to go half way and we have said, "All right, let the number be reduced from five to three, but certainly not to one. "That is the reasoning behind this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: We should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in this amendment. We find the proposal in the Bill a trifle difficult to justify. I can understand the proposition that there should be no jury vetting of any sort, either by the prosecution or by the defence: that there should be no right of summary peremptory challenge at all, either by the prosecution or the defence; that both the prosecution and the defence should take their chance before a jury that is selected entirely at random. If by any mishap there are on the jury one or two who may be unreasonably prejudiced in some way, that is a chance that both the prosecution and the defence should take and it is a matter which is catered for by the majority verdict system which operates in both our countries. I can understand that being put forward as the proper solution, but I appreciate that at this moment in time the whole question of jury vetting, of attempting to analyse the backgrounds of jurors, has not yet been resolved and that, therefore, it is apparently right that there should be some right of peremptory challenge—challenge without cause—still given to both the prosecution and the defence.
I should be interested to hear the case for making a reduction from five to one, which is suggested in Clause 23. I think I am right in saying that the Thomson Report proposed that the change should

1223
be from five to two. Perhaps in their fight against inflation the Government have decided to reduce that still further, from five to one. It is, I think, a rather unsatisfactory basis for making such a reduction. If the number is to be as severely restricted as one, it will encourage, will it not?, challenges for cause, which are likely to take a great deal of time and be very embarrassing for the prosecution, the defence and for potential jurors. I invite the Government to look again at the proposal that the restriction should be for challenge to one juror only.
I appreciate that there are many and substantial differences between the English and the Scottish systems. Nevertheless, if there are some ways in which the two systems could march together in harmony, it would do no great damage. In recent years in our jurisdiction we have limited the right of summary challenge to that of three jurors. In those circumstances, I should have thought there might be something to be said for the Scots agreeing that that appears to work satisfactorily. This is one area where we might work in harmony. In those circumstances, I invite the Government to consider whether this is not a helpful amendment.
Lord WHEATLEY: We hear a great deal about the question of jury vetting. I should like to give the Committee the advantage of my experience over 26 years on the Bench as to the type of jury vetting that takes place at present. It is one to which many potential jurors, who have been brought to court on a list of assize, take exception. As has been pointed out, for a jury of 15 we have five peremptory challenges and any number of challenges on cause shown. There is a practical difficulty in that when preparing the list of assize of jurors one must make provision for objections of that nature. Therefore, the number of members of the public who qualify as jurors, who are cited to attend court to be balloted, must exceed quite considerably the actual number of jurors eventually empanelled. That can cause a great deal of inconvenience to a great number of people, for the right of peremptory challenge afears to each individual accused.
If there is only one accused, there are five peremptory challenges; but if, as is often the case at present, there are six or
1224
eight accused on the charge, or even four, that means that 20, 30 or 40 peremptory challenges are available, and provision has to be made for that in citing jurors to attend. That causes a great deal of public inconvenience. However, that is not the only point I wish to raise.
I turn to the question of jury vetting. In my opinion, on most occasions when objection is taken to people by the peremptory challenge, it is not because they know anything or have any reason to believe that the individual is not a desirable juror. What happens is as follows. The name of the juror is called out by the clerk of the court who has drawn the name from a bowl. The juror, who is sitting on the public benches in the court, makes his or her way from his or her place in court down a passage, and across the well of the court. Counsel acts as a sort of amateur psychologist, looking at the juror on his way down from his seat, trying to assess by his mien, his appearance, walk or whatever, whether he is the right type of person to sit on the jury. During the time occupied by the juror making his way to the jury box, counsel has turned back and is facing the court, with his back to the juror, and on almost all occasions he says, sotto voce, "Object". Then the clerk of the court has to tell the juror, who is on the point of entering the jury box, that he need not come. The juror has to find his way back to his seat on the public benches in the court. He does not know why objection has been taken to him; he only knows that he has been objected to.
I have never discussed matters with jurors, but officers of the court have reported to me that many jurors in that situation take great exception to the system whereby, for some unknown reason to them, they have been objected to as, they regard it, not being fit and proper persons to act on the jury. In my experience that is the only form of jury vetting that takes place in Scotland, subject to this, that there are other forms of jury vetting which do not apply to the individual but to classes. There are some counsel who think, having regard to the nature of the charge or charges, "We had better have a majority of men on the jury", or "a majority of women on the jury" In my experience, particularly when I was at the Bar, I always took the luck of the draw because I found that when you

1225
objected to somebody for no reason other than some instinctive belief that they would not be a good juror in favour of your client, you lost that one, but got someone a lot worse. So it is purely speculative and subjective.
At the same time it subjects the individual juror to this rather ignominious conduct. They want men and they do not want women; or they want women and they do not want men. They do not like schoolteachers, because they are little dictators in their own schoolroom, if I may say that with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Ross. I am not suggesting that he ever was, because he was a model schoolmaster, but I have known from my experience people say, "We don't like schoolteachers because they are dictatorial and will try to enforce their mind on the rest of them".
You have all these sorts of situations arising and excuses being put forward. In the result, you have a form of jury vetting that is not the form that is being objected to by noble Lords who have spoken. One must have regard to the situation. When this proposal came from the last Government for their Bill, the High Court judges as a whole in Scotland discussed this matter thoroughly. We came to the unanimous conclusion that the principle of this was something that we must have regard to. That principle has been enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The principle is that you are entitled to be tried by your peers, but you should not be selective about your peers. You should take the luck of the draw, and allow those who are drawn to judge you.
I cannot prognosticate as to what would happen with regard to this more sinister aspect of jury vetting, but I would find it difficult to believe that it would ever become a common feature of our judicial system if we were to remove altogether the peremptory challenge to jurors. But knowing our great gift for compromise, I am not surprised that the Government, who seem to me really to have been accepting that the principle should be, "Those drawn out of the jury bowl should serve" (and they went even further than Thomson in that regard), were adopting a degree of compromise which may not be justified in logic but may perhaps, from the political point of view, be an easy way of
1226
getting an otherwise contentious matter through the House.
6.4 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: We have done without logic for a long time so far as jury procedure in Scotland is concerned. As long as we have had jury procedure in Scotland we have been operating the right of peremptory challenge in respect of five. The Government propose now to reduce it to one. I suppose we should say that they are generous, because when in opposition on the Labour Bill they wanted to wipe it out altogether.
It is a considerable change. Admittedly, there are some embarrassments for jurors who are objected to, but no matter which system we have, peremptory or cause shown, the waste of time or embarrassment of the juror are still there. We should hesitate before we go as far as the Government suggest of reducing it to one. This is not what Lord Thomson said in his report. He said two. But he said more than that, on the basis that you reduce the size of the jury. The jury in Scotland is 15. He said, "Yes, reduce the size of the jury and reduce the number of peremptory challenges". That is not what the Government have done. The Government have said, "We will keep the jury the same size, but will not take away but reduce from five to one the number of peremptory challenges". I do not think that that is sweet reason or compromise.
I do not think it is fair. An accused person, bearing in mind that it may mean the loss of his liberty, is entitled to an on-the-spot judgment. If he feels that he is not going to get justice from some particular person, it is only fair to give him the right to say no without cause shown. If we reduce it to one, whereas at the present time I understand that there is little resort to objection on cause shown, there will now be considerable resort to that, and I do not think that any embarrassment will be saved or any time will be saved.
I regret that the Government have taken this particular stand. I hope that the Lord Advocate will look again at these amendments. They are nicely and carefully written. I am not going to be a schoolmaster. My noble and learned

1227
friend Lord Wheatley has a better memory than I have. I had forgotten a long time ago the days when I was a schoolmaster, probably in the part of Glasgow that he came from—and he was lucky to escape me.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The principle upon which we have sought to proceed here is the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that basically one ought to take what comes out of the bowl, or hat, out of which the jury is called. There is no question of jury vetting, in the sense in which that expression has been used here, being practised in Scotland. I made a statement on that matter some time ago. The situation in England and Wales is different. The jury numbers are different, and what you require in order to secure a conviction is different.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has rightly guessed, we think that it would be wise to preserve the possibility of a genuine objection which one did not want to air, and that is why we thought it wise to leave a single peremptory challenge. I suggest to the Committee that this is a reasonable step to take. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has indicated the sort of indignity that it offered to jurors in being turned away for no reason at all. I would not anticipate that the power to object on cause shown would be very much used, at least after the first few trials under the new system. I submit
that the result would be that people accused would be tried by a jury genuinely selected at random, with this single exception of a possible cause which a person would not wish to have to state, and the single peremptory challenge covers that. I would invite the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord MISHCON: I would ask the Lord Advocate only this: If the idea behind this clause is to reduce embarrassment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. suggested, is it not rather more embarrassing to have an argument, in which you cannot participate. as to why you are not a fit and proper person to be a juror than merely to be told that you are not wanted without any cause shown? I should have thought, in those circumstances, that this was a poor reason for advancing the argument as to the reliability or otherwise of a juror. I hope that the concession that was offered, if I may put it that way without doing it pompously, is one that would find acceptance. Would the noble and learned Lord at least say that he is prepared to think about this number again?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: We have thought about this a good deal, and I intend to stick to this number.
6.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 129.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jacques, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Balogh, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Kaldor, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Spens, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Caradon, L.

Leonard, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Listowel, E.

Stone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Foot, L.

Maelor, L.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

George-Brown, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Walston, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hamnett, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hooson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Galloway, E.

Norfolk, D.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Allerton, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Gray, L.

Onslow, E.

Amory, V.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Armstrong, L.

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

Perth, E.

Avon, E.

Reading, M.

Balerno, L.

Hanworth, V.

Renton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hastings, L.

Ridley, V.

Bellwin, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Bradford, E.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brookes, L.

Holderness, L.

St. Germans, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Just, L.

Burnham, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Caithness, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Colwyn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sharples, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Kinross, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swansea, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Torphichen, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tranmire, L.

De Freyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ullswater, V.

Donegall, M.

Mansfield, E.

Vaizey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Vernon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Wheatley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Falkland, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mottistone, L.

Yarborough, E.

Forester, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Young, B.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 24 [Seclusion of jury after retrial]:
6.20 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 19, line 18, after ("judge") insert ("or a person acting under direction of the judge").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very humble amendment which raises no great constitutional principles at all. It relates to the stage when the trial has been concluded and the jury has retired to consider its verdict. When it does so it has to be enclosed in its own room by the clerk of the court. The subsection with which we are concerned states, on page 19 of the Bill.
1230
"Except in so far as is provided for … until the jury intimate that they are ready to return their verdict—

(a) no person shall visit the jury and no person (save the judge in response to a direction sought …) shall communicate with them …".

Following the words, "no person save the judge". I want to insert the words,
"or a person acting under direction of the judge".
I do this solely in order to bring some reality into this situation, because we all know that the jury goes into its own room where it sits and discusses the verdict—at least one supposes that it does—and the court disperses. A bell is heard ringing in the corridor outside. The bell has been rung by a member of the jury. Surely it is not really supposed that the judge personally goes to investigate why the bell is ringing. He sends the macer, the officer of the court, to find out what the jury

1231
wants, and the macer returns and tells the judge that the foreman of the jury wants a direction on a particular point, or he explains what the trouble is. The proper person to bear that kind of message is not the judge himelf, but his officer, the macer. My object is to insert words which would permit a proper officer authorised by the court to communicate with the jury for that purpose. This seems to me to be sensible, and I suggest that the Lord Advocate might be able to accept it.
Lord RENTON: I wish to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, but, with respect, I wonder whether he has gone quite far enough. He has pointed out that in Scotland in practice the judge never would visit the jury; neither would he do so in England, of course. Such a thing is unheard of. But when it becomes necessary to find out how the jury is getting on with its deliberations after a very long absence, or if the jury sends a message to the judge requiring his further direction, in England at any rate the jury would always be brought back into court so that any further direction by the judge would be given in the presence of the accused and indeed of the public. Therefore, if all that corresponds with practice in Scotland, it would seem to me that the word "or" could be omitted from the amendment, and we would not need the words "the judge". So the provision would read
"save a person acting under direction of the judge".
It seems to me that that would put the matter right, and would indeed be a reflection of what is, and what is intended to be, the practice.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: This entire clause derives from the necessity of provision for looking after the jury if it has to deliberate for a long time, and the part of the clause to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, has drawn attention is in fact a re-echo of what was previously the law, but it is a practical improvement and I am happy to accept it in principle. We shall try to give effect to it in an amendment that we shall propose in due course. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this matter and to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for supporting him.
The EARL of SELKIRK: This matter is so rigid. What about people taking food to the jury? Would they be excluded by this clause?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The purpose of this proposal is to enable that to be done. The new subsection (3A) which is introduced into Section 153 of the 1975 Act is intended to enable members of the jury to be fed and generally looked after, so far as is consistent with performing their function as jury men or jury women.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: With the leave of the Committee, I wish to withdraw the amendment. The explanation given by the Lord Advocate was interesting and I appreciate it, but it seems to raise a new horror: Are the judges themselves otherwise supposed to take in the food for the jury?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Routine evidence]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert—
("() Where at an inquiry held under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, an autopsy report is lodged as a production by the procurator fiscal for the district it shall be presumed that the body of the person identified in that report is the body of the deceased in respect of whose death the inquiry held, unless the Sheriff at any stage directs otherwise.").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I believe that this clause is welcome, although there is some disapproval in certain quarters. It is fair to say that the Law Society of Scotland is not entirely happy with the clause, but I believe that on the whole it is sensible and will save the time of quite a number of officials. My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey (whose absence I very much regret) was, I believe, the chairman of the committee which produced this proposal, and in this amendment he wishes it to be applied to fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiries in Scotland. This may not be the appropriate place for this proposal, but the Long Title

1233
of the Bill includes the phrase "and for connected purposes", and so I hope that this can be construed as coming within that ambit. I feel sure that the Lord Advocate can accept this amendment and so further endear himself to the Committee.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was the chairman of a committee that considered this matter in relation to fatal accidents inquiries and suggested that provision should be made on the lines of the present amendment. The principle of the amendment is entirely acceptable to me; indeed, I thoroughly commend it. However, unfortunately, the advice I have is that what is proposed would not come within the Title of the Bill, and much as I should like it to be included from the point of view of the administration of fatal accidents inquiries in Scotland, we would run into difficulties if it were included. Perhaps some other opportunity will present itself, though at the moment I do not have one particularly in mind. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for raising the matter, and I only regret that we cannot give effect to it.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I feared that that would be the answer. I regret that I was not able to discuss the matter with my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, but in view of what the Lord Advocate says, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Additional evidence and evidence in replication]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 24, leave out lines 13 to 33.
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I think that Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 can be taken together. The clause relates to additional evidence. So far as I understand it, most of the evidence given to the Thomson Committee was opposed to the introduction of evidence and evidence in replication—perhaps the Lord Advocate
1234
can tell me whether or not that is so—and the feeling was that it introduces into Scottish law a right for both parties to move the court to allow additional evidence and to refute evidence led by other parties. Views on this matter are conflicting between, and within, many legal bodies, and there appears to be some inconsistency even within the Thomson Committee itself. First, may I ask whether the proposals are based upon what is contained in pages 159 to 161 of the Thomson Report? I am sorry I cannot quote them, but I am still without a copy. I warn the Government that they had better get this matter put right before this Bill sees the light of day in another place, for they will not accept this kind of procedure.
These provisions appear not to be consistent with the last two sentences of paragraph 43.09, although they did make recommendations in paragraph 43.11 which cover the new Sections 149A and 350A. But these recommendations seek to contradict paragraph 43.09, and are certainly hardly supported by anything in the nature of argument. What I want to ask the Government is whether they will justify the inclusion of the two subsections to which I refer. There is more than a feeling that this will lead to the prolongation of trials, and that possibly it could go on and on and certainly be very expensive, not only in time but in money. I shall be glad to hear the justification of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in respect of these two amendments that I seek to make. I beg to move the first one of them.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It might be convenient if I gave the explanation in relation to both these amendments. I think one is in relation to the summary procedure and the other is in relation to the solemn procedure. The purpose is to allow the leading of evidence in replication in very narrowly defined circumstances. If I may take that part of the clause which is the subject of the first amendment for the purposes of illustration, it is provided:
"The judge may, on a motion of the prosecutor made after the close of the defence evidence and before the commencement of the speeches to the jury, permit the prosecutor to lead additional evidence for the purpose of—

1235

(a) contradicting evidence, led by the defence, which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the prosecutor; or

(b) providing such proof as is mentioned in section 147 of this Act".

That refers to proof of a statement which is to the opposite effect to that to which the witness has testified. So the purpose is really to deal with evidence which the prosecutor could not reasonably have anticipated, or to lead evidence of a contradictory statement made by a witness.
These provisions are based on Recommendations 121 and 123 of Thomson, and the need for them arises in this way. During the course of any trial in Scotland under the law at present, if the defence produce unexpected evidence the prosecution may not thereafter adduce evidence to contradict it if they have closed their case; and that, of course, will always happen before the evidence for the defence. This applies even in the situation where, after the close of the Crown case, a witness denies that he has made a previous statement which is different from his evidence. For example, a witness may have given a statement to the police which he contradicts when he goes into the witness box. The Crown can put that to him, but under the present law they cannot back up that putting to him with proof that that is what he actually said; so the Crown cannot answer back to evidence of that sort. At the moment, despite provisions contained in Sections 149 and 350 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, the case law has strictly interpreted these sections so that they are rendered ineffective, and a rule has evolved that the leading of evidence designed to discredit a witness in advance is prohibited. The implementation of the provisions relating to evidence in replication would give effect to these sections, which at the moment are for practical purposes redundant.
The power to lead evidence in replication will, as I have shown your Lordships, be subject to severe limitation; namely, that the court must be satisfied that the prosecution could not reasonably have anticipated the defence evidence which they wish to contradict, if it is under that head. Or, if they did anticipate such evidence, the only other situation in which they would be allowed to lead evidence is when it is to contradict the
1236
statement of a witness denying an earlier statement made by him. The admission of evidence in replication will not be a right, but will always be at the discretion of the trial judge, because, as I read, "The judge may" is the leading phrase. Evidence in replication is already an established and accepted procedure in Scottish civil law, and I would submit to your Lordships that in this day and age it is a very important procedure that the court should have at their disposal to deal with evidence which may come forward in the defence case which the Crown has had no reasonable opportunity to contradict. Subject to the safeguards which are proposed, I would commend this provision to the Committee.
Lord WIGODER: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he be kind enough to help me as to what the position is in Scotland when the defence call alibi evidence and the prosecution wish to rebut that?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The position would be that they would have to rebut it in advance in so far as they can reasonably anticipate it, even under our provisions. In so far as evidence came out of a hat, as it were—something they could not reasonably anticipate—at the moment the Crown cannot do anything about that once they have closed their case, and these provisions would enable them to do so.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Offences in connection with lights, reflectors, obstruction, etc., to be provable by one witness]:
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
The EARL of SELKIRK: Clause 31 must, I suppose, be an extension of the cases in which a crime or offence can be proved by one witness. I accordingly looked at it to see whether I could understand it, as it seemed to be important. It refers to paragraphs (a) to (d) and (f).

1237
I looked up Section 80 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, and in Section 1(1) I could find only paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). They referred to parking offences, obstruction and parking meter offences. I have probably been foolish enough not to understand it, but it is conceivable that if I do not understand it then possibly other people would not understand it, either. I wondered whether, for that reason, the noble and learned Lord either could suggest wording which was clearer or could make it quite clear what is involved. This is a case where one witness is enough, and I think, with respect, that it should be beyond doubt exactly what is referred to. I am not moving a Motion, but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord either would undertake to explain it or would explain it now.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It may be convenient that I give the explanation now. Paragraphs (a) to (d) and (f) of Section 80(1) of the 1967 Act refer to the following offences in connection with a vehicle:

"(a) the vehicle being on a road during the hours of darkness without the required lights or reflectors;

(b) the vehicle obstructing a road, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road;

(c) the non-payment of a charge made at a street parking place:

(d) the vehicle being used in contravention of any provision of an order made or having effect as if made under section 1, 6 or 9, or of regulations made or having effect as if made under section 11, of the 1967 Act, being a provision—

(i) as to the route to be followed by vehicles of the class to which that vehicle belongs "—
such as, for example, lorries having to go along a certain route—

"(ii) as to roads which are not to be used for traffic by such vehicles"
that is the opposite way of achieving much the same result—

"(iii) as to the places where such vehicles may not turn so as to face in the opposite direction to that in which they were proceeding or as to the conditions under which such vehicles may so turn";

for example, U-turns, which some people have been talking about in other connections.—Finally:

"(f) by its being used or kept on a public road within the meaning of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 without a licence under that Act being exhibited on the vehicle in the manner prescribed under that Act".

1238
I think these are the circumstances to which this new clause would apply.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know that there are many people who are opposed to this. It is almost a breach of holy writ, so far as Scottish law is concerned. My noble and learned friend Lord Wheatley will remember the time when he breached it in the Salmon and Freshwater Fish Act. I, too, have a reasonably good memory. I remember the row that there was at that time and the row that there has been about any approach to the question of convicting anyone in Scotland on the evidence of a single witness without any corroborative evidence. I think that we have got to get the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to get up and justify the fact that he is the person so to breach it on this occasion.
I remember the arguments that we had in respect of allowing a judge to exercise a certain measure of discretion. I think it was in a case of a claim for compensation by an injured miner or railwayman; by the nature of his employment there could be no corroboration, for, when the accident occurred, there could be nobody there apart from himself. I remember the row made in another place and in Committee there by certain people who I thought should have known better. They were prepared to stick by the traditions of Scottish law and deny Scottish miners and Scottish railwaymen what I think was fairness. This fairness was allowed in England, but not in Scotland because of the idea that the evidence of one witness is not enough.
It is not enough in Scotland, in the great majority of offences; and I think it is only fair to those who are concerned in Scotland that the Lord Advocate should judge it. I think that the Law Society called this the thin end of the wedge, and felt that the tradition of Scottish law was being breached. As I say, I do not think it is for the first time, but I think it must be justified.
Lord RENTON: Without daring to deny what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has described as holy writ in Scotland, I feel bound to point out that it seems to be rather absurd and a complete

1239
waste of time that there should be more than one witness required to prove that somebody was driving without an excise licence or driving without a reflector—something as simple as that, something, purely administrative, which only one witness could possibly be required on oath to prove. I should have thought that if the Scottish law requiring corroboration is to be sustained, it can be sustained only in reasonable circumstances and not by trying to insist upon it when it is not reasonable. For that reason, I would not expect my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to give way on this clause.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The justification has already been well expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton. These are minor matters. Although we do not in any way withdraw from the important principle of Scottish criminal law and also (to an extent and notwithstanding the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock) civil law that corroboration is required, I think that, without breaching the principle, these are sufficiently minor matters to enable them to be proved by the evidence of one witness.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Prosecution appeal by way of bill of advocation]:
6.44 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 26, line 14, leave out from ("may") to ("proceed") in line 15 and insert ("where there has been no trial diet or there has been a trial diet but evidence has been led").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: A very important word has been omitted from this amendment as printed. The last line of it should read:
"has been a trial diet but no evidence has been led".
It is a fairly simple point. It is one to which my attention has been drawn by the Law Society. It is not proper, if a decision on a bill of advocation is reversed on review, for the prosecutor to proceed with an indictment whether or not evidence has already been led at the trial
1240
diet. If evidence has been led at the trial and the decision is reversed on reivew, the prosecutor should not be empowered to serve an indictment. It is an obvious point about the fact that there has already been a certain amount of publicity in respect of it and it would be unfair to the person concerned. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): For the convenience of the Committee I will read the amendment with the amending manuscript amendment included:
"Page 26, line 14, leave out from ("may") to ("proceed") in line 15 and insert ("where there has been no trial diet or there has been a trial diet but no evidence has been led").
The word "no" has been inserted in the manuscript amendment.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I think it is perhaps important in looking at what has been said about this particular proposal to have in mind that the bill of advocation to which this applies is a method of bringing under review not the facts of a case but some matter of law procedure which has arisen. If the proposal were accepted the bill of advocation procedure would, as the Thomson Committee recommended, be available in both solemn and summary proceedings where the inferior court has dismissed an indictment or complaint as irrelevant or incompetent or dismisses the case on some other preliminary ground—for example, refusal by the court to continue or adjourn a case or to grant leave to desert for that time and place. Any matter which arises short of a verdict can found the right of a bill of advocation.
For example, reverting to one of the provisions that we discussed earlier, if a judge has held that the 110 days' period has expired, and that was found to be wrong, there seems to be no reason why the matter should not be allowed to proceed. Any complaint or indictment which will recommence under the proceedings after the bill of advocation has been successful must inevitably be in the same terms as the one on which the bill of advocation was taken. As the facts are not being disputed in the advocation there is no danger in hearing once again the evidence which may have been led prior to the termination of proceedings which gave rise to the bill of advocation.

1241
This proposal is an important one in making sure that the procedure by way of bill of advocation is effective in cases to which it is properly related and it is again based on the Thomson Committee's recommendation this time, contained in paragraph 15.10 of the Third Report. I would invite the Committee not to give effect to this amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: In view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Restriction on passing sentence of imprisonment or detention on person not legally represented]:
6.50 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 46B:
Page 28, line 21, after ("imprisonment") insert (",or detention,").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. Clause 40 imposes a restriction on passing a sentence of imprisonment on adult offenders or of detention on young offenders, where the offender is not legally represented. The juxtaposition of "imprisonment or of detention" in line 19 and 20 and "imprisonment" in line 20 carries a suggestion that the restriction on immediate committal in default of payment of a fine applies only to imprisonment of adult offenders in default and not to detention of young offenders in default. This amendment rectifies that ambiguity by making it clear that the restriction does apply also to detention of young offenders who have defaulted in payment of fines. A similar amendment arises in respect of paragraph 9 of Schedule 7. I beg to move.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Restriction on passing sentence of imprisonment on person not previously so dealt with]:
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE moved Amendment No. 46C:
1242
Page 29, line 24, leave out ("(from an officer of a local authority or otherwise)").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: On the face of it this clause is of course unexceptionable. I put down the amendment only after some considerable hesitation, because I felt that possibly it raised a number of questions of some practical importance. The question that I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord is this: The clause imposes further restrictions on the discretion of the court in passing a sentence of imprisonment, and among other things it requires the court to obtain, as the clause says
"(from an officer of the local authority or otherwise)"
such information as it can about the offender's circumstances. This is eminently sensible. Do the Government regard this provision as making it obligatory on the court to require a report from an officer of the local authority, who used to be called the probation officer?
The reason why I ask that question is, of course, that an identical provision restricting the power of the court to impose sentences of imprisonment is contained in provisions such as those in Sections 41(6) and 41(7) of the 1975 Act. Although the provision says clearly that the court shall obtain this information through a report from an officer of the local authority or otherwise, in practice in most summary criminal courts it is in any event regarded as obligatory on the court to continue the case in order to get such a report from an officer of the local authority.
Why should not the court continue the case in these circumstances? There are two points to be made so far as the practical position is concerned: the first is that one of the problems in the summary criminal courts in Scotland is the number of continued cases which have to be dealt with at the beginning of every court, cases which have been continued for a great variety of reasons, because of statutory provisions, sometimes for the production of a driving licence so far as road traffic cases are concerned. Over the years there is an increasing log jam of cases. Everyone who works in the summary criminal courts knows about these and is conscious of them. Before the serious work of the courts can be started, all these cases continued for this wide range of reasons,

1243
often perfectly good, have to be dealt with. There is an arid cause of delay in the disposal of trials and the like.
The second point is that in many of the busier courts in particular, the social work departments find great difficulties in providing the courts timeously with the kind of reports they need. There is a wide feeling in many social work departments that they have great difficulty in meeting the demands of the courts. This has increased since the Probation Service ceased to be. These are two practical points of some importance. There is some concern in the courts as to whether in these cases that are covered by Clause 41 it is intended to be obligatory on the court to continue with the social inquiry report, or whether they have a wide discretion which, on the face of it they have, but which they have not seemed in practice to accept that they have had in these other provisions under the other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act which I have heard. I beg to move.
Lord WHEATLEY: I am perturbed about the extent of this clause. I can understand the purpose behind it; but we know that social workers in local authorities are constantly being asked to provide reports for the courts, and that they are finding it very difficult to do so, and at the same time to carry out the work for which they are primarily employed. I wonder whether this provision is necessary in relation to solemn proceedings where the fact that they are being taken on indictment would indicate that the offence, if established, is of such a serious nature that normally a prison sentence would follow. If this clause were to stand as it is, it would mean that in every case in a situation qualifying the conditions here the court would require to call for a social inquiry report from the local authority.
Lord RENTON: Having heard the two noble and learned Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by these words in brackets which are sought to be left out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. When it says:
"(from an officer of a local authority or otherwise)"
it might just as well say "from anybody".
1244
This is a purely drafting point. If we are to specify people by way of priority as being those from whom information should be sought, I should have thought that above all a probation officer was a person who might be consulted. Sometimes the police might be consulted. There should be no limit to the court's opportunity to obtain such information as the court considers is necessary to enable it to form an opinion about the offender's circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me that the words in brackets do not help at all and might just as well be left out from a purely drafting point of view.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: It is perfectly correct, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, that if one leaves out the words in brackets which are the subject of the amendment, it would not make a tremendous difference to the effect of the clause. However, the object of the words in brackets—and they are very similar to words in sections to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, referred in moving the amendment—is to indicate to the court the probable source of the information that it seeks. In Scotland nowadays the probation officer is no longer available. The social work department has to a large extent taken over the role of the probation officer. The purpose of this interpolation in the brackets is to direct attention to that person as the person to whom in the first instance one would think of going for this information.
May I emphasise that this is a clause designed to make certain that where a person is being sentenced to imprisonment for the first time full information about that person's background is available. Scotland has an unfortunate record of being one of the countries with the highest rate of imprisonment per head of population in Western Europe, and the stage at which that starts—that is, when a person is first sentenced to imprisonment—is a most important stage. While I fully appreciate the concern which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, has expressed about the strain on the services and so on, the matter is of such importance that we think no effort should be spared to enable the court to have this information before it passes sentence. As to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord

1245
Wheatley, I appreciate that it may well be almost inevitable that a sentence of imprisonment should come, but even in such cases every consideration ought to be given before that very important and irrevocable step is taken.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I take it from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said, and indeed from what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that in effect the Government consider that the courts should have resort to what used to be called "probation reports" in most, it' not all, cases. This will, in practice, add a significant burden to the working of the courts and to the work of the social work departments. In the case of Clause 40, I can readily understand that it is absolutely vital that, where a person is not legally represented, resort should be had to the social work departments. But at not inconsiderable public expense, in all these cases to which Clause 41 refers, the accused person will have the assistance of a legal adviser. If the legal adviser is not capable of giving to the court the kind of information that would enable it to decide this kind of question, then in my humble opinion the question arises as to whether so much public money should be spent in providing legal advice to people. Surely the kind of information the court needs in order to decide this kind of question, over a person who had never been in prison before, ought to be provided with a legal adviser, whether he be privately instructed or instructed at public expense. Why should it be thought that, as I understand it, many overworked social work departments in Scotland should have the burden put on to them?—a burden which many of them say they have great difficulty in carrying at the moment. It was with these sorts of considerations in mind that I put down this amendment. At first sight it might be thought a little callous to say: "Why should not the court go to the social work department?" Is it really necessary, if he has a good legal adviser?
Lord FOOT: The difficulty about that last suggestion is that if the court is trying to find out objectively what the real circumstances of the accused are, with a view to considering whether or not they should send him to prison, surely a statement emanating from the counsel
1246
or solicitor for the accused has not got that objective and impartial aspect that a report from a probation officer has. I would have thought there is really no great difficulty in leaving these words in, because it does not require the court always to obtain a report from "an officer from the local authority"—which I understand to be the euphemism for a probation officer—hut the court can, if it sees fit, seek for its information under the phrase "or otherwise": in other words from some separate source. I would have thought there were manifest advantages in leaving it in the clause that the court may seek the advice of an officer of the local authority if they are so inclined and if they think that the information they can get from some other source is inadequate for their purposes.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: F do not want to press this point because it is a short one. I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said. There will be many cases in which the court will be doubtful as to whether it should proceed to imprisonment without getting a report from a social work department. The point is that, in the Scottish courts the approach, certainly in the summary criminal courts, to the question of whether or not to impose a sentence of imprisonment is very much the approach enshrined in this clause of the Bill. The only point at which I cavill is tying the hands of the court and saying: "You cannot do it unless you get a report from the social work department" I would have thought this was an unnecessary and undue restriction. That was the only point I wanted to make, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Punishment for murder]:
7.5 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 29, line 38, leave out ("sections") and insert ("section").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: I should like, if I may, to take Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 together. Amendment No. 47 is of absolutely no significance: it

1247
is merely a consequential amendment if No. 48 is carried—it deletes an "s". The important point concerns Amendment No. 48, because this deals with the question as to whether, when a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed after a conviction for murder, the judge is to be obliged to make a recommendation as to the minimum period of detention which the convicted man should serve, or whether, as at present, he should be permitted to do so if he thinks fit. Your Lordships will see that the substituted Section 205 says that,
"… a person convicted of murder shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life",
and that is subject to special provisions for young people. On page 30 of the Bill, at line 11, it goes on:
"On sentencing any person convicted of murder a judge shall, unless he considers that there are special circumstances making it inappropriate for him to do so, make a recommendation as to the minimum period which should elapse before …"
the convicted person can be released. That is an innovation. The present law is that the judge may make a recommendation if he thinks fit, but he is not obliged to do so. I would prefer the law to remain as it is, leaving it open to the judge to make a recommendation but not obliging him to do so.
I put this forward with a little hesitation because I know that a committee presided over by Lord Emslie, the Lord Justice General, reported in 1972 in favour of a mandatory recommendation: in other words, in favour of the Bill as at present drafted. That committee reported in 1972 which in this connection, was a good long time ago. A great deal of experience has been gained since then on the working of this provision, and I think the arrangements at present in force for a discretion for the judge to make a recommendation or not has worked very well. I think that the recommendation of the committee is really not one that should be accepted in this connection, and I see I have support for that from the Law Society of Scotland.
The reasons I put forward are these: In the first place, what the judge does when he is making a recommendation for the minimum period of detention is almost entirely related to his knowledge of the case from the trial. If he thinks the actual murder has been a very savage
1248
and very wicked one, or if he thinks the accused has a record, or if there are other cirumstances which are much to be deplored, then he will make a recommendation for a rather long period of necessary detention. He will say, "He must not be released in less than 20 years", or something of that kind. But he can do that only by reference to the past. The whole point of the parole boards and so on is that the conduct and character of the convicted person shall be judged by a panel of people after he has been in prison for a time, and in relation to his state of mind and his conduct as then ascertained. The two are rather in conflict and it would not be desirable, therefore, that the judge should always as a matter of regular practice, make a recommendation. Of course if he thinks that it is a special case he should be permitted to make a recommendation, but he should not be obliged to do so.
Secondly, in quite a number of cases the minimum period of detention which a judge would recommend might be very short. I can think of one case that I tried of a young man who was perfectly rightly convicted of murder, but the circumstances, which I shall not go into now, were not at all criminal and wicked. He had had too much to drink and he picked up a knife, there was a quarrel over a girl, and he stabbed another young man. Of course, it was a dreadful thing to do and he should not have done it. But if one heard the whole story, and knew that liquor was involved, one would know that he did not attract a very long sentence. There was a lot of evidence about his family and character. He was a decent young chap who had behaved stupidly, but I thought that it was not a crime which required a long period of detention.
If I had been obliged to make a recommendation in that case, I should have said that he must not be released in less than two years, or something like that. But if I had said that in public, there would have been an uproar and the public would have thought it was absurdly little for a crime of murder, but they would not have known the circumstances. It is much better that a formal sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed in that kind of case, and it should be left to the machinery to see how long he should be kept in prison. If a young man is of good character and bitterly regrets the terrible thing that he has

1249
done, he might be let out in a relatively short period. That is done quietly and without causing any uproar.
There is another factor—that if a mandatory recommendation is to be made the public will see what is recommended and will, perhaps, tend to compare the recommendation in convictions for murder, which are recommending a minimum period, with an actual sentence imposed for culpable homicide, or in England, manslaughter, where a sentence is imposed which is, in effect, a maximum sentence and which is liable to be reduced to two-thirds, anyway, for good conduct and may come down to as little as one-third. As a result, the comparison is an entirely false one. But members of the public will not always appreciate that and may say, "It seems extraordinary to recommend a period of detention of only two years for a murderer, whereas here is a sentence of 10 years for culpable homicide", without realising that the two things are not comparable. That would be unfortunate.
Without going into more elaborate details, I would also add that this very matter has recently been under consideration in England by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, who are considering penalties for offences against the person. They have, I believe, completed their report. It has not yet been published, but I suppose that it will be before very long. I do not know what the recommendation may be, but it seems to me that, as they have investigated this matter quite fully and more recently than the Emslie Committee, it would be wise to await the publication of their report with such reasons as they may advance for their recommendation, before changing the law. I prefer that the law should continue as it is now, and that the judge may make a recommendation but is not obliged to do so. For that reason, I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): As the debate is covering Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, I should inform the Committee that if these amendments are agreed to, Amendment No. 48A, which is directly related to Amendment No. 48, will fall.
Lord MISHCON: Following upon what has just been said, I rise only to apologise on behalf of my noble friend
1250
Lord Ross of Marnock, who has a longstanding engagement which he could not possibly put off, so he does not have the opportunity of participating further in this Committee stage. I just want to say that what Amendment No. 48A, which will not now be moved, would have done is to try to preserve the law as it is. That is exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, is asking for and, for all the reasons that he has given, I want to say that we on these Benches support him in this amendment.
Lord KEITH of KINKEL: I support the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. The point which is raised by the amendment is not at all a lawyer's point. As I see it, it is very much concerned with the question of what the attitude of the general public to the administration of justice in the higher criminal courts of Scotland is going to be. Opinions vary as to whether sentences of imprisonment have a significant deterrent effect upon others who might be minded to commit crimes. One knows that a person serving a long sentence will not be committing any crimes during the period of his incarceration. There are certain crimes of murder which present themselves to the general public as very obviously exceedingly atrocious crimes and there are one or two instances which one can recall. In Scotland, perhaps the most notorious was the Manuel case, while another in England was the Moors Murders case, but murders of that kind are exceptional. In Scotland, the great majority of murders are what one might call run of the mill. They may be domestic murders—that is, murders committed in some kind of domestic relationship—or, quite commonly, they may be murders effected almost by accident, by young men who carry knives in the streets of the major cities.
In the case of the atrocious murders, it is reasonable that the public should demand—because any system of justice must take account of public opinion—that the sentence passed must be a very heavy one, and it appeals to their ordinary sense of justice that a recommendation should be made fixing a very long minimum term of imprisonment. The public understands that and it may encourage their faith in the administration of justice.

1251
For one thing, they know that that person, who is obviously very dangerous, will not be allowed out for a very long time; and for another, as I said, it appeals to their general sense of justice and seems a proper response to their feeling of shock and horror at the circumstances of a particular murder. It is, as I understand it, to deal with that kind of case that the present power to make a recommendation has been entrusted to the judiciary.
But what about the other run-of-the-mill murders, such as I have described? Is it necessary, does the public feeling demand, that recommendations be made in these circumstances, or would it do any good to the impression which the public receives of the administration of justice? Respectfully, I think not. There is no particular reason for supposing that in the ordinary murder case, if a mandatory requirement is imposed to state a minimum period of detention, there will be a great deal of difference. We know that under the present system the parole board normally recommends a murderer for release, if there is nothing special about the case, after nine or ten years. The general level of recommendations, if this clause became law, would no doubt be of the order of eight, nine or ten years. Would that do any good? The public would fix their attention upon these recommendations and say, "Oh, the term of imprisonment for murder nowadays is normally nine, 10, or 11 years, or thereabouts" and they might compare it with other sentences for other crimes which might be heavier.
I would respectfully ask your Lordships to take the view that this clause would have a detrimental effect upon the public view of the administration of justice and that it is much better that, as at present in the normal case, the question of how long a convicted murderer should serve should be left to the parole board, which is in a position to assess the progress of the prisoner while incarcerated, take account of his circumstances and his psychological state from time to time. and so on. As no doubt many noble Lords are aware, in every murder case the presiding judge is required to prepare a report for the parole board which is then kept and considered along with the other material available whenever the case of the prisoner is reviewed. Like-
1252
wise, the trial judge, if available, is always consulted before the parole board takes the step of recommending the release on licence of the prisoner.
As I have said, this point seems to me to be very much the sort of point apt to be considered not by lawyers but by those who are concerned and interested in the impression which the public are going to have of the sentencing policy of the courts. I conclude simply by saying that I believe that this requires reconsideration by the Government. Many different views have been expressed about it in both the Walton Report in England and the Emslie Report in Scotland. It is a very debatable question but I do not think that it is a lawyer's question.
Lord WIGODER: I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will find himself persuaded by the powerful arguments of the two noble and learned Lords on this matter. May I add only one small point: that the question of the way in which we deal with convicted murderers is always a matter of the greatest public interest and the greatest controversy. It would, I suggest, be a very, very unhappy state of affairs if, on such a vital issue of penal policy, England and Scotland should adopt wholly different methods of approaching this matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consider on this matter. perhaps more than on many others in the Bill, that it is very much in the public interest that the two countries should go together hand in hand, and that Scotland should not set out, as is proposed in the Bill, on a method of dealing with people who have committed the offence of murder which at the moment is not part of English law; and that any such reform should be done, if it is going to be done at all, by the United Kingdom as a whole.
Viscount ULLSWATER: I intervene for only a short while to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, in these two amendments, especially where they concern Section 205(2) which deals with those under the age of 18. In this case it is inappropriate and very unkind on a young offender, albeit taking into account the seriousness of his crime. If a long period is specified, this is at a time when his character is changing a great deal. He is maturing and growing

1253
up and it would have a very depressing effect upon the evolution of his character. If a very short period were stated it might give false hope to an offender if the Secretary of State, at the time that that period came to an end, decided that he was not tit for release. I think that this is inappropriate for young people.
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have listened with the very greatest care and attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullyhelton, and other noble Lords have said. If I may respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, there are overtones to this part of the Bill which go beyond the law and come into the general policy of the administration of justice. When, if I may call them such, representatives of those upon whom this duty is being put say that it is not a duty which they welcome, naturally one pays the greatest attention to what they say. However, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, this clause of the Bill comes from the recommendations of the committee presided over by Lord Emslie.
Since some of these works are now out of print and not available, perhaps I may be forgiven if I quote from a small portion of paragraph 93 on page 41 of the report, because it sets out precisely why this has been written into the Bill. That particular section deals with considerations relating to changes in Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 and, when talking about the duty which they were going to recommend, says:
"Its effect would be that at the end of almost all trials which result in a conviction for murder the court, in addition to imposing a mandatory life sentence, would recommend, in the light of its assessment of the offence and the offender, a minimum period of years for which the offender would be initially detained. The making of such a recommendation would enable a distinction to be made in public by the court between one murderer and another. The convicted person and the public would thereby be made aware of the gravity with which the court viewed the case and any potential offender would be made aware in a more direct way than is possible with the present sentence of the likely consequences of a similar crime. At the end of a murder trial which attracted considerable publicity the pronouncement of a sentence of life imprisonment, coupled with a recommended minimum period, would usefully sharpen the deterrent value of the sentence. The introduction of such a provision would also go some way to strengthen public confidence in the penalty for murder by removing the present
1254
anomaly whereby the judges, who are entrusted with the task of saying what custodial element is necessary for, in particular, the purpose of deterrence and prevention in any other common law crime, play virtually no part at all in determining the period which convicted murderers spend in prison. The present provision for obtaining the trial judge's view on these matters is of little value and contributes nothing to the general deterrent influence of the penalty itself".
So the effect, I submit, of the deliberations of the committee was that the trial judge is, after all best placed to assess all the circumstances of the offence and the offender in the light of the information presented to the court.
I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, that there may be exceptions to the ordinary run—for instance, where the trial judge does not consider murder to be a very grave matter. In relation to the noble and learned Lord's second point, I am bound to say that murder, which remains the most serious offence against the person in our calender of crimes and which arouses very considerable public disquiet, would in very few cases, if there was not a defence of diminished responsibility of some kind available to the accused man, merit a period of detention so low as two years. But I suppose that it could happen. The committee therefore recommended that, exceptional circumstances apart—and I want to emphasise that—the judge should recommend the minimum period which should elapse before a person convicted of murder is released on licence.
At present, judges have a discretionary power to make such recommendations, a power which incidentally the amendment seeks to remove, but that power is seldom used. If, as is contemplated, more use is to be made of the power, certain statutory safeguards are in our view essential so that we have in particular a requirement for a judge to state the reasons for his recommendation in subsection (2), and a right for a convicted person to appeal against a recommendation, which is in subsection (3).
Like the Emslie Committee, the Government take the view that the pronouncement of such a recommendation will serve to enhance the punitive and deterrent effect of the life sentence. I appreciate that the judge is only in a position to view the matter from what has transpired and the present state of the proceedings as he sees them in court, and that is why it is

1255
appropriate that he should make only a recommendation as to the minimum term which should be served to achieve the desired punitive and deterrent effect. The maximum, of course, stays as it was before, with the Parole Board and the Secretary of State.
I want to emphasise that the Government regard as most important the life sentence and its pronouncement at a time when, in Scotland, there is widespread public concern about law and order and in particular about crimes involving serious violence which may or may not lead to death, often depending as we have heard in previous debates, on such chance factors as the availability of medical assistance. The incidence of murder has shown a general tendency to increase since the 1960s, and I think that public concern has increased as well.
Another advantage to be derived from the implementation of the report was referred to on Second Reading. As a former Secretary of State for Scotland, he is well aware of the problem that when the time comes for the Secretary of State to consider the release on licence of a person convicted of murder, the trial judge may have died or he may be very elderly and unable to remember the particular circumstances of the case. The requirement of the trial judge to make a minimum recommendation and to record his reasons for the recommendation will provide guidance for future holders of the office.
Lastly, and by way of underlining what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, has said, this is a matter which has exercised public opinion for some time; sufficiently so that before the last general election this actual provision appeared in the manifesto of the Scottish Conservative Party and therefore we are undertaking this commitment by including it in the present Bill. I would not seek to justify anything simply for that reason, but I just put that in for what it is worth. I hope, from what I have said, that your Lordships will agree that in view of all the safeguards which I have mentioned this is something that could well be written into our law and possibly, dare I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, eventually be copied in England.
7.33 p.m.
Lord RENTON: I wish to deal with only one point, and that is the question of whether on this important matter the law of England and of Scotland should necessarily be exactly the same. We know that whatever happens the same sort of practice, statutorily defined, is likely to emerge. As an English lawyer I was honoured, flattered and pleased when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, said that we should await the report of the English Criminal Law Revision Committee before reaching a decision on this matter. But we have before us the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and I should have thought that it was right for us to deal with it on the basis of whether the Bill has got it right for Scotland. If it has got it right for Scotland, then whatever is said by an English Criminal Law Revision Committee should not matter.
But surely my noble friend the Minister of State has put forward—leave aside what was in a political manifesto; on something like this I do not think we should be very strictly tied to that—views which provide adequate safeguards. Indeed, if we look at the clause we find that the judges in Scotland will be required to take very great care, of a kind which public opinion would expect, and they have to give their reasons for their special recommendations. In those circumstances, I cannot believe that any serious disparity which would worry public opinion is likely to emerge in the long run if we pass this clause as it stands in the Bill.
Lord FOOT: I rather hesitate to intervene but I have been provoked into doing so by the words which have just fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There is a major question here, and also a minor question. It seems to me that the provision which we have in our law in England at the present moment whereby a judge may—and it is optional for the judge—make a recommendation as to how long a person sentenced to life imprisonment should in fact remain in prison really is quite illogical. It is certainly contrary to the Christian principle that everyone is capable of redemption, because it assumes that the judge, when speaking about what is to happen in 15 or 20 years' time, and whether or not that particular individual will then

1257
be fit to be let out, is looking into a crystal ball; he is being asked to forecast the future, and that always seems to me to be a ridiculous burden to place upon a judge.
But the narrower point is really whether it is to be obligatory and mandatory on the judge, as provided in this new clause, to recommend a minimum term, or whether it is to be optional. I listened with great care to everything that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about this matter and it seemed to me that everything he said was equally applicable to arguing in favour of the optional as opposed to the mandatory sentence. Surely it is imposing upon a judge a burden which he may be unwilling to bear, to ask him always, unless there are special circumstances, to state the period that he thinks a person ought to serve and the reason why he makes that recommendation. Why should we impose that intolerable burden which I suppose many judges would be unwilling to cant'? All the arguments that we have heard have been really as much in favour of the optional system as of the mandatory system, and I hope that the Government may still be prepared to consider, not perhaps the deletion of this clause but rewriting the clause in order that the law in Scotland may indeed be on even terms with the law in England.
7.40 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I intervene, with an apology for doing so on the second occasion on this clause, because I feel it is necessary to stress one point which has been ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but in the extension of which I feel he somewhat erred. As I understand it, the law North of the Border is the same at present as the law South of the Border, in the sense that the judge has the power to do it, as he has in England.
It seems to me that everything that the noble earl said in his very cogent speech pointed to the fact that there was a need for a deterrent. In the appropriate case, if there is a discretionary power, I have no doubt that a judge would find it his duty to observe what has been his power until now, carry out that duty which is upon him, and prescribe by way of recommendation a minimum period of detention. To try to do it for every conceivable
1258
case and make it mandatory must be a wrong way of dealing with the matter. Surely the judges of Scotland can be relied upon. if there were a plea to them in future that in appropriate cases they should exercise this discretion, that would meet with the sort of response that all of us who have spoken in favour of this clause would want, and indeed there is no reason why, in asking them to exercise this discretion which they would have, they should not be told that at the same time, if they do exercise it, they should carry out all the things that are contained in this clause in order to give proper guidance. I repeat, to make this mandatory must be wrong.
I cannot feel that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for whose views upon these matters we all have great respect, is right when he says that it is a sensible thing if something appears to be right for Scotland to make it right for Scotland, even though it happens to be right for England in the reverse way. Are the crimes of murder committed North of the Border different from those of the South. Are the citizens of Scotland different from ours, and should they be dealt with separately in the crime of murder. It does seem a little absurd.
Lord RENTON: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would allow me to say this. Surely the whole point about the law of Scotland, especially the criminal law, is that it is in so many different respects different from the laws of England, and the Act of Union requires that the customary law of Scotland should be maintained and indeed built upon. Every time we have before us in Parliament a Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, we are building on what has gone before, and that is what we are doing tonight.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: I should like to correct any impression I may have given, if I did give the impression, that I think the crime of murder is to be treated lightly. I am far from wishing to suggest any such thing. I do not believe that and I hope I did not give that impression. If I may refer to one or two of the points the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, put forward which appeared to me to be less than satisfactory answers to what I was saying, he said that at present the power of the judges to make recommendations for a minimum period is

1259
very seldom used. I should have thought that was a very strong indication that the judges do not want the power and do not think it is one they ought to use. If they thought it their duty to make a recommendation in a particular case, then, of course, they should do it. if they do not do it, it shows that they do not consider it a useful thing to do. Indeed, I understand that there is no general view among the judges in Scotland that the duty of making a recommendation should be mandatory. I do not know whether there is a positive majority in favour of what I am saying, but there certainly is no strong view in favour of a mandatory recommendation.
Another matter that the noble Earl referred to was that the trial judge, who at the moment is to be consulted before a convicted man is released, may not be available; he may have died or he may have become ill. That is true, and for that very reason the present system is that a report is made by the trial judge immediately after the trial when the matter is fresh in his mind as to what his views about the minimum period are. So that possible difficulty really does not exist.
Then the noble Earl referred to the recommendation of the Emslie Committee, which I fully recognise thought that there should be a mandatory recommendation. I think, when one considers the Emslie Committee's report on this matter, it does not seem to me to be very persuasive. In paragraph 96 they say:
"Further, the deterrent value of the sentence would in our view be enhanced and a number of possible misunderstandings removed if the pronouncement of the court was in some such terms as the following: ' I sentence you to imprisonment and to remain liable for imprisonment for the rest of your life. I recommend that you be detained for a period of not less than (so many years) before you are released on licence'"
I quite see that, if that last sentence said, "I recommend that you be detained for a period of not less than 20 years or 30 years", it would have a strong deterrent effect. But if it became the ordinary practice to say, "I recommend that you be detained for a period of not less than 8 years or 9 years or 10 years", and if that became well recognised as little more than a formula, it would lose any particular deterrent effect very quickly. So I must
1260
say I find that argument entirely unpersuasive.
With regard to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that conditions in the Scottish criminal law are different from the English criminal law, I, of course, accept that that is so. I would be the last person to suggest that Scotland should tag along behind England in this matter. I would not dream of doing any such thing. But we have, I understand, a very recent up-to-date report of the English Criminal Law Committee, who I know will make a recommendation on this and will set out some reasons for it. I should have thought the sensible thing was, before changing the law of Scotland, to see the reasons in the English report. Having seen them, we may say that they are quite inapplicable to conditions in Scotland, or we may say that they are sensible reasons which are equally applicable throughout the United Kingdom, and they are more up-to-date than the Emslie recommendations of 8 years ago, and we therefore think the law should remain as it is.
Finally, the fact that something of this sort was in the political manifesto of a party before an election is the one thing that makes me very reluctant to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment. But I think it would be wrong for me as a judge to press to a Division a matter of this sort against the Government. So, sadly and reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 98A not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Detention of young offenders]:
Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN moved Amendment No. 48B:
Page 34, line 21, leave out from ("to"") to ("shall") in line 23.
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment. Clause 44 inserts new provisions under solemn procedure in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 for the detention of young offenders and applies these provisions with certain necessary modifi-

1261
cations to summary procedure. One modification thought necessary was to disapply for summary procedure the provisions of Sections 59 to 62 and 64 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which deal with release on licence, since the maximum length of summary sentence, usually three months but in some cases six months, is less than the qualifying period for parole, 18 months. However, it is now realised that it may be possible for someone sentenced to detention under Section 415 of the Act to qualify for parole; for example, if a person serving a sentence under solemn conviction of, say, 15 months is convicted and sentenced under summary procedure for another offence, and the aggregate of the two sentences to be served consecutively exceed the qualifying period for parole. Sections 59 to 62 and 64 of the 1967 Act are therefore still relevant to summary procedure, and this amendment deletes their omission in lines 21 to 23 of page 34. I beg to move.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Power to remit fines]:
7.50 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 48C:
Page 36, line 39, leave out from ("fine") to end of line 40 and insert ("or (where that court was the High Court) by which payment was first enforceable").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48C. The purpose of this amendment is to render more precise the phrase:
"an appropriate sheriff court"
which at present is found in the clause, and to substitute for it:
"(or (where that court was the High Court)" [the sheriff court] "by which the payment was first enforceable)."
It is important that a person wishing to have his fine remitted should know exactly to which court to have resort. It is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Recovery of fine or caution by civil diligence]:
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 48D:
Page 38, line 21, after ("or") insert ("for failure to find such").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48D. This is a purely drafting amendment. As drafted, Clause 50 refers to non-payment of a fine or caution, but strictly the correct terminology in the case of caution is failure to find caution, rather than non-payment. The amendment simply rectifies that point.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 48E:
Page 38, line 23, leave out ("non-payment of the fine or caution") and insert ("the non-payment or the failure")
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48E. The same explanation applies.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Compensation order against convicted person]:
7.54 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 40, leave out lines 10 to 15.
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 49. Clause 56 provides for a compensation order to be made against a convicted person, and no one would have the slightest quarrel with that. Indeed, if I may be permitted to say so, having regard to matters that were discussed quite recently, it is a course which is being adopted with great usefulness in the English courts. Having said that, and taking it for granted that someone will not immediately say that we had better abolish it for Scotland having regard to what was recently discussed, I shall go on to talk only about the proviso.
For some reason which is not clear to me there is a proviso in this clause that a compensation order cannot be awarded

1263
by a court where it makes an order discharging the defendant absolutely or if it makes a probation order. I cannot think of a greater discouragement to make a probation order in a case or to give an absolute discharge, if the award of a compensation order—which seems extremely appropriate in many cases—cannot be made if a probation order or an absolute discharge follow. I need not detain your Lordships for long by giving numerous examples. I should have thought that there was one very obvious example. I am referring to the young offender who has done damage and who has caused loss, and as regards whom the court takes the view that the most suitable penalty to be imposed is to make a compensation order and to accompany it with a probation order. In those circumstances, I move this amendment and trust that the proviso will leave the Bill.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 49A:
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I agree with what has been said in support of the amendment. The amendment which I put down, Amendment No. 49A, covered only the case of the probation order. That was simply because I could see a kind of legal logic in saying that if an absolute discharge was appropriate then perhaps a compensation order was not. However, I think that my legal logic was wrong.
Certainly, so far as the probation order is concerned, I think that there are two questions that the Government must answer. First, why should a person not be put on probation and a compensation order be made at the same time? For years in the Scottish criminal courts offenders have been put on probation on condition that they made good part or the whole of the damage or loss caused to the victim of the offence. That was commonplace. Therefore, the second question which the Government must answer is as follows: if they insist on this proviso, are they saying that it is incompetent for the courts to do what they have done for so long—and most people, I should have thought, would have thought
1264
most sensibly—namely, especially to put a young offender, on probation, with a condition of his probation that he makes good part or the whole of the loss which the victim of his offence suffered?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: There is nothing in this clause which in any way reduces the power of the courts in Scotland in so far as they have powers already. Therefore, the answer to the last question must be that, if it is competent at present it continues to be competent as regards anything that this clause provides. The reason why probation orders and orders for absolute discharge have been excluded is that it is thought by us that to impose a compensation order in these circumstances is not appropriate. From the point of view of the offender the imposition of a compensation order is very analogous to a punishment. The machinery set up for enforcing it is the machinery which affects fines. It is really for that reason that these two orders—the absolute discharge and the probation order—which are really alternative to punishment in the strict sense, are excluded.
As I have just said, that does not mean that the courts are powerless in this matter. It would still be open for the court—if they thought it appropriate to impose probation or to grant an absolute discharge—to continue the case at the first hearing to enable the person accused to make compensation to the amount that they had in mind, before granting that relief. That, from the practical point of view is, of course, what happens in that area at present. From that point of view, the only real effect, so far as compensation orders are concerned, on the power of the Scottish courts, is that machinery is provided for compulsory enforcement of the compensation order, and in the case of the absolute discharge and probation order that might not be appropriate. Therefore, for practical purposes, I am not sure that the amendment achieves very much, and if we leave the matter as it is in the Bill it preserves the legal logic—if that is the right expression—or the theory of the matter: probation orders and absolute discharges are not to be seen as quite in the nature of punishment in the same way as other penalties.
Lord MISHCON: I am sure that it must be my fault, but I am afraid that I do not quite understand any part of the logic—legal or otherwise—of a section of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. Is he saying that it would be competent for a court to give a hint to a defendant that, if he makes compensation before an adjourned hearing, there will be a probation order? If that is so, is he not then intimating to the defendant that there should be a punishment as well as the making of a probation order? Does that not defeat the whole logic of what the noble and learned Lord has said?
8 p.m.
Lord FOOT: Perhaps I could follow that. If the situation is that the court gives an indication to a convicted person that, if compensation is forthcoming, he may be put on probation or given an absolute discharge, that puts that defendant in an entirely privileged position as compared with the defendant who is in no position at that stage to make compensation because he does not have the money. Therefore, in his case the offer will not be available.
I am bound to say that I cannot understand the logic of the argument which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has advanced. There must be many cases, must there not, where someone commits an offence, where someone is guilty of stealing? Perhaps he is a first offender. The desirable thing is that he should be made to repay what he has stolen, what he has deprived someone of, without having to be condemned to any further measure. In those circumstances, is not an absolute discharge or possibly a probation order, combined with an order that he shall make compensation, the ideal sentence to be imposed? However, under this provision that ideal sentence—as I suggest it is in many circumstances—is the one sentence which is denied to the court as not being available. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to look at this again.
Lord GALPERN: As regards payment under the Criminal Injuries Act, can the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, say what the position would be where compensation has been awarded to someone who has received personal
1266
injury? Would the sum of compensation be deducted from any amount that might be awarded to such a person under the Criminal Injuries Act, or would the payment be delayed until such time as it is ascertained that the accused against whom the compensation has been awarded is able to pay the money? Is there no relationship between a compensation order for personal injury and the Criminal Injuries Act?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: At present the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is not a statutory scheme, so no question of legal right arises under it. Perhaps the noble Lord's question could be answered by reference to Clause 65 of the Bill, which deals with a situation where a compensation order exists and an award is contemplated in a civil action. The effect is that payments made under the compensation order are taken into account as, in effect, payments to account of the civil damages.
Lord GALPERN: I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has allowed me to introduce ideas which may arise later. On the question whether everyone who receives criminal injuries would receive compensation under the Criminal Injuries Act, in a substantial number of cases substantial damages are awarded. Is it not the case that if a similar amount of damages, or damages equal to the amount the individual could have made application to claim under the Criminal Injuries Act are awarded, the one would have to wait upon the other? It might be a long while before he received any money—money which might be urgently needed because of the severe criminal injuries which he had sustained.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Any payments made under the compensation order would be taken into account. Under the present scheme, it does not follow that if the person is entitled to compensation for a criminal injury, he would have to wait. Payments would be taken into account in that respect. I think that that is a satisfactory arrangement.
Lord GALPERN: Let us assume that £5,000 was the sum which such a person could have obtained under the Criminal Injuries Act and that compensation of

1267
£5,000 was awarded to him in the courts. He may receive £5 of it, £50 of it and it may take 20 years before he receives the full £5,000, if he ever sees the money. It would be far better for an individual who receives these injuries to forget about compensation and rather than have any compensation awarded to him, proceed under the Criminal Injuries Act.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I have no doubt that the authority responsible for handing out public money under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme would take the proper steps to protect its interests in a situation such as that. However, I do not think the fact that there was the possibility of payment from another quarter would lead to any delay in payment. I am sure that it would be possible to make the legal arrangements in such a way that the public fund would not suffer from any duplication of payment to the person injured.
Perhaps I may return to the other matter. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, emphasises what I was trying to say. In a situation where a person is willing to make compensation there is no real necessity for a compensation order. If a person is willing to make compensation and the court considers that in the circumstances it is appropriate to make a probation order or to grant an absolute discharge, that can happen without any reference to a compensation order. That is the situation which we are trying to preserve. Absolute discharges and probation orders are appropriate in rather special circumstances and are very much to be distinguished from ordinary penalties. It is for that reason—and I venture to submit that it is a very good and important reason underlying the nature of these two possibilities—that nothing which even smacks of penalty should be attached to them. That is why we have sought to keep them separate. However, from a practical point of view as to what the court can do, so far as I can see, it makes no difference.
Lord HUGHES: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a question on this matter. As I understand it, the compensation clauses arise from the recommendation of the Committee under Lord Dunpark. They change the law of Scotland in giving
1268
power to the courts to make compensation compulsory. Therefore, from that point of view the situation is changed. At the moment the only way in which compensation can be paid, if I understand the position correctly, is by a method that has been used recently, with a number of sheriffs making use of their powers to say, "I shall defer sentence on this matter so that we may see what you are prepared to do about it".
In those circumstances—the sort of circumstances to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred—a voluntary payment is being made and, therefore, there is no need for compulsion. That I can understand. I am partly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord said, that nothing in these clauses takes away from the courts a power which they already have. I hope that that will be made abundantly clear to sheriffs, because I should have thought that a normal reading of a new power of this kind, stating the circumstances in which one could make a compulsory order and the circumstances in which one could not make it, might be interpreted by some sheriffs—and we have some sheriffs of very high quality indeed and others who are not quite so—as meaning that they no longer had power to carry out the present voluntary procedure.
From what the noble and learned Lord has said, I am persuaded that there is a certain value in this. To a certain extent my misgivings would be removed if I could be sure that the usual procedure would be followed, in this case by some administrative guidance being given, and if we could have an assurance that the attention of sheriffs would be specifically drawn to the fact that these clauses did not withdraw their power to defer sentence, so that compensation would be paid on a voluntary basis where an absolute discharge was granted or where a probation order was made. Could that be done?
8.10 p.m.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I have some opportunity to address sheriffs from time to time. and I would certainly undertake to do what I could to draw to their attention the point that has been made. I think we can make it reasonably plain that this is our understanding of the provisions.
Lord FOOT: The noble Lord said earlier that something I had said seemed to him to support his argument. May I return to that for a moment. The situation I was posing was this: suppose some offender is brought in for having stolen some property, or something, and then he pleads guilty or is convicted. The court then have to decide what to do with him. If they think that the appropriate penalty would be for him to make compensation and then to be put on probation, then if I understood the noble Lord rightly earlier he was saying that, if the defendant was in the position of being able to indicate to the court that he was able to make compensation, then the court might appropriately put him on probation or even give him an absolute discharge.
The other situation I was posing was this: Suppose the man concerned is not in a position to make compensation. He has not got the money available and cannot offer it to the court or give it to the injured party. In those circumstances, is not the court obliged to say this to itself: "If he had been able to make compensation we would have thought it appropriate to make a probation order. But as he is not able to make compensation, we must do something other than a probation order. We must impose some kind of penalty." Under this proviso, they are precluded from making a probation order and at the same time making an order for compensation. That was the point I was trying to make. I do not think that it really supports the Government's argument.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: At the risk of boring your Lordships, may I say that in making a compensation order under Clause 57 the court is hound to have regard to the means of the person. If the person is not in a position to make compensation because of his lack of means, then it would not be appropriate to make a compensation order, either. The thing fits together in my submission. I do not wish to continue the argument further. I have done my best to explain our position.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: There is a further point which may have a hearing on this difficulty. The summary courts have no power, when they impose a fine
1270
on an offender under 21 years of age, to fix an alternative of imprisonment unless the offender has been placed under supervision for payment of the fine. The courts have young men of 20, and so on, who have broken the law, and have a vote, but you cannot fix an alternative of imprisonment, unless they have been placed under supervision for payment of the fine. The law regards them as requiring this sort of protection.
Why then should it be thought inappropriate with a young offender—and there will be many young offenders under 21 who are dealt with under these provisions—to say, "You will pay this compensation. You will discharge this compensation order"—but then the court should not have power to place them under supervision of a probation officer to see that they behave properly otherwise?
Lord MISHCON: I hesitate to ask your Lordships to divide on this matter, in view of the discussion that has taken place. I can only hope, with others who have sympathised with what I have said, and in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, that the instruction, if I may put it that way, on the direction which will be given to the various courts will be transparently clear as to exactly what they can and cannot do. One can only hope that the forecast of the noble and learned Lord will prove correct, and that the fear that I ventured to express does not prove to be correct; namely, that this will inhibit some courts from making what otherwise ought to be a just order; namely, a probation order, or an absolute discharge. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49A not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Review of compensation order]:
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 49B:
Page 42, line 2, leave out from ("order") to end of line 3 and insert ("(or (where that court was the High Court) by which the order was first enforceable").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: This is the same explanation that I gave in relation to the amendment to Clause 48. I beg to move.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Application of provisions relating to fines to enforcement of compensation orders]:
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 49C:
Page 42, line 38, leave out ("enquiry into means") and insert ("reasons for default").
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment required to insert the amended description of Section 398 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 into Clause 64 in order to bring it into line with the description in Clause 46. I beg to move.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 [Effect of compensation order on subsequent award of damages in civil proceedings]:
8.17 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 43, line 39, leave out ("not exceed") and insert ("be restricted to").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I could well understand at this late hour and without food, as many of us have had to deal with this matter, that I would not be able to understand Clause 65. But I must in honesty say that I, in better condition, read that clause last night and still failed to understand it. It is because in its present wording it is unintelligible that this amendment has been put down in order to try to clarify the matter.
May I direct your Lordships' attention to this clause, because then at least it may bring a smile to tired faces at this hour. If you look at Clause 65 you see that it is,
"Effect of compensation order on subsequent award of damages in civil proceedings".
1272
That is clear. It means that there may be damages in civil proceedings afterwards in the same fashion as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Galpern. The clause tries to deal with the mathematical effect of the compensation order, if that is done.
If you look at subsection (2)—and hope that this does not mean that I am singularly unintelligent—and you try to follow the wording, you will find the following arithmetical direction:
"The damages in the civil proceedings shall be assessed without regard to the order;".
That seems to be quite clear.
"but where the whole or part of the amount awarded by the order has been paid,".
I am dealing now with a part of the order and taking it for granted that an order has been made for £5,000—a figure which has been mentioned earlier, and which seemed to me to be very grandiose—and let us take it for granted that £2 at that date has been paid of the £5,000, you then go on:
"… the damages awarded in the civil proceedings shall not exceed the amount (if any) by which, as so assessed, they exceed the amount paid under the order".
I read that to mean that if £2 has been paid under a compensation order where £5,000 has been awarded, the civil damages are limited to the amount of £2. I must be wrong. I cannot think that a draftsman could have led himself into that labyrinth. It is so unclear in its wording that I hope the noble and learned Lord will say that something clearer will apear on Report.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I am happy to accept the amendment and I hope that, with it, the noble Lord is now able to understand the clause.
Lord MISHCON: On the basis that I certainly do not, may I ask the noble and learned Lord with his usual clarity and courtesy to explain what subsection (2) is supposed to mean and how these words carry it out?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As I said, I am happy to accept the amendment, and I think that makes it considerably clearer:
Lord MISHCON: The amendment was put down merely to lead to clarification and not in the thought that the words which

1273
are substituted in fact clarify. I again repeat—and I will not put the noble and learned Lord to the task if he tells me that it will be looked at and that something clearer will emerge on Report—that it is meaningless, even with the amendment.
Lord HUGHES: I was surprised at the way in which my noble friend put the matter because it seemed obviously grossly unfair if an award of £5,000 had been made and only £2 had been paid of that, that it would be restricted to £2. I thought the effect of this was to be the other way round: that the award would be restricted to £4,998.
Lord MISHCON: It does not say that.
Lord HUGHES: If that is the intention, the noble and learned Lord Advocate should say so and make absolutely certain that the clause makes that clear, if not to anybody else, then at least to the man who was expecting to get the £5,000.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: All I can say is that we seem to have managed to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and with the amendment I think it is clear. The effect is exactly as Lord Hughes said and perhaps it comes better from him than from me that that is what it means.
Lord HUGHES: It does not have the same effect coming from me.
On Question, Whether Clause 65, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MISHCON: I rise in sheer self-justification to say that no less a person than my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey found himself in the same position of completely being unable to understand this subsection when he read it. If therefore I am in that company, I am happy that I am confused in this way.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Designation of sports grounds and sporting events]:
8.23 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 44, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State shall notify to all chief officers of police in the United Kingdom and shall, in the manner prescribed by Regulation 41 of the Public Service Vehicles (Licences and Certificates) Regulations 1952, publish in all traffic areas the effect of all orders made under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of my amendments to Part V of the Bill, which concerns sporting events, the control of alcohol and so on. Your Lordships may think that the wording of Clause 66 is sufficient hut, for reasons that I will give, I think this new subsection will help to enforce the Bill and clear up any misunderstandings that may occur. As your Lordships will see, this clause gives the Secretary of State powers to designate individual sports grounds or events or classes of sports grounds or events. The subsequent clauses place responsibility on the persons described and make them liable to conviction if they are found guilty.
One appreciates there is no excuse for ignorance of the law, but in this instance I feel it is perhaps unreasonable for these persons to have to rely on the normal process of official publication. I am thinking particularly of the persons made liable in Clauses 67 and 68. As I mentioned on Second Reading, there could well be occasions of coaches travelling up from England and Wales and even, as I have recently found, coaches travelling by ferry from Northern Ireland to these events or grounds in Scotland. Certainly, sports supporters travel from Northern Ireland to Scottish events. Therefore, if the police, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, were notified of all designation orders, coach operators, drivers and coach hirers would have a good chance of being warned of their responsibilities. This would be reinforced if the designation orders were published in Notices and Proceedings as prescribed by the 1952 regulations mentioned in the amendment, which are already the statutory method of informing coach operators of licensing matters. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I thank my noble friend for explaining the purpose of his amendment so clearly and concisely, but I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to clarify one particular aspect of this Part of the Bill, and this refers to the

1275
problem of the designation of sporting events. When the Secretary of State designates a sporting event or a particular sports ground in Scotland under subsection (1) of this clause, that will be done by statutory instrument subject to the Negative Resolution procedure of both Houses. It is important to remember that designation will be permanent; there is no intention on the part of the Government or of the Secretary of State to designate a ground one week and not the next. When the Secretary of State makes a designation order he will, as is normal in such circumstances, arrange for all those who have an interest in the order to be informed of its contents. In this particular case arrangements will be made to inform, among others, the coach operators mentioned by my noble friend, the police, local authorities and football clubs.
But the provisions of the Bill apply only to Scotland and therefore there is no need to inform police forces in other parts of the United Kingdom. I would point out that the method proposed by my noble friend to inform public service vehicle operators by way of the procedure set out in the Public Service Vehicles (Licences and Certificates) Regulations 1952 would not in practice achieve the intention which my noble friend is seeking. Regulation 41 of those regulations provides for a weekly or fortnightly publication known as Notes and Proceedings for the purpose of detailing all applications for licences, and it also contains the decisions of the licensing authorities on these applications. But these regulations are rarely used for disseminating information on Government legislation. It is my understanding that less than one-third of public service vehicle licence-holders at present subscribe to the magazine Notices and Proceedings. Accordingly, we consider that it would be much more effective to inform coach operators through their associations, principally through the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport, to which the fast majority of public service vehicle operators belong.
It is for that reason that I assure my noble friend that when a designation order is made, adequate steps will be taken to ensure that all those who are likely to be affected will be fully informed about the effect of such an order. Perhaps I should reiterate the particular group of persons
1276
whom we believe will be informed, and informed very clearly: the police, local authorities, football clubs and, above all, the coach authorities, but through their association. In these circumstances, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment since we believe it is unnecessary to achieve its purpose and his intention.
Lord TEVIOT: I am not completely convinced by my noble friend's answer. He referred to sports grounds, but there might be sporting events to which his answer would not apply. I also mentioned coaches travelling from England or Wales up to Scotland. I feel that these aspects need more attention and for that reason I still believe the amendment is necessary. I will withdraw it if my noble friend will think about the matter again and, on Report, either produce a suitable amendment or give a more convincing argument than he has presented.
Lord LYELL: I am terribly sorry that my noble friend is not convinced. The point of difference between what I have mentioned and what my noble friend says rests entirely on the notices I have referred to and, above all, on what the Government believe would be the convenient way to inform the coach operators, which would be through their association. I fear that I cannot give a promise to bring forward anything more conclusive, or much clearer. I shall certainly examine what my noble friend has said, but I hope he will accept that the Notices and Proceedings are read by only a minority of the coach operators, and particularly by those who are to be involved in such cross-border traffic as has been mentioned. I shall come to the question of cross-border traffic when dealing with a later amendment. I note what my noble friend has said, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out much hope at this stage.
Lord UNDERHILL: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that in the event of Amendments Nos. 51A, 51B, or 51C being carried, it would be necessary to reconsider the position on Amendment No. 51?
Lord LYELL: Yes.
Lord TEVIOT: I am most reluctant to withdraw the amendment at this stage. I note the remark just made by the noble

1277
Lord opposite, whom I think is referring to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, which deals with trains rather than buses or coaches. I believe that this is a very important point that has not been entirely answered, and perhaps when other amendments are considered we might look forward to a Division if the point in question is not made clear. In the light of that—but only in the light of that—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Alcohol on vehicle travelling to or from sporting event]:
8.32 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 51A:
Page 44, line 30, after ("carriage") insert ("or a railway train").
The noble Lord said: During the Second Reading debate I spoke very briefly and made the point that it seems very strange that, when we are asked to legislate in a Public Bill for persons taking alcohol on a vehicle travelling to or from a sporting event—and, I think, having football matches largely in mind—we should limit the clause to those travelling in a "contract carriage", by which I think is meant a coach or a bus, and that reference to those who go by train should be entirely omitted, when we all know that a very large number of persons who go to football matches travel by train. In the course of my short speech I described a dreadful scene that I witnessed at Carlisle Station last year. I appreciate that Carlisle is not in Scotland and that, at the moment at least, Part V of the Bill refers to Scotland only. None the less the incident might just as easily have happened in Scotland, except that I doubt whether the local evening paper, in reporting the wreckage, would have covered the whole of the front page with an enormous banner headline reading "Tartan terror".
This problem is as serious in regard to those travelling by train as it is in regard to those travelling by coach. Since the Second Reading debate I have tried to make inquiries, and I am told—it seems too strange—that whereas this power in Scotland derives from statute and the
1278
regular police would be expected to enforce it, in England such powers as may exist are found in the Private Acts of Parliament relating to British Rail, and that it is the British Transport Police who would be expected to enforce the provisions. If that is so, I should like the Minister who is to reply to make perfectly clear how the position today in England would compare with the position in Scotland if Part V of the Bill becomes law.
I have also heard it said that, while certain powers are included in the existing Acts relating to British transport, the problem is recognised by the Government as having outgrown those powers and they are now considering something additional. If this is the case, I hope the Minister will spell out exactly what circumstances are being considered and what is the timetable involved. It is all very well to be told from the Box that another department may be considering a matter and that in the next railway or transport Bill there will be clauses covering a special point. On the other hand, I recall that two or three years ago when we were dealing with the English Criminal Law Bill, which compares with this present Bill, several clauses concerned with cross-Border powers were inserted by your Lordships' House—not by the Government—and to this day they are not operative because we are still waiting for the order to bring them into force.
I hope that I have made myself clear. We are entitled to ask for an explanation, because if anyone wishes to go to a football match by bus, his consumption of alcohol is controlled by Act of Parliament in this very precise way, while if he chooses to go by train, he is apparently free of all these restrictions, and can reduce railway stations to a scene of wreckage. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: In supporting what has just been said by the noble Lord, may I say that I have no special interest in moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, proposing that a train be described as a "football special railway train"; I should be perfectly content with the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord LYELL: We have considerable sympathy with my noble friend Lord Inglewood and indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, whose

1279
amendment has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We have sympathy with both noble Lords in their seeking to amend the provisions of the clause so as to bring travel by trains in general, or indeed travel by football specials—in particular to and from sporting events—within the scope of the Bill. We have heard graphically from my noble friend Lord Inglewood about acts of vandalism. It seems that such incidents go back to the history books and to the incursions of the Vikings and other invaders. We hear terrible tales, which are borne out, of violence on trains which are used as football specials.
However, the point is that we are this evening discussing criminal justice in Scotland and, above all, designated sporting events in Scotland. It seems that relatively little of the trouble which has been graphically described by my noble friend Lord Inglewood occurs on trains within Scotland. I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will accept that an amendment to the clause would have effect only within Scotland.
The main reason why the problem seems to be a minor one in Scotland is simply that the geographical location of the football grounds around Scotland makes rail travel by football supporters—on regular service trains, or on what are graphically described in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as "football specials"—seldom as convenient as travel by road. The result is that very few supporters travel by rail to Scottish matches. When rail services within Scotland are likely to be heavily used by football supporters—for example, in order to attend matches in the South, as described by my noble friend Lord Inglewood—British Rail, through their own British Transport police, take—and are responsible for taking—the precautions to contain the trouble. British Rail are well aware of the influence that alcohol has on the behaviour of the supporters—
Lord INGLEWOOD: Will my noble friend allow me to ask one question?
Lord LYELL: I should like to finish this particular point, if I may. British Rail are considering—I am told that this will cover a matter of months, much more
1280
than weeks; that is as far as I am able to go at the moment—with the Department of Transport and with other authorities, whether their by-laws (that is, British Rail's by-laws), which extend and apply throughout the United Kingdom, can be tightened, and how it would be appropriate to do so. It is the tightening of the United Kingdom-wide British Transport by-laws which will, we hope, enable British Rail to prevent the carriage of alcohol on certain trains, and especially on those described by the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, as "football specials". I hope I have given a reasonable and satisfactory explanation to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I wonder whether they would accept that it would be better to leave the particular problems associated with rail travel to football games to be dealt with through the railway by-laws on a United Kingdom basis.
Lord INGLEWOOD: The question I wanted to ask, which was intended to be helpful, was this. My noble friend referred to England and to existing railway by-laws which it is proposed should be widened and extended. Do we understand that there are no similar railway by-laws now in Scotland; and, if there are none, would it not be simpler to extend the existing by-laws to Scotland now and later to look at the whole of the United Kingdom together?
Lord LYELL: I do not think that is possible. The railway by-laws extend throughout the United Kingdom—not to England alone, not to England and Wales, nor to Scotland separately, but throughout the United Kingdom, wherever British Rail run their services. Therefore, it would, I am given to understand, be impossible to extend restrictions on the carriage of alcohol on railway trains to football supporters using the trains within Scotland, just as it would be totally outside the scope of this Bill to control the carriage of alcohol by Scottish supporters going to watch Scotland playing in England on trains which are passing through Carlisle or even Berwick.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: May I say, in support of the contribution which has just been made, that it is of interest that when British Rail had recently to withdraw their services to football matches

1281
they withdrew them only in England because of the vandalism and hooliganism there, and in Scotland they in fact retained their football services without damage. That would suggest that any special regulations made should not be made within the limits of a Scottish Bill, but that the matter should be looked at on a United Kingdom basis.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Since we have been told by the Minister that a review, although not a very satisfactory-sounding review, is to be held, and since there appears to be a difference of opinion as to how far the existing powers refer to the United Kingdom, how far to England and how far to Scotland—
Lord TEVIOT: Before my noble friend sits down I really think that in this section of the Bill we are being rather what might be called "brushed off". Unless my noble friend can give the faintest indication that we are going to get anywhere, I think we have got to begin to make a stand.
Lord LYELL: I cannot go further than what I have said so far, but may I make it absolutely clear to my noble friend Lord Teviot that any alterations in the permission given to any person to take alcohol on a football special train anywhere in the United Kingdom, in Scotland or in England or in Wales, are outside the scope of this Bill. That matter is to be dealt with entirely by British Transport by-laws, and that is the position so far as railway travel by football fans is concerned.
Lord TEVIOT: Before my noble friend sits down, I really should like to ask him this question. He brushed off my amendment when I suggested that designated events should be more widely spread, and he has also told my noble friend Lord Inglewood that he is not going to deal with railways. Before we go any further, I think the official Opposition really want to know, as do I and my noble friends, where we are going to go. Is my noble friend going to deal kindly with my amendment? Are we going to get anywhere? Otherwise, we shall deal with these amendments subsequently, because we feel this point rather strongly.
Lord LYELL: Can I make it absolutely clear to my noble friend that I am not
1282
empowered to make any concession at all on travel by rail to designated events within Scotland, because any alterations in the law as far as rail travel is concerned are totally outside the scope of this Bill. It is not that I do not want to, or want to brush off my noble friend: it is that I cannot help him; it is that this Bill cannot help the particular case of football supporters taking alcohol on trains. That, I am afraid, is the position. I cannot help it.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Could my noble friend tell us why, in this Bill, it appears possible to make elaborate rules for taking alcohol on buses but not to put down an amendment covering railway trains? Is there some great constitutional principle here?
Lord HYLTON: If the Ministers who are replying for the Government could perhaps give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that they will draw this debate to the attention of the responsible persons within British Rail, who can look at the question on a United Kingdom basis, then I think those who have spoken to the amendment already would feel a lot happier.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I wonder whether I could say a word about this? My noble friend Lord Teviot produced an amendment which my noble friend Lord Lyell said would in fact not achieve the ends that he wanted, and, with respect, my noble friend is perfectly entitled to say that. Naturally, before the next stage of this Bill we shall examine the matter to see whether the dissemination of what will in fact be new rules of conduct for operators of these coaches, which is no doubt a laudable aim, can be improved beyond what my noble friend has said, but I really do not think that my noble friend has much, if any, cause for complaint when my other noble friend gives that undertaking.
If I may now turn to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, first of all it is defective. One hates to say that, but when we get to this stage of the evening it could not be written into the Bill because railway trains do not convey passengers to sporting events; they convey them to railway stations. So I am afraid the amendment is defective in

1283
itself. Having said that, of course we shall examine the position to see whether it would in fact be better to write something into this Bill if, in spite of what my noble friend has I think explained very clearly, it is going to be a very difficult piece of drafting, or whether it really would be better to leave it to British Rail to commence and carry out their own United Kingdom legislation, bearing in mind that they have a responsibility which goes throughout England, Scotland and Wales. I think my noble friend has given a good undertaking, if I may say so. Nobody is being brushed aside. It is not at all easy when one starts considering the Border and two very different systems of law and practice as between one country and another.
Lord MISHCON: I am not quite sure where we are getting to, and I believe there are other noble Lords who have exactly the same mental reaction. I can only say, having heard the noble Lord opposite let out an agonising cry as to the position he was put in by his own Front Bench, that I have had my own reasons to lament in the course of this evening. Quite obviously, however, I shall have to try to put up with them, although it may be that he will not be quite so tolerant. But, really, where are we getting to when there is a suggestion that Parliament is not able to impose upon British Rail, if it wants to, any regulation that it requires? Possibly I shall be corrected here by my colleague lawyers, but I know of nothing which stops the soveignty of Parliament from saving that it would be an offence in regard to railway trains if people did this, that or the other. They might have to consult, as a matter of courtesy, with British Rail, and I have no doubt that they would do so.
All I believe that noble Lords want is this: Could we please have an undertaking from the Front Bench opposite, not that there will be a general look at the situation and that, one hopes, British Rail will have a look at the situation within the United Kingdom, but that British Rail will be informed before the Report stage of the anxieties of this House in regard to this matter and its wish to see that something of a positive nature is done which can be reported to this House by way of by-law going through the United Kingdom or
1284
whatever; because in the alternative, at Report stage, these amendments may have to be brought back. If an undertaking of that kind could be given in categorical terms, I believe that my noble friends on this side of the Committee and those who spoke with such feeling on the other side may be more satisfied.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Perhaps I could refer the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to Clause 80(4) which says that this Bill "extends to Scotland only"—so that the complications of putting a régime (if I may so call it) on British Rail is not going to be easy. Having said that, I will give the undertaking that the noble Lord requests and, in turn, request that my noble friend withdraws his amendment.
Lord INGLEWOOD: In view of that further assurance given by my noble friend, I feel that it would be wrong for us this evening to carry things further. The Front Bench has confused us—I do not say on purpose; but they must realise that they have confused us. It is their due to clarify this whole matter when we come to Report stage.
I do not want to start another debate, but in Clause 80(5) it says:
"This section and the following provisions extend to England and Wales … "
Therefore, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If one small part extends to England and Wales, I fail to see why another small part should not be treated in a like way. But we have probably talked about these amendments sufficiently for this evening. In the light of the assurance my noble friend has given the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No.51B:
Page 44, line 30, after ("carriage") insert ("or a" football special" railway train").
The noble Lord said: In precisely the same terms, if only I could be as eloquent as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who has just said that he withdraws his amendment, I should like not to move mine.
[Amendment No. 51B not moved.]
8.55 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 51C:
Page 45, line 7, at end insert—
("() This section applies to vehicles and to railway trains travelling to Scotland and from Scotland to any other part of the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51C on the Marshalled List and to ask noble Lords to notice that it refers to something beyond the boundaries of Scotland. I put down this amendment after having looked at Clause 80 and having seen what I thought was an honourable precedent for doing something of this kind. Those of us who live near the Border, on both sides, never cease to be surprised that draftsmen in St. Andrews House and in London seem to think that Scotland and England must be divided by some ocean and forget that there is road traffic, people on foot and in trains crossing the Border the whole time. It is irresponsible to make the inevitable differences of administration and the difficulties arising from having different legal systems more difficult, such as Part V of the Bill would appear to do.
As I read Part V at the moment—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will support me again—the rules governing the carriage of alcohol in a bus north from England to Scotland or from Scotland to England differ according to which way you go. If you are travelling North, the noble Lord's new rules will apply to the second half of your journey. If you are travelling South, the rules will apply to the first half of the journey. That is a topsy-turvey world. It is putting extreme difficulties in the way of those who will have to enforce these provisions, and do not let us think that they will not produce a problem of enforcement because they will.
I am sure that I shall be told that the exact words of my amendment are defective; but what are Ministers and draftsmen for but to repair the defective drafting of those who have not got the advantages that they have? There are later stages of this Bill, plenty of them, to make good the omission which I am trying to make good in this amendment. I would submit that, if we are going to have these provisions in this Part of the Bill which we are told are imperative for the
1286
life of the people in Scotland to continue smoothly, they should be made to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. If, on the other hand, there is not this compelling reason why we should have them in this Bill, then Part V could be withdrawn, redrafted and brought forward in another form. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I would think that my noble friend Lord Inglewood seeks by this amendment, if I understand his intentions correctly, to ensure that the controls on the carriage of alcohol and of drunken spectators on coaches travelling to and from matches will extend not only to travel entirely within Scotland hut also to travel to other parts of the United Kingdom to attend matches outside Scotland, and, secondly, to travel from other parts of the United Kingdom to attend matches within Scotland. I hope to try to explain how the provisions, as they stand in the Bill, would be expected to apply. Controls on the carriage of alcohol on coaches and other vehicles would, since this is a Scottish measure, apply only within Scotland. Moreover, they would apply only in relation to travel to or from these designated events. Once again, since this is a Scottish Bill, only events in Scotland can be designated. Thus, travel to or from a Scottish match can be subject to control, and a coach taking Glasgow supporters to a match in Manchester would not, since the match is in Manchester and in England, be a designated event; hence the coach would not be subject to controls introduced by his clause.
Supporters coming from Manchester to a game in Scotland or from a game, after the game is over, in Scotland would be subject, as soon as they enter Scotland, to these controls and restrictions and also until they leave Scotland. The principle which underlies the operation of the provisions is that all spectators attending a particular event should be subject to the same restrictions. I think the Committee would agree that it would be unfair if supporters from, say, Cornwall attending a match in Manchester—and this is not infrequent—were subject to different restrictions from those applying to supporters from Glasgow attending the same match. It is only fair that supporters, wherever they come from, should, if they are attending the same match, be subject to the same restrictions.

1287
That is what the provision as drafted will achieve. The basic principle (I reiterate) which has been followed is that all spectators at any particular event within Scotland are subject to the same restrictions. The logic of this principle is that, if controls at an event are considered necessary, they must apply to all who attend. If supporters travel by coach from Scotland to a match in Manchester, should they not be subject to the controls which would apply to people from, say, Preston, Bolton, Liverpool or anywhere else in England and Wales which would be subject to English law?
The provisions as they stand will apply to supporters travelling northwards across the Border to matches in Scotland once the coaches are in Scotland. I hope the noble Lord will accept that no amendment is necessary to achieve this. The provisions will not apply to those travelling from Scotland to matches in England, as were described by my noble friend in his earlier amendment; those particular supporters on trains. We think that it would be unjust to apply different controls to the spectators at a match on the basis of their point of departure. It is the point where the match is held that is important.
9 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: I think my noble friend is being parochial. He is talking about from Cornwall to Manchester. We have been talking about Scotland: this is a Scottish Bill. So far as Scottish law is concerned, they want to do something about controlling sporting events. He has reached Clause 67, which my noble friend is concerned with, and talks about individuals getting drunk; when we get to my amendments I do not think that he is going to give me any joy. If he does, then of course we will go ahead. This is not a parish event; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. I think personally these rules might extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. One cannot think of Scotland being Great Bloggingdon so far as Little Bloggingdon is concerned. The whole thing is important. I do not know what my noble friend is going to do in this event; but I feel that I should say now, before everybody leaves, that when we reach my amendment everyone should be here.
Lord LYELL: I hope that I am not parochial. The entire Bill applies to Scotland, and the provisions of carrying alcohol on football supporters' coaches will apply to any coaches which are attending a match in Scotland. That is the position. Anything else will have to be dealt with by an English law dealing with English, Welsh or Scots supporters going to a match in England or Wales. The whole purpose of this Bill is to deal with something which is not a parochial matter in Scotland but a very serious matter in Scotland. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that we hope that these provisions will go some way to curing a Scottish problem.
Lord INGLEWOOD: We have never disputed that the Bill was designed to refer to Scotland. Why I moved the amendment to widen it was because I thought that the Bill, as drafted, would result in absurdities and be difficult to enforce. Therefore I hoped that we would find some sympathy on the Front Bench. I am perfectly happy that they should say that the amendment is defective; but there is a lot of time for them to put it right. This whole attitude is a repetition of what we have seen time and time again on Scottish Bills, and no doubt sometimes English Bills too. Those who drafted the legislation have failed to realise that there is another type of administration on the other side of the Border.
I am loth to ask the Committee to divide on this amendment, particularly at this time of night. We have a Report stage ahead of us and there will be stages of this Bill in another place; but I shall look again at this amendment and try to find out from British transport undertakings and elsewhere what today's position is. If it is any less satisfactory than what the noble Lord has said—and possibly if it is exactly as the noble Lord has said—I shall put the amendments down again and be less inclined to withdraw them. This evening, if it is the will of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Liability of vehicle licensee and his employees and agents]:
9.4 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 45, line 18, leave out ("employee or").
The noble Lord said: By leave, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock I beg to move this amendment and maybe Amendment No. 54 could also be considered. I am certain that the Committee will agree that the provisions of this clause are praiseworthy and that the Committee will wish to support any steps which may endeavour to prevent drunkenness or violence at sporting events. I would put the point that these provisions are very unfair for the employee of a public service vehicle operator. Presumably the employee in practically all cases will be the driver of the vehicle. I have no intention to put legal arguments because I am not competent to do so; but I will deal with this matter solely from practical considerations.
Before the vehicle commences a journey, must a driver conduct a search of passengers? Their clothing, handbags and holdalls, et cetera? If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says: "Of course not" then maybe I can put some other questions to him. What does a driver do if a passenger, while on a journey, is seen to bring out of a pocket, handbag or holdall a bottle? Never mind whether or not the passenger is going to take a nip from it. Must the driver stop and make the passenger alight? Suppose they are travelling on a motorway or a congested road. Suppose they are many miles from the sporting event. Does he wait for a constable or does he have to report the offence to a constable on arrival at the particular sporting event?
We have in subsection (2) the provision that the operator will avoid any legal penalty providing that he is able to prove that any alcohol was that carried was on the vehicle without his knowledge. In other words, the operator places full responsibility on the driver by evidence that he himself has no knowledge whatsoever that any alcohol was being carried. Presumably it will be sufficient for the operator to show that clear instructions were given to his employees and agents.
1290
Will it be sufficient defence for a driver to demonstrate clearly that he or she drew the attention of all passengers to the instructions that he received from his employer, the operator? I should like noble Lords to tell me what does the word "permits" mean? The subsection does not say "permits alcohol to be partaken" but
"permits alcohol to be carried".
Does it mean that if the driver has no knowledge that any passenger was carrying alcohol he is exonerated, or must the driver convey to all passengers the instructions that he has received from his employer, the operator, before commencing the journey or must he conduct a search? If he has to conduct a search, this is a new innovation for the driver of a public service vehicle. He could easily see if a crate of beer is placed in the boot, in the luggage carrier; but he cannot see if a small bottle is in a handbag, holdall or pocket.
During the Second Reading debate on 15th January, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that an employee would be liable only if he permitted the alcohol to be carried, and that would imply not only knowledge on his part but some acquiescence on his part in the carrying of alcohol. I said I was not competent to deal with legal considerations but I have always been told that it is not what is said about a Bill: it is the words in the Bill that count. Therefore I should like to have a clear definition of "permits" and what it means. What would be the position of a driver who could prove that he had no knowledge that any passenger was carrying alcohol and therefore did not acquiesce, but that during the journey he saw a passenger drinking from a bottle or can? Is he then acquiescing or permitting, if he does not stop the vehicle and immediately place the passenger in the charge of a constable?
Also during the Second Reading debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, in reply to my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, that when the McElhone Committee gave consideration to these matters the operators and the Transport and General Workers' Union had been consulted. I understand that the Transport and General Workers' Union were requested to give written evidence, but I now have a letter dated

1291
14th January from the Transport and General Workers' Union, expressing concern about the serious implications in Clause 68 for the union's membership in the bus industry. The union states that this clause could have a far-reaching effect on individual drivers if legal action is taken, and it expresses the view that overall responsibility should remain with the bus owner.
I stated at the outset of my few remarks that I am sure your Lordships will all support the intentions of Clause 68, but I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in his reply will agree to this amendment, which we claim is absolutely unfair to the drivers of public service vehicles.
Lord TEVIOT: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, he has asked for the word "employee" to be struck out of the Bill, but an employee is an agent. My further amendment goes on to deal with the word "permit" so he has very largely taken the words out of my mouth. Therefore I shall be much more brief than I should otherwise have been. I think my wording might be more acceptable to the Government but, having said that, I cannot wait to hear the opinion of my noble friend.
Lord GALPERN: I wonder whether the noble Lord, when replying, would deal with a situation such as the one I am going to describe, where a football supporters' club own a bus and one member of the association drives the bus free of charge—or they take turns at driving the bus. How is the driver dealt with in a situation where they are carrying drink? The driver is not an employee of the association and the bus has no owner except the association. Therefore, how would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, or, for that matter, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, propose to deal with a situation of that kind?
Lord LYELL: I am sure the whole Committee appreciates the object of the amendments which have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I think this is the first occasion on which he has spoken from the Dispatch Box. If I am right, I should like to congratulate him on the excellent way in which he has moved
1292
the amendments and I hope we shall be hearing from him a great deal in the future.
Dealing with the two amendments he has moved on behalf of his noble friend Lord Ross, it seems to us that they would excuse the driver of the coach, who as an employee of the licence holder, of all liability if he permitted alcohol to be carried on his vehicle when it was travelling to or from a designated sporting event. I hope I may leave the definition of "permitting" or "authorising" to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. The brief reply I shall make to the amendments will, I hope, deal with most of the aspects raised.
We do not accept that it would be reasonable to exempt the driver, even if he is an employee, in this way. The duty that is being placed on the employee or the driver is exactly comparable with that which he already bears under Section 92 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The only difference in this Bill from the Licensing Act concerns the quantity of alcohol which is permitted on the vehicle. Under the Bill alcohol is not permitted at all. In my view, it is quite justifiable that the driver of the coach should bear some responsibility if he knows it to be an offence for anyone on that coach to have alcohol and if he, the driver, permits people to take alcohol on to the coach which he is driving. I assume that the driver sees his passengers into the coach before he starts off. I trust that he will not necessarily start when people are running to catch up, or leaping in, while the bus is in motion. I assume that he sees the passengers into the coach before he starts off.
Lord MISHCON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord in his flow, but question whether he has ever been on a coach going to a football match if he described the situation in that way. As a rule, the driver does not remain outside and escort passengers on to the bus with great gallantry and chivalry. He usually thinks that because he is the driver he ought to be at the wheel, and that he ought to look in front of him and not behind him. If the noble Lord can visualise what really occurs, he may be able to deal with this amendment more effectively.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord is addressing one Member of your Lordships' House who does exactly what he has said. I do not often travel by coach, but I have travelled by coach to a rugby match, which we do not see being designated in Scotland at the moment.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Does the noble Lord drive a coach?
9.15 p.m.
Lord LYELL: I do not have a heavy goods vehicle licence, so that would be illegal. But I have considerable experience of seeing football coaches leaving my home town for these matches which will be designated. I also had experience in my youth of seeing them leaving Glasgow, and I see coaches frequently arriving at matches now. But I stress that the provision in Clause 68 does not mean that a driver who did not authorise the carriage of alcohol, and who had no reason at all to believe that it was being carried before he set off on his journey, would be liable if during the course of the journey, alcohol was discovered—and it was very well put by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The only duty of the driver at that stage, if he had taken all reasonable steps before setting off to see that alcohol was not carried by the passengers as they got on to the coach, would be to take any reasonable steps to continue with his journey. The instructions that I have are that primary responsibility rests not on the driver, who will in most cases be the employee of the licence holder, except in the exceptional cases which were described by the noble Lord. Lord Galpern—
Lord GALPERN: The clause does not say "driver"; it say "employee".
Lord LYELL:—but on the hirer of the coach, and I understand that the hirer is covered by Clause 67(1)(b). The hirer is the organiser of the trip and it is his duty to ensure that alcohol is not carried, while the driver simply has a duty not to permit the carriage of alcohol on his coach. The driver must take all reasonable steps to see that alcohol is not carried on the coach. If perchance he discovers while he is in motion that alcohol in, one hopes, fairly small quantities has been taken on the coach and that an offence is
1294
being committed, certainly, under Clause 67, and possibly under Clause 70, the driver must take reasonable steps, and I would not include the decanting of passengers in the middle of Rannoch Moor or some other gloomy place on the way to a football match—
Lord MISHCON: I wonder whether I can save the time of the Committee, in view of what has just been said by the noble Lord. Would he be prepared before the Report stage to amplify this clause and to put in the very words that he used; namely, that the driver—if the driver is the employee—shall not be liable for any offence, provided he can show that he took all reasonable steps and dealt with the matter in the punctilious way which the noble Lord has outlined? I think we shall find that if that amplified clause reaches us at that stage, the situation may be a little more clear. I am not saying that we would necessarily accept the situation at the Report stage, but it would certainly be clearer than it is now.
Lord TEVIOT: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, before my noble friend replies, there are other amendments which I have down and which I think will suit the Bill even better. So at this stage, I should like my noble friend to keep an open mind before he gives that assurance.
Lord LYELL: Certainly, so far as Amendments Nos. 52 and 54 are concerned, which I understand cover the duty of the employee as regards carrying alcohol on a coach, we will certainly look into everything that has been said and see whether we can make the clause any more clear by bringing it into line with what I have said. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, the noble Lord has brought forward some points. He says: so long as the driver has taken reasonable steps. The point I was making in my remarks was: what are reasonable steps? Anybody who has seen a crowd going on a football coach knows that very little can be done reasonably. What reasonable steps have been suggested? Does one search people or announce to

1295
all and sundry that if anyone is carrying alcohol he is not allowed on the coach? Provided that the undertaking given is to look into the matter seriously so that we can protect the employee as well as the public, then I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord LYELL: I should stress again that when, as we hope, this Bill is carried into law there will be extensive publicity directed to the new law relating to carrying alcohol on football supporters' coaches. I believe that this will be circulated to football supporters' clubs all around Scotland. The duties of the driver will be made much easier if the publicity is successful. I do not see any necessity for drivers to carry out body searches, and I am sure that the provisions of Clause 68 would not go so far as that.
The noble Lord has mentioned football supporters' coaches—people taking crates, large bottles and packs of half a dozen strong ales in large cans or bottles. That would be fairly obvious to the driver. If people were to get on a coach with, as he put it, holdalls, then there would be a reasonable assumption on the part of the driver that they were not carrying overnight clothes, or necessarily food.
Lord MISHCON: I hope that I am not boring the Committee by being repetitive, and I promise faithfully to restrict my remarks to a few words. All of us have great respect for the noble Lord opposite, despite his youthful appearance. We find that his participation in debates in this House is most useful. However, I am sure that he realises that it is not what is said on these occasions which is before the courts. We are dealing with offences. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that nobody would expect an employee to do this, that or the other.
What one has to do is to look at the wording of the Bill. We in this House have a responsibility to see that the wording is right and that it carries out the wish of this House. I feel therefore that the matter must be left at this stage with the undertaking that we shall have a rather clearer definition of what are supposed to be the duties of the employee. Without giving an undertaking from these Benches at this stage that we shall not
1296
come forward with another amendment at Report, we shall naturally look at it and, in the light of what we see, we shall act.
Lord LYELL: I shall be brief and once again give an assurance that we shall look at what has been said on this amendment and come forward with any suggestions at Report stage.
Lord AIREDALE: It seems to me that what is required as a result of this discussion is that subsection (2)—which for some reason creates a defence only for the holder of the licence—should also be a defence in the case of the employee, because the words at the end of subsection (2) are very much the words which the Minister used when he said that if the employee did that, then he would not be liable. So why not make subsection (2) apply to the employee as well?
Lord TEVIOT: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, if you take out the word "employee", the employee is still an agent. I ask him to make his remarks when we come to my amendment, which is the next one following, which I hope will make the position clearer. I shall not withdraw a word of what I have prepared. I am afraid that your Lordships are going to hear the lot, but I shall not be very long.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 45, line 18, leave out ("permits") and insert ("authorises").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, and with it I will speak also to Amendment No. 55. In the Second Reading debate my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that he would be glad to give careful consideration to any suggestions for the improvement of this clause, and it is in this spirit and because of what has been said before that I move this amendment, the purport of which is to place a more reasonable responsibility on the coach operator and the coach driver.
As the clause stands at the moment, it does not do so because of the looseness of the word "permit" which the noble

1297
Lord, Lord Underhill, has mentioned. "Permit" has already been the subject of much case law and its presence here could lead to further problems. To permit can include permission by default in that, in relevant circumstances, if a person is not actually prevented from doing something he could be helped to do it. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned that adjunct of the word "permit".
This situation applies to the public service vehicle licence holder or to his employee or agent. The licence holder in this case is the coach operator and he has open to him the defences described in Clause 68(2). If this operator has not specifically forbidden his driver to carry alcohol on his coach he can say that it was carried entirely without his knowledge and that he exercised "all due diligence" to prevent its being brought on to the vehicle. The unfortunate driver is not in this happy position. That remark has also been made.
The word "authorise", which I put in here, does not carry an ambiguity of meaning. To take matters a stage further, one can say that it is right that the licence holder in respect of a vehicle used and engaged as described in Clause 67 shall be guilty of an offence if he authorises the carrying of alcohol on his vehicle. He has taken a positive act and has done so culpably. Similarly, if the driver authorizes the alcohol being carried in these circumstances, he is doing so on behalf of his employer and therefore that employer should be held liable, subject to the two defences described in subsection (2). After all, there is no room for such argument in Clause 67 because the word "permit" is not used. The guilty parties there are a person who is actually in possession of alcohol on the vehicle, the hirer of the vehicle (subject to subsection (2) of that clause) and anyone who is actually drunk. Therefore clarity is needed in Clause 68(1), and thus it can be imparted by the substitution of the word "authorise" for the word "permit".
I am trying to give an example of what can actually happen with that word "permit" and I shall follow rather on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Galpern. A driver is driving along, for instance, on a motorway or wherever,
1298
and he notices a person or persons taking a swig from a hip flask. We ask ourselves whether it is fair to put that driver in the position of having to stop the vehicle on the hard shoulder of a motorway or in a layby. Having been a driver I can say that it is absolutely not possible—one would be told just quietly where to go—to forbid that person from doing so. Should he perhaps have tried to make a very personal search at the beginning of the journey, and after every halt? Otherwise how will he prevent them from carrying alcohol? With the use of the word "permit" the driver could be held liable, being deemed to have permitted this offence, if he did not try to intervene in what could lead to an ugly situation. With the word "authorise" he could not be held responsible in those circumstances.
Finally, while I think these amendments might need further emphasis and probably technically are not acceptable, I hope that my noble friend will look seriously into them before he goes any stage further. I beg to move.
Lord RENTON: I feel very convinced by the argument used by my noble friend Lord Teviot in his first amendment, because, as many of us know, the expression, "permit", when used as a verb, is an ambiguous one and indeed in many circumstances is vague, and I think in the context in which it is used here it could be so described. Without presuming to repeat or elaborate what the noble Lord has said, I feel the argument he has put forward deserves attention from the Government.
I do not feel the same, however, about his second amendment. In fact, I rather feel that his second amendment is not only unnecessary but could be said to narrow the defence to which it would be related. The words from line 24 onwards are,
"it shall be a defence for him to prove that the alcohol was carried on the vehicle …",
and from the point of view of that defence I would not have thought it was necessary to say whether or not it was authorised. Therefore, while supporting my noble friend on his first amendment, I feel bound to express those doubts about his second one.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Teviot for presenting

1299
his amendments so briefly and so quickly, and also we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his expert contribution. In reply to my noble friend Lord Teviot, it seems that the words, "authorise" and "permit" would both cover cases where a person, in this case an employee, had failed to take adequate steps to prevent alcohol being carried on to the coach. With neither term, neither authorise or permit, would it have been necessary to show that the driver knew that alcohol was carried on hoard the vehicle if it could be shown that he ought to have known that alcohol had been carried on. That is not desperately clear, but it means that a driver would only be liable for an offence if he did not take the reasonable steps that I was mentioning in the last two amendments to prevent alcohol from being carried on to his coach, and, depending on the circumstances, if he disregarded the carriage of alcohol during the journey. If he saw alcohol being taken from a hip flask and the coach was making a scheduled stop, there might be a reasonable chance that he might remind passengers that he had seen alcohol and it was against the law. But that would be about as far as we could expect him to go; that is pending any comments and any explanations we may make in relation to my reply to the last amendment. The word, "permit", seems to be more commonly used and better understood in this kind of context than "authorised", and it is for that reason that we prefer to leave the word "permit" in both these cases.
Lord TEVIOT: Before one even begins thinking of withdrawing this amendment, I must ask my noble friend this. A hip flask can be carried not only in an overcoat but almost without being seen, unless frisked, in jeans or like material, and it is being very unreasonable to expect the driver to be responsible to do that. As I mentioned, the word "permit" has a double meaning, but if authorised by his employer he can get away with it. I do not think my noble friend has answered that. I am delighted to have support. I shall certainly take note of my noble friend Lord Renton who has great experience of the other place. I am delighted that he has supported me on this issue. I certainly shall not push my second amendment, but I think that we
1300
must have a little more assurance. I do not think that my noble friend has estimated the driver's responsibilities adequately at this stage.
Lord LYELL: I do not think that my noble friend heard the beginning of my remarks so let me make it crystal clear to him that the words "authorises" and "permits" would both cover cases where the person—in this case it is the employee—had failed to take adequate steps to prevent alcohol being carried on to the coach. I think that I said when referring to the two earlier amendments moved by the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, that we did not think that it was reasonable for a driver to carry out a body search, and that would clearly be necessary to discover a hip flask if it were carried on the person of a supporter hoarding the bus. We do not think that it is reasonable for the driver to do that. Hence we do not see that the driver would be liable to have committed an offence if solely a hip flask was carried on by—one would hope—only one or two of the passengers, not by everyone.
Lord MISHCON: I am sorry to say that I must remind the noble Lord again that it is not a question of what is said in Committee as to whether we think this would be a reasonable course: it is what the Bill says. Without giving the noble Lord a lesson in semantics—which I would not be able to give him because he is as capable as I am—I should like to ask him to consider the following matter. If I rose and asked him to permit me to move a certain amendment, I am sure that he would remain in his seat and I would go on and move it. However, if I said that I had been authorised by my noble friend opposite to make this amendment I think that he would find himself in some difficulty and would immediately rise and say that he had authorised no such thing. In the circumstances, I ask him to reflect upon that lesson in semantics and to admit immediately the amendment that "authorises" is clearer than "permits".
Lord RENTON: It is with hesitation that I ask that my noble friend should consider this matter further, because it does not seem to me to be a good enough answer to say, as he has said, that "permits" and "authorises" have the same effect in this context. They plainly do not do so. "Permits" can mean either

1301
giving permission or not bothering whether he gives permission. "Authorises", on the other hand, must mean a single positive act of giving permission, and thereby lies the difference. I am not quite sure what the Government are getting at in this subsection in any event, but, to the extent that we have had an explanation I am indeed sorry to say that I find it very difficult to accept the explanation which my noble friend has given. I feel confirmed in the support that I originally gave to my noble friend Lord Teviot.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I feel very much in agreement with the noble Lord opposite who a short time ago made the point that it is not what we say or think in this House that matters—it will be what is said in evidence in the court in front of magistrates or their Scottish equivalent. As I see it, any constable trying to enforce this clause would have to take cognisance of a hip flask, because it is a controlled container which we take great pains to describe. It is no good our just saying that everybody will think as we do and that people are reasonable in all circumstances. Under the type of circumstances for which this clause has been drafted, people are not reasonable: sonic are drunk already; some may well have black eyes already; some may be ready to kick the shins of anyone else, including a police constable, who, if he then sees a great bulging hip flask after he has had a slog on the shins, he will immediately run the man in, and will immediately run the man in, and believe that all those who travel on vehicles of this sort ought to be allowed the ration of a hip flask outside the provisions of this clause, surely somewhere in the clause we ought to say, "other than a hip flask". I should like to think that, if that is the noble Lord's view, he will bring those words forward on Report.
Lord LYELL: I have nothing further to add, except that I shall take my lesson on
1302
semantics and look at the words, "authorises", and, "permits", between now and a later stage. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord TEVIOT: My noble friend says that he will look at the words "authorises" and "permits". I hope that he has accepted the mood of this Committee that there is a very great difference between those two words. I can cite a huge amount of case law in relation to the word, "permits", with which I could keep your Lordships here for half-an-hour, but I shall not do so. My noble friend has said that he will look at the two words. He knows the mood of the Committee on this amendment. Taking that into consideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 45, line 19, leave out ("employee or").
The noble Lord said: It means what it says. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: We discussed t his amendment at an earlier stage and I gave the assurance that we would take this amendment away and look at the clause. I hope that the noble Lord will feel free, in the light of my assurance, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord MISHCON: In view of that renewed assurance, I do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendtnent No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Possession of container at sporting event.]:
9.43 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 45, line 38, leave out from ("any") to ("but") in line 43, and insert ("bottle, can or similar container designed, adapted or used for carrying alcohol, and having a capacity greater than six and two thirds fluid ounces").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises out of a very witty intervention which was made during the Second Reading debate by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. I do not think that I can do better than simply read a few lines about the definition that is given in the Bill, and then rapidly sit down. I can do no better than recite what is to be found at column 38 of the Official Report on 15th January. My noble and learned friend said:
"The Government, in order to define the missile, have created the concept of a controlled container '. It is a very silly one. It includes not just a bottle and a can, but a hip flask; it includes a saucer and a jar of smelling salts (which I always take to a rugby match in case Scotland should score a try); it includes a fountain pen; it includes a tobacco tin; and it includes, probably, a box of chocolate liquers. What it does not include, however, is a gourd, or skin bottle, out of which Spaniards are wont to squeeze wine in a long, thin jet. So I foresee the terracing at Celtic Park being lined with thousands of supporters squeezing their gourds and directing their jets of Tartan Special, not only at their own eager mouths, but in the general direction of their friends' mouths and the necks of Rangers' supporters. It is not, my Lords, a pretty prospect!"
Then he added some words; I hope this Committee will not regard it as disrespectful of me if I repeat them:
"I am tempted to say to the noble Earl, at the risk of some little ambiguity, Chuck it, Mansfield ', and settle for the less precise but more realistic expression".
Then he went on with the definition which is contained in this amendment and which I hope your Lordships will think is a very much more sensible definition than that contained in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for reminding us again of the levity of the day of the Second Reading. There is one error that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made, that he should never take, or need to take, smelling salts. I believe they are permitted under the Bill at present as a medicinal product. The noble and learned Lord should know that Scotland have scored try for try in all their matches, but they have still contrived to lose. If Scotland win at Murrayfield then the noble and learned Lord may need his smelling salts, but possibly he may need something stronger at the game or outside, since it is not envisaged at the moment that Murrayfield would, as yet, be a designated ground, but that may come further on.
In discussing this amendment, I hope the Committee will find it useful if I set out briefly the intention behind the provision in Clause 69 banning the carriage and the possession of what, for want of a better word, we are calling certain containers at football matches. The Working Group on Football Crowd Behaviour concluded that much of the hooliganism and violence associated with football matches was due to the amount of alcohol consumed before, during, and after the matches. The Working Group therefore recommended that it should be an offence to carry alcohol into, or to be in possession of alcohol within, a football ground. This recommendation is implemented by Clause 70 of the Bill.
The Working Group also considered the related problem of the use made of drink containers as weapons and missiles at football matches; indeed, they recommended that the dangers involved warranted making it an offence to carry such containers into football grounds. This is the purpose of Clause 69. The report also pointed out that it was irrelevant whether or not the original liquid content of such containers was alcohol or not, since bottles or cans which originally contained non-alcoholic drinks such as lemonade—which, apart from stronger liquors, is the staple liquid diet of the Scots—were equally dangerous, and had a similar effect if they were thrown, full or empty.
Bearing in mind the principle of this recommendation, Clause 69(2) attempts to

1305
define the type of container which it would be an offence to carry into the ground, or indeed even to be in possession of if you are inside a football ground. The definition is designed to cover four essential characteristics. The first is that the container is portable. That clearly would exclude liquid gas bottles, or similar heavy containers. Secondly, the container may be open or sealed. Thirdly, it must be capable, or apparently was so in its original state, of containing a liquid, be it alcohol or even lemonade. Finally, that this particular container is made of such a material, or is constructed in such a way, or is adapted—that gives rise to a certain amount of imagination—that if it was thrown at, or propelled against, a person (and I think we had better not get into semantics of how you propel a particular container against somebody) it would be capable of causing some injury to a person against whom it was thrown or propelled.
We considered whether it would be possible to define a container by reference to the material of which it was made, be it glass, metal, or plastic. I am sure noble Lords and the Committee will appreciate that, given the wide range of modern materials, particularly the types of hard and soft plastics, this has not proved possible. The principle of the Working Group report was that all containers capable of causing injury if thrown, should be prohibited, and the definition is framed to meet this intention. It would therefore exclude from the ban soft plastic cups for the sale within the ground of such drinks as tea and other non-alcoholic refreshments as are normally on sale before the match and sometimes at half-time.
The definition would also allow, most interestingly, the soft skin gourds which were referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on Second Reading and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, this evening, provided of course that they did not contain alcohol. I am informed that the efficiency of these gourds is somewhat reduced if they are not filled with alcohol; it is said that if one fills them with non-alcoholic liquid these gourds have a great propensity to leak so it would seem that if one of these containers, soft skinned or not, were taken into the match, the container would not achieve its purpose, even if thrown.
1306
I come to the amendment. We do not think it would meet what we are trying to achieve in the Bill because from its wording it would seem that it is intended to cover only containers used for carrying alcohol, and it appears that containers for carrying non-alcoholic drinks would still be permitted. However, I have explained that the carriage of alcohol is already caught by the provisions of Clause 70. We believe it is essential that all types of containers which could cause injury if thrown are caught by the ban, but the wording of the amendment would not achieve that.
The amendment also seeks to allow a supporter to take into the football match with him any container provided it has a capacity of less than six and two thirds fluid ounces, and that is the exact measure of a quarter bottle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, mentioned on Second Reading that a spectator should be allowed to carry a small hip flask, and doubtless the amendment is framed to achieve just that. However, that would provide a loophole which could undermine the basis of these provisions on the control of alcohol and behaviour at sporting events. Hooliganism at football matches still means that a total ban on alcohol is necessary, at least in Scotland, if we are to hope to make any inroads on curbing these mindless acts of violence and rowdyism which are often stimulated by indulgence and over-indulgence in alcohol. And I fear that even the consumption of a quarter bottle of strong alcohol would provide sufficient fuel to certain persons to encourage many of them to become involved in hooliganism.
More important, a quarter bottle or similar container when empty could be a very dangerous weapon. I would not suggest that anybody owning a beautiful silver hipflask—certainly not the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—would throw it on to the pitch or at opposing supporters if he was annoyed at his team's performance or elated at any victory. But I am equally certain that no Member of the Committee, let alone the noble and learned Lord, would be pleased if an empty quarter bottle of whisky or indeed a silver hip flask were thrown and landed on his head, or on anybody else's head.

1307
To allow containers up to a certain capacity, but not others, would, we believe, place an intolerable burden on the police. I would also point out that, as drafted, the amendment would allow an individual to take in any number of containers, provided that each one was less than six and two thirds fluid ounces capacity. I have experience of seeing people going to cricket matches in the Antipodes with large amounts of liquor, and the thought of my national colleagues going to football matches with any number of quarter bottles on them raises considerable doubts in my mind. Certainly the amendment would lead to abuse of the Bill.
Our intention under this provision, which is to ban any drinks container which could be used as an offensive weapon, is, I hope, clear. I accept that the definition as drafted may not be perfect, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, thatwe shall look at it again to see if it can be improved, but I would not promise at this stage that we shall come up with an entirely acceptable definition at the first time of asking. The amendment does not meet the necessary requirements as we see them, and as I hope I have shown, possibly at a little greater length than your Lordships might have wished, we believe that it is defective in certain respects. Given that we shall look at the amendment and see how we can make the provision a little more realistic in the light of what was said earlier, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MISHCON: I have in mind that if I were at this hour to continue the debate upon this definition, several of your Lordships would wish to possess a portable container which,
"if it were thrown at or propelled against a person … would be capable of causing some injury to that person",
and I do not wish to be its recipient. We have heard an assurance that this point is being looked at. There is no doubt in my mind—I say this most respectfully—that the definition is capable of causing laughter in some courts in regard to offences of this nature. That is the last thing that one wants. I am merely thinking in terms of a counsel for an accused referring to the definition which is contained here which can really cover
1308
many matters that are not intended to be covered. On the basis of the assurance that this matter is to be looked at carefully and that the observations that have been made will be taken into account before the Report stage, I am very happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Interpretation of Part V]:
9.57 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 47, line 15, at end insert—
(" "drunk" means drunk and incapable as defined in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: On this occasion I can truthfully say that the amendment means what it says. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: It seems that this amendment wishes to introduce into the provisions of this Part of the Bill, applying to the offences of being, drunk at a designated sporting event, or in a coach travelling to or from an event, the additional requirement that the individual concerned was not only drunk, but also incapable of looking after himself. I do not think that this would be helpful, because the term "being drunk" is not synonymous with the expression "being drunk and incapable". It is the intention of the provision to deal not merely with those who have consumed so much that they are falling about and are liable to cause themselves injury, but also with people who are drunk, but whose state is more likely to result in their causing injury to others by their violent behaviour, rather than to themselves. The term "drunk" does not require further definition, because it will apply simply to a person whose appearance and behaviour is reasonably interpreted as that of a drunken person. The noble Lord may know that the term "drunk" is already used and applied in the 1976 Licensing Act, to which I referred earlier. I think that the reference was to carrying crates on board a bus—
Lord MISHCON: If the noble Lord would give way, I could help everybody. I moved this amendment by courtesy because my noble friend was not present. I am completely convinced by the noble Lord's answer so far, and at this stage I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Vandalism]:
On Question, Whether Clause 75 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MISHCON: I hope to be equally brief because many of your Lordships will remember a reference to Clause 75, which introduces the crime of vandalism by way of definition; the Committee will remember what was said in the debate on Second Reading. The Law Society of Scotland say that they oppose the clause as unnecessary and that these offences can be satisfactorily prosecuted under the present law. The situation as I understand it is that this provision would make a mere cosmetic offence where an offence already exists—that of malicious mischief, which is an offence at common law. I believe that I am right in saying that the penalties in regard to the offence of malicious mischief are in fact more severe than the penalties under this clause. Therefore to give the impression that one is dealing with vandalism—which every Member of your Lordships' Committee would decry—by way of a fresh measure and with a further degree of enforcement, is really to mislead everybody. I repeat that the offence already exists, a prosecution can be brought, and the penalties are more severe. If we allow the clause to stand, all we shall do is to make a pretence, which is not what we want.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I support the noble Lord wholeheartedly. I hesitate to say that this matter raises a question of principle, because that would make everyone suspicious, particularly at this late hour. If it were not so late I should certainly be concerned to press it to a Division, because I think it raises a question of great importance. At this late hour, however, I content myself with saying that I was surprised to hear the
1310
noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, say at Second Reading that they thought there was something to be said for it psychologically. I can understand their point of view, but I was surprised that they took it. I think this is legislative cosmetology of the worst possible kind—and that word is in the dictionary. It is designed to mislead; it is politically inspired in the worst sense of political inspiration; and it will do nothing to help the situation.
We have called the offence "malicious mischief" for centuries—or, at least, for many years. To call it "vandalism" is to flatter it. "Vandalism" is a convenient word for the media, for politicians and for writers. In my view it has no place in the Scottish statute book. But at this late hour of the evening I do not propose to develop the point, although I certainly propose at a later stage, if we can arrive at this clause at a convenient hour when people are prepared to listen, to develop the point. But I think this clause is a very silly one indeed.
The EARL of CROMARTIE: As a simple honorary sheriff of some age, and having discussed this Bill with certain other sheriffs in the North of Scotland and the Highlands, I still think this is a good clause. We know that it does not lay out any further penalties for vandalism—they are quite heavy for malicious damage—but the point is that "malicious damage" sounds extraordinarily legal, and a lot of people do not understand it. Everybody in the United Kingdom understands the word "vandalism", and I think that is one of the benefits of this particular clause.
Lord MISHCON: I wonder whether the noble Earl would really concentrate with us for a moment on what he has just said. Does he really think that the sort of people who do this do not understand the words "malicious mischief" but do understand what is quite a classical word in our language, the word "vandalism"?
The Earl of CROMARTIE: I must answer that, if I may. I think it is very largely up to their parents to understand it in many cases.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: At this hour I should like to compress my remarks, and indeed I shall do so, but I am afraid

1311
there are a number of things which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, have said which I, for one, just do not accept. "Vandalism" is a word which, I think, is only too well known throughout the length and breadth of the country. It has become so because it is increasingly manifested to a point where it has become extremely serious and causes very great concern and fear to a great many ordinary, decent people. It is one of the great scandals of our time. In housing estates in parts of the conurbations in Scotland, it ruins the quality of life for those who have to live in them. Therefore, I think we must not talk in terms of semantics. To an old lady who has had a flower pot thrown through her window or to somebody who tries to dial "999" only to find the telephone vandalised the word is "vandalism" and not "mischief". If I may disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, the word "mischief" in common, modern speech hardly conveys the seriousness of the crime of vandalism.
More importantly, there are in Scotland at the moment a multiplicity of possible charges which may be brought as a result of what, in terms of ordinary English, is now known as vandalism. One can have malicious mischief, wilful damage and even breach of the peace. These three offences can be covered more or less by the same set of circumstances. I do not think that, in a Bill which is, hopefully, bringing up to date the law of Scotland so far as criminal procedure is concerned and, hopefully, pushing it forward, we shall achieve that object if we make use of archaic language to describe an offence which is prevalent and very serious.
Those were the circumstances, I suggest, in which the Scottish Conservative Crime Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. McArthur, in fact recommended that a specific statutory offence of vandalism should be created. This clause seeks to implement that recommendation. The purpose of the clause is simply to identify vandalism as a separate offence and to mark it out in the public mind as such. It will enable the courts to identify persistent vandals who are brought before them and to impose appropriate, deterrent penalties on them.
1312
In the longer term, one hopes that this may have some effect in discouraging certain people from committing acts of vandalism. I do not put it any higher than that. Nobody makes any great claims for this measure, but I think it is necessary in the circumstances to bring the law up to date, to bring the description of the offence up to date and to try to do anything reasonable and possible to control this growing social evil.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I do not propose to add anything except that those of us who put down this amendment share the noble Earl's concern about this serious public mischief. We are just as concerned about it as he is. We put down this amendment because we regard this provision in the Bill as being essentially cosmetic and dishonest. It is to encourage people to think that vigorous action is being taken when all that is being done is to change the words. It is not a matter of semantics. I do not propose to pursue this tonight but I can think of many arguments which, I hope, in due course will be considered by noble Lords who spoke in favour of this provision and against the amendment. I think it important from every point of view that the matter should be gone into very thoroughly. This is not the hour of night in this Committee when that can be done.
10.10 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: I trust that some consideration will be given to the serious words that have been uttered tonight in regard to this paragraph. In regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has said, there is nobody in this Committee who does not deplore the acts of vandalism that occur, whether they live North or South of the Border. I repeat that this is a cosmetic exercise. I also repeat—and there has been no answer to this—that my information is that the malicious mischief common law charge carries heavier penalties than this one. Am I wrong on that?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord is wrong. For the sake of the record, perhaps I should put it right. Most offences involving vandalism will be taken by way of summary procedure. It

1313
will be open to procurators fiscal to continue to prosecute more serious cases of vandalism on indictment under the common law.
Lord MISHCON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for teaching me. In the hope that further consideration will be given to what has been said, I do not propose to divide the Committee on this amendment. I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw it upon that understanding so far as I am concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment 56B:
Page 49, line 26, leave out ("and (6)") and insert ("to (7)").
The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendments 56C, 56D and 56E en bloc:
Page 49, line 32, after ("paragraphs") insert ("5A(a),").
Page 49, line 37, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 5A(a) and").
Page 49, line 41, after ("This section,") insert ("paragraph 5A(a) of Schedule 7,).
The noble Earl said: These are paving amendments to those which will be made in Schedules 7 and 8, amendments 62D, 62E and 66 in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Certificates as to certain matters requiring to be proved]:
On Question, Whether Schedule I shall be the first schedule to the Bill?
The Earl of SELKIRK: May we have some explanation on lines 6 to 8 of this schedule? The enactment in column No. 1 says:
"The enactments specified in Section 78A(3)".
I do not know where that comes from.
1314
It is not in the 1975 Act. It may be in this Act, but I have not seen it. It refers to
"speeding offences generally".
When one comes to the next column it appears to refer to apparatus and two people have to sign who have tested the apparatus. When one comes to the third column it appears to refer to the accuracy of a speedometer and a radar meter. I do not understand what it means and maybe possibly others do not. Could the noble Earl look at it at some time and make it clear?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Yes, I will certainly give that undertaking.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Solemn Appeals]:
Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN Lord MACKAY of CLASH FERN moved Amendment No. 56F:
Page 53, line 3, leave out ("236A(2)") and insert ("236B(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 53, line 30, leave out ("Within two weeks of") and insert ("as soon as reasonably practical after").
The noble and learned Lord said: At this late hour I shall be as brief as I possibly can with the amendments standing in my name. With regard to Amendment No. 57, your Lordships will observe that under the proposed new Section 233 at the top of page 53, there has to be a note of appeal which will not only identify the proceedings but will contain a full statement of all the grounds of appeal. Then Section 236A would read:
"Within two weeks of the judge receiving his copy of that, he shall prepare and furnish to the Clerk of Justiciary a report in writing, giving his opinion on the case generally and on the grounds contained in the note of appeal."
Normally this could be easily effected if the judge happens to be in Edinburgh; but with the heavy commitments of judges on circuit at present, when they are often away for weeks at a time, it might not be possible to get this done within two weeks without imposing an intolerable burden on

1315
the judge on circuit, who is usually very heavily engaged on his circuit work, or it might well be that the judge was ill.
I accept that provision is made later in the proposed new section that the High Court may extend the time of two weeks, but is that not rather taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, because the circumstances would differ from time to time? Would it not be sufficient merely to say that within a reasonable time the judge will prepare his report, leaving it—and I may say I have the consent of the Lord Justice General to say that he agreed entirely with this—entirely to the Lord Justice General, as head of the court, to secure that the report is obtained from the trial judge as soon as reasonably practicable in any given case. It seems to me that would be a much more elastic way of dealing with the matter, rather than having to convene three judges of the High Court in order to grant an extension of time simply because the trial judge happens to be on circuit, indisposed or, as my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser has just indicated, on holiday. There may well be a variety of reasons.
I should like to make just one proviso. If the Government were prepared to take this on hoard, I think it would be desirable to continue the provision made in the proposed subsection (2) that even if, for some reason, the report is not furnished, the appeal could go on without the report. That would be a highly desirable thing. But the court would only do that if it felt it could properly deal with the appeal, even in the absence of a report in the particular circumstances. I so move.
Lord RENTON: I am not sure whether this is the right moment for me to do so, but I should like to make a comment upon drafting; and perhaps this is as good a moment as any. We find in this schedule, as elsewhere in the Bill, that there is a great deal of amendment of previous legislation, and especially of the 1975 Act. I think it is highly commendable that nearly all the amendment has been done by the textual method, and for that we can be thankful. But it does mean a tremendous amount of cross-reference.
One very much hopes that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate can give us an assurance that before very long
1316
there might be some consolidation, which would not be difficult consolidation because of the fact that it has been done by textual amendment and that it is nearly all amendment of one previous Act of Parliament. This type of legislation should be made as clear as possible—that goes without saying—because it affects a great part of society; not merely the criminals in society, although everybody is potentially one. I hope that we may have an assurance that there will be consolidation, so that the relative clarity of this Bill can be made abundantly plain for all to understand.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, is concerned, I appreciate the practical matters that he has raised. We have been concerned to try to provide a timetable, and a timetable in relation to appeals is part of the fairly fundamental thinking that underlies the recommendations of the Thomson Committee on this aspect of the matter. We had hoped that sufficient flexibility was preserved by the opportunity in the High Court to extend the time, and no doubt that could be done as an incidental matter. If we were to accede to this amendment, it would really mean a fairly important change in the timetable as set out, putting the judge in a somewhat different position in not having a defined time to work to. I agree that "as soon as reasonably practical" is a fairly strong persuader to get on with, but it does not give one a fixed time. These are the reasons that persuaded us that we should have this timetable in the schedule.
As regards the point on drafting made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is certainly my fervent hope that once this legislation is enacted early consolidation will follow, and the form in which this legislation is presently drafted is intended to make that as easy as possible. I regret that it occasions references backwards and forwards from the 1975 Act to the present one. I invite the noble and learned Lord to be kind enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord WHEATLEY: I am not so sure that I can, because I am not altogether satisfied with the reply. I am very seldom not satisfied with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says on matters of law and procedure. It is all

1317
very well to have a timetable, and there may be reasons which persuaded the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues to put it in this fashion. But I hope that the circumstances to which I alluded may persuade him to change his mind back again, without in any way affecting materially the timetable that he envisages.
Surely, he and his colleagues can trust the judges of the High Court to do their job properly. If an appeal is lodged by a note of appeal what happens, in practice, now is that the clerk of justiciary sends to that judge immediately the note of appeal with reasons stated and asks for a report. That report is normally given within a day or two, and I can tell your Lordships that, for my own part, it is done that night and is ready the next morning. Normally, it is as easy as that. But there are circumstances where, for the reasons I have explained, the judge may not be available to act in that way, and they will be the exceptional cases. To convene a full court of three judges merely to give an extension of a week or two, in the particular circumstances of the case, is a complete waste of judicial time, and I ask the noble and learned Lord, in consultation with his colleagues, to think on this again and to consider whether or not this is a more flexible method.
I have the authority of the Lord Justice General to say that he would be very anxious to see that this was observed, if it was done in this more flexible manner. He would be willing to give this undertaking that he would see that the judges provided the reports within the reasonable time that we have in contemplation. It would be only on the understanding that I had that undertaking, that I should be prepared at this stage to say that I would withdraw my Amendment.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to say that we will look at the matter again. It has been fairly fully considered, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord WHEATLEY: Subject to that undertaking, and also on the understanding that "looking "means" looking and considering ", I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.26 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 58:
page 55, line 48, leave out from ("court;") to end of line 3 on page 56.
The noble Lord said: In paragraph 18 of the second schedule another section is to be substituted for Section 254 relating to the determination of appeals. In subsection (1)(c), which runs over to page 56 of the Bill, there is a right on appeal to set aside the verdict of the trial court and grant authority to bring a new prosecution.
The sole purpose of the amendment is to call attention to this power and to ask for some reflection to be given to whether or not there is a grave risk of prejudice, especially in jury cases, to the chances of a fair second trial when the earlier trial and appeal will have been widely reported. As the number of cases where this would be material would be so few, it may very well be that what appears to be injustice to an accused ought to be removed from the Bill.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: This is intended to give an extra power to the court in order satisfactorily to dispose of difficult cases. The basic difficulty from which any appellate court suffers is that it has not, and cannot have, heard all the evidence at the original trial nor observed the demeanour of the witnesses. There may well be cases in which it is extremely difficult to set aside a verdict, even if one is in considerable doubt about it, if one is not in a position at least to authorise a fresh prosecution. I have no doubt that the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred—the publicity that attaches to this sort of thing and so on—would be carefully taken into account by the High Court in deciding to exercise this power. They would also be taken into account by the prosecution if they decided to implement the possibility which the High Court left to them.
There is one point about prejudice which I could perhaps mention. It by no means follows that the publicity which would attach to a case like this would be of a kind which would be prejudicial to

1319
the accused person. The probability is that if a potential juror has read anything, it will have been about the appeal proceedings and the setting aside of the verdict by the appeal court.
Although this is a new power, it is, in the circumstances, the same power as was proposed in the previous Bill, at least on amendment, for summary trials. We think that it is advisable to give this power to the court. Adopting the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has made, I think we can trust the court to use these powers with great discretion.
Lord MISHCON: As I tried to indicate, there is naturally a different situation in the case of summary trials from the publicity that is normally given to a trial by jury. However, I have heard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said and one can only hope that very careful use is made of this provision, and that in the light of experience it will be a very rare occurrence and one which will not in fact mean injustice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.29 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I wonder whether I might intervene for a moment. I see that the noble Lord the Chief Whip is in his place. It is nearly half-past ten and there are a further 10 or 11 amendments to be dealt with. There are not many of your Lordships here to discuss what is an extremely important Bill. We on our side have been very gratified by the seriousness with which Members of the noble and learned Lord's party have expressed great worries about the content of this Bill. Some of the provisions have been withdrawn. They all have to be debated again, presumably at Report stage. It is late and public transport stops quite soon, and I think the Committee is entitled to know the intentions of the noble Lord the Chief Whip; whether we are to go on to the end of the Committee stage of the Bill tonight, whether we are to adjourn before the end, or what he plans to do.
Lord DENHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-
1320
Davies. I think the point at the moment is that we are not absolutely certain how much there is in some of the remaining amendments. I am told that a large proportion of them are Government drafting amendments, so that if we can possibly carry on for ten minutes or so we shall see how far we get. It seems to me that to have a whole extra day on this Committee stage for what could possibly be only five or ten minutes' work would be rather overdoing it. Perhaps the noble Baroness would agree that we could confer a little later.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I accept that perhaps we might confer in about ten minutes' time, but I might add that if the Government had thought of it earlier, before they tabled their amendments to the Bill, and indeed if they had thought out their own line more clearly at the beginning of the Bill, the Committee would have known the direction in which we were going and our deliberations might not have taken this long. However, I quite agree with the noble Lord that we might have a word in about ten minutes' time.
10.32 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 56, line 13, at end insert—
("() Where the High Court affirms the verdict of the trial court it may pass another sentence whether more or less severe in substitution for the sentence imposed by the trial judge.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 59 and, in view of what has been said, I shall be as brief as I possibly can and will compress my argument into the very minimum of words. Quite briefly, the amendment would effect the following: your Lordships will observe that under the new proposed Section 254 the High Court, in appeal against sentence, may either confirm the sentence passed in the court below or increase it or reduce it. That is the present law; and the present procedure and the law which we observe at the present time is that where there is an appeal against conviction and that appeal fails, the court arrogates to itself the right to deal with the sentence and to increase it if need be, all in the interests of a sentencing policy.
There is at least doubt as to whether the proposed new clauses here would continue that right which exists at the present time, of the High Court increasing sentences where there is only an appeal against conviction. Having regard to the express provision in paragraph (b) of the new proposed subsection (3) and the restriction that is contained in subsection (2) itself, there might be doubt as to whether these provisions would take away the existing right of the Court of Appeal to increase sentence on an appeal against conviction only; and as we in the Court of Appeal lay great store on being able to regulate sentencing policy, it is highly desirable that if there is any doubt in the drafting as it is constituted at present, it should be made crystal clear that the right which we exercise at the present time should be continued into the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The intention of the Government in this connection is to give effect to the considerations set out in the Thomson Committee's Third Report, which amounts in substance to this: that no convicted person with substantial grounds for an appeal against conviction should be deterred from lodging such an appeal by the prospect that in the event of failure he may face a stiffer sentence than that imposed at his trial. That is the basic principle that we are seeking to go on, and the belief is that that intention is carried out in the drafting as it is; but in view of the doubt which the noble and learned Lord has cast on that, and in the light of what he has said, we shall be glad to look at it again.
Lord WHEATLEY: In the light of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Abolition of Mandatory First Diet]:
10.35 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 70, leave out line 8.
The noble and learned Lord said: I must try to telescope this, because it would take some time if I tried to explain it in full. May I draw your Lordships' attention to page 70, line 8. Provision is made for the court to consider matters arising by way of preliminary pleas on (i) a point of law, and (ii) as regards admissibility of evidence. Then, (iii) is an umbrella provision which refers to any other matter not mentioned in (a) or (b). We cannot see that there could be any point of law other than the points of law by way of preliminary pleas dealt with under (a) and (b) of the proposed Section 76(i), and therefore (i) is entirely unnecessary.
With regard to (ii) as regards admissibility of evidence, we cannot see at this preliminary stage before the trial takes place how this would be practicable, because it would not be a trial within a trial; it would be a trial outwith a trial and a trial in a vacuum, because the admissibility of evidence can normally only be determined in the context of the trial in the circumstances of the case. If there should be any casus intravires that the Lord Justice General and I have not been able to contemplate in regard to (i), it is amply covered by (iii) because of the omnibus nature of (iii). That is it in a nutshell. I have already discussed it with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I hope we can deal with this very technical matter in a very short way.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The noble and learned Lord has indeed explained this matter to me. The point is made a little more difficult by the fact that the printing is not quite right. We felt there may be matters, such as, for example, questions arising out of judicial examination, which could be dealt with at the preliminary diet, and it was thought wise to try to point the way in that direction. Certainly the words that the noble Lord seeks to delete are not essential and I would be glad to consider this matter further.
Lord WHEATLEY: On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 70, line 45, after ("permits") insert ("and the accused consents").
The noble Lord said: I hope to be able to copy the fine example of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Wheatley, by being brief. There is a provision for the holding of a preliminary diet where it is ordered, and there is a proviso that the court can proceed notwithstanding that the accused is absent. This amendment merely provides that the accused's consent shall be obtained. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: There may be some misunderstanding in regard to this. It is not intended to give the court power in this clause to exclude an accused who wishes to be present. The idea is to give the court power, if the accused does not wish to be present, to proceed without him. So in a sense his consent is manifested in the sort of circumstances to which we take it these words apply by the fact that he has not agreed. That is what is in mind. I shall be glad to see if we can make that clearer.
Lord MISHCON: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 61B:
Page 71, line 7, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 11.
The noble Lord said: I hope to be equally brief in dealing with the provision of an appeal in connection with the preliminary diet. I have only one point, and that is that a party may under this clause, with the leave of the court of first instance, appeal to the High Court. It appears to be quite wrong, in the interests of justice, that it should not be possible for there to be an appeal to the High Court for leave to appeal where not granted by the court of first instance—not unknown, if I may say so, in regard to certain proceedings that took place in this House last week.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The procedures which are familiar to the noble Lord are not quite so familiar in Scotland. The idea in this case is that the court of first instance should have a
1324
discretion and the only discretion, in effect, is a discretion as to time. If the accused has a substantial point, it will not be lost by the fact that a trial has to take place. So the discretion in the court of first instance is only a discretion as to the time at which the appeal takes place. The point is that if the court thinks that there is sufficient substance in the matter, and a trial could be avoided, it will allow the appeal to go ahead at that stage. It might, in other circumstances, think that the matter should wait until the case has been concluded.
Lord MISHCON: Will the noble and learned Lord at least agree to reconsider the matter before the Report stage? I do not want to continue an argument at this hour. But there obviously is force always in the right of going beyond the court, against whose findings one wishes to appeal, for leave to appeal.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Yes, certainly.
Lord MISHCON: In those circumstance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
Lord WHEATLEY Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 73, line 38, leave out ("may, if he thinks fit,") and insert ("shall").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62. Your Lordships will observe that this relates to the situation where a sheriff in the sheriff court on an indictment decides, after conviction, that any competent sentence that he could impose would not be justified having regard to the serious nature of the offence, and that a sentence of a more serious nature should be given. In that situation the procedure is that he remits the case to the High Court for sentence. Your Lordships will observe that under paragraph (c) of the proposed Section 104, it provides that in remitting the case to the High Court the sheriff may, if he thinks fit, append to his interlocutor a note of his reasons for such remit.
It so happens that in my capacity as Lord Justice Clerk, I do virtually all these remits, so I know something about the matter. I shall explain it as briefly as I can. Some sheriffs do append a note and others do not. I find it a great advantage to have a note. For example, one may get a note from the sheriff giving an explanation of what occurred in the court below. There may have been a trial, and he can give the background of the evidence at the trial. It may have been a plea of guilty, and he can tell one what was said by the prosecutor and what was said by the defence in mitigation. When the case comes before the High Court for sentence, I find it a great advantage to have that background information so that I can compare it with the submissions placed before me in the High Court, because they do not always coincide. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to move this from a discretionary power to a mandatory compulsion.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: have the greatest sympathy with this proposal and I hope that I may be in a position to accept it—but I am not absolutely in that position at this moment. So, if the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment, I think I can safely say that we may well be in a better position next time.
Lord WHEATLEY: That is the nearest that I have got so far, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Young offenders]:
The EARL of MANSFIELD The EARL of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 76, line 21, leave out ("by order").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62A. This is a drafting amendment.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The EARL of MANSFIELD The EARL of MANSFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 62B, 62C, 62D, 62E, 62F and 62G:
Page 78, line 12, after ("words" ") insert ("the")
Page 78, line 25, leave out from ("words") to end of line 28 and insert (" "Borstal institution or a young offenders institution" there shall be substituted the words "young offenders institution or a detention centre".")
Page 78, line 33, leave out second ("and")
Page 78, line 36, at end insert ("; and
(c) in subsection (6), for the words ", corrective training, preventive detention, detention in a young offenders institution or Borstal training" there shall be substituted the words "or detention"
5A. In section 37 (persons unlawfully at large)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "corrective training" to "detained in a" there shall be substituted the words "or to detention in a young offenders institution or";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the words from "corrective training" to "detained in a" there shall be substituted the words" or to detention in a young offenders institution or "; and

(ii) the words "Borstal institution", in both places where they occur, shall cease to have effect.")

Page 78, line 45, leave out C' inserted the words "the Air Force Act 1976" ") and insert ("substituted the words" the Air Force Act 1955 or the Armed Forces Act 1976" ").
Page 79, line 11, after ("imprisonment") insert (",or detention,").
The noble Earl said: All these amendments, Nos. 62B to 62G, are drafting amendments. If it is for the convenience of the Committee, and within the rules, I propose to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Lord WHEATLEY moved Lord WHEATLEY moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 80, line 31, leave out paragraph 21.
The noble and learned Lord said: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate the justification for paragraph 21, which provides for the removal of the procedure known as certification. Perhaps I may explain very briefly to your Lordships what this involves. If a single judge is on circuit and an important point of law—and normally it only relates to an important point of law—arises and it is of such importance that he would like an authoritative

1327
decision, he can certify it from the circuit for a decision in the High Court in Edinburgh with a court composed of at least three judges and perhaps more.
This is a provision and procedure which is very rarely used, but is it one which normally arises when an important point of law is at issue. In these circumstances we find it difficult to know why the procedure should be abolished, because it is always competent for the court in that situation to covene the higher court of three judges, or five judges as the case may be. But that would involve the judges going from Edinburgh to the circuit town, whether it be in Stirling or Inverness. That would be a great waste of judicial time. This is not a question of judicial convenience or inconvenience, but a great waste of judicial time. By remitting the case to Edinburgh it is always possible at short notice to get the requisite court to consider the point at law. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there was such a case in Edinburgh itself only 10 days ago. Although it may not be frequently used, it is there for use when required and we have yet to find a good reason for its proposed abolition. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The intention in this connection was to substitute for that procedure, which is very little used, the extension to circuits of the procedure which is used in Edinburgh so that the circuit situation and the Edinburgh situation would be the same. If that is so, it would appear to obviate the necessity for this procedure by certification, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, has been used hardly at all over quite a long period. That is why we propose this abolition.
Lord WHEATLEY: The noble and learned Lord referred to the Edinburgh procedure, but, in that situation, if the point arises in Inverness, three or five judges, as the case may be, may have to go to Inverness in order to constitute the court there; they would lose one day at either end in travelling, which is a complete waste of judicial time—time that is in very rare supply at present. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate give us an undertaking to look at this again? Judges do not make these appeals lightly; they do so in the light of experience
1328
and, with all due respect, we have a tremendous fount of experience in the body of judges in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary. Perhaps regard might be had to their experience and desire in the matter.
Lord FRASER of TULLEYBELTON: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate rather suggested that the procedure is almost in desuetude. I remember one case when I was the judge and counsel for the defence was the present Solicitor-General, and this procedure was used, and worked very conveniently. So it is not an antique procedure.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: Certainly we would not lightly disregard any request from the judges, and in view of what has been said, I think it right that I should undertake to consider this matter further.
Lord WHEATLEY: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.50 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 83, line 25, at end insert—
(" () section 407(1A) of this Act in relation to imprisonment for non-payment of a fine or for failure to find caution;").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 86, line 6, at end insert—
(" () In section 458 (construction of enactments referring to sentence of detention) for the words "in a young offenders institution" there shall be substituted the words "under section 207 or 415 of this Act".
() In section 459 (construction of enactments referring to detention) for the words "in a young offenders institution" there shall be substituted the words "under section 207 or 415 of this Act".")
The noble Earl said: These two amendments are designed to amend Sections 458 and 459 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to cover detention in both a young offenders' institution and a detention centre, and thus to reflect the new provisions of Sections 207 and 415 of

1329
the 1975 Act on the detention of young offenders as inserted by Clause 44 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 87, leave out lines 36 to 45 and insert in the third column ("Section 35(5)(a).

In section 37(2), the words "Borstal institution" in both places where they occur.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 62D and 62E, to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 87, line 48, leave out ("in so far as it relates to section 19 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 88, line 14, leave out (", section 12(1) or (3)") and insert ("(other than orders made under section 11, section 12(1) or (3) or section 22)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 62A. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 88, line 18, leave out ("subsection (3);").
The noble Earl said: This is a purely technical amendment. By the repeal of "(a)" in line 23 of page 88 the whole of Section 60(3) is disapplied to Scotland. It is therefore not appropriate to repeal Section 60(3) for Scotland, where it does not apply anyway. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 88, line 24, leave out ("and paragraph (d)").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): The Question is, That I report the Bill to the House with amendments.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: May I intervene again for one moment at this stage? This Committee stage has been discussed with great seriousness in all parts of the Committee. We have had an extremely good and serious debate, but I feel that noble Lords will wish me to point out to the noble Lord the Chief Whip that the Government have, in their great wisdom, withdrawn so many parts of the Bill and have listened to opinions from all sides of your Lordships' House—and I give them credit for listening with generosity—that I feel that there will be a great deal to go through at Report stage. I must formally inform the noble Lord the Chief Whip that we may well need an extra day on Report stage after these proceedings at Committee stage.
Lord DENHAM: Of course we are always ready to listen to the Opposition in any reasonable request that they may make. I think that my noble friends who have taken this Bill have naturally been grateful for all expressions of opinion about the Bill from all quarters of the House, and they will certainly be reconsidering everything that they have undertaken to reconsider. Of course we would wish that at the next stage of the Bill we shall give equal consideration to the views of your Lordships, and I think that between the usual channels we can work out that we shall do so.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

  NUCLEAR PLANT: PROTECTION AGAINST EARTHQUAKE
  NUCLEAR PLANT: PROTECTION AGAINST EARTHQUAKE
  EEC GRANTS FOR DISASTERS
  EEC GRANTS FOR DISASTERS